|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 31, 2018 14:30:46 GMT
Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but it bugs me. Hope it makes sense. In DBA a littoral landing is made against an opposing army, two problems are obvious. First - How many battles ACTUALLY took place where an army made an opposed landing against an army that was already there and waiting. The Romans in Kent are one immediate thought, but they are not littoral and also landed the whole army, so cannot do what they did historically. Second - A lot more might have received reinforcements from the sea, those would be littoral in the DBA game sense. At Marathon the Greeks attacked the Persians, the Persians were probably reinforced by troops on the boats that landed to fight the Greeks. A littoral landing in the DBA game sense. The problem is that there were probably very few instances of actual opposed landings, and they do not fit the DBA game littoral landing rules, but probably a lot more where additional troops landed that did help an army that had previously landed, but they need to be on the battlefield itself to fit DBA, two miles away is not good enough. We will not complicate the matter further by pointing out Vikings landing near London or Paris to destroy defended bridges, both on rivers. David Constable And I entirely agree with you David. In DBA 3.0 a Littoral Landing is in effect a wide outflanking manoeuvre, but conducted by sea instead of on land. However, I am unable to find even a single solitary example of this ever being done in reality in ancient or medieval times. And believe me, I have searched...and am still searching. In fact, I’m unable to find even a single example of it happening in modern times either! D-Day in 1944 was an entire army, not just a small part of one, all landing together, as was the Anzio landings in Italy in 1944, and the Gallipoli landings in 1915, and Caesar’s 55 BC & 54 BC landings in Briton, and the same for Suetonius Paulinus’ landing in Mona (Anglesey) in 60 AD. Now this is odd as the ancients certainly had the capability of landing a small amphibious force in the middle of a set-piece battle. So why was it never done? I think the answer is pretty obvious and staring us in the face...the ships would take time to sail across the water and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react), they would be vulnerable and take time to disembark on the beaches and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react), and the troops would take time to form-up and get themselves organized as they advanced and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react). That’s why there are no records of it ever being done in reality...it wouldn’t have worked! Nonetheless, Littoral Landings are in the rules, even if they are an abstract unrealistic artificial cartoony gamey construct that has no historical basis whatsoever. It might have been better if being Littoral reflected the true capabilities of having a seaborne force (here goes Stevie House Ruling again!). Having the ability to land anywhere along a coastline means you have the element of surprise and are able to catch the enemy off-guard. Also, it means your army is not so dependent on normal supply lines, but can be supplied by sea, giving you more strategic mobility. Therefore, after the aggression roll to determine in who's region the battle will take place, if there is a Waterway present the player with the most Littoral capable troops gets to freely decide if they want to be the defender (as they got to the battlefield first) or the attacker (as they have caught the enemy on the march). If both sides have an equal amount of Littoral elements, then the normal aggression roll applies. That would be a better way of reflecting the advantages of being Littoral and having a fleet of warships, transports, or small boats. Just a thought.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Stevie,
Here is one for your collection.
Zanj rebellion against the Abbasid.
During the battles around Basrah (Basra), the Zanj used their mobility over the waterways to move troops.
The Zanj Rebellion Reconsidered by Ghada Hashem Talhami.
The Abbasid also equipped boats to fight the Zanj in the marsh regions of Southern Iraq. The flotilla was commanded by Nasayr Abu Hamza.
The Armies of the Caliph by Hugh Kennedy.
Both references quote Al-Tabari and although there is no specific reference to a particular battle, the war did utilize combined land and waterborne assaults. Some Abbasid river craft were even equipped with siege engines to demolish Zanj fortified positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 31, 2018 15:59:55 GMT
Oh Timurilank, you’ve just reminded me that I’ve forgotten to mention coastal sieges. Yes, there are many references to assaulting a coastal city from both land and sea simultaneously, such as Tyre in 332 BC, Syracuse in 212 BC, Byzantine Constantinople several times, and many others. But I still can’t find any examples of anyone trying to use a small naval force to perform a wide outflanking move by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle. Anyway, the current DBA Littoral Landing rules do not cover simultaneous coastal assaults...you would need special rules to allow foot elements to be in deep water as they contact the city’s seaward walls, or better still use ships to represent them so they could recoil away from a failed assault. (Yet another of my thousand-and-one secret projects...proper siege rules for DBA... ...)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 31, 2018 18:42:34 GMT
Oh Timurilank, you’ve just reminded me that I’ve forgotten to mention coastal sieges. Yes, there are many references to assaulting a coastal city from both land and sea simultaneously, such as Tyre in 332 BC, Syracuse in 212 BC, Byzantine Constantinople several times, and many others. But I still can’t find any examples of anyone trying to use a small naval force to perform a wide outflanking move by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle. Anyway, the current DBA Littoral Landing rules do not cover simultaneous coastal assaults...you would need special rules to allow foot elements to be in deep water as they contact the city’s seaward walls, or better still use ships to represent them so they could recoil away from a failed assault. (Yet another of my thousand-and-one secret projects...proper siege rules for DBA... ...)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
How about this action?The Maranid fleet defeated the Castilian fleet,landed the releiving army in full view of the besiegers..then attacked and routed the beseiging army! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Algeciras_(1278–79) |
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Jul 31, 2018 23:45:50 GMT
Maybe I'm way off, but weren't the Batavians used on a number of occasions to cross major waterways as a flanking force by the Romans?
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 1, 2018 0:08:52 GMT
Didn't the battle of Jaffa (1192) involve both a Littoral Landing by Richard and an assault on a BUA (Fort) and even the defenders of the fort sallying out?
All the cartoony issues in one battle?
And Stevie - as you say - the ships sailing would be spotted and the opposition can react,
sort of how it works now when I deploy only nine elements of my Littoral army and the opposing player either keeps away from the waterway or blocks it with tough troops specifically designed to counter the elements in my landing (or back in v2.2 placing a camp and lining the waterway with the troops so that the landing was limited to one spot).
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 1, 2018 7:34:51 GMT
Thanks for that link Haardrada...a very interesting read. But I’m not sure that it’s relevant as it describes a Muslim army entirely landing inside one of their own coastal cities while the Spanish are powerless to stop them having lost their fleet, then sallying forth against the emaciated diseased besiegers. And Gregorius, when Alexander crossed the river Hydaspes in 326 BC, and when Hannibal crossed the Rhone river in 218 BC, they both did so by sending a small concealed outflanking force miles up the river out of sight of the enemy. I can’t find any examples of where a small contingent of Batavians did an amphibious landing in the middle of a battle in full view of the defending Germanic tribesmen. And Macbeth, I’m glad you mentioned Jaffa in 1192:- When Richard the Lionheart began his withdrawal from the Holy Land in 1192 AD, Saladin laid siege and assaulted the coastal fortress of Jaffa, capturing all but the citadel. On the 27th of July Richard with a small force arrived by sea, and he immediately stormed ashore and defeated Saladin’s forces within the city. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192) )However:- With only 54 knights, a few hundred infantry, and 2,000 Genoese/Pisan crossbowmen, it was more like a large skirmish. And it was really a city assault from the sea, and not a full land battle out in the open. Lastly, he stormed ashore with his entire force, small as it was, and not just a part of it. None of the above can be reproduced with the current Littoral Landing rules. My search for an example of an outflanking manoeuvre by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle continues... ...but I suppose that if the Littoral detachment appeared not on the Waterway itself, but within 1 BW of a table edge that touches a Waterway, that would simulate a wide waterborne outflanking manoeuvre out of sight of the enemy (imagine if the Anzio landing in 1944 had advanced and suddenly appeared behind the German front line instead of just digging in and waiting...) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 1, 2018 7:50:53 GMT
The Batavians swam across on several occasions with full equipment (Medway), being from the Holland/Low Countries area the were obviously used to it.
Purely as a matter of interest, not to cause trouble, the Batavians after being reformed (revolt) seem to have fought effectively as legionaries but with the same vulnerability to terrain as auxilia.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 1, 2018 8:26:30 GMT
Ha! When I lived in Kent David I used to belong to the Medway Yachting club (or the ‘Mudway’ as we used to call it, as it hasn’t been dredged in decades and is torturous to navigate at low tide...and at high tide you can’t get under the bridges!). Here is an excellent detailed article about the Battle of Medway and is a must read for all Roman wargamers:- www.britishbattles.com/wars-of-roman-britain/battle-of-medway/However, the heavy legionaries also crossed this river along side of the Batavians in full view of the Britons defending the far bank, so it is more of a river crossing than an amphibious landing (mind you, perhaps the Batavians should treat all rivers as paltry?) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 1, 2018 13:44:10 GMT
Ha! When I lived in Kent David I used to belong to the Medway Yachting club (or the ‘Mudway’ as we used to call it, as it hasn’t been dredged in decades and is torturous to navigate at low tide...and at high tide you can’t get under the bridges!). Here is an excellent detailed article about the Battle of Medway and is a must read for all Roman wargamers:- www.britishbattles.com/wars-of-roman-britain/battle-of-medway/However, the heavy legionaries also crossed this river along side of the Batavians in full view of the Britons defending the far bank, so it is more of a river crossing than an amphibious landing (mind you, perhaps the Batavians should treat all rivers as paltry?) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Interesting article, thanks. It is interesting that only the Batavians are mentioned as having swum the river, if the legions crossed up-stream on a wider section then it might well have been shallow enough to cross by wadding, the Batavians might have chosen their crossing point because it was deep and therefore unguarded.
A lot of rivers have been narrowed to give a better depth of water, the Thames at London is a good example. Locally just up-stream from me at Pershore circa 100 years ago was a ford crossable in dry weather by children, it would be over my head in the centre now, even after the long drought we have had. To be sure of what a river looked like in Roman times needs a lot of information that we very rarely have.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 1, 2018 14:49:45 GMT
Thanks for that link Haardrada...a very interesting read. But I’m not sure that it’s relevant as it describes a Muslim army entirely landing inside one of their own coastal cities while the Spanish are powerless to stop them having lost their fleet, then sallying forth against the emaciated diseased besiegers. And Gregorius, when Alexander crossed the river Hydaspes in 326 BC, and when Hannibal crossed the Rhone river in 218 BC, they both did so by sending a small concealed outflanking force miles up the river out of sight of the enemy. I can’t find any examples of where a small contingent of Batavians did an amphibious landing in the middle of a battle in full view of the defending Germanic tribesmen. And Macbeth, I’m glad you mentioned Jaffa in 1192:- When Richard the Lionheart began his withdrawal from the Holy Land in 1192 AD, Saladin laid siege and assaulted the coastal fortress of Jaffa, capturing all but the citadel. On the 27th of July Richard with a small force arrived by sea, and he immediately stormed ashore and defeated Saladin’s forces within the city. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192) )However:- With only 54 knights, a few hundred infantry, and 2,000 Genoese/Pisan crossbowmen, it was more like a large skirmish. And it was really a city assault from the sea, and not a full land battle out in the open. Lastly, he stormed ashore with his entire force, small as it was, and not just a part of it. None of the above can be reproduced with the current Littoral Landing rules. My search for an example of an outflanking manoeuvre by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle continues... ...but I suppose that if the Littoral detachment appeared not on the Waterway itself, but within 1 BW of a table edge that touches a Waterway, that would simulate a wide waterborne outflanking manoeuvre out of sight of the enemy (imagine if the Anzio landing in 1944 had advanced and suddenly appeared behind the German front line instead of just digging in and waiting...) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
If you read more closely about the seige of Algiciras 1278-9..it was the remaining contense of a Maranid fleet that had destroyed,captured or driven off the Castilian fleet and then landed in the city under the land armies very noses and then defeated the emaciated remnants of 30,000 beseigers....does that not trump a flank attack?lol In game terms they've beaten the enemy fleet on the watetway...landed in a friendly defended BUA that was surrounded and beaten the enemy in a head on assult through the BUA.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 1, 2018 15:23:28 GMT
If we ignore the sea because we have problems finding examples, could a littoral landing:
1 - Only occur on the flank of an enemy army. (to nominally represent a flank attack)
2 - Represent crossing a river etc. further up-stream or down-stream.
If so then littoral would need re-defining, and possibly waterway only be permitted to littoral armies.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 1, 2018 19:27:56 GMT
I'm suprised there are not examples of flanking movements over lakes..which are also considered to be waterways?
Or would the Battle on the Ice be in contention?
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 2, 2018 7:39:21 GMT
I'm suprised there are not examples of flanking movements over lakes..which are also considered to be waterways? Or would the Battle on the Ice be in contention? Not something I have studied so do not know about flanking marches using boats. The nearest to the rules as written that I know of at the moment is Marathon. Strictly a flanking attack is not permitted, using boats or not.
The Battle on the Ice (lovely movie) is strictly a full army frontal assault which is not permitted, and did not use boats anyway.
It is always possible that PB intended a littoral landing to cover a multitude of ideas, and that we interpret it to literally (sorry for that word).
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 2, 2018 9:00:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 2, 2018 18:48:18 GMT
I'm suprised there are not examples of flanking movements over lakes..which are also considered to be waterways? Or would the Battle on the Ice be in contention? Not something I have studied so do not know about flanking marches using boats. The nearest to the rules as written that I know of at the moment is Marathon. Strictly a flanking attack is not permitted, using boats or not.
The Battle on the Ice (lovely movie) is strictly a full army frontal assault which is not permitted, and did not use boats anyway.
It is always possible that PB intended a littoral landing to cover a multitude of ideas, and that we interpret it to literally (sorry for that word).
David Constable
You might be on the right lines with PBs' intentions David....in the back of the 6th Edition WRG Ancients Phil was laying down rules for sieges and naval warfare...I think I remember the phrase "telescoping time" used loosely in order to describe the time difference with a real siege. My reference to the Battle on the ice was a bit of a pun as both armies seem to have fought on a frozen waterway and it involved flank attacks and envelopments.q Other than than the Battle of Marathon..the Battle of Aegospotami 405BC altough most probably counts as a naval action...but was a result of the Spartan fleet landing and destroying the Athenian fleet while beeched may in some way be considered a suprise attack from a Water way.😊 |
|
