Can Mounted become a Garrison?

A little history. Yes, this goes back a long time. April 2014. Below, my message to the group. Strange, isn't it that a Bow in a walled fort is worse against the Kn than when in the open 2 vs 3, instead of 4 vs 3?! Blade would get +5 vs mounted, and the Kn would get +3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I keep getting asked what is the difference between occupy and garrison.

I did a game yesterday that involved a fort. I was invader and attacked the Fort. that had Warband in it, with 2 Blades. I won, destroyed the Wb and immediately moved in. I wanted my Bw to be in the fort to cover by shooting the area around it. Three BW. So in next bound, with 2 PiPs
I moved the Bd out and with 1 PiP I moved the Bw into the fort.

The enemy did not like that pesky Bow shooting so he attacked with three Knights. Two were recoiled but third, the General won. We use the rule that Mounted attacking a Fort counted as Foot
"Troops assaulting or defending these use their combat factor against foot "

So the Bow were only +2 vs Knight at +3. Bow got the +4 defending factor, Gen got +1. This combat vs General was Bow(+2+4) +6, Kn Gen +4 (+3 +1) , Knight rolled 5, Bw rolled 2.

General won and moved in.

We happened to look at the April 11 version that has this rule.

"(b)A FORT (or castle) has permanent defences and a gate and must start the game garrisoned by a foot element. It has no economic value or denizens. It is left undefended if its garrison vacates it or is destroyed; and can then be occupied and garrisoned by any troop element. "

So the Kn General prepared to defend the Fort. Later we saw the April 19 change to say occupied and garrisoned by any FOOT element.

"It is left undefended if its garrison vacates it or is destroyed; and can then be occupied and garrisoned by any foot element."

Does this mean that no Mounted can enter a Fort if they defeat occupant?

What is difference between OCCUPIED and GARRISONED?

Do the rules for Destroy if Beaten apply to attackers of a Fort, City, Camp. If Wb defends and just beats Bd attacker, is attacker destroyed? "

One more anomly Rule: (a) The defenders of a city, fort or camp are destroyed in close combat then one assaulting element immediately moves in.

If three elements are attacking the entity, and the first one wins, and ANY of the three enter. Rule does not say, the "winning element immediately moves in."

Well Bob, as this thread has shown, I’m not exactly an expert when it comes to sussing-out Phil Barker’s thought processes.
Nonetheless I’ll have a go and throw in my two bobs worth (pun intended  ).

Firstly, mounted taking possession of a Fort after they have defeated the defenders:-
“(b) A FORT [7.4]: It is left undefended if its garrison vacates it or is destroyed; and can then be moved into and garrisoned by any foot element (except WWg) of either side.”
I assume that “moved into” here refers to voluntary movement, i.e. movement that costs PIPs, as opposed to involuntary combat outcomes:-
“Who pursues [12.10]: (a) If the defenders of a city, fort or camp are destroyed in close combat, then one assaulting element immediately moves in.”

But you’re right...it does seem odd that the victorious element, the one actually doing the dicing, is not the one to take possession.
I would imagine that if both mounted and foot were assaulting a city, and the mounted were successful in breaking-in, they would be pretty miffed to find that after they had done all the hard work, the foot had sneaked inside first and gained all the plunder from sacking the place. Especially as you have to be wealthy to own a mount, and aristocrats and nobles have a habit throughout history of pushing the lowly foot soldier out of the way.
On the other hand, by the time the temporarily dismounted mounted have climbed back down the scaling ladders to get to their mounts, they may well find that the foot have entered the city and closed the gates behind them to stop any of their mates from sharing in the spoils (I know people like that).
So perhaps leaving it up to the player to chose which element enters is the best solution.

And I think the Combat Outcomes are fairly straightforward:-
“If Score Less: (paraphrased as) Destroyed if sacking or defending, and recoil if assaulting, a City, Fort or Camp. Otherwise...”

But again you’re right that the word ‘sacking’ has been missed out if doubled, so it should read as:-
“If Score Doubled: Destroyed if sacking or defending a City, Fort or Camp. If not...”

However, I’m not so sure about your assertion that bow in a city/fort are weaker against mounted.
Ignoring overlaps, and remembering that bow are destroyed if they recoil from mounted or if they recoil while defending walls:-
    In the open:  Bw (CF 4) v Cv/Kn/Cm (CF 3)  = 10 chances of the Bw recoiling, and 4 of the mounted being doubled (out of 36).
    Behind walls: Bw (CF 2+4) v mounted(CF 3) =  3 chances of the Bw recoiling, and 9 of the mounted being doubled (out of 36).

Now it is true that Lb, Cb (and Bd for that matter) will not destroy Kn on an equal score when defending behind walls, because:-
“If Score Equal: No effect if attacking or defending a City, Fort or Camp. If not...”  (sacking has been missed out again)
...but this is understandable if the Knights have temporarily dismounted to climb the scaling ladders, and have left their vulnerable horses safely behind.

(Phil Barker is brilliant when it comes to conceiving ancient wargaming rules...but perhaps actually writing those rules in a fully coherent manner is not one of his strong points...)

and so if an Elephant unit, alone, win and destroy the defender, what happen?