From: Steven M Goode Ancient and Medieval command/control question

I'm writing a set of rules for medieval (and possibly ancient) warfare, and right now I'm focusing on the command/control issues. Consider the following: At Varna in 1444, the Hungarian king ignored the advice of his sub-commander and charged headlong into the fray. His guard followed him, but the rest of the army did not. As a result, he was cut down, and his loss demoralized the heretofore seemingly victorious Hungarian army. Morale sank and the Hungarians were defeated.

At Belgrade in 1456, crusading peasants under the command of John Capistrano impetuously surged forward to harrass their Turkish enemies. Capistrano tried to pull them back, but when he realized that he couldn't persuade them to retire, instead charged along with them. This ended up pulling the entire army into an unplanned attack which, fortunately, ended in a stunning victory. In the first case, we have an example of overly-impetuous leaders not being followed by their troops. In the second, we have an example of overly-impetuous troops dragging their leader along. My question is this: does anyone know of examples (hopefully medieval, but ancient is OK too) where either - impetuous troops left their cautious commander behind or - an impetuous commander charged forward and his hesitant troop reluctantly joined him?

I'd also like to hear of examples of similar behaviors when it comes to retreating - for example, were there cases where a fleeing leader was ignored by his troops, who stood fast? Thanks in advance!

From Walter M Speck

Has anyone entertained the idea that the southeast coast of Britain fell so quickly, because the troops stationed in the forts were of Germanic decent? The Roman army of the 5th-6th century was almost entirely German, and many auxiliary units stayed in Britain after the 400-410 Roman pull out. I accept that the Anglo-Saxon chronicles supports fighting on the Saxon shore, but it is still not too far out in left field to hypothesize this. It is also written that Vortigern's German mercenaries revolted, though I think these units were new arrivals, they could have been ex-auxiliaries on the make. Still we have the possibility that these ex-Romano-Germans could have welcomed folks from home despite having married with British women, and accepting British overlordship.With the caps in the records it is all academic, but it is an interesting scenario to think about. What with Wargames foundry and Old Glory, we have a plethora of figures to fight the battle with.

From: Ellis Simpson

Impressed by the continuing development; shows what the net and committed gamers can achieve. Many products fail because they are good ideas strangled by no or poor development. IMHO, MW shows the right way. A designer who is prepared to listen, canvasses opinion and matures his product. It may never be 'finished' (like most authors there is always something else that could be added, etc) but it is polished. I suppose you could say it shines! Thanks for your efforts. [Ed. My book was never "finished" either…I could have worked on that for another ten years, but there comes a point when you have to put it down as done.]

From Chris Parker (www.dayofbattle.com)

I watched the tournament and was very impressed, with the players and the games. The bast part was being able to but Paul Georgian as he played. The 16 player game that Jeff, Dave and Lyle ran was great. I watched for at least two hours. See you all at Cold Wars.

[Ed. Thanks, Chris. As you know I spent some time watching Day of Battle as well. It is a smooth flowing, clean playing game with a lot of flavor for the period. Very nicely done!]

From: Karl Heinz Ranitzsch

Not convinced by the argument that archers should outshoot crossbowmen. I would consider them to be about evenly matched, superiority depending on training, armour, cover etc. rather than on which missile weapon was used.

As to pavises, any troops behind shields should be able to outshoot enemies without such protection. Though I don't see why archers should not be allowed to fight from behind large propped-up shields. Can't quote a medieval battle example, though there were examples in sieges and numerous ancient examples (Assyrian, Persian, Chinese...). A rule similar to the shieldwall rule should apply, with reduced mobility as the price for improved protection.

[Ed. That's an interesting observation. Does anyone have any sources on this?]