Barbarian Formations

[dvk901]

Just wondering, after reading this, about our Barbarian formations. I really thing they should be more of a 'horde' formation for most units.

1 - Lack of penetration
The cavalry can charge an enemy formation if they wish, but the barbarian infantry are not lined up wide in three ranks deep. Instead, they assume a solid mass of men. Therefore when the horses arrive they cannot proceed further. There is no penetration of a tight crowd, and although plenty of barbarians are injured, the horses effectively become stuck. Thats assuming the horses will charge into them in the first place, because a thick mass of barbarians cannot be easily pushed through or jumped in the same way a line can, nor will the horses be persuaded to enter a mass of men who aren't running away. The same is true for cavalry fighting roman infantry formed up in square formations.

2 - Enemy protection
The enemy may well have protection. Armour is not so common amongst barbarians, but shields just as frequent. A charging horsemen has a metal, leather, and wooden obstacle to his initial strike. Many spear or sword thrusts that should kill the opponent either glance off or impale a shield. Indeed, the multitude of shields may even cushion the impact of a galloping horse and would bring the animal to a standstill. Should the target be wearing chainmail or perhaps some form of banded mail, or a solid breastplate, there is a chance the weapon will do no more than stun and bruise him. This is also a time when the helmet comes into its own, since the higher stance of a rider makes the enemy infantrymans head more vulnerable .

3 - Sharp objects
On arrival the horsemen may well discover that the barbarians have a nasty suprise. They're armed to the teeth. Those wielding spears or pikes may well ground them for support and leave the cavalry facing a wall of sharp points. No rider is going to take that on - its suicide. Immediately after contact the horsemen may also discover the barbarians have swords which are every bit as sharp as their own. Once engaged in melee, the rider must prevent himself from being unhorsed by the infantry milling around him. To fall from the horse is deadly - they'll be on you in an instant.

4 - Valuable assets
In a word - Horses. In the ancient world the horse is an expensive animal and in short supply. Risking them in a free-for-all melee is undesirable, and even less so injuring them in a headlong charge against your foe. Without the horse, the rider is merely another footman, with possibly less protection or lighter weaponry.

All this means that a charge in the usual sense is unlikely. There is little to gain from charging an enemy well prepared to defend themselves. In fact, it was not the job of the cavalry to attack the infantry at all, but to protect the flanks from intrusions of enemy cavalry. The effectiveness of this can be seen from the Battle of Cannae in 216BC, when the victorious carthaginians closed the trap behind the roman rear. Even in the late empire, cavalry training was broadly the same as before, and a 2nd century document Tactica, by Arrian, describes complex manoevers that stressed skirmishing with feints and hit-and-run tactics. Interestingly, he also says this - Charging in a straight line forwards they then veer to one side, as though turning to make a circle. This turn they make to the right, that is to the spear-throwing side. For thus nothing stands in the way of javelin throwing, and the shields afford protection to those throwing as they charge. Notice the charge is directed at right-angles to the frontage of the enemy.

Expert opinion agrees. If the opportunity presented itself, they would try to hit the enemy infantry in the flank after their cavalry support had been driven off. Horses could not be made to charge formed bodies of men on foot, but if the infantry lose their formation it was a different story. Then, fighting as individuals, the mounted men have a significant advantage. Once an infantryman lost his nerve and broke and ran from his formation, he would be easy meat for a pursuing cavalryman
Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565ad - Simon Macdowall/Christa Hook

So how did the roman cavalry behave on the field? Lightweight spears/javelins were thrown from horseback to harass and divert the attention of the enemy. The cavalry might ride in quickly, loose a volley of these spears, then ride away to wheel around for another pass. Horses are faster then men and a wise commander uses that to his advantage. Roman cavalry, like many other armies, employs its forces to scout, to mount defensive screens, to ward off enemy horsemen, to harasss, and to pursue.

Against an enemy cavalry unit things are more equal. The men are getting in close and fighting each other from horseback, either stationary or moving, and the horses are paradoxically less at risk aside from misplaced weapon strikes.

Attacking enemy infantry with swords from the flank or rear, the cavalrymen don't charge. They ride in, up close, and use their horse to extract them from danger where possible. The horse also has weight, which a skillfull rider can usefully employ to push men back. I should point out that horses of this time were smaller and lighter than today, useful for speed and essential for the quick turning manoevers practised by the auxillaries. There are lessons to be learned from the modern day. In a riot notice the behaviour of the crowd when police horses canter in. These horsemen don't charge, and don't need to. The unprotected rioters give way immediately and retreat in most cases. A horse will naturally kick against something it doesn't like, and thats not something to underestimate.

Toward the late empire things begin to change. Cavalry was in the ascendant. The oriental cataphract, an early version of the armoured warrior on horseback, is becoming more frequently seen both in roman armies and their opponents. These men are in the vanguard of the first attempts to have cavalry adopt a more aggressive role - The Charge. Using lances, the cataphracts charged headlong to maximise the effect of their weapons. The enemy infantry opened their ranks and allowed the horsemen in, who were then unseated and despatched. The science of the cavalry charge was not yet mastered.

[cherryfunk]

I agree, many of the lower-end 'barbarian' units should have the loose, circular 'mob' formation to depict their lack of discipline and drill.

[dvk901]

What I'm seeing about the Barbarians is that they were this 'loose mob' that was too deep to penetrate, and that the Romans almost never charged such 'mobs' because they would lose their tactical advantage. This would seem to stand true for ANY highly organized and trained\formed army...Greek, Egyptian, Carthaginian, etc. It probably explains why the Romans also abandoned the Hoplite type formation\tactics because it wasn't flexible enough to respond quickly to this 'mob' surrounding them.

Also, maybe it was you Cherry who mentioned that the Barb swordsman needed more room to operate with his big sword, and that they preferred a sort of one-on-one personal combat thing as part of their warrior hero stuff?

I know when I did this before, somebody said it looked chaotic and hard to handle.....but I really think that to be accurate, we should explore these looser mob formations.

[tone]

Yeah, I agree.
Actually it was me that said I didn't like the "mob" look, but that was because they were circles. I there a way of having loose, fairly random looking masses that aren't circles?

Also if you're playing as Rome having them more spread out also makes it look scarier, cos they'll be covering the field. I love it when you feel that you're going to be totally overwhelmed but end up winning by a narrow margin.

[dvk901]

I'll work on the Barb formations and see what I can do.

[cherryfunk]

I kind of like the circular 'mob' formation for levy type units, because they ARE so hard to use effectively, just like those units would be...