Here is an idea i had last night:

Each person next to you that is in a defensive stance and has a heater sheild gives you a +1 die to defensive actions, tower shields give +2.

Impressions?

Not based on reality?

Scott

Hmmm...this is something I'd love to do some research on and work out for the Flower of Battle. Let's get some more feedback on Scott's idea here, guys...

Jake

Bay having some one at your side even if he hasn’t a shield is of a great help. You second (or wing man) do not even have to be weary skillful, he is still of a tremendous help.


Hear are some battles that ARMA Stockholm have hade. The films are a about 3Mg size.


http://www.nada.kth.se/~d95-jsj/avis/batalj1.avi
http://www.nada.kth.se/~d95-jsj/avis/batalj2.avi
http://www.nada.kth.se/~d95-jsj/avis/batalj3.avi
http://www.nada.kth.se/~jsh/hobby/avis/nicke-batalj.avi

Makes a lot of sence, especially for missle fire. That would be why breaking the shield wall is so important.
That being said...

I think it should only be give for the man on your right side... your shield is alread on your left... you help protect the man on your left... you provide very little protection to the man on your right... almost none. Remember the position on the right was considered the position of honor be cause he was exposed.

You can however attack the man in front of you, or in front of the man to your right quite easily without breaking formation.

This is only effective longterm with ranks of soldiers ready to fill the gaps. Formation fighting should be a proficency soldiers have. You can use sword and shield i guess... but remember that it is a different sword and shield. The user is far less mobile, and more restricted in his selection of attacks that maintain integrity of the shield wall.

The Deed of Paksenarion is a very good read and dwells on some of this when she is a soldier in a mercenary company, also afterward when she is training recruits mid campaign. Duelists who were added had trouble learning not to do the wrong things.

Also shorter weapons are easier to use unless polearms are iemployed... if polearms the usually 2-3 ranks have stacked layers of attack in front of the first man.

here is a very interesting essay related to spears, but it has a lot of spear and shield formation information too

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/spear.html

I spent some time on that site, too. There is some great practical stuff, and while I don't know that I agree with everything, 90% of the time I'm nodding my head and going "uh-huh.." Thanks, that site rocks!

Jake

what is the 10% you dont agree with?

hah! I knew someone would ask.

The 10% is really more of a saftey net then anything specific. I don't want to give anything that I haven't poured over at great length a 100% approval rating. I read the thing once all the way through, and found that I agree with what the guy's saying, but I didn't put enough real contemplation into it to decide if I truly agree with it all. That's all.

What did stick out to me were a few of his observations on spear use seemed well thought out but had a little bit of "I'd need to try it/see it before making that kind of judgement." I did really enjoy his bit on both the Katana and Francisca. Basically his evidence is very well thought out and anecdotal, but not neccessarily correct. I only agree with 95% of what I think...

Jake

I think it should only be give for the man on your right side... your shield is alread on your left... you help protect the man on your left... you provide very little protection to the man on your right... almost none. Remember the position on the right was considered the position of honor be cause he was exposed.

Wolfen wrote: Honestly, though.. Attacking at all, except attacks of opportunity (ie, someone lowers their guard) isn't the shieldman's job in a shieldwall. If you commit anything to an attack, you are taking a risk that could end with not only your death, but the deaths of your peers. The job of the shieldman is to hold the line, not to kill.

OK, I just gotta mention this. Kinda OT, but cool.

In an old Conan comic I once read, it starts out with Conan at the head of this army. They were meeting a traditional foe at a traditional site. As was also tradition, both armies lined up into long lines and approached each other, so as to line up with another man across the way. On a signal (a horn blowing or something) the battle was to begin, each man facing off against his opponent. Of course everyone had swords and shields.

On the signal, Conan's army all do a half-left, and stab the guy to their left instead of the guy in front of them thus avoiding their foe's shields entirely. The whole enemy line disintigrates like a house of cards.

Probably would never happen IRL, but very cool idea for a comic. :-)

Mike

BrianL wrote:
That's not quite correct. The shieldmen had short thrusting spears or blades, and their job was to block the man in front of them with the shield on their left hand, and stab the man in front and to the right (i.e. the guy facing your buddy on your right hand side) with your weapon in your right hand. This is why shield walls were so effective until anyone caught on, because the opponents facing a shield wall would be defending against the guy in front of them and not be expecting the attack from their right.

Stab forward and to the right, take a step. Stab forward and to the right, take a step. Wash, rinse, repeat.

And tough luck if you're left handed. Get over it.

Brian.

For a long time in earth's history, lefties were forced to train with their right hands until they were more right-handed than left-handed.

So there. All men were right-handed.

Valamir wrote:
And left handed...what is left handed. The whole concept is simply a matter of weak willed parents allowing their children to grow up using the wrong hand without correcting them ;-)

Lyrax wrote: For a long time in earth's history, lefties were forced to train with their right hands until they were more right-handed than left-handed.

Spartan wrote:

Lyrax wrote: For a long time in earth's history, lefties were forced to train with their right hands until they were more right-handed than left-handed.

With one notable exception:

Judges 20:16: "Among this army were seven hundred specially-trained left-handed soldiers. Each one could sling a stone and hit even the smallest target." (from the netbible)

-Mark

So...

Does anyone have any other ideas for how to handle shield walls, other than what I said at the beginning.

I'm looking for actual rules not just wishes for what a rule should contain.

Thanks,

Scott

I'd say you get complete passive protection from the upper legs up to the chest from the shields. This, with some greaves and a helmet will give a very good protection indeed(hoplite armor?).
A Battle skill check of some kind might give you extra dice as well.
Keeping formation would be a terrain roll/TN Battle(the skill). If you fail, you lose the passive protection of your friends' shields. Some goes for your foes and neighbors. This will force you to alot dice to keep formation, lest your opponent will find an opening and you will probably be attacked by at least two enemies. Of course, there is no chance to maneuver in a shield wall.

BTW, something I'd like to see is a way to position your shield. Like if I have a chainmail hauberk but for some reason no helm, I want to protect my head with the shield. Something like DTN-1 against ZONE IV, VI and XIII and DTN+1 against all the other zones. It would also make the Bind&strike and Beat maneuvers even more interesting.

the problem comes that it would be +1 DTN against torso +2DTN against legs maybe even +3DTN against lower legs. It would also be more susceptible to being bypassed udnerneath at a strike for the head... not to mention -CP dice if it is impeding vision as a standard placement.

Net result is i think it generally a bad idea. and except for that roman tortise formation... why it wasn't used... Unless you were being rained on by missles

Thirsty Viking wrote:

Valamir wrote:
And left handed...what is left handed. The whole concept is simply a matter of weak willed parents allowing their children to grow up using the wrong hand without correcting them ;-)

An interesting thought, but an unprovable one. This early training may have been at the expense of thier unltimate agility level. An interesting trade off. Right handed at less agility, or left handed at thier genetic agility.

Argue all you want... it is rather unprovable, and a perfect game mechanic answer in our world where the masses don't take identical training for a good baseline. Maybe if i'd been allowed to be a lefty, my hand writting would have been legible?

Valamir wrote: What is an interesting speculation from the quote, however, is why the author felt the need to point out that they were left handed. Was it simply a matter of demonstration and ostentation. "We are so rich and powerful we can waste our time training to be left handed just for the prestige of being unique". Or was there perhaps some left handed advangtage with a sling against a shielded target akin to the the advantage of a left handed pitcher vs a batter?

Spartan wrote: I was wondering that myself. My best guess is that these left-handed troops were trained to fight right-handed ones in hand-to-hand, thus throwing their enemies into confusion (it doesn't say they used the sling exclusively). If all your training assumes your enemies to be the same handedness as you, then when faced with the opposite you might not react as well. I've heard the same applies in some team sports as well. I wouldn't know.

Valamir wrote:
Also, keep in mind that most of these folks would not be literate, nor engage in regular organized sports involving throwing, so there is little sense of "i'm more comfortable writing or throwing left handed". You'd put the sword in whatever hand you were told to put the sword in, whether by your father, or a medieval drill sarjeant.

Ah but things like eating, hunting with slings as a shepard boy, even throwing rocks, whatever would still be taken on as a lefty developing base dexterity with the left-handed orientation. I think most like is that Lefties would typically be excluded from training. Derided as unsuitable (socially outcast)... unless they were extrodinarily dedicated or ambidextrous.
It is easy to imagine them to be given runner duties and other support activities unless the were able to quickly over come thier handedness.

Valamir wrote:
What is an interesting speculation from the quote, however, is why the author felt the need to point out that they were left handed. Was it simply a matter of demonstration and ostentation. "We are so rich and powerful we can waste our time training to be left handed just for the prestige of being unique". Or was there perhaps some left handed advangtage with a sling against a shielded target akin to the the advantage of a left handed pitcher vs a batter?

Notice they were a unit of slingers.... most likely they had most of thier skill when they joined and given little other training. Sounds more like they assembled thier own unit out of patriotism... ssince they weren't allowed in other units they probably worked extra hard to prove themselves.... a paralell example might be the Tuskegee airmen of WWII. If this was the case, they may have been the best slingers in the army... and thus marveled at because they were also lefties. It's not that being a lefty made them better.... it's that the social side effects of being outcast, and not allowed in other units made them work harder and demand more of each other than any other unit. To a lesser extent this was what made the spartans so good in ancient greece, and how we train elite units today. Seperation/indoctrination/High Standards

Thirsty Viking wrote: Notice they were a unit of slingers.... most likely they had most of thier skill when they joined and given little other training. Sounds more like they assembled thier own unit out of patriotism... ssince they weren't allowed in other units they probably worked extra hard to prove themselves....

Just wanted to pop in and say that this is a fascinating thread.

Cool.

Jake

However, what do we know about ancient Israelite military strategy in their "tribal" period? Did they fight in tightly disciplined units or was it more of a free-for-all? I really have no idea. *shrug* Interesting idea, T-V... I'm gonna have to research this!

-Mark

Q03. What percentage of the population is left handed?

There have been many different numbers put forth, with the most common numbers we have seen being in the area of 13 percent. However, we have seen numbers as high as 30 percent, when you allow a
very loose definition of left-handedness.

Thirsty Viking wrote: the problem comes that it would be +1 DTN against torso +2DTN against legs maybe even +3DTN against lower legs. It would also be more susceptible to being bypassed udnerneath at a strike for the head... not to mention -CP dice if it is impeding vision as a standard placement.

Net result is i think it generally a bad idea. and except for that roman tortise formation... why it wasn't used... Unless you were being rained on by missles

Bringing ol' mister Silver in here, he makes several references to people who fight Left instead of right, as do many German masters. So it did happen, we know.

As for my own experience with left-handers, when dealing with a two-handed weapon such as a longsword or a staff, the difference is minor and while worth notice, not big enough to be worth dice to a trained man. On the other hand, fighting a lefty who's got a short sword or C&T is a pain in the rear, as my entire perception of range (a bloody important thing in swordplay) is thrown off. I suppose that I could train around it (and if I was ever planning to fight to the death I would), but in my current state, a left hander has a slight advantage.

I might add that a lefty fighting a lefty has the same disadvantage as a righty fighting a lefty does, because the disadvantage is rooted in what we're comfortable with and accostomed to fighting.

Jake

Thirsty Viking wrote: [on a side note.. what are percentages of right to left in general population... is 2.5% close? this would be thier numbers in this battle. Hmm found a FAQ from alt.lefthanders says that most studies indicate 13% lefties

Spartan wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote:
My Scriptural delvings have revealed that the tribe of Benjamin was noted for its left-handed and ambidextrous warriors. Both uses of the word "left-handed", and all the references to ambidexterity that I have found are used to describe people of that tribe. It may have been a cultural tradition for them to have left-handed warriors. This over a period of a couple hundred years, as well. Even King Saul had a unit of ambidextrous slingers/archers from that tribe, and Saul was himself a Benjamite.

Perhaps left-handed slingers became associted with Benjamin in a similar fashion that the longbowman became associated with England. I would like to know if the Benjamites had units of left-handed swordsmen/spearmen. as well. That might help account for their high kill rate despite being heavily outnumbered in the battle with the 700 slingers.

Ironically, "Benjamin" means "son of my right hand".

-Mark

Well I didn't bring this up before... They don't mentiona anything about the slingers dying persay. But they do describe the masacre of the swordsmen. Fewer than 700 people suvived.. i think it was 400? Who were later allowed to kidnap wives. Could it be that this group was predominantly the Lefty slingers? If so then later generations could have had a much higher incidence of leftieness than previously. It only makes sence to me that the slingers would have been at further range than the others, and better able to flee. Secondly they were the only missle troops mentioned. No missle troops are mentioned in 100k + troops from israel. This could have been a nice force multiplier too.

So where in the bible were the benji's refered to as lefties... before or after this judges text (timewise)?

Thirsty Viking wrote: Who were later allowed to kidnap wives. Could it be that this group was predominantly the Lefty slingers? If so then later generations could have had a much higher incidence of leftieness than previously.

BrianL wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote: Who were later allowed to kidnap wives. Could it be that this group was predominantly the Lefty slingers? If so then later generations could have had a much higher incidence of leftieness than previously.

Nobody is really all that sure what causes left/right handedness, but they *are* pretty sure it's not in any way genetic or hereditary.

Brian.