Raiders. Why?

Anything else related to the TRIUMPH! rules
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:47 pm

Rod wrote:Just curious would Japanese armed with the "Anti-mounted" sword like a Zanbato or Nodachi count as raiders?
Not without evidence that they fought in large groups all similarly armed, and that contemporaries believed them to be effective against historical foes rated in the game as knights or cataphracts. Since the Japanese rarely came up against such opponents historically, you could just get away with showing that they fulfilled all other aspects of Raiders -- being better than Ashigaru (often Light Foot), fighting in open order, being worse than Elite Foot, that sort of thing.

But the basic answer is that unless you're talking about large groups similarly armed, you're thinking of a skirmish game, not a battle game.
DK
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Rod » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:59 pm

DK, fair enough. Just curious, I actually know almost nothing about the use of the weapon in mass battle.... But if it truly is an "anti-mounted" weapon, seems sort of stupid to carry it around as a single person. I am not sure they really know how it was used in battle and the likelihood of using it in mass seems less likely since it was much more expensive than a normal sword or a spear to produce.

Was really trying to think about how to model my Fantasy Elves which are basically holding one of these weapons. I have them planned as Elite Foot right now, but maybe swinging such a large Sword and no shield they should be raiders :)
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:03 pm

Kontos wrote:Disappearance makes sense given the predominantly mounted migrations into western Europe during the fall of Rome and the subsequent "Dark Ages".
I love musing about this sort of change. I would have said that most armies migrating into Western Europe and causing the fall of Rome-W were foot (Franks, Saxons, Burgundi, Angles, etc.). There were a bunch of Knight armies as well (Gepids, Goths, Vandals) but the early Vandals were primarily foot (only becoming mounted after already trashing Roman Africa), and the Gepids only came in after W.Rome was already doing the final swirl around the toilet rim of history.

I'm not sure whether the Goths (Ostro and Visi) can really be blamed here for the change -- my personal thought is that it has more to do with the fall of Rome-West (as the foot forces of the west became more and more crappy and poorly trained) vand the evolution of Rome-East into a mounted force based upon fighting Sassanids, Bulgars, Avars, Huns. As foot became less important, having Elite Foot (and Raiders, which are in some ways Elite Light Foot) became less useful. The Dailami are the next appearance of elite open-order foot, and they lived and fought in a civilized world. Vikings appeared about the same time (far away) and are definitely not civilized, but fought in a very different cultural mix -- their historical opponents are almost all foot armies, as compared to the Dailami who fought against armies with a lot of mounted (horsebow and Javelin Cavalry).

And as always, it's hard to tell cause and effect. Did the ineffectiveness of Raiders against their foes cause the loss of W.Rome, or did the loss of W.Rome cause the abandonment of Raiders as a troop type?
DK
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:10 pm

Rod wrote:DK, fair enough. Just curious, I actually know almost nothing about the use of the weapon in mass battle.... But if it truly is an "anti-mounted" weapon, seems sort of stupid to carry it around as a single person.


Medieval Japan has a lot of WTF weapons, as it turns out. Tetsubo, for example. Seriously? Most of the Ninja weapons. Reminds me of the spiked armored hand with a flintlock hidden in it that you can find in weird weapons of the 16th Century in Europe, or the S.Indian Whip Sword.

See below:
Image
Rod wrote:I am not sure they really know how it was used in battle and the likelihood of using it in mass seems less likely since it was much more expensive than a normal sword or a spear to produce.
In which case it has no impact on a mass-combat battle troop rating. Sort of like the Zweihander (two handed sword) troops that the Swiss used at the corners of their pike formations.
Rod wrote: Was really trying to think about how to model my Fantasy Elves which are basically holding one of these weapons. I have them planned as Elite Foot right now, but maybe swinging such a large Sword and no shield they should be raiders :)
Nope. They are in gorgeous full armor. Two-handed weapons and full armor are not Raiders, mostly. I like your other post where you make them Elite Foot (if alone) or Pavises (simulating the formations that show up in the first scenes of the battles of the Last Alliance against orcs of Sauron in the LOTR movies).

See below:
Image

That's Pavise if I've ever seen it.
DK
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Kontos » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:13 pm

David Kuijt wrote:
Kontos wrote:The east relied more on cataphracts and chariots so maybe less of a need for "raiders" per se but the Chinese polearms, i.e. dagger-axe, may be a candidate unless they went spear or elite class.
Don't judge based upon weapons if there is any way to avoid it. The dagger-axe was a polearm issued to vast quantities of men -- most troops with them were (like the majority of Chinese foot through many periods) totally non-elite. So troops equipped with those are usually rated as Heavy Foot, sometimes as Levy, and (when used as a shielded front-line in front of vast quantities of crossbowmen) Pavise.

There might be some rare times/armies when a few stands were rated as Elite Foot, but that is most definitely the exception, not the rule.

Some Chinese armies had one stand of "Dare to Die" elite or semi-suicidal troops that could throw away their armor and fight as Raiders, but I think that is after the dagger-axe was no longer in use.
Being mass equipped, speaking of the dagger-axe, it makes perfect sense to rate them heavy foot where applicable as they do get the +3 versus mounted. If some fought in a more loose style with a little more elan, Light Spear would be more suitable than Raider. This is good as I plan to expand my horizons eastward with my new Triumph! projects.
Brian Caskey
Levy
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:28 pm
Location: Wheaton IL

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Brian Caskey » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:32 pm

Great Disussion
I like the logic behind the choices made by the authors
I REALLY like the basis of this logic FAR out stripes the Legacy
NOW -- I need to finish basing my Sea Peoples and get painting my TnR Vikings
Brian Caskey

Sgt Maj Centurion - the Legion Builder

I love Thistle & Rose Figures
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Kontos » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:23 pm

Brian Caskey wrote:Great Disussion

NOW -- I need to finish basing my Sea Peoples and get painting my TnR Vikings
You are painting TnR figures and I have yet to see them live. Can't paint what I can't buy. :D
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Bill Hupp » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:10 am

Frank,

You did see painted T&R figures at the demos and in the tournaments at Historicon.

We need painted figures for the website, so that is in process. We've posted some pictures here and more at the Facebook sites.

We are as anxious as you to get these figures into production. (And as you have mentioned keep the misses happy at the same time.)

Bill
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Kontos » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:03 pm

Thanks Bill. I was just needling you two. I am sure you are more anxious than anyone. Just know you have a customer waiting in the wings. :D
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Post by Andreas Johansson » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:12 am

David Kuijt wrote:Byzantine Menlavtoi (sp?)
Menavlatoi (or Menaulatoi, depending on how you like to transliterate αυ in Byzantine Greek).

A troop type I might have thought a good fit for Raiders is almughavars, but turns out they're Light Spears instead (at least in the Catalan Company list). I'm of the impression that almughavars didn't use long spears but did have shields, so this seems unexpected?
Post Reply