Slitherine

Hi all,

I'm wondering if hyper quality knights of the Aztecs etc has any basis in fact, or if it's a hangover from 'Reg A' ratings.

Is there any documentation that indicates that Jaguar and Eagle knights should be Elite?

ravenflight wrote:Hi all,

I'm wondering if hyper quality knights of the Aztecs etc has any basis in fact, or if it's a hangover from 'Reg A' ratings.

Is there any documentation that indicates that Jaguar and Eagle knights should be Elite?

I'm not even certain that the various suit wearers should be in separate units, according to the current understanding of Aztec organization. Should they be Superior? Compared to the typical meso-American levy certainly. But if Eagle/Jaguar warriors are Superior and Cuachics are Elite, Conquistador lancers and rodelleros ought to be "super-elite".

Of course, the Aztecs are far from the only list in that book with, let's say, a more "generous" interpretation on what qualifies as Superior, than the mainstream lists.

Hello chaps, I wrote this list. We took the approach we did on the grounds that this is a heirarchically structured military society that had been specifically organised to campaign every year. While we don't know everything about the military (some of the ranks and uniform entitlements still seem obscure), we have enough from the various Codexes to give a good flavour and I followed Hassig's works in the main on this.

The levy commoners are really the light foot troops and the porterage corps. Calpolli ward troops were certainly a cut above that being proper warriors on a career path, starting as apprentices and working their way up (though the path up was quicker if you were noble). So the "average" ward troops includes everyone from the aprecentices who were good enough for battle up tho the papalotl (butterfly) warrior, who got to that ranks by taking three captives or the equivalent in brave deeds.

Once you got to four brave deeds (or IIRC two if you were noble) then the military orders became open to you. The main orders were the ocelots (which I think we called Jaguar to avoid confusion) and the Eagles - with the latter seemingly the senior in some ways. As you graduated fourther, you got to Otontin and then finally the Cauchiqueh, or shaved heads. There's good evidence that the military societies could deploy as units (so we allow them to be separate battle groups) and the Cauchics were also able to deploy independently. An alternative was for the senior warriors to be distributed amongst the Calpolli to beef them up a bit, presumably. Hence we allowed a small number of the bases to be elite, as they have the same position as Guard Mmluks, Varangian Guards, etc.

There are significant proportions of the senior units possible, though not compulsory (as they may have deployed mixed with the calpolli). There are two reasons for the high numbers. First, the army campaigned every year; with states going so far as to have a mock war (flower war) if they didn't have a grievance. Secondly, in a wheel-less society, logistics we such that armies were split into corps of 8,000 routed, and if necessary fighting, independently to keep from starving. So there could be a high proportion of senior units in some of the corps.

There's no reason for the Spanish conquistadors to be graded as elite; they were little different in morale to buccaneers. What they had was superior arms, armour and horses. So it's really an armour vs unamoured, HF vs not difference.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Good to hear the reasons for the quality. I'm not sure I necessarily agree that campaigning every year means a whole lot... Lots of arlies campaigned every year... but the other stuff does lend some justification.

I had a game with my Japanese the other day with my mate, and we were discussing the myths of the Japanese... how Samurai never retreated (yet somehow ronin existed) and ninja could walk on water (despite Myth Busters difficulty) and Japanese swords being able to cut through the glasis of an Abrams.

I don't envy list writers their job. It must be very difficult to get the information collated, and you clearly know a hell of a lot more than I do on the Meso-Americans.

Anyway, it was an interesting read, so thanks.

Part of the problem here is that most of the accounts were written by the Spanish and they had a tendency to go down the "brave savages" route; i.e. 'we were oppressed on all sides by fearless warriors' etc. Much of this is due to the audience they were writing for - other Spanish. So, for example, Bernal Diaz writes in his old age as a provincial governor a history of the conquest which is something of a defence of his youth as a conquistador.

There is some work based on Mexica oral traditions of the conquest that is a bit more real world - accounts of soldiers killing their officers because the officers were rubbish, for example that gives a counterpoint.

However, we were midful that teh Mexica did seem to have the quality edge in battles against their indigenous enemies, despite having broadly similar weapons systems. So we though it appropriate for the Aztec list to have a greater number of superiors available. Plus they did seem to have these veteran units available. We play tested it in FOGAM - protected superior and elite MF vs armoured HF and cavalry lancers and it seemed to give the right feel for the battles. Changes against the Spanish foot were scary but once it got to melee the lack of armour told. And they didn't like cavalry in the open at all - which is historical.

Yeah, it's not easy. I remember reading about Louis XIV Grenadiers a Cheval de la Garde who took 5 (I think) enemy guidons in one prolonged charge. Now, under FoG:R they are elite, and the worst an enemy is going to be in that period is average, so pretty reasonable quality difference, but even then it doesn't seem enough to recreate those situations. It's like you don't want to end up with undefeatable super-elites, but also don't want to have every troop type being average.

I remember reading in the FoG:Sword and Sorcery forum a guy who wanted hos elvish bowmen to be heavily armoured elite heavy foot longbow heavy weapon (maybe swordsmen, can't quite remember) and I cound't seem to explain to him the game balance side of things.

So, yeah it's definitely not easy.

grahambriggs wrote:Once you got to four brave deeds (or IIRC two if you were noble) then the military orders became open to you. The main orders were the ocelots (which I think we called Jaguar to avoid confusion) and the Eagles - with the latter seemingly the senior in some ways. As you graduated fourther, you got to Otontin and then finally the Cauchiqueh, or shaved heads. There's good evidence that the military societies could deploy as units (so we allow them to be separate battle groups) and the Cauchics were also able to deploy independently. An alternative was for the senior warriors to be distributed amongst the Calpolli to beef them up a bit, presumably. Hence we allowed a small number of the bases to be elite, as they have the same position as Guard Mmluks, Varangian Guards, etc.

From Hassig:

"... but usually the military orders preceded everyone. Of these, the cuachic warriors advanced first. The cauhchicqueh fought in pairs and were sworn not to flee even in the face of overwhelming opposition But they were not organized into offensive combat units, nor did they command troops; rather they were superior individual fighters and were used largely as shock troops."

"After the cuachicqueh came the otontin, followed by the veteran warriors, tequihuahqueh, who led the first organized units. The leaders entered battle at the head of their respective units, which were composed of intermixed veteran and novice warriors so the veterans could support, teach, and watch over the youths in combat."

There's no reason for the Spanish conquistadors to be graded as elite; they were little different in morale to buccaneers. What they had was superior arms, armour and horses. So it's really an armour vs unamoured, HF vs not difference.

Well, the armor was somewhat variable (even in the lists) and the horses were few, though certainly decisive beyond their numbers. As for troop quality, they originated from what was becoming the leading military tradition of Europe, and performed remarkably in quite a few desperate situations against the Superior/Elite graded Aztecs. Not to mention that they were at the forefront of a coalition whose members get a pretty generous pick of Superior troops in their own lists... I'll grant you that the conquest of Mexico occurred due to a myriad of factors, but I'd have to say the fighting qualities of the conquistadors was certainly part of the equation, and on the tabletop they just don't seem that remarkable.

Yes I used Hassig extensively.

The conquistadors may have originated from the leading military tradition in Europe. But what Cortez actually had were 600 or so men from Cuba who were something of a mixed bag. The steel shields and steel thrusting swords of the infantry proved excellent against glass slashing swords and armour that was designed to defend against same. The few mounted found that they could ride straight through the enemy but were vulnerable if they did so individually. In threes they could protect each other. The Spanish performed well, and the Aztecs started to learn too late not to stand up to them in the open.

We felt in play testing for the FOGAM rules that the balance was about right; in that the Spanish foot and horse would usually do well once they rode out the initial conflict. However, the earlier expedition to the Yucatan had seen a defeat, and in the close confines of the Aztec capital the Spanish had to flee, so they should not be graded as supermen.