|
|
Post by snowcat on May 28, 2024 1:07:26 GMT
Is it really that hard to find examples of Ps being used as bad terrain troops?
I highly doubt the 'barbarian' armies only had their skirmishers all deployed in front of the main warbands. I highly doubt the skirmishing Pictish archers hooded and crouching for concealment only did so directly in front of the main battle line, and not in intervening/flanking patches of scrub or woodland.
Light infantry aren't my thing; I see them as speed humps to ride over. But if they were, I bet I'd find more than a few examples of them being used as bad terrain troops and not as skirmishers directly in front of the main battle line.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 28, 2024 13:50:29 GMT
Is it really that hard to find examples of Ps being used as bad terrain troops? I highly doubt the 'barbarian' armies only had their skirmishers all deployed in front of the main warbands. I highly doubt the skirmishing Pictish archers hooded and crouching for concealment only did so directly in front of the main battle line, and not in intervening/flanking patches of scrub or woodland. Light infantry aren't my thing; I see them as speed humps to ride over. But if they were, I bet I'd find more than a few examples of them being used as bad terrain troops and not as skirmishers directly in front of the main battle line. Cheers Here are two perfect examples.... youtu.be/mMHDNDcy3qk?si=IK8UscQN0kmOwsejAnd... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechaeum |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 28, 2024 15:40:58 GMT
IMHO, it is important to keep in mind the intention of the author of the rules. I believe that coming to grips with the enemy quickly is intended by the author and the rules designed in that way. We only have 12 elements on 2x2ft board. I don't think PB intended a lot of manoeuvring nor added complication of a skirmisher screen. Most (not all) historical battle reports are "line up and have at it" affairs. I think DBA does what it says on the label and does it quite well. There are lots of other rulesets that allow more manoeuvring and added detail like skirmish lines. Some people like these added decisions. They certainly take longer to play. And if you break it down, many of them end up as 10-15 units with command rules that let you freely move about half of them when near the enemy. Very similar to DBA.
I am fine with DBA as it is, I just doubt that skirmishers work in a way that they did historically. But I am willing to listen to arguments against that position.
As it stands, I think that most Ps should either be abstracted away (screening) or should be Bw (shooting). Ps as they are work best as a difficult terrain specialist troop type. And that seems to be rare in the sources (as part of an open battle, not in ambushes or small scale warfare).
The battle of Lechaeum is not really a battle - that is 600 hoplites (one element of Sp?) being ambushed by peltasts. Also it does not seem as if difficult terrain played a role in this - just the greater mobility of the peltasts. This could actually work in DBA if you had multiple elements of Ps ganging up on a single element of Sp. For the battle of Sphacteria, I can find nothing suggesting the use of difficult terrain by the light troops in a way that could be emulated by DBA rules. They Athenian (and allied) archers and slingers did apparently use higher ground to shoot at the Spartan hoplites. Hard to do in DBA, since Ps do not shoot. Anyway, Ps in DBA would be well-advised to use terrain such as difficult hills, so it could be argued that this is historical in a way. It is the pestering of the hoplites (Sp) where the Ps fall flat. In a very abstract way, one could argue that their potential to rush out of the hills to take an enemy flank represents this. Hi felixs, before I wrote down these ideas I certainly playtested them. I matched my most unbalanced historical armies against each other, Norse Irish and Vikings, the vikings all 4Bd plus 1x4Bw, the Irish with 3xPs, 4Ax Gen, 2x4Ax, 5x3Ax, 1xCv. And I tested it on a billiard table terrain, everywhere only GG, but littoral. Both in straight lines of 9 units. The vikings with their flanks 2 deep, their general in the middle as a reserve, bows in the center. The Irish had their 3 Ps in front, followed directly by their battle line of Ax and Cv in their middle. I can't recall anymore all of the details, but normally this would have been an easy win for the viking steamroller, and indeed they won, killing 5 units in the end. But: the Irish had a good start and achieved right away 3 kills and 0 losses! Their middle Ps slowed the vikings long enough, so that the Cavalry managed to break up their shield wall, then the Ax achieved overlaps against the Bows and killed them, and then they outflanked more of the blades and killed one, and another. Then suddenly the tide turned. Bad PIP rolls kept the victorious Irish right frozen to the ground, while good PIP rolls let the viking blades turn the Irish left and killed their general. I must admit, I was quite surprised by this outcome. This was a fun game! But maybe it all was only luck...  And to answer your last question: The Ps zoc the enemy, in battle they prevail or recoil or flee, and then their friends of the main line still keep the enemy zocked, so he has to fight it out with the units I chose for him, or he falls back, creating a gap. In the end (as always) it all depends on how you spend your PIPs and how you exploit any small advantage...
Sounds fun, many thanks for your report. Would be interesting to see the PIP scores - I would assume that the only chance that the Irish stand is by good PIPs, with or without using Ps.
I will have to try out these ideas myself. If historical or not, it sounds like a fun game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 28, 2024 16:34:20 GMT
IMHO, it is important to keep in mind the intention of the author of the rules. I believe that coming to grips with the enemy quickly is intended by the author and the rules designed in that way. We only have 12 elements on 2x2ft board. I don't think PB intended a lot of manoeuvring nor added complication of a skirmisher screen. Most (not all) historical battle reports are "line up and have at it" affairs. I think DBA does what it says on the label and does it quite well. There are lots of other rulesets that allow more manoeuvring and added detail like skirmish lines. Some people like these added decisions. They certainly take longer to play. And if you break it down, many of them end up as 10-15 units with command rules that let you freely move about half of them when near the enemy. Very similar to DBA.
I am fine with DBA as it is, I just doubt that skirmishers work in a way that they did historically. But I am willing to listen to arguments against that position.
As it stands, I think that most Ps should either be abstracted away (screening) or should be Bw (shooting). Ps as they are work best as a difficult terrain specialist troop type. And that seems to be rare in the sources (as part of an open battle, not in ambushes or small scale warfare).
The battle of Lechaeum is not really a battle - that is 600 hoplites (one element of Sp?) being ambushed by peltasts. Also it does not seem as if difficult terrain played a role in this - just the greater mobility of the peltasts. This could actually work in DBA if you had multiple elements of Ps ganging up on a single element of Sp. For the battle of Sphacteria, I can find nothing suggesting the use of difficult terrain by the light troops in a way that could be emulated by DBA rules. They Athenian (and allied) archers and slingers did apparently use higher ground to shoot at the Spartan hoplites. Hard to do in DBA, since Ps do not shoot. Anyway, Ps in DBA would be well-advised to use terrain such as difficult hills, so it could be argued that this is historical in a way. It is the pestering of the hoplites (Sp) where the Ps fall flat. In a very abstract way, one could argue that their potential to rush out of the hills to take an enemy flank represents this. Maybe you should read the battle accounts?😁 At the battle of Lechaeum it was noted by the Athenian commander that the Spartans had chosen to march past the city without the support of Peltasts or Cavalry and that when a Cavalry force did join the Spartan contingent they remained with the main body instead of possibly moving ahead driving the skirmishers away.....it seems to suggest that normally that formed infantry would pass the city with Peltasts and/or Cavalry Support and that it was unusual for the Spartans to do something different(?)....this possibly suggests some change of terrain in the area other than open ground perhaps? As for the battle of Sphacteria,light troops had scaled cliffs to get to higher ground above the Spartans...denoting bad going.....which can be backed up by several photographs available online that show that the island is anything but flat open ground.😉 Check the photo of the island in this article(and the account mentioning the light troops scaling cliffs to get uphill of the Spartans who were in an uphill position the Athenians judged to be difficult to attack.)... www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/spartans-never-surrendered_battle-x.html |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 28, 2024 17:50:02 GMT
I surely do not want to come across as dismissive. I am very thankful for all your responses to my question, which is asked out of ignorance and with some hope that someone here may have the sort of knowledge that can clear this up. Maybe you should read the battle accounts?😁 At the battle of Lechaeum it was noted by the Athenian commander that the Spartans had chosen to march past the city without the support of Peltasts or Cavalry and that when a Cavalry force did join the Spartan contingent they remained with the main body instead of possibly moving ahead driving the skirmishers away.....it seems to suggest that normally that formed infantry would pass the city with Peltasts and/or Cavalry Support and that it was unusual for the Spartans to do something different(?)....this possibly suggests some change of terrain in the area other than open ground perhaps? As for the battle of Sphacteria,light troops had scaled cliffs to get to higher ground above the Spartans...denoting bad going.....which can be backed up by several photographs available online that show that the island is anything but flat open ground.😉 Check the photo of the island in this article(and the account mentioning the light troops scaling cliffs to get uphill of the Spartans who were in an uphill position the Athenians judged to be difficult to attack.)... www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/spartans-never-surrendered_battle-x.html
Of course I did read them, but I might have been too daft to get the important points 
As for Lechaeum, it could be as you say. Could also be any other way. To me it reads as though the Spartans simply acted stupidly (out of arrogance, perhaps?). The idea to keep the cavalry with the hoplites could mean that terrain made it difficult to use cavalry - but it does not say so in the report (if there is another report that says so, things would be a bit different). But also: Even if this is a case where light troops used difficult terrain, this is still not an example of that happening as part of an open field battle; which is what I am looking for. Still very interesting, of course.
As for Sphacteria, yes the reports seem to say that light troops occupied higher ground to pester the hoplites from up there. I think that is what I commented on before. Anyway, Spacteria is another case that does not really count as an open field battle, since numbers are so small - at least on the Spartan side. Could make for an interesting skirmish scenario, but probably not DBA scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 28, 2024 18:39:41 GMT
To be fair Spartan Cavalry were neither numerous or of good quality so maybe needed to stay close to the infantry. The Galatians had problems fighting the Anatolians when they first invaded Greece and could not cope with the Greek light infantry. www.britannica.com/biography/Brennus-Celtic-chieftain-died-279-BCEI mentioned a battle earlier in this thread where the Medieval Swiss used a linking unit of approx.800-1,000 light skirmishers(hand gunners) in the center of their line to link their attacking wings at the battle of Nancy. battlefieldanomalies.com/category-general/swiss-military-tactics/In fact Swiss Skirmishers were eager to get to grips with their enemies....initiating the Battle of Grandson and we're known to shelter by lying down under the pikes of the Swiss squares to evade Cavalry charges....They were later known as "infant perdu" and found stripping off to swimming rivers to get at their enemy in the Italian wars. Earlier during the Swiss struggle for independence many battles were no more than large scale ambushes in which light troops would have been essential given the hilly and heavy-wooded areas in which they were fought. Not to say they were the only light infantry to behave like this, but are certainly recorded as such. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 28, 2024 19:13:27 GMT
Not sure about Nancy as a good example. I am not convinced that these handgunners should be Ps in DBA. And it does not seem that they were making use of difficult terrain in DBA terms. Of course, the general conditions of the battle severely disadvantaged the Burgundian knights, so there may be an argument there. The Galatians (and Celts in general) are a good example of an army having problems with countering skirmishers (not in DBA, by the way). But does this mean that skirmishers fought in difficult terrain in the DBA way? It seems to me that these difficulties were due to a general unwillingness (or lack of experience) in ranged combat. Spartan cavalry (like most Greek cavalry) would normally have been supported by light infantry (skirmishers). This only adds to the dilemma of how this fits into DBA terms (I suggest mixing one or two skirmisher figures onto a Cv base). You are quite right about many battles being (more or less large scale) ambushes. That does not make it easier to talk about them in DBA terms. I totally agree that skirmishers would historically have been very useful for ambushes and often were very succesful with them. In fact, it seems the only sensible tactic (and strategy) against a "heavier" (better armed, trained for open field combat) enemy. Or would anyone disagree that DBA battles are not meant to represent ambushes? It may be a bit difficult to delineate what exactly is an ambush, since a good battle plan usually would outwit and surprise the enemy, thus, in a way, ambushing him. But I think it is still possible to have a fruitful exchange of ideas about this.
And does everyone agree that we need to distinguish between a certain type of battle that DBA aims to portray and other sorts of fighting that are out of the scope of DBA? If we broaden the scope to include nearly all sorts of (small and larger) battles it is a lot easier to find examples of skirmishers fighting DBA style, but I would argue that we are not talking about DBA anymore in that case.
Again - I am happy to play DBA as it is. Whether it is historically sound or not, it works as a game and most things in DBA "feel" much more "historically right" (whatever that is) than other rules I have played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 29, 2024 1:07:37 GMT
Not sure about Nancy as a good example. I am not convinced that these handgunners should be Ps in DBA. And it does not seem that they were making use of difficult terrain in DBA terms. Of course, the general conditions of the battle severely disadvantaged the Burgundian knights, so there may be an argument there. [/div][/quote] I'd suggest Nancy is a GOOD example,hand gunners of this period in Swiss armies are described as replacing the crossbowmen that often accompanied Swiss formations armed with mixed Pikes & Halbards,which in several accounts are skirmishing with opposing skirmishers and withdrew to the safety of the larger formations for protection or did not impede their advance...on only one occasion(Battle of Laupen),where light troops throwing stone hampered an advancing formation....Swiss formations and battle tactics of this period are well documented. Otherwise,Swiss crossbowmen or hand gunners are described as skirmishers in most sets of rules that I know...unless you know otherwise? At Nancy the terrain was extremely difficult and the Burgundians deployed in a very good defensive position(or so it was thought....a river(waterway) on their left flank, a stream,boggy ground and broken terrain to their front,boggy ground again to their rear and a "supposedly" impassible steep,wooded hill to their right....I'd also suggest that in the deep snow the ground wasn't advantageous to anyone. Plus in DBA terms the numbers difference would not count if both sides have 12 elements....it would be the Allies who could have a further disadvantage of shortening their frontage to use their Pk elements more effectively....just saying.🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 3:59:43 GMT
One of the problems with examples of battles or ambushes or delaying actions, etc. using 'peltasts' or 'light troops' in classical warfare is whether the terms are referring to Ax or Ps or sometimes both.
There are times when the peltast/light troop appears more like Ps than Ax and v.v.
Anyway, at Sphacteria 'the peltasts, unencumbered by armour or heavy shields, can easily avoid the formidable Spartan charge over rough ground. The Spartans are constantly harried by sling bullets, arrows and javelins, all launched from a range of 50 yards or so...they withdraw to their hilltop outpost in a ruined fort. The Spartans hold out until a Messenian officer leads his light troops along the clifftop and surprises the Spartan rear.'
'Arrian succinctly highlights the value of light troops when he writes that they "inflict wounds at long range". He also notes how useful they are for occupying high ground, dislodging opposing troops, conducting reconnaisance and ambush, and pursuing a broken enemy.'
'On the March: The Retreat of Xenophon's Ten Thousand. This incident emphasises the importance of dominating high ground. The Greek infantry retreats over a series of ridges. A rearguard of light troops prevents a Persian cavalry charge by holding the high ground until the infantry had passed. They then move around the contours and repeat the maneuver while an advance guard secures the next ridge in sequence. The Asiatics block the retreat by occupying a ridge overlooking the road. The Greek light troops race for the summit of the hill above the Asiatic position and drive the enemy back down the hill, clearing the road and securing the advance. Lightness and swiftness are vital during this sort of operation. Light troops are ideal as an ambushing force. Here they lie in wait beyond a water course for the pursuing Persian cavalry. Once in range, they force the enemy back against the natural obstacle and inflict heavy casualties on the Persians as they panic in their haste to re-cross the stream.'
From 'Warfare in the Classical World' by John Warry.
Now I expect much of the above to be dismissed in some form or another because it may not suit a particular point of view or for the very broadness of the terms used. But this only took a few minutes to copy from a couple of pages of one book on classical warfare. If I were to keep going, I would be able to copy many more examples of light troops occupying the flanks, operating in bad going, etc. Do you really need me to do this? Ultimately, if we keep getting to a point where whenever the quote doesn't support the agenda, the light troops suddenly weren't really 'Ps', or the going wasn't really that 'bad', then we're wasting our time. Even the term 'evidence' is highly subjective.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 29, 2024 6:32:33 GMT
I surely do not want to be dismissive about what others have found on the topic. All very interesting and enlightening on the role of skirmishers and light troops, but not really what I am looking for (which is skirmishers used to occupy and hold difficult terrain in support of heavier troops in open field battle). I am thus not convinced by what I have read here so far. But, on the other hand, I am also unable to solve the question myself without further reading. Just a few points: - Reconnaissance clearly is what light troops were great at. But is that inside the scope of a DBA battle? - Is securing the march (rearguarding actions, scouting etc.) inside the scope of DBA? - We all agree on the usefulness of light troops for ambushes. But are they part of DBA battles? (I think a point can be made for skirmishers in bad terrain representing such ambushes. Very abstract, but a possible line of argument). - Should we look at skirmisher action in a much more abstract way? DBA is out of scale at other things too. The way cities are handled (sieges, occupation, defences, puppet administrations) suggests that we can expect a very liberal approach to scale in some places. If so, we could take skirmishers occupying difficult terrain as scouting, preparation of ambushes etc., thereby securing advantages for the army using those skirmishers. It may all be a matter of perspective. (My original perspective - DBA as exclusively portraying the "open field battle" stage of warfare - may be wrong). Another problem is that most battle accounts are not as detailed as we would wish. At least that is true for the battle accounts that I have. It may not be possible to reach a conclusion from the materials at hand.
To illustrate my own approach and problem with this, I should show some of my reading on the topic (which is very inconclusive): Erdkamp: "A Companion to the Roman Army" mentions skirmishers as screening the battle line in the open, as exchaning missile fire, as shooting overhead over heavier troops. The only thing vaguely resembling the use of skirmishers to hold bad terrain is "Light troops have always exploited their ability to use terrain deadly or inaccessible to others" (p. 222). Unfortunately, no example given for that (in the context, it is about skirmishers swimming through bodies of water to attack the enemy - highly interesting, but not possible in DBA). Vegetius clearly describes the place of skirmishers as in the front of the heavy troops, harrassing the enemy. (Book 3/14). I have found nothing else in Vegetius. Machiavelli seems to mostly distinguish between light and heavy armies, seeing Western armies on the heavy side, while Asiatic armies tend to be light. But nothing on tactics that I could relate to the question of how skirmishers were used in battle. Here is an interesting discussion of a similar topic among wargamers: theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=230057&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 6:50:31 GMT
It really depends on the conclusions you *want* to reach. And how determined you are to find opposing viewpoints.
I know that if I continue copying quotes or diagrams from the books in my collection, I could fill pages of this forum with examples of light infantry not merely occupying the front of the main battle line.
So...I think I'll leave you to it.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 29, 2024 7:03:41 GMT
It really depends on the conclusions you *want* to reach. And how determined you are to find opposing viewpoints.
On the contrary, I am very open to all sorts of interpretations and views.
I would be delighted to find that what DBA does with Ps is a better representation of historical practice (in a given era of time) than I think it is.
I could fill pages of this forum with examples of light infantry not merely occupying the front of the main battle line.
I never doubted that light infantry did all sorts of things.
My original question (which I am still interested in) is about whether there are examples of light infantry being used to secure and occupy spots of difficult terrain as a part of an open field battle; as opposed to them being used as a skirmish screen. Since this is the normal way to use Ps in DBA, it seems interesting to find out whether that is the "historical" way to use these troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 7:04:48 GMT
And yet you've already been shown examples that counter your POV and dismissed them, so no you're not really trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 29, 2024 7:15:33 GMT
This is getting a bit too heated for my taste. I am not looking for trouble.
And yet you've already been shown examples that counter your POV and dismissed them, so no you're not really trying. I find them not fully convincing and I have stated why I did find them so. I also wrote that I found the examples interesting and I have suggested how one could interpret them to reach at the conclusion that they fit into the DBA picture.
If anything I wrote came across as offensive or harsh, that was not my intention and I apologize for that. I am interested in an exchange of ideas. And I must concede that I have relatively little to give; apart from playing the devil's advocate.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 7:35:49 GMT
Battle of Chaeronea 338 BC
Fought between the high ground of the Acropolis and the river.
According to John Warry's diagrams, both sides' light troops occupied the higher ground on one flank and the marshes on the other, not in front of the main battle lines.
Macedonians used peltasts for this, the Allies a mix of peltasts, slingers and javelinmen.
pp68-69 Warfare in the Classical World.
Evidence? Ask John Warry. (Apparently he's still alive which is pretty incredible if true.)
|
|
