Are infantry wheels controversial ?

[Ambiorix]

Found this video on TMP which references MEG.  Besides doubt on wheels it states ancients didnt fight at 'angles'  (unless at 90 degrees) but always aligned.

"Every Ancients and Mediaeval wargamer (and come to think of it, everything up to WW1 wargamer) takes it for granted that once deployed into a line, infantry had no problem wheeling right or left. But, historically, could they actually do this?"
"It took me years of trawling through the primary sources to discover that in fact they couldn't. Drilled troops could change direction on the battlefield, but not the way you think. Check out the video here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKf8Awfu6ao

[lionheartrjc]

I don't think it is controversial to say that ancient infantry could not wheel as we do on a wargames table.  It needs practice to do it on a parade ground, let alone on an uneven battlefield with the enemy in front of you.

I am not convinced about the statement that ancients didn't fight at angles.

I would argue that wheeling is a game mechanism.  Most wargames, MEG included, are games, not simulations.

[badhabum]

ne may also remind players that a base is not the area covered with soldiers, but an area "controlled" . Simon did remind us that in the game a phalanx is 4 bases deep but if we were to be at rral size it would be less than a base depth !

So bases, TUGs are a projection

And this is a game 

I still have the movement chart for more realistic battles ..well move forward and that's nearly all

[LawrenceG]

I don't think it is controversial to say that ancient infantry could not wheel as we do on a wargames table.  It needs practice to do it on a parade ground, let alone on an uneven battlefield with the enemy in front of you.

I am not convinced about the statement that ancients didn't fight at angles.

I would argue that wheeling is a game mechanism.  Most wargames, MEG included, are games, not simulations.

Historically armies always deployed opposite and exactly facing each other, so if they couldn't wheel, they would never have the opportunity to fight at an angle.

This means, of course, that they must have had a procedure for deploying a battleline facing in a specified direction. If you had a line facing in direction A and then you applied this procedure to end up with a line facing in direction B then in effect you have done a wheel.  But there was never any need (and in any case it may not have been safely practicable) to do this once the battle had started. Unless anyone can think of an example.

[lionheartrjc]

Historically armies always deployed opposite and exactly facing each other, so if they couldn't wheel, they would never have the opportunity to fight at an angle.

I don't think this is true, there were certainly encounter battles where one side appeared on the flank of the other and the other side didn't have the opportunity to face before the battle started.
Ambushes are another example.

Cavalry actions were probably more fluid than this.

Richard

[lionheartrjc]

Although troops wouldn't wheel as on a parade ground, they could certainly redeploy to face a different direction.  In most situations one unit would form up in the desired direction and others would then conform to this first unit.  It is time consuming and would be disastrous if you were attacked by an enemy before completing the manoeuvre (which is what flank or rear charges represent).

Richard

[LawrenceG]

Historically armies always deployed opposite and exactly facing each other, so if they couldn't wheel, they would never have the opportunity to fight at an angle.

I don't think this is true, there were certainly encounter battles where one side appeared on the flank of the other and the other side didn't have the opportunity to face before the battle started.
Ambushes are another example.

Cavalry actions were probably more fluid than this.

Richard

I think surprise attacks on the enemy flank or rear are a bit different.

Mind you, we don't hear much in historical accounts of infantry being unable to engage opponents specifically because their lines were not parallel, although that might explain those 100YW battles where the French attacked the forward facing English men at arms and not the archer formations angled inwards on the flanks. Allegedly.

[AntiokosIII]

Found this video on TMP which references MEG.  Besides doubt on wheels it states ancients didnt fight at 'angles'  (unless at 90 degrees) but always aligned.

"Every Ancients and Mediaeval wargamer (and come to think of it, everything up to WW1 wargamer) takes it for granted that once deployed into a line, infantry had no problem wheeling right or left. But, historically, could they actually do this?"
"It took me years of trawling through the primary sources to discover that in fact they couldn't. Drilled troops could change direction on the battlefield, but not the way you think. Check out the video here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKf8Awfu6ao

Yes. The ancients were ignorant morons incapable of organizing masses of men to fight. They were never educated in generalship and never studied warfare. No thought of any kind went into it, which is why there was never any innovation, no one else's success was ever copied. There were certainly never any maneuvers or stratagems.

[badhabum]

In historical battles we hear of some flank charges . Mostly it is impossible to do it in games as the player has an helicopter view of the battlefield and so if prudent will do all he can to avoid it ( but will not always be successfull either due to command cards or simple bad luck ).

In reality, the units had a very limited vision of what happenned on their flanks as on the ground vision scope is limited and most peopel focused on what is to the front where the enemy is supposed to be and not on their flanks where the friends were supposed to be 

As to wheeling we were not there and it is difficult to know how easy/difficult it was. What we know is that the spartans being drilled and training as units, were able to turn 90° during battles and hit the flank of the enemy that was busy to the front ..but spartans were professionnals as were the later roman armies ( LRR+ )

Also this is a GAME and being a game allows more than in a real battle