Art De La Guerre

[Korik]

Foot Kn/HI/MI can pass through bow/crossbow which are both LMI
In that case, why the restriction on interpenetrating javelinmem, also LMI?
And for that matter, why can’t LMI interpenetrate other LMI?
I’m also not sure why being impetuous should make a difference. Outside of charge reach, other than being unmanouverable, impetuous troops dont cause any issues provided they stand still or make a full move

[madaxeman]

[ethan]

[Mark G Fry]

Both mixed units (of Knights and Archer etc) and units of foot Knights passing through Archers and vice versa are (generally) complete nonsense - with no historical justification.

It was (apparently) originally a DBM mechanism, based upon a misinterpretation of what is described in a particular C15th chronicle (The Arrival) as what happened at the Battle of Towton during the English Wars of the Roses. In fact, what is describes is open to huge conjecture and bears no relationship to any other described battle tactics from the period or earlier.

And before anybody goes quoting mixed Longbows and Pikes in C15th Burgundian armies - again, this is a 'suggested' experimental formation. There is no record of it ever having been used in battle.

At the level we are depicting historical armies it is perfectly acceptable to have alternate units of Foot Knights (or MAA) and archers (Longbows)
Where there are truly mixed units - such as Italian City States Milita (HF spears and Crossbows) then they are (correctly) depicted as Mixed Units.

Even in C14th & C15th Iberian armies there is no record of Javelinmen (Almughavars and such like) interpenetrating each other or Foot Knights.

Cheers
Mark

[Korik]

If this were a specific rule covering swordsmen swapping out with bowmen in the anticipation of hand to hand combat then fair enough, although that would suggest some cooperation between the two units which would lend weight to the mixed unit solution, but this is a general rule about what types of troops can pass through other types of troops

I don't know whether or not Roman Legionaries trained to pass through bowmen but for some reason neglected passing through javelin armed infantry (who were probably better than the bowmen at moving in a dispersed formation) but it isn't a matter of training - one of the units could be from an allied contingent which might not even speak the same language

And it isn't a case of the two units supporting each other - the HI can interpenetrate the bows and then carry merrily on their way without a backward glance

With a few exceptions, the footprint of a unit is impassable terrain (apart from burst throughs, and I STILL don't understand why impetuous troops are excluded in this case - even DBM didn't make this distinction, and also allowed the interpenetration to work both ways), making this seem an 'artificial' rule created to cover a specific circumstance rather than relying on the mainstream rules

I realise ADLG, like other rule sets, is simply a framework for moving figures around on a tabletop without anarchy ruling, but you feel that there should be at least a degree of consistency
_________________
Korik

[ethan]

[Mark G Fry]

I totally agree Ethan.
Personally I think that foot units interpenetrating each other is so rare in the periods covered by the LADG lists, as to be really noteworthy.
Hence Roman Legionaries (or Hastatii, Pricipes and Triarii) are trained specifically to do this.
There are instances of Javelinmen (or the equivalent) interpenetrating with mounted troops - a specific example being javelin armed medium infantry in Italian City State armies, that cooperate with and can interpenetrate with their mounted men-at-arms, but again it is rare enough to be noteworthy in the chronicles.

The MF swordsmen bow units are a very rare troop type historically and justifiably so in the lists:
Early Japanese Samurai; Turkish Janissaries; Medieval Scottish Highlanders are all (IMHO) correctly classified.
I'd suggest that certain small late Byzantine guard units were probably eligable to be classified as dual armed bow/swordsmen (as they were the models for the creations of Janissary troops). Some Central American units armed with bows sword-sticks and shield or North American Woodland Indians could also conceivable also be classified similarly - but we are stretching the classification to its extreme I'd suggest.

Milan had units of foot militia apparently dual armed with both halberds and handguns, but these appear to be an early C16th innovation, so outside the scope of the current LADG rules.

[Maverick2909]

[Mark G Fry]

Do please expand on where this info about MAA & Archers in combined units comes from please Maverick2909 ?
A primary historical source would be ideal of course.

In all my studies I cannot find anything that even approximates to it from a close historical source?
Formations of MAA & billmen (or soldiers with bills - as the word "Billman" is a C16th invention) yes, even MAA and Pikes but not MAA and Archers.

Cheers
Mark

[Maverick2909]