|
Post by felixs on May 29, 2024 7:45:49 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.
Thanks, I will have to find a copy of Warry. The account on Wikipedia is inconclusive and mentions "Details of the battle itself are scarce, with Diodorus providing the only formal account." But looks promising nevertheless.
This example is good, because it is an open field battle without any doubt.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 7:53:55 GMT
Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC
According to John Warry (again) the Carthaginians occupy the wooded heights above the lake. The Carthaginian main battle line descends into the valley, catching the Romans off guard, mostly in marching order. 'The Carthaginian light troops...' - shown separately occupying the foothills of the mountain - '...cannot hold the deployed Romans, most of whom fight their way up Mt Castelluccio and escape.'
p.117 Warfare in the Classical World.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 29, 2024 9:03:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on May 29, 2024 9:33:54 GMT
Perhaps part of the problem is that actual battlefields are seldom divided into discrete areas of good and bad going?
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 29, 2024 12:40:41 GMT
Another problem with all of this is the nature of 'being convinced or unconvinced'. It's always going to be possible to remain unconvinced about various details of ancient warfare (in particular) because of how many thousands of years ago the battles were fought, how much or how little information was recorded about them at the time or years later, and how reliable that information is considered today (especially when some accounts may differ). Combine that with every author's interpretation of the relevant accounts and maps, and you have some speculation, no matter how well considered it might be.
At some point, I think you have to apply a little common sense. For example, I personally find it incredible to believe that in several thousand years of warfare including a class of infantry called light infantry/skirmishers that it never occurred to the warleaders and generals of those armies to deploy some of their light infantry in 'bad going' terrain, for which they were ideally suited, to attempt to gain some advantage over the enemy, and that instead for all those thousands of years they just stuck to deploying them solely out in front of the main battle line. That is absurd! I suspect they deployed their light infantry wherever they thought most advantageous according to each battlefield's terrain and the particular enemy at hand.
I could continue finding more examples of light infantry occupying bad going in a battle (not in front of the main battle line, etc.) from that one book I opened, or I could find more examples from other books I have. But supporting examples have already been provided. You either choose to accept them or you don't.
DBA allows Ps to be deployed in front of the main battle line in order to slow and harass the enemy. They ignore overlaps, and heavy foot can't catch them when they flee. If you want to see them attriting the enemy battle line, you'd need to play something like ADLG which can attempt that more granular level of casualty detail. DBA also allows Ps to deploy separately from the main battle line in areas of bad going, which they can exploit to their fullest potential. This all sounds about right to me, given what is available to read about ancient and medieval battles, plus a little common sense, and the way the DBA system works.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 29, 2024 17:47:38 GMT
For the record: I never stated that I do believe that skirmishers never were used to occupy "bad going" as a part of the sort of open field battle that I believe DBA tries to portray. I am interested in how that looks in the records and how common that was (which is likely to differ over time and in different places). I could continue finding more examples of light infantry occupying bad going in a battle (not in front of the main battle line, etc.) from that one book I opened, or I could find more examples from other books I have. But supporting examples have already been provided. You either choose to accept them or you don't.
There is also the problem of whether the examples fit what one is looking for or not. And being skeptical is not a sign of bad character or bad intentions, but simply an expression of curiosity.
I think there is a lot more than black and white (right and wrong) to this problem and it is interesting to explore this.
At some point, I think you have to apply a little common sense.
Absolutely. But common sense tends to be uncommonly different between different claimers.
Thank you, that is an interesting ressource. If I am not missing something, skirmishers are described as screens in the analysis. I have not looked into the sources, which would be interesting.
Perhaps part of the problem is that actual battlefields are seldom divided into discrete areas of good and bad going?
Another very good point! And we seldom have the sort of precise information about conditions of the battlefield terrain that we would wish for.
Terrain is very important to ancient authors (Sunzi, Vegetius), but not in the categories that we are interested in as wargamers. Their interest usually seems to stem from logistical considerations and is more about the general topographical makeup of whole regions, not so much about the minute details of the battlefield. (I have the suspicion that they assume that an acceptable battlefield is more or less all flat good going - could be wrong though.)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 1:58:01 GMT
Asculum 279 BC
The key bit is para 3 where Pyrrhos specifically sends light infantry into bad going (that had given him problems the previous day) in order to force the Romans to fight a set battle in the open.
'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars', by Duncan Head, p.72
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 2:11:42 GMT
Apollonia 220 BC
Here the light infantry, notably numerous Kyrtii slingers, are deployed beyond the cavalry on the wings, 'probably on hills'. (Now you can argue that maybe the hills were gentle and not difficult, but the intent of the deployment remains the same: to occupy the less favourable terrain on the army's flanks with Ps.) (You can also zero in on 'probably', but given the area is described as 'hill country' it's a fair bet and makes sense to deploy the Ps up the hill slopes on either side of the cavalry - otherwise they wouldn't be there, and would be better deployed elsewhere.)
'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars' by Duncan Head, p.75.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 2:46:54 GMT
Lake Trasimene again (different source):
'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars', by Duncan Head, p. 76.
As with Warry, 'Warfare in the Classical World', Duncan Head has the Carthaginian light infantry in the hills on the flank. The steep hills that led up to the mountain. There they acted as a blocking force, ultimately unsuccessfully to the vanguard of the fleeing Romans who fought their way up through them. See previous post about this battle.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 4:22:23 GMT
Mantineia 207 BC
'Philopoimen deployed light mercenary infantry on a hill on his left flank, then thorakitai and Illyrians, with Tarantine cavalry on the flat probably in front of the left wing. The phalanx was in the centre in several bodies, its front covered by a broad, deep, but dry and gentle-sided ditch. Citizen cavalry were on the right.'
No mention of other light infantry. Don't know how steep or gentle the hill was, but it's another example of light infantry being deployed to occupy a hill on the flank of the army when such terrain was present and deemed sensible to occupy.
'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars', by Duncan Head, p. 79.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 4:44:35 GMT
I'm going to pause here and make a couple of points:
So far I've only looked at 2 books on the classical/hellenistic period of warfare. I haven't gone further backwards BC or forwards into AD territory yet.
What I'm seeing is this:
Where a battle was fought on an open plain or flat area big enough to completely fit both armies, light infantry were typically deployed in front of the main battle line to both protect it from enemy light infantry shooting, and to inflict the same on their opponents. (Such initial skirmishing lines don't seem to have inflicted much damage, and were probably a deployment and advance screen more than anything else; it's only in more isolated cases where these skirmishers really hurt their betters, and with the advantage of terrain more favourable to them, such as at Sphacteria in 425 BC.)
However, where the chosen battlefield included hills (steep or otherwise), and other difficult areas for formed infantry and mounted to occupy (such as marsh alongside river beds), some or all light infantry were placed in these areas, usually on the flanks, to guard the main battle line, and/or to block enemy movements or retreats.
This behaviour fits what I would have expected from the troops and battlefields available.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 30, 2024 9:36:29 GMT
Well done snowcat! You've done the heavy lifting. Now I don't need to dig up my references.
I assume the skirmish screen had a positive morale effect but not a strategic effect. Thucydides alludes to this when he writes about an early clash between Athens and Syracuse. Even Napoleon didn't see much value in skirmishing 2000 years later.
As DBA covers 4500 years there will be generalisations as empires rise and fall. Your examples show that the capabilities of light troops were evident to commanders in this period. From the 4th century BC, Mediterranean warfare has become more professional following on from the Peloponnesian War, I suspect through the rise of mercenaries. Light troops of this period will necessarily be different from light troops of earlier periods but that will be true of most troops. When playing within a historical period, these differences are not noticed as far as I can tell. There may very well be a decline in quality with the decline of Rome in this region but not elsewhere. But I do love that DBA can mix armies of different periods for a what if battle.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 30, 2024 11:40:42 GMT
I'm going to pause here and make a couple of points: So far I've only looked at 2 books on the classical/hellenistic period of warfare. I haven't gone further backwards BC or forwards into AD territory yet. What I'm seeing is this: Where a battle was fought on an open plain or flat area big enough to completely fit both armies, light infantry were typically deployed in front of the main battle line to both protect it from enemy light infantry shooting, and to inflict the same on their opponents. (Such initial skirmishing lines don't seem to have inflicted much damage, and were probably a deployment and advance screen more than anything else; it's only in more isolated cases where these skirmishers really hurt their betters, and with the advantage of terrain more favourable to them, such as at Sphacteria in 425 BC.) However, where the chosen battlefield included hills (steep or otherwise), and other difficult areas for formed infantry and mounted to occupy (such as marsh alongside river beds), some or all light infantry were placed in these areas, usually on the flanks, to guard the main battle line, and/or to block enemy movements or retreats. This behaviour fits what I would have expected from the troops and battlefields available. Cheers I've been doing a bit of reading on the subject too and found Polybius covering the same ground and adding that Velites would also deploy to cover deployments and sometimes be attached to Cavalry units much like the practice used by the Early Germans, who used light infantry to mix in combat with enemy Cavalry to hamstring their horses.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 30, 2024 11:48:07 GMT
...where a people live is also crucial. DBA knows the now weak mountain peoples who fight as auxiliary troops supported by skirmishers, who are even better able to get through the terrain in an organized manner. Tribal groups all over the world fight like this. If they are too warlike, they fight as warband orl warriors, the others as auxiliary troops, but always with the support of skirmishers. In England the Welsh or Pictish warriors are a good example. In Peru the Inca...
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 30, 2024 12:46:09 GMT
I'm pretty confident that if I continued opening more books and reading battles further back in the ancient era, or forward into AD territory, that the pattern I've spotted would continue.
For some reason, I expect more imaginative use of light infantry in the medieval era, possibly because of the advances in weapon technology that they could both utilise themselves and be wise to avoid if operating in a skirmish line in front of the main army.
Cheers
|
|