.

7
P
/

Official Journal Of The Society Of Ancients

_._ .,
 i
I ..,
:

! *

PRESIDENT:
/*
VICE PRESIDENT? Tony Bath

SECRETARY: TREASURER:

Philip Barker, A-L-Nickels,

757 Pershore Road, 63 Cottenham Park Road,
Selly Park, West Wimbledon,
Birmingham 29. London, S.W.20.

EDITOR :
f I
Charles Grant,
263 Folkestone Road,
Dover,
Kent.
(Tel. .Dover 1986)

. . COMMITTEE
Bob 0 ’ Brien
Malcolm Woolg ar
Ed Smith
Richard Nelson
Mrs. Sue Barker
Neville Dickinson
Harold Gerry
Stephen Reed

Printed by Denis Weaver Ltd, 38 Castle Street, Dover

_.. .; - -.-.^__.__ -_-L-^^LL-d..I-.- -...-~---. ~I_-._

No. 43 September 1972.

EDITORIAL NOTES

Increasing numbers of new members, or members who have moved their

abode from one part of the country to another, write asking to be put in touch
with other Society members in their neighbourhood. It has always been the
policy of the Society that members’ .names and addresses are not divulged with-
out their express permission, and I feel that this principle should be maintained,
although it does place something of an obstacle in the way of people who would
like to get together with kindred spirits in a place where no known group exists.
The suggestion is made, therefore, that should any member want to get together
with others he should inform me to this effect and I shall at the earliest moment
publish his name and address in “Slingshot” , plus the fact that he would like
other members to contact him with a view to wargaming, or simply for the
exchange of views, discussion, etc.

Arising more or less out of the above, I shouldlike to remind members

that, should they write to an officer of the Society on any topic requiring a
reply, a stamped, addressed envelope should be included - Society postage
nowadays is a very heavy item. Also, I should like to remind members that
notification of change of address should be sent directly to the Treasurer, who
maintains the Society records.

In compiling recent “Slingshots” I have noted that certain of the

material has been in my hands for some time. I should like to make the point
that, should a contribution take several issues to appear, the reason is simply
that, in endeavouring to put out a ’ balanced’ journal, it is not always advisable
to have too much of one subject, it being much better to spread the load, as it
were. This is the reason *for possible hold-up inpublishing an article.
Incidentally, it is a great pleasure to see new names appearing among our
contributors. Like every other society, I imagine, we have a ’ hard core’ of
regulars, but the more writers the greater the variety of opinions and I
should like to urge the many new members to send me contributions long or
short on their favourite ’ ancient’ topic - all are welcome.
2
THE BIRMINGHAM SOCIETY MEETING

This, as previously announced, will take place in Birmingham on

Saturday and Sunday, 1 lth and 12th November 1972, commencing at 2 p,. m.
on Saturday, and 10 a.m. on the Sunday.

The venue is the Ladywood Community Centre and it is planned that

Society Championship games will be fought on the Saturday and, if it can be
arranged, Sunday will be devoted to a major battle, with everyone
participating, between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, with sundry
Barbarian Assistance.
For further information write to Mrs. Sue Barker, 757 Pershore Road,
Selly Park, Birmingham 29, who will also, on request, arrange overnight
accommodation as required.

NOTICES

The rec,ently formed Shrewsbury War-games Society caters for any

historical era in which there is enough interest and the organisers hope for as
many wargarners as possible living in the area to join the Society. Write to
Keith Pritchard, 12 Copthorne Gardens, Shrewsbury, Shropshire S73 8TQ.

Attention Norwich wargarners 1 Kris Andersen, who has recently

moved to Norwich is keen to form a wargames society in the district. ~
Interested parties should write to him at 1 The Cottage, Spur Lane, Poringland,
Norwich NOR 44W.

Attention Lincoln and district wargarners! Two Lincoln members have

formed a wargames group and would like to welcome as many new members
as possible. Contact John Pell, 5 St. Margarets Gardens, Lincoln LN6 8BG.

Luton and district Society members are asked to get in touch with
R. Fensome, 16 St. Peters Road, Luton, Beds. , LV 1 lPQ, with a view to
fighting championship battles and general communication of mutual interest.
 3
SOCIETY WARGAMES CHAMPIONSHIP

So far (i.e. up to 10th July) 39 players have taken part. The leading
contenders at present are:

Phil Barker 2.40

Dave Millward 1.90
Paul Hook 1.80
Stephen Reed 1.50
Charles Grant, Derek Casey and
Alan Stoneman 1.40
Sue Barker, Richard Nelson and
Andrew Matthews 1.10
Stephen Davison and Charles Stewart
Grant. 1.00

BOOK REVIEW
Bv Bob O’Brien

WAR GAMES THROUGH THE AGES 3,000 BC to 1,500 AD. This book, 260 pages
of text, 12 photo illustrations, plus black and white drawings (Stanley Paul,
London c2.75 > is by far the best book that Don Featherstone has written and it
can be recommended, not only as a general primer for those contemplating
wargaming in this period, but for two things that alone make it worth while.
First, his concept of Army Fighting Assessment charts, and second, the most
extensive bibliography I have ever seen in a book of this sort, covering
availability of figures, including flats ) suggested reading and pit torial
sources, and 10 pages of references to articles in wargaming and other
magazines.

The book starts with the Sumerians and goes on through 30 different
peoples and races) setting out their fighting styles and weapons, and giving
a Fighting Assessment of each type of force. There will be plenty to argue
about, and no two people will ever agree entirely on the assessments for their
favourite people. However) this is all to the good, and Don is to be con-
gratulated on introducing a new idea into wargaming, which merits close
attention, and has the advantage for us that it can be adapted to the Society
Rules in particular. Above all, Don brings an enthusiasm and energy to the
subject that cannot fail to com.municate to the reader and I thoroughly
recommend it.
4
T RADING POST

Wanted - Information on how to convert Airfix or similar figures into

reasonable Carthaginians. Any information will be most gratefully received.
Write to Robert S. Harrison, 4 Scarle Close, Lincoln.

CHAMPIONSHIP BATTLE REPORTS

1: Richard Nelson describes “The Battle of Pineta Ridge”, saying that it

was laid out with the intention of getting away from the usual equal point+
encounter to a situation more approximating to real life.

The terrain was as shown. The situation postulated that a Roman

foraging party retiring with its booty had been overtaken by a superior force.
and was forced to stand and fight. Both armies were assumed to be coming
down the road from the East and the raiders were making for the bridge lover
the Leda river, representing their line of retreat. The Leda and the Dodona
below the bridge were unfordable.

The raiders (commanded by R.B. Nelson) had 750 points and at the
start of the battle could lay out troops anywhere west of the Dodona. In
addition the raiders had a waggon train valued at 250 points which could’only
be laid out North of the Pineta. The waggon train moved at 4” on the road
and 2” off it. The pursuers, under M. Murgatroyd, totalled 1,000 point$ and
were permitted to lay out troops anywhere within 6” of the E. baseline.

The effect of these dispositions was to ensure that the raiders had to
fight well forward to protect their waggon train. 1
 5
The raiders put light infantry in the Oakwood, with cavalry in the open
ground W. of the wood, and the main infantry force on Pineta ridge. The aim
of these dispositions was to inflict a heavy defeat on any enemy forces thrusting
straight down the road.

In fact the pursuers cautiously.did not make any attempt on the bridge
and road and put their whole force into the Oakwood, where they were resisted
by the defender ’ s light troops. The delay thus caused permitted the waggon
train to cross the Pineta bridge, and the raiders now withdrew to a new position
along the line of the Pineta. This move took the Pursuers by surprise and a
further delay ensued before an assault could be mounted on this position. This
was again forestalled by a further retreat by the pursuers, this time on the Leda
Bridge. There ensued a few periods of fast mover-rents, finally culminating in
the raiders establishing an infantry square round the bridgehead, despite the
rout of their heavy cavalry.

At this point the time limit intervened, and it was found on counting the
points that the result was a draw. It was interesting that despite the relatively
close terrain, the battle was basically one of movement (nearly 30 periods in
3 hours) with no contact between the opposing main bodies. The raiders were
however glad to escape with their booty, particularly as the mere fact of. their
retreat meant that their Reactions tended to be very bad.

11. Under Research Group Rules and with armies of 1) 100 points each,
Andrew Green (Gauls) , defeated the Persians of Charles Grant, who writes
“This traumatic experience was a prime example of how a battle, seemingly
firmly in one ’ s hands, can suddenly slip through the fingers. It happened in this
wise. The situation as shown is after some four moves.
 6
The Gauls deployed four infantry war-bands of various strengths and a
unit of light cavalry, 30 strong, while I, by way of experiment, had an 811
cavalry force, two regiments of heavy and three of light. At first all went well
. and very much according to plan, and I was able to concentrate two light cavalry
regiments (52 altogether) against his warband IV. Their charge was a
complete success (indeed, throws of ‘plus 4’ and ‘plus 2’ meant something of
an “overkill ‘I) . On the other side of the West Hill warband II went into uncon-
trolled advance, ending up ‘in the blue’ sitting without orders at the southeast
end of West Hill. Following up the light cavalry, the Scorpion heavies went
zooming round the hill, fell upon, and shattered, Warband III. Meantime, in
the centre and right my cavalry moved forward. With its ’ first sight’ reaction
the enemy light cavalry on East Hill went into ’ uncontrolled advance’ . This
was splendid, as my right wing light cavalry had orders to evade and draw on
the enemy horse, thus allowing the Susa heavy cavalry to turn right and charge
their flank. The whole plan was scuppered when my own light cavalry went into
uncontrolled advance, with my dice throw of 12! So,ztead of massing 44
cavalry (23 of them heavy) against his 30 light, I had his 30 against my; 21.
At the same time, with the focal point of the cavalry fight so far forward I had
no option but to support my light chaps by charging his warband I with the Susa
regiment, to prevent his warband getting in on the flank of 9 cavalry. Still,
at first all went well, I pushed back both lots one move, then there was :a
startling reversal. My light cavalry broke, closely followed by the Susa
people, who were facing a francisca-armed load of infantry. My whole right
was crushed, as indeed was that of the Gauls 9 but when a tally was made on
time being called, the difference was 1496 in the enemy’ s favour. The loss of
210 points of heavy cavalry was decisive. Had the game proceeded it would
have been interesting to see what would have happened, as the next move would
have seen Army Reactions for both players. It could have been amusing’! ‘I

THE BATTLE OF MEGIDDO

By Alan Buttery 1
The annals of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, inscribed on the temple walls at
Karnak, tell of the most serious projects ever undertaken by an Egyptian King.
In these, the scribe Thaneni recounts details of 17 military campaigns conducted
by the Pharaoh, the first of which was the Battle of Megiddo. This is an ‘account
of the first battle in history in which the tactics and strategy of the commanding
general can be studied in detail.

When Tuthmosis III ( 1504 - 1450 B. C. ) became Pharaoh of Egypt he

inherited a dangerous situation. The Semitic Hyksos, who had been driven
from Egypt a hundred years earlier, now threatened Egypt again and wer!e :
gathered with their allies for a last valiant stand against the expanding power
of Egypt. This coalition was composed of all Egypt’s Asiatic enemies from
Sharuhen to the Euphrates. These dynasts of Syria-Palestine were joined by
men provided by the powerful kingdon of Mitanni from the Euphrates region and
north of them were the Hittites of Asia Minor. I /
This consolidation, united under the leadership of the King of Kadesh,
had advanced south to the Plain of Esdraelon to make a stand at the Canaanite
 7
city of Megiddo. It was the intention of Tuthmosis III to break their power and
place these states under Egyptian control.

Tuthmosis left the frontier fortress of Tharu on 10th April 1479 B.C. and
set out at the head of an army of some 15,000 - 20,000 men. This national army
had been formed when Egypt became a military state after the overthrow of the
Hyksos. The armed forces had been vastly improved by the adoption of the war
chariot and various weapons of Canaanite origin and were now at the peak of
their efficiency. Unlike later Pharaohs, Tuthmosis III did not employ foreign
mercenaries and only used Nubians and natives of southern Palestine in small
numbers .

On the march out from Egypt the army was preceded by the Pharaoh and
his personal staff and the image of the god Amun was carried in a portable
shrine by priests. This, incidentally, is the only instance in Egyptian records ’
of the gods actually being borne into battle.

They covered the distance of 125 miles to Gaza in some 9 days and,
after staying there for the night, travelled the 80 miles to Yehem. Here, at
the foot of Mount Carmel, they made camp and rested whilst scouting operations
could be carried out. They stayed at Yehem for about 2 days in order to await
the return of the spies who had been despatched as soon as they had arrived
there. When the two spies arrived back and informed the King that the enemy
were on the ridge to oppose the Egyptians, he had to determine a plan of
campaign.

From Yehem there were three possible routes to Megiddo and Tuthmosis
neld a war council to decide which of these to take’. The Pharaoh favoured the
direct route via Aruna which would get the Egyptians to the city the quickest.
His officers argued that) because it was a narrow defile, the progress would
be slow and the army could be in danger from an enemy attack when they
emerged into the plain. Also that the pass was too narrow to maintain a
military formation and that the forces would be strung out in a thin line. This,
they argued, could lead to the advanced guard’s coming into contact with the
enemy before the rearguard had even left Aruna. They also feared that the
enemy would attack the thin line of Egyptians from the heights of the defile and
that they would be unable to use the chariotry. The alternative routes suggested
were one that went north of Zefti and issued to the north of Megiddo, and the
other issued from the mountains from the direction of Taanach. They said that
by adopting the latter route there would be ample opportunity for manoeuvres
and that the Egyptians could bring all their forces into action at once.

After exercising the Royal Prerogative and accusing the officers of

cowardice, the Pharaoh’s suggested course of action was adopted. The army
marched out of Yehem on the 9th May and covered the 13 miles to Aruna in
that day. They pushed through the pass as quickly as possible to avoid attack.

The wings of the Asiatic army at this time were detached forces hold-
ing Taanach and the Kina Valley respectively. Between these wings was a strong
central reserve which could be rushed to whichever point was threatened. Had
8
the Pharaoh adopted the suggested route of his chiefs of staff the army would have
had to fight its way up the Megiddo road against the full force of the enemy. Had
they travelled by the road to the north of Zefti, the enemy would have had time
to make fresh dispositions after discovering that he was not taking either of the
direct routes. By choosing the Aruna road he came out on the enemy’ s right
flank and was now in the plain by Kina. The Egyptians soldiers saw, before
them, a wide expanse of level land stretching for half a mile to the Kina, I and
they proceeded to form into battle line ready to resist attack and also to protect
the main body still behind them. Megiddo was now scarcely a mile away.
I
The enemy had failed to block the exit from the hills and SO the :
initiative lay now with the Egyptians. Why the enemy did not post an adequate
detachment at the mouth of the Pass to attempt to prevent the Egyptians from
emerging into the plain is hard to understand. The enemy appear to have had no
idea by which route the Egyptian Army was coming until it actually arrived in
the Kina valley. This was probably due to the lack of an adequate intelligence
service or an underestimation of the Egyptian plan of campaign. Had they
knowh that the Egyptians were camped at Aruna, they could have met them with
full force as they came out of the pass. i

This was a suitable location for a camp as the line of communication

could be secured with the south and the Kina served as a defence on two sides
as well as providing water. The Egyptian camp would have been a rectangular
enclosure bounded by the shields of the troops. The soldiers would haves
prepared their weapons for the battle the following day. The watch would be,
posted and the food distributed. The Royal Guard would have alreadJr taken up
its position outside the Royal Tent whilst, inside, Tuthmosis would be discussing
the forthcoming battle with his chiefs of staff.

The Asiatics had recalled their main body from the direction of Taanach
some 4 or 5 miles away, in preparation for the attack the next day. The
Asiatic camp was probably pitched on Hill I between the Egyptians and Megiddo.
This was situated on an elevated piece of ground and also served to protect the
weakest wall of the City.

Megiddo enjoyed one of the most commanding positions in Palestine

because to the north and east extended the Plain of Esdraelon, gradually sloping
away to the Kishon. The whole plain lay stretched out before the city so that it
was possible to see who passed along the roads across the plain. At this time *
Megiddo was a strongly fortified place roughly oval in shape with massive buttre-
ssed walls 6 metres thick and 10 metres high. The city’s natural defences were
weakest on the south and west where the height of the Tell above the plain was
much less than on the east and north. Its isolated position rendered it easily
defensible on all sides. It was a flourishing isettlement as it commanded the
main highway from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

On the morning of the battle Tuthmosis III was informed that the
extension of the army, north across the Kina stream towards the northw’est
of Megiddo and south east of hill A, was completed. He was also told that the
Egyptian front was clear of the enemy. Hill A provided a good position t:o
.
 ,.
10
station a force to protect the south wing and prevent the flank being turned. The
other wing rested on Hill F. This formation meant that the army was strung out
in a relatively thin line and formed part of a huge circle with the Asiatic, camp
in the centre. This extension of the line had taken place under cover of dark-
ness and all the chariots were with that portion of the army north of the Kina.

The Asiatic force was drawn up around the edge of the hills 1) H ‘and G
and, therefore, had the sloping sides of the hills as a natural defence against
the Egyptians. The forces put into the field by the Asiatics would have been the
biggest array encountered by the Egyptians at any one time. This would ‘have
been in the order of 10,000 to 15,000 men, consisting of chariotry and
infantry armed with spear and bow. Chariots formed a considerable portion
of the Asiatic strength and would have been arranged in a position to charge
down the slopes to meet the Egyptians. This was probably between the north-
west side of Hill I and the south sidg of Hill H which was an area of gradual
‘slope approximately half a mile wide.

The Egyptian centre, composed largely of chariots, would have been

placed opposite the Asiatic centre. This placed them at the front of Hills’D and
E. The Egyptian south wing held the ground of the previous camp and ended at
Hill A and would have been composed of infantry. I

On 15th May 1479 B.C. battle commenced with all Egyptian chariot
charge at full speed towards the Asiatic ranks. They advanced upon the iHills
G , H and I from the south and west. The Egyptian south wing crossed the Kina
and attacked the enemy south wing. They broke through and proceeded to
attack the main Asiatic body, already smashed by the Egyptian chariot charge,
in the rear. The Asiatics fell back as the Egyptian wings enclosed them and the
army was driven back through its own camp to the city. The enemy did not
stand long (only 83 hands were taken) and fled, offering very little resistance,
either due to internal dissent or dismay at the size of the Egyptian army. They -- -
fell back and had to climb over hill I to reach the city as there were virtually
no chariots in which to escape. Had the Egyptians now pursued the enemy to -
the city they could have inflicted a great loss but, instead, they chose to’ plunder
the Asiatic camp. The thoughts of treasure had proved too much for their
discipline and, whilst they were looting the enemy camp, the Asiatics gained
time in which to reach the city.

The inhabitants, however, had no thoughts for the survivors andLhad

locked the gates. Some men were hauled up by friends after having scrambled
up the glacis. The enemy leaders left the city, with a few followers, by the
north gate.

Tuthmosis III reorganised his forces and ordered earthworks, with a

framework of timber, to be thrown up all round the city forming a perimeter
of some two miles. Eventually, after about a month, the city surrendered
after running out of food and water.

The spoil of Megiddo included 924 chariots, 200 bronze cuirasses, 502
bows etc. , and 2,503 prisoners. Special items captured included the King of
Kadesh’ s chariot which had a pole of gold and the beautiful chariot of the Prince

. i
 11
of Megiddo which was wrought with gold.

The fall of Megiddo and the towns and villages about it showed the
Asiatics that further resistance was useless. This crushed once and for all,
the Asiatic alliance.

Tuthmosis III carried on to complete 16 more campaigns in a policy of

expansion which was to extend Egyptian influence as far as the Euphrates. Thus
made Egypt a world power and Thebes became the richest capital in the ancient
world. .

Tuthmosis III was the best general Egypt ever produced and was the only
man who succeeded in making the country into a power. It is little wonder that
he was known as Menkheperre Tuthmosis III, “The Scourge of the Asiatics”. He
has even been regarded by historians as the “Napoleon of Ancient Egypt” and
must surely rank with other great generals of history including Alexander,
Caesar and Hannibal.

Column in Disorder
by Antistentor

What a pity the modern carefully scientific approach to archaeology

came several generations too late to save so many ancient works which had
survived in good condition The large expansion of farming and the better
communications in the 18th century were the two main culprits. Old parish
histories in my own county dating from the 18th century are full of things like
“A few years ago on Mr. Aytoun’s farm on the west side of the parish a large
fortification was discovered when clearing waste ground. There were remains
of timber revetments and in some places the walls had been of great thickness.
A mound in the centre was dug into but only a few rusting utensils and pieces
of weapons were found. There are now no traces of the work,; as the place was
levelled in the course of ground improvement”. Even fairly large stone
structures simply disappeared, from “Druids’ circles” to what must have been
interesting early medieval castles.

The other day, in “A Guide to Prehistoric Scotland” (Richard Feachem)

I came across a short description of the large fortified peninsula at Burghead,
in Morayshire) the later history of which is a prime example of this sort of
thing. Evidently the set of three ramparts, each about 800 feet in length,
enclosed an area of 300 by 200 yards. Each wall had a gateway about half way
along, and they were carefully built affairs. Beams went transversely into
earth walls and were bolted to planks running longitudinally through the walls.
Now, the tantalising thing is that this stronghold remained in fairly impressive
condition right down to about 1808. It was then largely destroyed, as the
ground .was needed for development. Cumberland’s chief engineer in 1746 drew
detailed plans of it, fortunately, so we are not dependent on hearsay as we are
with so much local history. I gather that one school of thought thinks that this
place must have been a central capital of some kind, perhaps THE headquarters
of the Northern tribes, and that the Mons Graupius battle may have been fought
12
nearby. The Morayshire plain is one of the best farming areas in the Northern
half of Scotland, and presumably would have been defended vigorously iti any
case.

A great deal has already been written on the Persian invasion of Greece,
but I would like to recommend “Persia and the Greeks” * which is a very up-to-
date and fully detailed account of the entire period, and very entertaininbly
written. Marathon is particularly well analysed, with Thermopylae there is a
careful discussion of the lie of the ground and the various theories regarding
the outflanking routes. There are useful facts such as the ship intervals: between
triremes, and the deployment of the Athenian hoplite regiments into battle line.
For those who are interested in the political side, you are given a readable
treatment of the Athenian democratic “revolution”, and an admiring recital of
the work of the Persian “envoys” who for a year before the actual invas+n had
worked in advance of the army in the Northern areas of Greece winning over the
tribes and working on the jealousies between state and state. ( * By A-R; Bu;rn)

On the wargaming side, the only unexpected notable event recently was
that most satisfying thing: a great cavalry charge. I fielded a late Rom’an army,
almost entirely infantry as has been my practice for some time now, and my
opponent’produced, almost the opposite, namely a Muslim Arab army, oyganised
in five cavalry and two camel regiments. No infantry. The enemy deplqyed
over the whole baseline initially, and I decided on a quick attack on the wing
opposite my compact force before the remote enemy wing could circle round
into contact. (The table was long, but only 4 feet wide, so it was a reasbnable
gamble) . My infantry did quite well, driving off the first cavalry attacks,
gaining ground, but ,couldn’ t cover enough frontage against such agile opposition,
so I had to commit my reserve and only effective mounted unit, consistiGg of a
dozen cataphracts. They charged a light cavalry force, which was routed in the
first melee. Then, disorganised, they charged into a supporting mediuq
cavalry unit which of course had a much better chance against them, but again
immediate’ rout, although the cataphracts counted only half their strength as
fighting in the melee. The final exploit was to counter-charge and route ,a third
line of horse despite some considerable disorganisation due to not being able to
halt and rally. All in all, a fine effort, which took them most of the way over
the board, - and making up for the failure of the infantry some of whom had
succeeded in getting themselves charged from front and rear simultanco@sly
rather disastrously. So both sides went home claiming spectacular victqries
(it being then nightfall) .

HOPLITE BATTLE-DRILL
By A. L. Nickels

Concerning Richard Nelson’s note in the Guardroom for July, I have

looked at Xenophon ’ s Anabasis I. ii. 17, and rather more carefully than $e
appears to have done! Carleton L. Brownson, who translated for Loeb, appears
to have done so rather loosely when he refers to “advancing arms”. I don’t
 13
know whether this has misled Richard, but if he was sufficiently interested to
note the verb used in the Greek Text (proballein, as he says), how comes it
that he failed to see that there is no mention whatever in the whole passage of
spears? It is not the spears (ta dorata) but the shields (ta hopla) that are
“thrown forward” (i . e. in front of the body) . So all that we learn from the
passage is that the approach must have been made with the shields held against
the left side, not already in front.

Mr. Peter Harriss in the same issue comes close to the solution of the
question in his first paragraph, and it is a pity that he then allows himself to
be led astray by a too modest deference to the majesty of the printed word in
what, one supposes, purports to be. a learned work. In fact, some of the
greatest nonsense ever written has so appeared (I believe Richard and I think
alike on the merits of Tarn on galley oarage!) I have not read “Military Theory ,
and Practice in the Age of Xenophon”, but it is obvious from the extract
paraphrased that J.K. Anderson both jumps to conclusions and has never
practised what he preaches. Firstly, there is no evidence whatever, as Mr.
Harriss has pointed out, that the “slope arms” position was used; it is merely
the author ’ s preconception. Secondly, in all he writes about’lowering the spear
behind the hip and suddenly charging and thrusting the spear forward there 1s one
stultifying omission - he never mentions the shield at all, and quite obviously
fails to consider it.

I have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that those persons who
claim that the underarm thrust was used in a formed hoplite battle have either
never really thought about the matter, or when it is brought to their attention
are so reluctant to abandon a cherished concept that they resort to all sorts of
special (and quite illogical) pleading, apparently prepared to die in the last
ditch in defence of their ideal!

I did not “dream up” the idea of the overarm thrust. Years ago I
measured out the dimensions of a 3-foot circular Argive shield, and found that
with it attached to my left arm (elbow against the central armslot) and held in
front of me with the upper rim level with my chin, it was physically impossible
to level a pole at my right side. Subsequent reasoning started from that primary
fact.

I apologise for the drawing of the accompanying illustrations, but at

least they are to scale (the upper row 3 “/l ft) . Hoplites A, B , and C are at
what I conceive to be the drill-book interval of 2 cubits (3 feet). C and D are
at what I suspect to be the likely battle interval (each man trying to snuggle
under his RH neighbour ’ s spare bit of shield - the “rightward drift”) of 2 feet,
producing an overlapping shieldwall, but each man having spear-room. In
the Greek city-states ’ militia, battle-drill and discipline would not have been
up to that of the later pike-phalanxes of professionals.

In the drawings the shields are of necessity shown as if transparent.

The shaded object in the centre is the “porpax” - the armslot. Only B shows
all the cords attached inside the rim. It will be noted that B and C are trying
to level their spears at the hip, and failing. B cannot slide his shield to his
left to allow himself the necessary room without hitting C ’ s right arm or spear,
14
even if he does not hit C’s shield. If he swings his shield like a door opening,
he is in danger of being stabbed by the enemy opposite A. If he lifts it,, he is
blinded.

What does he do? Well, obviously, if he is dead set on the hip-level

thrust, he changes (and persuades his friends to change) to the oval, or the
oblong, or the figure-8, shield. But the Greeks did not; on the contrary, they
were so satisfied with the entire arrangement that the hoplon endured for up-
wards of 400 years. How? Well, look at hoplites A and D! With their spears
thus lifted, they can stab away over the opposing shieldwall, with no risk of
having them jammed as at waist level and having to drop them. There are
other advantages also; a thrust near the line of sight can be more accurate,
and more powerful, as the same muscles are brought into play as in a sword-
cut or an axeswing. J

Let us pass on to hoplites E, F, and G, also to scale (9mm/l ft) 1 Now

I do not dispute that Greek Hoplites may well have used the “slope arms’;
position familiar to us when route-marching, but as previously mentioned, in
the approach to battle the Greek text of Xenophon ’ s Anabasis (VI. v. 25 ) gives
no support to the conception. What the Loeb translation says (C.L. Brownson
sticking, thank goodness, to the literal meaning) is, “The orders had been given
to keep their spears on the right shoulder until a signal should be given with the
trumpet; then, lowering them for the attack, to follow on slowly, nobody to
break into a run”. (And if any savants among our readers want to try their
own hands at translating, I have appended the Greek text to the illustrations).

These figures show all that it is necessary to read into the text; E and
F are in a file advancing with their spears gripped at the point of balance and
resting easily on their shoulders (and it is quite easy; I have tried it with a
heavy pole; there is no strain). Two angles are shown for the spears; ;either
will pass over the man-in-front ’ s shoulder beside his crest. The shield ‘rests
at the left side. At the trumpet-signal the front rank lower their spears to the
stabbing position (G) and swing their shields in front of them. Hinder ranks
also swing their shields likewise. I should think it unlikely that they would
also lower their spears until necessary; then a slight flexing of the wrist does
it in a second.

Per contra, think of the second-rank man in a formation dedicated to

the underarm thrust; what does he do? If he brings his spear down from the
“slope arms” to the level at the beginning he risks impaling his front-rank man,
even if only in the arm; if not, and the f. r . m. goes down, he has to get that
long spear down and accommodated with his shield in some manner in an ‘al-
mighty hurry. And I have already alluded to jamming at waist-level.

As to Mr. Harriss’s penultimate paragraph, the portion of it attiibutable

to J.K. Anderson (though I should prefer to reserve specific comment until I
have an opportunity to read the author “in extenso”) appears to be at first
glance as notable a piece of muddled thinking as I have yet seen.

And lest anyone reading the Anabasis Loeb translation as far as VI.v.27
should write in excitedly to say that it contains the words “and at the same time
HOPLITB BATTLB-DRILL
16
couched their spears ” may I point out. that this is merely Mr. Brownson
failing once more to keep “au pied de la lettre. ‘I The Greek text says, I”Kai
hama ta dorata kathiesan” and Greek scholars among our readers are invited
to write to me or the Editor if they can find any reason to read more into that
verb than the general sense of “let down, drop, lower. ”
i

Finally, I never understand why anyone should be reluctant to accept

the overarm thrust; to me it appears to have been the usual method of~fighting
with a one-handed grip on the spear throughout history. Apart from the Greeks,
one could hardly find tougher and more experienced fighters than the Assyrians,
and in their bas-reliefs does one ever see their spearmen using any other
method?

SOME THOUGHTS ON ANCIENT ARMIES

By Baird McClellan

I have just finished reading the booklet, produced by the Wargames

Research. Group, on the Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars. I found it
very informative and see that a great deal of careful research has gone into its
production. I expect that we shall see some really authentic early Persian,
Indian, Roman ,and Carthaginian armies on the wargames table in the future.
While I am in no position to challenge the accuracy of the information within the
booklet I do not feel that war-garners should stick to all of the details too rigidly.
My reasons, on which I should welcome further comment and discussion, are
as follows.

Firstly, information on the dress of ancient peoples is very scarce and

in some cases I suspect that the figures depicted have been derived from only
one or two sources, stone reliefs or pottery designs. It is well known ithat the
writers, artists and craftsmen of the time tended to portray peoples in, the
national dress or in ceremonial finery. Various factors would influenc%e the
dress worn. I have seen the stone relief from which I believe the Numidian
horseman came. He is very skimpily dressed and I cannot see him surviving
a journey over the Alps with the Carthaginians so attired. The time of ‘year,
time of day, altitude and terrain would all have a bearing on the type of clothing
that these peoples would wear. /
My second point is that many of these soldiers received little in the way
of pay and relied heavily on what they could pick up along the way. I have even
read of cases where the well trained Roman has been turned loose to loot a
captured city. The Libyan foot soldier, for example, with his bare head, arms )
legs and feet would be no match for his Roman adversary. Should he be
fortunate enough to kill or come across a dead Roman surely the latter ‘bs ’
helmet, armour and possibly greaves would be stripped from the body as soon
as possible and acquired by the victor ? After every battle or skirmish; there
would be exchanges of equipment and arms. Before invading Italy Hannibal
took the walled city of Saguntum. Would he not have used the arsenal within the
better to equip his lightly dressed ‘heavy infantry’ , knowing that they would
 17
soon have to face the leather or mail clad legionaries?

Thirdly, the soldier is an individual, and unless compelled to uniform-

ity, as he may have been in some regular units, he is going to express his
individuality in his choice of dress, and to some extent, weapons. Obviously a
soldier trained in the use of the pike is not going to exchange it for a javelin,
but he may well have discarded his own sword and adopted a captured one that
had more appeal. Similarly, some individuals in a unit might like the added
protection given by a helmet and armour but others might dislike their rest-
rictiveness and prefer to fight lightly dressed. The type and colour of clothing
varied also according to individual taste. A soldier might discard the
regulation issue for something brighter or warmer.

My feelings then are that the book is an excellent guide but that, for true
authenticity, it shauld not be adhered to too rigidly. A unit in varied garb, but ’
with its figures all in the same position would indicate that the soldiers had
been trained to use their weapons in a certain manner but would also show them
to be individuals.

BEHIND THE SCENES

- Stephen Reed -

Our Kindly Editor has asked me to explain the workings of such

campaigns as ‘The Search for the Sword’ , for the enlightenment of those who
take part and for anyone wishing to set up a similar campaign.

The first and most important rule is that the Umpire is always right!
In order to reinforce this, the players are kept as much in the dark as possible
and not told what the rules are. This article is thus going to make my life more
difficult in the future, and I shall have to introduce new rules in future
c,ampaigns . If you refer back to the article on the Sword campaign I will explain
some of the rules.

We began by preparing two sets of ‘chance cards’.. The first was to be

drawn from by each player, the second was for each area of the terrain. Pack
one contained such items as possession of special fighting skill, good and bad
horses, traitors among your men, being struck by lightning, etc. with dice
throws incorporated for effects. Pack two deals with attack by dragons, land-
slides, outlaws, wild boar, losing your way in the marsh, etc. A card is drawn
by each party passing through the area and dice used to determine effects.

Rules are prepared in advance for any actions you expect may happen,
e. g . setting fire to buildings, attempts to drug or poison food, ambushes,
treachery, drawing the Sword. When somebody attempts to do something not
covered by your rules, such as hamstringing horses, you have to invent a rule
on the spot, involving arbitrary dice throws. The important thing is to keep
the rules simple with plenty of dice decisions so that the game keeps moving.
As examples we have -
V
 . ~

20
To set fire to a building. Throw one dice, add/subtract as follows c3
if a wooden building, c3 if using torches, -4 if attempting to fire outside of
building in rain, -4 if strong winds and attempting to fire outside. Score ~4,5,6 )
minor fire starts, doing partial damage before going out, score 7 or mar@
building catches and will be destroyed.

Ambushes. May only be attempted from concealed positions ) e. g .

woods ) buildings, etc. Dice for the ambushed to see whether they spot it as
follows : - One dice) +2 if ambush includes cavalry, -2 if bad weather, + 1 for
” each ambusher .over 5 men. Score 6, ambush spotted at 50 yds, 5 spotted at
25 yds, otherwise not seen.

Dice for ambushers to see if trap sprung to soon, adding or subtr’acting

according to the type of leader (rash, cowardly, etc. ) , adding for each man
of superior numbers in the ambushing force.

Having a framework of rules to work with is not 9 unfortunateiy, ~

sufficient. You need to ensure that the campaign is reasonably balanced, if
necessary by tinkering with the mechanics as you go along. For this purpose
we had a rule that the Sword may only leave the map by way of the London Road,
thus insuring that if you fail to reach the sword first you still have a chance of
cutting off its owner. We were also prepared to introduce Merlin back into the!
campaign to alter any situations we did not like, but this proved unnecess&y.
We had the rule that the possessor of the sword could not be harmed in h+d-to-
hand combat) but it was still possible to shoot him or kill his horse so that he
still had something to worry about!

All else you need is a number of players, a suitable playing area,! and
a basic idea for the campaign. It is advisable to have two or even three Umpires
if you have any number of players, as things tend to get quite hectic !
Preferably the rules used should be familiar to the players, or very simpl;e to
operate, but can be amended to suit special condition or types of troops, e.g.
on Research Group rules one can introduce fighting factors such -1 if fighting
hand to hand against Unit A which has especially good armour, or morale’
factors such as +3 for a Germanic type army for the first 5 moves, thereafter
-2. These rule adjustments can also be controlled by the chance cards. ,

These type of rules involving chance cards etc. are not new, and
various examples can be found in Don Featherstone’s books and rules. Tony
Bath has also made use of them, do you remember write-ups on magic rules
where your units turn into frogs, stone, etc? I assume Tony uses similar,
methods in his Hyboria campaign, though he is somewhat secretive on the’
subject! (On the subject of Hyboria I must add that claims of Shemite success
over our glorious Vendhyan forces are grossly exaggerated, and that the head
of King Katr will adorn the walls of our capital ere the season is over! )

I :
 21
THE PHOTO PAGES

I. - Another photograph of the full scale reproduction Roman armour in the

Museum of Antiquities, Newcastle-on-Tyne (supplied by Society member
J.W. Matthews). This interesting one shows what was worn by an
Auxiliary Trooper of the middle of the 2nd Century A-D. and includes
mail shirt, cavalry helmet, hasta, spatha and large oval shield.

II. - A close up from the photographs of the Persepolis 2,500th anniversary

parade to mark the foundation of the Persian Empire, one of those sent
by Alan Colquhoun in Teheran. It is suggested that this fierce-looking
character might be the spearman illustrated ( ‘C’ > in the last issue of
“Slingshot ‘I .

III. - Three modern military men?. in fact the guiding spirits of the Ancient
Wargaming Section of the Junior Infantrymen ’ s Battalion, Shorncliffe )
Kent. (See write-up in the November, ’ 7 1 “Slingshot”. All three, who
are) from left to right Lieutenants David Pinder , Charles Stewart Grant
and Graham Jowett-Ive, are, sadly, approaching the end of their
attachment to the J .I.B. , but will doubtless carry their ’ ancient’ act-
ivities with them when they rejoin their regiments.

IV. - The Society Profile of the month - in fact, “The Champion” - Stephen
Reed, whose biography one can read in this issue (Page 20).

v. - Another professional soldier and member of the Society - Lieutenant

John Boehm, U.S. Army, now serving in Germany. Specialising in the
Roman-Carthaginian period, the photo shows that he is far from being
short of figure.s for his armies. The original ’ write-up’ in the U . S.
army publication, “Stars and Stripes”, mentioned that he is from time
to time assisted in his model making and painting by his attractive,
blonde wife, Kristie. He should be so lucky!

SOCIETY PROFILE N 0.5

Stephen Reed

“They’ re not ’ appy! I’ This clarion call identifies the senior member of
the ’ dreaded Reeds ’ as they are known in some wargaming circles. The call
means that Stephen Reed has looked at a situation on a table and a lightning
summing up has elicited the heading gem, as some poor unit has to face a
fraught morale test.

This capacity for quick appreciation of a situation and equally rapid and
decisive action is typical of him. Stephen Reed has probably one of the quickest
and most penetrating minds in wargaming today, and this has brought him the
Society Championship three times in a row, as well as making him a formidable
opponent in any period he chooses to play in.
22
Born 24 years ago, he has spent most of his life in Worthing, leaving
the Technical High School there after specialising in Maths. and Physics, and
then spending some time in Insurance and Teaching before settling for computer
work. Probably too authoritarian for teaching and unable to suffer fools gladly!
Would have done well in this profession about thirty years or so ago. I

Steve’s interests are wargaming, politics, badminton, Maths. , and he

reads military history, science fiction and Tolkien, with a certain leavening
of westerns and historical romances. He is single (Well, there’s no time, is
there?)

He was introduced to wargaming by Malcolm Woolgar and later by Bob

0 ’ Brien, so both have a lot to answer for. His main interest is the ancients,
but plays in most periods, excepting post- 1945 and World War I, and with ~
brother Julian can field armies in World War II, ACW, 16th Century, mediaeval
and an impressive array of ancients from Greek City States onwards. Normally
plays Research Group Rules, but can slip easily into Bath rules, and it needs a
Tony Bath to give him a good game.

He was one of the triumvirate organising the ’ 69 Convention at W&thing

and is quite capable of organising another, or anything else (including you,
mate! ) for that matter.

Stephen Reed has probably been one of the reasons why Worthing has now
four of the Society’s eight 5-pointers in its numbers, everyone trying so hard
to beat him that their own game improves. Your best chance is to get his
brother to umpire. :
Society meetings would not be the same without Stephen and all who know
him hope he will stay in the game for a long time - after all, there are many of
us who want his scalp!

POINTS AT ISSUE
By Phil Barker.

I cannot agree with Dave Court’s suggestion that ancient Indian Warriors
should be classed as regulars. Regular to us implies full time troops, main-
tained by the state, and drilled.

Indians may well have been the first two, but certainly were not the
third, as Dave ’ s own article shows. On his definition, the barbarian body-
guard of an ancient British Chieftain would be regular.
,
If Indian chariots were not quite so erratic as most others, the reason
probably lies in their lack mobility, bringing to mind the old hunting gag about
“galloping madly off at a slow trot”. i
1 ~

Future revisions of the rules will have to take into account the Indian
 23
custom of arming chariot and elephant drivers, but this will certainly make
such people more expensive.

E.Simond’s note on the size of the two Cohors equitata repeats inform-
ation often given, but unfortunately completely spurious. These figures do not
come from any ancient source, but are guesses by modern authors to explain
statements by Hyginus. A much more likely solution is that 4 or 8 32 strong
turmae of cavalry were simply added to a normal quingenary or milliary ala
respectively.

A. Brannan’s point about our lack of provision for stirrups is simply

answered; I personally am not convinced that stirrups make such difference.
This is based on practical trials carried out some years ago, and reported in
Slingshot at the time. Perhaps the Kindly Editor would like to arrange a reprint.
As a quick summary, I found that saddle was more important to my weapon
using stability than stirrups, that the latter only helped in striking downward
cutting blows, and actually made javelin throwing more difficult. Saddles were
of course used by the Roman s from the 1st century B.C. onwards, and were quite
adequate affairs .

The Gothic lance I no longer really believe in. It certainly is not men-
tioned by any contemporary historian, these all specifying javelins. There is
no account of the Kontos being dropped in a close melee either.

I also know of no ancient authority for author Clegg ’ s story of Romans

tying knives to poles to thrust at Sarmatian faces. What’ s wrong with using
their pila? Can anyone quote the source of this story?

His story of Romans hacking at Parthian shins is certainly inaccurate

and based on them striking at the thighs of Armenian cataphracts. My opinion,
for what it is worth, is that this could equally mean striking at their horses’
thighs. The reference to gripping with the shins to stay on is complete
nonsense. Any competent riding instructor will tell you this is the best way to
fall off. Try closing the blades of a pair of scissors on the neck of a bottle, and
you will understand why. Unfortunately, too many people write about riding
techniques who never sat on a horse and tried to steer it in their lives.

We did originally follow Will Whyler ’ s definition of Gallic infantry as

Medium Infantry, for the reasons he states, and it is only recently that the
last of my Picts were rebased as light mediums.

Our reason for the change was partly the emphasis placed in several
ancient accounts on the long pointless Celtic sword needing plenty of room to
swing, but more so on the obvious parallels between Gauls and Britons.

In two battles) the final one against Caradoc and Mons Graupius, the
Celts managed to break contact and flee across steep hills without being caught
by the Roman auxiliary infantry, themselves light-armed. The poor old
legionaries didn’ t get into action at all in either battle.

This sounds to me more like light medium than medium capabilities.

24
Still, I wouldn’ t grumble if my opponent wanted to make his Gauls mediums.
For one thing, he would be easier to beat!
Possibly the answer to Caesar Is differing reaction to Gauls and Spaniards is that
the Gauls usually fought him in the open, where LMI don’ t do as well, and the
Spaniards having had regular training were better LMI. We usually classify
Spaniards in Carthaginian service as regulars.

Changing the subject completely, it is obvious that D.Gate’s drawing of

Valannus inside the back cover is quite an old one, produced before his career
culminated in the acquisition of a crown, divinity, second-hand wife and barber.
And is “Unspeakable” appropriate for the owner of the best propaganda machine
in all Hyboria? I
Finishing off with Alan Nickels, always on the right of the line of ‘contra-
versialists, he is of course entirely right about the Latin spelling errors be
found. There are also some he missed. It is unfortunately very difficult. to get
Latin-speaking proof readers.
However, over some points I ’ m prepared to argue. Firstly, the Scutum iis a
general Roman name for all big shields, not just the semi-cylindrical. Possibly
not all these were true half cylinders, but I have scaled from monuments
showing both face and section and the shields depicted cannot have been far off
it. The only surviving example, from Doura, was unfortunately squashed flat
by debris, but has been restored to near-half cylinder form. I know of two
shield grips set as Alan describes, but I’ m not satisfied that this was the only
method, as it seems a very awkward style.
It is worth mentioning that many of the shields on Trajan’s Column do look
rather flat, but this is not the case with the side shields of a testudo depicted.

On battle names, I wanted to be consistent, so picked the names the

Romans themselves used. As regards “Campus Mauriacus” I would appreciate
Alan’s summary of the evidence for believing it took place anywhere near
Chalons. I see no point in naming a battle after a town which stood nowhere near.

Strengths of forces and casualties are often disputed. I think most

readers will appreciate without being told that I didn’t count them myself: and
rely on historical sources. However, I place more reliance on what I reiad in
a contemporary account, however prejudiced, than the maunderings of some
19th century semi-historian such as Tarn who has cheek enough to insert ‘his
own estimates instead. I know of no case where a Roman account can be shown
to be incorrect, and there are some at least which can be checked against the
archeological background and still look convincing.

I don’ t accept Alan’s strictures on the early Roman horsemen either.

These were quite good enough to settle the Macedonians, and convincingly won
their first battle against Hannibal ’ s Numidians. Marius may have abolished
Legionary cavalry, but it soon came back and lasted until Diocletian formed it
into separate units of Promoti.
While auxiliary alae were normally recruited from non:citizens, this was not
always the case, and some were formed entirely from Italians who were
citizens, and consequenly carried the thunderbolt symbolism on their shields.
 25
Alan Nickels writes : - With regard to Phil Barker ’ s criticisms of my comments
on his book, I don ’ t dispute that “scutum ” was a general term for shield. I
merely used it here to describe the oblong pattern, as is often done, and as is
apparent from the text. Nor do I dispute that it was curved, but merely main-
tain that the curvature was less than semi-cylindrical. The shields must have
been sufficiently flat when forming the testudo to make a continuous, over-
lapping suface like tiles, over which it would be possible to drive a chariot.
Any such test would have been impossible with semi-cylindrical shields, which
would not mesh together.

Phil has completely misunderstood my suggestion as to battle-names.

While it is not always possible to be consistent owing to ignorance of the names
the Romans actually used (e.g. his list - faute de mieux - of Vosges, Sambre,
Medway, Caradoc) , I am more consistent than he over “Milvian Bridge”, which
is not Latin! Nor am I any more concerned whether “Chalons” was a geograph-
ically correct name for the battle of Campus Mauriacus than whether “Waterloo”
is correctly applied to the battle fought rou?d Mont St. Jean. I only suggested
that it is a good thinking for any author to give commonly-accepted titles from the
history-books as alternatives.for the benefit of readers of lesser erudition!

On numbers engaged we must agree to differ. Just as no French army

was ever fairly beaten (see any French historian), so I suspect no Roman army
ever contended against barbarians under less than over-whelming odds. Twenty
thousand men in the loose order of barbarian armies would look far more than a
similar number in a few tight well-ordered units. Then, “the ole plain was fair
swarmin’ with the perishers”, and down goes 100,000 in the patriotic scribe’s
notes. And, with so much of Europe uncleared of forest, and bearing in mind
the poor returns from primitive agriculture, I doubt the possibility of many
tribes being able to field really large numbers of fighting men.

Roman cavalry, oh dear. Phil seems to be setting up a tiny skirmish on

the Rhone against the entire experience of the Second Punic War, (and a skirmish
where the Numidians had no interest in maintaining the field). As for restored
legionary cavalry, from whom was it recruited? From Rome, the Samnites, the
Sabines, the Latins? Surely not. But those are the people whose cavalry
reputation has been called in question. The citizenship had been greatly extended
in the later times of which I think Phil writes.

The Editor hopes that he may be forgiven for taking advantage of his
position to add a few words. “I am somewhat astonished that Phil states he
places more reliance in what he reads ‘in a contemporary account, however
prejudiced, that the maunderings of some 19th century semi-historian, etc”.
I would have thought that contemporary writings, for a great variety of reasons,
should be treated with the greatest reserve, the prime causes being simply
propaganda or self-glorification of the writer. In a vastly more recent
historical period, for instance, would he accept the writing of Baron de Marbot)
who described in detail what happened between Napoleon and the King of Spain
when he, Marbot, informed them of the events of the 2nd May 1808 in Madrid.
It has been definitely established that Marbot was many hundreds of miles away
26
at the time he claimed to be delivering the despatch personally to the monarchs!
Quite apart from propaganda, genuine mistakes can be made, which cannot
always be checked, as was the case with German losses on 15th September 1940,
which investigation of German records after the war reduced, if I recall I
correctly, from 185 to 69, or something like that.

THE FIGHTING MEN OF SCOTLAND

By John Robertson

THE CELTS. - Part 1.

With the Celts, the detailed history of the Scottish fighting-man actually
begins, and it is fitting that it should start here, for the Celts provide a link
between the prehistoric and the historic periods.

It is difficult to define exacily what is meant by Celt, or Celtic. ‘;ro the

Greek or Latin writers of the latter years of the first millenium, BC . , the Celts
were regarded as a cultural entity, occupying most of Europe, but nowadgys, in
general speech, Celtic has come to be used as defining one of the peoples who
spoke one or other of the various Celtic tongues, and thus, by a further @en-
sion, has come to include their countries, their races and their way of life. In
actual fact, the term Celt, or Celtic, is a linguistic one, and should only be
used when referring to that particular branch of the Indo-European language.

The I&o-European language included Teutonic, Balto-Slavonic and the

tongues of Greece and Rome, and even stretched as far east as India and .
Tocharian Asia. There is a strong connection between the Italian dialects and
the Celtic tongue, but the Celtic branch of this family is marked by certain
characteristics, amonst which are the changing of the Indo-European “E” to an
III II , as in the ,Irish “fir”, meaning true, (cf. Latin “verus”) and the dropping
of the initial “P”, as in the Irish “athair” , meaning father (cf. Latin pater > .

The principle Celtic dialects may also be subdivided into four main ,
classes ; Gaulish, which is now obsolete, except for various inscriptionsl;
G oidelic ; Brythonic; and Belgic, the last Celtic language to cross over into
Britain, and which soon spread over most of southern and eastern England.
However) our attention is solely concerned with the two middle classes, the
Goidelic and the Brythonic. From the Goidelic, or “Q-Celtic” language, (so
called because it retained the original Indo-European “Q”, which was later
pronounced as a “K ‘I, but written as a “C ‘I, > is descended the Gaelic, the Irish
and the Manx tongues, while from the Brythonic, or “P-Celtic”, (named this
because it changed the Indo-European “Q” into “1~” , > is descended the Welsh,
Cornish and Breton tongues. The Pictish tongue should also come into this
sub-division, since it seems to have contained a large element of the early
Welsh words) no longer identifiable with the Welsh of today. The Brythoni,c
tongue was also very similar to Gaulish, and this, in turn, would point to their
having originally been the same language, or at least very similar strains, but,
on the Brythonic crossing over into Britain, it evolved in the present form.
 27
Having dealt with the linguistic differences amongst the Celts, let us
now turn our attention to the cultural differences. There are two main phases
in the evolution of early Celtic society, the “Hallstatt” and the “La Tene”, both
of which have been named after the places where significant Celtic material has
been discovered. Admittedly, their immediate ancestors, the bronze-using
Urnfield people, as they have been called, spoke some form of Celtic language,
but the true Celts cannot date further back than the Hallstatt culture, which was
dated about 700 BC. During the next two-hundred years, iron slowly replaced
bronze in the manufacture of weapons and edged tools, although bronze con-
tinued to be used, mainly for ornamentation.

The first culture derives its name from Hallstatt, near Salzburg, in
Austria, where a large, prehistoric cemetery and salt-mine were discovered,
and the great number of antiquities subsequently unearthed there have cast
light on the daily life of prehistoric man. Their graves were remarkable in that
the body, burnt or unburnt, was laid under a four-wheeled wagon, under a
grave-mound. Horse-trappings, vessels, arms and equipment, personal orn-
aments, buckets, wine-jars, all have been found, and it is obvious that this
civilisation was vastly superior to that of the Bronze Age.

Returning to Scotland, there are traces of people of Hallstatt descent in

the north-east as early as 600 BC. These were likely to have been wandering
bands of warriors, accompanied by some of their women-folk, and were
apparently connected with the Hallstatt cultures of North Germany. About the
same time, Hallstatt cultural influence reached southern and eastern England,
and, from these early phases of settlement, they moved north and west,
although the Scottish Lowlands do not seem to have been colonised by Celts
until later. The new-comers, with their techniques of working in iron, their
improved weapons and agricultural implements, made them far superior to the
original, bronze-working native population, and would ensure a rapid supremacy.

Unfortunately, there are as yet no discoveries pertaining to the

Hallstatt culture in Scotland, and so our description of the Scottish Hallstatt
warrior must be based upon evidence from other lands. One must assume that,
like the later Celt, they were tall, physically powerful, with fair, or reddish
hair) grey-blue eyes 9 light skins and clear complexions. Their social structure
would also have been similar, with a king, or great lord, chief nobles, all of
whom were aristocratic and powerful. Below them came the non-noble free-
men, the gentlemen farmers, and the craftsmen. Finally, there would be the
“serfs”, those who owned neither land nor property, and who were not
permitted to bear arms.

The men, or rather some of them, together with their chieftains, wore
trousers, or “bracae” ) with a knee-length tunic, often of linen, and elaborately
fringed and decorated, and caught in at the waist with a girdle. Examples of
this can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2. Fig 1 shows some engravings on a bronze
scabbard found at Hallstatt, while figure 2 shows two drawings, found on
pottery of the Hallstatt culture, discovered at Sopron, Hungary. Over the
tunic was worn a cloak, and the length and copiousness of the cloak would seem
to indicate its wearer ’ s social status’. They were armed with a long, iron sword,
for the cut-and-thrust style of fighting which they introduced, and also carried
 29
a broad-bladed dagger, for close fighting. Heavy, broad-bladed spears were
also carried, together with shields. Again, from Fig. la, it can be seen that
these were oval shields, and thus would:pre-suppose that the larger, Celtic-
type shield belonged to a later period. The ordinary warrior preferred to go
bare-headed, with their hair elaborately coiffed, but the chieftain might wear
a bronze or iron helmet, and a superb example of this type was shown in the
March ’ 7 1 “Slingshot”, No. 34.) in an article by Peter Wilcox. As further
contact with the classical world increased, so too would the need for body
armour and helmets become more prevalent, descriptions of these will have
to be left over until a later article.

The shields would have been decorated largely with a geometrical design,
for even living animals were generally arranged in parallel bands of identical ,
figures around a decorated surface.

In Figs. lc and 2b, we see representations of men riding horses, and so

it may be assumed that the Hallstatt warrior knew and used cavalry. However,
he did NOT have the light, two-wheeled chariot, and, if he used any vehicle for
war, it must have been the heavier, four-wheeled cart, a sketch of a reprod-
uction of one of these being shown in Fig. 3.

For defence, the Hallstatt culture built hill-forts, and one of the best
examples of these is at Heuneburg, on the upper Danube in southern Germany.
This fort is built of mud-brick, on top of stone foundations, and has a line of
projecting square bastions, obviously an import from the classical world. Its
relatively small size would seem to indicate that it was the stronghold of a
Celtic chieftain. Elsewhere more conventional hill-forts are to be found,
strengthened with timber-bracing, and are all varying sizes-, from those which
may have been the homes of chieftains, to larger ones which may have served
as tribal strongholds, and which would later develop into the “oppida”, or.
tribal capitals.

These forts include different principles, ranging from the single stock-
ade, through the bank and ditch, which could be single or multiple, to the wall
and ditch, or a wall alone. So far as dwelling places were concerned, the
rectangular houses from the pre-Celtic period were carried on into the
Hallstatt era.

In this way, the Hallstatt culture reigned supreme, until 500 BC . , with
the normal, gradual changes in culture, until a new cultural influence came into
being. This was the “la Tene”, and, as such, will form the basis of the next
article.
30
GUARDROOM

Peter D. Harriss is prompted to write thus - “In May’s “Slingshot” )

Ray Nelson mentions that Roman statues never seem to depict Emperors and
Generals in helmets and concludes that Roman senior officers did not in fact
wear helmets in the field. I tend to disagree. I should like to tie the question
of helmets with that of shields, since it is often stated that Roman generals
carried no shields either. My evidence comes from Caesar and must so be
restricted to the Late Republic at present; I may come across more later. In
“African War” (78) a certain Pacideius comm-ands the Pompeian cavalry and we
are specifically.told that he was seriously wounded when his helmet was pierced.
I am not sure of the rank of this man but I believe it to have bee’n fairly senior,~
certainly he held a responsible post in this encounter. In the same essay’ (this
time 16) ) Labienus is reported as riding up and down between the two armies
bareheaded. It seems to me that if this were normal practice, that is that
Roman generals never wore helmets in the field, the author would not have
bothered to mention it. The implication is that Labienus had left off his helmet
so that his own troops would be encouraged by seeing him and hearing his
exhortations, and that it was only because he had no helmet that a soldier of the
Xth Legion recognised him and struck his horse with a pilum! The soldier had
to remove his own helmet before Labienus could recognize him. Now concern-
ing shields, I believe that Roman generals did have shields of their own
available, even if they did not always carry them. 1n”Gallic War” II. 4 Caesar
seizes the shield of a soldier because he did not have his own with him. The
implication is that Caesar did have a shield but did not always carry it about.
Now, in the “Civil War ‘I, II, 35, Attius Varus is unexpectedly attacked whilst
in retreat at the head of his column (a moment one would think he would want
to be unencumbered by unnecessary equipment) and just saves himself by
raising his shield to ward off the blow. I think that these two instances imply,
but do not prove, that Roman generals at this time did have shields available.
My own view is that under the Late Republic and Empire Roman Generals did
have helmets and shields but rarely wore them even on the battlefield. Ithink
that by this time the Romangeneral had virtually ceased to be a commander of
troops actually at their head (I mean in the style of Alexander, Demetrius or
Pyrrhos at the head of their Companions) but had become very much directors
of operations in the field, occupying a position behind the lines, often on high
ground, but not actually indulging in close combat UNLESS, and Caesar
provides many ‘examples 9 they felt that their own presence at any part of the
line threatened would help to boost morale and save the day. I believe th?t
generals addressed their troops before battle bareheaded so that they could be
recognized - these men knew well the value of personal loyalty of the troops.
Surely the point about statues, incidentally, is that one general in a helmet
looks very much like any other. Until the later Principate Roman statues are
very much works of propaganda and the subjects are often made to look much
younger and probably much more handsome than they did, or else a pose is ’
struck deliberately intended to remind one of a statue of some god or other. It
is natural for the subjects to be bareheaded since the helmet has the very’
function of hiding the features! A close parallel is coinage - notorious for
propaganda content!

I should very much like to hear from anyone else who may be able’ to
 31
shed light on the matter, particularly for other periods of Roman history than
the late Republic”.

From Alan Colquhoun in Teheran comes the following - “Re Ray Nelson’s
enquiry about the colour of ancient armour I am sure, as far as this part of the
world is concerned, that it must have been polished. One can only go by common
sense (although pictures, miniatures or specimens going back to Arab times
show helmets etc., as polished) but (a) there was plenty of labour to do the
polishing (b) metal is more attractive if polished (c) it was all smoothed to
take a polish (d) the materials for cleaning are readily available - sand and
fruit juice (e) things do not tarnish here as they do in England. For example,
we have a lot of copper and bronze in the house - trays, bowls, lamps, etc. - and
although they all shine brightly my wife tells me they have not been cleaned
for two months.

I have recently been in Beirut and also had a marvellous day at Byblos -
oldest of cities. It has a Crusader castle built from the ruins and Roman and
Greek temples themselves, with granite columns from Aswan - brought when?
Time out of mind, no doubt. ” .

Paul Hobson says “There has been some criticism of Sue and Phil
Barker ’ s “To the Divine Claudius ” in “Slingshot”. I agree with Phil on most of
the things he mentions but I do not believe that one type of army can beat any-
thing which it has to take on. I regard the idea of turning up to fight a champion-
ship battle against an unknown enemy as ridiculous. I agree with Ken Clark’s
note in the January, ’ 72 “Slingshot” about briefing the enemy on your army’s
nationality. Perhaps if you informed your enemy beforehand of the nationality
and century of your army one could achieve a more realistic situation. After
all, the composition of the army is still a surprise. If one always turned up
against an unknown opponent with exactly the same army, surely one would have
a serious handicap. I’ d like to point out to Phil regarding his ’ two-handed axes’
crusade that on the Alexander Sarcophagus we see in the hunting scenes men
armed with two-handed axes. Is it not possible that these were also used for
war? One last point. Phil says the Roman army is a good starter for beginners.
I would agree with him on that point but I find that my Roman army has a very
serious drawback which prevents it from winning battles and I feel that if I
could dispense with this my troubles would be over and my army would start
winning. The drawback is my own generalship!”

George Gush has some very interesting observations : “First, relating

to Charlie Tarbox’s bit on the Nervii in the March, ‘72, issue and to A.C.
Richards ’ complaints about current ineffectiveness of Gauls (as LMI) under
Research Group Rules. I have just been re-reading Caesar (S. A. Handford
translation as my Latin is very rusty). The Helvetii, who were Gauls by race
though much influenced by the Germans with whom they were in regular con-
flict, beat’ off the Roman cavalry ’ with a battle line drawn up in very close
order’ ; then formed a ‘Phalanx’ and advanced ’ uphill ’ against the Roman Line.
This was clearly a very close formation as the Gauls were hampered because
Roman javelins or pila ‘often pierced more than one of their overlapping shields
and pinned them together’ and it was not a defensive shield wall but an attack-
ing formation. Later on the Helvetii defended a wagon-laager against the Romans,
32
and as Caesar says no G&ls could ever move without large numbers of wagons
this might be an idea for a Gallic army ( 10 points a wagon, though). Later,
other Gauls are described using what sounds like a ‘Testudo’ formation to
attack fortifications.

Second, on Ray Nelson’s raising of the question about ancient armour

and colours - bright or not? - in the May issue. I should think this depended
very much on the precise people, period and army unit, but two references
occur to me which seem to indicate a fair amount of shine on at least one 1
occasion - first, Xenophon mentions the ‘glint’ of bronze indicating advancing
troops behind a cloud of dust (translation again, I don’t read Greek), sec’ond,
the famous description by the Monk of St. Gal of Charlemagne and his mailed
army advancing on Pavia - ’ so iron filled the fields and the ways and the sun’ s
rays were in every quarter reflected from iron’ - doesn’ t sound like Airfix
gunmetal to me. Personally I feel that nobles, and personal followers,. who had
someone to polish for them, and (if I know anything about N. C . 0. ’ s) dis$ipl-
ined troops, would probably have steel or iron helmets, bits of plate, and
perhaps scale armour ‘bulled’ to a fairly high degree - at least when setting
out on campaign; mail might sometimes catch the light but the texture would
normally make it appear dark, of course.

Some other odds and ends - Vesey Norman’s book, “The Medieval Soldier
has some quite interesting stuff at the beginning about the Franks, Lombards and
Vikings; for the followers~ of the ‘Divine Claudius ’ - among whom I am proud to
rank myself - an interesting force would be the Frankish army of 539, with
contingents from the Gallo-Roman cities ‘under their ancient banners andI
equipped as Remans’ (not Roman morale, though, I fear). Another thing ‘that
caught my eye here was that a surviving Viking bow, found in Ireland, is a 6ft.
longbow, in all essentials like those of Wales and England in the middle ages -
is this where the Welsh got it from?

That diverts me to another point from Xenophon - he mentions some

hill people in Kurdestan with bows between 4 and 5 ft. long, and arrows of over
3ft. ‘when they shot, they put out the left foot and rested the bottom of the
bow against it as they drew back the string. Their arrows went through shields
and breastplates ’ (The Greeks.re-used the arrows as javelins). This is j,ust
what Arrian says about the Indians with longbows fighting Alexander’ s army
later. Phil Barker explained the latter as a mistake - the Indians used their
foot when stringing, not firing the bow - and I quite agree that this sounds much
more probable, but Xenophon is talking about people who were actually shooting
at hi>, and it’s interesting to find the same mistake twice - or did Arrian just
copy Xenophon on this?

Final odd or end - Henry Hodges “Technology in the Ancient World”

(Allen Lane 1970) has got very interesting, if somewhat unlikely looking
illustrations of Ancient Chinese chariots and multiple crossbows.

Queries - does anyone know

(a) anything about design or use of Byzantine crossbows?
(b) what the ’ fundibuli’ carried in the wagons of Charlemagne’ s army are
likely to have been? (they also, incidentally, had stakes and tools * for
 33
camp and road-building, and leather pontoons - they sound quite
surprisingly Roman). ”

John Norris takes up the question of concealment on the wargame table-

“I have a suggestion that I should like to add to the “Cards vs Curtains” argu-
ment. Before I was “converted” to Ancients, I concentrated on the First and
Second World Wars. In those wargames, concealment and surprise were of the
essence, and I believe that both have an important part to play in the Ancient
period as well. As an example, Hannibal! s victories at the Trebia and Lake
Trasimene depended on the use of ambush; in the latter case, the battle was
an ambush! I find it hard to believe that concealment and surprise are irrele-
vancies to be impatiently thrust aside.

*I have found the best way of simulating them to be the use of maps for
deployment and movement; if anything, it works even better for Ancients. All
that is required is paper, carbon paper, and pencil or biro. A map of the terr-
ain is drawn to scale (graph paper makes everything much easier) ) and carbon
copies distributed to the. participating commanders. Units are initially deployed
on the map (with their formations written on the order sheet) and moved on the
map until sighted.

The range of visibility is computed by dice, with allowances for hills etc.
There is no reason whatsoever why it should be set as low as 50 yards. Person-
ally I would set the minimum visibility at not less than twice the ordinary move
of the fastest troop type. Any unit “in sight” is put on the table. Units moving
“out of sight” may return to the map if their commander so wishes.

This method has an additional advantage in that it puts a premium on

scouta, rather than on scouts, as is done in the Research Group Rules. The
main disadvantage is that, like all blind movement systems, it works better
with an umpire.

Neil Sekunda writes “With reference to R.B. Nelson’ s article on the

Development of the Cataphract, the following quotation (From Plutarch’s Life
of Aristides - XIV) would seem to prove the existence of cataphract armour
in Xerxes’ army at Plataea. Also it indicates that while the riders were fully
armoured their horses were not. “Presently the horse of Masistius was hit
with an arrow and threw his rider, who lay where he fell, unable to raise him-
self, so heavy was his armour; and yet he was no easy prey to the Athenians,
though they pressed upon him and smote him. For not only his chest and head,
but also his limbs, were encased in gold and bronze and iron. But, at last, with
the spike of a javelin, through the eye-hole of his helmet, he was smitten to
death, and the rest of the Persians abandoned his body and fled. ”

A.L. Nickels writes: - Unwary readers should be warned not to take

too seriously John Blanche’s drawings of “Ancient Headgear” in the July issue.
There was more imagination than knowledge in 1820 and throughout the 19th
Century, up to and including the egregious Racinet. These resemble the weird
theatrical prints of the period and the Pollack Toy Theatre figures, still on sale,
full of the gaudy detail beloved of the Victorians. Archaeology had not got on
its feet, of course, at the time.
34
With regard to the ‘discussion going on about inscriptions on Athenian
coins, claimed to be A0E, may I point out, that (capital alpha-theta-epsilon)
cannot be an abbreviation of Athens (athenai in Attic Greek), which did not
contain an epsilon. An abbreviation of that word would have to be AOH (capital
alpha-theta-eta). So would any abbreviation of AOHNH ( AthZnZ) .

ON THESSALIAN RHOMBOIDS
By John Norris

In the May issue A.L. Nickels asked, “why does one not see the
Thessalian or rhomboid formation for cavalry on the wargame table? It has the
merits that Asclepiodotus claims for it in manoeuvre.. . I’

Historically, the rhomboid formation was used by the Thessalians,

Thracians and Macedonians, all of whom used the Eile of 64 men as their ibasic
tactical unit, and by the Scythians. As one who was tempted to experiment with
this formation after reading Phil Barker’ s book ‘Armies of the Macedonian and
Punic Wars ’ (to which I am indebted for the factual basis of this article) ,I I shall
attempt to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the rhomboid. formation,
and how it may be represented on the wargame table. ,

The fundamental advantage of the rhomboid is the ease of manoeuvre

that it confers. It renders both wheels and turns far easier to execute, as
wheels are carried out by maintaining station of the appropriate apex (see Fig
la), and turns are carried out by advancing with the relevant apex to the fore
(see Fig lb).

1 Fig. 1

(a) Left Wheel b) Right Turn1 -==

ri T.Z
s=
Thus the rhomboid is an excellent formation in, which to move cavalry. However, --z
when the cavalry go into action, the restricted frontage offered by the rhomboid GE
renders deployment into line a prerequisite. Consider Fig. 2. It is quite’ clear -E
that the maximum frontage available for shooting is 9 figures, and that under z=
d._
_c_
. , EX
:-
 35

Fig 2

A Hipparchia, consisting
of 8 Eilae (512 men),
represented by 25 figures
deployed in rhomboid
formation.

the Research Group Ancient Rules the Hipparchia will take one and a half moves
to deploy into line for a charge. Nevertheless, it will be possible for the line
to be formed facing ‘in any direction the commander may desire.

However, in Phil Barker ’ s book the size of the Thessalian Eile is given
as 64 men, half the size of the Greek Eile. The Greeks, of course, did not use
rhomboid formation, but a rather cramped and disorderly square. This leads
me to the hypothesis that the smaller Thessalian Eile was adopted to minimise
the disadvantages of the rhomboid formation in the charge and firing. The line
would be formed by deploying a long line of the smaller Eilae, each of which
would be far more manoeuvvrable than the ponderous formations of their Greek
or Persian cavalry opponents, squares and columns respectively. In the charge,
a series of wedges would strike the enemy line. There is a distinct analogy
with the Napoleonic “1’ orclre mixte” of two thousand years later.

Having postulated this battle formation, how is it to be represented on

a wargame table ? Well, for a start each Eile of 64 men will be represented by
3 figures. The 64 men will present a frontage of 15 men, two sides of the
rhomboid. Therefore, the average depth of the Eile, and hence the effective
depth of the line of Eilae, will be 64/15 = 4 ranks. As each figure represents
5 files 4 ranks deep, the line of Eilae may be represented by a single line of
figures, 3 for each Eile.

MORE RESEARCH GROUP RULE QUERIES ANSWERED.

By Phil Barker.

Q. If a civilised General is riding on an elephant or in a chariot, do you use

regular or barbarian dice for working out if he is wounded by his figures
share of casualties?
A. Any General riding on an elephant or in a chariot must be treated as a
barbarian in all respects, including not only fighting and wounding, but
reaction and signalling as well.
Q. If my opponent’ s General turns up riding on a camel, is this single
36
beast enough to disorganise any of my cavalry who get close enough?
.A. Yes, but he must first prove an instance of a General of his nation
riding a camel. The only one I know of was Queen Zenobia of Palmyra,
who mounted one for her attempted escape from Aurelian. In battle,
she rode a horse. Even Arabs would not ride a camel in battle if a
horse was available.
Q. Can a unit leaving the table because of a reaction instruction throw; to
return?
A.. ’ Yes, providing it was not in rout. However, if it is doing a retreat 3
periods and has one or more periods still to go when it leaves the table,
it must complete these off table before it can throw.
As a return test can only be made at the start of each of the next three
periods after the unit has gone off, it may lose one or more of its I
chances to test.
If it has retreated one or more periods while off the table, it obviously
cannot return immediately, so a score of 4 will mean a return after one
more period for each period of off-table retreat.
Likewise, when throwing again after a score of 3, to see in how m&ny
periods time the return will take place, bear in mind that this cannot be
sooner than the off-table retreat would allow.
Q. Do light camelry count as light cavalry for scouting purposes?
A. Yes.
Q. In what direction does a retiring or retreating unit move as a result of a
reaction instruction?
A. By the quickest route towards its own base line. This is not necessarily
the shortest.
Q. How does a unit involved in melee obey an instruction to retreat dis-
ordered but turn if att acked? ,
A. By fighting on disorganised. They will not follow up a pushed-back enemy
or ‘pursue a broken one further than is compulsory until the instruction
expires, but will break off and retreat. I
 HYBORIAN PORTRAIT GALLERY

-
CONAN OF CIMMERIA

(The ageing King of Aquilonia)