Slitherine

I have a number of queries about the Teutonic army lists, particularly the later one . . .

i) Should they be allowed the option of a fortified camp? There is evidence that they did build one of these at Grunwald-Tannenberg 1410 with their wagons forming part of the perimeter at least.

"The victorious Polish-Lithuanian army then stormed the Knights’ fortified camp and slaughtered its defenders. Most of the surviving Teutonic Knights of high rank were captured and eventually ransomed. Contemporary figures of dubious reliability reported that several thousand soldiers died on either side."

http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/searc ... STOPOL.pdf

The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795, Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press, 2001.


ii) the list includes "turcopoles", both cavalry and light horse, but these should be more correctly designated as "Turkopolen" as they were mounted troops indigenous to the Baltic region, not fighters who had come from much further south (the Mediterranean area). In addition, I am wondering if the "cavalry" designation is correct and it may be the case that these "turkopolen" were all light horse, mainly Livonian horse-archers and Lithuanian lancers (wih bow).

Thanks.

TheTT lists for the Baltic tribes for the time period corresponding to the Teutonic Knights list their mounted troops as cavalry or light horse with light spear so are consistent with the Turcopoles in the Teutonic list. The noted for the early Lithuanian list note that the Lithuanian cavalry did carry a bow but only for use dismounted. For mounted combat they used a light lance which qualifies as light spear in the list.

Chris

Just found this on a DBA page. I hope it is not sacrilege to post it here. It certainly bears out your points about the light spear designation and the fact that they dismounted to fire their bows. But the bit in bold type challenges the notion that they should be "cavalry" rather than "light horse". I may be completely wrong though as I am just investigating this region for the first time.

“Lithuanian cavalry were almost exclusively unarmoured skirmishers. Some nobles had mail, although these usually fought with their followers rather than as a separate more heavily armed unit. Samogitans may have had more armour, represented by the Cavalry element. (Samogita was the Lithuanian province or region with a Baltic coastline, between the Teutonic Knights to their south-west, Livonia (controlled by the Teutonic Order) to their north.

Lithuanian and Samogitan horse fought primarily with a long light spear, which could be used for both thrusting and throwing. They often carried bows, but these seem to have been used exclusively for fighting on foot.

The Auxilia elements represent groups of Lithuanian spearmen. The Psiloi elements are bowmen fighting as skirmishers.”

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dba148b/dba148b.html

The list allows the option to field them as either cavalry or as light horse so you are free to use them as light horse if you feel that is more accurate. I suspect that the historical evidence isn't really sufficient to determine which representation is more accurate. Also, in the actual armies the distinction between light horse and cavalry probably wasn't such a sharp cut distinction as it is in the rules.

Chris

And then again, of course, there is nothing to stop you using "cavalry" to skirmish with in FoG.

batesmotel wrote:The list allows the option to field them as either cavalry or as light horse so you are free to use them as light horse if you feel that is more accurate. I suspect that the historical evidence isn't really sufficient to determine which representation is more accurate. Also, in the actual armies the distinction between light horse and cavalry probably wasn't such a sharp cut distinction as it is in the rules.

Chris

Yes, that's fair enough, Chris. I think you are definitely right about the lack of historical evidence at the moment.

Just on some books that people might find interesting. Osprey do "The Scandinavian Baltic Crusades 1100-1500" and "Teutonic Knight 1190-1561" that are useful. There is a slightly critical book review of the first title on the De Re Militari web site (in book reviews). And in the suggested reading section of that first book it lists the works of William Urban who seems to be the main chap to read on this region right now - "The Prussian Crusade" (1980), "The Samogitian Crusade" (1989), "The Baltic Crusade" (1994) and "The Teutonic Knights: A Military History" (2003 and new paperback edition 2011).