Blanket application of Unprotected to Light Foot and Horse
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:50 pm
Apologies if this is an old issue - but I have searched the forum and cannot find an earlier discussion.
Having just acquired FoG and Rise of Rome, the thing that struck me most when perusing the army lists was that light foot and light horse seem to have a universal application of Unprotected as their armour rating. The rules define (p129) Unprotected as "lacking armour and without or with only small or flimsy shields."
Now I have no problem with this definition, and I fully accept that making, say a Balearic slinger with a shield (leaving aside the debate as to whether it was common practice to actually carry them or be able to actually use them in a meaningful manner whilst slinging) as Protected as a Celtic warrior with a nice big/robust shield. I have more of a problem with some Light Horse, especially Tarentines and similar Hellenistic light cavalry, being listed as Unprotected. It seems to me that the difference in protection enjoyed by a Tarentine (at least of the later varieties, rather than the 4th C Taras coins) with what seems to have been a fairly standard Hellenistic large cavalry shield and a Celtic cavalryman would be minimal. Yet one is rated as Unprotected, the other Protected. They of course have different combat styles, but that should be reflected in Light Horse vs Cavalry ratings.
There is perhaps more of a finely balanced argument on those Light Foot who seem to have a shield approaching that of heavier close combat troops, such as later Roman velites - Livy suggesting that the velites were better protected by their shields than Galatian opponents and perfectly happy to mix it with them in close combat, although that may just be Livy...
And apologies if this seems a rather necky first post!
Having just acquired FoG and Rise of Rome, the thing that struck me most when perusing the army lists was that light foot and light horse seem to have a universal application of Unprotected as their armour rating. The rules define (p129) Unprotected as "lacking armour and without or with only small or flimsy shields."
Now I have no problem with this definition, and I fully accept that making, say a Balearic slinger with a shield (leaving aside the debate as to whether it was common practice to actually carry them or be able to actually use them in a meaningful manner whilst slinging) as Protected as a Celtic warrior with a nice big/robust shield. I have more of a problem with some Light Horse, especially Tarentines and similar Hellenistic light cavalry, being listed as Unprotected. It seems to me that the difference in protection enjoyed by a Tarentine (at least of the later varieties, rather than the 4th C Taras coins) with what seems to have been a fairly standard Hellenistic large cavalry shield and a Celtic cavalryman would be minimal. Yet one is rated as Unprotected, the other Protected. They of course have different combat styles, but that should be reflected in Light Horse vs Cavalry ratings.
There is perhaps more of a finely balanced argument on those Light Foot who seem to have a shield approaching that of heavier close combat troops, such as later Roman velites - Livy suggesting that the velites were better protected by their shields than Galatian opponents and perfectly happy to mix it with them in close combat, although that may just be Livy...
And apologies if this seems a rather necky first post!