Author Topic: 24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling  (Read 1891 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quilts

  • Guest
24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:36:30 AM »
Hi,

I've always felt that the scaling of some lists are better than others.  Middle Anglo-Saxon is, I think, a 'victim' of poor scaling.

If we assume that all infantry elements available in the list (Wb, Sp, Ps and even Hd) are 250 men then we have an army of 48,250 with only 5000 (about 10%) being Hird.

I accept that 5000 is an acceptable figure for the maximum hird representation at any battle of the period, but feel that 48,000 is a little bit overcooked re the numbers that would have been available to any army in this time and place.

Does anybody have any figures in respect of how many men that armies of this time and place generally fielded?  And if so, what was the normal % of Hird to all others fielded?

Is Bernard Cornwell right when he describes fighting of the era in his novels?  If so then Sp(I) should probably support Sp(O) in the enemy bound.....

Cheers,

Dave

tadamson

  • Guest
Re: 24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2012, 01:21:30 PM »
Sadly list writing requires scaling to army proportions.  Many armies in this period were mid hundreds to1-2 thousands but some were larger.  nb Hd elements represent four times as many men as other elements.

As for the list....  It needs a LOT of work

eg 'select fyrd' is a modern term for the mounted warband (eoarls, theigns, 5 hyde men etc, all armoured and on horseback) clearly not Sp(i)!

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: 24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2013, 04:29:56 AM »
Actually, what bugs me about this list is how it becomes dysfunctional if you try to use an Inert C-in-C: your generals are impetuous elements, and your commands can potentially get 0 PIPs, but the majority of the elements in the commands are non-impetuous troops. So any time you score 0 PIPs the generals and their attached Hird go racing off towards the enemy, leaving the Fyrd standing around.

Of course, the solution is to turn the generals around so they're facing the rear, and thus won't make spontaneous moves, but that's just too gamey for words.

In other words, there's something seriously wrong with either the rules or the list.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: 24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2013, 08:30:05 AM »
You don't need an Inert general for that to happen - halting Wb or Irr Sp (O) is 2 PIPs, so even a non-Inert subbie or ally can be forced to hare off if they roll 1 for PIPs.

The elite warriors charging in and leving the levies behind doesn't sound inherently implausible to me, but then I'm certainly no expert on the period.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: 24. Middle Anglo-Saxon question on scaling
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2013, 03:03:04 PM »
You don't need an Inert general for that to happen - halting Wb or Irr Sp (O) is 2 PIPs, so even a non-Inert subbie or ally can be forced to hare off if they roll 1 for PIPs.
True. But at least with 1 PIP the general can take the Irr Sp (I) along with him for a full-speed straight-ahead move.

Quote
The elite warriors charging in and leving the levies behind doesn't sound inherently implausible to me, but then I'm certainly no expert on the period.
True again. I likewise lack expertise on the period, but there seems something just a little odd about the situation. I'd be curious to know if there were cases where 5-10% of the army charged off into combat while the rest stood around and scratched their backsides (especially cases involving Ethelred I and Brihtnoth, the two Inert generals for the list).