- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#51
Weapons and Tactics / Re: Scots shields at Bannockbu...
Last post by Martin Smith - Jun 14, 2026, 06:55 AMWould the 'masses' behind therefore be Pikes (inferior)? If so, it sounds like an effective way of differentiating the stiffened front from the less well equipped later ranks.
#52
Battle Reports / Re: Pulling a fast one
Last post by Justin Swanton - Jun 13, 2026, 11:43 PMQuote from: CarlL on Jun 13, 2026, 05:56 PMDavidProbably Celtiberians or Iberians with the assumption all our battles take place in Spain. Other mercenary types would be specialists like archers or slingers which the auxiliaries are not.
What auxilliaries do you have in mind other than Latin allies, (other legion or cavalry) or mercenaries, depending on the campaigning area with Carthage?
CarlL
#53
Weapons and Tactics / Scots shields at Bannockburn, ...
Last post by Duncan Head - Jun 13, 2026, 08:36 PMI wasn't sure whether to put this one here, or in a Battleday thread, but I suppose it's not a Battleday-specific issue. So - if you are building a Scots army for Bannockburn, are you giving the spear/pike men shields, or not?
At least one English account of the battle - see below - refers to shields. But the regulations that King Robert set out a few years later, in 1318, required aketon, helmet, sword and spear - but no shield. Ian Heath's reconstruction shows a shield, and the Blue Moon figures that I'm planning to use come with separate shields, so I have a choice.
I am inclined to suspect that the absence of the shield in King Robert's statute means that it was not considered an essential part of the spearman's equipment, even if some men chose to provide themselves with one.
The English source, Trokelowe, does mention an impenetrable formation of close-set shields, though the main weapon he associates with it is the axe, not the spear: Ex parte eorum omnes pedites erant : viri quidem electi, animosi valde, securibus praeacutis cseterisque armis bellicis decenter communiti, conserta ante se ^scutorum spissitudine, cuneum impenetrabilem statuerunt. The way I'm rationalising all of this, I think, takes account of the statement in several sources that all the Scots army fought dismounted. I assume that the better-armed men in the Scots ranks would form at the front ranks - perhaps these are the viri electi, picked men - and that these would include men who in other circumstances would fight mounted - including knights and men-at-arms - and that these men would possess shields, whereas the lesser men behind them might not.
In short, I'm planning to give shields to my front rank figures - who in the DBMM context will mostly be Pikes (Ordinary) as dismounted men-at-arms - but not to the rest of the spearmen behind them. Does this sound sensible to everyone, or have I missed anything obvious?
At least one English account of the battle - see below - refers to shields. But the regulations that King Robert set out a few years later, in 1318, required aketon, helmet, sword and spear - but no shield. Ian Heath's reconstruction shows a shield, and the Blue Moon figures that I'm planning to use come with separate shields, so I have a choice.
I am inclined to suspect that the absence of the shield in King Robert's statute means that it was not considered an essential part of the spearman's equipment, even if some men chose to provide themselves with one.
The English source, Trokelowe, does mention an impenetrable formation of close-set shields, though the main weapon he associates with it is the axe, not the spear: Ex parte eorum omnes pedites erant : viri quidem electi, animosi valde, securibus praeacutis cseterisque armis bellicis decenter communiti, conserta ante se ^scutorum spissitudine, cuneum impenetrabilem statuerunt. The way I'm rationalising all of this, I think, takes account of the statement in several sources that all the Scots army fought dismounted. I assume that the better-armed men in the Scots ranks would form at the front ranks - perhaps these are the viri electi, picked men - and that these would include men who in other circumstances would fight mounted - including knights and men-at-arms - and that these men would possess shields, whereas the lesser men behind them might not.
In short, I'm planning to give shields to my front rank figures - who in the DBMM context will mostly be Pikes (Ordinary) as dismounted men-at-arms - but not to the rest of the spearmen behind them. Does this sound sensible to everyone, or have I missed anything obvious?
#54
Battle Reports / Re: Pulling a fast one
Last post by CarlL - Jun 13, 2026, 05:56 PMDavid
What auxilliaries do you have in mind other than Latin allies, (other legion or cavalry) or mercenaries, depending on the campaigning area with Carthage?
CarlL
What auxilliaries do you have in mind other than Latin allies, (other legion or cavalry) or mercenaries, depending on the campaigning area with Carthage?
CarlL
#55
Battle Reports / Re: Pulling a fast one
Last post by Justin Swanton - Jun 13, 2026, 08:42 AMQuote from: dwkay57 on Jun 13, 2026, 07:30 AMIt looks best to leave the tricks to the guys from Carthage.Tell that to Scipio!
Best tactics for the Romans is probably legions in the centre, march straight at the enemy and munch their way through them. Auxiliaries and cavalry on the flanks hanging back and stopping any flank attacks etc. for as long as they can until the legions break the enemy.
#56
Battle Reports / Re: Pulling a fast one
Last post by dwkay57 - Jun 13, 2026, 07:30 AMIt looks best to leave the tricks to the guys from Carthage.
Best tactics for the Romans is probably legions in the centre, march straight at the enemy and munch their way through them. Auxiliaries and cavalry on the flanks hanging back and stopping any flank attacks etc. for as long as they can until the legions break the enemy.
Best tactics for the Romans is probably legions in the centre, march straight at the enemy and munch their way through them. Auxiliaries and cavalry on the flanks hanging back and stopping any flank attacks etc. for as long as they can until the legions break the enemy.
#57
Battle Reports / Pulling a fast one
Last post by Justin Swanton - Jun 12, 2026, 08:04 PMMy last Optio game with Peter. One of the longest games I can remember, i.e. a little over 3 hours. I tried a stunt that almost didn't work - but worked. Enjoy!
#58
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The Normans and Byzantium
Last post by Imperial Dave - Jun 12, 2026, 07:48 AMI am getting back into it
In my opinion a good book for the period is The Kingdom in the South by John Julius Norwich
In my opinion a good book for the period is The Kingdom in the South by John Julius Norwich
#59
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The Normans and Byzantium
Last post by Dave Knight - Jun 12, 2026, 07:08 AMThanks for posting, it is a period that I am starting to get into
#60
Army Research / Re: Byzantine Heavy Cavalry
Last post by stevenneate - Jun 12, 2026, 06:53 AMAlthough he was on the other side. Either he sued the Strategikon for plagarism or he was saying "look what I got, and you don't!"
We're in that conflict where we have the theory but no hard evidence (first-hand accounts, pictorial, tombs etc) of the practice. So close! However, the theory is at least informative of what they wanted to field so there is something to work from.
We're in that conflict where we have the theory but no hard evidence (first-hand accounts, pictorial, tombs etc) of the practice. So close! However, the theory is at least informative of what they wanted to field so there is something to work from.