"Dismounted Men-at-Arms as Offensive Spear instead of HW" Topic

Hi all! I am a newbie in this forum, greetings to you all!

Having been recently introduced to FOG, I'm quite intrigued and impressed by the adherence to historical accuracy in the fighting rules. However the classification of medieval dismounted men-at-arms in FOG as HW somewhat put me off. As HW dismounted men-at-arms became extremely vulnerable at impact to lancers and in fact most mounted, and I don't think the historical record bears this out. Some early medieval list such as the Normans and Crusaders have knights dismount as Offensive Spear, which to me seemed to make a lot more sense, given that the historical record seem to indicate that dismounted men-at-arms of all era of the Middle Ages seem to actually have an advantage against mounted ones on the defensive. Also certainly cut down lances and even long pike-like spears were common weapon for dismounted knights.

Because of this, shouldn't it be possible to classify the dismounted men at arms of at least some armies in Storm of Arrows as Offensive Spear instead of HW? Certainly the Italian men-at-arms who trounced the Swiss at Arbedo deserved this classification….

Frankly the whole treatment of HW as having no impact capability against mounted bothers me. It makes no sense that men carrying 8 ft long halberds or even 6 ft long poleaxes would do more poorly when charged by horsemen than Gallic foot with just sword and shield, no matter how fiercely the Gauls charged. Certainly the scenario of Arbedo, where the primarily halberd-armed Swiss foot were able to resist the mounted enemy men-at-arms but were defeated by a dismounted attack does not work with the current rule of HW.

Thanks!

Might be better t'post this on the FoG forum as its quite rules specific, and people who know are more likely to read that one than this..

..however, in the meantime I'd suggest that if you want to try this, Defensive Spear might be a better classification than Offensive Spear anyway. Offensive Spear run around charging into other peoples pedestrians, but Defensive Spear are, erm, more defensive, and so generally wait to be charged.

Both formations are better at receiving a mounted charge than lance armed knights, so if you think that's what happened historically I guess you can try changing it.

I suspect that if you ask on the FoG group you will get people questioning your assumption that ALL medieval mounted men at arms fought better dismounted against mounted knights than they did when mounted. That does seem a little strange

You also mention tha your theory is based on examples of Dismounted men at arms beating Swiss. Surely Heavy Weapon is better at beating Swiss pike than offensive/defensive spear would be anyway?