A bit back I commented that the Southern Song list could probably do with a bit of a look at. I was mainly thinking about the infantry and so have had a bit of a look around - it has expanded a bit as these things tend to. So here is a bit of a brain dump - I'd be interested in any info others have found on this.
I've mainly used authors such as Graff, Lorge, Mote, Wittfogel & Feng and Selby, a load of notes from various people I collected when the FoG and DBMM lists were being developed, and various papers found on Academia. It certainly isn't exhaustive and is very much anglophone.
A start point for Chinese infantry of the medieval period is, I guess, the infantry that developed at the end of the Northern Dynasties period which became the Tang fu bing troops. These were predominantly mixed formations of shooters with some (or all) also expected to be effective in close combat and equipped for such.
The lists for the Later Tang (and following lists) also include "Vanguard swordsmen" which we classify as SSp, ME which has always felt a bit off to me. I have now found reference in "Chinese Martial Arts From Antiquity to the Twenty-First Century" by Peter Lorge to the weapons used by the "Vanguard swordsmen". This is a heavy sword called a Changdao (amongst other names) and is described as being 7' long with 4' of handle and 3' of blade - similar swords also used have shorter handles and longer blades such as the zhanmadao. They were heavy single edged weapons and in MeG would seem to fall into the 2HCC category. A manual from the Late Tang period describes an army with 12,000 infantry of which 2,500 in 2 units were armed with changdao, and another where 5,000 were. Looks to me as though the current SSp, ME classification should be replaced with 2HCC. Would mean continuity to the Later Northern Song with the "Picked infantry with axes and swords" which are 2HCC.
The basic form of the infantry appears to have continued through to at least the Northern Song, although a writer in the Northern Song period does advocate that crossbows should not be mixed with other weapons and can stop cavalry charges on their own - hence the option for separate UGs. One change in the mixed formations in the Northern Song is an increase in the number of "anti-cavalry" weapons used, hence the Pole Arm option in the mixed formations (not quite sure why the date for this is different from the separate formations; suspect they should be SSp until 1067 CE).
The Khitan Liao who used Chinese troops appear, however, to have been outside the normal Chinese system. This is probably as they only held a small part of previously "core" Chinese territory (the 16 prefectures) and within that territory the Chinese were not allowed to own weapons and were not part of the regular military. The Liao did, however, have some Chinese troops wo were part of the regular Ordo armies - these are the swordsmen, crossbowmen and artillery of the list based on how they are described in the sources. We currently have the swordsmen and crossbowmen as Poor and I am no longer sure this is right; they were ordo troops who trained and were reviewed (on occasion by the emperor) - perhaps they should be Average. There was also a militia system which operated in the same way as corvee labour (as was usual around China), but these would have been pretty poor troops mainly called up as labourers, etc.
When the Jurchen Jin overthrew the Liao they also conquered the northern part of the Song - above the Huai River. The list allows Chinese/Balhae troops from 1127 CE and a Da Qi (Northern Song) ally from 1133 to 1137 CE. I think there may be issues with both of these. On the former, I am not sure that any Chinese troops were used prior to 1129/30 and even in the invasion of the south in those years the numbers appear to have been small.
Initially the Jin tried to manage the Chinese they had conquered through client states. The first was Da Chu in 1127, however, this only lasted 1 month before being suppressed and so will not have actually fought with the Jin. The second was Da Qi set up in 1130; this was basically a Northern Song rump state under the control of the Jin. It lasted until 1137 when it too was suppressed. Da Qi did provide troops for the Jin; lots. In fact from 1133 onwards the campaigns against the Southern Song were actually Da Qi armies with Jin support (cavalry). I suspect that Da Qi should be covered by an extension of the Northern Song list (with some restrictions such as the no Superior that the Da Qi ally has) but with a Jin contingent. I would expect that the Da Qi military was basically the same as the Northern Song from whence it came. Yue Fei's initial battles were against Da Qi armies BTW.
I am not sure what sort of infantry were available to the Jin when the Southern Song under Yue Fei invaded in 1140 - but the Jin were defeated. By the next Jin invasion in 1161 large numbers of Chinese conscripts were used, but I have not seen any indication of details of organisation, weapons or effectiveness. I also haven't read anything suggesting that the Jin tried to maintain the previous Song system so am not sure we can use that as guidance. There may well be information out there I haven't come across of course - in fact quite likely I would think but it may well be in Chinese.
As for the Southern Song themselves (which started all this) I can see no obvious reason why we should think that the system that pertained in the Northern Song should not, initially at least, carry on in the Southern Song. So an option of the mixed units or the separated units. However, as the armies do seem to have struggled more against the Jin cavalry I would not allow them the Pole Arm option in either the mixed or separate formations.
But for Yue Fei's troops (1129 to 1141 CE) instead of rearming the existing SSp types (whether in mixed or separate formations) I would instead add additional specialist formations. Yue Fei appears to have created separate bodies of specially trained troops using "zhanmadao" swords and similar to fight the Jin cavalry. They appear to have been especially effective and I would make them Drilled and possible Superior - allow a couple of UGs.
However, I don't see any evidence for the LSp troops in this army - Chinese armies do not usually display "long spear" behaviours even when some have quite long spears (hence the need for big swords and axes to fight cavalry). Another change, cavalry this time, is that I'd make the "lancer" cavalry an upgrade from the usual heavy horse archer types not a separate line (i.e. same as Northern Song list) - I'm not overly convinced by them anyway (can anyone explain them?).
I have some thoughts on Chinese infantry under the Mongols as well, but I'll save that for another post.
OK, the bit about Chinese infantry under the Mongols - not as long this time.
As far as I can see the Mongol conquest era armies in China started to use Chinese troops fairly early on - probably from around 1213 CE after the northern part of the Jin had been conquered. These are likely to have been troops under local warlords and Southern Song sympathisers - the Song tried to take advantage of the Jin's discomfiture and tried to retake lost ground through northern warlords. I would suggest that these troops would likely be a mixture of whatever the Jin had been using plus newly recruited/conscripted troops. As mentioned in the previous post I would not see these as being a continuation of any Northern Song practice - but again, if anyone knows better please say. As for numbers used by the Mongols, who knows.
The one case when Southern Song troops acted in cooperation with the Mongols on an alliance basis is covered by the Mongol Conquest list already.
The Yuan certainly used Chinese troops from the get go. However, these come in 2 forms. Initially the troops used were (mainly) from the north outside of the area still controlled by the Southern Song. I think we are basically looking at a continuation of the sorts of troops used by the earlier pre-Yuan Mongol armies in China. On occasion significant bodies of defecting Southern Song troops were used - and these are in the list.
After the conquest of the south additional Chinese troops were added in significant numbers and were known as "new adhered armies". These were from the south and it would not be unreasonable to categorise these in the same way as Southern Song troops. These troops could make up a large portion of a Yuan army in China and South East Asia (and quite possibly are some of the infantry used in the invasions of Japan) - to a degree that such armies would need higher infantry minima than the list currently has. Additionally, these troops were seen as less reliable than the northern Chinese troops which could mean a higher proportion of Poor troops for them.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 05, 2025, 08:46:39 PMAs for the Southern Song themselves (which started all this) I can see no obvious reason why we should think that the system that pertained in the Northern Song should not, initially at least, carry on in the Southern Song. So an option of the mixed units or the separated units. However, as the armies do seem to have struggled more against the Jin cavalry I would not allow them the Pole Arm option in either the mixed or separate formations.
What is normally the basis for this conclusion? my own (albeit limited) reading seems to chalk up Song's military failings much more to leadership and an appeasement approach to handling their northern neighbours. Under competent generals the Song achieved victory against Jin and Mongol armies, it was not just Yue Fei, although he is most famous and therefore has a lot written about. Not only that but the Jin leadership at the time was in ascendency under Wanyan Zonghan.
I definitely agree, based on accounts of Yue Fei's family army that options for drilled and superior would be welcome.
Song definitely seemed to continue emphasis on Crossbow formations, and there appears to be an emphasis on heavily armoured infantry, both crossbow and polearm troops.
Quote from: Hayung_is on April 09, 2025, 05:53:29 AMWhat is normally the basis for this conclusion? my own (albeit limited) reading seems to chalk up Song's military failings much more to leadership and an appeasement approach to handling their northern neighbours. Under competent generals the Song achieved victory against Jin and Mongol armies, it was not just Yue Fei, although he is most famous and therefore has a lot written about. Not only that but the Jin leadership at the time was in ascendency under Wanyan Zonghan.
It is ultimately a judgement call and the evidence is somewhat thin (fairly typical of Chinese military stuff alas). However, I see the Southern Song being defeated a bit more easily than the Northern and (in gaming terms) makes the Yue Fei changes more necessary. Wargame lists tend to exaggerate differences for game benefit and this may well be one of those cases if changes were to be made :)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 09, 2025, 06:50:00 AMQuote from: Hayung_is on April 09, 2025, 05:53:29 AMWhat is normally the basis for this conclusion? my own (albeit limited) reading seems to chalk up Song's military failings much more to leadership and an appeasement approach to handling their northern neighbours. Under competent generals the Song achieved victory against Jin and Mongol armies, it was not just Yue Fei, although he is most famous and therefore has a lot written about. Not only that but the Jin leadership at the time was in ascendency under Wanyan Zonghan.
It is ultimately a judgement call and the evidence is somewhat thin (fairly typical of Chinese military stuff alas). However, I see the Southern Song being defeated a bit more easily than the Northern and (in gaming terms) makes the Yue Fei changes more necessary. Wargame lists tend to exaggerate differences for game benefit and this may well be one of those cases if changes were to be made :)
It depends on what type of Song army you're trying to depict. Song seemed to have a more centralised system which relied on militia on the periphery supported by larger Imperial and 'family' armies to respond to threats.
Militia would be haphazardly equipped and less effective and would suit a short spear designation. But it seems the imperial and family armies were often very well equipped with heavily armoured infantry, cavalry and crossbowmen (Song economy spent large amounts on military, and was a strong economy). There were periods when the armies suffered large defeats, which might be due to poor leadership and/or morale which I think would be better represented by use of 'poor' than disregarding the actual weapons and tactics used. Game lists also tend towards the high point of a particular army.,
Song also utilised early gunpowder, pavises, volley fire and a huge range of different types of polearm type weapons and mixed formations in a period of intense warfare. To simplify that to short spear + bows seems to miss an opportunity to add flavour to a period that has in my opinion suffered from a lack of information and probably just a little bit of stereotyping (large armies of low quality troops anyone?).
Quote from: Hayung_is on April 09, 2025, 11:15:21 PMSong also utilised early gunpowder, pavises, volley fire and a huge range of different types of polearm type weapons and mixed formations in a period of intense warfare. To simplify that to short spear + bows seems to miss an opportunity to add flavour to a period that has in my opinion suffered from a lack of information and probably just a little bit of stereotyping (large armies of low quality troops anyone?).
Please feel free to offer suggestions, its sort of what this is all about really.
I've certainly found it very difficult to find specific, sourced information (in English) on things like formations and effect in actual battle (important as classification aims to get the right effect in historical interactions). So any contributions that provide evidence we've not been able to access/are unaware of would be rather useful.
Post reform Song;
Somewhere around late 900, early 1000s (Wang Anshi reforms possibly) Song changed from large shield and spear troops to heavily armoured troops with "pike" and "2-handed choppers" along with reforms to formalise the militia system and centralise the army further.
Song also continued to innovate and field large amounts of crossbowmen, supported by bowmen. Also heavily armoured and trained to hold their position as if they were line infantry.
There was notable emphasis in song records of crossbows on effective range and armour penetration. Their traditional enemies of the Liao, Jin and tanguts all fielded very heavily armoured shock cavalry/cataphracts.
For line infantry, Polearm + protected seems to fit - fitting a description of a mixed formation of pikemen + 2-handed choppers.
I would consider Guard units (or a Yue Fei style option) could get 2HCC + drilled/superior or the drilled/superior option could be used to represent better generals.
As to numbers of available troops I don't think having super limited imperial troops really represents a song army particularly well. A player should be able to build a song army which represents the outer region militia (with less well equipped and unprotected troops, potentially poor quality as well) or a fully decked rescuing imperial army, or a mix of the two. I do think that Song fielded an unusually high number of crossbowmen troops and 2HCC compared to other dynasties though.
So crossbowmen I think is where the Song could be given unique options to differentiate a little from other chinese dynasties.
Options for the standing volley formations could be spear protection or mixed formations with spear + polearm (although the latter would perform better against infantry which might not be accurate).
Alternatively, Song Xbowmen could be treaded like MeG treats Powerbow - longer range, better armour punch and bonus vs cavalry. I would limit this to only some of the line crossbow though for balance purposes.
I meant to add as well.
Perhaps the quality of troops was tied to the generals somehow. Like unless the CinC was talented or better, at least 1/3 - 1/2 of infantry Tugs just be poor or something to that effect.
On poorer armies I'm comfortable that the optional downgrades available in the general rules for lists are good enough along with the poor troops in the list - although upping the numbers of the latter would not be an issue or cause harm.
Not keen on upping the effect of the crossbows, the consistent Song answer to the heavily armed/more effective cavalry they faced was to up the number of anti-cavalry close combat weapons. I'd also note as it's related (sort of) that we are somewhat inclined to rein in the Powerbow mechanics so I don't see us making Xbox more PBw like - but mechanics changes are not imminent.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 17, 2025, 06:35:05 PMOn poorer armies I'm comfortable that the optional downgrades available in the general rules for lists are good enough along with the poor troops in the list - although upping the numbers of the latter would not be an issue or cause harm.
Not keen on upping the effect of the crossbows, the consistent Song answer to the heavily armed/more effective cavalry they faced was to up the number of anti-cavalry close combat weapons. I'd also note as it's related (sort of) that we are somewhat inclined to rein in the Powerbow mechanics so I don't see us making Xbox more PBw like - but mechanics changes are not imminent.
I was more thinking there would be an option for TuGs of power bow to represent that. Although skilled might be a sufficient proxy as well.