Does MF Really Exist

[philqw78]

This copied from another thread about army design. If I missed your input so far please copy it over.

Of course, not everyone believes in Medium Foot Auxilia.

There are occasions where Ammianus speaks of 'Auxillium expedios', 'Auxilia Expediti' and similar. This has been translated as light armed by Rolfe and others. I suspect that these would have been unarmoured and armed with perhaps only veruta, shield and swords as the actions where they are described are things such as attacks across rivers at night (where some of them used their shields as flotation devices) and in special fast assaults.

However, the evidence shows that at least the auxilia in the West were armed and armoured no differently than the Legionarii. Theodosius' father took four auxilia units to Britian and no legionarii units during the 'barbarian crisis', indicating that they were upto the job of reestablishing control. Similarly, it may well be that at the Battle of Ad Salices in 378AD the infantry under Richomeres were made up of just auxilia units, and they put up a hard fight against against the Goths.

The question as to if they were armed no differently from the Legionarii, and therefore how were the Legionarii armed and armoured is another tale...!

As I see it the point is, the whole HF/MF Close Order/Loose order dichotomy is artificial. Most troops (pike phalanxes perhaps excluded) could loosen up their formations to cope with terrain. Some were certainly better at it then others and some may have done it more often (Auxilia, which were often tasked with protecting the flanks of the Legions, may have found themselves in rougher Terrain more often then the Legionaries). It would be more realistic in many ways to allow most troops to change their formation density (perhaps requiring a CMT and a round to do so) as required. Non-shock Cv with their skirmish 'lines' can actually be seen as a very tentative first step in that direction.
A better split would perhaps to say HF foot are troops that could cope well with a mounted charge and MF are those that did less well, but not treat them differently in terms of speed or terrain effects. (Actually a lot of MF in FoG is classed as MF just because they were susceptible to mounted (especially in StE and the upcoming Empires of the Dragon), while that is technically ok, it's questionable if they should also get faster movement and a higher susceptibility to HF out of it as well.)

I think most stuff is graded as MF for just 2 reasons
1. It wasn't as good as other troops equipped the same, or secondary status
2. It is recorded as having often fought in rough terrain

The secondary troops would be put in rough going as they would stand up longer in there.
I don't think they should be graded differently, MF/HF, they should just be Battle Foot as opposed to skirmish. The only difference they should make is a minus for all foot losing to mounted in the open unless steady pike or spear. Pike becoming disordered and losing POA in rough spear in difficult.

So is there any need to keep MF. I think all should move 4MU. It would certainly speed up games but some troops would need their quality re-grading. And definately a FoG2+ version, oh, and the inertia of re-basing, all to 20mm deep bases.

I don't think you need a mechanism akin to the Cv one to cope with the vast majority of variation of density. It would effectively be bound up with the "weapon" classification e.g. Pikes get affecte dmore in terrain than Impact Foot which recognises that the latter types could loosen up and remain effective whilst the latter cannot to the same degree.

Yup, cohesion is the best way to look at difference IMO. You could have, instead of HF/MF, Cohesive Foot and Less Cohesive Foot.

[philqw78]

Yup, cohesion is the best way to look at difference IMO. You could have, instead of HF/MF, Cohesive Foot and Less Cohesive Foot.

But surely that is troop quality

[bobm]

The Hellenistic world more clearly identifies three categories of foot;
phalanx
peltast (then theurophorae)
skirmishers

The Romans don't fit into the system; Legionaries are heavier than peltasts but lighter than phalanx. Auxilliaries are "jack of all trades", equipped cheaper than the Legions and not trained to hurl pila then get stuck in with sword but otherwise still as "heavy".

[lawrenceg]

The Hellenistic world more clearly identifies three categories of foot;
phalanx
peltast (then theurophorae)
skirmishers

The Romans don't fit into the system; Legionaries are heavier than peltasts but lighter than phalanx. Auxilliaries are "jack of all trades", equipped cheaper than the Legions and not trained to hurl pila then get stuck in with sword but otherwise still as "heavy".

I don't agree with that description of Romans.

Early on, legionaries were members of the Roman state or "Allies" obliged to serve for a normally short time, i.e. conscripts trained to fight in various roles (which would include velites as well as the other graades with probably more armour and normally a bigger shield than phalangites). Auxilia were other nationality troops, e.g. mercenaries, using native methods and organisation, which could be heavy or light.

Later on (from Marius), legionaries became full-time professionals and heavily armed and protected.

Later still, Auxilia were part of the organic Roman army structure, although it seems that some units of particular ethnic origin probably retained specialist capabilities from their pre-Roman life. It also seems that legionary troops did a lot of engineering and "life support" projects. I get the impression (from my fairly superficial knowledge) that legions were engineers first, but also very good in a simple line up and fight situation, auxilia were more the professional infantry/rangers/special forces.

Very late, it is not clear what the difference was, except that some Auxilia units seem to have been 500 men instead of the supposedly 1000 man legion, but some were 1000. However, it is clear that at least some Auxilia were capable of holding their own as front line units in battle. Possibly Auxilia was just a name in the same way that we now have "dragoons", "hussars" and "lancers", not indicating battlefield role at all.

[bobm]

I'm not really sure what part of my description you don't like. I accept I've compressed a long period into a short paragraph so variations existed. I think you're missing that for most of the period the Legion existed it was manned by Roman citizens whereas Auxilia were granted citizenship upon discharge. Losses of Legions was serious for this reason and they were the most important part of any army. Generals leaving them behind on particularly risky operations has a certain logic to it. Neither category of troops were as "heavy" (i.e. solid) as a pike or spear armed phalanx.

[grahambriggs]

When we did the Blood and Gold lists we graded a lot of troops as MF as a result of their later performance against the Spanish. The Aztecs, for example, were initially happy to take on the Spanish in close order in the open. However, they were unable to stand up to the steel arms and armour of the foot and didn't have any anti cavalry drill so groups of horsemen cut through them.

Later, they took to bad going which seemed to be better for them, perhaps disrupting the Spanish cohesion.

A similar situation occurred in South America where the Southern Mapuche had long spear - seemingly ideal against cavalry but, in our period at least, no anti cavalry drill. Hence they did badly to start with against mounted conquistadors in the open but improved with time by developing anti cavalry drill and metal spear points.

MF simulates these close combat circumstances quite well to my mind.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm not really sure what part of my description you don't like. I accept I've compressed a long period into a short paragraph so variations existed. I think you're missing that for most of the period the Legion existed it was manned by Roman citizens whereas Auxilia were granted citizenship upon discharge. Losses of Legions was serious for this reason and they were the most important part of any army. Generals leaving them behind on particularly risky operations has a certain logic to it. Neither category of troops were as "heavy" (i.e. solid) as a pike or spear armed phalanx.

I'm with Lawrence on this. The legionarii are clearly "heavy infantry" in the way that Greek hoplites, etc. are. Although operating in a different manner (for a lot of their history) - i.e. throw things and get stuck in with a sword rather than poke with a spear - they are cohesive battle line troops designed for close combat and defeating enemy straight on. The imperial period Auxilia started off as a cheap and more expendable (not being citizens) version of the legionarii.

[philqw78]

But were the auxilia a completely different troop type (MF) or just a, initially, cheaper and less reliable version of legions.

[lawrenceg]

Of course, even if Roman Auxilia were HF, that does not mean that MF did not exist.

[philqw78]

But did the foot that we call MF just close up when in the open, and those we call HF just spread out when they got to a bit of rough going. Is there any point in the rules differentiating? We can differentiate by weapon effect, again making the rules simpler, and letting HF move further.
The point above about the American armies does not matter as in our period they weren't fighting horses, so no special rule would be needed. Apparently the Chinese books are going to have lots of MF as they weren't good against mounted. A lot of their troops were armed with heavy weapon type thingies, so they will still be poor at impact.

[batesmotel]

Just to be contrarian, would it make sense to treat all current HF as MF instead except for pikes and close order hoplites or other "phalanx" style spearmen or spearmen primarily intended for anti-mounted use? It might require some adjustment on POAs to keep mounted from being too effective against some foot. Maybe the mounted + against MF would only be for lower morale grade MF. This would reduce the mobility of phalanxes compared with other foot while speeding up the maneuverabity of many armies that are currently HF.

Chris

[philqw78]

Just to be contrarian, would it make sense to treat all current HF as MF

I think it does. No POA's for Spear in difficult. No POA's for Pike in Rough or difficult. Reduce the manouverability of foot, so turn and move 2 MU for drilled Battle Foot (battle mounted if you want). If pike are still too manouverable make them all undrilled due to their inertia. But I don't think that is necessary with a 2 MU turn and move for all.

[grahambriggs]

But did the foot that we call MF just close up when in the open, and those we call HF just spread out when they got to a bit of rough going. Is there any point in the rules differentiating? We can differentiate by weapon effect, again making the rules simpler, and letting HF move further.
The point above about the American armies does not matter as in our period they weren't fighting horses, so no special rule would be needed. Apparently the Chinese books are going to have lots of MF as they weren't good against mounted. A lot of their troops were armed with heavy weapon type thingies, so they will still be poor at impact.

Some of the heavy foot types can't spread out effectively though. Shieldwalls require troops to be sufficiently close that the shield give overlapping coverage to the men. While some troops might be able to switch between 'close' and 'loose' roles it doesn't mean that most would. To get good at both roles might mean more training/experience, and possibly different weapons and shields.

[philqw78]

But Saxon Huscarls allegedly used shieldwalls. Yet in the same list they can be graded as HF or, in a special campaign, MF. Did they take a few weeks off for training, or were they just told to spread out a bit.

[grahambriggs]

But Saxon Huscarls allegedly used shieldwalls. Yet in the same list they can be graded as HF or, in a special campaign, MF. Did they take a few weeks off for training, or were they just told to spread out a bit.

I can't be held responsible for list writing muppets.

Huscarls were generally pretty experienced troops, and normally seem to have fought in close formation. Perhaps there was a pressing need for them to spread out a bit. I'm not saying heavy foot couldn't fight in a looser order if need be. Just that they might not be very good at it. Another example is the younger, more athletic hoplites who were used for emergency 'light duties' in Xenophon's Ten Thousand. However, the great majority stuck to being heavy foot.

[philqw78]

I can't be held responsible for list writing muppets.
.

Pots and kettles mister Blood and Gold

[bobm]

I'm with Lawrence on this. The legionarii are clearly "heavy infantry" in the way that Greek hoplites, etc. are. Although operating in a different manner (for a lot of their history) - i.e. throw things and get stuck in with a sword rather than poke with a spear - they are cohesive battle line troops designed for close combat and defeating enemy straight on. The imperial period Auxilia started off as a cheap and more expendable (not being citizens) version of the legionarii.

...the same but....further apart and therefore less dependant on the guy next to them (especially his shield) whilst fighting in an individualistic manner. They are main battle line troops but more flexible than the "heaviest" they faced.

[grahambriggs]

I can't be held responsible for list writing muppets.
.

Pots and kettles mister Blood and Gold

Just getting my retaliation in first. Next step when it's out will be "I didn't do that list" - which will be true at least for the North American stuff. Then it'll be "yes that's what I wanted but the big boy made me".

[philqw78]

Just getting my retaliation in first. Next step when it's out will be "I didn't do that list" - which will be true at least for the North American stuff. Then it'll be "yes that's what I wanted but the big boy made me".

He must have been very big

[msuspartan]

As a matter of fact, Huscarls WERE HF. They also were more experienced, better trained and most were fairly rich meaning much better armour and weapons.
They were known to use shield walls and many had a spear with an axe available when in close quarters. The axe was also used to remove the shield from an opponent by embedding the axe in a shield then twisting or pulling violently. This in turn either sprained, injured or broke a forearm, elbow or damaged the shoulder thus opening a pathway to penetrate the enemies defenses. Very effective.

Cheers, Don