Dismounting and a die less?

[GuglielmoMarlia]

Last time I mounted on a horse I noticed little difference in my fighting and weapons handling skills. They rimaned negligible!
I wonder then if dismounted Knights shouldn't keep 2 dice in melèe. After all they are still knights.
Ref.:
-Page 99 "...knights 2 dice per front rank base";
-Page 155 " ...dismounted weapon capabilities are the same as when mounted".
Rgds/Gug

[titanu]

Last time I mounted on a horse I noticed little difference in my fighting and weapons handling skills. They rimaned negligible!
I wonder then if dismounted Knights shouldn't keep 2 dice in melèe. After all they are still knights.
Ref.:
-Page 99 "...knights 2 dice per front rank base";
-Page 155 " ...dismounted weapon capabilities are the same as when mounted".
Rgds/Gug

No they get one dice per base. P 155 - 'Each base dismounts as it's nearest foot equivalent'. So for knights as heavy foot. An example of this is men-at-arms in the Wars of the Roses or 100 Years War armies.

Page 155 read on 'Heavily armoured knights count as heavy weapon and other knights as offensive spear.

[philqw78]

Gug isn't stating a rule he's saying he thinks they are still hard as nails so should get 2 dice dismounted.

Though I would prefer that knights got better POA and as many dice as everyone else

[MikeHorah]

I had always assumed the two dice per front base for mounted knights was a reflection of the difficulties charging mounted knights had when formed up deep as at Crecy and Agincourt so encouraging you to deploy them in a single rank. When dismounted you get one dice but of course for both ranks so they don't lose out file by file .

[Simonahall]

The key is they still get 2 dice per frontage in each case but a more compact formation. They are very dangerous but rightly expensive having lost the power of the big horses and impact charge. But worth a dismount in very difficult circumstances. The Serbs dismounted loads of knights vs the Ottomans to attack fortificaitons. Battle of Nicolpolis IIRC.

Si

[hazelbark]

The Serbs dismounted loads of knights vs the Ottomans to attack fortificaitons. Battle of Nicolpolis IIRC.

The Serbs were on the side of the Ottomans at Nicopolis.

But the German knights who charged the Ottoman fortifications dismounted at them to assault them. I think this is something a lot of ancient rules get wrong. As I have been reading accounts, you don't have the mounted forces penetrating or really even testing the fortifications while mounted. They ride and dismount right there either abandoning their horses or having squires or such lead the mounts rearward.

[dave_r]

The Serbs dismounted loads of knights vs the Ottomans to attack fortificaitons. Battle of Nicolpolis IIRC.

The Serbs were on the side of the Ottomans at Nicopolis.

But the German knights who charged the Ottoman fortifications dismounted at them to assault them. I think this is something a lot of ancient rules get wrong. As I have been reading accounts, you don't have the mounted forces penetrating or really even testing the fortifications while mounted. They ride and dismount right there either abandoning their horses or having squires or such lead the mounts rearward.

Didn't the French successfully storm defences against low countries when they were mounted?

[gozerius]

No.

[grahambriggs]

The Serbs dismounted loads of knights vs the Ottomans to attack fortificaitons. Battle of Nicolpolis IIRC.

The Serbs were on the side of the Ottomans at Nicopolis.

But the German knights who charged the Ottoman fortifications dismounted at them to assault them. I think this is something a lot of ancient rules get wrong. As I have been reading accounts, you don't have the mounted forces penetrating or really even testing the fortifications while mounted. They ride and dismount right there either abandoning their horses or having squires or such lead the mounts rearward.

Surely it was the French crusader knights that assualted the fortifications at Nicopolis? And while they did that mounted, it was less a charge and more a pursuit of the foot rabble that they'd just slaughtered. Some of the knights dismounted at the line of stakes and some didn't - seems to have been very much an individual decision - though some had no doubt lost their horses. They did, however, break the Ottoman foot defending the stakes, only to get overwhelmed later.

[hazelbark]

Surely it was the French crusader knights that assualted the fortifications at Nicopolis? And while they did that mounted, it was less a charge and more a pursuit of the foot rabble that they'd just slaughtered. Some of the knights dismounted at the line of stakes and some didn't - seems to have been very much an individual decision - though some had no doubt lost their horses. They did, however, break the Ottoman foot defending the stakes, only to get overwhelmed later.

Yes it was a mix of the French/Burgundian/German knights. i.e. the ones not experienced fighting the Ottomans. The Hungarians however said, don't do that and didn't so they survived. You're also right, "German" is probably equally (in)accurately applied to both the Hungarian and French forces as this time the linguistic and ethnic Germans were everywhere.

I will need to check, I think "foot rabble" may not be what was in front of the stakes. I thought it was more mounted. But from memory you are correct they largely defeated the troops behind the stakes. I suspect you are correct it was an individual decision not an organized dismount like the cavalry in the Old West.

[petedalby]

not an organized dismount like the cavalry in the Old West.

Isn't that Cornwall?