Spears vs cavalry revisited

[econ21]

It's interesting how there is little discussion now about the balance between cavalry and spears after the epic posts on the subject before the patch. This could be just exhaustion, with people having said all they have to say on it. However, I also suspect it is because people generally like the balance in the game post-patch. Good spears (eg Chiv Sergeants) can hold off knights, but the knights are dangerous, angling for the flanks and can defeat weak spears (vanilla spearmen) but with significant losses. I generally like this balance and find it just right for my taste. It also makes for nice gameplay, with neither knights nor spears being totally dominant.

However, I was reading the minature wargame rules "Medieval Warfare" by Terry Gore and was interested that they distinguish vanilla spears from "long spears". Long spears are over 8 foot (pikes over 12 foot) and negate the cavalry charge bonus. Only certain historical units have long spears - Byzantines, Flemish, Scots, some Germans and Italians etc. Many English and French spears are normal ones. I was wondering about modding this distinction into the game, and at the same time largely eliminating sword armed units as ahistorical (there are virtually none in the Medieval Warfare army lists and I've found no historical references to them in the period). This would be done by essentially classifying shorter spears as SWORD and so losing the negate cav bonus (I'd probably let them retain some anti-cav bonus to defence, but less than that for long spears). Anyone got any reactions to this?

In historical realism terms, it would seem to make sense. I can imagine a charge by lance wielding cavalry really hurting infantry with spears that are shorter than the lance but being much less effective against infantry with spears as long as or longer than the lance.

It would mean that some factions with access to long spearman, possibly delayed access via the tech tree, would play more or less as usual. But others without such units might find themselves rather more exposed to heavy cavalry. Infantry might play a much more subordinate role for those factions/in those eras, as some argue it did.

One thing I am grappling with is what happens to dismounted knights or men-at-arms units (ie the replacements for the ahistorical sword armed foot knights, CMAA and FMAA). In "Medieval Warfare" they are treated as having vanilla spears, but it seems to me that with lances, they would be more like long spears. Giving them the ability to negate the cavalry charge bonus might better simulate the use of dismounted knights in a defensive role (especially English in the Hundred Years War). What do people think?

[A.Saturnus]

I think your suggestions are historically accurate. However, I like it as it is now and too much accuracy could make the game a bit boring. Maybe it`s worth to try it out.

[troymclure]

hmmm, what about the "art of war" by machiavali (sp) in it he really favours sword bearing armies, he also cites a few instances when italian swordsmen beat swiss pikes.....
though i do agree that there are too many sword units in the game right now i don't think they should be fazed out entirely...
bearing in mind that my knowledge of medieval history is a bit lacking.
ps:- this is all IMHO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[econ21]

TroyMcClure (nice name, BTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ), yes, sword and buckler men did evolve in Italy (and Spain) but my reading suggests they came in just after the MTW period (from 1450 on). I think they were primarily aimed at disrupting pikes, kind of like the sword vs spear dynamic in MTW but it was far from a sure thing as you can imagine, with the pikemen sometimes squishy them. Anywyay, they are very different from the longsword wielding foot knights and MAA depicted in this game.

I know the sword was a very common side-arm, but it seldom seems to be the primary one in the period (even for cav). I was reading some interesting comments from re-enactors, about how the sword was not likely to be that effective against armour and that the spear was more formidable in formation than you might think given its "unsexy" reputation, as well as having decent AP properties.

But I suspect that cav vs inf interactions are the key factor - as inf vs cav, you want a spear not a sword; as cav vs inf, you want a lance. [Plus with a sword as a side-arm, you can always switch if you wish.] In the Ancient period, when cav was less of a threat (and heavy armour less common), I can imagine short swords like the Roman gladius being pretty lethal in close combat against other foot.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Mar. 13 2003,05:49)]I think your suggestions are historically accurate. However, I like it as it is now and too much accuracy could make the game a bit boring. Maybe it`s worth to try it out.
This is an oft repeated position that AFAIK has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Why does historical accuracy = boring?

to the bst of my knowledge ppl who think this have little or know appreciation of just how rich and varied history is. They think that only the fantasy/imaginary can be exciting.

Now I'm not saying that you are necessarily like this - you may be - I don't know - but those ppl who I do know who think that history is boring do have sweet F-A actual knowledge of history on which to base that assumption

The best game of 2002 by a couple of accounts was Combat Mission Barbarossa to berlin - a WW2 tactical game that beat MTW in every category the 2 share (I play both and I agree CMBB is far better) and which is absolutely notorious for historical accuracey - and it's a simply fabulous game too

I really wish that ppl would get it out of their heads that history is boring - much of it can be - but in het military field especially it is anything but.

You want variety? Simon has mentioned Terry Gore's rules - I haven't seen them but I play a game called De Bellis Multitudinous (Big battles, or battles of the multitudes) which deals with pre-gunpowder warare.

Her's some troop types from the Medieval German list:

City Guard
City Militia
Heerban
Free Canton
Mercenary
Feudal
Italian allies
Low Countries pike
Danish Leidang Allies
Polish allies
Imperial
Hungarians
Teutonic Knights
Spanish Ally
Jinetes
Wagon laager
Pavises
Swiss Allies
Burgundians
Handgunners, knights, cavalry, horse archers, bombards, light lancers, pike, spear, bowmen, psiloi, blades, etc.......

And that's just one list of about 300 in the series........

[Hakonarson]

Sword and buckler was a response to pike largely based upon the recent (at the time) resurgance of interest in classical history - Rome beat Macedonian pike with swordsmen, so let's use swordsmen against pike.

This was particularly strong in Italy - where ppl naturally thought they were the successors of Rome and would've loved to repeated the sucess, and where of course the Rennaissance began

In fact sword & bucklermen were a dismal failure everywhere except the new world - where sword and shield was perfect vs Aztec & Inca weaponry.

Certainly pike were defeated in a couple of battles where swordsmen fought them - but even superficial analysis shows that the swordsmen exploited vitory created by some other arm rather than being the source of the victory.

That they survived for 100 yrs or so is unremarkable - the military establishment has always been noted for its innate conservatism, even in ages where there seems to be rapid progress - jsut look at all the problems and cock-ups surrounding the invention of mechanised armour in the first half of the 20th century, and the on-going balls-ups that were made even after then.......

[desdichado]

funny thing is I was at the pub last night and (naturally http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ) thinking about MTW. I was wondering how spearmen actually fought in reality. I think hoplites fought with an overhand spearthrust with their arm in a fairly upright position to gain the protection of their shield (can anyone confirm or deny?) but how did their medieval counterparts do it.

Did they have different styles agains infantry & cavalry???
Did they keep their spear at hip level or higher than their shoulder?

Would appreciate if someone could direct me to a good source.

Btw Hakonarson i agree with your post historically accurate does not mean boring - I think the whole period from early Rome to Napoleons time hugely interesting and varied although fairly brutal. If I want imaginary I'll buy a fantasy game. I bought mtw cause I wanted historical ie. accurate (within reason).

[Hakonarson]

The definitive document on how hoplites fought is still "The Western Way of War", by Hanson IIRC.

Hoplites usually charged with the spear used underarm because the bottom of the shield was harder to use to protect teh body effectively thatn the top, because they had troom to do so behind them, and because groin and thigh wounds were very lethal due to bleeding.

Once battle was joined hte spears were bought up for hte overarm use.

Medieval types probably did the same - although they also were sometimes trained to butt their spears into teh ground to receive cavalry - which hoplites never had to do.

[troymclure]

ahh all this (sword type) stuff makes sense now. About the only real mention i've found in it was from machiavalli so i am know more informed thank thee kindly gentleman.
ps:- Thanks simon, and just for the record yes it is that "troymclure" , and in fact you might remember me from such forum threads as.....

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
This is an oft repeated position that AFAIK has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Why does historical accuracy = boring?


Hey, that`s not fair. I didn`t mean that historical accuracy is necessarily boring. One reason I like MTW is that it creates a very exciting battle situation without the use of magic or undead or other fantasy-stuff. Being accurate is definitely a bonus I just mean that in this particular case, too much accuracy might reduce the playing fun. To be accurate, knights would have to be nearly uncontrollable. Knights were an individualistic fighting elite that didn`t have any orders after the positioning before the battle. Also, swordsmen would have to be left out of European armies. Not to mention, battles would have to take several hours and cannons had a ROF about 3 shots per hour.

[Foreign Devil]

With the level of accuracy you suggest, you would be fighting very few battles indeed. Actual pitched battle was not nearly as common as we are led to believe. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I'm not bashing historical accuracy here, not by a long shot. I'm simply reminding you that reality vs. good gameplay can be a very delicate balancing act.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 13 2003,19:05)]Hoplites usually charged with the spear used underarm because the bottom of the shield was harder to use to protect teh body effectively thatn the top, because they had troom to do so behind them, and because groin and thigh wounds were very lethal due to bleeding.

Once battle was joined hte spears were bought up for hte overarm use.

Medieval types probably did the same - although they also were sometimes trained to butt their spears into teh ground to receive cavalry - which hoplites never had to do.
Hi Hark.

Try doing the proposed action of charging underhand and then when you are pushed from behind and the front change the style to overhand... Impossible
You have to either have a point on both ends (and the Hoplites did have a point on both ends of their spears but only one had the bronzehead), then you can 'just' lift your arm like you do with a beer. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif But that leaves the trouble of having an enemy in front of you who is so close to you that lifting the spear up like that will be quite hard and would demand a lot of attention, perhaps even impossible.
Then there is chance the Hoplite only had one point on the spear, then he would have to rotate the spear, but how does one do that in a close formation without getting it clogged into the enemy or your friends???
We have to remember that the fighting the Hoplites did was more pushing and showing than actually killing, so we have to expect a very dense formation where the men behind the first ranks pushed those in front, making spare room a sparse commodity.

So if you can explain how these things were completed so as not to come into conflict the Hoplite style of fighting then I would be satisfied.

BTW, the Hoplites did recieve a heavy cavalry charge at Plataea when Mardonius the Persian general charged his unit into so Athenian Hoplites. The Hoplites did well, but so did the Persians as they managed to get the body of Mardonius back after he was slain. Whether they actually did use the spears in an anti-cav fashion is unknown.

[Hakonarson]

I don't have to explain them - we know the Greeks used an underarm hold because there are numerous references in their writings to it and to wounds in the upper leg and groin area and the pain of dying from such a wound, and because it's shown in art.

We know they also used upper holds because there are numerous instances in art and literature refering to that style.

Now you clearly cannot use a lower grip in a close formation because, as you point out, the spears are double ended, usually with an iron spearpoint and a bronze butt spike, and using it underarm beans you're stabbing your 2nd rank with hte but spike

Ergo they must've changed their grip during battle.

I've used a spear in re-enactment, and I know how difficult it is to change, but none-the-less they had to do so.

Perhaps they swung it up and used the butt spike - chances are the spearpoint would break with a decent blow - but that's jsut suposition on my part. Hanson devotes quite a bit of thought to this IIRC.

[Kraxis]

Having looked into it I agree that the Hoplites are portrayed as using the underhand style at some instances. But so far I have only seen the style used in glorified single combat scenes on jars, often with the hoplites naked (unarmoured) as they were in the mythical battles against Troy.

In single combat the underhand style is a very good choice as you can bend the hand so much that the spear wil lie almost streight along the underarm, making thrusts stronger. Also you will be able to hold on tighter to the spear than in the overhand due to the indexfinger combined with the thumb is much stronger than the littlefinger, that naturally gives better control as well.
Lastly it is easier to hurt an enemy from below than from above with a spear, coming up under the shield.

But that is only true for single combat. I have yet to see any depictions of the hoplites in formation where they carry the spear in the underhand style, and I have seen several pictures of tablets and jars with phalanxes on them (looks much like the medieval presentations with the men as copies of the first soldier more or less).
Considering the great effort that was put into maintaining the coherence of the phalanx during the charge (rather too slow than too fast), the nature of hoplite combat and the laws of physics, it is hard to believe anybody could use the spears in underhand during the charge.
The effort in maintaining the coherence would mean the second hoplite would be close to the first, thus close to the spearbutt or point, the first hoplite would most likely have the spear pointed forwards to better recieve the impact and have better reach. When his spear made contact with another man (or shield) running the opposite way a great force would be transferred into the hoplites arm forcing it backwards (remember our own hoplite was still running)... Into the onrushing second hoplite. Not really something to be desired.
Naturally some techniques could be trained to avoid such instances, but the hoplites were notoriously bad trained in actual combat. Even if they trained this there would be many accidents, too many for my belief of this style's effectiveness.

In any case the hoplite would have to do at least one thrust at the enemy to have any effect out of the underhand style, and doing a thrust you have to pull back at some point, but by this time the second hoplite would be very close by most likely already pushing as if he faced an elephant... result would be much like before, a good chance you would hit something. So if the second hoplite somehow could keep himself out of the spearbutts range of damage then why not keep using the underhand style? It has a much better potential for damage...

[David]

Check this link:
http://college.holycross.edu/users/cl2001/dawhite/hoplite.html

Spears were used underarm and with a upper grip. However I've also seen some info which says that spears were used only underarm (my Latin schoolbook and a good site, of which i've forgotten the URL).