During our last gaming session,we had a discussion about the skirmlishing abilities of the gallic, roman, greek cavalry . I remember at the beginning of MEG that those cavalrymen could not skirmish as they could not shoot. So they had to fight it out.
Then squddently most of those cavalries could skirmish and it changed the game as they can now be used to slow down a whole flank attack .
Reading Xenophon I found nothing to clarify such a capacity .
I am under the impression that most of the timle the cavalry fought it out and did not skirmish . Numidians, tarentines were renowed skirmishers but are SK cavalry . So why can those loose fighting cavalry of their time skirmish so easily ? What am I missing ?
I write about pitched battles, not outpost fights , raiding or scouting missions .
I cannot help wondering if enabling those cavalry to skirmish was a m=istake and iof it is historical as well
Also, did infantry of those time charge cavalry ? or even push them back ?
Any constructive input is welcome
Arrian's work on cavalry is clear that Roman cavalry were well trained in skirmishing as part of their role. Have a feeling Hadrian's comments about the training display he reviewed at Lambaesis may mention it as well.
IIRC it is believed that imperial Roman cavalry (at least) were influenced by Gallic and Spanish cavalry practice - Hyland's book on Arrian may well cover that, but it is a long long time since I read it.
For earlier Roman cavalry it may be more questionable but these don't get the shooting capability until the MRR list when they had incorporated a lot of the rest of Italy into their alliance system and in the LRR are going to be provided by people outside of Italy as well.
Quote from: badhabum on December 22, 2025, 07:32:05 PMAlso, did infantry of those time charge cavalry ? or even push them back ?
Not sure exactly what time period you may be looking at, but Roman infantry did on occasion such as the cases in the C4th CE fighting Sasanids.
'Xenophon again stresses the advantages in speed and mobility of the cavalry,
even against a much larger force, in his account of the Corinthian war. As Xenophon
describes in the Hellenica, Dionysus, the tyrant of Syracuse, sends a small force of
cavalry to aid the Spartans and their allies against the Thebans. Xenophon says that the
Thebans and their allies were filling up the plain around Corinth and destroying
everything. The Athenians and Corinthians, intimidated by the enemies' numbers, do not
go out to meet them. The small Sicilian cavalry, however, harasses the Thebans by
continuously riding up alongside them, throwing their javelins, and retreating quickly. By
43
scattering their numbers and keeping a safe distance from the enemy, the Sicilians are
able to attack from several positions repeatedly. Xenophon says that they are so confident
in their ability to flee the enemy that they would sometimes dismount and rest. If any of
the enemy dared pursue them too far, the Sicilians would turn and counterattack as soon
as the enemy turned and headed back to the main body of the army. By repeating these
tactics, the Sicilians successfully inflict heavy damage on the enemy and within a few
days they help force the Thebans and their allies to retreat (based on Hellenica. 7.1.21).'
quoted from Cavalry in Xenophon, thesis by Katie M. Luckenbill
I would say in the case stated here : it'snot a pitched battle but a raid . Not a MEG battle
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 22, 2025, 07:55:56 PMArrian's work on cavalry is clear that Roman cavalry were well trained in skirmishing as part of their role. Have a feeling Hadrian's comments about the training display he reviewed at Lambaesis may mention it as well.
IIRC it is believed that imperial Roman cavalry (at least) were influenced by Gallic and Spanish cavalry practice - Hyland's book on Arrian may well cover that, but it is a long long time since I read it.
For earlier Roman cavalry it may be more questionable but these don't get the shooting capability until the MRR list when they had incorporated a lot of the rest of Italy into their alliance system and in the LRR are going to be provided by people outside of Italy as well.
OK back to it : Do they skirmish "moorish" style as skirmishing units and so should be in skirmish formation or on the battlefied were they able to skirmish as a trained formation , in loose order .
When I read about the battles, screens do skirmish, cavalry formation go to charge and melee .
Was skirmishing not more a task for "skirmishers"
Is this a bit more clear ?
What do you mean by "skirmish as a trained formation , in loose order"?
Quote from: badhabum on December 23, 2025, 07:45:50 PMI would say in the case stated here : it'snot a pitched battle but a raid . Not a MEG battle
so they turn up for a pitched battle and forget how to retire in good order, throw javelins and generally not wait to get thumped by something heavier and nastier?
ok I'll try again 'To turn to another matter, take the case in which you have two armies facing one another in battle order, or a pair of fortresses (24) belonging to rival powers, and in the space between all kinds of cavalry manouvres are enacted, wheelings and charges and retreats. (25) Under such circumstances the custom usually is for either party after wheeling to set off at a slow pace and to gallop full speed only in the middle of the course. But now suppose that a commander, after making feint (26) in this style, presently on wheeling quickens for the charge and quickens to retire...'
Translation by H Dakyns , Xenophon's Cavalry General
I'll try to explain myself better . The problem with a forum is trying to make oneself understood when not writing your native language.
When reading about battlkes, pitched battles, I am under the impression that cavalry did fight it out be it roman, gallic, greek as they fought as a body , perhaps warrior's ethos I do not know. Their might be cases when one side just broke and ran away but it is not running away as in the rules they run away of the battle.
They do some reconnaissance, they do some raiding, might "skirmish" vs enemy infantry but not as a formed unit, a cavalry alae but as small detached groups that do throw javelins .
Numidians did skirmish as a group which made them famous, bow equiped mounted did so as it is their training, the way they fight.
So my understanding, my idea is that those mounted had a specific job, do around the enemy flanks and strike them from behind as the romans did to the Etruscans and Samnites . That cavalry would just charge enemy cavalry in order to defeat them and go around those flanks . When outnumbered they fled ( or died ? ) but skirmishing retreat I am not so sure of .
I think MEG did a better job when all those mounted lacked the unskilled javelin . Even Persian caavalry in pitched battles did fight the companions because there was no way out of it .
Skirmishing as a coordinated unit ? is that how gallic, grek, roman cavalry did work ( SP, Javelin one's ) ? I am doubting . I fear it is a gaming way that is not historical and allows feeble cavalry units to do a delaying job that is pretty unrealistic .
Such a job needs specific training so hence the tarantian style cavalry was famous because of their style . It was trained in a certain way of warfare in which other units were not
I hope this is more understandable
I think there is some misunderstanding of the design intention behind the mounted 'unskilled javelin' category. Now, this is just my interpretation of the design intention, and is also based on an at best "interested layman's" understanding of the roman army. But I don't think the various 'unskilled javelin' cavalry throughout MeG are meant to be skirmishers in any meaningful sense. The classification isn't meant to represent their literal equipment. It represents their battlefield role. Which is to 'delay the other guy's cavalry while we win somewhere else'.
My (again not great) understanding of republic roman cav is that it was not good, but what it did do in a tactical sense was tie up the opposing cavalry long enough to keep it from impacting the center; where the romans expected the actually win. The roman cav would break and run in such a way as to keep the other cav occupied chasing them instead of enveloping the center. IF that is what roman cav did then the MeG category works perfectly. If they have to stand and fight then they'll die and count as a break point, they also wouldn't do their job because the opponent would engage them ASAP and delay on the center. Giving them the ability to 'skirmish' allows them to functionally perform their battlefield role.
And it seems reasonable that other cavalry in other armies would fill a similar role, cause no meaningful harm but delay a flank.
The unskilled javelin classification is intentional. If they didn't evade they would be short spear. If their role was only to skirmish they would be skirmishers.
Richard
That's what I suggest : they did not evade . In battle they fought
Quote from: badhabum on January 02, 2026, 08:33:27 PMThat's what I suggest : they did not evade . In battle they fought
Hi Jacques,
any proof? photos? reels? were you there? ;)
play the rules and lists as they are ;)
don't forget that 's a game of toy soldiers nothing else :)
be seeing you ;)
PUNCH ou Gilles " on ne sait plus ;D
Salut Gilles
Play the rules OK so do not moan on the rules ;D
See you at Chanier but I will not be able to bring "américain" sorry
Quote from: badhabum on March 02, 2026, 10:57:58 AMSalut Gilles
Play the rules OK so do not moan on the rules ;D
See you at Chanier but I will not be able to bring "américain" sorry
Always moaning about everyone and everything, I'm french !;-)
See you there to moan (or not 😀 ).
Found a way to make fake "américain ", fake but satisfying ones 😉
All the best.
Gilles