Home Forums Medieval Armoured men – In 'Units' or Not?

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85206
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Admiring Carojon’s beautiful Viking and Saxon figures, reminded me of a question I have had over the years (still unresolved) about armoured ‘units’ in early medieval/dark age wargames.

    Many rule sets, aimed principally at ancients, categorise units by, amongst other things, armour types.

    How do you feel about this?

    My impression is that there were nowhere near as many byrnies about as sometimes portrayed, and not all wearers of them were grouped into ‘hearth troop’ ‘units’.

    Maybe the Huscarls at Hastings were all chainmailed up in a group, but was that normal for the preceeding 300 or 400 years? Would all the armour wearers huddle together and leave their unarmoured social inferiors on their own as many rule sets suggest? Or would local and regional toffs (relative term) have to stick with their low life compatriots to stiffen their resolve and leave only a small cadre of hearth troops with the main leader as his bodyguard?

    Come to that, were all the knights in medieval armies in groups as practised in tourneys? Or were they spread about more amongst the infantry to lead and stiffen not only resolve but fighting abilities? (At Otterburn for example we have John Swinton a powerful man-at-arms breaking into the English formation allowing Scots spearmen to penetrate the English line- how would this happen if all the raggedy spears were in one set of bases and the men-at arms in another?)

    The answer is probably both, depending on circumstances, but we only seem to represent to very formal separation of ‘types’ in most rule sets.

    Does it matter? Or are we happy to say it’s a game, and it doesn’t matter what really happened?

    And just for a moment saying it did and we cared, what do we do? Mix figures in units certainly but then what about altering the rules? +1 in melee for units with Knights? +1 for morale (nobody bother with separate morale these days do they?) of units led by byrnie wearing Viking toffs? Or treat them all the same?

    #85225
    Avatar photoPatrice
    Participant

    Except perhaps for bodyguards who could be all in armour, I would say that noblemen in chainmail (Dark Ages) or complete armour (later medieval period) were closely accompanied by one or more followers (lesser noblemen, or at least one armed servant / “gros valet”), who were without armour in the Dark Ages, or in lesser armour (chainmail, brigandine…) in later periods. I mix units accordingly, and IMHO it looks better.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #85252
    Avatar photoDeleted User
    Member

    Interesting observation, Guy.

    The only Dark Ages I game is using SAGA where small groups of armoured warriors, representing a chieftain’s body guard,  stand out from larger groups of the unarmoured.

    I also have 3 Chariot Wars (Bronze Age) armies with large numbers of unarmoured (not counting stiffened linen, thick cloaks etc) infantry. I often stick an armoured figure on a command stand for these units to represent a decidedly more affluent leader. Several of these units don’t even have shields.

    All three armies (NKE, Hittite, Mycenaean) do have small exclusively armoured infantry units that represent mercenaries, Royal Guards & warrior classes.

    The point of my digression is that I think in armies where armour was not de rigeur (eg the Romans), the rules should be to allow some grouping of armoured fighters who would have reasons to be an homogenised unit, the odd armoured warrior amongst the “naked” masses and not worry too much about the whole matter as we already make so many compromises in turning historical reality into a wargame.

     

    donald

    #85255
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    I think that there were no units per se in Viking armies. Instead they were deployed in one or more ‘battles’ to aid command and control, like later medieval armies. The bodyguard would be grouped around the lord and standard, and the other people would be fitted in where needed. The closest you would come to a unit would be a local lord with their followers and levies, who would be most likely to fight alongside each other. It was probably a bit more sophisticated than that description allows, but I’m not sure how much more so.

    In wargaming terms, my inclination would be to use mixed units and factor the ratios of experience and armour into the units’ fighting ability and morale. You might also adopt a system like Poleaxed 2 where the army is grouped into one to four ‘battles’ (probably just one for a Viking army) and the key to winning the game is managing to keep each retinue aligned with the others so that none of them hits the enemy without support from the others.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #85257
    Avatar photoOB
    Participant

    I’d say the top boys immediate followers would all be well armoured be they Teulu, Huscarls or whatever.  Local lords would have all the gear too and so would their close associates but there won’t be too many of them.  Most of the men they lead will come with whatever they can self supply with a minimum being spear and shield.

    I’m currently doing the Retinue of Gospatrick of Northumbria for Lion Rampant.  GoN and the boys have full kit.  Then I have a unit mostly armoured fellows who are supplied from the royal religious bequests and sinecures.  The rest of the host are un-armoured units each led by a couple of armored figures representing local lords and their free men.  As Patrice says it looks better, as well as likely being more accurate.

    Some times large forces of fully equipped men do take the field Penda’s invasion of Northumbria comes to mind or the Great Army in its heyday. Mostly though I’d go for mixed formations.

    As to how to replicate the Swinton effect I think Comitatus would do it, as would my own, yet to be finished Piquet inspired Ends of Empire.  In both cases you would keep allocating ‘action points’ to Swinton’s unit.  If he get’s killed which is a risk his unit will fail, if not he pulled it off.

    Good thread by the way.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #85285
    Avatar photoAutodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    I strongly suspect that in most non-state trained armies organization would reflect geography more than status or equipment. E.G., those who train together, fight together. Groups of people who know each other tend to stick together and I think this would lead to some ‘unit’ cohesion within a larger army. So I see better armed social leaders and their lessor armed followers as the basis of units, not equipment type. While there was clearly some specialization in some ancient armies, and certainly more in later Renaissance armies, for the Dark and Medieval periods (periods of fairly homogeneous fighting forces) I don’t think it’s appropriate to segregate by armor type. That’s just a gamer’s construct.

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #85324

    Armored and well equipped men almost always move to the front of the unit wile the less armored, equipped and experienced formed the back ranks to add mass.  So, in a sense, units are mixed.  However, Huscarls will always be a cut above the select Fyrd and select Fyrd will be a cut above the great Fyrd.  So, I am not so sure that wargamers got it “wrong”.  I think they simplify things by making all members of a unit have the same kit, whether it is full armor or shield only.

    John

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

    --Abraham Lincoln

    #85435
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks chaps.

    I agree with many of the above observations.

    So –

    No ‘units’ as such.

    Geographical groupings

    Small hearth troop groups of better armed, armoured, motivated(?) warriors together.

    ‘Local’ groupings of warriors some of whom, mostly local leaders(?),  have got some armour, the majority ‘come as you are’.

    In ‘mixed’ groups the better armoured probably gravitate to the front where they are in sufficient numbers.

    I guess this means that in a largish battle situation we simply have a mass of groups/’units’ of undifferentiated troops (mixed, mostly unarmoured, with a few armoured) with a few(very few?) hard core ‘hearth troop’ groups dotted about the battle line.

    Do these core groups do most of the serious fighting?

    In a game do we just ‘factor in’ the Swintons of this world as an end of the bell curve result now and again, and rationalise his presence as the reason for an odd outcome?

    I suppose in skirmish/small actions we can differentiate individuals more and allow for possible advantages . In the bigger actions we probably can’t dip down into that level of granularity.

    Do we still believe in a Great Fyrd after Abels’ Lordship and Military Obligation 1988? I don’t know. Does it make a difference? Well, If the Great Fyrd never got called out, – the Fyrd was probably a better organised and armed body than is sometimes portrayed (?).

     

    I sort of feel myself coming back to Andy Callan’s Dark Age Infantry Slog (DAIS) but I think I want something a bit different – very good though Andy’s game is. I want a bit more flexibility I think – not a lot, but a little. I quite like Dux Bellorum but that feels a bit too points oriented, a bit too gamey maybe?

    #85466
    Avatar photoOB
    Participant

    It’s interesting that Heather and Cunliffe both find the English system deficient in terms of dealing with the Vikings.  Heather thinks it didn’t produce enough adequate warriors and Cunliffe thinks most of those who did take the field were very inexperienced.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #85468
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    I guess this means that in a largish battle situation we simply have a mass of groups/’units’ of undifferentiated troops (mixed, mostly unarmoured, with a few armoured) with a few(very few?) hard core ‘hearth troop’ groups dotted about the battle line.

    That’s how I envisage it.

    Do these core groups do most of the serious fighting? In a game do we just ‘factor in’ the Swintons of this world as an end of the bell curve result now and again, and rationalise his presence as the reason for an odd outcome?

    Personally, I would rationalise it based on dice rolls, rather than adding special elements, but you may prefer to include the option of heroes or similar types for the sake of a bit of colour.

    Do we still believe in a Great Fyrd after Abels’ Lordship and Military Obligation 1988?

    I don’t. It’s a simple way of talking about the levies, but I don’t think it reflects the reality of an organisation that evolved throughout the period. On the other hand, ‘great’ and ‘select’ are convenient terms to use to discuss differing levels of discipline and skill, if you wish to have terms to differentiate between the poorer troops and the better troops.

    I sort of feel myself coming back to Andy Callan’s Dark Age Infantry Slog (DAIS) but I think I want something a bit different – very good though Andy’s game is. I want a bit more flexibility I think – not a lot, but a little. I quite like Dux Bellorum but that feels a bit too points oriented, a bit too gamey maybe?

    I liked the concepts in DAIS but never felt encouraged to play. Glutter of Ravens and its successor Dux Bellorum both offer period colour and a fun game. DB is very much on the game end of the game-simulation continuum, but it works ok, and is better than DBx, IMNSHO.

    I mentioned Poleaxed 2 earlier. Although designed for high and late medieval warfare, I think it would work admirably for the early medieval period because its focus is on keeping your lines together and commanding your troops rather than worrying about the intricacies of which formation they are in. Poleaxed 2 also groups your troops into retinues, so you get the mixed unit effect that has been discussed here. It can be a bit of a bear to understand and use the command system in the rules, but you get the hang after a couple of games, and I thought it was worth it when we did our big Towton refight.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #85469
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    It’s interesting that Heather and Cunliffe both find the English system deficient in terms of dealing with the Vikings. Heather thinks it didn’t produce enough adequate warriors and Cunliffe thinks most of those who did take the field were very inexperienced.

    Do you have references for these two? I’d be interested in checking out their arguments. All the states that dealt effectively with the Vikings seem to have done so because they centralised power and organised properly. Perhaps that also means they produced better and more experienced warriors than less organised states, but that’s a result rather than a cause. I have to admit that I am wary of both in this instance because neither is a specialist in the Viking Age, but it may be that they have something useful to contribute.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #85567
    Avatar photoOB
    Participant

    I’m reading Cunliffe’s Britain Begins at the moment.  In the Viking section he contrasts how the Vikings fared in England and Ireland respectively. It’s worth reading while bearing in mind his intention is to give the big picture.  Any how, his point is that warlike Ireland was full of very experienced warriors while relatively pacific England didn’t have enough.  Duffy, who is a medievalist, covers the same ground from the Irish and Norse perspective in more detail in his Clontarf.

    Heather looks at the issue in detail in his Barbarians and Migrations but includes Francia plotting the movements of the Great Army between all three theatres.  It’s in the section on Viking expansion and is well worth a read.

    As you suggest the main things to consider are social structures and there military potential and the historical record so far as we have it.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #85606
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    Cool. Thanks for the references. I’ll check them out as soon as I can get the library to order them in. Heather is in the library but out on loan at the moment. I wonder how much it would irk the borrower if I recalled it now. 🙂

    There’s a lot to unpack with what you wrote, OB, but I should definitely wait until I have read  the books before commenting further.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #85615
    Avatar photoOB
    Participant

    I hope you enjoy them Ruarigh.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.