Re: [Epic] Re: OT Fantasy wargaming

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:10:58 -0600

Elaine P wrote:

> Thane Morgan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I think that formation became obsolete with the increasing power of
> missile
> >weapons. The size of shield required for a proper shield wall was
> unweildy,
> >and javelins were designed to pull the shields down once they were
> stuck in.
> >I have though of making full length shields available, but since no
> fantasy
> >miniatures have them anyway, I ditched the idea. Of course, the system
> >should work fine for historicals, just by droping teh magic rules and
> >reducing the unit points to account for the irrlevevance of magic
> >resistance.
>
> I don't think that missile fire contributed to the decline of the
> testudo. Increased power and a large use of missle weapons didn't
> appear until the middle ages. The battle of Hastings is one of the
> first recorded and scholars are not agreed on just how effective the
> bows were.
>
> Toward the end of the Roman empire, the legions were not as well armed
> and the troop quality was not as good. The average trooper was armed
> with only a spear, a helmet, and a round shield.
>
> Not all javelins were designed to pin shields and render them useless.
> The pilum was changed by Marius and later by Caesar to use metal that
> would bend after impact, and wooden rivets to break and allow the shaft
> to bend.
>
> >
> >> For an example of the testudo in film, it appears in the first part
> of
> >> Anthony and Cleopatra. (However, I think the addition of a spike on
> the
> >> boss of the scutum was a Hollywood embellishment.)
> >>
> >
> >I think I saw that one: didn't the formation get cut down after several
> >volleys of bowfire?
>
> No, the formation suffered very few causalties. Volley bowfire was not
> used. In the Roman and Greek mentality, the bow was a deemed an
> inferior weapon (Some considered it a woman's or coward's weapon).
> Roman legionaires were never armed with bows. The bows that made up
> part of the Auxilia were foreign troops.
>
> The massed bowfire that we are acustomed to seeing via Hollywood did not
> come into use until around the 14th century.
>
> There are never ending debates about the effectiveness of bow fire on
> the DBM and Chipco lists. So be prepared to have the same happen with
> your game.
>
> As for a name, how about "Paranormal Aggression Among Swordspersons?"
> ;-)
>
> --Elaine (ducking for cover)
>

Doesn't convey a sense of sweeping scale. "Paranormal Aggression Among Lots
of Swordpersons", now that has pinache. Also would have the very cool
acronym PAALS.

Yes, I'm well aware of the great bow fire debate. As near as I can tell,
English scholars defined history and made the Longbow the ultimate weapon.
My understanding after a reasonable amount of research is that:

A- Longbows could penetrate plate, but it was not gauranteed.
B- Longbows could fire 200 yards, but not very accurately. Furthermore, many
composite bows from asia and the middle east had similiar ranges.
C- Volley bowfire was used in large battles, while individual "sniper"
bowfire was common in smaller skirmishes, such as tribal/clan warfare in
england and gaul.

But who can really tell. Alexander's historian lclaims he defeated a million
man army in the middle east, though I'm pretty certain their weren't one
million people in the region, not to mention the liklihood of a million man
army being fed and watered in the arid regions where the battle was
supposedly fought. Some historians like to make Hannibal out to be a lucky
man who lasted longer than his skill would merit, and Scipio to be a
tactical genius, whereas it appears to me that Scipio defeated an army which
had been on the march for several years with a fresh army of superior
numbers. It's why I decided against a history minor.

Thane
Received on Thu Sep 17 1998 - 00:10:58 UTC