Early Samurai foot

[Andreas Johansson]

The Early Samurai list has the bulk of the foot as Pavisiers. My understanding (mainly based on comments by Duncan Head and a line in the corresponding DBMM list) is that these are just bowmen with pavises, lacking any "crust" of spearmen or the like, so maybe they ought be Archers or even Bow Levy instead? Either classification would leave the samurai as more plausibly tactically dominant.

[David Kuijt]

The Early Samurai list has the bulk of the foot as Pavisiers. My understanding (mainly based on comments by Duncan Head and a line in the corresponding DBMM list) is that these are just bowmen with pavises, lacking any "crust" of spearmen or the like, so maybe they ought be Archers or even Bow Levy instead? Either classification would leave the samurai as more plausibly tactically dominant.

A culture that's significantly outside my comfort zone. But you're right, purely in game terms the mounted bushi (Horsebow) would be ineffective and dominated by the foot (Pavise), and that's not the effect we are looking for in civil wars (where the vast majority of Japanese military action always was). Bow Levy would give more the right effect.

Similar problems might exist with the Pre-Samurai Japanese army list, which is massive Pavise for the Heishi militia bow and spear formations. Fighting against the later Emishi (massed horsebow) they would be superdominant, which is again probably too powerful.

[Andreas Johansson]

Checking Karl Friday's Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan (which concentrates on samurai rather than lesser warriors), bowmen shooting from behind pavises are likened to European crossbow-and-pavise infantry. This might argue for classification as Archers*, but on internal balance grounds I agree Bow Levy seems more appropriate.

* Which is anyway the usual Triumph! fate of DBX Bows (O) - I haven't noticed any other case of troops classed as Bows (O) in DBMM becoming Pavisiers in Triumph!.

[David Kuijt]

Checking Karl Friday's Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan (which concentrates on samurai rather than lesser warriors), bowmen shooting from behind pavises are likened to European crossbow-and-pavise infantry. This might argue for classification as Archers*, but on internal balance grounds I agree Bow Levy seems more appropriate.

* Which is anyway the usual Triumph! fate of DBX Bows (O) - I haven't noticed any other case of troops classed as Bows (O) in DBMM becoming Pavisiers in Triumph!.

I'm not sure I understand -- crossbow-and-pavise infantry are one of the poster-children for the Pavise stand type. (the other major ones are EAP/Later Babylon and some of the Byzantine infantry, IIRC)

[Andreas Johansson]

Acc'd the Meshwesh definition, Pavisiers are a "combination formation where a large body of long-distance missile troops are stiffened with a few front ranks of spear or pike, often with the large shield called (in the Middle Ages) a pavise, or similar." So I assumed that while the pavise is typical, it's the front ranks with close combat weapon that's definitional (just like for DBX Bows (X)). There's quite a few European crossbowmen (e.g. some Germans) that have pavises but no spears or the like; in DBMM these are normally Bows (O), and from the Meshwesh lists I'd gotten the impression they're Archers in Triumph!. There are, frex, no Pavisiers in the Medieval German lists*.

* For the 15th century, there perhaps should be, even if I'm right about the crossbow-and-pavise(-but-no-spear) guys being Archers: various German princes employed Bohemian mercenaries in large numbers after the Hussite wars, and the infantry were armed predominantly with crossbows, with an admixture of polearms and roughly one pavise per ten men. There doesn't seem to be any direct information on battlefield deployments, but the proportions certainly suggest a close-fighting "crust". By the early 16th century they seem to've mostly replaced the crossbows with pikes, but retained the pavises - Pk (X) in DBX terms. The book to read about them is probably Uwe Tresp's Söldner aus Böhmen - not aware of anything in English. They could form a very significant proportion of German armies; in the 1440s, a Thüringer army sent to support the Archbishop of Cologne against Soest was a quarter each of Bohemian foot and cavalry (the later armed with spear and crossbow - Bad Horse in Triumph! terms?).

[David Kuijt]

Acc'd the Meshwesh definition, Pavisiers are a "combination formation where a large body of long-distance missile troops are stiffened with a few front ranks of spear or pike, often with the large shield called (in the Middle Ages) a pavise, or similar." So I assumed that while the pavise is typical, it's the front ranks with close combat weapon that's definitional (just like for DBX Bows (X)). There's quite a few European crossbowmen (e.g. some Germans) that have pavises but no spears or the like; in DBMM these are normally Bows (O), and from the Meshwesh lists I'd gotten the impression they're Archers in Triumph!. There are, frex, no Pavisiers in the Medieval German lists*.

Ah, I see. So you're talking about "crossbow and pavise" in the sense where the crossbowmen have individual (personal) mantlets or similar to protect themselves when reloading, not where "crossbow and pavise" means some guys with the first and some guys protecting them with the second. Yes, without individuals with spears or polearms wielding the pavises as a hard candy coating, those would just be Archers or possibly Bow Levy, not Pavises in Triumph!

* For the 15th century, there perhaps should be, even if I'm right about the crossbow-and-pavise(-but-no-spear) guys being Archers: various German princes employed Bohemian mercenaries in large numbers after the Hussite wars, and the infantry were armed predominantly with crossbows, with an admixture of polearms and roughly one pavise per ten men. There doesn't seem to be any direct information on battlefield deployments, but the proportions certainly suggest a close-fighting "crust". By the early 16th century they seem to've mostly replaced the crossbows with pikes, but retained the pavises - Pk (X) in DBX terms. The book to read about them is probably Uwe Tresp's Söldner aus Böhmen - not aware of anything in English. They could form a very significant proportion of German armies; in the 1440s, a Thüringer army sent to support the Archbishop of Cologne against Soest was a quarter each of Bohemian foot and cavalry (the later armed with spear and crossbow - Bad Horse in Triumph! terms?).

I think I've seen something like the above being discussed online somewhere.

I've got crude conversational German, but geeze, $85-$100 for a book I'll have to fight to understand is rough. I bought a number of (less expensive) books on Sub-saharan Africa when I was researching those lists 1-3 years ago, and I got pretty tired of buying a bunch of books where only 3-10 pages out of 200+ was relevant to constructing army lists. That gets pretty painful.

The real question with the above (your quoted paragraph) is simply this: what was their formation in battle? If they weren't something rating the stand type Pavise, then the current army lists are fine (they include 1-2 Archer or Skirmisher "Mercenary bow or crossbow" more the Late Medieval Citystate list, and 2-4 of them for the Late Medieval Princes list).

I find it interesting that the major proponents of the Pavise troop type in Medieval Europe (Italian Condottas) started phasing that troop type out around the middle of the 15th century, which seems to argue against them coming into fashion nearby. While that might be due to other causes (increasing use of artillery, which might be awkward for big close-order formations such as those classed as Pavises in Triumph), the same military trends (increasing use of artillery) would surely be operating north of the Alps as south of them.

[Andreas Johansson]

Ah, I see. So you're talking about "crossbow and pavise" in the sense where the crossbowmen have individual (personal) mantlets or similar to protect themselves when reloading, not where "crossbow and pavise" means some guys with the first and some guys protecting them with the second.

Yep.

In the 10th century Japanese case, the pavises are a free-standing portable wall, but the men behind seem to be all archers.

I think I've seen something like the above being discussed online somewhere.

If it's of any help, there's a long discussion about them in the DBMMlist archives at Yahoo, called "Medieval Ger^H Czech".

The real question with the above (your quoted paragraph) is simply this: what was their formation in battle? If they weren't something rating the stand type Pavise, then the current army lists are fine (they include 1-2 Archer or Skirmisher "Mercenary bow or crossbow" more the Late Medieval Citystate list, and 2-4 of them for the Late Medieval Princes list).

FWIW, I argued they should be Bows (O) in DBMM, but Phil eventually went for Bows (X).

I find it interesting that the major proponents of the Pavise troop type in Medieval Europe (Italian Condottas) started phasing that troop type out around the middle of the 15th century, which seems to argue against them coming into fashion nearby. While that might be due to other causes (increasing use of artillery, which might be awkward for big close-order formations such as those classed as Pavises in Triumph), the same military trends (increasing use of artillery) would surely be operating north of the Alps as south of them.

The Bohemians themselves were noted exponents of artillery during the Hussite Wars; latter mercenary forces don't appear to have been as heavy on gunpowder. At their last major outing, Wenzenbach 1504 - when they as said appear to have mostly replaced the crossbow with the pike, but kept the pavises - they were first bombarded with artillery, and then smashed by landsknechte and heavy cavalry.

But in general, big close-order formations seem to've been doing fine well into the 16th century - think e.g. of Swiss pike squares.

[David Kuijt]

In the 10th century Japanese case, the pavises are a free-standing portable wall, but the men behind seem to be all archers.

Yes, that doesn't seem like a good candidate for Pavise. Thanks for pointing this out. This isn't much different from the stakes of the HYW English, the ditch Belisarius dug at Dara, and various practices of Crossbowmen in the medieval period that do not get rated as Pavise. Most importantly, with no spearmen manning those shields, they wouldn't give the resistance to being shattered when attacked by non-Knight mounted that is a critical component of the Pavise troop type in Triumph!

I think I've seen something like the above being discussed online somewhere.

If it's of any help, there's a long discussion about them in the DBMMlist archives at Yahoo, called "Medieval Ger^H Czech".

Thx.

The real question with the above (your quoted paragraph) is simply this: what was their formation in battle? If they weren't something rating the stand type Pavise, then the current army lists are fine (they include 1-2 Archer or Skirmisher "Mercenary bow or crossbow" more the Late Medieval Citystate list, and 2-4 of them for the Late Medieval Princes list).

FWIW, I argued they should be Bows (O) in DBMM, but Phil eventually went for Bows (X).

I'm of two minds. The proportions could mean that -- or they could just mean that some of the mercenaries fought as heavy foot. Which is how a zillion of the Hussites are rated, so formations like that would be normal to the Bohemians in question.

I find it interesting that the major proponents of the Pavise troop type in Medieval Europe (Italian Condottas) started phasing that troop type out around the middle of the 15th century, which seems to argue against them coming into fashion nearby. While that might be due to other causes (increasing use of artillery, which might be awkward for big close-order formations such as those classed as Pavises in Triumph), the same military trends (increasing use of artillery) would surely be operating north of the Alps as south of them.

The Bohemians themselves were noted exponents of artillery during the Hussite Wars; latter mercenary forces don't appear to have been as heavy on gunpowder. At their last major outing, Wenzenbach 1504 - when they as said appear to have mostly replaced the crossbow with the pike, but kept the pavises - they were first bombarded with artillery, and then smashed by landsknechte and heavy cavalry.

But in general, big close-order formations seem to've been doing fine well into the 16th century - think e.g. of Swiss pike squares.

Ya, that's true. So my supposition (increasing use of artillery being the cause of the fading use of Pavises in the Italian Condotta armies) doesn't work unless Pavise formations were considered more vulnerable to that then other close-order foot that was becoming more prevalent (Pikes). Military fashion is usually more complex than that anyway, I guess.