Portable Defenses

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

Is there any real justification for Portable Defenses being... well... portable?

I think it would take a reasonable amount of time to put a bunch of stakes down and then sharpen them. not to mention carrying the damned things around with you.

Surely these weren't as portable as we think? Did they make a defensive position and then stay there? Are there any historical references of them setting them up, pulling them down, moving and setting them up again?

[nikgaukroger]

I think the "iconic" example is Agincourt.

[dave_r]

They also don't necessarily have to be stakes. Caltrops are a good example of PO's.

[ravenflight]

I think the "iconic" example is Agincourt.

Well, it's well chronicled that the English used stakes at Agincourt, but my question wasn't about whether field defenses like stakes were used or not it was whether they put them down and lifted them up and put them down and lifted them up etc etc.

From what I've read of Agincourt (and I'll admit it isn't a great deal) we don't really know that much about the battle, but one thing that seems fairly universal was 'English set up, French attacked... French died'. There wasn't much manouver of the Longbowmen that I know of, and if there was there wasn't any (that I know of) re-setting of portable defences.

I think it's a lot like mounted infantry. Yes, historically mounted infantry existed, but not in a tactical role. In the same way stakes existed as portable defenses, but I believe that once they were set up they would be pretty much 'there to stay'.

Stakes are the Medieval equivalent of barbed wire. You don't go laying barbed wire down and then when you move during the battle roll it up and put it back down again. It's a defensive structure that stays once it's put down.

[nikgaukroger]

I think the "iconic" example is Agincourt.

Well, it's well chronicled that the English used stakes at Agincourt, but my question wasn't about whether field defenses like stakes were used or not it was whether they put them down and lifted them up and put them down and lifted them up etc etc.

From what I've read of Agincourt (and I'll admit it isn't a great deal) we don't really know that much about the battle, but one thing that seems fairly universal was 'English set up, French attacked... French died'. There wasn't much manouver of the Longbowmen that I know of, and if there was there wasn't any (that I know of) re-setting of portable defences.

One of the accounts of the battle (maybe more than one, I don't recall, but not all IIRC), has the English set up and await the French, the French don'tn attack, the English up stakes and advance to bow range reset the stake and start shooting, the French then attack.

Any half decent work on the battle will mention it.

Wikipedia certainly does, reagrdless of how good a source it may be

Henry's men, on the other hand, were already very weary from hunger, illness and marching. Even though he knew as well as the French did that his army would perform better on the defensive, Henry was eventually forced to take a calculated risk, and move his army further forward to start the battle. This entailed pulling out the long stakes pointed outwards toward the enemy which protected the longbowmen, and abandoning his chosen position. (The use of stakes was an innovation for the English: during the Battle of Crécy, for example, the archers were instead protected by pits and other obstacles.) If the French cavalry had charged before the stakes had been hammered back in, the result would probably have been disastrous for the English, as it was at the Battle of Patay. However, the French seem to have been caught off guard by the English advance. The tightness of the terrain also seems to have restricted the planned deployment of their forces.

[ravenflight]

They also don't necessarily have to be stakes. Caltrops are a good example of PO's.

Yes? And your point is what exactly? From my understanding, (Roman) caltrops were metal spikes that were hammered into wooden stakes which were driven into the ground. It's not like you're going to quickly and easily pick them back up again. Hell, it would be hard enough to find the damned things let alone pick them up and move to another location. The same could be said of the more modern consideration of caltrops of the 'd4' shaped metal thingies. Go find them boys - well, good luck!!! Again, like my earlier post about barbed wire, these things are more like anti personnel mines. You put them down and then you leave them there... you don't necessarily pick them up again.

Is there any historical evidence of them being picked back up again and then moved to another tactical location and laid out, all in one battle?

[nikgaukroger]

They also don't necessarily have to be stakes. Caltrops are a good example of PO's.

Yes? And your point is what exactly? From my understanding, (Roman) caltrops were metal spikes that were hammered into wooden stakes which were driven into the ground.

I think you are thinking of some of the obstacles Caesar used at Alesia - weren't those (nick)named "Lilies"?

[ravenflight]

I think the "iconic" example is Agincourt.

Well, it's well chronicled that the English used stakes at Agincourt, but my question wasn't about whether field defenses like stakes were used or not it was whether they put them down and lifted them up and put them down and lifted them up etc etc.

From what I've read of Agincourt (and I'll admit it isn't a great deal) we don't really know that much about the battle, but one thing that seems fairly universal was 'English set up, French attacked... French died'. There wasn't much manouver of the Longbowmen that I know of, and if there was there wasn't any (that I know of) re-setting of portable defences.

One of the accounts of the battle (maybe more than one, I don't recall, but not all IIRC), has the English set up and await the French, the French don'tn attack, the English up stakes and advance to bow range reset the stake and start shooting, the French then attack.

Any half decent work on the battle will mention it.

Yes, I have read that now that you mention it. To my mind that was still in the 'initial stage' (battle setup) not really 'during the battle'. The reason was because the French didn't attack. It wasn't like they were moving up and deciding 'might put some stakes down here as the enemy charge on down our throat'.

But fair enough, it's a good example.

[ravenflight]

I think you are thinking of some of the obstacles Caesar used at Alesia - weren't those (nick)named "Lilies"?

Yes, I do remember them being used at Alesia (not personally of course) along with pits with a damned big spike in the bottom. But my understanding (again could be flawed) of Roman Caltrops was exactly this.

Either which way - I still feel 'lifting and placing' portable defenses is too easy.

[nikgaukroger]

Well, it's well chronicled that the English used stakes at Agincourt, but my question wasn't about whether field defenses like stakes were used or not it was whether they put them down and lifted them up and put them down and lifted them up etc etc.

From what I've read of Agincourt (and I'll admit it isn't a great deal) we don't really know that much about the battle, but one thing that seems fairly universal was 'English set up, French attacked... French died'. There wasn't much manouver of the Longbowmen that I know of, and if there was there wasn't any (that I know of) re-setting of portable defences.

One of the accounts of the battle (maybe more than one, I don't recall, but not all IIRC), has the English set up and await the French, the French don'tn attack, the English up stakes and advance to bow range reset the stake and start shooting, the French then attack.

Any half decent work on the battle will mention it.

Yes, I have read that now that you mention it. To my mind that was still in the 'initial stage' (battle setup) not really 'during the battle'. The reason was because the French didn't attack. It wasn't like they were moving up and deciding 'might put some stakes down here as the enemy charge on down our throat'.

But fair enough, it's a good example.

Can't really be "battle set-up" in terms of a FoG game because we do not have the option to set up at bow range. In term sof a FoG game Agincourt is the armies set up 10MU in from their long edge and stare at each other for a few moves, the English player then ups stakes and advances on the timorous Froggies until bow range whereupon stakes are reset and shooting starts.

Of course in a normal FoG game there would be no incentive for the French to be so passive

[nikgaukroger]

Either which way - I still feel 'lifting and placing' portable defenses is too easy.

In my experience you don't actually get much lifting and replacing in an actual game as you cannot pick them up in there are enemy within 6MU.

[ravenflight]

Either which way - I still feel 'lifting and placing' portable defenses is too easy.

In my experience you don't actually get much lifting and replacing in an actual game as you cannot pick them up in there are enemy within 6MU.

Yes, it's likely that in the 'scheme of things' it works. It's like 'the rules allow you to pick them up and place them 20 times during a game... it's just unlikely to happen.

[ethan]

They also don't necessarily have to be stakes. Caltrops are a good example of PO's.

Yes? And your point is what exactly? From my understanding, (Roman) caltrops were metal spikes that were hammered into wooden stakes which were driven into the ground. It's not like you're going to quickly and easily pick them back up again. Hell, it would be hard enough to find the damned things let alone pick them up and move to another location. The same could be said of the more modern consideration of caltrops of the 'd4' shaped metal thingies. Go find them boys - well, good luck!!! Again, like my earlier post about barbed wire, these things are more like anti personnel mines. You put them down and then you leave them there... you don't necessarily pick them up again.

Is there any historical evidence of them being picked back up again and then moved to another tactical location and laid out, all in one battle?

from http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-caltrop.htm

In the Middle Ages, European smiths improved and simplified the caltrop design by eliminating the ball, twisting two double-pointed strips of iron and cold-hammering them together. The caltrop now resembled, more than ever, the ground thistle from which it took its English name. By that time, too, the caltrop was in use throughout Europe, Asia and North Africa. In fact, medieval China witnessed what was probably the largest single deployment of the device in military history.

[philqw78]

I think you are thinking of some of the obstacles Caesar used at Alesia - weren't those (nick)named "Lilies"?

Yes, I do remember them being used at Alesia (not personally of course) along with pits with a damned big spike in the bottom. But my understanding (again could be flawed) of Roman Caltrops was exactly this.

I thought they were tetrahedron, 4 spikes out of a central 'ball'. Throw them out. 3 spikes touch the ground and one always points upwards. Easy to pick up, not nice to carry around.
But there are lots of ways to make them. 6" nails in planks being the easiest for defending you house, and the British army calls "stinger" or "spike strips", used by the police to stop cars, caltrops. Used to be issued at VCP's in NI.

[ravenflight]

I think you are thinking of some of the obstacles Caesar used at Alesia - weren't those (nick)named "Lilies"?

Yes, I do remember them being used at Alesia (not personally of course) along with pits with a damned big spike in the bottom. But my understanding (again could be flawed) of Roman Caltrops was exactly this.

I thought they were tetrahedron, 4 spikes out of a central 'ball'. Throw them out. 3 spikes touch the ground and one always points upwards. Easy to pick up, not nice to carry around.
But there are lots of ways to make them. 6" nails in planks being the easiest for defending you house, and the British army calls "stinger" or "spike strips", used by the police to stop cars, caltrops. Used to be issued at VCP's in NI.

Yes, they would be easy to pick up if you were fighting on a golfing fairway but real battles didn't happen like that. Consider a few things:

Finding them would be more like finding a golf ball in the rough.
They are just as dangerous to YOU if you step on one you've missed.
You have to store them in a way which will not interfere with melee combat if you get pounced on by someone between storing them and next setting them up. (I mean, going back to the stake... Carrying around a 4' hunk of lumber is really going to get in your way when you actually have to fight. If you 'just drop them' you would have pretty dangerous ground to fight over with risks of rolling your foot etc)
You've then got to get back into formation.

Anyway, I think Nik hit the nail on the head. Without a rule, the ability to lift and put down PD's is limited purely because it just doesn't seem to happen much.
You've got to do this all in the span of one movement phase (which is how long exactly???)

[philqw78]

Yes, they would be easy to pick up if you were fighting on a golfing fairway but real battles didn't happen like that. Consider a few things:

Finding them would be more like finding a golf ball in the rough.

They were a lot bigger than golf balls and a lot more expensive to make.

[dave_r]

Yes, I do remember them being used at Alesia (not personally of course) along with pits with a damned big spike in the bottom. But my understanding (again could be flawed) of Roman Caltrops was exactly this.

I thought they were tetrahedron, 4 spikes out of a central 'ball'. Throw them out. 3 spikes touch the ground and one always points upwards. Easy to pick up, not nice to carry around.
But there are lots of ways to make them. 6" nails in planks being the easiest for defending you house, and the British army calls "stinger" or "spike strips", used by the police to stop cars, caltrops. Used to be issued at VCP's in NI.

Yes, they would be easy to pick up if you were fighting on a golfing fairway but real battles didn't happen like that. Consider a few things:

Finding them would be more like finding a golf ball in the rough.
They are just as dangerous to YOU if you step on one you've missed.
You have to store them in a way which will not interfere with melee combat if you get pounced on by someone between storing them and next setting them up. (I mean, going back to the stake... Carrying around a 4' hunk of lumber is really going to get in your way when you actually have to fight. If you 'just drop them' you would have pretty dangerous ground to fight over with risks of rolling your foot etc)
You've then got to get back into formation.

Anyway, I think Nik hit the nail on the head. Without a rule, the ability to lift and put down PD's is limited purely because it just doesn't seem to happen much.
You've got to do this all in the span of one movement phase (which is how long exactly???)

Some other things to think about:

- You wouldn't just drop them you would throw them in front of you. One second's thought would indicate lot's of positive reasons for this
- Perhaps you would carry more than one, so if you did move on the battlefield you might be able to defend yourself again
- If you are forced to carry relatively dangerous objects (they could ladder your tights after all) then perhaps you may even think of a safe way to do this

[Luddite]

Hmm...i've always seen the 'potable fortifications' as gulay gorod, mantlets, larger pavises and things like the bamboo 'fences' the japanese arquebusiers fought from behnd.

These would be relatively easy for the formations to pick up and move about, simply dropping them in a new location.

[grahambriggs]

Well, it's well chronicled that the English used stakes at Agincourt, but my question wasn't about whether field defenses like stakes were used or not it was whether they put them down and lifted them up and put them down and lifted them up etc etc.

From what I've read of Agincourt (and I'll admit it isn't a great deal) we don't really know that much about the battle, but one thing that seems fairly universal was 'English set up, French attacked... French died'. There wasn't much manouver of the Longbowmen that I know of, and if there was there wasn't any (that I know of) re-setting of portable defences.

One of the accounts of the battle (maybe more than one, I don't recall, but not all IIRC), has the English set up and await the French, the French don'tn attack, the English up stakes and advance to bow range reset the stake and start shooting, the French then attack.

Any half decent work on the battle will mention it.

Yes, I have read that now that you mention it. To my mind that was still in the 'initial stage' (battle setup) not really 'during the battle'. The reason was because the French didn't attack. It wasn't like they were moving up and deciding 'might put some stakes down here as the enemy charge on down our throat'.

But fair enough, it's a good example.

I think RBS has said that the table used for FoG is more than just the battlefield but includes the surrounding area, so time enough for the English to up stakes and move.

I gather that Curry's book on Agincourt Sources lists twenty six contemporary accounts so we have a relatively good range of sources.

Of course some obstacles are more portable than others but in the game it's rare that they are deployed, takenn up again and redeployed. In fact I can't remember it being done.

[shadowdragon]

One of the accounts of the battle (maybe more than one, I don't recall, but not all IIRC), has the English set up and await the French, the French don'tn attack, the English up stakes and advance to bow range reset the stake and start shooting, the French then attack.

Any half decent work on the battle will mention it.

Yes, I have read that now that you mention it. To my mind that was still in the 'initial stage' (battle setup) not really 'during the battle'. The reason was because the French didn't attack. It wasn't like they were moving up and deciding 'might put some stakes down here as the enemy charge on down our throat'.

But fair enough, it's a good example.

I think RBS has said that the table used for FoG is more than just the battlefield but includes the surrounding area, so time enough for the English to up stakes and move.

I gather that Curry's book on Agincourt Sources lists twenty six contemporary accounts so we have a relatively good range of sources.

Of course some obstacles are more portable than others but in the game it's rare that they are deployed, takenn up again and redeployed. In fact I can't remember it being done.

Yes, RBS has posted on that several times. The Agincourt "table" includes more than just the Agincourt "battlefield" and an Agincourt "game" includes both some pre-battle manoeuvring plus the actual battle.

Also, a game turn is a conceptual sequencing of actions and counter actions and should probably not be equated to a precise period of time. Properly capturing time is one of the most difficult things to represent accurately in games or simulations. There's a real disconnect between defining game turn duration by the actions a BG can perform in a turn (bottom up approach) and defining turn duration based on comparing the duration of actual battles with the typical number of turns in a game (top down approach). The difference is certainly as much as 10 X and could be, especially for modern warfare, as much as 100 X.