forum.wgcwar.com

As I happen to be reading a book about Livonia and Rus', I looked at the relevant lists. A couple of questions occured to me:

What's up with Teutonic Order cataphracts? As far as I know, the Order's cavalry is noted for neither extra-heavy armour nor a lack of élan. (Some later German cavalry in Germany is noted as unenterprising, which I guess accounts for the cataphracts there - though these guys are also said to be poorly armoured.)

What list covers Danish Estonia? No likely candidate appears in the enemy list for Post-Mongol Russian, and the Viking list that does appear for the Early Russians doesn't seem obviously right.

Andreas Johansson wrote:What's up with Teutonic Order cataphracts? As far as I know, the Order's cavalry is noted for neither extra-heavy armour nor a lack of élan. (Some later German cavalry in Germany is noted as unenterprising, which I guess accounts for the cataphracts there - though these guys are also said to be poorly armoured.)

I don't recall. I'll go look. I suspect that this was a border case. In the Medieval German lists there is some justification for cataphracts based upon the formations where heavily armored dudes in front protected poorly armored guys behind, as you mention -- IIRC those are some sort of double-deep formation in DBM/DBMM? (I don't play either of those, so I'm not certain). In the spirit of minimum rebasing stands of 6Kn (double-deep Knights) in legacy systems were usually classed as Cataphracts because it seemed to be the right choice for the Germans (and also, with better justification, in one or two late Byzantine lists where they existed). As for the Teutonic Order, your comment matches some unease I had when I was looking at them three months or so ago, and frowning at the cataphracts and grumbling that it seemed 200 years early for those to be the deep German formations (who appear post 1450, IIRC?).

So anyway, I'll go look.

Andreas Johansson wrote: What list covers Danish Estonia? No likely candidate appears in the enemy list for Post-Mongol Russian, and the Viking list that does appear for the Early Russians doesn't seem obviously right.

Scandinavian Leidang, if we're talking before 1280 AD, I guess. IIRC, I had great trouble finding sufficient data for some of the Baltic polities that I really wanted to make lists for. I would have loved to have a Knights of the Sword list -- but I didn't have sufficient data to do that.

Danish Estonia was too small a province to have any significant military force of its own, so it would only have an army if the Danish army visited, which seems to have happened last around 1240-42? Are you aware of any later occasion? Wikipedia mentions some posturing 1268 and 1270 when the Danish Navy went to Reval, but that is tenuous for making an enemy link, as it is much easier and cheaper to move a navy to a friendly port as a gesture of support rather than move an army to a distant small province and threaten war.

Now I'm wondering if the Danes (Scandinavian Leidang) are opponents for the Early Russians (1240-42 war), or if I missed that. [looking up army list data...] No, looks like I missed that. I'll add it. Scandinavian Leidang are enemies for Estonian and Prussian, so at least that is good.

Do you have any suggestions for extra enemies links based on your reading?

[edit] Incidentally, Andreas, congratulations on being the first denizen (if I may use the term without mockery) of the forum to earn promotion to "squire" rank due to exceeding the 50-post threshold!

The DBE's/6Kn in the DBX Teutonic Orders list are because the Novgorodian Chronicle describes Livonian forces - in both cases including some Brothers of the Teutonic Order but not the main force of the Livonian branch - using wedge formations at Lake Peipus 1242 and Wesenberg/Rakvere/Rakovor 1268. My personal view is that this doesn't make sense in the context of the DBX model, because there is no indication of great depth, and at Lake Peipus the wedge apparently consisted of the entire army, while the two wedges described at Wesenberg seem to be of significant contingents (there's no clear indication of any other forces apart from the two wedges), whereas the DBMM wedge rules are based on Hellenistic cavalry in squadron wedges. Phil, as you'll figure, thought otherwise. (There's also the more meta concern that in DBMM being in wedge makes you worse against Cv, so the Livonians would have been idiots to adopt it against the Russians if the model is realistic on this point.) DBA simply follows DBMM here - the DBA 3 effect of 6Kn is +1 v. foot, which we can't know if its appropriate here.

I can't see an argument for Triumph! cataphracts here; particularly as the Chronicle stresses the impact of the Livonian charge at Lake Peipus.

In medieval German, the DBMM lists has both deep wedges with well-armoured knights in front of lesser ones, and non-wedge DBE's all of lesser knights. The latter are unlikely cataphracts due to light armour; the former may be better candidates, but at least some Renaissance German cavalry could be fierce chargers: at Wenzenbach 1504 Maximilian's heavy cavalry (portrayed by his house artist as in a deep formation but all heavily armoured on armoured horses) are supposed to have ridden down Bohemian pikemen uphill.

Danish Estonia had a military force consisting of the King's (mostly German) vassals with their retainers. They formed a big chunk of the Livonian army at Wesenberg, and some years before they'd tried to conquer Votia (which was under Novgorodian suzerainty at the time).

ETA: Relatedly, which list if any covers other Livonian forces, principally those of the bishops and the city of Riga? Are they subsumed by the Teutonic Orders list? If so, that list needs itself as an enemy. FWIW, in DBMM Riga is covered by the "City" version of Medieval German.

Andreas Johansson wrote: I can't see an argument for Triumph! cataphracts here; particularly as the Chronicle stresses the impact of the Livonian charge at Lake Peipus.

Ya, that sounds sorta bogus.

Andreas Johansson wrote: Danish Estonia had a military force consisting of the King's (mostly German) vassals with their retainers. They formed a big chunk of the Livonian army at Wesenberg, and some years before they'd tried to conquer Votia (which was under Novgorodian suzerainty at the time).

Wesenberg was 1268, you said? That would put it still in Leidang (which goes to 1280), but we'd probably need to add an enemy link to PMR (Novgorod) since Early Russian (for earlier Novgorod) ends at 1246 or so.

Andreas Johansson wrote: ETA: Relatedly, which list if any covers other Livonian forces, principally those of the bishops and the city of Riga? Are they subsumed by the Teutonic Orders list? If so, that list needs itself as an enemy. FWIW, in DBMM Riga is covered by the "City" version of Medieval German.

There is a Medieval German Citystate (and a Feudal German Citystate) army list in Triumph!; sounds like Riga would fall into the same bucket here. Likely the Teutonic Orders list has way too many knights (and associated stuff) to be a good representation of the forces of the bishops and city of Riga. Does that mean some enemy links are missing?

At minimum, whatever list covers Riga needs Lithuania as an enemy and whatever covers Dorpat needs Early and Post-Mongol Russian. The bishop of Dorpat's men likely formed the main part of the Livonian army at Lake Peipus, and the Chronicle gives the impression that army was all cavalry.

Wesenberg was 1268, yes.

Andreas Johansson wrote:At minimum, whatever list covers Riga needs Lithuania as an enemy and whatever covers Dorpat needs Early and Post-Mongol Russian. The bishop of Dorpat's men likely formed the main part of the Livonian army at Lake Peipus, and the Chronicle gives the impression that army was all cavalry.

Dorpat doesn't seem like a good candidate for being considered a Feudal German Prince (Prince-bishop) army, regardless of the Germanic origin of its bishop. By the time of Lake Peipus (1242) the Bishopric of Dorpat had only existed for like 18 years or so, and likely there were still lots of Ugaunian/Ugandi/Estonian locals in their army at Lake Peipus. So Teutonic Order seems like a much better candidate army list to represent Dorpat and the forces at Lake Peipus. Teutonic Order included the Livonian Order after 1237, so that seems a good fit. (Livonian Order was the way the Teutonic Order included the Brothers of the Sword after the Lithuanians blasted them at Saule, 1236)

David Kuijt wrote:By the time of Lake Peipus (1242) the Bishopric of Dorpat had only existed for like 18 years or so, and likely there were still lots of Ugaunian/Ugandi/Estonian locals in their army at Lake Peipus.

On the authority of the Novgorodian Chronicle there were: most of the enemy casualties are said to have been Chud men, a rather imprecise term for various Finnic peoples of the area.

The Chronicle BTW have the Chud men charging alongside the Germans, so they seem to be Knights, at least at this battle.

Relatedly, perhaps already covered by the allies, but the Livonian Civil War of 1297-1313 saw an alliance of the archbishop of Riga, the city of Riga, the bishops of Ösel and Dorpat, and Lithuania confront the Teutonic Order (they lost). The archbishop was the effective head of the coalition.

The Lithuanians were invited into Livonia by the city of Riga, wherefore the DBMM list has Lithuanian allies for the "City" version of Medieval German.

I haven't yet found anything much in the form of information of troop-types involved.