Clarification on mounted infantry

Many armies can provide mounts to infantry that allow 10MU movement in their first activation.

I wanted to get a clarifications: do they count as infantry throughout the entire activation, or are they mounted?

So, my mounted Vikings can move 10MU per phase. They deploy at 30cm on, then move 3 times - being extremely lucky they way they are, and having a general with them - which allows them to charge the enemy on the third move.

The opponent is FP 5/1/B Long Spear. Are my Vikings a mounted troop and therefore have no impetus value?

I didn't think you could charge mounted infantry into melee.

Gaius Cassius wrote:I didn't think you could charge mounted infantry into melee.  

Yes, I think that the fact that they're mounted Infantry means that they would have to dismount before coming into contact.

Some rules do allow mounted infantry and (in a slightly later period) dragoons to fight on horseback but they tend to fight as poor cavalry.

So if your Vikings did ride into combat they'd probably be something like VBU 4, Impetus 1 because they are not properly trained cavalry

Show me an example of when this ever took place.

I=0. And I am being generous.

Mounted infantry are just that - men on horses.
They are not formed and trained bodies of people who fight on horseback.

starkadder wrote:Show me an example of when this ever took place.

Regino of Prum records 'Equites Nortmannorum' (Viking cavalry) successfully attacking Frankish troops on the Geule in 891.

Mounted infantry are just that - men on horses.
They are not formed and trained bodies of people who fight on horseback.

The division between infantry and cavalry is a false dichotomy that bedevils the study of the early medieval period in western Europe. It is anachronistic and probably arises from scholars in the nineteenth century thinking in terms of their own contemporary military structures.  For this period, as Halsall and Lavelle have shown, it is better to think of Viking and Anglo-Saxon warriors as men who could fight either mounted or dismounted at need, although I would suggest that only the upper echelons of society would have done this. In this respect, they were probably little different from the knights of the later medieval period who could also fight mounted or dismounted as needed.

In that case, the obviously solution is to pay the points as cavalry and dismount them to fight on foot.

cavalry at 5/2/B 23

Mounted infantry at 5/2/B 19 (plus whatever you pay for mounted infantry.)

Geule was more a raid than a pitched battle to my understanding. Saga would probably better represent the results than Impetus.

I support the idea that the Huscarls and other professional troops in the Viking and Saxon armies could operate as horse or foot. But the mounted infantry rule is not designed for this possibility.

Gaius Cassius wrote:Geule was more a raid than a pitched battle to my understanding. Saga would probably better represent the results than Impetus.

That may be true of most battles featuring Vikings as the sole component of one side. Based on the game's scale there has to be a necessary expansion of army size to make Viking armies compatible with other armies for equal points games against opponents they did not historically fight. Taking a couple of quick (rough and ready) examples from history: Stiklestad in 1030, at a rough estimate based on the Wiki numbers which seem a little high to me, saw an army of about 175-200 points (Olaf's enemies) versus an army of about 100 points; and King Sverre in the late twelfth century (not really Viking except in DBx lists, but I have the numbers readily to hand) conquered Norway with an 'army' comprising a single element of troops (200 to 1000 men according to Sverris saga). I cannot recall any specific research on army numbers right now, but I do think that the lower numbers are probably typical, although I reserve the right to change my mind when my head clears enough to check things properly.

But the mounted infantry rule is not designed for this possibility.

It's not, and I am happy enough to use it as is. It feels about right for a generic late Viking army, as well as for the 1066 campaign which the list is specifically targeted at. Cavalry can easily be added on a scenario-specific basis where it was demonstrably used, and I would suggest that earlier campaigns would require a slightly different list structure/weighting anyway.

One problem is that there is lack of evidence for what happened when Vikings or Saxons fought on Horseback against like numbers of competent cavalry.

To the best of my knowledge the Saxons never did, and whilst I'm not terribly clued up on the battles between Vikings and Franks, I do get the impression that in 'formal battles' the Vikings tended to dismount and fight on foot.
They probably felt they were better off being good infantry rather than mediocre cavalry

I agree that lack of evidence is an issue, although some of that lack seems to be down to interpretation of the sources, if I read Halsall aright. Still, as I am so fond of saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This lack of evidence extends to the competence of Saxon and Viking cavalry. We simply don't know how good they were relative to other armies. I think I agree that they were probably better infantry than cavalry, but horsemanship was seen as a skill of the social elite, so that does not necessarily follow. It may also be the case that Viking armies simply did not have enough horses available at any given moment to field detachments of viable cavalry, and so they chose to fight dismounted. This is definitely a topic that bears further research.

Remember that Vikings by definition used stolen horses they'd picked up when raiding. These were not necessarily (indeed in all probability were not) trained cavalry horses.

Also 'social riding' is very different from fighting on horseback. Think about one detail. You hold your reins in your left hand because your right hand has your sword or spear in it.
The left arm also has the shield. So the horse has to know when you move your left hand sideways you are using the shield to block a blow rather than trying to get him to turn left. There is an awful lot of training involved which involves man and horse training together

Jim

If we are solely using Viking to refer to the role, then I completely take your point about the use of stolen horses for purely raiding armies, although I cannot wholly agree that they were in all probability not cavalry horses. Whether they were or not would come down to who owned the horses and why they kept them. Given that horses were high status property, a higher percentage of those stolen could well have been trained to respond to neck-reining or leg pressure. Of course, we're speculating here really, because we don't have the evidence to support either premise.

The horsemanship that was valuable to the Scandinavian social elite was probably not merely 'social riding', but rather that associated with combat skills. Adam of Bremen even comments on the skill of Swedish warriors on horseback. Engstrom's work on the Vendel graves that indicated the use of cavalry in the late pre-Viking Iron Age might indicate a tradition of cavalry use in Sweden. I don't have similar sources for Norwegian cavalry, but the Danes certainly seem to have had cavalry for their military expeditions.

Regarding training, yes, it takes a bit of work to train a horse to respond as you say, but a skilled rider can get a horse working the way they want it to quite quickly, or so my experience of Prince Philip Cup and MGA taught me, back in the days when I used to compete in and train horses for those competitions. Thus, the trained Viking riders could make their horses moderately effective given a little time to work with them. I can't see one of the large armies not taking time to train. However, we don't really know sufficient about the basic training that all horses had back then to really make informed comment about what additional training the horses might have needed though.

One problem I see with this discussion is the use of the word Viking. By definition, it refers to a raider and a pirate. In this sense, the Great Army or Harald hardrada's army and other similar Scandinavian endeavours are not Viking armies, because they are armies of conquest. They only become so when Viking is used in the sense of an ethnic identity as it came to be from the nineteenth century.

While I am rambling incoherently and at too great length, I did find a reference to the Battle of Sulcoit, where there were apparently a contingent of Norse cavalry. Is that a better example than the Guele? And do these Norsemen count as Vikings?

Looked at the fount of all knowledge (Wiki ) and it does mention champions fighting mounted

One problem is that the battle was fought as an ambush in forest too thick to form shieldwall, which means cavalry are not going to be effective, but lack of effectiveness doesn't mean that they weren't there.

The wiki does have some sources,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TgMGAAAAQAAJ&hl=en and others amongst them.
Anybody got time to do some checking?



Jim

I got the reference from Foote who describes it as 'a battalion of cavalry'. My Old Irish is not up to reading the poem in time for any contribution to be meaningful though, but Foote is generally pretty good, or was for his time.

I spotted the Wiki mention too. That particular sentence about champions amused me.

A unit or two of Norman like cavalry for the later Saxons wouldn't bother me at all (reflecting the King's Huscarls.) Neither Stamford Bridge or Hastings would have been a great place to deploy Saxon cavalry. Vikings is a bit of a different kettle of fish and I have a hard time believing that fought effectively on horse in large enough numbers to warrant much in Impetus terms. But a unit or two of CM 5/2 sounds fine to me for those who think differently.

Gaius Cassius wrote:A unit or two of Norman like cavalry for the later Saxons wouldn't bother me at all (reflecting the King's Huscarls.)

I don't actually see the need to amend the current lists in EI2, unless one accepts Snorri's account of Stamford Bridge with Saxon cavalry as being accurate enough for a wargame army list. However, the current lists reflect my understanding of the 1066 campaign well enough and I am happy with them.

Lists for periods outwith the eleventh century or in different areas could benefit from some examination of the use of cavalry by Viking and Saxon armies though. If you accept that the huskarls were trained both in mounted and dismounted combat, although apparently showing a preference for the latter, then you need to consider including cavalry as an option for both armies and in similar numbers to the presence of huskarls.

Vikings is a bit of a different kettle of fish and I have a hard time believing that fought effectively on horse in large enough numbers to warrant much in Impetus terms.

In most instances the Vikings (as raiders not as an ethnic identity) don't seem to have fielded enough troops to warrant more than a very few stands of infantry, using the notional Impetus scale of 600-1200 men per stand of FP. To create the numbers need to be scaled up to match other armies which might well increase the possible presence of cavalry significantly.

If you start to consider Swedish and Danish armies at home (i.e. Vikings as an ethnic identity), the figures change significantly and the evidence suggests greater numbers of effective cavalry being possible. It is not conclusive by any means and it can be hard to believe because of the weight of pedestrian historiography behind the  entirely infantry army concept, but that is why further research would be needed for any army lists. I'm tempted to add this to my very long list of things to do and write.

Some army lists allow mounted scouts, as poor cavalry rather than proper light cavalry.
A unit of CM 4/2 would also make sense.

That could work, if you see Saxon and Viking cavalry as inherently poor because of stolen horses, etc. What about Scandinavian armies in their homelands?

Apparently people have dated things by when men were summoned to fight on horseback and do 'knight service' and that sort of thing, and it seems to be after about 1070 before they became men who assumed they'd fight on horseback, and about 1100-1150 before they were in enough numbers to be regarded as a proper mounted force.

5/2 is a bit generous - it represents the equivalent of the better medium cavalry of the ancient period, used to fighting mounted

If we are saying these troops are the better class warriors are they trained (and equipped) to fight mounted in units rather than as individuals in skirmishes? I don't see that. I also think that if you are picking these troops they cant be in two places at once, so there should be a restriction on the numbers of upgraded infantry available which is usually the result of better trained and equipped warriors stiffening the less able

Jim Webster wrote:Apparently people have dated things by when men were summoned to fight on horseback and do 'knight service'

They have also examined the Vendel period and shown that mounted warriors/cavalry were a probable reality. The problem is the period in between. Did they suddenly stop using mounted troops at home? When Adam of Bremen wrote c.1073 that the Swedes were renowned for their horses and cavalry, was he writing about a brand new tradition or something that was established?

The numbers issue seems to me to be even more difficult. How do we even know what numbers of cavalry were fielded on those occasions when they were fielded, and what percentage of the army comprised cavalry versus infantry? How many Viking (as opposed to Danish or Norse armies of conquest) forces were large enough to count as armies for purposes of constructing an army list from?

I agree with Cyrus that if cavalry is an option, it should be a case of choosing to let your huskarls fight either mounted or dismounted. I imagine that they should not be as good at fighting mounted as they were as infantry, but that is a gut feeling not an academic interpretation. Still, assuming that the huskarls, as professional warriors, could fight either mounted or dismounted at need, then there is the potential to field as many stands of mounted huskarls as you could dismounted huskarls, on a one-for-one exchange basis. This should be subject to limits based on historical precedent where it can be determined.

I disagree that they were not trained to fight in units, if they had cavalry capability. These are the professional soldiers of their time and would train for all modes of combat that they could expect to see. Warfare is their raison d'etre, so they will have practised for it.

One interesting point that I came across while checking some stuff for this discussion last night was a note that Graham-Campbell had identified improvements in Anglo-Saxon tack in the tenth and eleventh centuries as being directly influenced by Danish tack. I cannot find the reference again right now, but it suggests a need for better riding technology in Denmark in that period. Read into that what you will.

Remember we have a considerable body of literature from the period, some of it almost contemporary, and there is no contemporary mention of cavalry

There are exceptions, for example Anglo Saxon cavalry using byzantine tactics at Stamford Bridge in a 13th century saga. However this is almost entirely discounted because the same incident is mentioned in no source nearer the time.

Remember that Denmark is somewhat different to the other Scandavians being more influenced by the Franks

Jim

Jim Webster wrote:Remember we have a considerable body of literature from the period, some of it almost contemporary, and there is no contemporary mention of cavalry

Just to be awkward, this quote from Annales regni Francorum under the year 804:
'Eodem tempore Godofridus rex Danorum venit cum classe sua necnon et omni equitatu regni sui ad locum, qui dicitur Sliesthorp ...' (At that same time, Godfred King of Denmark came with his fleet and also all the cavalry of his kingdom to that place which is called Slesvig).
It's Viking Age, it mentions Vikings and cavalry. Sadly it is not a battle description. That said (written?), the case for Saxon cavalry is much easier to make than that for Viking cavalry, and I accept that there is little to no mention of cavalry usage in battle in contemporary sources other than the examples I cited earlier. However, leaving aside the fact that I have not read everything on the topic, that is equally as likely to be because of the paucity of detail in most accounts of battles, or because of the stereotypical nature of many of those descriptions.

There are exceptions, for example Anglo Saxon cavalry using byzantine tactics at Stamford Bridge in a 13th century saga. However this is almost entirely discounted because the same incident is mentioned in no source nearer the time.

Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla is the text. I agree that we can put little faith in his description of the battle of Stamford Bridge. However, I must ask which contemporary sources actually give sufficient detail of the battle to discount the presence of cavalry there albeit not necessarily using Byzantine tactics. There are plenty of contemporary sources that support the use of cavalry in battle by the Saxons, so the lack (if there was one) at Stamford Bridge, as at Hastings, could be a function of the terrain rather than the custom of the army.

Remember that Denmark is somewhat different to the other Scandavians being more influenced by the Franks

I agree, and yet it is Sweden, not Denmark, that Adam of Bremen claims is renowned for its cavalry when writing at the very end of the Viking Age.

It is a tricky one. The problem is that in Latin equitatu can mean cavalry, but equites is also translated as Horse by those who forget that it was also a social class. My knowledge of Latin of the period is nil

To put the issue at its bluntest, in this discussion we're prodding at areas which could undermine the preconceptions of three generations of wargamers.

Now I don't have a problem with that. We have far too many wargamers' preconceptions that go unchallenged

But before we challenge it, we've got to get a good case, one that has some credible evidence.
So when I comment I'm not attempting to be dismissive, far from it. I'm fascinated by the discussion and enjoying it. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do the reading at the moment, things are busy here. But I'd suggest that what we have here is something that is rather more than just an addition to an army list. Prove this one and we'll have changes in every rule set's army lists.
So I think it's one that is worth taking our time with. This is wargames research at its best

Jim

I totally agree, Jim. This is a very enjoyable discussion that has me considering all aspects of the topic, helped by your responses. I do like a spot of iconoclasm in the evening, you know. I think we need a research grant to do the job properly though. We'll need books ... lots of books. B)

I'm not sure that 'equites' retained the separate social class meaning in medieval Latin, but I would have to check, because medieval Latin is not my strongest language. Given the thrust of my argument, warriors who could fight mounted would also be of high social class, thus combining both meanings. I'm rambling now though. I shall go away and fit in some reading on the topic around my other work and come back to the discussion another day.