Slitherine

Strategos69 wrote:, the LH can charge into your flank or rear and, if they lose

Surely your not saying by just facing one BG of LH your plans all go to pot?

LH are not as strong as you seem to think, especially if you are only facing one BG .

Dave

david53 wrote:
Surely your not saying by just facing one BG of LH your plans all go to pot?

LH are not as strong as you seem to think, especially if you are only facing one BG .

This is just a big offtopic that I don't know how we got into to say that, even if you want your cavalry on the flanks, which is right, it is not easy to take advantage of any gains and some BG's can cause you some trouble to make any influence in the main battle. That to say that frontal attacks of cavalry in certain situations are not as mad as they might seem because of the actual PoA system that overrates Ancient cavalry as a whole. The main discusion should be about if the PoA system for cavalry captures what historically happened and I have not seem many replies about that.

Strategos69 wrote: The main discusion should be about if the PoA system for cavalry captures what historically happened and I have not seem many replies about that.

I think it does. (Average) Hellenistic cavalry, which is what you seem concerned about, is shit.

philqw78 wrote:

Strategos69 wrote: The main discusion should be about if the PoA system for cavalry captures what historically happened and I have not seem many replies about that.

I think it does. (Average) Hellenistic cavalry, which is what you seem concerned about, is shit.

Along with most average cavalry that is why you will rarely see average cavalry in the front line.

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

Strategos69 wrote: The main discusion should be about if the PoA system for cavalry captures what historically happened and I have not seem many replies about that.

I think it does. (Average) Hellenistic cavalry, which is what you seem concerned about, is shit.

Along with most average cavalry that is why you will rarely see average cavalry in the front line.

And in Hoplite armies the majority of the cav is average.

philqw78 wrote: (Average) Hellenistic cavalry, which is what you seem concerned about, is shit.

Hellenistic cavalry can be (usually) both sup/average. Barbarian cavalry is always superior. Average armoured swordsmen are in the same PoA's as stated before. The odds do not change at melee (except for the superiority, of course), where I think they are slightly better than they should. It should be taken into account that in game situations cavalry can reduce the weight of numbers to count by having some support or charging into the end of the line. Regarding the grading, are there any cases where players would choose average to superior? According to what I have read here, not in many cases.

In fact the armies I play are Later Carthaginian, Polybian Romans, Syracusan and ongoing Ancient Spanish, Gallic and Pyrrhic. Not many Hellenistic cavalry there but several intereactions HF swordsmen/spearmen mounted.

I'm less concerned about the quality grading. With rbodleyscotts explanation, and a review of the Immortal Fire/Rise of Rome lists, it seems to mostly make sense to me, and I appreciate the options as a player. I like armoured superior swordsmen being valuable troop types (in other rule-sets based on weaponry they suck!) -- the ultimate do-all.

What I am still concerned about is the overall results in cavalry vs spear melee. As a player with Superior armoured cavalry and a general (easy to acquire), I consider frontal charges on steady protected spearmen (fresh well-ordered hoplites) a reasonable proposition. It took me a while to see it, as a lover of history my prejudice clouded the situation. Yes, they get lots of dice in melee if you are in a bad position ... just don't be in a bad position.
A unit of 6 average spearmen to me is an ideal target (6 dice vs 4 dice rerolling 1and2, both needing 4+) , but you can tackle 8 with some support troops to absorb some dice. MF spears are good choices since they are also fast. If you don't win, fine you likely won't suffer much and can try again, thanks to the rerolls and bonuses offered by the commander. However, I find I often win and this isn't really a concern.

A unit of 6 poor spearmen cause me to absolutely salivate.
Add Elite lancers with IC attached ... he he. It will all be over sooner.

Maybe someone can run the numbers for me as a favour, perhaps I'm unreasonably lucky and winning these combats is not likely.
I think as a cavalry player, I shouldn't have this option. Even Alexander looked for moments of weakness, flanks and gaps before launching the companions, and in all accounts they stayed clear of steady hoplites in the front.
I think a small chance for breakthrough in the impact phase is good for gameplay, but melee is usually where the damage is done. I think melee should be your punishment for failure in impact, and the break-off a moment of respite before another attempt.

Even Alexander looked for moments of weakness, flanks and gaps before launching the companions, and in all accounts they stayed clear of steady hoplites in the front.

Not so sure about this....for example in the Battle of Chaeronea Alexander supposedelly broke the thebans with a cavalry charge, we just assume that it wasn't a frontal charge, because according to our beliefs that wouldn't be possible.

Of course at the battle of Granicus Alexander crosses the river with it's phalanx to attack the persians, what would be the chances that this would be successful in any wargames rules, against any decent player ????? BTW the opposing general was an experimented mercenary, so opposing general, incompetence is not an excuse

I other battles Alexander after some feints launch it's cavalry against the enemie's centre (aiming the opposing general), there is no reason to believe that this troops would be disordered or in any other disadvantage.

I like the existing equilibrium, in most cases Cavalry will be at a POA down in impact, in melee it may get more favorable, but usually foot has more dice, which may well compensate.

I belive Poor foot, even with big sticks, would get nervous seeing a cavalry charge against them, specially if cavalry had also big sticks.

Finally it's a myth the cavalry wouldn't charge a wall of spears. If properly trained, horses will do it, or else how to explain Charles the Bold Knights, charge against pike formations ? The result may have been bad, but what matters is that the horses did charge a wall of pikes.

VMadeira wrote:
Not so sure about this....for example in the Battle of Chaeronea Alexander supposedelly broke the thebans with a cavalry charge, we just assume that it wasn't a frontal charge, because according to our beliefs that wouldn't be possible.

Actually, that is uncertain. We have a poor description of the battle. We know Alexander's left wing routed the Theban line, but some historians assume it was a cavalry charge whereas others don't think so. It is interesting the wikipedia description of the battle offering data about both theories. Some historians think that Alexander commanded part of the phalanx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... a_(338_BC)

VMadeira wrote: Of course at the battle of Granicus Alexander crosses the river with it's phalanx to attack the persians, what would be the chances that this would be successful in any wargames rules, against any decent player ????? BTW the opposing general was an experimented mercenary, so opposing general, incompetence is not an excuse

In that battle (as in many others) the Persians were short in heavy infantry that could match the Macedonians. Alexander thus faced cavalry and an enemy inferior in numbers and were taken by surprise in Alexander's idea of fighting without camping. I guess Memnon advice would have been not to fight, as they did after that until the king gathered a big army.

VMadeira wrote: In other battles Alexander after some feints launch it's cavalry against the enemie's centre (aiming the opposing general), there is no reason to believe that this troops would be disordered or in any other disadvantage.

I like the existing equilibrium, in most cases Cavalry will be at a POA down in impact, in melee it may get more favorable, but usually foot has more dice, which may well compensate.

I belive Poor foot, even with big sticks, would get nervous seeing a cavalry charge against them, specially if cavalry had also big sticks.

We are talking about cavalry (Alexander's) equipped with the xyston, a very long spear (maybe purposefully to fight infantry). The other Ancient cavalry did have only javelins, shorter than any infantry spear but getting the same benefits. It seems to me very counterintuitive to be a PoA down when you lance your horses in stampede against the infantry (provided that you can do it, which I am not that certain) and then you are a PoA up or even while in hand to hand combat.

VMadeira wrote: Finally it's a myth the cavalry wouldn't charge a wall of spears. If properly trained, horses will do it, or else how to explain Charles the Bold Knights, charge against pike formations ? The result may have been bad, but what matters is that the horses did charge a wall of pikes.

Those charges were also rare and usually unsuccesful. It is believed that Medieval levies fled before contact of the knights, thus opening gaps in the line. Anyway, those troops should be classified as knights and offer a different clasification for the cavalry unwilling or unable to act like that. The debate about knights would be another debate.

Strategos69 wrote:

I belive Poor foot, even with big sticks, would get nervous seeing a cavalry charge against them, specially if cavalry had also big sticks.

We are talking about cavalry (Alexander's) equipped with the xyston, a very long spear (maybe purposefully to fight infantry). The other Ancient cavalry did have only javelins, shorter than any infantry spear but getting the same benefits.

That is a very bold statement - Skythians had lances 3 metres long. That is hardly a Javelin. Lydians also had long lances, but are classed as Light Spear. The use of the Kontos was synonymous with loads of Ancient Cavalry.

VMadeira wrote:Finally it's a myth the cavalry wouldn't charge a wall of spears. If properly trained, horses will do it, or else how to explain Charles the Bold Knights, charge against pike formations ? The result may have been bad, but what matters is that the horses did charge a wall of pikes.

Those charges were also rare and usually unsuccesful. It is believed that Medieval levies fled before contact of the knights, thus opening gaps in the line. Anyway, those troops should be classified as knights and offer a different clasification for the cavalry unwilling or unable to act like that. The debate about knights would be another debate.

French Knights charged (and beat) pikemen frequently. This wasn't caused by a rout before contact. Alexanders Companions are described as making a hole in a formation and then expanding laterally, that definitely points to a frontal charge. Assyrians charged the Elamites frontally and won. There are dozens of examples of ancient cavalry charging foot frontally and riding them down. If you look solely at Romans however...

dave_r wrote:
That is a very bold statement - Skythians had lances 3 metres long. That is hardly a Javelin. Lydians also had long lances, but are classed as Light Spear. The use of the Kontos was synonymous with loads of Ancient Cavalry.

My fault. The phrase should be read as follows: "Other Ancient cavalry I am referring to in this thread spefically" as proposed in the first page. You are right that they are not the only ones with long spears and usually when cavalry had those long lances they are classified as lancers in FoG. If they are not, maybe you have a good argument for a change in those specific lists.

dave_r wrote:
French Knights charged (and beat) pikemen frequently. This wasn't caused by a rout before contact. Alexanders Companions are described as making a hole in a formation and then expanding laterally, that definitely points to a frontal charge. Assyrians charged the Elamites frontally and won. There are dozens of examples of ancient cavalry charging foot frontally and riding them down. If you look solely at Romans however...

It would be very nice if you could quote here those dozens of examples so that we can have a better informed debate. As I said, the debate about knights is other debate out of the question of this thread (at least of my proposal of changes in the PoA's).

dave_r wrote:
French Knights charged (and beat) pikemen frequently. This wasn't caused by a rout before contact. Alexanders Companions are described as making a hole in a formation and then expanding laterally, that definitely points to a frontal charge. Assyrians charged the Elamites frontally and won. There are dozens of examples of ancient cavalry charging foot frontally and riding them down. If you look solely at Romans however...

It would be very nice if you could quote here those dozens of examples so that we can have a better informed debate. As I said, the debate about knights is other debate out of the question of this thread (at least of my proposal of changes in the PoA's).

OK - how about starting with the one I did quote - Assyrians charging Elamites. Cavalry charging Foot Bow.

One splat later, lot's of dead elamites.

By quote I meant a book, chapter and page (preferably an Ancient source) we could take a look into and debate.

Strategos69 wrote:By quote I meant a book, chapter and page (preferably an Ancient source) we could take a look into and debate.

"The Art of Warfare in Bibilical Lands" pages 440 - 450, show Cavalry and Chariot Charges into the Elamites and Arabs. Although it must be noted that the Chariots normally went in first.

Do you need me to go through Heath's Armies of Medieval Europe to type out the instances of the French riding down the Low Countries pikemen?

dave_r wrote:
"The Art of Warfare in Bibilical Lands" pages 440 - 450, show Cavalry and Chariot Charges into the Elamites and Arabs. Although it must be noted that the Chariots normally went in first.

I will take a look and tell you but it seems that the cavalry in that case fought against an already fragmented enemy (the charriots opening the gaps into the enemy to make the cavalry tactics work better). In fact, the - PoA at impact would not apply when charging FRG infantry and there is also a proposal of not letting charging HF and MF units get the PoA they get right now at impact. The idea behind is that Ancient cavalry was good against isolated groups of men (for example, as described by Caesar in the commentaries about the war in Hispania during the Civil War, against groups of foragers or groups that got isolated when charging) but not against compact bodies of infantrymen.

dave_r wrote:
Do you need me to go through Heath's Armies of Medieval Europe to type out the instances of the French riding down the Low Countries pikemen?

The knights is another debate, not really the one of this thread.

Strategos69 wrote:

dave_r wrote: "The Art of Warfare in Bibilical Lands" pages 440 - 450, show Cavalry and Chariot Charges into the Elamites and Arabs. Although it must be noted that the Chariots normally went in first.

I will take a look and tell you but it seems that the cavalry in that case fought against an already fragmented enemy (the charriots opening the gaps into the enemy to make the cavalry tactics work better). In fact, the - PoA at impact would not apply when charging FRG infantry and there is also a proposal of not letting charging HF and MF units get the PoA they get right now at impact. The idea behind is that Ancient cavalry was good against isolated groups of men (for example, as described by Caesar in the commentaries about the war in Hispania during the Civil War, against groups of foragers or groups that got isolated when charging) but not against compact bodies of infantrymen.

We aren't talking about Caesar or any Romans - these were tactics a thousand or more years previous to that so their relevance is minimal.

It is also a huge assumption to say that the infantry were Fragmented - the Cavalry were simply used differently to the Chariots. Any proposed amendment to Cavalry would also presumaby affect chariots? The battle against the Arabs also doesn't show a Chariot yahoo, it is simply assumed.

Another good example is the Skythian battle of around 313BC against the Thateans where the Thatean Cavalry routed the Greek and Thracian mercenaries.

VMadeira wrote:

Of course at the battle of Granicus Alexander crosses the river with it's phalanx to attack the persians, what would be the chances that this would be successful in any wargames rules, against any decent player ????? BTW the opposing general was an experimented mercenary, so opposing general, incompetence is not an excuse

In that battle (as in many others) the Persians were short in heavy infantry that could match the Macedonians. Alexander thus faced cavalry and an enemy inferior in numbers and were taken by surprise in Alexander's idea of fighting without camping. I guess Memnon advice would have been not to fight, as they did after that until the king gathered a big army.

- In this battle the persians had a large contingent of greek mercenaries, so they were not that short on heavy infantry
- Under any rules system Pikes charging across a river would be a disaster weather they charged heavy foot or cavalry

Not that it matters to the topic, so it really doesn't matter

dave_r wrote:

Strategos69 wrote:By quote I meant a book, chapter and page (preferably an Ancient source) we could take a look into and debate.

"The Art of Warfare in Bibilical Lands" pages 440 - 450, show Cavalry and Chariot Charges into the Elamites and Arabs. Although it must be noted that the Chariots normally went in first.

Do you need me to go through Heath's Armies of Medieval Europe to type out the instances of the French riding down the Low Countries pikemen?

Perhaps the Assyrian example is not the most helpful; we have much less information on such battles than Roman ones (we know the Assyrians won, but not how they won). Also, I think the Elamites are MF, and the concern was with HF I think?

A battle that might have some bearing on this debate is Magnesia, where the Selucid right, including cataphracts, seem to have broken Roman legions frontally. Of course that is not cavalry as defined in the rules.

It does seem the case that hoplites were concerned about Persian cavalry. For example, at Marathon the Athenians kept on the defensive until the Persians embarked their cavalry. "The cavalry are away" later became a phrase with the connotation "we have an opportunity".

Of course, we don't know from this whether it was the manouverability and shooting of the cavalry that was the problem or whether a frontal charge was feared. I would think the latter was unlikely; the Persians didn't seem to want to mount a frontal charge against hoplites in the Greek campagn. When they did get into combat with hoplites - in the run up to Plataea they came off second best.

To me, this seems to be how the rules work. A good solid line of hoplites (i.e. no cavalry overlaps) means 6 or 8 hoplite bases against 4 cavalry, so the cavalry should struggle. Hoplite generals were sensible enough to make sure their troops fought in a solid line, with guarded flanks if there were cavalry about.

Rance's article has Roman infantry counter-charging and beating Parthian Cataphracts (admittedly the Roman infantry were charging downhill). A small unit of Byzantine infantry beat off repeated attacks by Sasanid Cavalry etc.

Julian's account of Constantius II battle against Sharpur II at Singara has the Roman infantry charging the Sasanid army, apparently mostly mounted troops, which promptly turned tail and fled for their camp. The Romans allegedly then chased the Sasanids for 15 miles!. The Roman army was extremely thirsty when they arrived at the camp and the Sasanids counter-attacked and drove off the Romans who were busy searching for water. Again, at the Battle of Narasara, Constantius II army beat Sharpur II's army, killing Sharpur's brother Narseus in the process. Julian's army defeated the Sasanids at Ctestiphon and Maranga. At all these battles it was the infantry who appears to have been the deciding factor in the Sasanids defeat, and the Sasanids were unable to defeat a Late Roman field army after 297AD until the 6th Century AD, when 'Roman' infantry were but a shadow of their former self.