Medieval Warfare.

When most people think of that term, they conjure up a picture of the battle scenes in Braveheart or other epic cinema masterpieces. Blood, carnage, a disordered mass of fighters all pounding away at each other until one side or the other gives it up and runs. Not a bad description really, but one that dismisses the leadership qualities of the commanders of armies in this period.

How important was generalship in the Medieval period? One example of the importance of personal leadership was the fact that a Medieval commander simply could not afford to lose a battle. If he was not killed outright, his power and prestige would suffer, as would his standing in the eyes of his followers. As Michael Prestwich points out in his latest article in MHQ, Edward I of England had a reputation as a great general, even though he only fought and won three battles. He did not lose and that made all the difference.

In studying 70 battles of the 11th-early 13th centuries for my book, Neglected Heroes: Leadership and War in the Early Medieval Period (Praeger Publishers, 1995), I found that in 20% of the battles, one or more of the respective leaders were killed. If you include capture or serious wounds, this percentage rises to 40%. Leaders who "lead by example" often found themselves without their freedom, seriously wounded or dead. Examples of generals who were killed in battle include virtually all of the leaders at Clontarf in 1014; Olaf II (Stiklestad - 1030); Harald Hardrada (Stamford Bridge - 1066); Harold Godwinson (Hastings - 1066); both Malcolm and Edward of Scotland (Alnwick - 1093); Roger of Antioch (Atherab - 1119); Baldwin II (Jihan - 1130) and Peter II of Spain (Muret - 1213).

Other commanders were more fortunate. William the Conqueror, Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemond, Arslan I, Richard Lionheart and Saladin all come readily to mind. Each led by example, yet each was almost always victorious and survived.

Many students of military history are surprised when they first learn that the size of the army a general led often had very little to do with his chances of winning a battle. In the 70 studied battles, well over 50% of them were won by the numerically inferior army. At Monte Maggiore in 1041, the Lombard-Norman army was outnumbered by two to one by their Byzantine adversaries, yet they won the day as their commander, Ardwin, utilized the Norman cavalry wedges to ride down the usually steady Byzantine foot, destroying the famed Varangian Guard in the process. At Thielt in 1128, William Clito found himself outnumbered three to one, yet used feigned flight to entice his enemies to pursue with their cavalry, leaving their numerous foot behind where they were unable to lend support when Clito's horsemen destroyed the enemy cavalry and then the foot in turn. Thus we find the general as a major determinant factor in deciding victory in a very large number of battles, in fact in 48.5% of them studied.

So what does this have to do with rules for fighting Medieval battles? Plenty. Any rules system that does not take all of the leadership ability factors into account will resemble another "let's me 'em in the middle and high dice win" contest. Let's look at my Medieval Warfare rules, for instance, to determine how a leadership in a Medieval battle can be replicated.

First of all, you must determine how good your generals actually are. We do this by rolling two six-sided die for each general before setting out terrain or delegating units. The higher the dice roll, the better his command and leadership ability. The commander-in-chief adds +2 to his die roll (it was not usual to have an idiot leading your army, though certainly not unknown, look at Baldwin at Hattin in 1187). All other generals take what they get. You may re-roll for one of your generals if his quality is not of your liking. The best you can expect is a Charismatic general, on a roll of 12. If you roll a 9-11, your general is Brave. Other rolls can be for a Stalwart general (the usual result) on a 5-8, or a Buffoon on a 2-4 roll. The quality of leadership influences order giving ability, terrain placement and movement initiative.

Medieval commanders would pick the most favorable terrain they could find to fight on. If you doubt this, look at any number of battles, not least of which are Balathista (1014), Civitate (1053), Hastings (1066), Florcheim (1080), Bourtheroulde (1124), Thielt (1128), Northallerton (1138) and Andria (1155). Often, the commanders would make sure the enemy was in poor terrain before attacking him, as at Varaville (1057) and Hattin (1187) as well as numerous battles of the First Crusading period.

In MW, we use a d10 roll to determine where your chosen terrain pieces are actually placed on the wargames table. Each die pip corresponds to a portion of the table, with a 1 or a 2 being a discard. Other pips are your own center or flank areas and the enemy center or flanks.

If you have managed to have a commander-in-chief of charismatic or brave ability, you get to add or deduct one from each of the terrain die rolls, your choice. This often will allow you to have much more control over where to position the terrain pieces. The logic is: a better commander has more control over where he fights and has a better eye for what constitutes 'good ground'.

After determining the quality of commanders and getting the terrain set up, you have to allocate your various units to your generals. Each unit must begin the game under command of one of your leaders. As stated before, most of your commanders will be of a stalwart nature, able in MW to issue three orders each turn. Brave commanders may issue four orders, charismatic five, and buffoons, only two each turn. Your units normally need orders to do other than sit and shoot, if armed with missile weapons. Any movement, deployment, changes of facing, retreats of formation changes must be ordered. Therefore, you are limited in the number of units that may receive these orders each turn.

Obviously, if you are planning a flank attack, you will not want your worst commander in charge of it! Your commander-in-chief will usually have the most orders (thanks to his +2 leadership ability die roll modifier). A good place for him is usually the center, where he can more or less control the vanguard of the army as well as any reserves. Your other generals will take a flank each. The best one usually should be in command of your strongest units, those you plan to attack with. Leaders had to be inspiring, if they were not, troops were not prone to obey them during the Medieval period. Hence the limited number of orders.

Each turn, both players roll for movement initiative. This determines who gets to move first in the Tactical Movement Phase of each turn (there is also a Strategic Movement Phase that is simultaneous, only units outside of 16" (25mm) or 12" (15mm) from any enemy may use this…and they don't need orders if out of this range/proximity of the enemy). If you have a charismatic commander-in-chief, you add +2 to your initiative die rolls. If he is brave, you add +1. The better commanders would be quicker to react and initiate action than the less able ones. The winner of the initiative die roll decides which side will go first. It may be advantageous to let the enemy go first. There are times when you may get a tactical advantage by letting him make the first moves. Other times, you may want to push ahead and keep pressure on. With a better commander, you increase your chances of having the choice of which side will go first.

As mentioned earlier in the article, generals were prone to lead by example. This gives very definite morale and combat bonuses to a unit if a general is attached to it. The downside, is that generals with units are then subject to combat losses, if involved in a close combat. Even more debilitating, a general in a close combat situation loses all of his order giving ability except for that of the unit he is currently with! If you elect to involve your generals in melee, you can forget about him issuing any orders while he is so involved.

Such is how we use leadership ability in MW. In the next article, I will discuss the aspects of missile fire and close combat, the two other major determinants of victory.