Hello
I was asking myself about playing the (too ? ) famous battles
( I don't have much time to game, so I think too much... ;) )
Is it interesting to play those famous battles ?
May be the outcome is already done by the setup.. Or a bad commander had another bad day, and it won't be interesting for the player to simulate this..
I was planning to play 1st Bull Run ( with Piquet Field of Battle ), but I also think of Austerlitz, Waterloo ( I'm confident with leManchou to have an interesting one, I only think about it), or Bagration 1944, or France 1940 etc.
If we play a small part of the battle, that's ok. But what with a large game, with historical setup ? :-\
( Yes, we can change the setup, but that's no more the real battle. I'm planning a large game with several players, and I don't want them to get bored )
( I once set up a two days game about the kerch invasion in 1943. The german players didn't like it.. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch%E2%80%93Eltigen_Operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch%E2%80%93Eltigen_Operation)
Any thoughts ?
Mars-La-Tours with a decent French commander gets interesting.
Waterloo, if you bring up the French guns, and the infantry as Wellington forms squares is catastrophic for the allies!
I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time. Potentially boring for the loser but we thought ways to look at this included:
- Can you do better than the commader did historically with the same dispositions, OOB etc? You might lose, but can your army hold out long enough to say effect the campaign elsewhere?
- Have the same troops as say Waterloo, but each commander can deploy them as he sees fit. So can you do better than Napoleon did and change history?
Quote from: Steve J on 29 March 2015, 02:41:05 PM
I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.
I agree with most of what you wrote - but - every time? All we know is that historically it happened once. Does that mean it was inevitable? Should the Charge of the Light Brigade succeed in getting to the Russian Guns every time? Should the thin red line hold off the Russians every time? The rules should certainly make the historical result possible, maybe even probable, but certain? No, I am afraid I would have to disagree with that. :-\
Mollinary
The history never repeats but it often stutters, :-\
I redid several times the battle of Waterloo and every time the arrival of the Prussian made me lose the battle
The next time I shall play the British....
Personally, I prefer to set up fictional battles in a historical context rather than refight a battle we already know the result of.
For me the ideal, if it can be arranged, is to run a campaign and fight the resulting battles using a historical situation as a starting point.
Quote from: Steve J on 29 March 2015, 02:41:05 PM
I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.
Totally disagree on that one. Wellington could have lost Waterloo; Harold could have won Hastings; Goering could have won the Battle of Britain.
If you use the same armies, trained to the same level, and with the same morale then generalship is the difference ... and we are the generals. If you don't believe me, advance from the ridge of Mont St Jean, descend from Senlac Hill, don't switch your attack to the cities.
Or get guns on the big hill at Gettysburg on day1 before those damn Yankees do.
The other thing with really well known battles I'd that they'd have been discussed so much and all the mistakes of the losing commander have been analysed ad nauseam. Therefore you will not repeat those mistakes. The winning commander's possible errors may go unnoticed.
QuoteThe rules should certainly make the historical result possible, maybe even probable, but certain?
True, which is why I used "should end up with", meaning it is not a foregone conclusion. Your phrase above puts it much better than mine!
Quote from: Steve J on 29 March 2015, 02:41:05 PM
I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.
Have to disagree too; tiny factors can have massive results.
What if Boney had "ignored" Hougoumont? Rules can't account for that.
I think you could find a different answer to my question from
every forum member :-\
Quote from: Ithoriel on 29 March 2015, 03:10:08 PM
Personally, I prefer to set up fictional battles in a historical context rather than refight a battle we already know the result of.(...)
You're right, that's what we do, most of the time with my friends.. But I want a game for players I didn't see for ages, so a "what if" is not a good idea. " come and play 1st Bull Run" will be more appealing.
As some of you wrote, it may be interesting to use a free setup .. :-\
Quote from: JeffNNN on 29 March 2015, 05:12:25 PM
(...) all the mistakes of the losing commander have been analysed ad nauseam. Therefore you will not repeat those mistakes. (...)
yes, the allies won't go on their left at Austerlitz..
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 06:00:36 PM
I think you could find a different answer to my question from every forum member :-\
I think so, but I like to read your thoughts :)
(back to Waterloo)
I've played Wellington and Napoleon and won. With Boney, I used the Guard early in a surprise march using hidden ground to attack the Allied left flank - something that would have even been too risky for Boney(?). As Wellington, guessing there would be no danger to my right flank, I pulled units from my right flank to help 'sort out' d'Erlon's attack thus avoiding destroying half my cavalry in the process (which I used later in the battle). The point is - prior knowledge cuts both ways.
Quote from: ronan on 29 March 2015, 06:34:15 PM
I think so, but I like to read your thoughts :)
Okay, I'll stick my head above the parapet: :)
If Boney had attacked earlier, refused the left flank and swung his cavalry to the right, I think he'd have won! ;)
Let the party begin <:-P
I've organised refight a of Austerlitz and Borodino, both twice. We used Volley & Bayonet in 6mm and had multiple players each time. All four were good games enjoyed by all players. The key to all the games was getting the players into the right mindset before the game.
For the Austerlitz games the Allied players were told that some of the French forces had been delayed. The look on their faces when the fog lifted and the French were revealed was priceless :) I'm pretty sure the Allied players have forgiven me for the blatant lies about the French ;)
The French won Austerlitz twice, but one in particular was a very near run thing. Borodino was one win each.
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 06:42:56 PM
If Boney had attacked earlier, refused the left flank and swung his cavalry to the right, I think he'd have won! ;)
Might work, Grip ..... if the Allied Army sits there and does nothing. :-\
Quote from: paulr on 29 March 2015, 06:57:24 PM
The key to all the games was getting the players into the right mindset before the game.
Agree. Either you use subterfuge (as you did) or you incorporate rules that somehow inhibit (but not prohibit) deviations from actual decisions made on the day (I suppose, somehow like the Blunder rules in Black Powder - but more tuned into events of the actual battle?).
Another (old) approach is to re-fight a historical battle in a different era (and hope none of the players recognise it).
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 March 2015, 07:08:12 PM
Might work, Grip ..... if the Allied Army sits there and does nothing. :-\
Kinda proves my point really; no set of rules will survive contact with the enemy...or FSN! :D
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 March 2015, 07:08:12 PM
Another (old) approach is to re-fight a historical battle in a different era (and hope none of the players recognise it).
This is always a doozy; works well in fantasy too :)
We did Market Garden as a Sci Fi games which worked well
Remember the wargames scenarios in Battle magazine? 8->
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 07:14:23 PM
Kinda proves my point really; no set of rules will survive contact with the enemy...or FSN! :D
I eat rule sets for breakfast! >:(
I need the roughage
Quote from: fsn on 29 March 2015, 07:16:30 PM
I need the roughage
When did roughage become fibre? :-\
Discuss...
I think any battle depends on the smaller outcome of the individual skirmishes/charges.
We all know the heroic tales of some of the most known regiments of the different conflicts, and how they affected the course of battles. So i strongly believe that in any wargame, the end result can be changed because of the troops' behaviour.
Example:
What would happen if in your refight of gettysburg, the 20th maine got shattered at little round top? Many people say that the union line would have been flanked if that happened. This could make a major difference in the outcome of the battle.
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 07:19:54 PM
When did roughage become fibre? :-\
When it got to somewhere south of the duodenum?
Quote from: fsn on 29 March 2015, 07:29:21 PM
When it got to somewhere south of the duodenum?
Is it good for the Synapses?
Quote from: petercooman on 29 March 2015, 07:24:59 PM
I think any battle depends on the smaller outcome of the individual skirmishes/charges.
We all know the heroic tales of some of the most known regiments of the different conflicts, and how they affected the course of battles. So i strongly believe that in any wargame, the end result can be changed because of the troops' behaviour.
That, right there, is the point! Rules can
never account for the vagaries of human emotion; they only attempt to represent it's randomness.
Ipso facto, you'll end up with "strange" (or certainly non-historical) results. ;)
Quote from: Fenton on 29 March 2015, 07:31:07 PM
Is it good for the Synapses?
Not unless you're brown nosing :D
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 07:32:16 PM
Not unless you're brown nosing :D
This discussion is disappearing down the tube.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 March 2015, 07:36:33 PM
This discussion is disappearing down the tube.
Most of the threads on this forum, we've rectum! :D
Cannae: any historically-literate Roman will post triarii on the wings and almost certainly win by a central breakthrough.
Nagashino: Ieyasu himself said that if Katsutori had waited, the allies would have been forced to advance over an open field dominated by the Takeda cavalry, and thus smashed.
So the question now raises it's head, can you genuinely play a historical battle?
Apart from Cannae which, we all know, I don't have the first clue about!
Naw ye canna(e) :)
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 11:52:42 PM
So the question now raises it's head, can you genuinely play a historical battle?
Apart from Cannae which, we all know, I don't have the first clue about!
Yes, but sometimes the organiser has to play mind games. Also don't expect a re-enactment
Often historic scenarios are more "interesting" than created ones, to paraphrase someone history doesn't have to worry about plausibility ;)
Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"
If Napoleon beats Wellington, the Germans break through to Kursk or the Takeda win Nagashino then, to me, we're into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.
To be clear, it's a fantasy I heartily approve of but it's also why I prefer to use fictional formations (based on real ones) in campaigns based on historical circumstances.
As ever, it's my personal take and if refighting Borodino, or whatever, floats your boat I encourage you to go for it!
Quote from: paulr on 30 March 2015, 04:34:07 AM
Yes, but sometimes the organiser has to play mind games. Also don't expect a re-enactment.
Good point, well made. :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2015, 07:20:08 AM
Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"
If Napoleon beats Wellington, the Germans break through to Kursk or the Takeda win Nagashino then, to me, we're into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.
To be clear, it's a fantasy I heartily approve of but it's also why I prefer to use fictional formations (based on real ones) in campaigns based on historical circumstances.
As ever, it's my personal take and if refighting Borodino, or whatever, floats your boat I encourage you to go for it!
Agree completely :)
Sometimes it's fun to play different battles with the wrong armies, and not tell the players, especially if it's an umpire run game.
Boridino fought by Prussains and French in1870 is a good example. French struggle being aggressive.
Bunker Hill with Wars of The Roses troops has been done.
Also Quatre Bras as a WWI (early) game or modern armour is a challenge (wood, built up area, objective of the crossroads and beyond).
Best one ever was each player taking a ww2 tank or platoon in a map game. All local players but took them a good two hours to realise they were fighting over their home town of Lancaster!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 30 March 2015, 08:18:44 AM
Best one ever was each player taking a ww2 tank or platoon in a map game. All local players but took them a good two hours to realise they were fighting over their home town of Lancaster!
;D that's a great idea ;)
The fact is that if famous battles went with history every time they were replayed, wargaming as a pastime would be dead. Who would bother to fight a battle to a conclusion that was already known? So, Ithoriel is right. I prefer to call our games "what if", rather than fantasy, which to me is a game based on imagination rather than history, but his basic contention is correct. As for arriving at a set of rules that mirrors history exactly, it will never happen. There are too many subtle unknown factors that influence the course of a battle that will never be catered for by manual (as opposed to computerised) rules. And if some supernatural film director could conjure up both sides exactly as they were in history, and yell "Take 2!", I suspect that such a battle would end differently in a lot of cases.
We tailor fictional scenarios to give the historical loser a chance of winning. Or, if we go for the strictly historical option we allocate "victory points" so that the disadvantaged side can win by achieving some limited objective. If you are doomed before you start, why would you play?
Perfectly put, which is why we do "what we do"; even if the rest of the world thinks we are a little unhinged :D
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2015, 07:20:08 AM
Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"
Well, its never going to be the historical battle. Its a horde of toy soldiers on a table. :)
But seriously, I think Hertsblue has nailed it when he says its a "what if?' situation. How many times have we read about a battle and wondered "what if this or that had happened instead, what would the result have been?" Same goes for a fictitious battle in a book (e.g., Lord of the Rings). But if there's no foundation in fact or fiction, I don't think we're quite 'into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.'
(otherwise see and agree with what you're saying Ithoriel :) )
Quote from: Westmarcher on 30 March 2015, 11:07:29 AM
Well, its never going to be the historical battle. Its a horde of toy soldiers on a table. :)
But seriously, I think Hertsblue has nailed it when he says its a "what if?' situation. How many times have we read about a battle and wondered "what if this or that had happened instead, what would the result have been?" Same goes for a fictitious battle in a book (e.g., Lord of the Rings). But if there's no foundation in fact or fiction, I don't think we're quite 'into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.'
(otherwise see and agree with what you're saying Ithoriel :) )
Perfectly put, the "what if" is what makes us come again and again to certain battles. :)
Hi Ronan,
An emphatic "yes"! A historical battle situation is likely to be far more subtly complex and interesting to play than an invented scenario. Plus you get the bonus of learning about the historical battle by fighting it.
I do think it is best to play an entire battle rather than just part of it, mainly because that is more likely to allow space on one or both flanks, room to manoeuvre, and therefore more interesting options for players than just charging straight ahead.
If you expect to have multiple players, it is important to share out the forces in such a way as to ensure that everyone has a share of the action. If a player's force doesn't arrive until halfway through, the first half may be dull for them (or it could be ideal for the player who has to arrive late).
I encourage you to read Bob Mackenzie's fine essay on scenario design and what makes for a good game:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/index.html
(Follow the links to "Wargames" and then "Scenario design".)
I myself play big historical battles almost exclusively. My approach is pretty much as recommended by Hertsblue. I generally take the historical result as a "par score" and design the victory conditions so that both sides have to do better than their historical counterparts to claim a victory. Thus the historical loser can again be defeated on the table, but still win in game terms if he is defeated significantly less badly than in history.
Since you mention First Bull Run, there's a full 3-page scenario here which I imagine you could adapt for Piquet:
https://flic.kr/p/r2AeMd
https://flic.kr/p/rgQApw
https://flic.kr/p/qZPeTa
and here's a report of how the scenario went:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=374838
Good luck - I hope you and your friends have a great time.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
Thanks to all !
:-h
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 30 March 2015, 11:37:29 AM
My approach is pretty much as recommended by Hertsblue. I generally take the historical result as a "par score" and design the victory conditions so that both sides have to do better than their historical counterparts to claim a victory. Thus the historical loser can again be defeated on the table, but still win in game terms if he is defeated significantly less badly than in history.
That is brilliant methodology.
Love it. ;)
That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either. :)
Quote from: Westmarcher on 01 April 2015, 08:19:48 PM
That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either. :)
Agreed, but it just gives me something to "hang" the game on.
You will NEVER get me away from points. :)
Quote from: getagrip on 01 April 2015, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Westmarcher on 01 April 2015, 08:19:48 PM
That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either. :)
Agreed, but it just gives me something to "hang" the game on.
You will NEVER get me away from points. :)
There is nothing wrong with points systems per se. The risk is what is done with it.
If you use a point system to work out the relative strengths of two (comparable) historic forces so you can balance a scenario (by forces, situation, or victory conditions) it is a useful tool :)
If it is used to maximise cheesy forces then it is compounding evil >:(
The problem with points systems is that there seems to be no way of catering for all the subtleties of a period without giving one or other of the constituents an undeserved advantage. Since the factors of a given troop-type affect the factors of all the other troop-types on the list, adjusting one factor, even by a little, causes problems elsewhere. It's like nailing down a loose floor-board and then finding that the other end has popped up on the other side of the room. Even using a fixed formula - troop-value = armament x protection x morale, as a simplistic example - will like as not throw up an aberration somewhere down the line.
So, points systems are fine for competition games, where everything must be stark black or white, or for knockabout games to kill an hour or so, but unsuitable for anything even vaguely historical IMHOl.
No, for me it's a guide and that's all.
Nothing to do with competitions; wouldn't enter one if you paid me.
It's just a starting point to know if the forces are roughly equivalent (or not if it's a siege game etc).
There's no reason a points system should be bad (except poor design! Or deliberate design for something that's not even supposed to "historically accurate"), what they should do is get a plausibly set up historical army for the period in question, against another plausibly set up historical army for the period in question, and then have a scenario set up that lets you fight a plausible battle for the period in question that generates the same sort of tactical (or level of play you're modelling) situations that a commander would have faced.
Ideally it should make sure there's clouded info for both sides on both troops present, and also give somewhat asymmetrical victory conditions so that everyone has a chance at winning, even if the forces are unbalanced; basically where "winning" is actually "delay the enemy for long enough for X to Y elsewhere", or "get X troops off the field on exit Y" as opposed to "smash your troops into his troops and see who breaks first".
Where they fall down is that it's very difficult to quantify "effectiveness" across lots of units, and doubly so if it's a set of rules for a vast period where things change, or even a very fluid rapid change era (eg WW2) where technical changes mean what was actually pretty good the year before is now rubbish. Or weapon system X is great against unit Y, but useless against all others etc etc. Ally this with bad scenario design ("meeting engagement" between "equal forces" that ends up as an attack-defence with someone grabbing good terrain and the other player attacking at 1 to 1 odds again, yay!) and identical victory conditions and you get what the anti-points system commentators are saying above.
Ally a good system for troop choice for the period in question with decent scenario design and you get what I mention first - plausible forces for both sides, with plausible missions, on terrain that's plausible. As I mentioned in the other thread on the ACW, the "fan generated" Spearhead scenario & points system does that brilliantly. FoW appears to work in the exact opposite. BKC falls somewhere in between but comes closer to the SH end with a bit of appropriate tweaking and making the choice not to cheese things :D
Hell, it doesn't even need to be "points based" as such - the F&F "random army" generator works excellently giving a game, where you effectively roll off to generate one of a number of pre-set forces that have an appropriate theatre and period feel.
Edit: none of which will replace a well researched and set up historical battle for the period where there's already interesting things for all the players to do, where either side can "win" and there's no easily broken bits (and where the players don't know it inside out and can therefore "break it" easily no matter what! Hindsight & an omniscient helicopter overview is a wonderful thing for a general to have...). But there's often not so many of those... and even fewer if the players really do know the period!
For ACW points would seem to be quite problematic - as there are only really 3 troop types. For Fantasy games, and combined arms WWII+ games points can work quite well as there is a wide variety of units, and there needs to be some way of grading them.
But in ACW you have infantry, artillery and cavalry (which is really mounted infantry). Infantry should out-number the other two by a high ratio. Cavalry is faster than infantry but less combat effective due to reduced numbers and often shorter ranged weapons. Artillery obviously has much longer range, but is slow to move, and very weak up close. You could argue that all 3 are worth the same points per stand, you might decide artillery is worth 2 infantry. And probably comes down to the detail of the rules you are using.
Going for balanced forces, with broadly similar amounts of the different types of troops is most likely to work. A points system isn't really going to help decide this.
There's plenty of scope for difference in the ACW - artillery has rifles versus smooth bore & battery sizes for example, infantry breechloaders from muskets, and that's before you hit "soft factors" like morale and training and unit size. There's also the command structure and generals level of abilities and staff etc etc, so you can go as nuanced as you like and there's a lot to cover.
However, that's not the point - points values are a mechanism to give a "fair" game (under the caveats I mentioned before - basically, historically plausible set up, with historically plausible tactical options and play, and historically plausible outcomes - not necessarily the *same* as history, but a "what if" within the realms of possibility). You can do that for any period but rather than having to juggle a lot of intangible factors a good points system with a decent scenario set up system with achievable "win" outcomes for both sides (I'd consider them to be the same thing, one none exists without the others and all feed back through each other) should let you sit down and go with relatively little faff. It doesn't have to be points as such, it's the "force and scenario generator" that's key - semi-random, totally crafted, diced on tables, a little from option A and a little from option B - however you want to approach it, but it should give you a force that can fight a fight that both you and the opponent can enjoy that feels like the right period without required weeks of research with sources people simply don't have.
Of course, it's getting the balance right that's hard, anyone can bodge some values on something and call it a points system, or make some semi-random tables to generate X proportion of infantry against Y cavalry against Z arty with A percentage being Vet/Reg/Green, but that doesn't mean they're either right for the period, right for the various sides abilities, or right for the outcomes they need to achieve on table top :D
QuoteCannae: any historically-literate Roman will post triarii on the wings and almost certainly win by a central breakthrough.
No one really knows why they didn't do that. They were guarding the camp. Was this to stop Hannibal's cavalry raiding the camp and damaging the army's morale?
Was it for reasons of gaining political prestige for the Consuls (Generals)? If the Triarii were sent in it was seen as having been a close battle. There was prestige in winning a battle without using them.
Was it just unimaginative generals following standard practice of keeping the Triarii in reserve?
Or was it politically unpopular to send the Triarii in because the Triarii veterans considered they'd done their bit and shouldn't have to fight unless it was an emergency?
I also find it hard to understand how, if the area between the hills and the river was too narrow to let the Romans deploy except in a very deep formation, could Hannibal's cavalry manage to outflank them?
My brother supported his cavalry with Triarii in every battle i fought against him when he was Romans and i was Carthaginians - and there was pretty much no response i could make to it that gave me any chance. Nullified the Carthaginian advantage in cavalry, which is their only significant advantage over Romans.
Quote from: Dunnadd on 03 April 2015, 12:38:23 AM
No one really knows why they didn't do that. They were guarding the camp. Was this to stop Hannibal's cavalry raiding the camp and damaging the army's morale?
Was it for reasons of gaining political prestige for the Consuls (Generals)? If the Triarii were sent in it was seen as having been a close battle. There was prestige in winning a battle without using them.
Was it just unimaginative generals following standard practice of keeping the Triarii in reserve?
Or was it politically unpopular to send the Triarii in because the Triarii veterans considered they'd done their bit and shouldn't have to fight unless it was an emergency?
I also find it hard to understand how, if the area between the hills and the river was too narrow to let the Romans deploy except in a very deep formation, could Hannibal's cavalry manage to outflank them?
My brother supported his cavalry with Triarii in every battle i fought against him when he was Romans and i was Carthaginians - and there was pretty much no response i could make to it that gave me any chance. Nullified the Carthaginian advantage in cavalry, which is their only significant advantage over Romans.
Some very interesting thoughts, I can see some victory conditions involving the Triarii presenting the Roman player with some interesting 'political' decisions ;)
See, that's the kind of thing a good scenerio design system should cover - you can take triari at X cost. But if you take more than Y you lose A victory points/steps. Or like Maurice's increasing costs - first elite unit costs X. Second costs x+1, next x+2 etc :)
A good scenario system should also allow, not only win/lose, but also a draw as a possible result. Often our most satisfying games are the ones with two or three objectives seriously contested on the last turn, all three results still possible, coming down to the last rolls of the dice, and ending in an honours-even draw.
Chris
Quote from: Dunnadd on 03 April 2015, 12:38:23 AM
No one really knows why they didn't do that. They were guarding the camp. Was this to stop Hannibal's cavalry raiding the camp and damaging the army's morale?
Was it for reasons of gaining political prestige for the Consuls (Generals)? If the Triarii were sent in it was seen as having been a close battle. There was prestige in winning a battle without using them.
Was it just unimaginative generals following standard practice of keeping the Triarii in reserve?
Or was it politically unpopular to send the Triarii in because the Triarii veterans considered they'd done their bit and shouldn't have to fight unless it was an emergency?
I also find it hard to understand how, if the area between the hills and the river was too narrow to let the Romans deploy except in a very deep formation, could Hannibal's cavalry manage to outflank them?
My brother supported his cavalry with Triarii in every battle i fought against him when he was Romans and i was Carthaginians - and there was pretty much no response i could make to it that gave me any chance. Nullified the Carthaginian advantage in cavalry, which is their only significant advantage over Romans.
Has anyone considered that the reason the triarii weren't used might be because they were too old and knackered to be of much fighting value? The Senate did, after all, scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel to provide eight legions - an unheard of number previously - after serious losses at Trebbia and Lake Trasimene. Just a thought.
I haven't got the books here, so I'm very open to correction, but weren't the triarii actually being used to attack the Punic camp, in the hope of rendering the expected Roman victory all the more decisive by denying them anywhere to retreat? Classic hubris, in that case.
Hertsblue wrote QuoteHas anyone considered that the reason the triarii weren't used might be because they were too old and knackered to be of much fighting value? The Senate did, after all, scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel to provide eight legions - an unheard of number previously - after serious losses at Trebbia and Lake Trasimene. Just a thought.
Hadn't thought of that. Possible, but on the other hand the veterans of Alexander's army who became the Argyraspids (silver shields) in the early successors' battles were getting on more than a bit in some of those, but still seemed to outclass younger but less experienced phalangites facing them every time.
Could have been that the Romans were scraping the bottom of the barrel and down to doddery old men and boys in their early teens, but i wouldn't have thought so that early in the war. The Republic won a lot of its wars just through having immense manpower and the ability to always raise new troops. They lost two entire fleets full of legionaries to storms in the First Punic War and just raised more troops and oarsmen built more ships. They did begin freeing slaves and prisoners of war after Cannae to make two legions though, so possible,.
Fierce Kitty wrote QuoteI haven't got the books here, so I'm very open to correction, but weren't the triarii actually being used to attack the Punic camp, in the hope of rendering the expected Roman victory all the more decisive by denying them anywhere to retreat? Classic hubris, in that case.
Will check on that when i get time. I'm pretty sure different Roman and Greek historians give different accounts of the battle.
edit should have said they armed two legions of slaves and prisoners - they only got their freedom if they killed one of Hannibal's soldiers
Quote from: FierceKitty on 29 March 2015, 11:34:14 PM
Cannae: any historically-literate Roman will post triarii on the wings and almost certainly win by a central breakthrough.
Nagashino: Ieyasu himself said that if Katsutori had waited, the allies would have been forced to advance over an open field dominated by the Takeda cavalry, and thus smashed.
I meant
Katsuyori. Typo. My bad, guys.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 April 2015, 09:17:16 AM
I meant Katsuyori. Typo. My bad, guys.
Good face-saving option for Katsuyori though - can now blame it on Katsutori. :)
Sounds like my dear old home-country's government. Rename a problem rather than do anything about solving it.
I was mixed up on Cannae and the legions of criminals and slaves -they were recruited before Cannae, after the losses at the Trebbia and Lake Trasimene, which makes the lack of enough veterans for Triarii theory a bit stronger.