Drucken

[Axebreaker]

In my studies of this civilization I\'ve noticed the CW supplement left out a complete class of warrior that seemed to play an important role on the battlefield.The class they left out was an elite swordsman that operated as light infantry and is not to be confused with Javelinmen who were missile troops,while the swordsmen were for close combat only.
These swordsmen were armed with long swords and daggers.They carried no shields,but did wear boar tusk helmets and leather kilts.They operated on the flanks and did take heavy infantry on when needed and were very effective vs a disorganized heavy infantry where they could get in among them and create a deadly havoc.They could also drive off enemy skirmishers due to their agility and speed.
They seemed to have been held in high regard for their willingness to take on heavy infantry without shields and were viewed as one step down from a chariot warrior in status.
I\'m very curious why this was over looked.
Any opinions on my view would be welcomed.

Cheers
Christopher

[Wellington]

The class they left out was an elite swordsman that operated as light infantry and is not to be confused with Javelinmen who were missile troops,while the swordsmen were for close combat only.
These swordsmen were armed with long swords and daggers.They carried no shields,but did wear boar tusk helmets and leather kilts.They operated on the flanks and did take heavy infantry on when needed and were very effective vs a disorganized heavy infantry where they could get in among them and create a deadly havoc.They could also drive off enemy skirmishers due to their agility and speed.
They seemed to have been held in high regard for their willingness to take on heavy infantry without shields and were viewed as one step down from a chariot warrior in status.

From where do you draw your informations? Its very detailed for a time where no written sources are existing and only a few pictures or did I misss something?

Cheers

Bernhard

[Axebreaker]

Osprey\'s \"The Mycenaeans\" c. 1650 -1100 BC by Nicolas Grguric.Also,bear in mind he didn\'t write it down as a simple footnote,but went into some compelling detail into the matter.

I just looked at the publishing date of 2005 and so in Nigel\'s defense this book was not published yet and perhaps this might have had an influence if he had access to it at the time of writing the CW supplement.

Hmm.I need to add this to my other posting.

I also wish to make absolutely clear that they replace no troop type,but rather are in addition to known troop types.

Cheers
Christopher

[Wellington]

I just studied the chapter about this type of light infantry, but the conclusions are not very convincing for me. Ok, he might be right that this type of sword armoured light infantry existed. And its true that light infantry is very useful on the flanks. But using this picural example for \"creating\" a kind of elite infantry which was high regarded is not convincing. For me its more likely that it a mythical scene, remind me to this ninja-style fighting Archilles from the movie

Always keep in mind that even a Osprey writer could be taken away by his fantasy.

[Axebreaker]

That\'s not how he defined them and he did make sense.He said they were effective vs a disorganized heavy infantry formation or a fleeing heavy infantry and guarding the flanks and this is all very probable and not fantasy like at all.I found his conclusions to make sense and not fantasy like.Heavy infantry was effective when they were fully formed and shoulder to shoulder,but were vulnerable if opened up due to the encumbrance of their large shields.This very vulnerability lead to the lightening up of the heavy infantry in later periods as described in later chapters in the book.

So,I recommend reading the book from cover to cover(or re reading) before saying a writer is dipping into fantasy in which I believe he in no way did so. ;)If your still not convinced it just goes to show two people can read the same thing and arrive at different conclusions.

[Antipater]

I would follow Ghibelline in saying that drawing information about a whole troop type from just one/a few illustrations is at least courageous.
From your (and the author\'s) tactical and logical point of view it makes perfect sense to suggest light infantry was used by the (earlier) Mycenaeans. But it\'s still a suggestion not backed by a sufficient number of sources, me thinks. Therefore I wouldn\'t say the WAB army list is lacking a crucial element.
However, WAB is neither supposed to be a historical simulation at all. If you\'re feeling the need to portray light infantry swordsmen, a solution might be to \'upgrade\' existing entries, e.g. give javelinmen the \'Veteran\' status or relieve the swordsmen of their shields. If you have a historical argument at hand, no one would be bothered.

[Axebreaker]

That is the only source I have at the moment,but I plan on trying to find some more when I have a few moments.(if any other)

As of now,I\'ll stay with the \"official\" list,but I might think about making an \"unofficial\" list ,because I see some problems with the current list in Legendary Heroes as just to far out there and I\'d like to try and represent these swordsmen,but I haven\'t quite worked out a fair way to represent them.

Personally,I think they existed and operated much the way the author described,but some more back up would help.

I also disagree with Ghib\'s view in which he implies the author suggested they were some kind of heroic ninja fighters.He never said the took on fully formed heavy infantry in a suicidal frontal assualt. The author only said they were held in high status and were effective in guarding the flanks and attacking disrupted heavy infantry blocks and very effective in pursuing broken ones.They also worked with heavy infantry and more then likely proved effective at flank attacks.This does not sound \"fantasy\" to me,but rather probable considering how each was equipped.Anyways,I appreciate your and Ghib\'s input as a nice discussion is always enjoyable even when not seeing things exactly eye to eye.

[Axebreaker]

Thought I\'d mention I\'m not getting much support for my view on the Swordsmen without shields and 90% support Ghib\'s and Antipater view in regards to historical accuracy.Anyways,the idea was very interesting if not exactly accurate.However,I\'m getting some support on the theory of a light infantry fighting in support of the heavy infantry that didn\'t just skirmish,but engaged in close quarter fighting.Most think they at least had a shield and probably some javelins.Hmmm,more to ponder.

[Antipater]

Modern view has it that swordsmen eventually outmatched the \"pikemen\" since they were more flexible, i.e. better adapted to hit & run-tactics which became common in the later (Mediterranean) Bronze Age. That doesn\'t necessarily mean that \"light infantry\" hadn\'t been deployed beforehand, they just aren\'t recorded as a primary branch.
Some historians (supported by ethnologists) suggest that young (noble-)men fought as lightly armed \'champions\' (the later Greek promachoi), perhaps before being accepted into the shieldwall. Personally I don\'t dare to take anything for granted since there\'s so little undoubted evidence.

As a sidenote: You might be interested in Robert Drews\' \"End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200 B.C.\". It\'s a well-written and moreso well-informed book that gives an overview over the current state of affairs in historical science regarding Mycenaean  warfare.

[Axebreaker]

Antipator wrote:

As a sidenote: You might be interested in Robert Drews\' \"End of the
Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200 B.C.\". It\'s
a well-written and moreso well-informed book that gives an overview
over the current state of affairs in historical science regarding
Mycenaean warfare

Yes,I\'ve been made aware of this author and he will be on my reading list. Thank you for the tip.