Real Life Military Question, for RPG Adaptation

[wayfare]

Hey All:

Just wondering if any historically well versed folks could advise me on the different types of troops that were used in the Middle Ages and during the Height of Rome.

I am trying to create a series of classes that embody different troop types.

For example, what is the difference between a Hoplite and a Skirmisher? How did units communicate with eachother on the field? Were runners employed, and if so, were they any different from scouts?

Any resources you can provide are appreciated!

[awa]

hoplites are greek not roman they were for their period heavy infantry and fought with a spear and large shield called a hopolon. they fought in a shield wall called a phallanx. For early greek wars the entire army would be one unit their was no communication.

[Palanan]

My suggestion, if you want to create historically-based fighting classes, would be to look at some of the Osprey titles on Greek and Roman military history. A lot of gaming and hobby stores will have racks of Osprey books for the historically-inclined gamers. (Because they're expensive, you can also find them at your local library, or order them through ILL.)

One of my favorite Osprey titles is English Longbowman 1330-1515 (http://www.amazon.com/English-Longbowman-1330-1515-Warrior-Bartlett/dp/1855324911/), which is a great overview of medieval English archery. I'd also suggest Anglo-Saxon Thegn AD 449-1066 (http://www.amazon.com/Anglo-Saxon-Thegn-AD-449-1066-Warrior/dp/1855323494/) for warriors from an earlier period and culture.

For ancient Greek fighters, there's Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC (http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Hoplite-480-323-BC-Warrior/dp/1855328674/) and Bronze Age Greek Warrior 1600-1100 BC (http://www.amazon.com/Bronze-Age-Greek-Warrior-1600-1100/dp/1849081956/), among others, as well as overviews of battles and campaigns such as Thermopylae 480 BC (http://www.amazon.com/Thermopylae-480-BC-stand-Campaign/dp/184176180X/), The Greek and Persian Wars 499-386 BC (http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Persian-Wars-499-386-BC/dp/1841763586/) and a number of others.

Osprey's coverage of Roman fighting units is also extensive, with a whole series on legionaries and infantrymen: Roman Republican Legionary 298-105 BC (http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Republican-Legionary-298-105-Warrior/dp/1849087814/), Roman Legionary 58 BC-AD 69 (http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Legionary-58-BC-AD-69/dp/1841766003/), Roman Legionary AD 69-161 (http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Legionary-AD-69-161-Warrior/dp/1780965877/), Late Roman Infantryman 236-565 AD (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Roman-Infantryman-236-565-AD/dp/1855324199/), and plenty more, with many other titles on cavalry, centurions, battle tactics, fortifications and so on.

These are quite skinny books, which can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what you're looking for. They tend to be 64 or 96 pages, which is enough for an overview and capsule history of the topic; I find them a good general summary, although quality really varies from title to title. Best thing to do is find a couple of these, either at a library or a used bookstore, and see what ideas they spark.

[Veklim]

For starters the height of Rome (circa AD 150) and the middle ages (ambiguous term for post-classical period between the 5th and 15th centuries) you're basically asking for a military overview for a 1300+ year period.... (also, Hoplites are BC). Do you think you could be a little more specific?

[wayfare]

@Palanan: thanks for the resources!!!

@Velkim: After some though, I think I can simplify things a bit.

When you break it down, I basically want to take real-world military units and convert them to classes. I don't think this will be a 1:1 ratio, though, as I want classes to be flexible enough to choose their own specialties.

Basically, what sorts of units were common in the middle ages and why were they used? When I look up skirmishers on wikipedia, they sound like an interesting melee/ranged blend that designed to pull cavalry into an early charge. Similarly, knights were often heavy cavalry, while viking berserkers might be considered...i'm not sure...heavy infantry?

In a Sentence: What units do you absolutely HAVE to have in order for your military to function well.

Idk if that clears things up, but any help is always appreciated!

[Silverbit]

Before I start, the playgrounders in the Weapons & Armour thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282471) might help. All below is from someone with a casual interest in history; YMMV.

To begin with, the troops in the Middle Ages and the height of Rome would be rather different. I'll start with Rome (I'll assume you mean specifically the Roman Empire, not the entire roman world). Assuming by height you mean after the Marian Reforms and the rise of the Emperors, you need: an infantry class focused around morale bonuses, sword-and-boarding, and javelin/sling usage to represent the legionnaires, some form of cavalry focused class that can choose between light and heavy branches (sort of like ranger styles) and archer/skirmishers good with javelins, slings and bows.

The Middle Ages is a really really big area of history. It would help if you specified what kind of time period you wanted. I'll post more later, I've got to go.

[Veklim]

Right, I see what you mean. I shall give you the most basic rundown of unit types to be looking at if forming generalised types, off the top of my head:

Infantry : heavy infantry for shock assault, looking at highland berserkers, vandal axemen, knights (think hospitalers and templars)
Light infantry/skirmishers for harassment and provoking bad battlefield choices, highly mobile, tender to move in and out of cover using ranged weapons and guerilla type tactics
Militia/block infantry, this includes pikemen, spears, pitchforks, etc and will make up a large bulk of any sizable army.

Light horse fulfilling similar role to light infantry but much faster and still worrying in combat, look at Mongolian horsmen
Heavy horse for charging flanks, routing and general 'scare the crap outta them, look at early dragoons, hussars, chariots and the like

Archers are self explanatory, but also include javelins, crossbows, slings etc depending on period/technology.

Seige weaponry, depending on tech, there is evidence for this from Greek classical period onwards, artillery fits into this category.

Voila, basis of an army. You need a reasonable amount of infantry, some archers and preferrably cavalry of at least one type, although as was said earlier, mixed unit tactics varies by region, period and technology also.

[awa]

In a Sentence: What units do you absolutely HAVE to have in order for your military to function well.



theirs nothing you have to have because a military isn't measured against an abstract concept but other armies.

The Spartans did very well for themselves despite having only one type of troop, a strategy that amounted to get in a line and march at the enemy and even worse at anything not military related.

[Cuaqchi]

theirs nothing you have to have because a military isn't measured against an abstract concept but other armies.

The Spartans did very well for themselves despite having only one type of troop, a strategy that amounted to get in a line and march at the enemy and even worse at anything not military related.

+1; and to continue with Rome their soldiers were the best for a long time because they were very adept and rapid mobilization. They could tear down or set-up fortifications and supply points very rapidly allowing them to fight very well against heavy odds in otherwise poor terrain. Ceaser's victory at Alesia for example involved besieging an enemy city while being besieged by its reinforcements and they won because of how well trained the men were as combat engineers.

[wayfare]

+1; and to continue with Rome their soldiers were the best for a long time because they were very adept and rapid mobilization. They could tear down or set-up fortifications and supply points very rapidly allowing them to fight very well against heavy odds in otherwise poor terrain. Ceaser's victory at Alesia for example involved besieging an enemy city while being besieged by its reinforcements and they won because of how well trained the men were as combat engineers.

Thanks for all the feedback, guys!

@awa+Cuaqchi: But doesn't history reveal something about what is most effective in terms of troop strength?

Like, you might not use heavy cavalry in rough terrain, because the horses would get tired quick and its harder for them to move across obstacles. Or if you have static defenses in an area, you might rely on heavily armed and armored troops that can strike and withdraw to the defenses quickly?

I am definitely not a scholar in this area, but it just seems that if you only have one troop type, there must be some sort of advantage that allows you to have that one kind of troop.

[awa]

my point is you can't make a blanket statement about what types of troops you need.

It's a combination of tons of factors including technology, tactics, and terrain both your own and your enemies.

In the ancient world you often run into a situation where a given people would basically have one troop type and would then hire mercenaries with a different troop types. Particularly when that fighting style was very time intensive to learn like slingers or horse archers.

[Cuaqchi]

Armies were also generally much smaller so extensive combined arms wasn't really required. Most forces didn't go beyond 2 or 3 troop types until well into the 20th century when resources made for greater strategic variety. That doesn't mean however that multiple different troop types didn't exist and as Awa pointed out mercenaries were a big part of military campaigns. A nation with a limited availability of horses for example would use very little cavalry and even upon adopting such forces generally would have very distinct combat styles from one which developed alongside the beasts for an extended period.

Continuing the Greece and Rome examples neither force actually used much cavalry until major expansion made such things viable. The Macedonian empire still used horsemen almost exclusively for recon and military exploitation (Running down defeated enemies); and, until about 250-300 the Romans only used horses to move their best infantry into position having learned the simplest of these tactics from the Gauls who did so.

Regarding effective troop strength it is actually all a matter of the commander and even modern wars demonstrate this. If the men are well trained and well led they can adapt rapidly to changing conditions and turn defeat into a victory. Both Alexander the Great and Ceaser won battles while heavily outnumbered and relying mainly on a single type of soldier (Heavy Infantry); and, moving to Medieval combat we see a move towards heavy cavalry which while generally successful has issues dealing with light cavalry (Arabic Cavaliers during the Crusades), terrain (The real reason for the fame of the longbow), and fortifications (There is a reason siege warfare was common) which all require a commander to adapt if they are to succeed.

[Dienekes]

theirs nothing you have to have because a military isn't measured against an abstract concept but other armies.

The Spartans did very well for themselves despite having only one type of troop, a strategy that amounted to get in a line and march at the enemy and even worse at anything not military related.

Ehh even then their dominance was short lived and it proved inflexible with dealing with many later tactics. They also generally had allies to fill in the holes of their units, like archers and cavalry.

Anyway this question is ridiculously complex. There were numerous types of soldiers from a lot of periods. Hell just talking about the Romans we have several stages to choose from.

Early Rome= basically hoplites
Expansion Rome= a mix of hoplites and skirmishers
Marian Reformation= legionnaires with auxiliaries
High Empire= legionnaires and combat engineers with auxiliaries
Falling Empire= levies

Medieval warfare would be even more complicated.

If I had to break it down to simple classes I would probably do something like this:

Formation Fighter= legionnaires, hoplites, Swiss mercenaries. Generally focus on a strength in numbers approach to combat
Archers= Archers, Crossbowman. Focused on firing in volleys.
Combat Engineers= those who move mountains and fire catapults
Skirmishers= Velites, Peltasts and the like who weave around the sides of combat and harass the opponents
Shock Cavalry= knights and their equivalents. Horseman used to charge a hole in the formation and trample on everything
Ranged Cavalry= like archers, but more mobile.
Non-Formation Fighter= Germanic barbarians, Berserkr, Julius Caesar era centurions, dopplesoldners, the crazy guys who charge out of a formation and engage the enemy.

That's all pretty broad. And while Cuaqchi is largely correct it wasn't unheard of for their to be combined forces either. Especially where mercenaries are concerned. Medieval battles could be a mix of formation soldiers, archers, and heavy cavalry on one side, with skirmishers, ranged cavalry, and formation soldiers on the other.