Visceral Impact Studios | 21 Jun 2017 6:36 a.m. PST |
NOTE: I used the term "blades" in the title just as shorthand. This is NOT, repeat NOT (that's NOT!) specifically about DBA/DBM Blades fighting against heavy cavalry. DBA/DBM Blades encompass a lot of different troop types including those armed with poleaxes/bills. This topic is really limited to close order heavy infantry armed with shield and shorter edged weapons such as sword, axe, mace, etc. and is focused on the history rather than how any given game handles the topic. We all know just how effective pointy stick-armed close order infantry can be when defending against a cavalry charge. No matter how brave the rider, a horse is really reluctant to impale itself on a spear, pike, or bayoneted musket. As long as close order infantry armed in this manner maintained their formation, they were fairly safe from a charge by heavy cavalry. But what of close order heavy infantry armed only with swords and axes and shields? Just how effective was such infantry in receiving and repelling a cavalry charge? Was the sheer density of their "shield wall" formation (e.g. roman legionaries or medieval swordsmen) enough to actually disrupt the impact of a heavy cavalry charge? Would the lack of pointy sticks combined with the solid formation produce something of an "even fight" against a charge by heavy cavalry? Or would heavy cavalry find such a target easy pickings and "run them down like grass"? What is your opinion on the subject and what historical evidence would you cite to back that opinion? |
Visceral Impact Studios | 21 Jun 2017 7:01 a.m. PST |
BTW…my evidence for heavy infantry sans pointy sticks repelling heavy cavalry is the Battle of Carrhae. Surena thought that even his cataphracts would be unable to effectively attack the Romans in their large, hollow square. Instead he used his more mobile light cavalry to shoot up the dense, immobile Roman formation. Even though a Roman detachment led by the general's son was destroyed, the main Roman army managed to retreat while being repeatedly charged by cataphracts and shot by light cavalry. The cataphract vs legionnaire was a stalemate while the light cavalry forced the Romans to retreat to the safety of a nearby town or face destruction by a thousand cuts…err, arrows. Maybe if Crassus had had a bunch of English longbowmen deployed behind his ranks of legionnaires things would have been different. :-) OTOH, the legionnaires did have pilums which one might consider a spear in this context… hmmm… |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 21 Jun 2017 7:05 a.m. PST |
A deep formation would still be secure if it stayed steady as it would present a major physical obstacle for a horse to navigate if nothing else. Anyone who has stood alongside, or in front of, a large number of galloping horses knows that there should definitely be some sort of morale test in rules to stay steady in the face of a cavalry charge. However, the main thing to remember is that as soon as a horseman stops to engage in a slogging match the infantryman gains a HUGE advantage over him. |
Winston Smith | 21 Jun 2017 7:21 a.m. PST |
Horses don't like to run into things. Full stop. Give the wall spears only gives them a reach advantage. |
HANS GRUBER | 21 Jun 2017 7:43 a.m. PST |
"Blades" in many rules are too vulnerable to cavalry. Most heavy foot classed as blades or similiar usually also carried a light or heavy javelin, which could be as effective as longer spears in repelling cavalry charges. Horses don't like running into troops carrying point sticks, whether they were 6 or 8 feet long. And personally I don't think Greek hoplites were more effective against cavalry than Roman legionaries. In the end it's more important that the foot remain steady in close formation, whatever weapon they are carrying. |
Marcus Brutus | 21 Jun 2017 8:12 a.m. PST |
As John Beeler notes in his book Warfare in Feudal Europe good quality heavy infantry will always defeat cavalry. He used the Swabian mercenaries at the Battle of Civitate as an example of this. At Civitate the Swabian heavy infantry was able to keep their mounted opponents (Norman milites) at bay against overwhelming odds. William of Apulia writes, "They [Swabains] were proud people of great courage, but not versed in horsemanship, who fought rather with the sword than with the lance. Since they could not control the movements of their horses with their hands they were unable to inflict serious injuries with the lance; however they excelled with the sword. These swords were very long and keen, and they were often capable of cutting someone vertically in two! They preferred to dismount and take guard on foot, and they chose rather to die than to turn tail. Such was their bravery that they were far more formidable like this than when riding on horseback." |
VVV reply | 21 Jun 2017 9:39 a.m. PST |
BTW…my evidence for heavy infantry sans pointy sticks repelling heavy cavalry is the Battle of Carrhae. Well the Roman legions did not do well against cataphracts at Carrhae. The saving grace was that there were 40,000 legionaries vs 1,000 cataphracts. But cataphracts are a special case, they were designed to beat infantry. As you sort of guess the biggest threat to the infantry is getting scared and breaking formation – apparently the Russian soldiers acting as the British squares in the film Waterloo, did precisely that. So it seems the conclusion is, have good steady infantry and they will hold against a frontal cavalry charge. And so that is the way they play in my ancient rules, The Die is Cast. In one competiton game of Warhammer Ancient battles, I had almost won the tournament but my last opponent formed his army in a circle on a hill, with no flanks to attack. But I still attacked, broke through the infantry facing me, straight into the rear of the unit on the opposite side. The circle was broken and his army destroyed. So nice try from him and it might have worked. |
Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 21 Jun 2017 12:17 p.m. PST |
Are we all assuming the cavalry are charging home to contact frontally? Before the stirrup wouldn't most heavy cavalry be more likely to skirmish in front of the heavy infantry with thrown spears or javelins and only charge home if the infantry are broken by the missiles? Seems to me cavalry were expected to take on opposition cavalry and then charge the opposition infantry in the flanks or rear while they are engaged with friendly infantry. If cavalry are forced to charge formed heavy infantry frontal they will, in my opinion, probably fail if the heavy infantry's morale holds. |
Khusrau | 21 Jun 2017 12:19 p.m. PST |
The debate about whether horses would or could charge home on formed infantry has been raging for years. I would caution against assumptions. There is some evidence for both assertions, which can't be tested. Horses can be trained to do quite remarkable things. |
Khusrau | 21 Jun 2017 12:21 p.m. PST |
Oh, and comprehensive tests have put paid to the theory that lances couldn't be used without stirrups. The saddle design is much more important. What stirrups help with is a cross cut blow with a hand weapon by allowing the rider to stand in the saddle, but more importantly, reduce tiredness after lengthy periods riding. |
Father Grigori | 21 Jun 2017 2:36 p.m. PST |
Back in the early '90s, I was in a reenactment of Hastings, on the Saxon side. The Normans had about 20 or 30 cavalry, we and the Normans together had several hundred foot. We were told not to attack the mounted troops, as the horses were locally hired, and there were major risks of panic, injury, etc. A couple of things stand out in memory. First is the sound of the horses approaching. There weren't many, but you could feel the ground tremble, and I can imagine a charge by a few hundred really being scary. Second, horses will charge a solid looking line. We had blunted spears, most about 6 or 7 feet long. Whilst we weren't trying to kill the horses, we were trying to keep them off. It didn't work. I can remember one friend being hit by a horse and being thrown back through 4 or 5 ranks of foot. One rider fell off, and was immediately jumped on by a crowd of spearmen. The point is that horses will charge a solid looking line of foot. I suspect any reported reluctance to charge noted in sources is more the rider worrying about losing his mount (often an expensive investment) than the horse being scared. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 21 Jun 2017 3:24 p.m. PST |
I've been around horses and ridden for many, many years, and I will dispute absolutely the idea that horses can be trained to kill themselves on demand. Further to Father Grigori's point about his reenactment experience, some years ago I worked on a big battle sequence in a hollywood movie where 50-60 horses were used as charging cavalry. The sound and vibration as that number of horses charge at you is absolutely terrifying, hence my point that rules really ought to include some sort of morale test for foot to stand and take it, especially non-professional troops who'd probably much rather be at home getting the harvest in. Secondly, even if you could train horses to kill themselves by charging into a hedge of spears, why would you? If your horse dies, then you the rider will immediately find yourself on the floor, possibly unconscious and injured, surrounded by angry, armed enemy foot and then be killed yourself. Not to mention that a trained warhorse was an investment of enormous time and money, and for most cavalrymen not something you want to destroy. It would be like you deciding you want to demolish your garden wall, and achieving that by driving your Ferrari into it at speed. It's also worth repeating that a large body of formed infantry doesn't suddenly disperse to allow the passage of cavalry if the front rank is charged. Rather the impact would compress the body of foot still more; a large, densely packed group of people cannot be ridden through unless it breaks and disperses. It is an impassable obstacle to horses. And as soon as cavalry gives up force and momentum and stops to engage in static fighting the advantage swings massively to the infantry – the horse itself is a huge, delicate, unarmoured target, the rider has a very limited arc to strike from, one that is easily defended by an infantryman just holding his shield over his head while he chops the legs out from under your horse. People in general, and wargamers especially, seem to be wedded to the idea of the irresistable charge of mounted medieval knights. But no-one disputes that pikes were an effective deterrent against cavalry, nor that Napoleonic infantry with bayonets in square were also an effective deterrent. Why a spear, with a length in between those two examples, is not considered to be so is quite mental. |
Zinkala | 21 Jun 2017 5:04 p.m. PST |
If your horse won't approach a line of infantry your cavalry is basically useless unless armed with missile weapons. Even with a lance you still need to get pretty close to hurt the enemy. If cavalry moves in slow that leaves it vulnerable to counterattack by the infantry. I've worked with horses my entire life and I'm a believer in the theory that horses can be trained to hit a wall and that it was done. Whether or not it was effective or smart would depend on the tactical situation. Not all horses are equal either. I've ridden horses that would take on cattle close up, head to head and others that only worked if they could come in from a flank or rear. If challenged they backed off. Plus I've seen the herd mentality in action with horses, cattle and wild animals. They will go right through and over things you wouldn't believe as a group that they wouldn't individually. And it's not always a blind panic causing it. Why chance losing your horse on a charge? Why should infantry attack a defended position when they could die? Because if you don't you can't win. Any battle will have risks and the warriors would have been fully aware of them. How many examples are there of battles where the cavalry charged, realised that they enemy wasn't scared and broke off the charge before contact? Was contact only made if they recognised the enemies morale was wavering? Aren't there examples of charges that were mistakes and the cavalry plowed in to be destroyed? If the horses wouldn't move to contact how could the infantry get close enough to hurt them? If people knew that horses will never come into contact with a solid line why would anyone ever flee from a charge? And yes I have first hand experience with running herds and understand how scary it is. But if everybody knows that they'll never touch you it would take away the fear. I'm not saying that charging cavalry is irresistable or invincible, just that without the momentum of the charge and horses that will bring you into contact with the enemy they aren't that useful. Tightly packed, disciplined infantry should be a difficult obstacle. Even scattered breaking infantry makes for a hazard for horses. They could trip or break a leg but I don't think anybody's suggesting they shouldn't take the chance to kill the fleeing enemy. Just my opinions on it. |
Great War Ace | 21 Jun 2017 7:24 p.m. PST |
Anna Comnena saw a distinction between equally heavily armed Byzantine cavalry and "Franks", whose charge could "make a hole through the walls of Babylon". She was describing a mindset difference, not equipment. Training of the horse to suit the mindset would also be different. I have a friend whose horse tore through a thorn hedge despite his every effort to stop the silly beast. There was that parade decades ago where some draft horses spooked at candy being thrown at them, and turned with wagon through six ranks of spectators and ended up inside a plate glass windowed store front. We are not talking about training horses to "kill themselves". This is a case of examples where horses spooked and did stupid things, and also cases where the riders did stupid things: once the momentum is built you don't just stop or turn it. And also cases where charging horses actually inflicted real damage. There are cases also where a heavy cavalry charge went right through infantry, not destroying them. The battle of Verneuil is one of these. But mostly, cavalry evolve into infantry, with their mounted roles being converted into maneuver, harassment and pursuit. The rest of the time they are arrayed on foot. A horse and equipped rider could weigh ten times an infantryman. It doesn't take any real speed to knock a man down with a horse, or several men. So the morale factor remains key. Most infantry would be vulnerable to fear of a massed line of cavalry approaching. "Most" throughout history. But good morale could overcome the fear. Once the dense infantry line decides to stand and face the cavalry, then any grounded spear of decent length becomes a weapon to reverse the energy of the horse against itself. This would be appreciated by the horsemen. If the infantry in question were not obviously beaten as the horses approached, then any decent cavalry could disengage and try again. This occurred when the French charged the Swiss repeatedly at Marignano. In our game, "normal" infantry have to check morale to stand up to charging cavalry. If they do, and they have "phalanx" training, then the cavalry check to keep their charge. Better infantry that employ variants of the "phalanx" do not check to stand up to charging cavalry. And some require the cavalry to test to attack them in the first place. Once a cavalry charge impacts infantry, certain kinetic energy advantages go to the massively heavier horses. Not all of the grounded spears/pikes are going to impale all of the horses, and any horses arriving for bodily contact with infantry are going to be bad for the infantry. Dying horses are going to be bad for both sides, more of an accident than intent. Etc…….. |
miniMo | 21 Jun 2017 8:02 p.m. PST |
When the Franks managed to catch the Vikings in a field battle, the Franks won. [The trick was catching them in a field battle.] Advantage: horses over blades. Battle of Saucourt-en-Vimeu link Battle of Thimeon link |
Father Grigori | 22 Jun 2017 1:37 a.m. PST |
Just another thought on the topic, the mounted police charging strikers during the Miners' Strike in the 1980s has some relevant parallels. At Orgreave, the police deployed some 40 or more mounted police, who were used to charge into and break up groups of strikers. This was not simply Mtd. police vs protesters; it was much more serious. Both sides were quite prepared to injure the other, quite seriously in some cases. There were a lot of missiles thrown at the police, but the horses charged through them, and film of the clashes shows both mounted charges and shield wall tactics. |
korsun0 | 22 Jun 2017 5:28 a.m. PST |
I have seen references to the Romans forming a close formation with the front rank using their pila as spears to form a line of points. The ranks behind would throw pila then quickly move up and each man would lean his shield against the back of the man in front to provide support against the initial shock of a cavalry charge. Once the charge had become a melee, the second rank would use their pila to jab past the first rank. I can't remember where I read it but it was in two separate references. The other alternative is to employ Ventidius, the only Roman to be awarded a triumph for beating Parthians. |
Warspite1 | 22 Jun 2017 6:11 a.m. PST |
A single rank of figures armed with 'blades' would be vulnerable. This maybe simulates 4 or 5 ranks in real life. Once the formation deepens then problems will emerge for the horse. Provided the foot stand to receive the charge, do the horse bounce off from the closed shields or do they penetrate? If they penetrate then the formation MIGHT lose cohesion and break. But if the infantry are willing to stand and start attacking the horse's legs with swords, clubs and maces from the side… a possible disaster for the horse. The real decider here will not be weapon type or horse v foot. The decider will be the morale throws. 1) do horse make contact? 2) do foot stand? 3) do horse bounce off or break in? 4) do foot fight a follow-up melee as horse penetrate? 5) do horse realise that penetrating is a risk and pull back? Those – in my view – are the key issues here. Barry |
VVV reply | 22 Jun 2017 8:17 a.m. PST |
Add to that, are the flanks/rear vulnerable to the cavalry simply riding round them. |
LORDGHEE | 22 Jun 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
read many times that the Greeks even with their spears felt that 8 ranks minimum where needed to stand up to the Cav. Roman standard was ten Squares started with 6 ended with 4 in the Napoleonic period. |
dapeters | 22 Jun 2017 11:49 a.m. PST |
I confess I am not much of a rider, however I do know lots of horse people, one who's a gamer and a reenactor. The consensus is that a horse will not charge a wall. When I ask could you train a horse to run into a wall they seem to think it was possible but that would not be an easy thing to do and some horse simply could never be trained in such way. So my take away is that yes there might be a couple of such mounts belong to the high and mighty (look at the origin of the Lipizzans), but for the typical mount, no. I think if foot troops were able to stand in very tight formations then they could stop mounted troops as their horses will not blindly smash into a wall (a horse in a panic does not count, humans do stupid things in panics as well.) IMHO successful charges accord against moving foot and/or groups that were not in any sort of tight formation. I have also seen in person a number of horse come running up to jumps only to stop and send their riders flying at the wall or fence. |
goragrad | 22 Jun 2017 12:10 p.m. PST |
Not blades, although DBA considers them as BD, but Palestinian club men were one Roman solution to Palmyran cataphracts. Presumably they didn't catch them napping. |
Thomas Thomas | 22 Jun 2017 1:34 p.m. PST |
A contemporary description of a charge of Milanese/Lombard knights (heavily armored – including horse armor) aganist Men-at-arms. According to Basin: "the Italian cavalry charged the English infantry furiously creating fear in the ranks and seriously threatening them. Numbers of men-at-arms, struck by the shock bit the dusk and the cavalry deeply penetrated the ranks of the English…" A couple of +1 to Khrusrau. First lines of men are not a wall and tend to flinch. Generally: foot esp spear (and even more so Pikes) will repeal a Mounted Charge – which well tend to break off rather than mill in front of a solid line BUT if the Foot waiver the result is not just a break off but a disaster for the Foot. A further nuance: "swords" while less likely to halt the initial charge are far more deadly if the knights (foolishly) misjudge the situation and remain in contact with unbroken "swords". No need for lots of rules fat. The Foot should have higher factors and if they win the Knights break off – but if the Foot lose (either due to morale, shock, long lances – it matters not why), they are swept away. Finally ties go to the Foot – and if "swords" its the Knights who perish. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Zinkala | 22 Jun 2017 5:48 p.m. PST |
My opinion again, take or leave as you see fit. Warhorses were not typical horses. We currently breed for different aspects to get what we want in a horse. Some are born knowing how to herd cattle. Others are born to run. Some pull wagons. I wouldn't take a plow horse and expect it to be a thoroughbred. If I was planning to be in combat I would look for a horse that starts with the right attitude and physique and train from there. I would choose something more aggressive and less skittish. Even if you don't accept the idea of a fast charge into contact you still need a horse that isn't easily spooked and is willing to move close to people waving and yelling. Arms reach even with a long weapon is till awful close. Personally I find it hard to believe that a charge was really trotting up to your target going poke, poke with your lance or sword and gosh darn it it they weren't scared I should trot off. I agree with Thomas' post above too. If the horse isn't moving the knight would be at a disadvantage. The infantry has the choice of hitting almost anywhere on a large target. The rider is actually hindered by his own mount except to the right side. Infantry can be effective by standing still but cavalry needs movement and momentum. IMO a mounted man won't win a fight with someone one foot except by using their speed and weight advantage. A standing horse is a disadvantage. |
Great War Ace | 22 Jun 2017 6:50 p.m. PST |
I agree with Zinkala about training. The medieval horse was specialized. Its like cannot be found today, or really anytime after the middle ages. Dense, packed cavalry ("an apple tossed in the air above them could not hit the ground before striking man or horse") was a medieval phenomenon, and the training of the horses was an essential part of what made it work. The reply was an arms race in tactics, and combined arms tactics, to answer that formidable weapon of the heavily armored horseman. It is a foolish assertion, imho, to say that medieval horses did not have the capability to charge bodily into another body of living things. But would they? Yes and no, depending on the battle, the situation. Would it work? Yes and no, again depending on factors on the ground at that time and place. Which is why we love dice so much. :) |
Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 22 Jun 2017 10:35 p.m. PST |
Surely the type of heavy cavalry also makes a difference Medieval knights charging are going to be very different beast to ancient Greek heavy cavalry who turn would be different to Palmyran cataphracts. They are all heavy cavalry by the standards of their day but all work differently. |
Puster | 23 Jun 2017 2:42 a.m. PST |
Just read the latest "Medieval History". There is an interesting article in it on the Combat of the thirty, which was decided by a knight mounting and riding down the fighters of one side. link |
Visceral Impact Studios | 23 Jun 2017 6:25 a.m. PST |
Well, the broad consensus seems to be that there's no consensus. :-) But, there does seem to be consensus on a few details such as infantry's need to maintain cohesion in the face of a cavalry charge in order to repel it and that cavalry need to "fish or cut bait" once engaged as a sustained melee isn't their strong suit. And +1 to those who point out the difference between modern horses and those medieval horses selected and trained for combat. The excellent book "The Greatest Knight" covers the life of William Marshal. It includes lots of detail on the value of a knight's warhorses (that's plural as they tend to get tired or wounded and a knight needed spares!). According to the book even a "tournament" could prove costly to a knight in both ransom if captured and the cost of horses. |
miniMo | 23 Jun 2017 9:31 a.m. PST |
Pedantic note: "fish or cut bait" are both useful activities. The unabridged expression is: "It's time to fish, cut bait, or get out of the boat." |
Gustav A | 23 Jun 2017 1:27 p.m. PST |
Great War Ace, Densly packed cavalry was hardly restricted to the middle ages, tightly packed formations were standard for several types of cavalry well into 18th Century and would probably be found after 1720 when my interest stops as well. Example is the German Reiters who were famous for tight formations, they were "glued together" according to eyewitnesses. Swedish cavalry of Great Northern War actually rode in chevron shaped formation with the men packed in tightly knee by knee. |
Thomas Thomas | 23 Jun 2017 1:29 p.m. PST |
War horses are one reason you need two catagories of "mounted" in a medieval setting: Men at Arms and "knights". Knights charge with elan (often due to social standing re "peasants"), have heavier armor (varies by period – often due to greater wealth), and true warhorses (prices of horses in restor agreements vary widely). Men at Arms have decent horses, armor and some status (could be a bit upjumped) but less so in all cases. They are effective when mounted against "medium/light" foot but can't (generally) carry a line of Heavy Foot. They often dismount to fight and so become heavy foot. Prominant in HYW armies and mercenary companies. True knights are fewer but France could field "units" of them (sometimes backed by mounted Men at Arms). Could carry a line of even Heavy Foot under the right circumstances – it took Pikes to really insure failure (and even then could be a close run thing). Its one area that DBX fails (Cav represents ancient types but is sometimes miss used as Mounted Men at Arms). Its a type I had to add to Fire and Ice. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Great War Ace | 23 Jun 2017 8:27 p.m. PST |
@Gustav: "Dense" means ranks deep, not just two or three as during the gunpowder wars. Medieval ancmed cavalry is often seven or more ranks deep, often on a limited frontage for impact. |
Gustav A | 24 Jun 2017 2:41 p.m. PST |
Great War Ace, German Reiters were formed 15 ranks or deeper, some secondary sources claim even 50 ranks but honestly I doubt that. 15-20 is what turns up in period sources at quick glance through my notes. French abandoned thin "En haye" formation of 1-2 ranks for deeper squadrons 6-8 ranks. Dutch used 10 ranks which also became popular depth in Germany post-1600 while Dutch reduced depth to 5 ranks because their companies were small (only 75 men as standard)Swedes copied 6 rank depth from the French after using Dutch style 10 or 5 ranks for short time. Even in late 30YW only Swedes used as little as 3 ranks, Imperials used 5 or less common 4 while Dutch used 5. French used 8, 6 or sometimes claimed 3 but last could be restricted to ex-Swedish troops so called Weimarians. Only nation to go to realy thin formation after middle ages was France with Gendarmes using "En Haye" of 1-2 ranks because of their skill and the enormous striking power of late 15th C/early 16th C heavy lancers. Other Western lancers kept using somewhat deeper formations but by end of 16th C professionals saw deep formations as vastefull and ineffective for lancers. |
Great War Ace | 24 Jun 2017 8:53 p.m. PST |
|
uglyfatbloke | 25 Jun 2017 5:56 a.m. PST |
Thomas…in the 13/14 the Century all fully-armoured cavalry – those who provide 'knight service' regardless of whether or not they were knights, were men-at-arms (homines ad arma), from the bloke who hired himself out to discharge fractions of knight service or service for abbeys etc right up to the king. They were not distinguished by class, armament or mount within that category. A man-at-arms (even one of obscure social origin) might well have a better/more valuable mount than a knight and a wealthy knight might have a more valuable mount than a baron. MAA from outwith the gentry and aristocracy (mostly, but not exclusively burgesses) were not uncommon, especially in countries which experienced the threat of war for long periods I'd strongly recommend Andrew Ayton's book 'The Knight and his Warhorse' and if you like I can provide you with a thesis that might be helpful. You can mail me..thathistorybloke@outlook.com A good deal of popular history assumptions around this kind of thing have their roots in Oman but it's far from valid. |
Warspite1 | 26 Jun 2017 3:49 a.m. PST |
While it must be conceded that horses are intelligent and normally will not charge obstacles, the London Metropolitan Mounted Police do use them to barge/charge into groups of demonstrators and I have even seen the MP drill (at a horse show) where the rider uses the horse to step sideways and widen a breach in a group of demonstrators. Also, at the Battle of Talavera, an Anglo-German cavalry brigade charged French infantry in square. The English charged too soon, failed to notice a dry water course and charged straight into it, losing two-thirds of their horses with broken legs. The Germans stayed well-in-hand, walked into the dry water course, re-emerged and began their charge on the French side of it. The French held their fire until too late, volleyed, killed some of the German horses which were then so close that their falling bodies breached the square and the rest of the Germans piled into these breaches and the French square broke! So… beware the dying horse or horses which can act like battering rams into an infantry formation. It CAN happen. Barry |
Visceral Impact Studios | 26 Jun 2017 6:27 a.m. PST |
"Thomas…in the 13/14 the Century all fully-armoured cavalry – those who provide 'knight service' regardless of whether or not they were knights, were men-at-arms (homines ad arma), from the bloke who hired himself out to discharge fractions of knight service or service for abbeys etc right up to the king. They were not distinguished by class, armament or mount within that category. A man-at-arms (even one of obscure social origin) might well have a better/more valuable mount than a knight and a wealthy knight might have a more valuable mount than a baron." @Bloke… I started writing the exact same reply the other day, but I think Tom was using the term "knight" in the DBA context to some degree. He mentioned the need for wealth to support a "knight's" gear and training and that would have been true whether an actually knighted warrior or a well equipped mercenary, retainer, or man-at-arms. The source of funds would differ based on role in society but it was expensive no matter what. And some who were "knighted" were definitely not battlefield material! Tom is a leader in the DBA community and I often play in his DBA/"Ice & Fire" sessions as we're also friends!* I enjoy the game but do take issue with its lack of granularity in certain areas and this is one of them. All mounted knights are "heavy cavalry" but not all heavy cavalry equipped and skilled like "knights" are knights. This is an important distinction to the extent that true knights in the sense of French nobility might have been "impetuous" as represented by DBA. But other mounted warriors equal in skill and equipment were just as effective in combat AND far more disciplined. Heavy cavalry of the Italian Wars are a good example. DBA "knights" represent masses of mounted French nobles well (it's an English game after all!), but it doesn't handle other forms of heavily armed, professional cavalry as well. It tends to mung together gear, skill, discipline, and morale a little too much imo. *This past weekend Tom actually couldn't play DBA at MY invitation because he was playing WARHAMMER 40K 8TH EDITION! :-) Tom's son had signed them up for a tourney. I stopped by to see how things went. In round 1, Tom's Imperial Guard were charged and contacted by Tyranids (think Aliens from the Alien movie franchise) on Game Turn 1. The system is IGOUGO and Tom got only one "player turn" before time was called. His opponent got two player turns. Tom looked bemused by the experience, "bemused" being a diplomatic term. :-D |
Great War Ace | 26 Jun 2017 7:50 a.m. PST |
@Impact: You bring up a good point about "granularity". Tactical drill varies. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't work. In our game, we have several degrees of cavalry charge. The lowest is a 25% combat value bonus when charging – aka as "half charge bonus". It may last one (contact turn). Next grade is three consecutive turns of half charge bonus while the cavalry company wins the melee. Any "push back" on the cavalry deprives them of their charge bonus. Then we have "full charge bonus", which is plus 50% to combat value when charging. This also lasts for up to three consecutive turns of winning the melee. Finally we have "Western charge bonus" (for lack of a better term). It is typical of French and crusader cavalry. It works the same as "full charge bonus", but allows four or more consecutive charge bonus combat rounds, as long as the cavalry keep winning the melee AND (after the first three charge turns) makes successful "performance check" rolls at the beginning of each turn. The first failure of a performance check roll (even if all previous combat turns were winning) stops the charge bonus. Any cavalry that turns any degree during their charge lose their charge bonus. Another tactic or drill is "withdraw post combat". Some cavalry with Western charge bonus have this capability as well, but must roll a successful performance test to utilize it. Cavalry without "withdraw" capability are "stuck in" for the duration of the melee, win or lose. (French cavalry tend not to possess this drill!) |
Thomas Thomas | 28 Jun 2017 11:20 a.m. PST |
I've already read Ayton's book and sorry for the confusion caused by over simplfing social class. By Knight I mean a full armored warrior capable of mounted combat (a seperate sub skill) often with an armored horse and charging with elan (if not always good sense). Such were fairly common in French armies and generally came from the old nobility but could be "up jumped". Second catagory is the a common type through out the HYW who could fight mounted and had armor (not necessary as good) but who generally fought dismounted. A more practical warrior if much less likely to charge (and defeat) a line of heavy infantry. Composed the bulk of the English armies, the router companies and much of the latter French armies. No need for elablorate charge mechnisms (the troops would hardly be aware of these complex formulas). Some "knights" would launch reckless charges that tended to produce victory or disaster – hence hard to predict. Mounted true "men-at-arms" more likely to dismount for hard slogging. But could take on lighter foot (and rout) when mounted – see for instance the suppression of the French peasant revolts of the latter 1300's. The classifications are based on actual battlefield behavior and results not theories. As to the "scientific" Italien heavy horse, they were roundly beaten by the French "knights" largely due to the superior elan of the latter. "Milanse" Italien "knights" charged with great elan at Verneuil, broke through the English men at arms and then ran off to loot the baggage. (The same troops when dismounted at Cravant had not preformed as well despite very impressive armor). So again its better to have a Knight class and a Men at Arms class not necessary related to national origin. TomT |
uglyfatbloke | 28 Jun 2017 4:19 p.m. PST |
I'm happy to take your word for this re: the HYW – or at least the later part – but prior to say 1350 'men-at-arms' means all the armoured cavalrymen, that is to say everyone except hobilars. Even then there were exceptions and some men recruited as garrison hobilars and paid as such were as well armed and mounted as the men-at-arms. For the period up to 1350 – at least- it would not make historical sense to have two classes of heavy cavalry since all the men-at-arms served together in the same tactical units. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 29 Jun 2017 11:07 a.m. PST |
"No need for elablorate charge mechnisms (the troops would hardly be aware of these complex formulas)." Actually, that's where the DBx system gets really intricate: combat results. Rather than being a simple numerical result (e.g. Kings of War), DBx provides a branching logic tree literally as used in computer code conditional statements plus numerous exceptions to those conditional statements. DBA combat results become a bowl of spaghetti because it tries to do in words what would be easier with numbers. Now, KoW has its own issues (e.g. all else being equal, he who charges first wins…and since charge distance is fixed, you should never given a comparable opponent the chance to charge…so don't move into charge range…boring). But DBx still gives me headaches and we (Tom and I and our group) still make mistakes when we forget how different troop types interact in the context of combat results or even the conditional statements that drive many modifiers. Back to the topic, I don't believe charge mechanisms need be complex to accomplish some of the objectives suggested in this topic. Something as simple as a single modifier for different heavy infantry fighting cavalry to their front might suffice. DBx does that to a certain degree but then goes down the rabbit hole in the results but that's just how the system handles combat results (conditional, branching statements rather than a numerical value). |
Thomas Thomas | 07 Jul 2017 12:43 p.m. PST |
Bloke: I debated for sometime (internally) having two classes of mounted "men-at-arms". In general we have often accepted that less armed men simply served in the back ranks or were so similarly armored that it didn't make enough difference. But as early as 1214 at Bouvines William the Breton was recording significant differences between types of "men at arms": "[the King of France] sent ahead, on the Count of Saint-Pols' advice, 150 mounted serreants to start the battle. He did this with the aim that the noble combatants of France, whom we have named above, would find their enemy somewhat agitated and worried. But the Flemings and the Germans, who were very eager to fight, greatly scorned being first challenged by sergeants instead of knights…Gutier of Ghistelle and Buridan, who were knights of noble prowess…after unhorsing and striking down some of the above mentioned sergeants, they left them and turned toward the middle of the field to fight the knights." Later in the battle: A knight "Barrios" in unhorsed in the middle of foes then "…Barrios defended himself with marvelous virtue. But because a man alone on foot cannot last very long against such a great number, he would have ended dead or captured had it not been for Thomas of Saint-Valery, a noble knight powerful in arms, who appeared there with fifty knights and 2,000 sergeants and freed the Barrois from the hands of his enemies." So it seems we need two classifications even here. As armor improved and became more expensive the distinction between the two (esp re horse armor) may have increased. Attitude as illustrated above also played a part. Still I did waffle on this question for sometime but wanted to have a mounted troop type willing to fight on foot as Heavy Infantry to deal with this aspect of the HYW. As to mechanics DBX is a model of efficiency. Generally both sides add a Combat Factor (ranging from +2 to +5) to a d6. High roll wins and drives the loser back. A double, however, will destroy the opponent. There are two principle exceptions: (1) Shock Destroys an opponent on a simple beaten score (a common ability of Knights and Fanatic warbands); (2) Evade allows a doubled opponent to turn and Flee instead of being destroyed (a common ability of Light Horse). A vastly more elegant and accurate model of medieval warfare then any of the "number" based systems such as Warhammer Ancient Battles or goofy Kings of War. Its essential in a model of medieval warfare to have a punctured equilibrium model – shock and line breaking. Presentation of the system in Mr. Barker's unique style remains dodgy but the fundementals remain the gold standard of game design. TomT |
uglyfatbloke | 07 Jul 2017 5:00 p.m. PST |
I think we need to be an awful lot more careful about the use of narrative evidence, especially where the writer has a romantic or political position to pursue and/or when it does not match up to record evidence. I've no opinion at all on DBX, but light cavalry really is n't a feature of the 13/14th c. The 'knightly class' in the widest sense – the homines ad arma – served as one class in both an administrative and tactical sense. |
Great War Ace | 08 Jul 2017 9:43 a.m. PST |
Taking this to the Levant, sergeants do not muster separately from the knights. Sergeants are lighter armed and mounted and flesh out the rear ranks. The knights are always the cutting edge of the battle. I don't believe that this is uni |
Great War Ace | 08 Jul 2017 9:47 a.m. PST |
Taking this to the Levant, sergeants do not muster separately from the knights. Sergeants are lighter armed and mounted and flesh out the rear ranks. The knights are always the cutting edge of the battle. I don't believe that this is unique to crusading armies. Anytime you have a lack of adequate numbers of cavalry, they muster together. That is typical of crusading armies throughout the period. (There is a unique case, one of the battles of "Jaffa", iirc, in the first few years of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, where the knights charge their way up to the city gates to enter the place, while the sergeants, being lightly armed, rode their horses into the sea and swam around to the harbor!?, gaining entry by that method rather than by fighting. I've always had a strange Pythonesque image in my mind with this one.) At Bouvines, iirc, cavalry was in large numbers, and mustering sergeants separately is unique to this battle. Anyone know of another case where "ignoble" cavalry was separated from the nobles? |
uglyfatbloke | 11 Jul 2017 9:27 a.m. PST |
In 13/14th C armies in England and Scotland the term sergeant is very rarely used in relation to field armies or garrisons, though the term 'sergeant at arms' to denote a senior man-at-arms – that is to say one with a command role but who is not a knight – does crop up from time to time. The men-at-arms always serve in the same units – as many as four in a large English army, with one being notionally under the king's direct command and twice the size of the others. There's nothing to suggest any distinction between those who were knights and those – the overwhelming majority – who were not, nor to suggest a distinction in armament or mount; if you were up to the standard you got your 12d a day (24d if you were a knight) and that was that. I've never encountered a reference to any cavalry (hobilars being mounted infantry) other than men-at-arms. Does anyone know of any references to lighter cavalry in France or Flanders? |