List 5709 they are SUP, DC and charge only but list 5710 they are SUP, SSP and charge only . Intended ?

Suspect so as the Troop Notes for the former mention them being more influenced by western knights; DC would make them a bit more "chargey" due to forced charges.

one late 15th Century Polish chronicle describes them as the most impetuous warriors of the Lithuanian host. Referencing when Novgorod had a very close relationship with the Lithuanian Grand Dukes and Polish Kings and supplied troops. Imho RJC has picked a very nice way of differentiating them from the Post Mongol Russians and still removing the option from both lists for full nomad style shoot and run tactics.

Full nomad shoot and run were their tactics. The new list making them aggressive charging cavalry is not supported by the evidence, at least in the latter part of the time period. Herberstein was there in 1517 although the book was written later (the list goes until 1533) and he records them as:

"Their horses are small, usually geldings, close-haired, unshod and with a simple bit. They
ride with short stirrups, as though they wanted to lift their knees above the saddle...They
cannot stand the shock of a lance...Bows and arrows are their common weapons. Those who
are somewhat wealthier have armour rather like our cuirasses; the few helms to be seen are
all pot-bellied or pointed."  (Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, Sigmund von Herberstein, Dent & Sons, London, 1969, p. 76)

"When they go forth against the enemy their comfort lies in their number and they go no
nearer to him than a bowshot. They strive at all costs to outflank him and fall upon him from the rear." (p. 80)

Where is this evidence that they only shot on the charge and otherwise just hung around? That seems a strange tactic against Tatars ... did they learn and absorb nothing in 200 years of Tatar dominance?

In a painting of the battle of Orsha in 1514 (the painter was actually at the battle) ithe Russian cavalry are all archers none of these charging spears the new list has.

According to the new list the Russians were aggressive chargers against either a) better equipped western cavalry or b) Tatar nomads. That tactic seems a very poor choice!

Is there any evidence for this, or that this should be compulsory for those who have a different interpretation of some pretty thin evidence?

Quote from: craig.w on November 20, 2023, 03:34:59 PM
Full nomad shoot and run were their tactics. The new list making them aggressive charging cavalry is not supported by the evidence, at least in the latter part of the time period. Herberstein was there in 1517 although the book was written later (the list goes until 1533) and he records them as:

"Their horses are small, usually geldings, close-haired, unshod and with a simple bit. They
ride with short stirrups, as though they wanted to lift their knees above the saddle...They
cannot stand the shock of a lance...Bows and arrows are their common weapons. Those who
are somewhat wealthier have armour rather like our cuirasses; the few helms to be seen are
all pot-bellied or pointed."  (Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, Sigmund von Herberstein, Dent & Sons, London, 1969, p. 76)

"When they go forth against the enemy their comfort lies in their number and they go no
nearer to him than a bowshot. They strive at all costs to outflank him and fall upon him from the rear." (p. 80)

Where is this evidence that they only shot on the charge and otherwise just hung around? That seems a strange tactic against Tatars ... did they learn and absorb nothing in 200 years of Tatar dominance?

In a painting of the battle of Orsha in 1514 (the painter was actually at the battle) ithe Russian cavalry are all archers none of these charging spears the new list has.

According to the new list the Russians were aggressive chargers against either a) better equipped western cavalry or b) Tatar nomads. That tactic seems a very poor choice!

Is there any evidence for this, or that this should be compulsory for those who have a different interpretation of some pretty thin evidence?

It is only theorised that the artist of the Orsha painting was at the battle but not close to proven, its primarily based on a detail in the painting that might be the artist himself. Or he was simply an ego manic that put himself in the picture. An alternative theory is that the artist was one of the court artists who would have access to many that actually participated in the fighting.  Plus visuals would be quite self evident by looking at the Polish military in situ.
Then there is just how much reliance can you put into a painting?

That said if you assume accuracy in weapons and equipment, you will notice that the Muscovite archers are all preceded by cavalry wielding close combat weapons against mixed Polish cavalry and Cannon! So not so much skirmishing rather than supporting fire. Also worth noting Polish units , according to Jan Tarnowski's Consilium Rationalis Bellicae (published 1558, he was  a Crown Hetman of the Royal army)  and Speiralski's research  suggests Polish and Lithuanians shot in their charges or softened up before a charge. Another interesting note is only 10% of Polish nobility was reckoned to be heavy cavalry in the western style but the Painting depicts it as a very large core of the army, it also depicts dismounted knights in full plate with ring skirts, almost never seen on a battlefield and primarily used in sieges.

At Orsha the Lithuanian 'Polish' mercenary & Lithuanian light and medium cavalry faked a rout and drew the Muscovite cavalry into a head long pursuit and into a pincer. Worth comparing to the similar tactics used against The Teutonic Order at Grunwald/Tannenberg a century before. Now this poses several problems for an assumption that the Muscovite army operated in the Mongol model, they should be very well versed in the hit and fake run tactics of the Mongols, Tatars and their Lithuanian neighbours and not be drawn into such a head long pursuit. Odd that they fell for it, nor could extract themselves quickly with the speed of the fluid nomadic tactics. As I mentioned Grunwald, again worth noting that the Russian/Novgorod banners were described as the most impetuous of the Lithuanian forces and did not participate in the Lithuanian feigned retreat, there is some debate on whether it was a rout or feigned flight but a Teutonic order letter shortly after the battle makes it clear that they thought it a faked rout.  The Muscovite/Novgorod banners suffered significant losses, due to them being the pin between the Polish Centre and the Lithuanian Flank. Again, you'd think they'd be predisposed to hit and run like their Lithuanian cousins if that was their usual style of tactics.

There is almost no evidence for Muscovite cavalry tactics for the post Mongol period, look at any book on the subject and you'll find they mostly rely on each other for support or the few surviving Russian Chronicles. The Chronicle of Novgorod is one. It is primarily the description of Daniel of Galicia-Volynia equipping his forces in Mongol fashion that trigger the supposition they used Mongol tactics as well. The question is why? You cant out Mongol a Mongol, there are reams of books on the inherent skill of nomads brought up in the saddle and bow. Russians were not nomads nor significant breeders of suitable horses and their society did not evolve to handle that either so.

As you mention Herberstein, the full text is his description of the 20,000 men that Moscow employed to guard the borders against Tartar raids. As such they are most likely Tatars or Cossacks themselves. Who better to catch a fox than a fox. Its worth reading Thomas Esper "military self sufficiency and weapons technology in Muscovite Russia" part of his premise was that although the Muscovite adopted the bow they relied heavily on Tatars/Mongols of the Kasimov region to supply them quality light cavalry. This being similar to the Polish system before it created a permanent southern defensive army. The Polish forces of the period is another example of adopters of bows and crossbows along with an emphasis on close action but not nomadic tactics. They relied heavily on the bow to reach out and soften enemy forces.

Then there is the continued use of infantry against Tatars. Present and active, though very dead by the end of, possibly the greatest in period test of strength, Kulikovo field 1380. Not very conducive to full nomadic tactics. This battle also represents a useful insight into how they fought, it was predominantly a melee action, Both Russian and Tatar leaders/commanders being wounded or killed by sabre, mace and spear.

And then Krizhanich in his 17th century work 'Politics' says 'Russian methods of warfare belong to an intermediate level between those of the Scythians (meaning Tatars) and those of the Europeans .... We may imitate the tactics of both peoples though we cannot out do them. Compared to the Scythians we are much stronger at using our heavy arms and almost as skillful as using light arms as they are. It is the completely opposite with the Europeans. That is why we should use weapons of both kinds against our enemies.'  You could argue tactics included the full nomadic play book though what little evidence there is mostly points to the tactics of strong archery, envelopment and ambushes, not skirmishing and hit and run.

More recent publications have increasingly argued for a more European style of fighting with a value added bow for extra umph. Ian Heath's Middle ages book 2 is careful not to allocate full blown Nomadic tactics to the Muscovite sources. V Shpakovsky;s book for Osprey, Medieval Russian Armies 1250-1500 uses sources not easily available in Western European libraries. He was a professor at Penza University, Russia. He very much subscribes to the combat focus of the core Russian cavalry.

Ian Newell was the original push for this change to the list and I got interested, the precise mechanic choice was RJC and both Ian and I have found the new list works really well in historical matchups.

Basically there is very little evidence to suggest the Russians fought in a similar method to their Tatar/mongol neighbours. Orsha itself represents a Russian army willing to go toe to toe with 'European' cavalry formations and their nomadic Lithuanians troops.

you could pester RJC to include the changes as all/none regrade. Though I'd be interested why you think the current 2023 iteration works better against mongol skilled Ssp, ME types

Regards
Matt

I think we both agree that Tatars were better skirmisher horse archer types than the Russians, and that the Russians were on average better at close quarters.

Taking the current lists:
- Golden Horde are skilled shooters, therefore better than Russians
- Golden Horde are predominantly flexible therefore better at skirmishing
- Golden Horde have more unprotected making them worse in hand to hand than Russians
- Russians are generally worse than Poles in melee
- The skirmishing element in Russian armies is brought by the Tatars and Cossacks 

Therefore the current list already does what you say.

You also admit, as I do, that there is very little evidence for the way they fought, and I quoted some of what little there is.

Where is the primary source for making them charge and shoot only cavalry? If the list is changing in a significant way, then there should be some absolutely indisputable evidence that the current list is wrong. I don't believe that that evidence exists and in fact what I put forward supports the current list.

The painting was mainly mentioned as it backs up the description of the Russians equipment but I don't think it necessarily represents the course of the battle or proportions involved.

Full disclosure, I have used and won a tournament with this Post Mongol Russian list, so I don't want it changed to something so definitive as "they only ever shot when they charged" where there is no historical evidence for it.

Or, if such a fundamental change is envisioned, why not make it all/none for those who disagree, as plenty of other lists have this option. Does not hurt or annoy anyone being flexible on opinions. I can't imagine many people use this list, just my luck to have it completely changed while I was away from the game for a bit!!

Craig,

I am happy to include an "all or none" option with the old classification.
About the only thing that seems to get general agreement is there is almost no evidence!

Richard

Quote from: craig.w on November 21, 2023, 03:40:58 PM
I think we both agree that Tatars were better skirmisher horse archer types than the Russians, and that the Russians were on average better at close quarters.

Taking the current lists:
- Golden Horde are skilled shooters, therefore better than Russians
- Golden Horde are predominantly flexible therefore better at skirmishing
- Golden Horde have more unprotected making them worse in hand to hand than Russians
- Russians are generally worse than Poles in melee
- The skirmishing element in Russian armies is brought by the Tatars and Cossacks 

Therefore the current list already does what you say.

You also admit, as I do, that there is very little evidence for the way they fought, and I quoted some of what little there is.

Where is the primary source for making them charge and shoot only cavalry? If the list is changing in a significant way, then there should be some absolutely indisputable evidence that the current list is wrong. I don't believe that that evidence exists and in fact what I put forward supports the current list.

The painting was mainly mentioned as it backs up the description of the Russians equipment but I don't think it necessarily represents the course of the battle or proportions involved.

Full disclosure, I have used and won a tournament with this Post Mongol Russian list, so I don't want it changed to something so definitive as "they only ever shot when they charged" where there is no historical evidence for it.

Or, if such a fundamental change is envisioned, why not make it all/none for those who disagree, as plenty of other lists have this option. Does not hurt or annoy anyone being flexible on opinions. I can't imagine many people use this list, just my luck to have it completely changed while I was away from the game for a bit!!

the purpose of the change was to model the Post Mongol Russians in a way that ,

- prevented them from engaging in shoot and run tactics, skirmish and evade in Meg, that predominantly being the role of their tatar/cossack and other allied/mercenaries. The few descriptions of battles and tactics, pictorial or otherwise indicates their preference to beat their opposition by 'heavy arms'
- did not impart impetuosity or card command and control problems, The Russian do appear to have had adopted some of the mongol command and control elements, division of the army into 5 forces for example. Novgorod cavalry gets dev charger option as it better reflects their 'hit them hard ' approach.

charge only bow achieves two things , it maintains the value add of bows to the spear/sabre emphasis of the better documented late 15th century Russians. It also neatly allows the slow effect on a charge to better able catch and melee those pesky Tatars. Add in ME and you now have an army that wants to close and rough house and has the bow. It also means when they get themselves into trouble or over extent its cards to get them out of it and not free skirmish/evade away moves which rather fits the meagre descriptions of the Russian battles. It also maintains the ability to have a reduced pursuit move so better responsiveness.

    under 2023 lists the Average Russians actually only equal most of the average Golden horde in melee combat, the unprotected being offset by the ME on the GH. Its a only a 25 point difference between the two and means the Golden horde base for base are better shooters, equal in the charge and equal in the melee. Russians do very poorly under the 2023 lists against historical opponents, they have almost no reasonable option for chasing down skilled shooters or lh skirmishers.

the choice of representation is as much about achieving the right effect against historical opponents without either over powering the list or introducing elements that do not seem to fit.   

yes its a fundamental change but I'd argue its a long over due change as , in my opinion only, its one of various armies that have never had the evidence re-evaluated since the one man one vote days of WRG lists.

and thank you to Richard for the very sensible and pragmatic approach of a all/none regrade option change for the 2024 lists