Slitherine

Hi There

What was the idea behind the difference between Medium and Heavy foot.

You can get both for example the following types both as Medium and Heavy foot that are drilled armoured Offensive Spear so whats the major difference?

Hi Dave

For me the main difference is medium foot handle terrain way better.

Mind you they can be a liability in the open.

But they can chase off shooty mounted outside 3" which heavy foot cannot.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Dave

For me the main difference is medium foot handle terrain way better.

Mind you they can be a liability in the open.

But they can chase off shooty mounted outside 3" which heavy foot cannot.

Rob

Sorry Rob I know that but what I ment was what formation difference is there between armoured Drilled Offensive spears why are medium better in terrian what is the formation difference and who in history would be medium and who heavy offensive spear.

david53 wrote:Sorry Rob I know that but what I ment was what formation difference is there between armoured Drilled Offensive spears why are medium better in terrian what is the formation difference and who in history would be medium and who heavy offensive spear.

No formation difference. It is more a matter of tactical dependency on rigid formation.

Who in history? - see the lists.

You can assume that if we gave the choice to be HF for troops that in previous rules would be the equivalent of MF, it is because we really think they should be HF, but we couldn't bear the screams of "I don't want to rebase". Also, not everyone agrees with our current thinking on Roman Auxilia, Thureophoroi and Thorakitai as HF - who knows, in a few years someone may convince us that MF is right for these after all.

That is not to say that there are no (non-missile) troops who we feel really fit the MF definition. Dailami are one. (If I could raise the energy I could quote you a guote that leaves it in no doubt.) Almughavars are another. Also most American and Chinese foot. (And yes, the Chinese did have to rebase, but we have, ultimately to be true to our art).

I sense a large can of worms being opened here

Don't worry too much about the precise formation difference. The idea is that medium foot operate in a "looser" manner. Since they do not depend on keeping rigid formation to the same extent as heavy foot they can scamper about faster, not caring if their formation suffers in the process. Operating in difficult terrain does not impact them so much. It might not be only a matter of formation, fighting style might come into it too - are they trained to lock shields and defend each other, or aggressively attack in a more individual manner? How good are they at standing up against heavy cavalry charges? (which is assumed to be easier for troops trained to fight co-operatively, because they can keep a gap-free line and those behind can assist those in front).

Some people will tell you that this is an imaginary distinction, some will say all of the above factors came into play but lumping them all together and distinguishing only 2 types of fighting foot is too simplistic...and many other opinions in between

As for which troops historically were HF and which MF, that of course is also up for debate. The official answer is - see the army lists

Many of the cases of troops which are given the choice of one or the other classification in the lists are becase there is considerable doubt about which is the "correct" one, so the player is given the choice. There are (I think) only a few cases in which one type of troop is assumed to have been able to switch between MF and HF roles on a day-to-day basis - Alexandrian Macedonian pezetairoi and hypaspists being the only ones I can think of right now.

In Xenophon´s "Anabasis", it reads that against kurds (or Cardu), who lived in a hilly region, who used to skirmish the mercenary hoplites, the greeks planned to attack with a detachment of light-equipped hoplites in loose formation, who ran and climbed bravely towards their enemies, or tried to climb higher, encircling the kurds from behind. These men were the same that fought in phalanx formation, but with lighter equipment and keeping a loose formation, the faced enemy in rough terrain. These "detachment" may be treated as MF.

david53 wrote:Hi There

What was the idea behind the difference between Medium and Heavy foot.

You can get both for example the following types both as Medium and Heavy foot that are drilled armoured Offensive Spear so whats the major difference?

In addition to the other answers here, I think there's a key difference in fighting style. HF have a style that predominately relies on the close proximity and co-operation with the men around them - e.g. shield walls, hoplites, bristling pike blocks, etc. That works best in good terrain. MF can easily fight close packed, but are not so reliant on doing so as HF.

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:Hi There

What was the idea behind the difference between Medium and Heavy foot.

You can get both for example the following types both as Medium and Heavy foot that are drilled armoured Offensive Spear so whats the major difference?

In addition to the other answers here, I think there's a key difference in fighting style. HF have a style that predominately relies on the close proximity and co-operation with the men around them - e.g. shield walls, hoplites, bristling pike blocks, etc. That works best in good terrain. MF can easily fight close packed, but are not so reliant on doing so as HF.

Agree with what you say but apart from the Greek example what historical armies had the major difference, it was all well and good people saying check the lists I was after the research that went into the lists, if you see what i mean.

There may well be official guidelines for this...but my guess is...

Foot troops noted in the sources (or from interpretation of battle outcomes) as being more than usually vulnerable to cavalry charges in open terrain would be considered as candidates for MF rather than HF status.

Foot troops noted in the sources (or from interpretation of battle outcomes) as being at their most dangerous fighting in or ambushing from difficult terrain, and/or lacking staying power in a prolonged toe-to-toe fight with other foot in open terrain, would be considered as candidates for MF rather than HF status. Spanish and Isaurians I think are described in this way?

Obvous skirmishers excluded from consideration in the above, naturally

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: In addition to the other answers here, I think there's a key difference in fighting style. HF have a style that predominately relies on the close proximity and co-operation with the men around them - e.g. shield walls, hoplites, bristling pike blocks, etc. That works best in good terrain. MF can easily fight close packed, but are not so reliant on doing so as HF.

Agree with what you say but apart from the Greek example what historical armies had the major difference, it was all well and good people saying check the lists I was after the research that went into the lists, if you see what i mean.

For the Blood and Gold lists we found numerous references in the Spanish Conquest era of troops who were used to fighting in close order but found they could not stand against the Spenish there so took to terrain. Aztecs and Southern Mapuche for example. Hence we made them MF. A Saxon shield wall however use overlapping shields that not only gave protection but also formed a strong physical barrier and kept the line vaguely straight. So at Hastings, they did well while in shieldwall, poorly when split up pursuing the Bretons.

grahambriggs wrote: A Saxon shield wall however use overlapping shields that not only gave protection but also formed a strong physical barrier and kept the line vaguely straight. So at Hastings, they did well while in shieldwall, poorly when split up pursuing the Bretons.

But they are HF in both situations???????????

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: A Saxon shield wall however use overlapping shields that not only gave protection but also formed a strong physical barrier and kept the line vaguely straight. So at Hastings, they did well while in shieldwall, poorly when split up pursuing the Bretons.

But they are HF in both situations???????????

Yeees, proving that HF don't do so well when their formation is dirrupted/disordered (in their case by getting themselves surrounded in a marsh). MF would probably have been happier in a marsh, not so good at taking charges in the open.

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: A Saxon shield wall however use overlapping shields that not only gave protection but also formed a strong physical barrier and kept the line vaguely straight. So at Hastings, they did well while in shieldwall, poorly when split up pursuing the Bretons.

But they are HF in both situations???????????

Yeees, proving that HF don't do so well when their formation is dirrupted/disordered (in their case by getting themselves surrounded in a marsh). MF would probably have been happier in a marsh, not so good at taking charges in the open.

But the Cavalry would have been more rubbish in the marsh than even disordered HF, who would still get their spear + if the marsh was Rough, no worse than the cav if it was Difficult

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But they are HF in both situations???????????

Yeees, proving that HF don't do so well when their formation is dirrupted/disordered (in their case by getting themselves surrounded in a marsh). MF would probably have been happier in a marsh, not so good at taking charges in the open.

But the Cavalry would have been more rubbish in the marsh than even disordered HF, who would still get their spear + if the marsh was Rough, no worse than the cav if it was Difficult

Hmm. Heavy foot in difficult going hit from several directions. Doesnt sound good to me

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Yeees, proving that HF don't do so well when their formation is dirrupted/disordered (in their case by getting themselves surrounded in a marsh). MF would probably have been happier in a marsh, not so good at taking charges in the open.

But the Cavalry would have been more rubbish in the marsh than even disordered HF, who would still get their spear + if the marsh was Rough, no worse than the cav if it was Difficult

Hmm. Heavy foot in difficult going hit from several directions. Doesnt sound good to me

Orb, the Cav do not break off either.