Slitherine

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm I think Leonardus is being picked on needlessly, when A he likely hasn’t played the game too long and B possibly isnt a native English speaker...

OK, but with all due respect, it is a bit difficult for me to take someone seriously when they say this to RBS:

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am You're not knowing what you're talking about.

Sure, we can all disagree about this or that, but to claim that RBS doesn't know what he is talking about is a bit rich...

76mm wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:01 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm I think Leonardus is being picked on needlessly, when A he likely hasn’t played the game too long and B possibly isnt a native English speaker...

OK, but with all due respect, it is a bit difficult for me to take someone seriously when they say this to RBS:

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am You're not knowing what you're talking about.

Sure, we can all disagree about this or that, but to claim that RBS doesn't know what he is talking about is a bit rich...

Haha, I didn’t see that, but then again it was a quote within a quote and I sense RBS wasn’t the target. Only Leo knows!!

A few counter arguments to GrayMouser's post:

An important detail about Battle of Garcia Hernandez is that the horse crashing into the formation was exceptional and unexpected. Squares were rarely disrupted with just cavalry without horse artillery or infantry support. Also before giving muskets too much credit in the Napoleonic era square it should be remembered that all other infantry formations were considered extremely vulnerable to cavalry even though they would have much more firepower to use against the attacker. The musket fire alone is not enough to repel competent cavalry. It's highly unlikely that cavalry would purposefully remain at full speed and direct course if it was just a couple meters away from an infantry formation that shows no signs of weakness, while a broken and fleeing formation would have plenty of space for the cavalry to squeeze in and start the slaughter.

Did high medieval shock cavalry rely on the infantry being bad? I think that was indeed largely the case (much like mounted police rely on the mobs being routed rather than crushed by the horses): Without getting more deeply into the high medieval period we can simply looks at the changes that started during 14th and 15th centuries (with Scots and Swizz showing that knights are in fact not unbeatable by infantry) and how that developed into shock cavalry falling out of favor during early pike-and-shot era when pikes were still the dominant weapon system of the mix.

Regarding the physics of horses ramming into infantry, I think the momentum is the biggest problem. Even if humans would be on the losing side of the collision, the horse would hardly be able to keep balance when slamming its limbs into the mass of people. It could be roughly analogous to covering the floor of a room with chairs and waste baskets, then running through the room at high speed while someone is riding you piggy bag. You would certainly have the advantage on momentum compared to the furniture but do you really think you would still be on your feet on the other side of the room? (It's admittedly a VERY rough analogy )

I have been known to occasionally quote events of Carrhae. They way I have understood it the Cataphracts were literally riding between the roman formations and shoving their lances into the testudos with any attempts to sally by the frustrated Romans being met with arrows from the horse archers. The issue there wasn't as much the tight formation being inefficient against the heavy cavalry as it was Romans being completely toothless in the testudo that was not designed for melee combat.

About the medium infantry: The entire "unit type" is (wargaming?) neologism with contemporary sources seeing no need to make such distinction between different kinds of heavy (aka. melee) infantry. The medium infantry having no cohesion penalty in the rough doesn't necessarily mean that they are not disrupted by the terrain at all but rather that they are relatively less effected than heavy infantry and cavalry. They still might have a fairly cohesive formation in the open even if it's not as well drilled and maintained as that of the heavy infantry. In any case, historical battles were rarely resolved in minutes with a rock-paper-scissors like absoluteness so I'm personally quite satisfied with the medium infantry simply being worse than heavy infantry against ancient cavalry.

I imagine Medium infantry not needing to hold close order formation. And success in their tactics is not dependent solely on working together with the person behind them. They will engage in individual combat instead.

People may think all units (even lights) fight in neat lines due to depiction in media and other games. But that’s not the case

jomni wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:33 am I imagine Medium infantry not needing to hold close order formation. And success in their tactics is not dependent solely on working together with the person behind them. They will engage in individual combat instead.

It sounds like "warrior". Another unit type in game.

melm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:38 am

jomni wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:33 am I imagine Medium infantry not needing to hold close order formation. And success in their tactics is not dependent solely on working together with the person behind them. They will engage in individual combat instead.

It sounds like "warrior". Another unit type in game.

Ah your right got confused.
individual combat thing is warrior type. Med foot is working together but tactics do not require in super tight formation.

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:26 pm [
Now you mix in reverse the notions; first you said in ancient times were no knights and now you say 'knights would have ridden....'. Obviously you're stubborn on preconceptions read from somewhere. Medieval knights and theirs charging way, off course, are a totally different thing. Ancient 200 and so BC things were not what you imagine. Heavy cavalry ALWAYS tried to smash enemy even frontally if possible. Battle of Adamclisi is the perfect example of this. Sarmatians heavy infantry smashed frontally roman battle lines and almost near victory but the non-timing with the dacian falx units which were too way rear to secure a gap, brings romans an unexpected victory. So many roman soldiers killed and wounded than there is a mausoleum. How many mausoleum roman army erected in it's history for its fallen soldiers do you know ? I tell you: almost one or two. I don't want to argue anymore, but you're totally wrong. And in game, cavalry is almost of no use besides chasing skirmishers.

Could you provide the source for all the detail of Battle of Adamclisi? I can barely find any despite heavy losses on both sides with no battle detail.

76mm wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:01 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm I think Leonardus is being picked on needlessly, when A he likely hasn’t played the game too long and B possibly isnt a native English speaker...

OK, but with all due respect, it is a bit difficult for me to take someone seriously when they say this to RBS:

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am You're not knowing what you're talking about.

Sure, we can all disagree about this or that, but to claim that RBS doesn't know what he is talking about is a bit rich...

Man, OK, I am not a native english speaker. Learned english only in high school. I think I know english better than you know romanian language. Please, don't be offended, it's just a remark. Thank you. Off course, you're not knowing what you're talking about for sure. Once, I was only stepped on my feet by a horse and for 6 months I could not walk proper. Luckily for me, I was wearing heavy boots. Absolutely you don't have a clue what means such a kinetic energy is impacting something.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:34 pm Regarding the physics of horses ramming into infantry, I think the momentum is the biggest problem. Even if humans would be on the losing side of the collision, the horse would hardly be able to keep balance when slamming its limbs into the mass of people. It could be roughly analogous to covering the floor of a room with chairs and waste baskets, then running through the room at high speed while someone is riding you piggy bag. You would certainly have the advantage on momentum compared to the furniture but do you really think you would still be on your feet on the other side of the room? (It's admittedly a VERY rough analogy )

Man, do you really not understand what I say on and on ? Ancient battles were for 'glory and honor' and the purpose was to DEFEAT the enemy by any means possible, so it's not about staying in balance on a horse when impacting a formation, but to crack it by first lines of cavalry momentum (even by injured fallen horses/riders) and than engage it by the next following lines of riders....it's the 'opening can' strategy, fellow.

melm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:26 am

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:26 pm [
Now you mix in reverse the notions; first you said in ancient times were no knights and now you say 'knights would have ridden....'. Obviously you're stubborn on preconceptions read from somewhere. Medieval knights and theirs charging way, off course, are a totally different thing. Ancient 200 and so BC things were not what you imagine. Heavy cavalry ALWAYS tried to smash enemy even frontally if possible. Battle of Adamclisi is the perfect example of this. Sarmatians heavy infantry smashed frontally roman battle lines and almost near victory but the non-timing with the dacian falx units which were too way rear to secure a gap, brings romans an unexpected victory. So many roman soldiers killed and wounded than there is a mausoleum. How many mausoleum roman army erected in it's history for its fallen soldiers do you know ? I tell you: almost one or two. I don't want to argue anymore, but you're totally wrong. And in game, cavalry is almost of no use besides chasing skirmishers.

Could you provide the source for all the detail of Battle of Adamclisi? I can barely find any despite heavy losses on both sides with no battle detail.

I was expecting to ask for this. Unless you're a romanian language speaker there are nowhere any details about that. And even if you are, only internal archaeological researches are doing that, so no Internet or books for that. Here is an example, tough: http://www.povestilemariinegre.ro/batal ... l-funerar/, where is CLEARLY mentioned why romans could manage to win when dacians almost were victorious. 'Decebal şi ai săi par foarte aproape de un succes însă, în acel moment, un “prafaectus castrorum” comandantul fortificaţiei din zonă intervine decisiv cu soldaţii săi (un atac hotărâtor cu suliţe lansate de baliste) şi reuşeşte să reechilibreze balanţa, înclinând-o chiar în favoarea imperiului'.
Translation: Only the lucky intervention on time of the prafaectus castrorum with lots of manuballists and scorpions.
Tough it was mentioned 'baliste', the autor didn't have indepth notion of roman artillery, but field archaeological researches indicated a lot of 'small arrows'. Much lately it was discovered that were manuballists arrows, a very powerfull missiles capable to pierce almost 2 mm of armour, thus wreacking havoc among sarmatian lancers

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:13 am

melm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:26 am
Could you provide the source for all the detail of Battle of Adamclisi? I can barely find any despite heavy losses on both sides with no battle detail.

I was expecting to ask for this. Unless you're a romanian language speaker there are nowhere any details about that. And even if you are, only internal archaeological researches are doing that, so no Internet or books for that. Here is an example, tough: http://www.povestilemariinegre.ro/batal ... l-funerar/, where is CLEARLY mentioned why romans could manage to win when dacians almost were victorious. 'Decebal şi ai săi par foarte aproape de un succes însă, în acel moment, un “prafaectus castrorum” comandantul fortificaţiei din zonă intervine decisiv cu soldaţii săi (un atac hotărâtor cu suliţe lansate de baliste) şi reuşeşte să reechilibreze balanţa, înclinând-o chiar în favoarea imperiului'.
Translation: Only the lucky intervention on time of the prafaectus castrorum with lots of manuballists and scorpions.
Tough it was mentioned 'baliste', the autor didn't have indepth notion of roman artillery, but field archaeological researches indicated a lot of 'small arrows'. Much lately it was discovered that were manuballists arrows, a very powerfull missiles capable to pierce almost 2 mm of armour, thus wreacking havoc among sarmatian lancers

Language is not an impassable chasm now thanks to Google translation. Any source in Romanian depicting Sarmatian cavalry tactics is welcome.

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:52 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:34 pm Regarding the physics of horses ramming into infantry, I think the momentum is the biggest problem. Even if humans would be on the losing side of the collision, the horse would hardly be able to keep balance when slamming its limbs into the mass of people. It could be roughly analogous to covering the floor of a room with chairs and waste baskets, then running through the room at high speed while someone is riding you piggy bag. You would certainly have the advantage on momentum compared to the furniture but do you really think you would still be on your feet on the other side of the room? (It's admittedly a VERY rough analogy )

Man, do you really not understand what I say on and on ? Ancient battles were for 'glory and honor' and the purpose was to DEFEAT the enemy by any means possible, so it's not about staying in balance on a horse when impacting a formation, but to crack it by first lines of cavalry momentum (even by injured fallen horses/riders) and than engage it by the next following lines of riders....it's the 'opening can' strategy, fellow.

I do understand what you are saying (no need to ask every time), I simply don't agree with your claims.

You seems to be arguing that ancient horse was regularly ramming into the front of a solid (non-pike) infantry formations for honor and glory but you haven't really presented any historical examples or even believable explanations for the use of such tactics. Your main argument (apart from lashing out at anyone who doesn't agree with you) for that broad claim seems to be ONE time when Roman infantry (who were armed with swords and fought in atypically loose formation for heavy infantry) ALMOST lost to frontal attack by shock cavalry.

I think some people make the mistake of considering this a physics problem, with a mass X of velocity Y crashing into mass A and sending them flying. If cavalrymen were perfectly modelled as such than the original poster may have a point.

If this were the case the best cavalry tactic would be to give cavalrymen copious amounts of alcohol and blind their horses so neither feels danger, and they can both happily crash into the enemy.

In reality, the cavalryman wants to live. He will turn and run before infantry that holds formation and shows confidence, even if they were swordsmen and not spearmen (though the spear and pike give more confidence against cavalry than a sword). Against an enemy who has broken their formation (mostly not through a physical force but a moral force) he will happily go forward and stab the helpless in the back.

I think Ardant Du Picq sums it up best, though he was writing in a post-Napoleonic era:

"All writers on cavalry will tell you that the charge pushed home of two cavalry bodies and the shock at top speed do not exist. Always before the encounter, the weaker runs away, if there is not a face to face check. What becomes then of the MV squared? If this famous MV squared is an empty word, why then crush your horses under giants, forgetting that in the formula besides M there is V squared. In a charge, there is M, there is V squared, there is this and that. There is resolution, and I believe, nothing else that counts!"

kvnrthr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:00 pm
If this were the case the best cavalry tactic would be to give cavalrymen copious amounts of alcohol and blind their horses so neither feels danger,

In fact you're telling a damn historical truth here, without realizing it, pal. Dacians were 'renowned' to enter battles while drunk. Especially half naked falx units. That was the reason why such a terrible smashing charge they had. But off course, the drawbacks were there also: they just not following orders anymore. Dacian king Burebista ordered to destroy all vines, razing them to the ground.
P.S. Again, you can not agree with me, pal.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:38 pm I do understand what you are saying (no need to ask every time), I simply don't agree with your claims.

OK, you're right. Now it is good ?
And by the way, I simply don't agree with your claims either.

leonardus68 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:45 am

kvnrthr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:00 pm
If this were the case the best cavalry tactic would be to give cavalrymen copious amounts of alcohol and blind their horses so neither feels danger,

In fact you're telling a damn historical truth here, without realizing it, pal.

Hehe

horse for the day were the eyes and ears of the commander, if used correctly in game they are devastating tbh in flank and rear attacks, anyone who chargers the guns as per say, as does frontal's with them, has either no idea on how to use them, or just wishes to throw a great and fast unit away, with little in way of returns.

the rule of thumb is to harass the other side with them, and fix a unit or group of units in place, while assaulting them with skirmishers from the front and flanks, leaving them open to the infantry to attack while the horse units can then nip into the rear, like everything in game and life, it takes practice, skill and timing, as while you want the infantry to hold long enough for the horse units to get into the rear, they all need to be weakened before hand with skirmishers for it all to work like clockwork

zakblood wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:57 am horse for the day were the eyes and ears of the commander, if used correctly in game they are devastating tbh in flank and rear attacks, anyone who chargers the guns as per say, as does frontal's with them, has either no idea on how to use them, or just wishes to throw a great and fast unit away, with little in way of returns.

the rule of thumb is to harass the other side with them, and fix a unit or group of units in place, while assaulting them with skirmishers from the front and flanks, leaving them open to the infantry to attack while the horse units can then nip into the rear, like everything in game and life, it takes practice, skill and timing, as while you want the infantry to hold long enough for the horse units to get into the rear, they all need to be weakened before hand with skirmishers for it all to work like clockwork

That's valid if no enemy cavalry is there, pal. No outflanking is possible if is.

if cav are present, you tie them down with your own, making sure you can't be flanked also, so each counter each other out, if numbers are equal

Beside that, I can't manage to redo the Adamclisi roman victory with the ingame scenario. Not even once. Dacians were every time totally victorious. Sarmatians were useless, unless for chasing archers and destroy artillery. And seems noone know the difference between sarmatian lances and roxolani cavalry spears.