|
|
Post by panthros on Jan 4, 2019 2:24:59 GMT
I am just an enthusiast who loves history and ancient and medieval warfare. I am reading a book on John Hawkwood and the White Company. I am referring to the Free Company in the 3.0 rule book, specifically 4/74. I am surprised I do not see any pike. I would have thought the army would have had at least 3. The army was focused on foot infantry, the longbow and the pike. Am I missing something? I thought I would go ahead and make something that seems more inline for a home game. Anyone else made a "White Company" in Italy? Thanks in advance.
Custom White Company
-1x Gen (3Kn/4Bb)
-1x Knight (3Kn/4Bb)
-3x Men at Arms (4Pk)
-2x Pages (Ps) or (LH)
-4x Archers (4Lb)
|
|
|
|
Post by edonaldson on Jan 4, 2019 3:27:52 GMT
I'm certainly no Medieval expert (or DBA expert) and others will likely weigh in with better info but if I recall the "pikes" in the White Company were dismounted Men-at-Arms using their lances in a kind of defensive square to repel mounted troops. That would not be a good fit with Pikes in DBA which are primarily an offensive weapon (they pursue in 3.0). And giving dismounted the Men-at-Arms rear support like Pikes would be very strange. Just figure if your Blades beat back a mounted charge it was because they were using their lances in defense! And don't forget the flank support Blades give to the Lb - a nice potent defensive formation. Not many Knights will want to charge into that combination.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 4, 2019 17:37:30 GMT
Remember, DBA doesn't classify troops by their weapons and armor, instead it does so by their psychology. Though the dismounted Men-at-Arms of the White Company may well have fought with Pikes or longer spears, Phil has judged them to be very much still men-at-arms... therefore Blades.
We see the same type of scenario with the troops of the Dark Ages. There was little difference in the armament of the Saxon, Viking, or Scot. Yet, we have them classified as Spear, Blade, and "Fast" Pike respectively. The Vikings were certain mainly armed with spears... yet, we rate them as Blades. The Saxons certainly had better swords and axes than the Vikings on many occasions, yet we rate them mostly as Spear.
I hope this helps...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by panthros on Jan 5, 2019 9:46:25 GMT
Remember, DBA doesn't classify troops by their weapons and armor, instead it does so by their psychology. Though the dismounted Men-at-Arms of the White Company may well have fought with Pikes or longer spears, Phil has judged them to be very much still men-at-arms... therefore Blades. We see the same type of scenario with the troops of the Dark Ages. There was little difference in the armament of the Saxon, Viking, or Scot. Yet, we have them classified as Spear, Blade, and "Fast" Pike respectively. The Vikings were certain mainly armed with spears... yet, we rate them as Blades. The Saxons certainly had better swords and axes than the Vikings on many occasions, yet we rate them mostly as Spear. I hope this helps... Joe Collins Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 5, 2019 12:23:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 5, 2019 13:39:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jan 5, 2019 22:09:13 GMT
Hello Stevie
I assume that you do not mean their psychology literally, more their method of fighting. (study of mind, what they are thinking)
So even if the veterans at Cannae were equipped with Roman weapons, if they fought like spear (hoplites) they become spear.
Now since mixed weapon troops have a choice, do you make 3Ax with spear Thracians into pike, surley no, warbands yes.
The fix is to enlarge the number of troop types.
The Hypaspists are highly trained multi tasking soldiers, so vary from battle to battle, and opponent to opponent.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 6, 2019 0:53:58 GMT
This is what Phil writes, no psychology "Wargamers pay more attention to weaponry than did real commanders. Surviving ancient manuals lump all foot skirmishers as psiloi whether armed with javelins, sling or bow, defining them by function rather than armament. We have applied the same principle throughout with no apparent loss of overall realism. Morale and training distinctions have also been discarded as linked with function. Thus, most knights are rash, all warbands are fierce but brittle, all skirmishers are timid." This is what Phil says about hypaspists in II/12 ALEXANDRIAN MACEDONIAN 359 BC - 319 BC. (they) seem to have been more mobile than the phalangites and are equated with the figures depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus at Sidon with hoplite shield, helmet, greaves and light body armour. They were not yet rearmed with pike, but carried longche (a dual-purpose throwing and thrusting spear), so are classed as 4Ax." For the Imperial army, he writes " the hypaspists were now pike-armed and had become the “argyraspids” (silver shields). " Quite a bit more informative than just "“Oh, they’re armed with spears, so they must be auxiliaries then”?!" Regarding Carthage, he writes "It is unlikely that the Libyans and veterans said to have been rearmed with captured Roman equipment after Hannibal’s initial victories in Italy adopted Roman weapons as well as mail armour. " The game is based on Phil's theory of ancient warfare and his ideas of army composition and need not be consistent  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 6, 2019 3:12:31 GMT
This is what Phil writes, no psychology "Wargamers pay more attention to weaponry than did real commanders. Surviving ancient manuals lump all foot skirmishers as psiloi whether armed with javelins, sling or bow, defining them by function rather than armament. We have applied the same principle throughout with no apparent loss of overall realism. Morale and training distinctions have also been discarded as linked with function. Thus, most knights are rash, all warbands are fierce but brittle, all skirmishers are timid." This is what Phil says about hypaspists in II/12 ALEXANDRIAN MACEDONIAN 359 BC - 319 BC. (they) seem to have been more mobile than the phalangites and are equated with the figures depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus at Sidon with hoplite shield, helmet, greaves and light body armour. They were not yet rearmed with pike, but carried longche (a dual-purpose throwing and thrusting spear), so are classed as 4Ax." For the Imperial army, he writes " the hypaspists were now pike-armed and had become the “argyraspids” (silver shields). " Quite a bit more informative than just "“Oh, they’re armed with spears, so they must be auxiliaries then”?!" Regarding Carthage, he writes "It is unlikely that the Libyans and veterans said to have been rearmed with captured Roman equipment after Hannibal’s initial victories in Italy adopted Roman weapons as well as mail armour. " The game is based on Phil's theory of ancient warfare and his ideas of army composition and need not be consistent
Yes, as I said. The psychology of the fighting man. Phil uses many terms... function, method, style... all these are determined by the mindset (mental and emotional factors) of the warriors involved. This is what separates Blade from Spear, Knights from Cavalry, and Pike from Blades.
The Hypaspists could actually be classified as Blades... I tend to agree with Phil's classification of Hannibal's Spanish/Gaulic troops as 4Ax... I just think Ax aren't implemented quite correctly.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 6, 2019 9:10:21 GMT
This is what Phil writes, "Wargamers pay more attention to weaponry than did real commanders." This is what Phil says about hypaspists in II/12 ALEXANDRIAN MACEDONIAN 359 BC - 319 BC. (they) seem to have been more mobile than the phalangites and are equated with the figures depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus at Sidon with hoplite shield, helmet, greaves and light body armour. They were not yet rearmed with pike, but carried longche (a dual-purpose throwing and thrusting spear), so are classed as 4Ax." Sorry I can't get the quote function working right on mobile************ I detect a delicious note of irony here when it comes to the Hypaspists. First saying that war gamer should pay less attention to weaponary and then classifying the Hypaspists as 4Ax because of their weapons. The bottom line is that classifying Hypaspists as 4Ax means that they cannot be used in DBA in the same manner that Alexander used them. If you refight Alexander’s battles in DBA you find that on average the Hypaspists seriously underperform when compared to history. Now I am NOT saying they never behaved as 4Ax - indeed at Halicarnassus a 4Ax classification is very reasonable and at Granicus where they formed the mobile hinge between the Phalanx and the Cavalry, in the open, they fought the Paphlagonian Cavalry over a riverbank - a 3 vs 4 fight which they won. This is believable under DBA. But now look at Issus where their were pitched against Thermondas’ Hoplites and outflanked by Kardaces while crossing a river. That is a 2 vs 6 match up which they won - which is only possible with a 6-1 die roll. At Gaugamela their tactics were even worse for 4Ax as they led the echelon advance rather than refused their flank and were outflanked in the open by spear - this is a 1 vs 6 match up - now requiring a 7-1 die roll to repeat history. Then at Hydaspes they were flanked on both sides facing Elephants a 1 vs 5 matchup which they won again only possible with a 6-1 die roll. So in conclusion either Alexander played with loaded dice OR the Hypaspists were 1:100,000 lucky OR the Hypaspists are wrongly classified as 4Ax. Now IF you classify Hypaspists as 4Ax//3Bd//Sp which I consider befits their status, morale and fighting style, then Issus becomes a 4 vs 6 match up, Gaugamela a 3 vs 5 matchup and Hydaspes a 2 vs 5 match up. Which makes the Hypaspists merely very lucky on the DBA table and not doing the impossible. If you restrict them to a single classification the I would argue that 3Bd is FAR more appropriate than 4Ax. Sorry just my 2p! Rant over! Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2019 12:35:15 GMT
Rant away Paddy...if you hadn’t then I would have  (oh what the hell, I’ll rant as well).Concerning Hannibal’s VeteransPolybius specifically tells us that Hannibal re-equipped his veterans with captured Roman equipment before the battle of Cannae. This claim is unique...no other ancient historian mentions any other general of the ancient period adopting their opponent's gear. He is trying to tell us something important. Does this mean that the Carthaginian spearmen changed to fight in the Roman style? They might have...or they might not. The truth is we just don’t know. But one thing we DO know...at Cannae they were veterans, and veteran spearmen would be better than ordinary spearmen. So what in DBA is better than Sp? Answer---> 4Bd, who don’t need side-support and who aggressively pursue, thus saving PIPs. The first sentence on page 3 of the rules says:- “Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and moral classes.” Battlefield behaviour. Which best describes the behaviour of Hannibal’s veterans at Cannae?:- Defensive cautious troops who formed a relatively passive shieldwall, -- or-- Aggressive troops that got stuck-in and were used offensively. Concerning Alexander’s HypaspistsWhat on earth was Phil Barker thinking when he decided that the elite Hypaspists were no better than lowly 4Ax. Apparently they used spears, so shall we make them spearmen? Naaa...that would make them as good as Greek hoplites. I know; let’s make ‘em WEAKER than hoplites! That’ll show how tough they were in reality... Again it’s all a question of battlefield behaviour. Which best describes the behaviour of Alexander’s elite Hypaspists?:- Low combat factor troops who can’t stand in the front line, can’t pursue so they leave a gap between the pursuing Phalangites and Companions, and move so slowly they can’t even keep up with the mounted, -- or-- High combat factor troops who can stand in the front line, who do pursue so they don’t leave a gap between the Phalangites and the Companions, and who move fast enough so they can keep up with the mounted. 3Bd ticks all the right boxes for elite troops, while 4Ax has none of the characteristics expected of the Hypspists. What’s In A Name?Is it the word “Blade” that is putting people off the idea of having Alexander’s elite troops as 3Bd? If instead of the worlds “Pikemen”, “Spearmen”, “Blades” and “Auxiliaries”, had DBA used the alternative names “Pikemen”, “Shieldwall”, “Skilled Fighters” and “Auxiliaries”, would players still deny the Hypaspists their rightful place in the “Skilled Fighters” class and persist in trying to shoehorn them into the “Auxiliaries”? After all, it’s only a name... Actually, I think Phil Barker’s approach of classifying troops by their battlefield behaviour is an excellent one. Much better than trying to arbitrarily decide who has the biggest shield, or who has the superior iron helmet and who has the inferior bronze one, or who has the longest weapon (!) like some other rulesets try to do. But this has to be done in context, looking at an army as a whole, and not just looking at individual figures. In the Macedonian army, with Pk having a CF of 6, and Sp having a CF of 5 with side-support and a CF of 4 without it, giving the elite superior veteran Hypaspists a CF of only 3 does not reflect their real-life characteristics. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 6, 2019 20:21:10 GMT
Many players of DBA forget that Alexander and Hannibal and even Caesar and Richard III did not fight in tournaments DBA has two functions, firstly to allow people around the world to play games against each other in a tournament format with standard armies and rules. Or in pick up games. Secondly it allows people to recreate historical battles, whether as 12 vs 12 or in giant games. For the former some standardization is needed. Phil provides the standardization based on his reading of history, even though there is inconsistency. Nevertheless, the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them. I would like to have two Queens when I play chess, but I go with the rules. On the other had, the rules provide a useful framework for individuals to modify and create their own versions of armies to match their own reading of history. Likewise, players can make modifications to the rules to cover what they think are historical circumstances. You cannot recreate the plains of Gaugamela using the terrain system of the rules. There is no reason that players cannot make up what they consider real-life characteristics within the tool box of DBA. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jan 6, 2019 20:45:50 GMT
Hellow Stevie
If fully developed Hypaspist might have become better than hoplites. Consider the following.
1. - At the start hoplites wear heavy armour which gets lighter, with good non-metal body armour.
2. - They are expensive troops to hire and people start to hire peltasts, now initially they have javelin and are 3Ax.
3. - The 3Ax peltasts are not very good against cavalry so they for a short period carry a longspear as well, hoplites liked to have them on their flanks.
4. - The find this works well so they refine their tactics, the become Hellenistic style peltasts with longspear and javelin. They are good troops and become more available as troops convert. So you have 4Ax on hoplite combat factors, however I believe they did not forget their 3Ax origins and when fighting on difficult ground they reverted to 3Ax with javelin style fighting.
Now to do that, or something like it would cause a few changes in DBA, it and other things require a bit of a re-write.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 7, 2019 0:58:41 GMT
Many players of DBA forget that Alexander and Hannibal and even Caesar and Richard III did not fight in tournaments DBA has two functions, firstly to allow people around the world to play games against each other in a tournament format with standard armies and rules. Or in pick up games. Secondly it allows people to recreate historical battles, whether as 12 vs 12 or in giant games. For the former some standardization is needed. Phil provides the standardization based on his reading of history, even though there is inconsistency. Nevertheless, the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them. I would like to have two Queens when I play chess, but I go with the rules. On the other had, the rules provide a useful framework for individuals to modify and create their own versions of armies to match their own reading of history. Likewise, players can make modifications to the rules to cover what they think are historical circumstances. You cannot recreate the plains of Gaugamela using the terrain system of the rules. There is no reason that players cannot make up what they consider real-life characteristics within the tool box of DBA. Well put bob! |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jan 7, 2019 6:38:30 GMT
Many players of DBA forget that Alexander and Hannibal and even Caesar and Richard III did not fight in tournaments DBA has two functions, firstly to allow people around the world to play games against each other in a tournament format with standard armies and rules. Or in pick up games. Secondly it allows people to recreate historical battles, whether as 12 vs 12 or in giant games. For the former some standardization is needed. Phil provides the standardization based on his reading of history, even though there is inconsistency. Nevertheless, the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them. I would like to have two Queens when I play chess, but I go with the rules. On the other had, the rules provide a useful framework for individuals to modify and create their own versions of armies to match their own reading of history. Likewise, players can make modifications to the rules to cover what they think are historical circumstances. You cannot recreate the plains of Gaugamela using the terrain system of the rules. There is no reason that players cannot make up what they consider real-life characteristics within the tool box of DBA. Hello Bob
Although developing the rules to suit your local group is a good idea in some respects, in actual practice it might cause a few problems, especially if you are an older person.
In the 1970s and 1980s it was common in the U.K. for clubs running the National Championship to use their own rules, or modifications, this caused a lot of problems. In my case I turned up to play in a knockout round of WW2, I had no rules, no army lists, nothing. In another case I turned up to a game to find the army lists had changed.
I suspect a lot of people would be happier with a standard set, that is only interpreted one way.
David Constable
|
|
(oh what the hell, I’ll rant as well).