The Loose Association of Wargamers

These terms are diametric opposites: either you have a palpable level of training or you don't. The terms are specifically from the Field of Glory rules but the concept is in many pre-modern rule sets.

Note, the terms are not used for quality. A unit may range from poor to elite & still be one or the other.

I spent a wet Sunday looking at my burgeoning Pyrrhic army ( I can muster 11 units from existing painted & based figures !! & Iain's sold me the figures needed for the other 4). You have units such as Samnite warriors. They're average and rated in the army lists as such, as well as being "undrilled". Fair enough, they'd have probably received weapon training & other military skills from their village but not been taught the military exercises necessary to fully co-ordinate the actions of numbers of fellow warriors. They are, of course, medium infantry ie they fight in loose clumps of men.

Then there's the Gallic mercenaries. Heavy infantry, good (superior) quality but still "undrilled". Hmmm....perhaps this is to reflect the "wildness" of the Celt who surely must of had some drilling but possibly didn't follow it?

And the Greek spearmen, for example. Some are undrilled. How do you fight in tightly packed lines, with your shield needed to cover others & be able to charge in some semblance of order if you're "undrilled"? Note: quality is another thing. Some of these hoplites came from Tarantas & were not motivated fighters but surely they could not even fight if they were "undrilled"? (Pyrrhus we are told forcibly enrolled them & put them through their paces before he allowed them in the battle line....obviously!). Their opponents, the

Am I being too pedantic in thinking any heavy infantry (ie tightly packed) could operate with out being drilled? Any mercenaries who are, essentially, untrained? I know rule sets with their necessary pigeon holing are all a touch abstract but this particular qualifier seems wrong.

donald

I think drilling reflects the ability of bodies of men to manouver. Hours on the drill square practidcing retreating and changing front produce units of drilled men. A Greek phalanx (which is little more than a levy) is likely to get disordered trying to do anything more than advancing at a stroll. And Celtic nobles, for all their fighting power, won't be able to change their front without considerable time to reform.

In FoG it is a combination of two things, effectively to reflect their responsiveness to orders, and their capacity to carry them out. The difference between 'are they listening?' - and the difference between, 'you lot over there' and 'company will advance in column of threes, right wheel'. This is basically a carryover from WRG Regular and Irregular.

My beef with many sets of rules is that I think they exaggerate the differences for game contrast, and base it largely on the Graeco-Roman barbarian trope. So 'warband', are an unruly bunch of tribesmen in no order, charging only when they aren't running away. Romans on the other hand are highly skilled, highly trained and always follow their orders and leaders.

The reality is that it would be much more nuanced. We know that Frankish warbands were capable of several formations, there are examples of Gallic warriors moving in disciplined and ordered formation, conversely, Romans charging without orders, making wild charges and so on.

Can you live with it in your favoured set of rules? I can. I just argue with the author about definitions.

S,

I'm with you on this one.

It doesn't take long at all for a group to learn the basic drills, the difference is being able to complete those drill manoeuvres when under combat pressure and when the enemy are flinging slingshot and javelins at you.

DB

AKA Don't throw those bloody spears at me...

That's why armies train and train and train. First they train with full bellies, water, and no enemy. Then they train with half full bottles and no breakfast. Then they train after a morning route march. Then they train against the Triarii with wooden weapons. Soon they react to those trumpet calls in their sleep.

And, at their first battle, they are well drilled but green.

Drilled in this sense covers the 2 parts.

knowledge of commands and ability to carry them out.

under this distinction the British Army of the 18th Century would be undrilled, because except for once a year or if posted to Dublin Castle, they never gathered in more than company strength so never drilled as a battalion, then packed off to war and hoped they got some practise in, before they faced an enemy.

In all the accounts I have ever seen, except for Hannibal, all celtic troops, no matter how good had a tendency to do their own thing, listen only to their leaders and basically arse around.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 3:52 pm under this distinction the British Army of the 18th Century would be undrilled, because except for once a year or if posted to Dublin Castle, they never gathered in more than company strength so never drilled as a battalion, then packed off to war and hoped they got some practise in, before they faced an enemy.

Which is why the six battalions of the Dublin garrison were usually the first units packed off to war, or to beef up an existing force already serving overseas (also worth noting that when more men were needed to bring such units up to full war strength, they were usually drafted in from other units elsewhere in Ireland as they tended to be housed in barracks, rather than being quartered on the general population, and hence were also somewhat better drilled than the norm). That said, I think "undrilled" is a little harsh, as the rank-and-file would not need to be drilled at more than company strength to get a grip on the level of "solidarity" needed to manoeuvre in battle - above company level was more for the benefit of the officers, so they understood how not to get in each other's way, not to leave huge gaps etc etc.

However, it is worth looking at Houlding's Fit for service to see how frequently camps were set up in Great Britain and Ireland to permit mass training of complete units; in fact, from the 1750s onwards, these were annual events and incorporated militia regiments as well, so training would be pretty much universal - or would have been if they'd had a unitary drill book (see the debacle caused at North Bridge on Day 1 of the AWI, by one officer introducing "street firing" to two of the three companies under his command - who had never heard of it before, his own company being the only one which had actually practised it on the drill ground - in a combat situation).

I have the book, it is fascinating.

But the example in the AWI you cited is exactly my point on low to high level undrilled. I admit I was pushing the original question, but I actually feel it is an area that rules make much too much of, too often.

It reminds me of the comment in the Gulf War debacle with Andy McNab. Where a highly trained SAS team with little live fire experience, decided to take on veterans of the Iran/Iraq war.

I think Fredd is highlighting the difference between training and experience. Drilling can get people to react the right way in the confusion of battle, but the difference between untrained and trained troops is nothing compared to those who have seen the elephant and those who have not. However, green troops can be much improved by training and, once they have seen the elephant will outfight undrilled veteran, all else being equal.