Quote from: Manzikert on October 10, 2025, 04:44:05 AMIf handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.

True but resolve and/or training would have a lot to do with that outcome. The average peasant would not have been too keen about being on the battlefield under any conditions. More committed and organised commoners armed with 'pointy sticks', such as the Flemish and Swiss, ended the knights' unchallenged dominance. As Munster said, we could assume experienced ancient warriors armed with long pointy sticks would also be effective in the ahistorical settings arising in the thousands of years covered by MeG.

Quote from: SteveO on October 11, 2025, 01:06:35 AM

Quote from: Manzikert on October 10, 2025, 04:44:05 AMIf handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.

True but resolve and/or training would have a lot to do with that outcome. The average peasant would not have been too keen about being on the battlefield under any conditions. More committed and organised commoners armed with 'pointy sticks', such as the Flemish and Swiss, ended the knights' unchallenged dominance. As Munster said, we could assume experienced ancient warriors armed with long pointy sticks would also be effective in the ahistorical settings arising in the thousands of years covered by MeG.

Agreed, my point was simply that 'they had long spears' is not sufficient to deserve the 'longspear' classification. Hoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within there own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.

Quote from: Doomsmile on October 10, 2025, 09:33:19 PMAgain, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP

If the train has left the station, then why are we even posting these 'suggestions' for discussion?

Because people are unconvinced so the train is in the station

I understand the idea to make MEG a better rule but I wonder hos this proposal simplifies things . Not convinced at all

Quote from: Manzikert on October 11, 2025, 02:21:34 AMHoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within their own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.

But hoplites weren't peasants press-ganged into fighting for their feudal lord. As you say, hoplites had a pretty good record against contemporary cavalry so why do we assume that in the fictional case they fought medieval knights they would not do at least as well? If Flemish burghers could stand their ground, why not Athenian hoplites? By comparison, we do not seem to have an issue with the yari-armed Ashigaru retaining their anti-cavalry capability against medieval knights even though they fought only one or two ranks deep, had only to face men on the equivalent of ponies and never saw a medieval knight in their lives.

If we can stretch our imagination to allowing hoplites to face medieval knights, why can we not stretch our imagination to assume similarly equipped, trained and motivated troops from different historical periods would perform roughly the same. Otherwise, we should make Swiss pikemen worse at fighting elephants than the Argyraspides because the Swiss had no experience of fighting elephants.

Quote from: SteveO on October 11, 2025, 11:21:56 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on October 11, 2025, 02:21:34 AMHoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within their own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.

But hoplites weren't peasants press-ganged into fighting for their feudal lord. As you say, hoplites had a pretty good record against contemporary cavalry so why do we assume that in the fictional case they fought medieval knights they would not do at least as well? If Flemish burghers could stand their ground, why not Athenian hoplites? By comparison, we do not seem to have an issue with the yari-armed Ashigaru retaining their anti-cavalry capability against medieval knights even though they fought only one or two ranks deep, had only to face men on the equivalent of ponies and never saw a medieval knight in their lives.

If we can stretch our imagination to allowing hoplites to face medieval knights, why can we not stretch our imagination to assume similarly equipped, trained and motivated troops from different historical periods would perform roughly the same. Otherwise, we should make Swiss pikemen worse at fighting elephants than the Argyraspides because the Swiss had no experience of fighting elephants.

To be fair I didn't call them press-ganged peasants  . But the only contemporary shock cavalry the hoplites would have faced were Macedonian cav which is a military doctrine they ultimately lost to. Historically there were tones of troops armed like a hoplite, large shield and a long spear. Most Gauls were probably armed that way. But in most cases we wouldn't call them crack anti-cavalry troops. And again, hoplites with spear aren't bad against knight equivalent cavalry, they are at a mild disadvantage against a unit twice their price.