ISSN:1335-2880

Isue 210
jtatp 2000
§lkgsljot - Issue
22t23 Juk To the Redoubt, Eastbourne.
Hostedbv theEastbourne Wareames
Con&Michael Grant0132f- 765067.
Club.
23 Jul: CEASEFIRE atGeorzeH. Camall
Leisurecentre,KingswayPa&Urmston
Manchester (off Jn9,M60).ColinBetts,24
TaylorSt,Hollingworth, Cheshire,
SK148PA,
telOl457764471or E-mail
106464.430@zomouserve.com LSoAPresent1 at02890797766(evenines)
1 29-30Jul: STaB. Southbourne Tabletooand 1
IBoardgamers Convention. Boumemoutk,
www.stab.ore.uk
UK
I
6 Aug: Sabre 2000. ThePavilions,Yorkshire
ShowGround,WetherbyRoad,Harrogate.
UK. Contact:Andy,Tel 01423867171or
541423.Emailand@suc5.demon.co.uk
http://www.harmgate-wargamm.org.uk
1820 Aug: UK National Wargames
Championships, Lmghborough University. 1 Merseyside. Contact@ Graeme Spencer01664 11-12 Nov: Andedda Weeked, Pevensey
Fur&herinfo.www.bhgs.co.uk[SoAPresent]
l-3 Sep: TROY, TROY AND TRY AGAIN!:
TheTrojanWar:byIanRussell Lowellat
2 10
29OctzFfnscoILRoyaIArmou1ies,Leeds,
EVENTSEUROPE P
UK. Contact:Stephen
Hart,01132283875
29O&COGSHaUowem.YMCA,
Chestafield, UK. contact: Dsve Wise,Tel:
0 1246 8 19822. hup&ww.Ieapin@dcogs
Newarktiotts.MO: vmv.innotts.co.ti~guIk/irregulars
16 Sep: Ulster Militak. Venue:DundonaId 4 Nov: Blfrost 2000. Sandwell Gala L.eism
InkrnationalIceBowl.Contact:StephaSandford Centre,EdwardStreet,WestBromwich.
or JercmvDowd SSAE to SFSFW, 4 Old AcreRoad,
jdowd@dis.n-i.ks.uk &ovisional&te). Whitchurch, BristolBS14OHN,England
website: http:llwww.bi&ost.org.uW
1617 Sep: Colours. The Hexagon, Reading.
Contact:TrevorHalsall.Tel:01734714473.
Contact:MarkCaldwell:10Marlbomugh
Road,Tuebrook,Liverpool.L138AX
Tel:011894761%.
Email:100634.626@comu~e.com
slhals&@eading.ac.&
I or I
[Soti StandPresent]
E-mail:infb@bifiosto~uk
4 Nov:SaudweIl SkInuish.contactAdrian
Gak&t[SoAStandPnxnt]
1617 Sep: Ihe 3rd Torueu Interuadonale “I
in Milano,Italy.TwoDBM periods
AncientsandMedievalandDBR Manx
Femxi5 - 20095Cusano Milanino
(?vlI),Italy. Tel/Fax+39-02X&40-1458.
Email:marco.bonianii@polimi.it
Web:http://digilander.iol.it/Clubcondottieri
23 Sep: Phalaux SuttonCommunity and 4-5Nov:SKEW. TownHall,Kirkmuir,
LeisureCentre., EltonHeadRoad,StHelens, Scotland
Bay.
560642, Emailgspence@&gin.net 15mmDBM Doubles. ContactMichaelGrantat
24 Sep: DBM 2000 Competition. AstonVilla 22 Westham Drive.Pm Bav.BN246RE
LeisureCentre,Binningham. Discountsfor SoA for details.[SOA St&l P&d]

I
KnustonHall,Ircheskr,Northamptonshire. members.AdrianGa&e&at119BankStreet, 18-19 Nov: Warfam 2000, Wargames Asan
DetailsTel.Ol933312104or Brie&y Hill, WestMidlands,DY5 3DB, Reading.
Rivennead Leisure Centnz,
Richfield
enauilies@knustonhaIl.onz.uk E-mailloDthalf&&leinetco.uk
1 v
I Avenue.ReadintzlSoAStandPresent1
1s occ colckster !salvo, Charter Hall, 2526 Nov: Fhal rouucl of ‘Ihe SoA Doubk 1
(Mar&$ Italy. Wargame show:demo.and Colchester
LeisureWorld.contactDavidKine. Masters:ReigateWamames Gmw. Entriesbvi
participation
games,
tradestands.
Info: Tel: 01206544558 lst-NV w&.bhgs.co.& -
CorradoMonfardinitel.0338-6606191
l ****************************** 25-26 Nov:TheOtherShleIdwall,
Bekeley.
‘1 The25mmDBM competition.K. McGlynn,7
z 9Sep:THESOCIETYOFANCIENTS I
GAMES DAY 2ooO AND AGM, The Old Brookend.
Bekelev.Glos.GL139S0.
: RoyalArmouriesMuseum,Leeds.
:****************************** 7-8octokIGbrywolidwargame5
ChampIonshlps,
Derby.[SoAStandPresent]
European
TeamChallenge). ChateauDe
Gmndson,
Switzerland.
ContactMikeBennett, 150&:cokhe&ersahr0.ChaIterHal1,
AvenueEdouardDapples, 22CH1006 Colchester
LeisureWorld.Contact:David Kine
Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Tel 0041(0)21616 01206544558
Pleasenote that events shouldbe
checkedwith the organiser. Details are
~POOOOP~PP~OP~BO8O8P~~O~~~l printed in good faith from information
Cover illustration by supplied. Neither the Society nor the
ii I ‘~
Daniella Carlsson I Editor is responsible for inaccuracies.
ii More information may be available on
the SoA website

Important : SL?gshMContributors
The preparation of this magazine is a very time consuming process. To best help the Society, wherever possible, please submit your valued
efforts on computer disk. If requested, the Society will return any disk sent; supplying your work in this format saves the Society either having to
have it typed or electronically scanned. The Society can accept a large range of different formats, but if you have any queries then please
contact the Editor, who will be happy to advise you.
A note on copyright and sources
Contributors to Slingshot, and members thinking of contributing, might benefit from the following note :
1. The rights to most published works, and all unpublished ones, are protected by copyright law. This protection extends for some
years after the author’s death. It extends to illustrations as well as words.
2. Copyright prevents extensive copying, but still allows “Fair use” of pro&ted work. This is not precisely defined, but it may depend
on how much of the copyrighted material is used, and in what way. “Fair use” should include acknowledgement of the source.
3. Ideas themselves are not protected by copyright. However, it is normal practice in academic circles - and is certainly simple
politeness- to acknowledgeworksthat have influencedyou, even if you are not directly quotingFran them or reproducingexbacts.
The Society is an amateur body run be part-time hobbyists, and does not have the resources to set up a system of referees to
check members’ submissions for any improper copying. We rely totally on the good faith of our members. please do not risk
embarrassment - or worse - to the Society by unfairly copying others’ work.
The Editor and the Society accept no responsibility for the views expressed by contributors in Slingshot.

EDlTORlAL
\ ook out for further details for the Games Day and
AGM in the centre section of Slingshot this issue. Phil
@ Halewood has done a great job arranging and co-
ordinating this event and his work, ably supported by other
committee and non-committee members, looks to have born
fruit with the range of attendees that are lined up for the day.
I’m planning to be there, birth of a second child permitting!
Just a few stories for you from the New Scientist The April
29 edition contained a write-up on work done by Greek
anthropologists on bones from the Macedonian royal tomb at
Vergina. Their conclusions are that it isn’t the remains of Philip
II, father of Alexander the Great, but the remains of Philip’s
ACTIONSWITH ALEXANDER- WARGAMINGWITH MACEDONIANS1NDl3M
Gavin Pearson
k!!i!B
7 hile putting together my most recent analysis of army
popularity and success (in DBM competitions),
noticed that Alexandrian Macedonian armies were not
doing very well: only used 6 times and with a poor success
figure. It so happens I had returned to my Macedonian army’
about a year ago and have been playing with it occasionally in
DBM since then (though not in competitions). Therefore, I
thought it might be worth recounting the lessons I’ve learnt.
Originally, I used a very conventional anny organisation and
deployment. Alexander commanded the right wing with the
Prodromoi, Hypaspists’ and Companions; Pannenion had the
left wing with some light cavalry, Thessalians and some foot;
while, a third general (whom I name Coenus, as it’s easy to
spell) commanded the central pike phalanx. But I found this less
than satisfactory for three reasons:
Alexander had too many different groups and troop types to
control easily which meant he tended to be short of PIPS;
The Companions naturally ended up outside and ln front of
the Hypaspists, so got into combat too soon (and often with
massed enemy mounted - bad news for such brittle troops
as Fast Knights);
Alexander’s command was the primary combat command,
so it took losses and its collapse left the army without strike
power (and thus hope).
Therefore, I was not very successful.
Since then I have changed the organisation and had more
success. Parmenion again has the delaying left wing with
A FOURTHCENTURYBCMAKKANARMY
StephenTurn
run a Makkan army made from the Lancashire Games
Pre-Islamic Arab range. The slightly cheesy rationale I use
Ia is that my army represents the army defending against
Alexander. His antemortum plan was to invade the Persian Gulf. lt
would have been in about 324 BC. The DBM Pre-lslamic Arab list
starts about then, hence the use of the figures.
The reason I lie the army is because of the 3 compulsory
terrain features, low aggression, and massed warbands. The army
is designed to represent tribal organisation with a C-in-C and three
tribal Ally generals, but I dread that first PiP roll! Aside from this, in
a 400 AP army it is one AP one figure, giving 375 figures and 125
elements in the army. I keep the Allied ccmmands as small as
possible so the C-in-C can swamp any opposition.
Troop types in the army are War-band Fast, Bowmen Inferior,
Psiloi Ordinary and one lone Light Horse Fast who sometimes
slows up an entire enemy command by itself. Their roles are,
basically:
§hgsfjot-Itme
other son Philip Ill who became king on the death of Alexander
and was assassinated in 3 17 BC. The Anthropologist’s report
is published in the journal Science, ~01.288, p.511. Another
story from a few weeks earlier had a discussion of a statue
found in an Aztec tomb dated to before the Spanish conquest
that has remarkable similarities with Roman styles and is
dissimilar to other South American artefacts. An interesting
thought that perhaps it is item that could have been
traded and passed through several hands to reach
South America or, for wargamers, did those Romans
blown off course whilst heading for Britain end up on
the wrong beach.. . . . .
lhessalians, light cavalry and some (usually lightly equipped)
I foot. Alexander now has the large central pike phalanx and the
Companions (who deploy in column behind the phalanx), while
Coenus has the Hypaspists and Prodromoi.
This structure avoids the problems I used to have. The
Companions sit in reserve till required, and are easily marched
to exploit any gap that may open in the enemy line due to the
pressure applied by the phalanx and Hypaspists. Casualties tend
to be more evenly distributed across the commands, and
Alexander’s command has a simpler mix of troops (i.e. tends to
operate in less distinct groups).
The high aggression factor (4) means the army will often
invade and move first. This is good as it allows the phalanx to
surge forward a long way (under Alexander’s direct command),
while Parmenion and Coenus send forward their light cavalry.
Overall the Macedonian army is not the simplest army to
use due to the mixture of different troop types and need to fight
a careful combined-arms battlg, but it repays perseverance.
Footnotes
1. It was originally built back in the days of WRG Sti Edition.
2. In DBM these can be classed as Superior Spears, Pikes or
Auxilia. As my fragmentary reading of the great
Hypaspist debate in Slingshot led me to conclude/
guess that they were most likely pike armed, I use
them as Superior Pikes.
3. Pikes and Fast Knights are powerful but also brittle. \
l Warbands - the core of the army, fast. can handle rough
terrain and in huge numbers.
l Bowmen - brittle but powerful against some mounted troop
types. One of them shot down Monty Wall’s Lydian C-in-C at
the last Historicon. ln the next game, 6 elements of Psiii
javeliien got in amongst them and broke my army.
l Psiloi - light infantry to hold bad terrain and &lay the enemy.
lnordertomaximise theterrain,Itrimthepiecesononesidetoa
multiple of 24 inches. My ‘crop circles’ are trimmed to 12 inch so
twocanfitpersector.
The command elements are double based. Also, the four
generals are on horseback, with so many troops, spottins the
generals can be tough.
Fmally, the army can be a spectacle. In one game
on a desert tan surface, 85 spontaneously advancing
warband elements charged toward the enemy and
looked like something out of Hollywood!
1
§hgsfjot - Issue 210

“WlTtl THEBOWLETUSWIN COWS.”

WARGAMINGWl’lll VEDK INDIANS
RichardAndrews

m he Editor asked for contributions

Lwargaming
on the subject of
with obscure armies. This seemed a good
\ - ’ excuse to tell you about my experience of wargaming
with a Vedic Indian army. This is the army which originates in
the period of the Aryan invasion of India, around 1500 BC, and
attack once my archery had disrupted the enemy attacks.
But what has all this to do with Vedic Indians, you may be
wondering. Well, the plain truth is that I soon got a bit bored
with using the Classical Indians. Not because they were always
successful - far from it - but because so many other people
which persisted for about the next thousand years, before used the same army, not just in Leicester but everywhere. I am
developing into the better-known Classical Indian army of the never much attracted to popular armies, but I have always
type which fought Alexander the Great. The word Vedic comes liked more esoteric ones. And I do love chariots. (On this
from the Vedas, which are the holy books of the Hindus (IX&I theme, I once had a Philistine army, long ago, but that’s
being the Sanskrit term for knowledge). The Aryan invaders another story.)
were a semi-nomadic people, who migrated from the Iranian So I started to think about using a less common version of
area into India via the Hindu Kush. In doing so they seem to the Indian army, and I decided to go for Vedic Indians. This
have brought about the violent end of the previous lndus was partly because many of the figures I already had could
Valley civilisations. reasonably be used as Vedic Indians, and partly because I had
Why (I was often asked) do you use Vedic Indians? It all never heard of anyone else ever using a Vedic army.
began when I had to move from Bedford to start a new job in I set about doing a bit of research, which is something I
Leicester. I called in on the Leicester wargames club, and quire enjoy in itself. I like to get a proper feel for my armies, by
everybody there gave me a very friendly welcome. Sadly I knowing something about their wider history and culture. This
don’t see much of them now, since work has intervened, but I can also sometimes teach you about how the armies really
was a regular at the club for about 2 years. At the time, nearly fought. I am sometimes surprised how few ancient wargarners
everybody at the Leicester club was of my acquaintance actually do much
using DBM rules and 15mm ancients, research into their armies, apart from
but I only had 25mm medieval studying the relevant army lists.
figures, and these were still back in There are some honourable
Bedford. The Leicester people happily exceptions, but it often seems that
fitted me into numerous games, but I the more competitive a wargamer is,
wanted to acquire a 15mm army of the less historical research he does.
my own, and quickly, so that I could Which is a pity, because perhaps a bit
stop borrowing troops from other of research into how armies actually
people. One enterprising chap offered operated might restrain the very
to sell me some Indians at a bargain competitive garners from indulging so
price, and once I had seen the much in those minutely measured
elephants, I couldn’t resist. and highly improbable manoeuvres
These were Classical Indians, F%@I ; A &&t&&m pitim of a Jw/pR//ed With tiny bodies of troops positioned
mainly Essex miniatures, I think, and e&way at -4 &i& && h #e F avltv/y with pinpoint accuracy at certain
painted simply but effectively with ink &‘C’ aravding &I ~.IJ && (3&s of & precise angles. Did any army ever
washes. I had always hankered after /@z&&r andA/& W& WRG, 1~1. /&ii?,4 ti13 really behave like that?
an army that had both elephants and must & #e SKWID.?ti hyu13r MinMt~‘Idhn Anyway, I like a bit of
chariots, and now I owned one. I like s 9!@ qm tit&m cks;pn er&rzrIm amateurish research. I remember the
chariot period armies, and I have g&&&&t ti,?r/w ,!s~~~&&.? of early days when unless you had a
always been a sucker for elephants in e&&r VedkdatMs /am ~&SUP Mat tile e&&& Greek or Roman army, you pretty
wargaming, ever since I first of~~t~&!~o&ti&~,~~ much had to do all your own
crammed some Airfix Roman archers my & r&I14 and tib SEWS to & b% treSt I- research, and write your own army
into a cardboard tower on top of a a~&&. M)ldrawing is d mm; &XZ &a//of list. Which was fun. I am not a
Britons baby elephant model. &I? h&t& r&!&e in ~%sw/pturt: Iha@ IX&&R historian, and I make no claims to say
I soon had plenty of chances to cvtby&rga u%&? /ir S;ingh4m d cr%& n&& anything original (or even very
use the Classical Indians, and I found U-&Y &&e& @us d & ofge ~?!XXI accurate) about the Vedic Indians.
that they were a bit unmanoeuvrable w ti &@ n+t?GYP~?yb b%f d V&z& o%@t They are not widely written about, but
but otherwise quite effective. In terms myhaiwrM&rhketi& I did manage to find some
of the DBM rules, they can have a lot information, although I would be glad
of superior troop types (bows, chariots, elephants). This gives to hear more about the Vedic period from better qualified
them bags of staying power and makes them quite forgiving of readers of Slingshot
blunders - I made plenty of these in my early days with DBM! I started with the wargames publications and general
My natural and chivalric instinct in wargaming is to advance books on ancient warfare, but these mainly concentrate on the
and meet the enemy, but this usually led to being Classical Indians. I was already acquainted with the
outmanoeuvred by more agile opponents. I soon learned that descriptions in Arrian and Curtius of the Indians who fought
the Indians were much better off sitting tight in a defensive Alexander the Great (Arrian described the Indians as “the
posture, with their flanks protected by the lndus river on one finest fighters to be found anywhere in Asia”) but I wanted to
side and by a built up area on the other. Not very sporting, but delve into an earlier period. I managed to obtain a couple a
quite successful even against the trendy cavalry armies like general histories of India which started with the Vedic period,
Mongols. I found that I had to keep any impetuous troops but the real breakthrough came with the kind assistance of
strictly under the C-in-C’s control, and be ready to counter- Caliver Books. Through their auspices, I got my hands on two

2
 §hgsfjot - fssue 210
books imported from India (and fortunately in English). The sources. This theme of heroic single combat is reminiscent of
first was Ancient Indian Warfare by Sarva Daman Singh. This the lliad, but with much more emphasis on archery:
surveyed Indian warfare before the 4th century BC, covering “With the bow let us win cows, with the bow let us win the
infantry, chariots, cavalry, elephants, arms and armour, contest and violent battles with the bow. The bow ruins the
fortifications, organisation and the ethics of war. I’m not enemy’s pleasure; with the bow let us conquer all the comers
qualified to judge the academic merits of this book, but’as a of the world.” (The Rig Veda).
novice to the subject I found it extremely useful. The reference to cows, incidentally, seems to arise from
The second book was War in Ancient India, by V.R. the contemporary term gauishti which meant “to fight”,
Ramachandra Dikshitar. Whilst to some extent covering the although its literal meaning is “to search for cows”. Cattle were
same ground, this book had more to say on strategy, tactics, vital to the Vedic economy and early warfare naturally
diplomacy and aerial warfare. Yes, aerial warfare. Dikshitar is revolved around cattle-raids, to the extent that such raiding
perhaps a little credulous of certain claims made in ancient became synonymous with warfare in general.
texts! He quite seriously postulates the existence of various The bow is clearly the primary weapon, but javelins,
ancient flying machines in the Vedic period, whose secret was maces and other weapons also seem to be quite widely used:
subsequently lost. I took this section of his book with a pinch princes grew up “adept in archery... skilful in fighting with club,
of salt, and wondered if the same seasoning should be applied sword and shield... skilled in horsemanship and the
elsewhere in the book. But winged chariots and airships management of elephants” (as well as learning the Vedic
certainly make interesting ideas for an Indian fantasy game - scriptures). Our heroes were taught from an early age to fight
throw in a few gods, heroes and moving idols, and you’re from horseback, on an elephant, in a chariot and on foot,
away. But that’s another project. alone or in groups. I came across few references to shields, but
My other main sources were more literary in nature, but heroes are often described as clad in mail: “I cover with
then history has to draw on literature, and our understanding of armour those places where a wound is mortal.” (I realise that I
an army is the poorer if we do not read about its real or am at the mercy of translators in such details, so I make no
imagined exploits. So I took a deep breath and plunged into claims to using accurate terms.) These heroes were proud and
The M&abam.!a This is an epic tale originating around 1000 boastful. We are told that they enjoyed such feats in battle as
BC in the tribal conflict between the Pandavas and the shooting arrows with horse-shoe shaped heads in order to cut
Kauravas. With the gradual accretion of legend, it has grown to down enemy standards or even decapitate their opponents.
some 88,000 verses of poetry, and I will confess at once that I The M&&rata describes an army as including 40,000
did not even try to read it all. I chariots, so -I suppose I am lucky
settled for a selected translation of that I only had to collect two dozen
some 4000 verses, which at least or so. The same reference speaks
gave me the flavour of the thing of 200,000 horses (horsemen, and/
and also provided some useful or chariot horses?), 2 million
details. footsoldiers, and 60,000 elephants.
I also dabbled in edited I think we can safely assume that
highlights of The Ramayana, the real armies were somewhat
story of the hero Rama (which smaller, although these figures do
incidentally features flying chariots perhaps give an idea of the relative
and chariots pulled by 4 tigers, proportions of the different troop
amongst other wonders). And I types which made up an army.
read some selections from The Rig The chariots are classified as
Vediq a collection of over 1000 Ordinary Cavalry in DBM, so they
hymns originally compiled from are fairly fast and agile, but they do
around 1200 - 900 BC. not have the heroic killing-power
I interspersed this reading with attributed to them by the epics.
assembling and painting chariots. They are still pretty good
And more chariots. And yet more compared with most of the rest of
chariots, which is certainly a labour the army.
of love. The DBM army lists make Aficionados of the DBM rules
it clear that chariotry was the main will be glad to learn that The
am of Vedic forces, and my Ma/&a&a at one point divides
reading confirmed this. So I needed the warriors, chariots and horses of
lots of chariots, of the 2-horse /alw. Agak$ w an m&mn%@~+!ate ~%t baqw of an amy into hee cate@es’
variety with 2 crew, a driver and an b?e Vs&p5n&fmyhauz superior, inferior and indifferent.
kwktdhte 0%
armoured archer. I used Irregular Sounds familiar. As you will see,
Miniatures’ Classic Indian chariots, because I already had my Vedic army (and its generalship) was almost exclusively in
some, and adapted them for the Vedic period (the chariot the indifferent or inferior category. DBM players may also
wheels need to be bigger with more spokes); but I am sure enjoy the frequent references to gambling and dicing in The
there are plenty of other manufacturers whose chariot models Mahabarata: sometimes whole kingdoms are staked on the
could easily be used. The Irregular Miniatures chariots are a bit throw of the dice, no doubt this will be familiar to wargamers!
big and chunky, even when I had trimmed them down, but at The Rig Veda speaks of charioteers with braided hair and
least this means they are robust when handled and dropped. whips. 77re M&r&z&a mentions chariots of gold and of iron,
And I was opting for an army from the later Vedic period, when chariots adorned with lotuses, bearskins or bells, with horse of
presumably the earlier lighter chariots were gradually adapting various colours including white for the great hero Arjuna.
into the larger and heavier versions used in the Classical Accepting that there may be some poetic licence in the text,
period. this still gave me an excuse for some fancy paintwork on my
Archery duels between “mighty-armed” heroes in chariots chariot models, and a couple of them even boast tiger&ii
are the dominating feature of the fighting described in the upholstery. I imagine that the chariots would not be uniform in

3
§fingdjot - Issue 2 10
appearance, but would reflect the individual tastes and wealth
of their owners. Chariots often carried tall personal standards,
with white umbrellas for a king or prince. There is little to
indicate exactly what these standards looked like, but white
banners are commonly mentioned, and others are described
as featuring various designs including lions, palm trees,
monkeys, elephants, apes and streamers, so the only limits
here are your imagination and your modelling skills. The glory
of a relatively obscure army like this one is that you can feel
free to improvise the unknown details, rather than having to
copy everything slavishly from those nice Osprey books. The
result in my case was certainly an imposing and colourful
chariot corps, even if I cannot claim 100% historical accuracy.
Using a Vedic army from the later period (after 900BC per
the DBM lists) permitted me to have my generals in big 4-
horse chariots, which were given umbrellas, crammed with
underlings, and made to look even more splendid than the
ordinary chariots. In DBM the generals’ chariots are classed as
Superior Knights, so they are powerful elements.
disadvantage is that they are slower than the rest of the
chariots, and are also impetuous. This means that they will
almost inevitably go charging off at an inconvenient moment,
and as we learn from The Mahabarata, “death is certain for
heroes who do not retreat” (i.e. impetuous generals).
There are 2 ways to handle this. You can put the generals
in the front line, steer them at some vulnerable enemy, and
just let them go. Provided you can keep the more
manoeuvrable lighter chariots close by to support their flanks,
this is not as suicidal as it sounds. Or you can keep the
generals well back at the start of the game, with a clear
avenue in front of them just in case they decide to advance
spontaneously. If they start further back, they rarely get into
too much trouble before you can rescue or support them.
This second option actually gives you a very good
simulation of many fights described in The Mahabarata, when
the mightiest heroes (the generals) would at first sit back and
let the younger charioteers get on with the fighting. The mighty
heroes themselves would only get involved when things
looked bad or something upset them, such as the destruction
of their younger charioteers. Then the mighty heroes would go
on the rampage. Shades of the //iad again, I think. My own
feeling is that you should let the generals go out and fight: they
are pretty tough, and they will swing the battle one way or the
other. “Trampling down the foes with the tips of their hoofs,
they destroy their enemies without veering away” (he Rig
Veda). At least, I hope they do. And anyway: “Death in battle
is preferable to flight in fear” (The fW~abar&a).
Before we leave the heroic charioteers, I should mention
their sense of chivalry. “Courage, vigour, resourcefulness,
steadfastness in battle, generosity and leadership are the
natural duty of a warrior.” 7he Mahabamta suggests that they
felt that a blow beneath the navel was unfair, and who can
blame them. They sometimes agreed before a baffle that only
equals should fight: chariots against chariots, elephants
against elephants, cavalry against cavalry and foot against
foot. In theory it was bad form to attack somebody who was
already fighting, or was fleeing, weaponless or unarmoured,
chariot-driver, a musician or an animal. But there are many
examples of warriors ignoring these precepts, and advising
hard-headed strategies such as attacking when the enemy is
weary or retreating, or even using poisoned arrows. Perhaps,
like most of us, the Vedic heroes found it easier to be chivalric
when they were winning.
One of the reasons that I wanted my army to be from the
later Vedic period was that this allowed me to use some
elephants, if only a few. Elephants later became the real elite
of Indian armies, but in the Vedic period they had not yet
achieved quite such prominence. Heroes of 7he Mahabamta
were taught to fight from the backs of elephants, which were
given personal names. The hero Arjuna was once surrounded
by enemy elephants, but being Arjuna, he managed to fight
his way out and kill them. You can use up to 3 elephants in a
Vedic Indian army under DBM, and they are well worthwhile,
for several reasons. They worry opponents (often
unnecessarily, I think); they cost lots of points, so you can
The finally stop painting chariots; a general can ride on one of the
elephants without being impetuous, and can feel pretty
invulnerable if well supported; and there are some lovely
elephant models out there to buy. Real elephants are pretty
cool, too; I recently stroked one (by invitation) at Twycross
zoo. The next best thing for me are Irregular Miniatures
elephants, because they have lots of variants, they look active
and mobile, and some even have umbrellas.
As a result of my soft spot for elephants, I now have far
more elephant models than I can Possibly use in one Indian
army of any period. I suppose I’ll just have to start wargaming
the civil wars of ancient India, with elephants on both sides.
Elephants are another good excuse for some fancy
artwork, the gaudier the better. I painted stylized palm trees
and lotuses on the housings of mine, in various colour
schemes. For the Vedic period, the crew should be sitting
astride the elephant. You can also paint designs onto the skin
of the pachyderm itself, for added effect, but beware of the
carnival appearance that may result!
I have put some support infantry onto the bases of my
elephants, because it looks good (like a mini-vignette) and
because in DBM this makes the elephants “Superior” and
harder to kill. Of course, all elephants are superior really. But
the “Superior” classification in DBM is important, since you
have very few elephants in the Vedic army, and they need to
be tough. Elephants are very vulnerable to enemy light troops,
and since the Vedic army has few light troops of its own to
protect the elephants, the supporting infantry are vital.
Cavalry in Vedic armies seems to have been more
numerous than effective, and are very much third best after
elephants and chariots. Heroes rarely seem to have fought on
horseback. Under DBM, the Vedic cavalry are classed as
“Inferior”, which makes them more difficult to manoeuvre than
other cavalry; but then you have the chariots for that sort of
thing. The Vedic cavalry when massed deeply can still be quite
effective, especially if their flanks are not exposed to anything
more agile. Several wargames opponents have dismissed my
Vedic cavalry too lightly, and have been unpleasantly
a surprised by their achievements in a straight fight. But on
balance, if I could face painting any more chariots, I would
probably do away with the cavalry altogether and just have
chariots instead.
And so to the poor bloody infantry. ln a Vedic army, they
really are both Poor (in the sense of not very good) and bloody
(in the sense of rapidly slaughtered en masse). As Sigh puts it:
“In size, if not in importance, the infantry looms large in
the Epic story; the mass fills the canvas of poetic
imagination and provides the bulk of the ornate yet
ineffectual arrays as an apposite setting for the exploits
of the chariotry.”
These infantry were the mass of able-bodied tribesmen
 §lkgdjot - Issue 210
brought along by their kings to give the enemy heroes some jungle, which is just as well, since they are compulsory for the
target practice, and to swell the army numbers to awesome Vedic army in DBM. These look spectacularly Indian, lush and
sizes. They do the same thing on the wargames table, exotic, but they were actually made from plastic fronds
bolstering the army simply by their presence in huge numbers. designed to go in fishtanks. You can get some amazingly good
Opponents often boggle at the sheer number of Vedic infantry bits of scenery very cheaply in a good petshop - just try it and
they are going to have to kill before they can win. But they see; the variety is wonderful, and the stuff is pretty
usually manage it. indestructible too. I based the fronds into clumps with some
The Vedic infantry seem to have been mainly unshielded smaller bushes, rocks and the occasional pool (thick gloss
archers, and in DBM are classed as Inferior Bows. They must varnish over sand coloured paint), all on a base of thick card
indeed have been pretty inferior, otherwise the day of the built up with filler. But if this is too much work, you can always
heroic charioteer would have ended much sooner than it did. buy some plastic palm trees.
But as Singh points out, the infantry would have been the Whilst in the petshop, I found some excellent model
unsung heroes of fighting in hilly or wooded country or in the buildings, which again were designed for fishtanks. Now some
many sieges of the period, where mounted troops would have of these buildings are just crudely moulded lumps of plastic,
been ineffective. According to Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Vedic no good for wargaming; but if you are lucky you can find
hymns often refer to assaults on mud-brick strongholds, for some much better types which have plenty of fine detail and
which the term pur (rampart or fort) was used; and the Aryan character. The usual fare is ruined castles, which are ideal for
war-god lndra is called pummdara or the fantasy gamer or medieval
“fort-destroyer,” who “rends forts as age enthusiast, but there are also some
consumes a garment.” Siege warfare models available which have an Asian or
would therefore have been common, at oriental look. I found several which were
least in the time of the early migrations. suitable for Indian or far eastern armies
I try to console my infantry for their in 15mm scale. I don’t claim they are
humble status by giving them handsome architecturally accurate, but they look
command units with standards, drums plausible, and give the right atmosphere.
and conch horns, all of which feature in They have detailed stonework, windows
the sources. But let us remember in true and doorways, they came ready painted,
Vedic style that the infantry are only the and they cost me around C? each. For
dregs of the army and should be instant impact on the wargames table,
sacrificed accordingly. they are hard to beat, and compare quite
The DBM army list allows you a favourably with models actually
mere handful of light infantry, which designed for wargaming. I’m afraid I
rather limits your ability to skirmish in don’t know who makes these little gems,
rough ground. But bowmen are fairly or whether they are still available, but the
good at that sort of work if required, and moral is: there are more places to shop
a lot of skirmishing infantry would only than wargames shows and mail order.
get in the way of shooting by the massed I used these buildings a lot, since I
archers. Enemy skirmishers and light ~w4: m& & &r&m & ~;lxa pho@ & often opted for a built up area on the
horse are not usually too much of a m CI,-ta ~w/+Y&& ti LCQM/ battlefield as a good way of protecting
problem, because your archers can often ha3/ln ~I~&~~ &&a&r fiwn a one flank. It can also be a useful place to
shoot them to bits. Even Vedic archers pwt-l/&k&$,’ . hide some archers in an ambush. With
can usually manage to kill off a few the Vedic army, you set up so many
skirmishers. archers in your initial deployment that the opponent will never
Rather more fun are the hordes, the dregs of the dregs, suspect you have even more of them lurkiig somewhere in
who are worth having for entertainment value alone. My horde ambush. It can have quite a stunning psychological effect on
elements include any odd figures left over after making up your opponent when yet another batch of archers suddenly
other elements, plus assorted oddments including a stray emerge from hiding. And even if they never do emerge, at
bullock-cart. Take care not to confuse your hordes with the least it keeps them safe from being slaughtered like all the
baggage elements, which are far more valuable and often fight others.
better. My Vedic baggage features some delightful menial For humbler buildings, I converted some model haystacks
characters from Essex Miniatures, various camels (some into grass-thatched huts. And for that occasional siege game, I
parked and some ambling), the obligatory bullock-carts, some have a small fortress with whitewashed mud-brick walls. My
cows from cattle-raiding, and a camel-mounted concubine for terrain layout sometimes includes a few lurking tigers and
the raja (Zenobia in another life). But the centrepiece is a giant crocodiles which I secrete along the edges of jungles and
squat stone idol on wooden rollers, bedecked with toy waterways, in the hope of frightening the enemy when they are
jewellery, which every enemy commander sets his heart on spotted. The tigers are courtesy of Irregular Miniatures, and the
capturing. In fantasy games, this idol has been known to crocodiles are plastic toys which came ready-painted from the
trundle across the battlefield as Jaganatha, the original local toyshop. The same source has furnished me with some
juggernaut, crushing all. in its path. The idol began life in a 18mm brahmins in white plastic, complete with umbrella,
25mm range of Dungeons and Dragons fantasy figures. Yes, I which are jolly useful for giving some Vedic flavour to baggage
confess it: Dungeons and Dragons features in my guilty past. or temples. They came from a range of model railway
As you can probably tell, I enjoy the aesthetic side of passengers, believe it or not.
wargaming at least as much as the other aspects. This applies So that’s the army and its preferred setting, and I have
to my choice of terrain as well. I would always try to put out an already said something about how the individual components
attractive item of terrain even if it was not much use on the of the army perform. But how do you go about actually using
battlefield, rather than leave it lingering in the box. I think a an entire Vedic army on the wargames table? I am no expert
wargame should look attractive, and I especially hate those at wargaming with DBM, but I do have a little experience in the
naff bits of square cardboard that some people call hills. subject, thanks mainly to the nice people at Leicester
Some of my favourite pieces of terrain are patches of wargames club, who got plenty of victories at my expense
§hgsfjot N Issue 210
(and the occasional surprise defeat) while I was using the
Vedic army. I am grateful for all the helpkrl suggestions and
advice they gave me, such as, “If I were you, I’d use a different
army,” or “Take up trainspotting.” They also helped introduce
me to the more esoteric points of the DBM rules, which I think
on the whole are a good thing, and usually produce a fast
wargame that resembles my idea of an ancient battle. It is true
that the wording and layout of DBM can sometimes leave
intelligent people with very different views of what the rules
mean. But whether this causes arguments depends
whether the players are good-natured or confrontational.
suspect that the character of the players has more impact on
the enjoyment of a game than the type of rules used.
The first thing I should say about using Vedic Indians is
that, as wargames armies go, they aren’t really very good. You
wouldn’t want to use them in a competition, unless there was a
prize for the biggest army that died the fastest. lhe Vedics
have some good points, but they have few powerful troops, a
lot of inferior ones, and they don’t pack much of a punch.
They have to rely on wearing down the opponent gradually.
Which is a pity, because the Vedic army doesn’t always last
long enough to have the time to do anything gradually. But
their sheer weight of numbers does give them some staying
power even when they are being killed in droves. The chariots
are fast and manoeuvrable, but they do not have the
overwhelming Power so praised by the epics.
I usually organised the army into 3 commands, with the
various troop types split fairly evenly between the three. I think
that in a large Vedic army, each command would represent a
petty king and his own troops, so it seems best for each
command to have a mix of all troop types. I doubt that any of
these kings would have let somebody else lead their chariots,
so I can see little justification for having (say) a chariot
command, an infantry command, etc. Although under DBM
some of the generals must be allies, and Potentially unreliable,
it is still quite a good bet to go for four generals, since they are
such powerful elements compared with the rest of the army.
The Vedic army is of course composed entirely of irregular
troops, so having lots of generals gives you a bit more control
over it. And unreliable generals can be quite entertaining.
Some haughty Assyrians once decided to wheel right past an
unreliable general of mine, whose command had thus far
declined to take any part in the battle. The sight of the
Assyrians’ flank marching under their noses must have been
just too tempting for my men to resist, and they suddenly
decided to attack. The Assyrians came down like ninepins,
their cohorts gleaming in purple and gold.. . .
Most of the Vedic army suffers in bad going, and it is too
large to redeploy easily, so you need to pay attention to
getting your deployment right first time. You may not have
much choice about how to deploy, however. In a DBM game,
a 400~point Vedic army will pretty much fill a six foot table
from side to side with bowmen two ranks deep, even before
you put out the chariots. It can be quite difficult to deploy so
large an army without having to cover every inch of your table
edge in a solid line. The problem with this sort of wide
deployment, however impressive it looks, is that most
opposing armies will be smaller and faster, and will be able to
concentrate against one bit of your army whilst holding off or
just ignoring the rest. The enemy will then get local superiority
and will win before you can bring most of your army to bear.
So you are better off shortening the infantry line, and keeping
some of the bowmen back as reserves to plug gaps or prop up
the wings against outflanking moves by the enemy.
Alternatively, the cavalry can perform this support role, but
they should be held back from open fights on the wings
because they will quickly be outmanoeuvred and beaten.
One alternative to an over-crowded deployment area is to
send a flank march off the table, but I am not fond of this
6
option. Unless you send lots of infantry, it doesn’t ease the
overcrowding problem, but it can be difficult to deploy lots of
infantry onto the table once the flank march arrives. If it ever
does. And I’m loath to send the chariots off on a flank march,
because you need every one of them on the table to start with,
if you are to have any chance of staving off the enemy attacks.
So I rarely risk a flank march.
Given that you will have a table full of archers, the next
main question is, where do you put the chariots? There are
on several sensible wargaming options here (in front, on the
I wings, in reserve), but historically, there is only one Possibility.
The chariots are the young, heroic aristocracy, the archers are
the dregs. It seems inconceivable to me that the chariotry
would have allowed anyone to get into battle before they did,
so I put the chariots out in front. This usually gives them plenty
of room to manoeuvre and to choose their targets for attack.
Enemy breaking through the chariots still have a huge force of
infantry to face. Under DBM rules, it is Possible for the chariots
to be pretty much wiped out without losing the game, because
you still have so many bowmen left in support. I think this is
unhistorical, because if the elite chariots were defeated, the
rest of the am-ry would surely have fled. The Armati rules
perhaps work better here, in that you lose the game if you lose
certain key elements of the army (in this case, it would be the
chariots). Even under DBM, however, it is true to say that if the
Vedic army has lost most of its chariots, it is probably doomed
to eventual defeat anyway, since the bowmen are unlikely to
survive for long on their own.
I have been a little harsh on the Poor bowmen, who have
sacrificed themselves on many occasions in the hope that
sheer numbers would prevail. Sometimes their sacrifice was
rewarded. With a big strong elephant in their midst, they can
give opponents some problems. They can put real fear into
enemy cavalry armies by their shooting Power: even inferior
bows can be effective when they concentrate two or three
elements onto every target. This sort of barrage can disrupt
infantry attacks as well, to the Point where only the toughest or
wildest enemy will charge home. Rather like the Vedic cavalry,
I sometimes found that my infantry were underestimated by
opponents, who got quite a shock from their massed
firepower. As we have heard, “the bow ruins the enemy’s
pleasure”. Sometimes.
So there you have it: a challenging army to use, but a
colourful and entertaining one. It has certainly given me many
hours of enjoyment, and much amusementto my opponents.
Under DBM, its sheer size makes it difficult to use, and it is
short of powerful troops. I found it had most success against
other chariot period armies, but suffered against opponents
from later Periods. This seems fair, since after all it did evolve
into something better in a later period. Would I recommend
Vedic Indians to another wargamer? Probably not, because
then somebody else would be using a Vedic Indian army, and
that might spoil its attraction for me.
Select Bibliography
Dikshitar, V.R. Ramachandra War in Ancient lndia Motilal
Banarsidass, 1987.
O’Flaherty, W.D., 7he Rig Veda. Penguin, 1981.
Narasimhan, C.V., he Mahabamtd Columbia University
Press, 1965.
Singh, S.V., Ancient Indian War&e Motilal Banarsidass, 1989.
Jhapar, Romila, A History oflndia Vokme 1. Penguin, 1990.
Watson, Francis, India A Concise History. Thames & Hudson,
1993.
Wheeler, Sir Mortimer, Cioilisations of the lndus
Valley and beyond Thames & Hudson, 1966.
 §hpljot - Isme 210

DEMULnTUDtNUSSKlRMlSH'99
VARIOUSWARGAMINGADVENTURES
AT THESOASKlRMtSH‘99
I3art-y Harman
Three Virgins go to war to get the figures. I normally buy my figures at shows or from
Using Huns at the Skirmish my local supplier (Essex Figures), but because I wanted the
have been playing wargames for more years than I army to look completely irregular I decided to order from
care to remember. But I only became interested in several different companies. An E-mail to Tim Twineham, and
Ancients when DBA then DBM came along. Although his excellent database brought a quick response with a
I have always liked the idea of friendly competitions, I have complete list of figures and suppliers in not only 15mm but
never tried it, mainly because I had heard so many tales and also 25mm. Next was a search of the supplier’s web sites,
stories regarding “rule lawyers” and “win at any cost which ranged from good to a complete waste of time. phone
merchants”. I like to wargame (and this includes reading, calls were made (again responses ranging mostly from being
researching and painting armies, etc) for the overall very helpful to one being completely indifferent) and figures
enjoyment. Win or lose it’s the fun that counts and it also helps finally ordered from 8 different suppliers. The first arrived next
relieve the stress of work. And that’s also one of the reasons I day, most within a week, the last order arriving just over two
have never tried it - I did not want to come home from a weeks after being ordered. Figure quality and sizing varied
competition stressed out! considerably; some of the figures looked like giants others like
In Issue number 202 (March ‘99), I read an article on the midgets, and some were so out of scale that I had to discard
SOA Skirmish at West Bromwich, which took place in them and buy some replacements. By now it was early
November 1998. The impression was that this was an October which did not leave me long to paint and base them
enjoyable and light-hearted event. Then in Issue 204 (July all. I finally finished the complete army on the Wednesday
‘99) there was an advert for the SOA before the competition and the next day
Skirmish ‘99 (which even mentioned the we decided to give Attila and his new
word F*N). This competition was aimed Command 1 army its first taste of combat.
at the beginner, which in competition 1 C-in-C (Attilo) Irr LAS) We decided to fight against an Early
terms we were and this was the reason I 5 Hum Irr CHW ’ Crusader army, since Adrian Garbett had
first considered going. I talked to my . been kind enough to arrange for Robert
brother Derek, who has only been 10 Fran&h subjects It-r WMSI to team up with Stuart Whigham for the
playing DBM for a short while, and a IO Thuringian subjects h-r WMOI competition, and he had informed us that
couple of wargaming friends about going, Stuart would be using this army. Robert
and we all agreed to give it a go. 26 Elements, Demoralisation 9
was C-in-C and one of my friends his
Unfortunately due to work commitments
my friends could not make it in the end,
so my son Robert (who’s 14) asked if he
could go, so we three competition virgins
decided to go to war.
I normally fight with a Later
Carthaginian army, but I wanted
something a little bit different. After

a Hunnic army (list 80, Book 2) and after

This was based on Attila’s army from Command 4 a matter of cleaning up. 90 minutes later
433 to 453 AD. Command 1 was (Ostrogothic subject ally) the entire Hun army was fleeing the field
commanded by Attila, with the C-in-C ’ of battle! A 10-O win to the Crusaders.
I General IWakmirl Irr KnfFl
PIP bonus giving him the ability to hold Ellak had been stopped by a few archer
the warband until it was needed, plus a Y Cavalry h-r Kt4Fl and crossbowmen elements, Walamir
few Hun light horse elements to give 6 Archers It-r BdI~ had been killed, his cavalry routed and
some flank cover. Command 2 was his bowmen swept away. The Franks and
I 1 Elements. Demoralisation Y
commanded by Ellak, Attila’s eldest son, Thuringian subjects had been outflanked
who had the rest of the Hun light horse. and were killed with few problems for the
Command 3 was commanded by King Ardaric, king of the Crusaders. Robert did not stop bragging about how he had
Gepids. This gave us some hitting power with the fast knights, destroyed our army until finally with the tact and diplomacy of
and finally command 4 was commanded by Walamir, the Attila I threatened to stop his pocket money and not take him
eldest of three brothers who commanded the Ostrogoths at the to the Skirmish!
battle of Catalaunian Fields, with a mixture of fast knights and The Skirmish was on the Sunday, but we had decided to
bows. This gave a total of 60 fighting and 8 baggage elements, go up on the Saturday and stay overnight at the local
which gives an army Demoralisation of 30 and meant that we Moathouse hotel. After a pleasant evening out, a good night’s
could lose both the smaller commands and still need to lose a sleep and enjoyable breakfast, we were ready for battle. We
further 12 elements before the army was totally demoralised. booked in to the Skirmish just after 9am and were ready to
Now that I had decided on the army composition I needed meet our first opponents.

7
§hgdjot - Issue 210
Game 1: Eastern Late Imperial Roman
We were facing Eddie Glew (who was playing on his own)
with an Eastern Late Imperial Roman army. So the dice rolling
started and we ended up defending, with the Romans electing
to advance with a river on their flank. With no compulsory
feature we decided to have just 2 areas of rough going which
both ended up being positioned on the far side or the river (see
map 1 ), leaving the main area nice and clear for our mounted
troops. We set up our forces with Attila’s light horse next to the
river, with the Franks and Thuringian warbands on their left.
Then came Walamir’s Ostrogoth cavalry, with the bows
behind them. Ellak and the light horse were deployed on the
far left in a line with two columns on the flanks ready to
expand after moving forward. And finally King Ardaric was on
the far right in a single column.
The Romans had set up the first command of 10 double-
ranked legionary elements, one being a general, with
supporting Psiloi archers, 9 Auxilia Palatina Ax(S) and 6
supporting Psiloi archers on their right flank. The legionaries
were in front and the Auxilia to their left rear. The second
command consisted of the C-in-C mounted as Equites, 4
Equites, 6 Clibanarii and 2 horse archer elements. The last
command consisted of a mixture of light horse Alans, lllyricani
and Dromedarii [LH(S), (0) and (I) respectively] with a
general mounted as Equites.
Our plan was quite simply for Ellak, Walamir and Attila’s
commands to engage or hold the Roman line in position and,
since the Romans had left the far river bank empty, King
Ardaric’s Ciepids were to advance as fast as possible to get
past the Roman left flank then cross the river and contact the
rear of either the left flank or the centre.
LATE IMPERIAL ROMANS
The battle started with the Romans making a general
advance with their whole line. Ellak advanced and deployed
into a single line with Walamir giving support with his knights
and Attila’s command advancing as a line to give cover to the
Ostrogoth’s flank. King Ardaric and his Ciepid knights moved
quickly forward to get into his intended position behind the left
flank of the Romans. The Roman line now came to a halt and
deployed some legionary Blades on to their right flank so that
their line now extended from the river to the table edge. Two
elements of Roman light horse were sent across the river to
attempt to slow down the advance of the Gepids. Ellak now
charged in and contacted the Roman line from about the
centre to the far right of the Roman line. First blood fell to the
Huns with the death of a legionary element and its supporting
Psiloi, but with the loss of a Hun light horse to the Roman
cavalry. The Ostrogoth’s had moved forward ready to fall onto
anyone attempting to flank Ellak’s command and Attila
advanced continuing to give support to the Ostrogoth flank.
8
King Ardaric’s Gepids had deployed to face the Roman light
horse.
Ellak continued to attack the Roman line but was
beginning to take some losses from the Roman cavalry, so it
was decided to allow Walamir’s Ostrogothic knights to
advance spontaneously into the Roman line, with the result of
killing a legionary and an Equites cavalry element, and
pushing back the others. The Roman auxilia now moved
forward attempting to cover the holes that were starting to
appear in their line, Attila’s light horse and his war-band now
advanced to within contact distance of the Roman line. With
the Ostrogoths slowly pushing forward the Roman clibanarii
were in danger of being outflanked by some Hun light horse.
Two Roman clibanarii elements wheeled to protect their flank
from the Huns and contacted and destroyed a Hun light horse.
Ellak’s command was now one element short of being
demoralised, but the clibanarii’s wheel had offered their flank
to one of the Ostrogoth knights who took the advantage and
charged in to destroy both Roman elements.
On the right flank two elements of Gepids were detached
to deal with the delaying Roman light horse while the rest
advanced towards the flank and rear of the enemy line.
Because of Ellak’s losses, we decided to pull back the Hun
light horse and reform them in front of the Roman legionaries.
The Ostrogoths were themselves now taking losses, Walamir
was killed, but luckily not demoralising his command. Now
was the time for Attila’s command to charge into the
remaining Roman line, which resulted in losses to both sides.
By now the 3 hours were almost up.
The Romans revealed an ambush in the rough going, but
these troops were too far away to do any good. In the very last
turn Attila’s warband flanked and destroyed several Roman
clibanarii elements, while Attila himself flanked and helped
destroy a final enemy light horse element. These final losses
were enough to demoralise the 2”” and 3ti Roman commands,
and with the losses to the ls command the ‘magic figure of
50% was reached and the army demoralised. A 10-O victory to
the Huns, but Ellak’s and Walamir’s commands were both just
one element short of being demoralised. So it was a close
thing and with a shake of hands and a slight smile on our faces
we retired for lunch. We had survived and won our first
competition game.
Game 2: Hsiung-Nu
Our second game was against Mark Clarke (from
Alumwell) with a Hsiung-Nu army. We were the invader and
chose to advance down a road. Mark placed 2 gentle hills and
2 areas of rough going.
The Hsiung-Nu army consisted of 3 on table commands.
The C-in-C with 4 elements of Noble cavalry and 8 Superior
horse archer elements. Next came a Sub-general with 12
Superior horse archer elements and 3 Fast horse archer
elements plus a few elements of Horde. The third command
was a Ch’iang ally with 12 elements of armoured infantry [as
Ax(S)], 6 of unarmoured infantry [as Ax(O)] and a few
skirmishing archers and Fast light horse. The Ch’iang ally was
set up facing the large area of rough going with the sub
general to their left flank, and the C-in-C behind. A quick add
up of the enemy’s troops told us there was the possibility of
either a large ambush or a flank march.
The warband of Attila’s command was set up facing the
enemy camp and just clear of the rough area, with their light
horse behind. Ellak’s Huns were on their right flank and behind
his left flank was King Ardaric’s Gepids. Walamir’s Ostrogoths
were on the left flank, the bows facing the rough going, with
the knights to their left rear. Our plan was for Attila, Ellak and
Walamir to advance rapidly and, once clear of the areas of
rough going, the warband were to advance towards the enemy
camp whilst Walamir and Attila’s light horse attacked the

Ch’iang ally. Ellak was to advance as far as possible to
attempt to draw the enemy away from the centre. King Ardaric
remained in reserve to add his strength wherever needed.
-NU
Things started to go wrong from the first dice roll; Walamir
decided he did not like the plan when a 1 was rolled for his
command. Attila’s command was no better advancing forward
‘rapidly’ at a slow snail’s pace, while Ellak charged forward
with great enthusiasm. The Hsiung-Nu C-in-C and Sub-
general started to deploy to their left to face the oncoming
Huns. Their Ch’iang ally advanced rapidly towards the rough
terrain and they advanced so far forward that Walamir’s
uncommitted troops were now unable to move forward. The
Franks and Thuringians were still slowly dragging their feet
forward. Ellak had advanced as far forward as possible and
was now unable to advance any further without the risk of
being oufflanked.
The Hsiung-Nu flank march scored a 6 and was due to
arrive in their next bound on our left flank. Luckily Walamir
now decided to join in the battle, wheeling to face the threat.
The bows moved forward to bring the Ch’iang auxilia, who
were now in the rough going, into range of their bows. Some of
these were now getting into a position to threaten Attila’s
warband’s left flank. I decided it was now time for King Ardaric
to advance and help close the gap between Attila’s and Ellak’s
commands as well as giving closer support to Ellak. Derek
disagreed and was concerned about events on the left flank,
but I ignored his concerns and as C-in-C I ordered him forward
(oh what a mistake!).
Walamir’s knights now crashed into the enemy light horse
that had arrived on the left flank, destroying one, fleeing
another off the board and pushing back the others. The
Ostrogoths bows were beginning to cause problems for the
enemy foot troops that were moving through the rough going.
Things were beginning to look up. On the right flank both
sides just faced each other, both unwilling to advance into
contact, but trying to manoeuvre into an advantageous
position. The Hun light horse in Attila’s command were sent to
help the Ostrogoth’s left flank where some enemy light horse
from the flank march were now threatening the Ostrogoth’s
bows which re-deployed to face this new threat.
Some enemy infantry were now beginning to leave the
rough going and were within contact distance of Attila’s
warband which were detached from the line and turned to face
the emerging auxilia. By now the enemy light horse had ridden
down some of the Ostmgoth bows and killed one of the
knights which unfortunately caused the command to became
demoralised. Attila’s Huns became trapped between the
fleeing bows and the enemy light horse, which the enemy took
advantage of with the end result of two Hun light horse
elements being destroyed. Walamir was surrounded and
ended up dying for the third time in three games (unlucky
chap, I have now retired his element). The enemy auxilia soon
§hgsfjot - fswe 210
dispatched the warband facing them. Oh how I wished I had
taken notice of Derek, and moved King Ardaric to the left flank
(I’m sure I heard a muttered “Told you so”!!). We tried to
redeploy but it was too late. The enemy auxilia and light horse
were rapidly destroying our war-band. In the dying bounds
Ellak charged forward with the hope of ending the battle with
some small victory, the enemy line counter attacked, and the
fight ended with neither side having the advantage. With the
increasing losses to the warband, Attila’s command became
demoralised, and with them the whole army. A 10-O well
deserved win to Mark and his Hsiung-Nu army.
Conclusions
And so ended our first taste of competition gaming. Our
concerns about fighting a “must win” or “a rules lawyer” player
proved to be totally groundless, our knowledge or the rules
held up quite well, and all three of us enjoyed ourselves
completely. If I were to have any complaint it would be I was
unable to see much of the other games or armies on show
because we were so engrossed in our own games. Work
permitting I’m sure we will all be at next year’s competition
and maybe one or two of the other competitions. If you have
often thought that maybe you would like to try competition
gaming but were put off like me, try it. I’m sure you will not be
disappointed. All three of us would like to pass on our thanks
to Adrian Garbett for all his hard work in organising the show,
to Stuart Whigham for partnering Robert, and to Eddie and
Mark for two good games played in an excellent sprit.
If anyone lives in the Essex area (Southend-on-Sea) and
fancies taking on my Huns (or for any game), please do
contact me at Barry.Harman@virgin.net, or telephone on
01702 305882. I can also recommend the book Attila, King of
the Huns by Patrick Howarth (ISBN 0 09 475490 X) for
anyone who is interested in the life of Attila.
A Son’s view on the competition
Robert Harman
It all started when my dad and I were playing a wargame
against my uncle and my dad’s friend. My dad was talking to
my uncle about the competition and I asked if I could come.
After many days of nagging my dad said ‘yes’. At first I was a
bit worried about making mistakes while I was there and it
being too competitive for me. I was thinking of not going, then
I decided that I was going to go and enjoy myself whatever
happens. Adrian wrote a letter to us to say he had paired me
with Stuart Whigham, who was going to use the Early
Crusader army. Before the competition I played with the
Crusaders and beat my Dad and my uncle 10-O who were
playing with their Hun army that they were taking to the
competition. I was amazed!
The day had arrived for us to leave so we set off looking
forward to the Competition. It was a long drive up but we got
there finally and we went out for dinner. When we got back
they all settled down to a quiet evening, me on the other hand
reading the rulebook because I was not sure on the rules (I
didn’t want to look like a fool).
We got to the competition and that’s when I met Stuart
(he’s a great guy!). Our army consisted of mostly of Knights,
Spears, Hordes and Psiloi. For our first battle we were fighting
the Hussite army. We began to set up. Stuart gave me the C-
in-C’s command. I was worried about getting everything
wrong and losing the C-in-C. We were on a very small table
and it was very difficult to set up the army. Our plan was to let
them come to us. I was very pleased when my Crusader
knight’s performance and Stuart’s flank march demoralised
their command. What happened was that first of all I charged
my Crusader knights (Fast Knights) into the enemy’s knights
and then Stuart’s flank march came on and most of their
command fled away from the table edge to behind their
9
§hgsfiot-Issue210
knights. I killed some of these and made others recoil onto
their own troops. The next turn Stuart advanced onto the
remaining elements. From then on it went down hill. My
knights went spontaneous and went straight into a lot of
war-wagons (it was the first time I have ever come across
war-wagons). When I looked at the rules, knights were
destroyed by war-wagons but it was too late as my knights had
gone spontaneously into them. Worst came to worst and I lost
the C-in-C. Stuart didn’t seem to mind, he just said it didn’t
matter as long as I’m enjoying it. The middle command
started to crumble when the enemy charged his war-wagons
and Blades into our centre but we just about held. By the end
of the game our flank march was nearly halved and my
command was demoralised and was on the run! In the end we
lost 6-4 but we didn’t mind.
The second game was really fun. We played Stuart’s friend
Roy who was using the Knights of St. John. This time it was a
big table and we thought we were going to win because we
had lots of fast troops. Then we set the terrain up and Roy put
a huge river across the table. We set up our troops and it
looked to be a long game, since Roy had put his bowmen on
the edge of the river. We tried the river on either side and it
was dangerous so we then tried in the middle section and that
was easy. So we tried charging our spearmen across the river,
hoping to outnumber him and break through. They did not
make it in time because they were too slow. There was not
much time left so Roy moved troops into the gap to help hold
off the spearmen for a few bounds. His bows held the two
flanks of our centre command up and broke the line, so we
had to use more PIPS. I thought it was a good set up from Roy
and it seemed to work very well. Roy was playing a defensive
game because he knew he could not kill us face to face. We
on the other hand knew we could beat him if we could get
across the river and into his troops quickly. There was not that
much hand to hand fighting until the end when Roy’s Superior
knights charged across the river into my command of Fast
knights. When he started to charge I quickly moved my
knights into two lines, one behind the other, with a gap in
between. I also moved my hordes as close to Roy’s flank as
possible so I could try to outflank him. It was even losses on
both sides. Our centre did not punch a hole like it was meant
to, and our side commands could not get on the enemy’s
flanks because of the river. It was a great battle but in the end
we drew 5-5. We had so much fun playing against Roy (he
was a good laugh), and this time I didn’t lose my C-in-C.
Overall the weekend was fantastic, totally unbelievable
(and I’m not just saying that), I learned so much from the
weekend and had fun doing it. Now I can fight my Dad with
some of the tactics I saw people using. If there is anyone who
wants to go in for the competition and is not sure, all I can say
is it’s great and well worth it. You won’t know how good it is
until you go! I would just like to say ‘Thank You’ to Stuart for
letting me be his team-mate and all the people we played. A
special ‘Thank You’ goes to Adrian Garbett for organising the
competition, I’m hoping to go next time and hope to see you
all there next year!
HUNS 2 -THE STORY CONllNUES
Derek Harman
As our car arrived at The Gala Leisure Centre, we got our first
sighting of a large gathering of wargamers and, if only to my
novice-player eyes, they looked serious and disconcertingly
experienced as they casually acknowledged each other and
carried, with the ease of game-hardened veterans, their cases
or box-files of model armies, their thermos flasks, sandwiches
and, of course, their packs of what I immediately knew to be
comprehensive collections of army lists and note-crammed
DBM books. Watching them cluster together and move toward
the venue, I thought, “Well, DBA this time last year and DBM
10
today”. I remembered how, many years ago, my younger
brother and I had played our childhood games of ‘soldiers’ on
a dark red dining cloth with a complex, but convenient pattern
of inter-locking squares and curving trails and how the now
long-forgotten rules for those inventive games had been so
involved and complicated that only he and I could understand
what allowed our tabletop and plastic-figured battles to
progress. We rarely finished a full game because, and always
far too soon, came the words, “I want that table laid for dinner
and I want it laid NOW!“.
However, having parked the car, we found the competition
hall (and the well-organised Adrian Ciarbett) and were
welcomed into a friendly atmosphere - albeit edged with the
wit of teasing or obvious banter - and, as we registered
ourselves and shared grins at attending our first wargamer
competition, I found myself glancing around at the other
teams and wondering what ‘the plural’ might be for a gathering
of wargamers - with my own weak offerings being an
‘Alliance’, a ‘Rabble’, a ‘Multitudinis’?
Because one of us has an unfortunate reputation for getting
a lowly 1 on the dice when really needing a game-saving roll
of 6 (er, yes, okay; it’s me) my brother, my nephew and I had
given ourselves the jokey name of The One-on-the-dice Team
and, as we waited for the allocation of tables, I rolled a few dice
to test my luck and wasted several 6’s. And then, with very
little ceremony (but a hearty good-luck and thumbs-up to my
nephew who had been teamed with a genial fellow on the table
next to our own), opposing players cheerfully introduced
themselves and began to set up for the first of their two games,
the dice began to roll, the measuring sticks and tapes came
into play, the C-in-C’s and Sub-generals and game-matched
armies began to move and deploy and the concentration
deepened as the preoccupying detail of rough or difficult
terrain and frontal or flanking combat turned a three-hour
game into what, later, felt like only an hour-and-a-half, at
most. This shortening of time is something I had first noticed
when playing my learner DBA games and then more so as I
had graduated, partnering my brother or one of his wargaming
friends, toward the more demanding DBM game. Often, in the
early days, I only had a broad idea of what was happening,
except in knowing I had lost (yet again !) most of my bows to
light horse, that my flank had crumbled to rampaging warband
or that elephants can be a pain in the rear. And well I recall the
earnest discussions that usually left me somewhat baffled by
such phrases (here deliberately misrepresented) as, “.. . .but
the inferior bows would be minus-one in rough-going if in
front-edge contact with superior cavalry with the wind to the
North or within a base-depth of the irregular auxilia before the
expendable psiloi could pass through the recoiling blades, etc.
etc ..,” and it was during one such post-game analysis I
cheerfully agreed to the jaunt of a wargaming weekend and
this led to many a lunch-hour in a local cafe studying a DBM
book and discovering how to manoeuvre, use the terrain and
what caused an element to be destroyed or recoil or flee.
And so, as we played our two scheduled games, I was
pleased to realise I understood almost everything on the table
and managed to support my brother’s cunning, calculated or
dice-lucky play and, as the competition came to an end, The
One-on-the-Dice Team had won a game and lost a game,
though the latter could have been a draw Possibly, had we not
squeezed two more bounds into under fifteen minutes...
.. ..and. finally, came the pleasure of seeing my brother,
who had laboured hard to paint his Hunnic Army in only six
weeks, collect an award for “Best Army Piayed In The Best
Spirit” plus the satisfied and ‘well-played’ smile of
my 14 year old nephew Robert over his two games
(a draw and a loss) and, in particular, his dogged
combat against an anny of knights and..... It Had All
Been Excellent Fun.
 §hgsfjot-Issue210

SKtRMlSH‘99 RESULTS
AdrianGarbett

n3
here was an increase in the number of 15mm Doubles What really impressed me in both competitions was the
tteams from last year and a late rush (more an amble range of armies, to see Ancient Spanish coming top in one
\ ’ really) for 25mm places so the day can reasonably be and second in another competition is very rare but is in
reckoned a success methinks. The table sizes foxed a few keeping with the spirit of the Skirmish. Several competitors
people as we had a couple each of 2.5x5 foot and 5x7 foot said they would not use these armies in a “proper”
tables, but this just seemed to add to the challenge (and competition but seeing them in action one has to wonder why
umpire’s quick thinking). not?
The 15mm competition was again a close run thing only The prize giving is always the best bit for me (I know it is
decided by the extra Victory Points given for enemy Generals all over for another 12 months!) and I would like to
killed and percentages destroyed (although this did not help congratulate the following not noted above.
teams winning quickly - serves them right for showing off). So The Hero of Tomorrow (Youngest Competitor) - went to
a quick run down of the miscreants: Joshua Wheeler (11 years old), he received a Redoubt
Miniatures kii of a Mycenean hero in his chariot.
Place Names I Army The Trophy with No Name (Lowest Placed SOA Team) -
1 Duckworth d Green Rus & Pecheneqs went to Brad and Carl who hit the big ‘0’ with relative ease.
2. Webb & Rimmer Ancient Spanish Player of the Day - this is very subjective as I choose this
one; it went to Paul Edwards who had spent days creating
2. Rush & Watts A/ant some excellent sand dunes only to attack in both games, and
3= Mark? Hsiuns Nu it wasn’t even his army. He kept up a stream of one-liners of a
3=-- 1 Green 8, Leech 1Serbian Empire I highly amusing if base nature that had me laughing all day.
Christian Nubian Best Baggage - was a small temple with accompanying
vignettes (a type of salad dressing I think) in the Egyptian
5= j Nicholls & Whitworth I Eat-IvI /mDeria/ Roman
I
army used by the Wheelers (painted by Phil Baxter).
5. Mason & Golay Hussite Best Terrain - a beautiful rendition of the Uffington White
5- Reed d Criqhton Komnenan Byzantine Horse forming a H(G) caught my eye even though it was in
6 Glew & Saunders Seleucid the Alan army of Rush and Watts.
Best Army - the Huns of Harman & Harman won the day
7- Green 6, freeman White Hun
here, it looked like a real Hun army (is it OK to say ‘real’?).
Nemesis Award (For the most enemy generals killed) -
went to the marauding head-hunting Alans of Rush and Watts.
Best Dressed Team - only two teams were daft enough to
dress up, the 15mm winners came as ‘Men in Black’ complete
with shades. What this had to do with a Rus army is anybody’s
guess but they looked so scary I didn’t dare ask. The winners
I1 Whigham & Harman Early Crusader were Chris Ager and Graham Sargeant who raided grandad’s
129 Dale b Procter Konstantinian Byzantine wardrobe for nightshirts and the airing cupboard for the
12. Glow E) L. Imp. Eastern Roman turbans to present themselves as unlikely Arabs in their
Crusader army. They received a voucher entitling them to a
I3 Rogers b Elks Dublin Viking professionally painted 15mm command group or 25mm
I4 Glew 0’) Deja personality each.
1S- I
Saraeant
J
b Aaer
J I
&at-Iv I
Crusader I am still surprised how relatively easy it is to run a one day
IS= Murphv , & Kohler Earlv Tans Chinese competition, it is hard work sure but by keeping things as
I I r +
I
simple as possible and being flexible you can have an
Brad & Carl (surnames
’6 witheld!)
Later Carthaginian enjoyable time even if not playing. Having a couple of
I dedicated people assisting is a must on the day even if only to
The 25mm competition nearly did not happen but I had 4 keep eager garners off while you calculate results. I was lucky
entries in 48 hours which saved it from cancellation. Thanks to to have Simon Clarke umpiring and Stuart Orford doing a
all those who lugged the big uns into battle. This part of the jack-of-all-trades impression, many thanks to them and
competition left me with an enduring image as I watched Sue commiseration’s to Roger Gregory who had work
Laflin sellotaping toy ravens (in honour of Odin) onto Phil commitments on the day.
Barker’s shoulders in a vain attempt to win ‘Best Dressed This year I am moving away from the ‘head-on’ DBM
Team’, wargamers can be really strange sometimes. Anyway, format and plan a themed one day mini-campaign featuring
here are the 25mm results: teams with DBA armies fighting to protect or invade the late
Roman Empire. The event will take place at Sandwell
IPlace 1 Pk yeds I Army I Skirmish on 4” November and details will follow in SIingshd
I Ian Speed Ancient Spanish There will be a second Society event in the Midlands on 24*
September at Aston Villa Leisure Centre using a DBM 200AP
29 Phil Baxter Anglo-Norman format and three battles in a day (thanks to Sue Laflin for the
suggestion). Contact Adrian Garbett, at 119 Bank Street,
Brierley Hill, West Midlands, DY5 3DB or via E-mail
lopthar@cableinet.co.uk for further details.
Finally thanks for the kind comments and
support from all those who took part, see you later.
5 Chris Kinnear Sargonid Assyrian

11
§huptjot-Issue210

AT THECNDSOFEMPUtt - ALEXANDER’SBACTRIANWAR
Fbbbl
ba+ouHall

ri!!i!B
(
That I intend to do in this article, is to illustrate the
operations of the Macedonian Army in the eastern
satrapies of the former Persian Empire during 329-328
armoured cavalry that utilized both partially armoured horses
and heavily an-noured riders. The bulk, would be light horse,
both bow and especially the Bactrians, javelin armed.
BC. It is not a campaign narrative, for that I refer the reader to We should remember that the Macedonian army had long
both Fuller4 and Bosworth,’ more a discussion of Alexander’s experience of fighting this type of enemy. As long ago as 339
command and control, his logistics and the performance of his BC, Philip had fought a very successful campaign against the
subordinates. European Scythians, whilst many of the troops would have
participated in Alexander’s Danube campaign when the Ghetae
The Area and *ks History were defeated. Obviously most of the troops involved had also
The original inhabitants of Central Asia were descendants of the fought at Gaugamela. The tribesmen’s classic tact&z of swarms
sedentary cattle breeding tribes. During the 8’r’ and 7* centuries of light horse backed with heavy cavalry had been encountered
across the whole of Central Asia and South Russia, there was a before and convincingly defeated. The army’s expertise was
movement towards a more Nomadic way of life. Eventually, obviously high. Alexander‘s use of archers has been overlooked,
larger confederations developed based on a clan or tribal but they were an integral part of his tactics.
structure. By the 6*century a class structure can be identified With the threat of beiig out-shot neutralised, (although a
amongst both the nomads and the more sedentary oasis discussion of the effectiveness of the type of bow carried by
dwellers. Some modem scholars argue that throughout the each side may be useful, remembering that Macedonian artillery
region, there was a series of ethnically related but distinctive gave them missile dominance) we need to examine the clash of
cultures. Archaeology has shown that some groups, for example the heavy cavalry. The dominance of the bow had led to the
the Massegetic associated settlement at Chink-Rabat had adoption of heavy armour to enable both man and horse to
evolved into a mix of farming and semi-nomadic cattle raising.* survive on the battlefield. This heavy equipment, whilst of
Persian expansion reached the lndus and Syr Darya benefit when facing archers is not necessarily ideal when facing
(Jaxartes) and brought them into conflict with the tribes of the a charging trooper who is trying to stick a xyston into your face.
area. Although literary evidence is inconclusive, there appear to Although, one can argue a case for the origins of the true
have been organised states in Central Asia. One school argues Cataphract at Gaugarnela, it is more likely that Massegetic
for urban civilisation along the major irrigation systems, another heavy cavalry relied on their traditional close quarter arms of
countering with a more pastoral system. axe and sword and not on the xyston or contus.
The Achaemenids reformed state taxation, improved The Companions will have retained their advantage in
communications and divided the area into satrapies. They combat - the use of the cavalry lance. Although Darius had
promoted urban growth and encouraged the use of nomadic certainly reequipped with a similar weapon, most of the men
tribesmen in the Persian army. Although small scale raiding who received it either died at Gaugarnela or will have lost it
undoubtedly continued from the steppe lands into the satrapies, making good their escape. Indeed the numbers available of this
on the whole the Achaemenid era was one of prosperity, growth elite heavy cavalry were quite small; Alexander probably had a
and co-existence. numerical advantage in this arm.
Many of Alexander’s campaigns were in the region between The main factor in favour of the Macedones was their
the Amu Darya (Oxus) and Syr Darya (Jaxartes) The latter river cohesion and experience. A veteran am-ry was facing herdsmen
is traditionally the boundary between the sedentary and or farmers. Against the bulk of the army they had no chance of
nomadic cultures and much of the river valleys had been victory; against small separate detachments the scales were
urbanized and fortified by the time of the Macedonian arrival. more balanced. provided Alexander kept his army concentrated
The area had developed following improvements in irrigation and maintained his communications he would win. How he
and systems were complex with dykes, terracing and dams. achieved this I shall examine later.
The oldest Chorasmian city is Kyuzeli-gir.3 Founded by the
5*century, it occupied an area of about 25 hectares. (This city The Macedonian Army
is too far north to be included ln Alexander’s sphere of The army, which fought ln the north, was signifkantly different
operations. He appears never to have pushed the boundary of from the one that crossed the Hellespont. Taking the Macedones
his empire north, to the Aral Sea, although he probably first, they had been substantially reinforced in 331 BC; I think the
dominated the area politically.) Cities such as this characterised heavy infantry now numbered 16,000, based on units of 2000.
the whole area, which was a mix of agricultural settlement, (the The cavalry had already been divided into the double troop
largest having defended citadels) and a stratified pastoral squadron and during the summer of 329 we see the use of the
culture. term Hipparchy when describing the Companions. At this date
Further north on the Jaxartes, the earliest urban centres date the Prodmmoi were still acting as individual units. Although it is
from between the 7’ and 5* centuries. The second largest site possible that the reorganisation was a reaction to new tactical
in Usrushana was Cyropolis. Identification is still not totally circumstances, personally I find it unlikely that the heavy cavalry
confirmed, but it may have been at &a-Tyube. Again there are was reorganised mid campaign. Therefore, the new &ucture
many remains of urban centers in the region. may date tiorn the death of Philotas in October 330 (or even
earlier to the arrival of the reinforcements in 331 BC.) With the
The Locals!!! loss of the Thessalians, Alexander needed a new heavy cavalry
Alexander’s army was going to have to face two differing forces. wing on his left and he reorganised the Companions to achieve
The inhabitants of the towns were obviously capable of this.
defending their homes and we should not overlook the The incorporation of Asiatics had already started, with the
possibility of ex-Achaemenid mercenary forces defending the use of 300 Lydian cavalry which arrived in 330 “armed in the
more important cities. The main military threat would be from Macedonian manner” (as well as 500 Greek cavalry, 130
the nomadic tribes. The best of the Massagetae’s cavalry was Thessalians, 2,600 Lydian infantry and 3,000 from Illyria. lt

12

must be mentioned that not all scholars accept these figures and
regard them with some suspicion). The Iranian Guard or Euacae
was already in existence, as was a unit of javelin-armed cavalry.
The employment of Scythian horse archers had commenced
before the capture of Persepolis although their employment may
not have continued in this campaign.
The new hipparchies are problematic. There is no equivalent
list to that at Gaugamela and there is dispute as to their
commanders. We can identify Hephaestion and Perdiccas.
Ptolemy (according to Curtius) had a hipparchy by the time of
the Hydaspes, as did Crater-us and possibly Demebius. (Quoted
by Anian, but not by Cur-bus. The unit he commanded at the
Hydaspes may have been Ptolemy’s.) Most of this information
comes from the Indian campaign so should be used with care. A
final note on the Hipparchies, many authors assume that they
had light cavalry incorporated. This mix of types in a single
formation is uncommon. The hipparchies were definitely in
existence before the widespread recruitment of Bactrian and
Sogdian cavalry, so during 329 they were comprised of lance-
armed cavalry, predominately Macedonian but with Asiatic
elements. I wonder if the lance-armed, Western Asiatic
reinforcements formed their own Hipparchies and Iranians
entered the Companions proper. I am drifting towards the idea
that there were only four Hipparchies, in early 329, almost
exclusively Macedonian but starting to integrate with Asiatics
(the Lydians for instance).
After the first year’s campaign (329) from the west came
another large batch of new troops that increased the number of
Asiatics in the army. Lycia and Syria both provided 500 cavalry
and 4,000 infantry, whilst Greek mercenaries added another
1,600 cavalry and 11,400 infantry.
Operations in 329 BC
We pick up the campaign at Drapsaca, following the crossing of
the Hindu Kush by the advance elements of the army. His early
crossing of the mountains had forestalled the widespread
devastation of the area by Bessus. The Bactrian cavalry went
home and Bessus was forced to retreat to the next natural
defence line, the Oxus. When the weather had improved
sufficiently, in spring, either late April or early May, the whole
army started the campaign proper by moving along the plains
and capturing both Aomus and Bactra.
Again Bessus thought he had earned a breathing space by
placing another obstacle, the kilometer wide Oxus, between
himself and Alexander. Alexander again demonstrated that
terrain and climate were no deterrent to how he wanted to fight
and continued his pursuit. Moving at night, he force marched a
column 42 miles and reached the Oxus. All the boats in the area
had been destroyed so the army made floats from tents and
cmsed over in 5 days. Unless this force carried these tents with
them, which in view of the speed achieved is possibly unlikely,
then the rest of the army soon caught up. Bessus paid for his
second mistake with hi lii and was betrayed by his followers.
Ptolemy was dispatched with a column and captured him.
The army acquired remounts from the area and advanced to
Maracanda. Following the Zerafshan east, the next objective was
the Jaxartes. A heavy attack by the locals on Macedonian
foraging teams led to prisoners beiig taken. The inevitable
counterattack followed. It involved a difficult attack uphill under
an arrow storm, one of which broke the king’s fibula. The
defenders were massacred, 22,000 losing their lives.
A new site for a city, probably at Khojend, was laid out and
built in 20 days. News was received of a general revolt. During
the advance to the Jaxartes, many cities had had small
garrisons installed. The larger cities were besieged, the smaller
ones in rebel hands. Craterus was dispatched to blockade
Cyropolis whilst Alexander stormed Gaza under covering fire
from his catapults. In 2 days, 5 of these mud walled cities were
§fiysfjot - Issue 210
stormed with the usual aftermath - all males killed and women
and children enslaved. Cyropolis was a tougher nut but it too
was taken with heavy casualties to the defenders. Alexander
received another nasty wound, this time to the throat and many
others were also hurt. The situation worsened when Spitamenes
trapped the garrison in Maracanda. A relief column was
dispatched consisting of 60 Companions, 800 mercenary
cavalry and 1,500 mercenary infantry. The closest threat was
the swarm of Scythians opposite Khojend who threatened to
cross the river. Fuller’s account is still the standard work and
should be referred &I.~ Not content with crossing rivers on tents,
they now did it in the face of the enemy. The only point I have to
add is that the army had already beaten this type of light horse
before and Alexander adapted existing tactics.
The victory was soon balanced by Spitamenes destruction of
the relief column. Four days and 185 miles later, Alexander
appeared outside the gates and Spitamenes disappeared into
the desert. The Macedonians devastated both this area and the
western Zerafshen (Polytimetus) watershed. Once Cratems had
arrived with the bulk of the army, Alexander retreated to Bactra
for .the winter. Here he was joined by the reinforcements
mentioned above.
The year 329 had been a tough one for the army. The
climate was unforgiving and difficult to operate in. On paper, it
seems that Alexander had achieved little at the end of it and that
the next year offered little other than chasing an elusive enemy
across the steppes. He probably real&d that victory was in his
grasp. A serious revolt had been crushed and the key area of the
central Jaxartes fortified, the Scythians had been given a
demonstration of Macedonian superiority and the field army had
remained intact. I think Spitamenes was probably more a
nuisance than a real threat, but Alexander was determined to
finish hi off.
Operations in 329 have several features of note. The actual
numbers of Macedones involved was probably the highest of all
his campaigns. During the year, they had suffered a year of
dangerous sieges and long marches but emerged intact. His
citizen soldiers had proved decisive both as assault troops and
as engineers (I know I’m slightly biased, but it was not the
Romans who invented the use of heavy infantry in the combat/
engineer role).
Opemtions in 328 BC
There had been a few problems in the command and structure
of the army however. The following year’s campaign was to be
in the north west, away from the two main river valleys.
Although Crater-us was a highly competent second in
command, the dispersed operations about to begii required an
improved and less central structure. Alexander had worked out
a solution to the nomads and started operations early in 328. He
had decided to split his forces and pacify Sogdiana once and for
all. He had already arranged a political settlement with
Pharasmanes, who ruled Chorasmia. No doubt this included the
exclusion of Spitamenes and had established fortified bases to
maintain control throughout the area. Polysperchon, Attalus,
Georgias and Meleager remained in Bacttia with their phalanx
brigades to secure the area whilst the rest of the army was
divided into columns. Although not mentioned at this point by
Anian, Bactria was probably under the overall command of
Craterus.
No doubt each of these columns, with the possible
exception of Coenus’s, was based around a Hippatchy (the
column commanders were Hephaestion, Ptolemy, Perdiccas,
Coenus and Artabazus and the king). The army fought its way
through the area and reunited at Maracanda. Hephaestion
organised the defense of the area and established settlements,
whilst Coenus acted as a forward screen. Spitamenes was
forced to flee to the Massagetae. Needing an early success he
§hgdjot - Issue 210
moved into Bactria, capturing a fort and raided up to Bactra in the army, it will make little difference if these two numbers are
where he destroyed a small mercenary force. Crater-us was in variable.
the area and he pursued the raiders. He caught them, along with The total number of troops is not greatly dissimilar to
a second band of Massagetae and forced them back into the Gaugamela and is confirmed by Hammon$ who quotes
desert. Later in the year, Spitamenes returned, only to be beaten 45,000. Obviously, the unit figures are the theoretical
with heavy loss by Coenus. Alexander raced up to cut them off. maximum. On campaign, they will have been far lower. I don’t
The tribesmen killed Spitamenes and surrendered. It was now claim the figures to be 100% accurate but I think they are not
late 328 and the army was dispersed into winter quarters. too wide of the mark.
The fighting in 328 was long and arduous and its difficulty is With there being so little hard evidence, much of this is just a
not really reflected in the sources. Alexander had been well personal view about Alexander’s army. I wouldn’t have to by
served by his commanders; Coenus in particular had had a very hard to produce different figures.
good year. The revolt had been broken with extreme ferocity in Composition wise, this gives us just under 14% cavalry. I’ve
places and no doubt the army had caused very heavy civilian not broken infantry totals down any further because of the lack
casualties. Much of the area had been devastated. The of information about garrison troops, but see below. A
foundations for growth had been established, with extensive comparison with Gaugamela gives us 41% heavy infantry
settlement and new cities protecting approach mutes. Alexander (phalanx and Allied Greeks) and 14% and 46% other infantry
had secured his borders by political means and by the whilst with the invasion army we have 40.5%, 14% and 45.5%
demonstration of military strength. A substantial garrison was respectively (rounded to the nearest 0.5 percent). The
established and heavy recruitment of local cavalry commenced. composition of the army appears to remain unaltered
throughout the campaigns. Classic case of if its not broken,
Supply, Command and Numbers don’t fix it. It is difficult to identify the correct classification of any
Before I attempt a discussion of the numbers of Alexander’s of Alexander’s infantry, i.e. who is heavy, medium or light.
army, we need to look at our sources. Both Arrian and Curtius Alexander may have been using some of his Greek mercenaries
can provide details of the reinforcements that arrived from the in the role of heavy infantry, Darius’s old troops for instance, a
West. We either accept that both accounts are substantially role inherited from the Allied Greeks (if indeed they were
correct or take the view that neither can be relied on to provide Hoplites.) of the pre Gaugamela army. If the lhracian numbers
accurate details about the reinforcements; and miniiise losses are inflated, there is no real change, as the mercenaries could
suffered by the army. I am going to attempt to detail the size and easily perform the same function. So it seems that for the army
composition of the army in 329 BC and will use the figures in to retain its shape and composition, then the numbers and type
Curtius and Anian to do this. of reinforcements quoted are accurate. There is another gukie to
The starting point for this is the numbers involved at the size of the anny. The army took five days to cross the
Gaugamela where we have the figures supplied by Ptolemy who Euphrates and camped for five days whilst crossing the Tigris.
states that the army had 40,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. In As they also took five days to cross the Oxus, we may infer a
his analysis of the battle, Mar&n5 offers a slightly differing similar size army.g
figure for the infantry (42,000) and a slightly higher one for the I think by this stage of the war, we may be seeing evidence
cavalry. By using the figures supplied by Engels and by of that phenomenon where heavy infantry become lighter and
studying both Arrian and Curtius, I wish to offer the following lights get heavier. As battlefield roles became less de&d,
composition for the army: Alexander’s infantry were becoming general-purpose
infantrymen, much as the distinction between Auxiliary and
l Cavalry Legionary became no more than a name in the Late Roman
Companions 2,300 Empire.
Prodromoi 600
Thracians 1,250 supplii
Lydiar 1s 300 Engels” has done most of the groundwork for any study of
Mercenaries 2,400 Alexander’s supply system. He, rightly in my opinion,
emphasises the necessity of strategy and tactics beiig
l Infantry secondary to the supply of the army. John Peddie” in his book
Phalanx 16,000 follows many of Engels’ ideas. Most People have a basic idea of
lhracians 10,500 Phillips and Alexander’s supply system. If pressed most people
Mercenaries 9,200 can state that the Macedonian army was a fast moving force
lllyrians 3,000 where everything was carried by the troops. Let’s examine the
Lydians 2,600 evidence and see if we can modify this slightly.
Agrianes l,ooo Philip reorganizing the army has a major problem in the cash
Cretan archers 500 flow area. He has reequipped with cheaper peltast equipment
Mat. archers 500 and is forced to continue his retbm-rs without immediate access
Total troops 50150 to funds. The army obviously needs a logistical tail: otherwise
his phalanx would disappear on second lie tasks. Obviously,
There are several points to note. These figures do not heavy bulky items such as tents etc need to be carried on a
include any battle casualties from Gaugamela onwards as mule with a servant. As Macedonia was not a slave-based
casualty figures are difficult to break down. Again Engels lists a society, these guys will have to be paid. Therefore, in order to
total of only 540.’ When calculating numbers post Ciaugamela, I save money, the infantry get to carry their own kit. Obviously
have not included the Allied Greeks or lhessalians who were this reduces the baggage train to a more manageable size and
disbanded in Media. Nor does it include the troops sent with the army has an increase in mobiii and a reduction in daily
Parmenio as escorts with the Persian gold reserves as these all grain and water requirements.
returned. I have assumed that the 14,600 troops detailed as We are fortunate that the size of the expedition was virtually
garrison troops were predominately mercenaries, although they the same in Bactria that it was at the start of the expedition.
could equally have been from the other expendable group the Engels” estimates the army at the Hellespont required 16,008
Thracians. As I suspect that both these troops had similar roles followers and 1,300 baggage animals for noncomestible

14

supplies i.e. tents, blankets etc. On top of this we have 1,121
animals to carry one day’s supply of grain whilst the daily water
and forage requirements for each animal is 8 gals and 201b
respectively. Each soldier had 301b of kit to carry plus his rations
(up to an absolute maximum of 801b.) With the basic minimum
of food being 31b a day, plus water, I find it unlikely that the
troops carried much more than 10 days supplies with them.r3
By the time the army reached Iran, the baggage train had
begun to reach an impossible size. Carts had begun to be used,
a feature unknown under Philip and in the early stages of the
war, so Alexander forbade their use and had them burnt.
Obviously he was trying to regain mobility. He was fighting a
losing battle, as the size of the tail continued to grow. There were
increasing numbers of women and children, the an-ny was now
the centre of government and the whole entourage of the court.
Engels estimates that the ratio of soldiers to followers was 3:2,14
so we are looking at some 30-35,000 civilians by this stage but
he accepts that this is probably a low estimate. Luckily, apart
from the crossing of the Hindu Kush, the campaign was fought
in a productive region and we hear of no problems in collecting
supplies. Alexander escaped the confines of his supply system
by taking his best units and striking out in forced marches. He
modified his father’s system by applying it to only part of his
army. Difficult terrain and supply shortages were overcome by
forced marches. His march rates have caused the odd raised
eyebrow, but only his most mobile units accomplished these.
The maximum distance achieved by the whole army appears to
have been only 19 miles in a day, with the average between lo-
15.15
There is another question to be asked. Did the Macedonian
army build a fortified camp at the end of each day? There
appears to no doubt that the army did encamp each night, but
whether this camp was the same as the classic Roman
Marching camp is a harder problem to solve. The Macedone
infantry may have carried stakes for a palisade. There was a
camp constructed before Gaugamela, but this may be atypical
as the enemy was in the vicinity and a camp was certainly used
when Alexander was founding the settlement at Khojend. Indeed
its walls were said to be the same circumference as the army’s
camp (5.5 miles).
If the army did build a camp at the end of each day, then we
should expect a similar order of march and sequence of
construction as in the Roman Army. John Peddie has an
excellent account of this.r6 Luckily for me, much of this is based
on the Gallic War and a Roman force of 45,000 men. The
column has a length of 22.5 miles and covers a distance of 10
miles. Including the construction of the camp it takes 12 hours
for the tail to finish its march and be in the camp.
The Macedones were capable of the organisation and
construction of such a camp whether they required its protection
is another matter. Tactical problems in Asia were different to
those faced by the Imperial Romans, as was force composition i.
e. a smaller heavy infantry component. The advance scouting
he received was excellent, which coupled with the aggression of
his tactics meant that he was going to the enemy. Much of his
campaigning after Gaugamela seems to be little more than a
great chase after various guerilla leaders. The army’s total
dominance in all areas ensured that most of his opponents
locked themselves in their fortresses and hoped for the best.
I haven’t really found much evidence to support the idea that
the Macedones had a similar system to the Romans. The army
certainly had the expertise to build the camps if needed. Most
nights they were probably content with a palisade and sentries.
Condusions
This is my favourite campaign of Alexander’s. His abilities were
fully tested by a resourceful and committed enemy fighting for
their homeland. The flexibility of the army and its command
§fingsfiot - Issue 210
structure were subjected to a fluid mobile battlefield. The army
was predominantly an infantry one but one that was capable of
breaking free from its logistic train and striking quickly.
Comparisons with the destruction of Crassus by the
Parthians are not really valid as the campaign was fought over
different terrain. The aggression of his infantry ensured the
survival of the army, as they were always capable of taking
fortifications and thus having fortified bases to operate from.
The first year’s campaign is characterised by the central
control of the army by Alexander, as he operated in the river
valleys against urban areas and settlements. He was forced to
garrison much of the region and was vulnerable to the general
revolt, which erupted behind him. His Macedones in a stunning
display of aggression and mobility restored the situation. The
revolt was crushed with extreme ferocity and civilian casualties
were high. The army was forced to winter in Bactra at its supply
base.
One must observe that Alexander didn’t have enough troops
for the campaign. His strategy of establishing garrisons was the
correct one to deal with the raiders but depleted his field army.
The heavy reinforcements, which arrived in the winter of 329-8,
were badly needed.
Alexander’s political abilities were a feature of his conquests
and he sealed off the western end of the region by a treaty with
the local ruler. A city at Merv aided his control. The access that
the Polytimetus afforded was stopped when the region was
devastated. The raider’s mobility was halted, Coenus heavily
defeated a desperate raid by Spitamenes and the revolt ended.
Alexander seems to have been able to detach the local
Bactrians from both Spitamenes and Bessus, by basically
applying the stick and carrot. A heavy military presence ensured
protection and the establishment of urban growth promoted
prosperity. Undoubtedly, campaigning in a region that had lost
many of its best men at Gaugamela helped him.
Alexander was prepared to spend two years protecting and
improving the region. He laid the foundations of the Bactrian
kingdoms and intended it to be a bulwark for his united empire.
There must have been moments in 329 when a lesser man
could have walked away. The genius of the man is
demonstrated by his victory in two years, in an area that is larger
than Asia Minor. He owed his victory to his men, however. That
they were prepared to do it for him speaks volumes for his
personal qualities.
Footnotes
1. Fxgoz Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great
2. /-/k&y of Civikations of Central Asia . Vol 2. UNESCO.
p.30.
3. ibid p.446.
4. Fuller. The Generalship ofAlexander The Great
5. 7he campaign of Gaugamela Page38.
6. Alewander The Great and the Log&tics of the Macedonian
Amy.
7. Ibid Table 5. Page 148.
8. Hammond. 7he Genius ofAlexander The Great, Page 130.
9. Curtius 4.9 13. At the Euphrates. Also Arrian 3.8 . Engels
note 65 p.66 For Darius . For the Oxus Curtius 7.5.1.
10. Afader he Great and the Logistics of the Mkedwkn
Army.
11. The Roman War Machine. John Peddie.
12.Engels. Page 18.
13.Peddie. Page 50. Good discussion on how much
grain could be carried.
14. Engels Page 13.
15. Ibid Appendix 5, Table 7.
16. he Roman War Machine. Chapter 4.
15
§fingsfjot-Issue 210

THEl3ATTLEOFMtG1DDO- 1481 BC(A SCENARIOFORWHAB)

Andrew l3ishop
Bad<gmncJ deduced from the various primary and secondary sources. The

B -I
uring the period of the Egyptian New Kingdom, the scenario uses a troop scale of 5O:l (i.e. 50 men to each
Levant was a source of wealth and an important wargames figure or model). To refight the battle, the following
strategic and trading route for the major powers of the miniatures are needed: The Egyptians need 22 chariots, 30
period. The city states of Canaan and Syria were wealthy but chariot runners, 40 spearmen, 40 archers, 20 axemen, 20
were prone to incessant power struggles amongst themselves. Nubians and 20 Libyans. The Canaanite Allies need
Because of this they could not unite and become a power in 10 two-crew Syrian chariots, 18 Maryannu Canaanite
their own right and the Egyptian pharaohs subjugated the cities chariots, 30 chariot runners, 20 Syrian spearmen, 40
of Canaan and Syria in order to control the region. archers, 40 Canaanite hupshu, and 20 Canaanite
Perhaps encouraged by Mitanni, in 1481 BC a coalition of slingers.
Canaanite and Syrian cities rebelled against Egyptian rule led by
the kings of Qadesh and Megiddo. They planned to halt the I Canaanites I Points I
advance of the pharaoh, lhutmose Ill, as far south as possible
and therefore chose the city of Megiddo as their site for defence.
1 Qadesh Force I 1108 I Pharoah and Guard

I Megiddo Force 1 828 1

TheCampaign Canaanite Allied Force 738
Thutmose led his army, consisting of two divisions plus the
‘royal division’ into Canaan. The two main divisions of Amun TOTAL 2674
and P’Re both consisted of about 500 chariots and 5000
infantry, with the third division comprising the pharaoh’s royal
WHAD
division of chariotry.
M move
n
The Canaanites deployed their forces in a position of allowance
strength near the city of Megiddo, covering the likely WS = weapon
approaches that the Egyptians would take. Against the advice of skill
his generals, Thutmose led his army through the direct, but l3.S - ballistic
more dangerous route along the Aruna Road. This took ihe skill
army through a narrow pass in the mountains surrounding the S = strength
plain of Esdraelon. 1 toughness
n

Luckily for Thutrnose, the Canaanites did not expect hi to W = wounds

/ = initiative
take this course of action and did not prepare an ambush. He
A = no. of
had time to move his army through the pass and deploy before
attacks
the Canaanites acted and redeployed. Early the following
Ld - leadership
morning, the Egyptians charged the Canaanite army, which fled S. M b L = with
in panic towards Megiddo. Std. Mus’n Battle Plan
The battle was over almost before it began due to pharaoh’s and Leader showing deployment areas
bold tactics. The Canaanites fled abandoning their chariots
before the gates of Megiddo, which closed its gates upon part of
their army, who were abandoned to the Egyptians. The city Allied Canaanite States: 738 points
withstood a seven month siege before surrendering.
\M~wS~I~S~ s 1 J IwI l I A lLdlPts
lheWargamesScenati0 Allied Prince
The battle as it occurred historically does not present a very
Prince 4 5 5 4 4 3 6 3 9160
exciting wargames battle. For the purposes of our scenario, we
will assume that the Canaanites stayed and fought! The battle Two-Crew Chariot 8 4 4 3 4 1 4 2 8 38
will utilise the deployment of the opposing forces after the Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, thrusting - spear, light
Egyptians had moved through the pass, and prior to the armour, javelins, shield.
Egyptians’ initial charge.
Canaanite (allied) Chariots - in two units each S, M d L
Special rules for the Scenario are:
8 Maryannu Chariots 1814I413141’I412171310
l Forces are deployed in the deployment areas on the map.
l The Egyptians move first. Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, light armour,
composite bow.
l All hills are good going.
l The walls of Megiddo are an impassable obstacle.
Canaanite allied Chariot Runners
l The stream is fordable anywhere along its length, but is
difficult terrain for chariots. 10 Chariot Runners 1513 13 131311131’16150
l The Game lasts for six turns, or until one side is decisively Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, javelins.
defeated.
Special Rules: Light infantry, Chariot Runners.

Forces are taken from the ‘New Kingdom Egyptian’ and the Slingers
Syrian and Canaanite troop types from the ‘Hittite Empire’ army 20 Canaanite slingers 151213131311131115180
lists from the ‘Chariot Wars’ supplement for Warhammer
Ancient Battles (WHAB). Troop types and special rules from Equipment: Slingers armed with hand weapon, sling.
those lists apply for the scenario. The composition of forces is Special Rules: Slingers are skirmishers.

16
 §fingsfjot - I55ue 210

Pharaoh and Royal Guard: 465 points King of Qadesh’s Force: 1108 points
MIW~BSISITIWI I IAILd$ts IM~WS~BS~S]T~W~ I I~lLdlRt~
Phoroah (Army General) King of Qadesh (Army General)
Thutmose III 4 5 5 4 3 3 6 i- 10 160 Prince 4 5 5 4 4 3 6 3 9 160

Light Chariot 84434142840 Two-Crew Chariot 8 4 4 3 4 1 4 2 8 38

Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, light armour, Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, thrusting spear, light
composite bow, javelins, shield. armour, javelins, shield.
Special Rules: Army General. Special Rules: Army general.

Army Standard
Army Standard Bearer
Army Standard 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 2 8 73
Army Standard 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 2 8 80
Two-Crew Chariot 8 4 4 3 4 1 4 2 8 38
Light Chariot 8 4 4 3 4 1 4 2 8 40
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon. thrusting spear, light
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, light armour, armour, javelins. shield.
composite bow, javelins, shield. . -
Special Rules: Army Standard.
Special Rules: Army standard.

Syrian
, (Qadesh) Chariots - in two units each S, M b L
Royal Chariotry - unit S, M d L
187wo-CrewChariot 181 4 14 13141 1141218 13341
4 Light Chariots 18 14 14 13 I4 1 1 I4 12 I8 1175
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, thrusting spear light
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon. liaht armour. armour, javelins, shield.
co’mlksite bow, javelins, shield. ’ d
Special Rules: may shoot when charging. Syrian Chariot Runners
10 Chariot Runners 151313131311IJI116160
Chariot Runners Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, javelins, shield.
IO Chariot Runners] 4 1 3 1 3 I 3 I 3 I I I 3 1 I 1 7 170 Special Rules: Light infantry, Chariot Runners.
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, javelins, shield.
Special Rules: Light infantry, Chariot Runners.
Infantry - Spearmen. Archers and Hupshu in units of 20.
each S, %\ b’L

Amun Division: 1055 points

MlWqBSl S 1 T 1 WI / 1 A ILdpts
Briaade
.e
Commander
Brigade spha’r# shield. ‘Bowmen armed with hand weapon and
Commander 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 2 8 70 composite bow. Syrian Hupshu armed with mixed weapons.
Light Chariot 84434142840 Special Rules: Syrian Hupshu are light infantry.
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, liht armour.
co’mbsite bow, javelins, shield. ’ * King of Megiddo’s Force: 828 points
Chariots - in two units each S, M b L IMlwSlBSlSl~lwl I lAILdlRts
.
8 Light Chariot 18 I4 I4 I3 I4 1 1 I4 I2 18 p50 King of Megiddo
tquipment: Armed with hand weapon, light armour. Prince 4 5 5 4 4 3 6 3 9 160
composite bow, javelins, shield.
Two-Crew Chariot 8 4 4 3 4 1 4 2 8 38
Chariot Runners Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, thrusting spear, light
IO Chariot Runners1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 I 3 I I I 3 I I I 7 170 armour, javelins, shield.

Equipment: Armed with hand weapon. javelins, shield. Canaanite (Megiddo) Chariots - in two units each S. M d L
Special Rules: Light infantry, Chariot Runners.
8 Maryannu Chariots ~8~4~4~3~4~1~4~2~7~310
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, light armour.
Infantry - archer. spearman and axemen units each S, M 8, L
composite bow.

Canaanite Chariot Runners

10 Chariot Runners 15131313131ll3lll6lSO
Equipment: Armed with hand weapon, javelins.
Special Rules: Light infantry@ Chariot Runners.

Infantry - Spearmen. Archers and HUD&U

, in units of 20.
each S, ‘M &‘L
Equipment Spearmen with hand weapon, throwing spear. shield. 20 Archers 4 2 3 3 3 112 1 6 135
Axemen with two handed weapon, shield, Ii ht armour. Bowmen 20 Syrian Hupshu 5 3 3 3 3 113 1 5 135
with hand weapon and composite bow. Nu d ions with hand
Equipment Bowmen armed with hand weapon and
weapon and short bow. Libyans with mixed weapons.
composite bow. Syrian Hupshu armed with mixed weapons.
Special Rules: Libyans are Light Infantry. subject to
warbands rules I d2. Nubians are skirmishers. Special Rules: Syrian Hupshu are light infantry.
 , ometime between AD 383 and 385, Publius Flavius
Vegetius Renatus, (referred to below as Vegetius), a
@-__I young man who hailed from either Spain or southern
France (the former being the more likely), wrote an “Epitome”
of military science. His purpose in doiig so was to gain a place
in the court of the eastern Roman emperor, Theodosius I, a
Spaniard who favoured his fellow westerners when making
appointments to administrative posts.
For much of his work, Vegetius relied upon the writings of
earlier authors on military matters either quoting them directly,
or, more probably, via the works of intermediary epitomists. It
should be understood that Vegetius was writing a literary work
and not a military treatise of practical value.’ However, in one
famous and much-quoted passage, 1:20, he expresses an
opinion of then contemporary military practice which seems to
be his own:
“From the founding of the City to the time of the deified
Gratian, the infantry army was equipped with both
cataphracts (metallic body annour) and helmets. But
upon the intervention of neglect and idleness field
exercises ceased, and an-ns which soldiers rarely donned
began to be thought heavy. So they then petitioned the
Emperor that they should hand in first the cataphracts,
then helmets. Thus with their chests and heads
unprotected our soldiers have often been destroyed in
engagements against the Goths through the multitude of
their archers. Even after so many defeats, which led to
the sacking of so many cities, no one has troubled to
restore either the cataphracts or helmets to the infantry.”
This is an important passage. It has been used by many military
historians of the modem era as evidence for the denuding of the
late Roman army of its armour. This, in turn has been used by
some, for example Arthur Fenill, as an indication of the decline
in Roman military prowess:
“If there is some exaggeration in this passage, as
perhaps there is. what we know about actual combat in
the early fifth century nevertheless confirms the general
picture.“2
What follows is a brief survey of the physical evidence from the
late fourth century - surviving depictions of Roman soldiers and
military artefacts - against Vegetius’ assertion. I make no claims
for this beiig an exhaustive survey, far from it, and will be only
too happy if anyone can make a contribution, stating sources, of
their own.
I do not expect to find much in the way of evidence to either
support or reject Vegetius’ claims. This is because few fourth
century Roman military artefacts survive today and because, to
be relevant, the evidence has to fit into a small window of time:
“the time of the deified Ciratian”.
This phrase is a rhetorical device rather than one of
chronological exactitude. For Vegetius and his immediate
audience, there was no fixed period for the time of Gratian. If
pressed, they might “plump” for after the death of Valentinian I
in November 375, or perhaps that of Valens in August 378,
somewhere about then. And when did it end? Either on the
accession of lheodosius I in January 379 or on Gratian’s
murder in August 383, depending upon whether the subject
under discussion was good or bad and how it reflected upon the
Theodosian dynasty.
Before discussing the depiction of Roman soldiers, it should
be made clear that the Romans of any era did not paint or sculpt
their soldiery as a guide to the military’s appearance for future
generations - there was no Roman equivalent of Montvert or
18
Osprey! As a patron, the Roman soldier, whether the most
impressive of Impemtors or mediocre of miles, had his own
opinions, which he was not slow to impart, and they reflected his
beliefs, status and times; he would wish to ensure that they were
reflected in the manner and medium of his depiction.
Finally, I should declare my debt to the work of Dr J.C.N.
Coulston, especially: “Later Roman Armour, 3ti to 6’h Centuries”
in humal ofRoman Militag Equipment Studies Vdwne I,1990
pp.139- 160, and to M.C. Bishop, Rcman Mihy Equm
Batsford, 1993. However, I alone must accept responsibiii for
many of the conclusions expressed below.
Only a few memorial stones survive from the late fourth
century and as they cannot be dated to individual decades
withii that century, they cannot be used to test Vegetius’
accuracy. Many of these stones follow the artistic convention of
portraying the dead soldier in his tunic, with his weapons and,
perhaps, his helmet, but not his body armour. As this type of
memorial follows a tradition which can be traced back to the l*
century AD, this is a second reason why these memorial stones
cannot be used to test Vegetius 1:20.
Soldiers might wish to be sculpted without their body armour
for any number of reasons; two which readily suggest
themselves are, firstly, it was cheaper than having to pay a
mason to engrave armour-markings all over the torso of your
image, and, secondly, what the stone’s purchaser, whether the
soldier himself, or one of his family or friends, wished the viewer
to see was not a rough tough soldier dressed in his armour ready
to (literally) kill; but, rather, someone with the status of beiig a
soldier dressed in his finest, ready to ‘kill’, socially.
The sculpted stone was probably painted as were most, if
not all, sculpted works in antiquity. The subject was presented to
look his best, with his hair darker and waist narrower than they
had been for some time. And in a world in which clothing,
especially high quality clothing denoted high social status, the
stone’s purchaser may, have ensured that the sculpted tunic
was painted to match the colour and decorations of the
deceased’s costliest and favourite tunic, bought from new, in
which he had swanked about town on high days and holidays
evoking admiration, envy and perhaps a little fear and loathing
from the civilians about him.
As the memorial stone was to the ordinary soldier, so the
triumphal monument was to the emperor the ultimate form of
memorialisation designed to show him at his very best and as
he would wish to be seen at the moment of his greatest
triumphs. Michael McCormick has written of these monuments:
“Among the most eloquent witnesses to the privileged
position of the victory ideology in the conceptual
underpinnings of the empire are the various monuments
which publicised and eternalised the victorious
accomplishments of the princes. The several hundred
triumphal arches erected under the empire offer the most
obvious illustration of that point.3
These monuments included panels depicting the soldiers of the
triumphant emperor and might be used to compare their
images with Vegetius’ images. Unfortunately this is not possible
for two reasons. Fitly, no arch has survived from the time
between the reigns of Constantine I and Theodosius I. Secondly,
even if such monuments had survived, it is far from certain that
an arch or column erected to glorify Constantius Ii or Valentinlan
I would have been a useful guide to late 4’ century Roman
infantry equipment. As Coulston has remarked:
“The Arch of Constantine in Rome has close affiniies
with the Tetrachic works. Its pedestal reliefs likewise

show soldiers, often standard-bearers, in Attic helmets,
muscled cuirasses and ‘pteryges’...However, the
Constantinian friezes differ from their predecessors in
having most, if not all the unarmoured figures also
wearing Attic crested helmets...“.4
Coulston believes that this arch was a rush job on which the
materials of other buildings were used as spoil, with much of the
new sculpting beiig performed by sarcophagus sculptors who
combined the unarmoured soldier style with the traditional Attic
helmet and the 3ti century “predilection” for scale armour.
His views on the now demolished Column of Theodosius I
are equally depressing:
“the use of muscled cuirasses for soldiers on the
propaganda sculpture really took over on the Column of
Theodosius I (Istanbul), in the late 4* century. All the
soldiers in the surviving fragments are dressed in
contemporary long-sleeved tunics and carry large late
Roman style shields. However, they have muscled
cuirasses with pteruges and Attic helmets. They carry
their shields not by the practical central grip but by a
hand strap close to the rim. This is the classical hoplite
method beloved of Roman sc~lpture.“~
Vegetius’ “Epitome” was written in the time between the
erection of the arch and the Cokrmn. It lies rather closer, both in
time and its tone of ultra-conservatism to the Theodosian
monument. The Reader will recall that Theodosius I was the
emperor for whom Vegetius wrote.
whilst it is possible that both Constantius II and Valentinian I
would have eschewed this style and adopted a more realistic
approach to the sculptures on their monuments, what little is
known of these two men suggests that this is unlikely. Had they
survived, their monuments would have been adorned in the
same classicising style (though in the manner of different
phases of its development), as those of Constantine
lheodosius I. The same is probably true for any monuments
erected to glorify Gratian who seems to have been much more
enamoured of archery than art.
There are a few 4* century depictions of Roman infantrymen
which do not belong to either of the above categories: A painting
of a soldier in a tunic, bearing a spear and shield and wearing
what is possibly a gilded helmet embossed with eyes (an
“Intercisa” type helmet?), has been found in the Via Maria
Catacomb in Syracuse. The Via Latina Catacomb in Rome has a
painting of a pharaonic warrior in the guise of a 4’ century
Roman soldier, equipped with a mail cuirass with wrist-length
sleeves. He also has an oval shield and crested helmet (which is
very similar in shape to the helmet in the Via Maria Catacomb).
His armament consists of a long sword and two shafted
weapons. Similarly equipped “Pharaonic” warriors are also
depicted on the “Crossing the Red Sea” wall-painting at the site.
Soldiers in the 4* century Vergilius Vaticanus manuscript
wear metallic body armour with coifs instead of helmets. These
infantrymen are similar to those depicted in the 3ti century
“Battle of Ebenezer” frescoes in the Synagogue at Dura-
Europos6 The body armour of these latter troops in the
synagogue seems very similar to both that depicted in the Via
latina Catacomb and the “Two Soldiers” relief fragment in the
Museo Chiaramonti in Rome which Coulston has suggested
may be part of Rome’s Arch of Diocletian.’
Whilst a degree of continuity seems to be suggested in body
armour design between the 3ti and 4* centuries by the surviving
images taken from mural decoration and page illustration listed
above, none of the above can be used to test Vegetius. This is
because none of these pictures can be dated closely to a date
within the 4* century specific to Gratian.
Two items which can be dated with some accuracy are the
“Largitio” bowl of Valentinian I, which must date from his reign
(364-375 AD)s, and the Missorium of lheodosius Is which in
§fingsfjot - Issue 210
turn must have been made during his time as emperor. Yet,
although these two essentially similar artefacts neatly bracket
the reign of Gratian and both portray soldiers about the imperial
person, they cannot be used to check Vegetius’ claim. This is
because the soldiers depicted about Valentinian I and
Theodosius I are shown in keeping with the convention that
palace guardsmen are unarmoured in the emperor’s presence.
The guardsmen sculpted on the Obelisk of lheodosius I in
the Hippodrome at Constantinople (erected in 390 AD by the
City prefect, proculus), also follows this convention and are
unarmoured. lo As, much more famously, are the soldiers
accompanying Justinian I in the much reproduced mosaic from
San Vitale in Ravenna. ’ ’
“Ridge” helmets have survived in small, but growing,
numbers and have been various1 dated to a range of dates
between the 4ti to 6* centuries.’ Y Although this is too wide a
range to be of value in assessing the truth, or otherwise, of
Vegetius’ statement, two factors in relation to these helmets do
seem to count against the claims of Vegetius: The apparent
continuity of design and the value of the decoration of the
helmets.
If, as Vegetius writes, the Roman infantry had abandoned
wearing helmets under Gratian, then it might seem reasonable
to assume that when foot soldiers started to wear them again
new patterns of helmet might be adopted. I know of no evidence
to support this assumption.
Many “Ridge” helmets were sheathed in silver, even gilded
silver is far from unknown (in fact, all that is left of some helmets
is their sheath of precious metal). They were then enhanced with
precious or more commonly, semi-precious stones. These
embellishments must mean that these helmets had a high
intrinsic value, and represented a sizeable investment for any
infantryman. The motivation behind such an outlay was not
and entirely vanity, but also a desire to create a portable “nest-egg”
to be realised upon retirement. If this was the case, far from
wishing to abandon their helmets due to “neglect and idleness”,
as Vegetius claims, soldiers would have been very proprietorial
about their helmets and would have felt resentment, not
gratitude, towards anyone who attempted any “concessions” to
relieve them of their bejewelled and gilded “burden”. Gratian as
the son and grandson of soldiers, would have been all too aware
of the dangers involved in any such notions and would,
therefore, have been very unlikely to have acted upon them.
Malcolm Lyne has suggested that the metal fragments with
leather or fabric backing found at Richborough were the remains
of helmets made predominantly of leather or fabric. He writes:
“The apparent use of leather helmets suggests a
deterioration in the quality of Romano-British headwear
by this time and is in keeping with Vegetius’
contemporary comments.“‘3
There are, however, a number of points to be raised against the
use of these findings to support Vegetius 1:20. Even if we set
aside the probability that Vegetius wrote in the late 4* century
and not the mid-Sm, as debateable, other points still remain.
Firstly, Vegetius wrote of the abandonment of helmets, not the
substitution of leather for metallic ones. In fact, there seems littie
point in replacing metal helmets for leather ones, the “Ridge
helmet was the imperial government’s response to the demand
for more helmets. To quote Siion James:
“Hence the new range of helmet designs which appears,
probably in response to a government specification for
a design which provided similar protection for much
less cost and time. The helmet ceased to be the work
of art that it had been in the 3ti century. It is not
surprising then that quality deteriorated so sharply, for
the smiths had neither the time nor the profit motive to
produce more than the absolute minimum standard.
The new system it would seem, delivered the goods but
19
§hgsfjot - Issue 210
could not maintain the quality of craftsmanship.“‘4 The physical evidence does not irrefutably prove or disprove j
The crudity of the manufacture of these helmets is confirmed by Vegetius’ claims, but it does raise doubts about them. In the 1
the recent comments of Aitor Kate: second part of this article, I shall look at the literary sources to i
“I must say that the Deume helmet is not a model of see if they can prove more enlightening.
craftsmanship.“‘5
However shoddy the construction of these “Ridge” helmets was, Footnotes
the fact still remains that they helped the Tetrarchy and its 1. See Vegetius: Epitome ofMilitary Science, Trans. with notes
immediate successors meet the increased demand for armour and introduction by N.P. Milner, Liverpool Univ. Press, 1993.
from the rapidly expanding army in the late 3ti and early 4* Especially the Introduction. Jim Sye “Vegetius and his
centuries. The state arms factories, the “Fabricae”, which made ‘Epitome of Military Science’” Slingshot, 202 pp. 19-22.
these helmets were still in existence after Gratian died. Had the 2. Arthur Fenill, The Fall of the Roman Empk The Mihry
helmets and body armour disappeared amongst the infantry, Explanation, Thames and Hudson, 1988, p.129.
would quite this many workshops be needed to meet the 3. Michael McCormick, Eternal victory: Triumphal Ruledip in
cavalry’s needs? Late Antiquity. Byzantium and the Early Medieml West,
Perhaps had Vegetius cited aesthetic grounds for the Cambridge Univ. press, 1986, pp.24-5.
abandonment of infantry helmets, the surviving “Ridge” helmets 4. J.C.N. Coulston. “Later Roman Armour . . .. “, p.142.
might, in some eyes, offer him some support. Instead he singled ibid, pp. 142-3.
out “neglect and idleness” as motivation, two motives, I have 2: Most of the examples cited here are taken from illustrations
argued above, at odds with the lavish embellishments of the to Bishop and Coulston’s Roman Militruy E@~ipment
helmets. Surely if the existence of leather helmets at Generally speaking I have simply quoted the captions to the
Richborough supports anything, it is how important protective illustration, sometimes with slight adaptations to word order.
gear was to soldiers and to what lengths the authorities would go The illustrations used are located as follows: Via Maria
to provide it. Catacomb - plate 8b; Via Latina Catacomb - plate 7a; the
A further problem has been raised, but not resolved, by “Battle of Ebenezer” frescoe at Dura-Europos - illustration
Malcolm Lyne himself, that is the possibility that such helmets 102.2 p.144. Coulston’s “Later Roman Armour 3ti - 6”’
had a ceremonial or ritual purpose: Centuries AD”, has line drawings of the Via Latina and
“...and must be a genuine military helmet or ritual “Battle of Ebenezer” frescoes on pages 144 and 145
version; possibly a variation on the ceremonial headgear respectively. It also has a lie drawing of the drawing of
soldiers from the Vergilius Vaticanus manuscript Fv 7
worn by priests.“‘6
For myself, I would be very wary of assigning a purely ritualistic p.144. John Lowden’s Early Christian and Byzantine Art
(Phaidon, 1997) has an excellent colour plate of the
purpose to any helmet found at a site such as Richborough.
“Crossing the Red Sea” frescoe from Dura-Europos - plate
Considering the precarious position of this ganison, any helmet,
22 pp.46-47.
even a leather one used in rituals, would ultimately have had a 7. The illustration: Figure 4, p.143 Coulston “Later Roman
combat role. Neither do we know the circumstances of the Armour.. .” , the comment is made on p.142 of the article.
helmet’s manufacture. Was it: 8. Sabine Ci. MacCormack, Art and Cere;monyinLate
l Locally made, or sent to Richborough from a central point? Antiquity, plate 52. MacCormack has written of this: “The
l A regular item of equipment found throughout what was left soldiers are the representatives of the army which elected
of the western Roman empire? him, the army by whose vote he is now nimbate and
. Local adaptations, found throughout Britain, or even, just in crowned by Victoria. They stand behind him, their leader,
the Richborough area? and support him.“(pp.204-5). This view has been recently
l Rushed improvisations, devised to meet the imminent crisis? developed by Dr David Woods (“The Scholae Palatinae and
All these questions affect the significance of these leather the Notitia Dignitatum”, humal of Rrxmn Military
helmets as regards Vegetius 1:20, and we have the answer to Equipment Studies, Vol.7, 1996 pp.37-50); who suggests
none of them. that the shield patterns are neither those of guards regiments
It is doubtful if the evidence from a backwater fort in Sm nor figments of the craftsman’s imagination, but belong to
century Britain has much relevence to the armies of the the regiments command by the bowl’s recipient (~48).
comitatensis in the late 4* century. In fact, considering its plight 9. MacCormack, plate 55. Note that Woods sees the shield
and awful fate, one might well question Richborough’s relevence emblems depicted on this bowl as “a matter of minor artistic
to the contemporary forces which attended both Aetius and ornamentation only”, p.48.
Boniface; still less the regular field armies commanded by Aspar 10. MacConnack, plate 18.
and other eastern Roman generals. 11. Lowden, Plate 80, p. 132.
Towards the begiiing of this article, I expressed the view 12. See S.T. James, “Evidence from Dura-Eumpos for the Origins
that I did not expect to find much evidence relevent to Vegetius of late Roman Helmets” Syria LXB, 1986, pp.107~34.
1:20. Unfortunately, my expectations have been fulfilled. Few 13. Malcolm Lyne “Late Roman helmet fragments from
artefacts have survived from the Roman army of the late 4’ Richborough” in: (Ed.) C. van Driel-Murray “Milii
century, but cannot be securely dated to prove or disprove Equipment in Context”, humal of Rwmn Military
Vegetius. Depictions of 4m century infantrymen exist; some EquipmentStudies, Vol.5, 1994, pp.97-105. See p.105.
show soldiers with armour some without. Unfortunately, none of 14. S. James “The fabricae: state arms factories of the Later
these can be dated to show the former belonging to before the Roman Empire” in: Military Equipment and the Identity of
reign of Gratian, and the latter after it. Rcnmn Sold&x hceedings of the Fti Military
However, the expensive embellishment found on surviving Cor@i~ (Ed.) J.C. Coulston, BAR International Series
“Ridge” helmets suggests an attitude amongst soldiers of pride 394, 1988, pp.257-331. See especially the section
in their appearence, equipment and status which is at odds with “Revolution in the Arms Industry Reflected in Helmet
Vegetius’ uneglect and idleness”. And the fact that even in a Design” pp.271 -2, which contains this quotation.
doomed and remote fort such as Richborough, someone took 15.Aitor lriarte “Reconstructing the Deume Helmet”,
the trouble to supply &en leather helmets suggests that the kurd of Rcrmn Military &dprnent Studies, Vol.7,
Roman soldiery did not easily or frivolously cast away their 1996, pp.51-7.
protective gear. 16. Lyne, p.105.

20
 Sihgdjot-f55ue 210

ON HORSES,CHARIOTS,BOWSAND SCYTMS
MartinCharlesworth

f!iis , irst, my apologies for the delay between this and my that chariots operated on and in front of the flanks of an anny.
previous piece on chariots - unhappily, work takes Advancing in line, by units, towards the enemy, they fired as
precedence over hobbies. I have, however, read the they advanced, and then turned away (forming a column)
varied responses printed in Slingshot with interest, as well as towards the open flank. A second line/unit then took their
having the odd conversation over the telephone and at place; and so on. Their mobility would also be used for
meetings. I have also carried out more play-testing of my bringing fire to bear on the enemy’s flank, and perhaps even
suggested rule amendments. So, a few corrections and the rear. Running infantry, as Phil says, may well be able to
comments on these responses before moving on to the catch a trotting horse. But from a distance? The bow conferred
scythed chariot. the advantage of distant shooting, and, bearing in mind that
the infantry in question would first have to reach the chariots
On Horses... before they could chase them, I really don’t think that this is an
Phil Barker (Slingshot 203, 59-60) is quite correct in saying issue.
the wild ass still exists in Central Asia, but it has vanished from
western Asia - and was certainly unavailable to Duncan Noble The Heavy Chariot
for his experiments. Second, both the Caspian and the The change from light to heavy chariot, and the reasons for
Przewalski are of the family ‘Equus’, probably the oldest this, aroused the most comments/interest. Let me first say that
surviving members of the family. Since they both occupied this was not, as suggested, simply a bigger wheel giving a
roughly the same geographical area (North of Iran into Central smoother ride and so making it more difficult for the archer to
Asia), and the Przewalski is the older of the two, a linkage fall out! My basic premise is that, while the offensive use of the
cannot be ruled out. The linkage between the Caspian and the chariot (i.e. the bow) did not change, its defensive capabilities
Arabian were definitely established by DNA testing of 70 UK (extra crew in a bigger box) were enhanced to give it better
Caspians in 1991, but the exact relationship has not yet been battlefield survivability, specifically against cavalry. Phil here
determined (The HORSE Exchange Magazine, 1994). seems to partly agree with me when he speaks of ‘specialist
On another point raised by Phil, horses can be just as shield bearers’, but leaves open the question as to what they
fractious as donkeys, as can often be seen on TV as were bearing shields for (or against).
racehorses are put into their starting gates. The Caspian’s
docility is simply the result of several centuries (if not Stability
millennia) of domestication, an advantage the Przewalski The key point here is the centre of gravity, which is affected by
horse lacks. The important point is that, as the Assyrians put height, mass, axle width, and speed (especially cornering).
it, they were “trained to harness”. The Caspian may be small, Heiaht: for a chariot, this is based on the size of wheel, and
but it does make a good traction animal - prince Philip had bigger wheels do give a smoother ride. Moreover, an increase
one, called Rostam, which used to pull him around Windsor in in wheel diameter of, say, 1 foot, only raises the axle height by
the 1980’s. 6 inches, since the increase in height is a function of the radius
The size of horses vanes greatly. Today in the Middle East of the wheel, not its diameter. Mass: Additional crew means
the same herd can contain horses of different sizes. Horses of additional weight. The advantage of this would be to hold the
large size, what we might call thoroughbreds, are greatly chariot more firmly to the ground. The disadvantage would be
prized. In the 1970’s, I often went riding with a tribe of Kurdish a greater mass at a higher centre of gravity on the turn.
nomads in northwestern Iran. Their herd contained only one Against this, however, there would be a natural tendency for
large horse (the chieftain’s, naturally), the rest being almost the crew to lean into the turn (rather like yachtsmen, or
pony-sized. Nevertheless, one such ‘pony’, no bigger than a motorbike riders). The higher chariot box (which Phil does not
Caspian, carried me all day, and was still capable of a gallop mention) would be a definite advantage here, providing a
in the evening (incidentally, only the chieftain’s horse had ‘brace’ for the crew, and was critical in relation to the scythed-
stirrups!). I think that, sometimes, we underestimate the chariot’s manoeuvrability (see below). Axle Width: A 4-man
endurance and capabilities of ‘small’ horses. crew would need a bigger chariot box than a 2/3-man crew.
In this context, Phil’s reference to the Egyptian horse ‘15 The box would be both longer and, more importantly, almost
hands high’ needs, I think, to be qualified. Assyrian texts of the certainly wider than earlier boxes. Either way, stability would
late 8* and 7* centuries BC make references to the ‘large’ be increased. Soeed: A bigger and heavier chariot would
horses from Egypt; Sargon II adds “the like of which does not certainly be slower. However, it would still be a lot faster than
exist in my country” (Dalley. p.43). According to Dailey, infantry. Which raises the question - while I would agree that
Assyrian chariot horses were obtained via Egypt from Kush the increase in size/mass of the chariot would lead to a poorer
(Nubia). Such large horses would certainly be advantageous performance, especially in terms of its speed, does this
when pulling the larger, heavy chariot of the later Assyrian necessarily imply a change in function?
empire.
The Charge
On Light Chariots Tightly harnessed horses do indeed, as Phil says, remove
My view here is that the light chariot was essentially a mobile many options in terms of manoeuvrability, but there is a trade-
missile platform for archers to shoot from. They did not, off here; a catastrophe to one horse will affect them all; and, in
however, operate simply as skirmishers. There is evidence for a line of charging chariots, if only one chariot decides to
the presence of units and sub-units in chariot forces, and so swerve, there would be a ‘ripple’ effect along the line.
chariots presumably operated in formed groups or formations. Interestingly, Phil says that he “would not charge such a team
Karl Ranitzsch’s reference to ‘criss-crossing tracks’ is or vehicle into a dense body of infantry unless these showed
informative, since it implies discipline (Slingshot 203, 56). signs of severe stress”. I agree - but stressed by what? The
Although we have no first-hand evidence, my own view is answer surely is continual bowfire, steadily shredding the

21
§fingdjot-Issue210
ranks until the infantry become disordered, so opening the modem parallel - like the battleship, it maintained its social
way for the final, decisive charge. status, but had ceased to be the queen of the battlefield.

Chariots and Cavalry Bibliographical Notes

While chariots of earlier centuries did experiment with armour For the Caspian horse, my information comes partly from the
for horses and crew, presumably as a defence against enemy Caspian Pony Society (which provided me with photocopies of
missile fire (whether from enemy chariots or infantry), it is ‘The HORSE exchange magazine’); but mainly from many
surely no coincidence that the development of the heavy hours spent on Louise Firouz’ farm-cum-stud in northern Iran.
chariot is paralleled by the appearance on the battlefield of There are many books on ancient Near Eastern art, all of
organised cavalry units. The decline of the chariot and the rise which illustrate Assyrian reliefs. The following brief list is
of cavalry can be clearly traced in the art of the period (9”-7* simply of those I have directly referred to in. the text, or are
centuries BC). perhaps harder to find.
In the early-mid 9* century BC, the chariot reigns supreme Pauline Albenda, The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyh,
on the battlefield. Cavalry do appear, for example on Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1986.
Shalmaneser Ill’s Balawat gates in the line of march, but on Charles Bumey, From Village to Empire, Phaidon press, Oxford,
the battlefield they are depicted operating in pairs, one as a 1977.
bowman, the other holding the bowman’s horse - in effect, Stephanie Dalley : “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the
charioteers without chariots. In the late 9th-early 8r” centuries, Armies of Tiglath-Pileser Ill and Sargon II” : Imq XLVU
a new phenomenon appears, especially in Urartian art: the (1985) 31-48.
cavalryman uniformly armed with shield and spear, indicating Luckenbill, Ancient Recorcb of Assyria and Babylonid, 2 vols.,
a clear change in tactical function. In the later 8ti century, a University of Chicago press, 1927.
fragmentary relief of Tiglath-Pileser Ill (745-727), currently in
the British Museum, shows Assyrian spear-armed cavalry On Bows
pursuing a defeated enemy army. The reliefs of Sargon II DBA is an excellent set of rules; simple, easy to learn, but
(721-705) show defeated enemy troops being pursued by capable of great subtlety in play. (Quite off the point for a
archers in chariots and spear-armed cavalry, sometimes on moment, in view of recent and numerous comments on
the same relief panel (Albenda, pl.94-103). Sargon himself Warhammer Ancients, my 12-year-old daughter is also a DBA
records, in his letter to the God Assur recounting his 8* fan and is artistically, if not entirely historically, decorating a
campaign against Urartu in 714 BC, that the decisive baffle of Late Roman army. She is also - hence this aside - a
the campaign was won by an Assyrian cavalry charge Warhammer fantasy player, and has come up with the ideal
(Luckenbill, II, 154). solution. She has mounted all her Warhammer figures on DBA
By the mid-7* century, the change was complete. bases, and uses DBA rules! Macedonian pikes? Child’s play!
Ashurbanipal (669-626), on his reliefs depicting the baffle of Try facing an element of axe-armed ogres!)
the River Ulai, is off to one side with his chariot. On the DBA does, however, in my opinion, have one major
battlefield, Elamite wounded are being butchered by Assyrian drawback and that is in its treatment of distant shooting. Only
infantry. The broken remnants of the Elamite army are being foot bows and artillery can actually do this, and the latter is so
pursued by Assyrian cavalry - notably, by horse-archers. The restricted that it rarely gets a chance to shoot. To cite just one
chariot is notable for its absence. Indeed, nothing more clearly classical example, the Roman army at Canhae was destroyed
expresses both the importance of cavalry, and the new social by a combination of remorseless mounted bowfire coupled
status conferred on the horseman, than the depiction of with the elimination of Roman detachments by heavier
Ashurbanipal on one of his palace reliefs, hunting with spear cavalry. Under DBA, however, the Parthian light cavalry (LH)
and bow from horseback (Bumey, Fig.159, also in the British would have to engage in base-to-base combat with the
Museum), a clear departure from the invariably chariot-borne Romans, and with Roman legionaries (as blades) having +3 to
royal hunters of previous centuries. LH +2, the result would normally be a Roman victory. This in
There will, I am sure, continue to be dissenters to my turn would lead to elements recoiling, resulting in Roman
opinions. To me, however, there does appear to be a clear overlaps, and thus to a better chance of the Romans
picture. For centuries, the light chariot operated in mass eliminating the Parthian LH. Yes, you can use the Parthian
formations as a mobile missile platform and pursuit vehicle, cataphracts (Kn) to charge - but that is equally ahistorical.
first showering the enemy with missiles, leading to the gradual It does seem to me reasonable that any unit, foot or
demoralisation of the enemy battle-line, prior to a final charge mounted, which used the bow as its primary weapon should
and a violent pursuit. The appearance of organised cavalry, be able to engage in distant shooting. Note, I say bows. After
however, left the light chariot vulnerable. In the absence of more experimentation with my suggested amendments, I
properly trained horse-archers, the chariot maintained its agree with Karl Ranitzsch that 200 paces is too far for javelins.
firepower role, but in order to survive on the battlefield its I also tend to agree with him that all-round fire is not in
defences had to be upgraded. This was done by adding extra, keeping with DBA’s simplicity. Similarly, Psiloi should not be
defensive crew, which in turn mandated a bigger and heavier allowed to engage in distant shooting. The whole point of
chariot design to accommodate them. This led to a reduction mounted archery is that the mounted or chariot-borne
in the chariot’s performance. By the early 7* century BC, its bowman could move to within effective range to fire, while
pursuit role was being taken over by spear-armed cavalry; and having the mobility to retreat at speed if attacked by enemy
the appearance of more effective mounted archery by the infantry. Psiloi, being infantry themselves, could not retreat so
mid-7* century also ended its mobile firepower role. Expense fast. Also, Psiloi tended to operate in front of their own armies,
was certainly a factor. Chariots were expensive to build and firing straight ahead. If attacked, they fell back on their main
maintain, and they also tied up skilled soldiers in one vehicle, battle-line, and I feel that this is adequately catered for under
but as long as they won battles, the expense was worth it. The DBA by the rule that, in general, Psiloi rout rather than die.
heavy chariot changed the equation. It was more expensive to How does this affect the DBA amendments I suggested in
build and maintain; it tied up even more skilled soldiers; and January’s Shgshof? For close combat, especially for chariot
its main battlefield roles were being replaced by more versus cavalry, no change. For distant shooting, mounted
versatile, more mobile, and much cheaper, cavalry. To use a bows use the same rules as foot bows, i.e., “within 200 paces

22
 § finpfjot - Issue 2 I 0
. . . at any one enemy element within an element base width of missile, for crashing into an enemy battle-line. It was clearly
straight ahead.. .” etc. 2& and 3ti element support fire does designed to be driven, manoeuvred, but above all controlled,
awb at high speed. This would suggest that its intended target was
The main bone of contention is going to be unit not static or semi-static, but mobile. So what was the target?
classification - what units can be called mounted bows? Near There are several clues.
Eastern chariots of course (no surprise there!); but also, I
would suggest, Parthian and Scythian LH. For LH, I would Deployment and Use
suggest for simplicity that they retain the same combat factor Scythed chariots were deployed in four major battles that we
(+2) for distant shooting as they use for close combat. Army know of. At Cunaxa (Xenophon, An&a&, 8) Artaxerxes II
lists would also have to be altered, perhaps by the addition deployed them in front of his army, mainly it seems on the left
(Bw) to mounted archers, e.g., LCh(Bw), LH(Bw), etc. wing opposite the Greeks. Cyrus the Younger is said to have
I can feel a debate coming on.. . ! had 20 chariots, but their deployment is not known. At
Gaugamela (various sources) most of the chariots were
And finally . . . on Scythes deployed in front of the Persian left wing cavalry, opposite
Scythed chariots make their first properly recorded Alexander’s cavalry/light troops. The remainder were
appearance in the army of Artaxerxes II at the baffle of Cunaxa deployed in front of the Persian centre and right wing, again it
(401 BC), and their last in the army of Mithridates Eupator. seems in front of cavalry although this is not certain in the
Although spanning three dynasties, the Achaemenid, centre. For lpsus we have no information. At Magnesia, they
Seleucid, and Pontic, the Seleucids inherited the bulk of the were deployed mostly in front of Antiochus’ left, more open
Achaemenid empire and its organisation. So it is safe to flank, in front of his cavalry and opposite the cavalry/lighter
assume that the later scythed chariot was essentially the same troops of Eumenes (Livy, XXXVII, 416 Appian Xl, VI, 32ff). I
in design and purpose as the Achaemenid. Mithridates’ will look at Mithridates’ chariots later.
chariots are not described, but were probably based on the The accounts of these battles give us some indication as to
Seleucid. how the chariots were intended to be used. At Cunaxa,
Xenophon says their purpose was to cut through the Greek
Construction lines, but his account is exasperatingly short of details. Some
Traction power was provided by 4 horses (this was the norm chariots did, it seems, unsuccessfully engage the Greek
for the later war chariots) attached to one chariot-pole. The hoplite line, but I suspect others spearheaded Tissaphemes’
evidence for one pole comes not only from depictions of the successful charge through the Paphlagonian cavalry and
chariot in Persian art (including the model of a 4-horse chariot Greek peltasts on the Greek right flank. For Gaugamela, our
in the Oxus Treasure); but also from Livy’s description of the information is more detailed. Darius III ordered them to charge
Seleucid scythed chariots at Magnesia, where he speaks of when Alexander, inclining to the right, threatened to move off
one pole. It is the chariot box which is the most interesting part prepared ground. In other words, their target was Alexander
of the vehicle. Xenophon (Cympaedia Vl,1,27ff) describes it and his heavy cavalry. Although not stated, presumably the
fairly fully, and it is likely that the Seleucid chariot-box was other chariots were targeted on the cavalry protecting the
similar. Xenophon says that there were: Macedonian left wing. At Magnesia, Eumenes attacked first,
“Strona wheels to resist the shock of collision”: by targeting the chariots before they themselves could charge. In
‘collision’, Xenophon almost certainly means the effects of the some ways, this was the most interesting battle of them ail
wheels running over something (or someone), rather than (see below).
running into something. In the last two battles, the target was clearly the enemy
“Lona axles. on the orinciole that a broad base is the cavalry, and it seems reasonable to suppose that this was also
firmeS: Long axles provide a wide wheel-base, which the case at Cunaxa. Here, however, the Greeks right flank
improves stability enormously. The implication is that the rested on the river Euphrates, which gave the chariots less
scythed chariot-box was somewhat wider than the usual room to deploy and which is why some of them ended up
chariot-box, a rectangular rather than a square shape. The engaging the Greek hoplite line. Scythed chariots are also
position of the axle is also important. For some centuries, the described as taking part in two other engagements. In 395 BC,
standard position had been at the back of the box, which Phamabazus deployed 2 against a body of Greek foragers
improves both traction and stability. (Xenophon, Hellenica N, 1, 17ff). Interestingly, Phamabazus’
“The driver’s seat was chanaed into what miaht be called a troops consisted of the 2 chariots plus about 400 cavalry.
turret. stoutlv built of timber and reachiia UD to the elbow, Although Xenophon says that the chariots, “dashing into the
leavina the driver room to manaae the horses above the rim”: Greek ranks, broke up their close formation”, it is unlikely that
If you stand up, tuck your elbows into your side, and extend the Greeks, taken by surprise, were in any sort of formation at
your forearms out in front of you, your elbows fit into the space all. Finally, in a series of battles and skirmishes in Ciicia,
just below your ribs. The top of the turret is therefore at waist Demetrius Poliorcetes’ army was once attacked by Seleucus
level. This is ideal for allowing the driver to brace himself, l’s chariots, no details known (Plutarch, &mer.rius, 48).
using thighs and buttocks, while still allowing him comfortably
to lean over the front and control the reins/horses. In effect, Effectiveness
this turret braced the driver and stopped him falling out! There A number of common threads can be seen running through
was undoubtedly a defensive benefit too, but, since the drivers the above. Scythed chariots were deployed in front of the
are ‘fully armed, only their eyes uncovered”, this was probably army, targeted primarily on enemy cavalry, and with their own
a secondary benefit. It must have been an enclosed turret, close cavalry support. They were also intended to disrupt
presumably with a door at the back to allow the driver to get in rather than destroy. This is suggested by the relatively small
and out of it. This turret, the most informative feature, is numbers of chariots engaged on a battlefield (200 at
missing from reconstructed drawings (e.g. Duncan Head’s The Gaugamela is the maximum we know 09; by the way they
Achaemenid Persian Amy, fig.31 c) and from models I have were spread out across the front line; by Phamabazus’ action
seen. described above: and by events at Magnesia. Here, Eumenes
I will look at scythes later, but the overall effect is that of a launched a pre-emptive attack on Antiochus’ chariots with a
vehicle designed to be much more than a guided or unguided combination of light troops and some cavalry, and succeeded

23
§hgsfjot - Issue 210
in turning the chariots against their own army. Although the Scvthed chariot Mark I (5’h centurv BC): In last January’s
details of what happened next are not entirely clear, the Slingshot I argued that the most vulnerable parts of a
decisive blow was Eumenes’ full-scale cavalry charge into chariot were its flanks and rear. On this scythed chariot,
ranks already disordered by the scythed chariots, causing the the axle scythes protected the flanks. I would argue that
collapse of Antiochus’ left wing. Both for Phamabazus, and at the scythes under the axle-tree actually pointed down and
Magnesia, it was not chariots charging into the enemy ranks backwards, and were designed to protect the driver from a
that caused the casualties, but the follow-up cavalry charges. rear attack as the chariot weaved about. This was because,
I have previously argued that the chariot was rendered as yet, the actual practice and timing of close support was
obsolete because of its vulnerability to cavalry. At first sight still in its infancy, and the chariot operated on its own until
the scythed chariot, with no defensive crew, was even more its cavalry caught up with it.
vulnerable, and yet I have argued above that it was designed Scvthed Chariot Mark IIA (4* centurv BC): Close support
to operate both with and against enemy cavalry. How did it tactics had now been worked out, at least against
survive? I think there are three factors here. First, it was built to inexperienced troops (see below). Rear protection was
be highly manoeuvrable at speed, making it harder to catch. therefore not so important. The additional scythes on the
Second, there was the chariot itself. Phil made two interesting yoke ends were designed to add to its effectiveness in front
points, namely that heavy chariots would be useful against and to the flanks, partly by providing additional protection
cavalry, and that harnessed gun teams are known to have to the chariot horses, partly by threatening enemy horses.
broken through enemy cavalry. Except when actually Scvthed Chariot Mark IIB (Seleucid): Downward pointing
charging, cavalry tend to deploy in more open formation. scythes were added to increase the chariot’s ferocity - even
Likewise, after a charge, cavalry are in a semi-disrupted state. if you were on foot and ducked, you weren’t safe! The
A compact unit such as a heavy chariot or gun team, intent on forward-pointing scythes/horns were added because
flight rather than fight, would be at an advantage here, since cavalry were gaining experience against the chariot and so
cavalry would tend to stand back a little for fear of colliding an additional reason for dodging their charge was needed.
with the wheels or limber. This would make short-range Timing, however, was critical. The two most notable failures of
weapons such as spear or sword relatively ineffective since the the scythed chariot - Gaugamela and Magnesia - were caused
cavalry could not get close enough to use them, and also the by the lack of close support. At Gaugamela, the Achaemenid
chariot crew/gun crew would be actively trying to defend cavalry had been drawn into combat with Alexander’s
themselves while weaving the vehicle about. supporting cavalry, and so was not available to support the
The scythed chariot lacked crew, but it did have scythes, chariots. At Magnesia, Eumenes pre-empted the support by
and these were the third real key to its survivability and attacking first. In both cases, the chariots ended up operating
effectiveness in action against cavalry. When looking at the on their own, and were therefore vulnerable to counter-
scythes on these chariots, one can see a progression. At measures.
Cunaxa, Xenophon describes two sets of scythes. One
consisted of a horizontal blade about 2-3 feet long projecting Origins
out from the ends of the axle. For the other, Xenophon has two The Achaemenid scythed chariot must have been developed
apparently conflicting descriptions. In the Anabask he says for a purpose, and the Seleucid chariot cannot be dismissed
that they were “under the driver’s seat, turned toward the simply as an example of military ‘fossilisation’. The problem
ground, so as to cut through anything in their way”. In the here is our sources, which are western, and this chariot does
Cympaedia he says that they were “under the tree, pointing to not appear to be a weapons-system designed for the west.
the ground”. I do not think there is a conflict here. We have This is apparent if we go through our western sources referring
already seen that the chariot box was rectangular rather than to the scythed chariot chronologically.
square, and that the axle was placed to the rear. This being so, Cunaxa: Artaxerxes’ army was drawn largely from the east.
the axle-tree was probably under the driver in any case. Although Cyrus the Younger had scythed chariots, where did
By Gaugamela, an additional scyth had been added at he get them? Xenophon does not mention them before
each end of the yoke pole, again 2-3 feet long, although Cunaxa, so they were probably taken from the Persian army
Diodorus does not mention the scythes beneath the axle-tree. being assembled in Phoenicia for the invasion of Egypt, i.e.,
The Seleucid chariots at Magnesia add yet more scythes. The detached from the royal army.
horizontal scythes at the axle-ends and yokes have been l Phamabazus: only 2, and almost certainly from Artaxerxes’
supplemented by additional scythes pointing down towards army to Phamabazus via lissaphemes.
the ground “to reach men who had fallen and came under the l Gaugamela: again, Darius Ill’s army was almost entirely
chariot”; and two blades “sticking out like horns” had been drawn from the eastern empire.
added yon either side of the pole . . . three feet from the yoke, l Ipsus: if the 120 war chariots were scythed, then they were
with which to pierce anything they met”. Again, there is no surely part of Seleucus’ contingent, and had been collected
mention of scythes under the axle-tree. along with his elephants during his eastern campaign.
Duncan Head argues that the scythes under the axle-tree l Cilicia: part of the army of Seleucus, advancing from Syria,
were probably the least practical, catching on any irregularity so again probably from the east.
in the ground. I would rather argue that what we see here is a l Magnesia: no chariots are recorded as accompanying
developing tactical awareness and usage of the scythed Antiochus Ill during his invasion of Greece. The chariots
chariot. Its success depended on its being closely supported joined him later, during the Roman invasion of Asia Minor,
by cavalry. There is, however, a considerable difference presumably from the east.
between theory and practice. Two points to bear in mind: axle- The accumulated evidence is that the scythed chariot had an
mounted scythes were at just the right height above ground to eastern, almost certainly Iranian. origin. Bearing in mind its
chop a horse’s knees, i.e., below the level of any armour anti-cavalry role, the most likely place for its original
carried by horses at this period: second, yoke-mounted deployment was the Achaemenids’ northeast frontier - Bactria,
scythes (bearing in mind that the yoke-pole was across the Sogdia, and the Saka-lands. It may be no coincidence that its
top of the horses’ necks) were at just the right height to chop a introduction, probably towards the mid-5% BC, is paralleled
horse’s throat, i.e., above the level of armour carried by horses by the development of the semi-armoured cavalryman. Here it
at this period. would have plenty of open ground to manoeuvre, and was

24
 §hgsfjot - f55ue 210
used to disrupt enemy cavalry formations prior to a Persian Summary and DBA
mounted attack. In this role, it was presumably successful, and The scythed chariot was developed as an anti-cavalry
so became a permanent feature of the Achaemenid army. It weapon, deployed to operate in close co-operation with its
was, however, less successful in the west. Partly, this is own cavalry, and relying on its speed, manoeuvrability and
because - outside Mesopotamia - suitable battlefields for its scythes both in offence and defence. It could disrupt but not,
deployment were lacking; partly because it found itself facing on its own, destroy enemy units. It needed to keep moving,
trained light infantry combined with cavalry. In this situation it and was vulnerable if unsupported and/or fighting combined
was rather like the war elephant; ideal against semi-trained or light infantry/cavalry units; in these situations it needed to win
inexperienced troops, but vulnerable against experienced or it died.
troops. Its classification as a Knight (Kn) in DBA accurately
reflects its use, but I would make two minor modifications.
Mithridates Euptor l First: Unsupported scythed chariots which are victorious
In western Asia, the scythed chariot makes its last appearance inflict a recoil result or, on a score double that of the
in the armies of Mithridates of Pontus. No description of it enemy a double-depth recoil (i.e. 2 element base-depths
survives. Appian (Mithridatic Wars) recounts two battles in instead of one).
which it took part; in Bithynia in 88 BC (Xll,3,17ff), and at l Second: Scythed chariots supported by a cavalry element
Chaeronea in 86 BC (Xll,6,42ff). At Chaeronea, Sulla and the contiguous and behind it gain +1 support, and do kill on a
outnumbered Romans attacked first, forcing battle on score double that of the enemy.
unfavourable ground for the Pontic army, and avoiding the As Knights, scythed chariots advance after victory, and any
scythed chariot charge; the chariots were dealt with by the supporting cavalry must also advance with them. However,
rearguard. In Bithynia, the Bithynian army attacked and drove supporting cavalry are not destroyed in an adverse combat
back the Pontic, before being itself attacked in the flank by result because, in actual combat, they would be deployed to
Pontic reinforcements. Turning to meet this new threat, it was charge after the chariots.
then hit by both scythed chariots and by the reformed Pontic
army. Appian has a bloodthirsty description of And finally...
“men cut in halves and still breathing, or mangled in The scythed chariot had a limited operational life. Apparently
fragments, or hanging on the scythes. Overcome rather developed for a specific role in the northeastern Achaemenid
by the hideousness of the spectacle than by loss of the empire, it was notably less successful when it came up against
fight, fear disordered their ranks.” trained troops. Alexander’s conquests introduced trained
In other words, Mithridates’ chariots ran true to type - very troops, especially light troops, into the east, and as cavalry
effective against disordered or semi-trained troops, causing developed better tactics and became more heavily armoured,
disruption rather than casualties, but useless in unfavourable they became less vulnerable to it. More importantly,
terrain or against trained trcxops. however, I suspect that it was the development of
properly organised mounted archers which ended its
career, since these could engage scythed chariots
safely at a distance.

BASlNGF1GURES
Tony Barr

ITa he basing technique I use on all of my figures, whether
\ ,I based singly or on multi-figure elements is pretty
simple, if messy. It has the advantages of being 3.
relatively quick and fairly cheap while giving an excellent 4.
result.
1. Once your figures are painted, varnished and stuck to their
final base (I use 2mm MDF for 15mm figures), spread
sloppy, cheap filler on the base, covering figures bases but
not feet. I use a ready mixed filler, but usually have to add
some water to get the right consistency. I use an old nylon
brush to apply the filler, spreading it about so as to leave
nothing uncovered. One pot of filler seems to last for ever. 5.
Cheap filler is better than Tetrion or similar, which are
partly waterproof and thus spoil stage 4.
2. While the filler is still wet, wipe any excess from the edges (I 6.
use my finger) then scatter a few patches of fine sand on
the filler. The sand I use is sold in pet shops as chinchilla
sand or dust. Anything else is really too coarse for 15mm
figures. Coarser “budgie cage sand” would be fine for
25mm, though the chinchilla stuff is light grey, which helps
with the final effect. I use the chinchilla sand for both.
Games Workshop sells the stuff but at a ridiculous price.
You don’t need more than l/3 of the base covering with 7.
the sand. A few extra grains or patches here and there
makes no difference though. If you want rocks as well use
small bits of cork pushed into the filler. The chinchilla sand
also helps with the final effect and eliminates the need for
dry-brushing.
Final wipe of edges (saves using sandpaper later).
When dry (overnight at most), wash the filler with thinned
down water colour burnt umber (in tubes from art
suppliers). Burnt sienna is okay for a redder effect. Choose
“students” water colours. They are cheaper than “artists”
water colours and work just as well for this job. The wash
soaks in if the filler is of low enough quality, reducing
problems with chipping of the base revealing white
patches. Let the wash dry thoroughly before the next stage.
Paint the edges of the base - I use a dark earth brown
acrylic, others prefer black. It neatens things off. Be sure
the paint is dry before starting stage 6.
Glue on patches of static grass with watered down PVA
glue. I put the glue on with a brush on about half of the
plain areas at most, not over the sand patches, then dunk
the base in a box of static grass. I also use the static grass
to cover any imperfections in the filler - cracks,
depressions around the metal figure base etc. More or less
grass according to geographical location of the army and
personal taste.
Knock or blow off excess static grass and it’s
done. Much auicker than it sounds.

25
§hgdjot N Issue 210
TM COUSINS’WARS- PART2
A BEG1NNERS’
GUIDETOTHEWARSOFTHEROSES,By A BEGINNER
John Hastings
c art 1 discussed the politics and overall course of the
P
P Wars of the Roses. This part will discuss the Strategy,
aTactics and Wargaming possibilities of the Wars.
The original aim of the Duke of York was not to replace Henry Vl
but to gain influence with hi at the expense of his favourite, the
Duke of Somerset. In fact, the Wars of the Roses could be put
forward as a good example of Clausewitz’ dictum, “War is
nothing but the continuation of politics with the admii of
other means”. The Yorkists fought baffles with the aim of
gaining control of the King and capturing (later executing) his
favourites; the Lancastrian supporters fought to defend the King
and execute rival claimants to the throne. In a vicious circle, the
Yorkists therefore felt the need to have their own armies in self-
defence. It is notable that all the battles of the Wars had a
decisive tactical outcome, with a clear winner, but were
strategically indecisive until Tewkesbury. Although the Yorkists
won ten out of the twelve battles listed in Table 1, the
Lancastrians were always able to make a comeback.
Tewkesbury was strategically decisive only because the prince
of Wales was killed and Henry VI was murdered shortly
afterwards, leaving the Lancastrians with no claimant to the
throne.
There was no standing army in England. The King had to
raise an army by issuing “Commissions of Array” to his nobles,
who were supposed to respond to their feudal oath of loyalty to
the King by calling out their personal retinues of knights and
squires. There were about eighty peers in England at this time.
Perhaps half of them kept aloof from the wars but, of the others,
the majority supported Henry VI; the Yorkists were always short
of peers to support their cause. The Stanleys managed to stay
more-or-less on both sides until they finally committed
themselves to Henry Tudor at just the right moment to be on the
winning side. Some thirty-three nobles were killed or executed
and seven noble houses became extinct as a result. However,
this could be regarded as an occupational hazard for a medieval
peer. The Earl of Warwick had not produced a son when he was
killed at the age of 43, so his branch of the Nevilles would have
become extinct even if he had died of natural causes.
With the end of the Hundred Years War, there were plenty of
professional or semi-professional soldiers in England, so the
warring parties could always recruit as many men as they could
pay. Small numbers of mercenaries from Scotland and the
Continent were also involved. Campaigns were short, only a few
weeks at most, and armies were short-lived. Edward Iv raised
one army to fight the battle of Bamet, disbanded it and raised
another for Tewkesbury, disbanded that and raised a third
against the Lancastrians in Wales (which, in the event, did not
have to fight) all in the space of a month.
Marches were about ten to fifteen miles a day and, at least
sometimes, were dictated by the desire to reach a town where
the nobles could secure comfortable lodgings while the men
bivouacked in nearby fields. However, Edward N made his men
march over thirty miles in one day to catch the Lancastrians at
Tewkesbury and then fight a baffle.
The battles of the Wars were fought in England. In Wales and
Northumberland the situation was different. In these areas
warfare was dominated by strong castles, including those built
by Edward I to control the Welsh. Siege warfare was therefore
the order of the day. As noted in Part 1, the castles of
26
Northumberland changed hands regularly. Sieges were
generally short except that the Lancastrians held Harlech castle
until 1466.
Control of the English Channel was also important for a
number of reasons. Firstly, the wealth of the country was
coming to depend more and more on commerce, so it was
important to gain the goodwill of the merchants of London by
maintaining the trade route for English wool through the port of
Calais. Secondly, Calais (which had a garrison of regular
soldiers) was an important military base. Warwick made gwd
use of his Office of Captain of Calais to promote the Yorkist
cause. Thirdly, the Continent provided both a refuge for the
defeated and a base for invasion. Yorkists and Lancastrians aliie
tried to prevent invading forces landing in England, with mixed
success. Ultimately all the planned invasions did manage to
land, with the weather being more of a hazard than enemy naval
forces.
The core of an army was still the noble and his retinue; the
richest having full, articulated plate armour; knights and squires
having whatever degree of protection they could afford. It was
customary for these men to fight dismounted and only mount
for the pursuit in victory or to escape in defeat. However, a man
in full armour, exhausted after hand-to-hand combat, had lie
chance of reaching his horse when pursued by lightly armoured
infantry. That was how Warwick met his death after Bamet. On
the other hand, at least some of the battles involved mounted
charges. At Blare Heath, Lord Audley led two mounted attacks
and then a third on foot (all unsuccessful). Audley was killed
during either the second or third attack. It is probable that the
numbers of these troops were small. Alan Nickels (see
Bibliography, Part 1) says that, for the Agincourt campaign, two
Lords contributed 160 men-at-arms, three supplied 100 and the
remainder 12 to 60 each.
The bulk of the armies were infantry; Billmen and
Longbowmen. These may have been present in roughly equal
numbers. Billmen had good quality sallet helmets which gave
protection to the head, face and neck. They also had some body
armour and, in the front ranks, often arm, hand and leg
protection. They fought in close order with a variety of two-
handed cut-and-thrust weapons; bills, fauchards, glaives,
halberds and the like. As the weapons were two-handed, they
did not use shields, hence the need for good annour. The
wealthier men might carry a sword and a small shield as
secondary weapons.
The Longbowman was still an essential part of an English
army. The baffle usually opened with an exchange of arrows
and the side that got the worst of this was often provoked into
closing for hand-to-hand combat. The archers were lightly
equipped but probably many of them wore helmets and perhaps
a Jacque, a tunic stuffed with tow. After a defeat, the archers
were best able to run away and, in victory, they had a good
chance of catching and despatching their heavily armoured
social superiors. Each archer would have carried a dagger, for
stabbing between the armour joints of wounded knights, and,
perhaps, a sword and small shield.
Cannon were available for some battles but were easily put
out of action by rain. Their noise was perhaps as important as
their missiles, encouraging or discouraging according to whose
side they were on. Continental mercenaries (crossbowmen,
handgunners, spearmen) were sometimes employed.
Scouting varied in its effectiveness. The armies generally
seem to have been able to find each other if at least one of them
was set on battle. However, at second St Albans, Warwick was
beaten because he did not know by which of two roads the
Lancastrians were advancing. He deployed his army to cover
both roads, thus allowing the Lancastrians to concentrate on his
left wing. There was no class of light troops specifically trained
and used for skirmishing and scouting. There was a type of
soldier called a Hobilar, a mounted infantryman, armed with a
spear or bow. These were essentially raiders and may have
originated in the Northern Marches in the constant bickering
between England and Scotland. It is not known if any were
present in the Wars of the Roses armies but a longbowman
mounted on a horse would, in effect, be a Hobilar, so it is likely
enough that both sides used such troops for scouting.
BatUeTactics
The Wars of the Roses did not produce any tactical innovations,
both sides beiig conservative in their approach. The army was
organised in three Battles, now usually specified to be Vanguard,
Centre and Rearguard. Some leaders took care to have a
reserve as well and may have kept the men-at-arms of the
reserve on their horses. Generally, the two armies lined up
opposite each other and then attacked. Sometimes the army on
the defensive strengthened its position with field fortifications.
On more than one occasion, however, the commanders tried to
achieve tactical surprise by a sudden and swift attack.
Sometimes armies tried to manoeuvre for the enemy’s flank.
However, the outflanked Battle was usually able to tum and face
the threat. At Tewkesbury, Edward N, by then an experienced
and wily general, took the precaution of sending 200 spearmen
to scout a wood on his left flank. They found the wood empty
but, when the Lancastrians tried to outflank the York&s, they
were able to take the outflankers in the rear.
Weather, as much as tactics, had a strong influence on
some battles. Rain at Northampton not only muddied the
ground but also put the Lancastrian cannon out of action. The
snowstorm at Towton worked to the advantage of the York&r,
who had the wind at their backs. At Bamet, Warwick would
almost certainly have beaten the Yorkists, had not the fog
caused two of his Battles to start fighting each other.
ln a civil war, treachery was bound to have an influence, if
only because it was feared rather than a reality. The armies were
not fully unified forces. Each soldier owed his loyalty to the lord
who paid hi, and the lord might change sides between, or in
the middle of a battle. However, outright treachery seems to
have occurred at only one baffle. At Northampton, lord Grey of
Ruthin changed sides and helped the Yorkists inside the
Lancastrian defences. Lords Roos and Hungerford deserted on
two occasions, rather than change sides. At Bamet, fear of
treachery, combiied with the fog, led Oxford’s and Montagu’s
men to start fighting each other. Family ties were the strongest
motives for loyalty. When Warwick changed sides, his brother
John (Montagu) changed with him.
Wargaming
Clearly the Wars of the Roses o&s a whole range of possibilities
for the Wargamer; committee games, campaigns, tabletop land
battles, sieges and sea battles and combinations of all these. Not
beiig one for sieges and sea baffles myself, I do not intend to
cover these aspects, although sieges were an important part of
the Wars.
Committee games recognise the fact that none of the
protagonists had the unquestioning loyalty of most of their
supporters. Even when supporters were loyal, the magnates all
expected to have their say in the strategy and tactics of their
party. On the battlefield, the different Battles acted more or less
independently of the nominal army commander. So a
committee game would have a number of players on both sides
representing the different nobles and the battle plan would be
drawn up in Council. In addition, each noble would have his own
victory conditions. John Graham-Leigh gave an example of this
in his refight of Bosworth (see Bibliography). It thus becomes
possible for a player to gain the most victory points even if his
side loses. For example, Lord Clifford (the younger) would aim
to kill at least one of the Duke of York’s family. Warwick would
win if he could persuade Edward to follow his advice, even if it
led to disaster. Lord Roos would win by simply surviving and
Stanley would win if he ended up on the winning side.
The boardgame Kingmaker, which started this whole article,
represents well the power-hungry characteristics of the
magnates. Each player controls a “faction” of nobles and seeks
to gain power by securing Titles and Offices of State for his
faction. Ultimately, the aim is to control the Kiig and eliminate
all other claimants to the throne. On the other hand, the game
represents the Lancastrian and Yorkist claimants as totally
passive; they cannot move without a player-controlled noble
escorting them. They cannot fight, raise troops or do anything
useful. Whilst this may have been true of Henry Vl himself, it was
most certainly not true of Queen Margaret, nor of Richard of
York and his sons.
A simple campaign game could be for two players to play
through the baffles of the Wars. Victory points would be awarded
according to the rules used. Given the time (of several years)
between the different phases of the wars and the ability of the
defeated side to raise a fresh army, it would not be unrealistic for
the players to start each battle with their forces undepleted.
Andy Gittins’ ‘Winter of Discontent’ articles (see
Bibliography in Part 1) contain a complete set of rules both for a
campaign and for battles fought out on the tabletop. It would be
interesting to know how they worked out in practice.
Tabletop Battles
With both parties using the same type of army and three main
types of troops, figure games on the tabletop should need only
the simplest of rules. One thing you will have to decide on is the
scale of figures. If you are a painter and want to represent the
nobles and knights in all their heraldic glory, you will need
25mm figures. You will have to provide mounted and
dismounted figures for each noble. On the other hand, Andy
Gittins used 5mm figures with heraldic colours on the bases to
distinguish the different lords. Not beiig much of a painter, I
tend to favour this approach. All my Ancient figures are 6mm
anyway.
The numbers given by Alan Nickels, quoted above, suggest
that only a few knightly figures will be needed. If a DBM element
represents about 120 mounted men, this could be the
equivalent of two to ten fords and their retinues. Only two to six
elements would be needed for most armies, perhaps eight for
the Lancastrians at Towton. On the other hand, Alan Nickels
recommended a one-to-one figure ratio, particularly for the
peers and knights, as only one man could wear a specific coat
of arms.
I have not bought any army lists for this period, but I note
that the DBA Wars of the Roses army list gives three elements
of knights out of twelve, while Arrnati has two units of knights
and three of dismounted men-at-arms out of twelve units. Both
of these seem to me to be an unrealistically high pmportion. The
majority of troops were the billmen and archers. Irregular
Minhtwcs do a Wars of the Roses army pack, ready based, in
6mm. This contains three bases of mounted men-at-arms and
three dismounted; six bases of billmen and twelve of archers;
plus some handgunners, a mounted and dismounted general.
If the mounted and dismounted figures represent the same
men-at-arms, thii looks like the right proportions, although I
§Cingsfjot-Issue 210
personally would have the bills and bows more equal in
numbers. However, you can certainly form a realistic army with
its typical three Battles. Two such army packs and your Wars of
the Roses campaign is in business, for the princely sum of fa
plus post and packing.
One aspect that must not be forgotten in rules for fighting in
this period is the importance of personal command. A noble had
to lead from the front and had to fight in the front rank, unless he
was with the reserve. If the noble fell, most of his knights and
squires would fall with him and his Battle would almost certainly
dissolve into rout. On the other hand, if a Battle was successful
against its opposite number, it could be very difficult to rally the
men from pursuit and plunder.
Also to be considered is the potential for bickering amongst
the supposedly allied nobles, and the possibilii for treachery.
This should probably be more of a constant threat than a reality.
The rules need to create an atmosphere of suspicion with actual
treachery only occurring once in every ten to twelve games.
The rules should also limit the tactics available to the players
to those historically used. So the players should be required to
Table 1 - Battles of the Wars of the Roses
Notes - X = Killed in battle, Ex = Executed afterwards
form their armies into Vanguard, Centre and Rearguard, with the
option for a reserve. Off-table flank marches should be
forbidden. There would be no fighting in woods but players
should be allowed the possibility of putting a small force (less
than a single Battle) into woods bordering the field. There should
be the possibility of reinforcements arriving for one army (this
happened at Towton, where Norfolk’s contingent arrived during
the battle, while at second St Albans, Warwick tried
unsuccessfully to reinforce his outnumbered left wing). Battles
would usually take place in open country but there should be at
least some fighting in towns. There should also be the possibiii
of weather frustrating the players’ plans.
Finally, the rules should not neglect the importance of
religion. Each army would need priests to say Mass and hear
confessions, otherwise morale would suffer. Richard Ill is said to
have refused to hear Mass before Bosworth and look what
happened to hi.. .
I have not yet got around to trying to put any of these ideas
into practice but, as you can see from the above, I
have some glimmerings of plausible rules for the Wars.
Perhaps one day I will get around to trying them out
and writing them up for SlingshoL
\
I

Date Place York Lancaster Winnet

Henr VI. Buckin ham, Somerset X.

York, Warwick Salisbury NortLmberland 5, Clifford X. Devon, Wiltshire, Y
22 May 1455 St Albans 7 000
Fauconberg and 6 other peers
2 - 3 000

Salisbur , Sir William Stanley Audley X, Dudley

22 Sop+ 1459 B/ore Heath Y
3 - 4 oog 6- 12000

Warwick, Fauconberg, Edward of Henry VI (ca tured). Buckin ham X,

March, Norfolk, Bourchier. Shrewsbury PC) Egremont XgBeaumont X. Grey Y
10 July I460 Northampton
gy9g!$J Audley, Say, Scrape (defected)
10 - 15 000

Wakefield York X. Edmund of Rutland X, Somerset, Devon, Northumberland, Exeter.

30 Dee 1460 (Sandal Salisbur Ex) Wiltshire, Clifford, Roes L
Castle) 8 - 10 Obb 18 000

Edward of March, Audky, Grey de

2 Feb 1461 Mortimer’s Wiltshire, Pembroke. Owen Tudor (15x)
Wilton, FitzWalter Y
Candlemas Cross 4 - 8 000
5 - I 1 000

Warwick, Norfolk, Arundel. Suffolk, Somerset, Devon, Northumberland, Exeter,

Montagu (captured), Fauconberg. Shrewsbury. Roes. Grey of Codner. Clifford,
17 Feb 1461 St Albans L
Benners, Bonville (Ex). Char/ton Gg&oke. Wells, Willoughby
25 000
Somerset, Clifford X. Northumberland X.
Edward IV, Fauconberg, Clinton,
Wiltshire, Exeter. Buckin ham X, Devon,
Stanle FitzWalter X. Bourchier,
29 Mar I461 Shrewsbury@ Dacre of GI 7 sand X, Wells X,
Towton Grey d”e Wilton, Clinton, Scrape.
Palm Sunday Willoughby X. Scro e of Bolton X, FitzHu h.
Dacre
Hungerford. Roes. iii eaumont, Grey of Co d nor y
25 - 36 000
30 - 40 000
Hedgeley Monta u Somerset, Root. Hungerford
25 Apr 1464 Y
Moor 5-603 5-600

Monta u. Willoughby, Greystoke Somerset (Exx), Roos (Exe, Hungerford (Ex;()

10 Moy I464 Hexham Y
4 - IO%00 500 - 2 000

Losecoat
12 Mar I470 Edward IV Sir Robert Welles X. Sir Thomas de la Condo X Y
Field

Edward IV. Gloucester. Hastings, Warwick X, Oxford, Montagu X, Exeter

I4 Apr 1471
Barnet Rivers. Say X, Cromwell X (captured) Y
Easter Sunday
9 -10 000 10 - 15 000

Somerset (13x), Prince &dward X. Wenlock X.

Edward IV, Gloucester, Hastings
4 May 1471 Tewkesbury 5 _ 6 ooo Devon X. Y
6 - 7 000

28
 §hgsfjot - Issue 210

WARS AND WARRlORS OF THE NORDIC BRONZt AGt 2

THE STRUGGLEFOR IRELAND, 1772-1457 I3C
MichaelFredholmvan Essen

B
es, it is Possible to gain a few insights into campaigns by the men of Partholon. Partholon, too, had foreign
\ that took place as long ago as during the Nordic connections. According to the chronicle, he had sailed to
Bronze Age. Admittedly, the dates 1772 and 1457 BC Ireland from Spain. Cichol was perhaps born in Ireland, but he
cannot be confirmed and I would personally suggest a time apparently still commanded some loyalty from the country of
several hundred years later. However, I could not resist his fathers. But where was the land of Emor?
including the dates in the title, and they are at least no more One of the oldest creation myths of Scandinavia tells about
uncertain than many Middle Eastern Bronze Age dates. (How the giant Ymir, from whose body the world developed.
many independent sources do we have for the chronology of Linguists believe that the name Ymir derived from the old
the pharaohs?) Indo-European word for twin, yemos.It is possible that the land
The first article of this mini-series described the armament of Emor was in fact the land of Ymir, or Scandinavia, and as
and appearance of the Nordic Bronze Age warrior. When we the chronicle reports, the people there were known to the early
now turn to what little is known about his wars and campaigns, inhabitants of Ireland as Fomorians. When the Ymir myth was
we stand on far from solid ground. The sad fact is that we will finally written down, it was a west Scandinavian myth from
probably never be able to confirm any of the theories Norway and Iceland. Emor may have been in Norway. This
presented. Nonetheless, imaginative readers should, I hope, interpretation is at least supported by later events recorded in
find something of interest. the Irish chronicles.
If so, what we have here is the story of a foreign invader,
Ireland, Britain, and Scandinavia Partholon, who landed in Ireland, which by this time was ruled
When reconstructing a military campaign as distant in time as by a king, Cichol, whose ancestors had come from
the Bronze Age, reliable sources are rare. Nonetheless, a few somewhere in Scandinavia. Apparently the two tribes lived
sources do exist, and they permit us at least to acquire a feel reasonably peacefully for the first ten years. Then a war broke
for Bronze Age warfare. The ancient Irish chronicles paint a out. During the war, Cichol received reinforcements of three
vivid picture of a time of strife in Ireland. Kings and nobles, hundred Fomorians from Scandinavia, most likely present
more often than not of Scandinavian or other foreign origin, Norway. They, however, dispersed in search of loot or supples
campaigned against each other. We hear of shiploads of and were defeated piece-meal by the invaders, who then killed
professional warriors, supported by taxation of the local Cichol at the battle of Mag ltha and dispersed the surviving
inhabitants of Ireland. By changing a few personal names, the Fomorians. However, Partholon received a spear-wound in the
situation could just as easily have occurred during the Viking battle, and this wound eventually caused his death.
Age or the Middle Ages.
Modem historians disagree about the source value of the The Fomorians Return
ancient Irish chronicles. Some believe that the dry tone of the Partholon’s reign was succeeded by the descendants of
texts indicates that the stories describe actual events, although Nemed. Around 1725 BC, several major Fomorian raids
admittedly somewhat garbled - especially in their internal followed, which resulted in three great battles. Two Fomorian
chronology - by centuries of oral transmission. Others instead kings, Gand and Sengand, fell in the first battle. The second
interpret them as the attempts of early Christian writers to and third battles too were said to have been won by Nemed’s
reconcile earlier religious beliefs with Christian dogma. Such men, but the new Fomorian leader, Conann, in each killed a
an interpretation marks a sensational and in recorded son of Nemed. Be that as it may, the Fomorians established a
missionary history unique regard for pagan beliefs among the major fort on an island off the coast of Donegal in north-
early churchmen of Ireland that seems hard to credit. western Ireland. They named the stronghold Tur Conaind
(“Conann’s tower”) after their leader. This also became the
The War against Cichol and the Men from Emor base for the great Fomorian fleet. From this base, the
The L&or gaM.a EMUI (“The Book of the Taking of Ireland”) Fomorians managed to gain control over the entire Ireland.
describes events said to have taken place during the reign of This was now purely a question of conquest, as the Fomorians
Partholon or his dynasty (c.2071- 1772 BC according to the according to the chronicle imposed severe taxes on the
“History of Ireland”, Fi F&sa ar Ei.rinn, another Irish inhabitants of the island. Eventually three of Nemed’s heirs
chronicle with somewhat more credible dates). The raised a great army, reputedly but improbably of thirty
background is patchy and the described events appear in thousand men on land and as many at sea, and attacked the
many ways garbled. Nonetheless, we do gain some insights. Fomorians, landing on their fortified island. Conann fell in the
According to the chronicle, three hundred men came from the battle, as did the great part of both armies. Nonetheless, the
land of Emor. They spread out, and in the war they were for Fomorians gained the victory when Conann’s colleague as
this reason all killed within a week. These battles formed part Fomorian king, Marc, arrived with twenty-three additional
of a major campaign in which the foreign chieftain Partholon ships. Only thirty or thirty-one of the opposing men survived.
defeated his Irish rival Cichol Gricenchoss at lnber Domnand, Most of the latter fled from Ireland.
just north of Dublin. Cichol’s force was said to have consisted Some of the survivors fled to the north (perhaps Scotland
of two hundred men and, according to the chronicle, six or possibly Orkney or Shetland), where they eventually
hundred women. became known as the Fir Bolg. Another, lbath son of Bethach,
Cichol was the descendant of Gumor or Uathmor from fled beyond northern Scotland far to the east, to the northern
Sliab Emoir, the “land of Emor” over the sea to the east, from islands in the world, to north-eastern Great Lochlann.
which the Fomorians were named. Although not stated in so Lochlann (“Lake Country”) was the name by which the Irish
many words, it appears that the three hundred men from knew Scandinavia.
Emor had come in support of Cichol, who was hard pressed

29
§fingdjot-Issue 210
Ibath Flees to the Dams
It seems unlikely that lbath would have fled to the home of his
enemies, and the chronicle now for the first time refers to
Lochlann, not the land of Emor. If the Fomorians of Emor lived
in western Scandinavia, presumably Norway, we can assume
that north-eastern Great lochlann signified south-western
Sweden or possibly the Danish islands.
lbath did not go to any old place in Scandinavia. According
to the chronicle, he travelled to a special place where he could
learn the magical arts until he and his men became masters in
every art of druidism. This clearly indicates that lbath went to
what must have been a major cult centre of the northern
world. The chronicle mentions four great cities, each famous
for art and craft. From the first and foremost of them, Falias,
was eventually brought the Lia Fail, the Stone of Fal or Stone
of Destiny, on which the high kings of Ireland later stood when
they were crowned. The name Falias brings to mind the
Swedish region Falbygden, famous for Neolithic and Bronze
Age remains and named after a place originally called Fala,
meaning pale yellow (the name probably refers to land
suitable for grazing). The Nordic custom of crowning the king
on a special stone may have been old even by this time and
remained in Sweden until well into the Middle Ages, when the
Swedish stone, known as the Stone of Mora, was stolen.
According to the chronicle, lbath and his descendants lived
in exile for a long time (c.1717-1487 BC). In Scandinavia,
they eventually became known as Tuatha de Danann. This is
usually translated as the “tribe of the Goddess
However, no such goddess is known from other sources, so
we can just as well find a different meaning for the name
Danu. It does not need to be a goddess at all. In south-western
Sweden not very far from Falbygden is an extremely ancient
cult centre known as Tanum, the home of a major
concentration of rock art. Tanum definitely dates back to the
Bronze Age and probably was the centre of a major
Scandinavian tribal confederation. lbath and his men may
have been noble refugees, but their descendants formed part
of the tribe of the Danes.
Is there any other evidence but linguistic similarities for
identifying the Tuatha de Danann with Tanum and the Danes?
Yes, there are. The need to identify the place where lbath went
with a major cult centre has already been mentioned,
Tanum must have been the major cult centre of western
Scandinavia during the Bronze Age. The region abounds in
luxurious finds going back as far as about 2400 BC. Tanum
appears to have remained a major cult centre at least until
about 500 BC. Strategically, its location in south-western
Sweden is important due to its control of trade routes both to
Norway and through the inner Swedish waterways. Second, a
persistent Scandinavian tradition, also referred to by a number
of Latin and Greek writers such as the 6* century Jordanes,
points out that the Danes did not originate in the Danish
islands but in what today is southern Sweden, a region indeed
regarded as Danish until well into the seventeenth century of
the present era. From this region they eventually moved south
into- present Denmark. Third, the arts mentioned as being
practised where lbath settled may well have been the arts of
bronze-casting. Although copper was known and used much
earlier, the common application of bronze in the northern
world began during the period 1800- 1500 BC, that is, the very
period when lbath and his descendants were supposed to have
lived in Scandinavia. Moreover, a number of gold objects of
definite Irish origin have turned up in Scandinavia. The objects
are believed to have been manufactured locally, but following
influences from Ireland and with Irish gold. Weapons from the
same period made of bronze manufactured in Ireland or
England have also been found.
30
The first modem historian who equated the Tuatha de
Danann with the Danes was one Sir William Wilde, who in his
Lough Coti, Its Shores and /slano!s also equated the Fir Bolg
with a colony of Belgae, an identification that has not
withstood time.
The Dams Invade
While the descendants of lbath waited among and no doubt
married into the Danish royal clan, gradually forgetting their
long-lost lands, other events were taking place on Ireland.
Almost two hundred years after the Fomorian reconquest
(c. 1524 BC), some of the descendants of the surviving leaders
returned to Ireland, but under the name of Fir Bolg (people of
Bolg). We do not know whence they came, although Scotland
or possibly Orkney or Shetland form likely possibilities. The Fir
Bolg brought with them a strong force (a thousand javelin-
men under Slanga, two thousand men under leaders named
Gann and Sengann, confusingly the same names - or titles -
as worn by two earlier Fomorian kings, and two thousand
warriors under Genann and Rudraige) and soon regained the
overlordship of the island, ruling it for 37 years. The
Fomorians were dispersed, although some passages in the
chronicles suggest that they eventually formed the ancestors
of the Picts of Scotland. This is not at all impossible. Tacitus
certainly believed that there was a Germanic element amongst
what he called Caledonians: “The reddish hair and large limbs
of the Caledonians proclaim a German origin” (Agricola 11). In
Danu”. another paragraph Tacitus remarks on Britain’s proximity to
the coast of Germania (Agricola 10). A Pictish stone from
Collessie in Fife, (illustrated by David Karunanithy on p.7 in
Slings/tot 193, September 1997) shows a warrior possibly
wearing a hairstyle reminiscent of the ‘Suebian knot’ first
described by Tacitus and known to have been worn by several
Germanic tribes, including some Scandinavian ones.
The successful Fir Bolg invasion, when the news reached
Scandinavia, must have reminded the Danish nobles that they
too held claims to Ireland. The descendants of lbath and the
Danes had not formed part of the Fir Bolg invasion group, and
now when they saw that the Fomorian hold over Ireland was
not impregnable, they decided to act. The Tuatha de Danann
formed a second invasion force. Some years after the Fir Bolg
and had reconquered Ireland, the Tuatha de Danann sailed to
northern Alba (Scotland), where they conquered Dobar and
Urdobar (northern Scotland or perhaps Orkney and Shetland).
After seven years there, their king Nuada led them onwards to
Ireland, where they fought and defeated the Fir Bolg at the
battle of Mag Tuired, where eleven hundred Fir Bolg fell. Peace
was concluded. The Fir Bolg had to be content with Connacht,
while the Tuatha de Danann took control over the rest of
Ireland. Nuada, by the way, lost his hand in the battle, a story
resembling the Scandinavian legend about the war god Tyr
(and admittedly also several other Indo-European myths).
Eventually (c.1457 BC) peace was also concluded in a
number of marriage alliances with the Fomorians, who evidently
were not yet completely out of the picture, and the Tuatha de
Danann invited the son of the Fomorian king to rule over them.
This was not successful, however, and yet more battles soon
followed between the Tuatha de Danann and the Fomorians.
But marriage alliances and probably also other mingling among
the noble families on both sides had occurred, and in
subsequent generations (from the 1270s BC) the personal
names of Irish rulers indicate that descendants of both the
Fomorians of Emor and the Fir Bolg remained on Ireland.
Some remarks in the Irish chronicle indicate that the
Tuatha de Danann may have introduced horses to Ireland. If
so, we should perhaps put their conquest at around 1200 BC
instead of the three hundred years earlier date as computed by
 §fitupfjot-Issue 210 -A62?32000hert

- “Q#
AGM2000
In accordance with our constitution we must have an AGM but this is also a convenient excuse to present members with b
the opportunity to get together informally before and after this necessity to Game, Game, Game! This year you will also
be able to visit the Royal Armouries and buy, buy, buy from the invited traders.
The decision to make a great leap northwards to an excellent - and wholly appropriate venue in Leeds, will hopefully
prove an attractive option wherever you may live. As the previous bulletins have shown the transport links are there to
be used. There are also numerous discount bargains which can be had on rail services to lighten the financial load -
check out the ‘Fab 4’ (GNER - E54 return from London for 4 people) offer and others on the trainline.com
The Committee has responded to requests that the historical umbilical with London and the southeast be severed (at least
on a trial basis). It is now up to you to vote with your feet - but you can just raise your hands at the AGM if you prefer! t
So, get your gaming heads on, lighten-up, chill-out and don’t be square - be there on 9th September, 2000! The
Committee looks forward to meeting you.

Prizes have been kindly donated by : Trade Stands

Old Glory Corporation Old Glory Corporation
East Riding Miniatures Ellerbum Armies
Navigator Miniatures East Riding Miniatures
Wargames World (Grumpy’s Miniatures UK)
Grand Manner Navigator Miniatures
Warrior Miniatures Wargames World
To be presented for various aspects of the show. Grand Manner
Our thanks to these traders for this incentive to put on a good show. Veni Vidi Vici
)

%-
OXFORD11HAD
Brian Espie
fter much deliberation and re-arranging of schedules
Steve Robson and I were able to clear our calendars
sufficiently to enable us to compete in the Oxford round
of the DBM Doubles competition. Unfottunately this did not
happen until the Wednesday before the competition and we
were lucky to be able to enter at such a late date. It also left us
with the problem of putting an atmy together for the competition
at short notice, as neither of us had one we could use. It was the
Friday night before we finally decided which troops, from the
armies we had, we could use to put together a half-decent and
not too wildly inaccurate army. Using my Mamluka as the basis,
but also including Seleucids, Highlanders and some
Renaissance types, we put together a fairly Arab looking
Conquest force with reliable Nomad allies. This was very heavily
biased towards cavalry, as we didn’t have too much in the way
of infantry we could use.
We arrived early on the Saturday moming, which was
fortunate as it gave us the opportunity not only to get our list
checked, but to sit down and look at the Army together and try
and work out how to use it - quite important really as neither of
us had seen an Arab Conquest army in operation, never mind
used one! Expecting to face at least some Knightly armies
(guaranteed really, you’ve got to have those “quick-kill” troops
haven’t you?) we decided to use the combination of the camels,
bowmen and warriors to absorb any Knightly attacks while the
Arab cavalry attacked on the flanks. Other than that we didn’t
really know what to do. So, with the Arabs high aggression and
likelihood of being the attacker, we planned to deploy in depth
so that on our first move, we could respond to our opponent’s
deployment before he started to close us down.
The first game of the weekend saw us attacking against a
Kushan army, which was very heavily biased towards Superior
Light Horse with supporting elephants and cataphracts. Our first
surprise came when, after laying our steep hills and road, a
wooded hi! appeared complete with fortified Built-up Area and
all the Kushan infantry as the garrison, next to the road tight in
Me rnicfde ofcur dfzploynent a& Unable to think of anythiig
brilliant to do about it, we left a couple of Arab javeliien to
watch it and ignored it for the rest of the game. Our planned
sweeping attack on our left against the Ku&ran light cavalry
command, after an initial setback when the nomads were
caught and broken, was eventually successful, breaking the
Kushan’s largest command and exposing theii centre. This took
most of the game to do and we were moving against the flank of
the Kushan centre of elephants when time was called.
Fortunately the elephants and cataphracts had been unable to
make any progress against the Arabs right and centre, the
cataphracts in particular suffering badly as they were caught
manoeuvring past a steep hill by the Arab camels and
supporting light cavalry, the total casualties breaking the whole
Kushan army.
Completely surprised by this unexpected result, and not
quite knowing what had gone wrong to enable us to achieve
this, we were somewhat apprehensive when we discovered that
our next opponents were Christian Nubians. As a mostly cavalry
army we were not particularly confident about our chances
against all those camels, the brush covered rough going that
spread across the centre of our open battlefield doiig nothing to
continued on back page of this ins&
 Whats On !
THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE GAMES AND DEMONSTRATIONS
AT AGM 2000
Group/
Game/Display Details
ndividual
‘ast Riding The Grumpies will be putting on some
Miniatures
kind of game for Grum Groupies to get
:Gmmw’s stuck into ...
Min. UK)
Navigator ‘A mini campaign using DBA c. 200 BC’
Wargames War of the Roses outing for the Piquet’s
World Medieval module “Band of Brothers”
Grand
Wait for the surprise .. me too !
Manner
Jl,flstin Taylor Justin Taylor will host a 1Smm
Veni Vidi Republican Roman versus Successor
cc ‘Magnesia type’ contest using his own
Vici fame)
“Alea Iacta Est (the Die Is Cast)“.
Tony Hughes, our local layout man, will
Tc,ny Hughes’ host contests using ‘Lytel Gupan’;
L,ytel Gupan skirmish combat set in 5th-9th century
Britain.
Hosting a ’ 1940 Air Campaign’ game.
The exploits of 11 Group v Luftflotte 2 &
Society Of 3. In a new twist participants pay for the
Twentieth
Century replacement Spitfire and Hurricane
IWargamers Squadrons that are needed. The proceeds
f Longbow
rom this novel approach go to The Battle
of Britain Memorial Fund.
‘Success with Successors! ‘, a 4 player
participation game using 1Smm Asiatic
Darlington Successors. 2 games, 09:30 & 14:OO.
Wargames Using ‘Fantasy Rules! Ancients’ (FR!A);
Club a fast play ancients ruleset form the US
with an original command and control
system .
Their numbers may be smaller but their
turnout and kit are every bit as good as
Legio Vlll
Augusta the famed Ermine Street Guard. You can
MGV touch, hold and even wear it if you’re
lucky! See the article on the back page of
this insert.
Join Paul for ‘Midnight at the Oasis’; a
hex based 1Omm Crusades game. Defend
the eager pilgrims from the infidel or
vanquish those enemies of the True Faith,
Paul Reeve the Knights Templar, or ruthlessly carry
out the Great Khan‘s instructions and
destroy the Mamluks. The rules are a
variant on DBA on a wooden hex playing
area that looks really impressive.
Share a chair with our very own TV
celebrity! Join Phil in a game of
Philip Sabin ‘Shieldwall’; combat in the Dark Ages.
This game employs the system developed
for Phalanx - (See Slingshot 181).
Group/
Game/Display Details
Individual
A series of Dacian versus Imperial Roman
romps using the in-house ruleset currently
under development by one of the oldest
Liverpool
clubs in the U.K. (founded in 1967). Take
Wargames the opportunity to become involved in the
\ssociation
official playtesting of their new set of
Ancients rules and contribute to the final
version.
Pike and Hit me with your rhythm stick - NO NOT
Shot THAT LONG POINTY ONE! Another
Society surprise in store here.
Phil and Sue will run DBA2 participation
Phil & Sue
games. Step up a gear with the latest
Barker
offering from WRG.
The We wait to see what these venerable old
Gentlemen timers provide for our delectation and
Pensioners amusement...
Avast there! Join in ‘Might and Main’ or
‘Cog Wars’; a 15mm Medieval Naval
participation game on the high seas. Can
you stop the foreign fleet slipping through
the Channel? Its 1469, a small fleet
Lance and consisting of a nice fat Burgundian
merchant, two French and a Spanish cog
Society are making a dash down the French coast,
keeping out of the way of English
privateers. However they have been
spotted by Richard Neville the Earl of
Warwick and his cousin Thomas, Bastard
of Fauconburg .. ...
Almost as old as Liverpool Wargames
Crosby Association - or they look it!: This group
of veterans will be ‘Marauding with
Wargames M
ongols’ in 15mm using Tactica; a set of
Group rules which demand careful initial
deployment.
At least two games during the day
(Hungarian and Ottoman Turk). The
Chris North morning game will attempt to recreate the
and Dave Battle of Mohacs using DBM with period
Handley specific amendments. The afternoon game
will see DBR being used to see how the
same armies fare under differing rulesets.
York A 15mm DBM game representing one of
Wargames the Successor battles; probably at least
Club two games.
Ian will be hosting some small scale
demonstrations of his ‘Rein-Bow
Ian Russell
Lowell Warriors’ rules.’ Small encounters rather
than full games, to allow more people to
get stuck-in and have fun!
 §lingsfjot - Issue 2 I 0 - 7cQm 2 000 Insert

from : Notes for Map 1 :

Map 1 : See Map 2 Al North East (Al)
for route to E&Cen t. Scotland (Al: Approaches to Leeds
Approaches to
Armouries I have shown routes chosen to
Leeds from the rl- from M621 approach Leeds from the south,
Rc
Aotorway system _ I Ann all directed at junction 3 on the
M621, so avoiding Leeds city
centre. Routes via the A65 and
M62 A64, approaching Leeds from
Ml/Al(N)
the north, may be better if you
know the roads.
Traffic coming south down the

1:
Scotland
th West
(M74-M6-M62)
(M6-M62)
T&b from
HUII
:
new stretch of the Ml cannot get
onto the M621 at junction 43 so
must take the alternative route
lidlands
th Wales
th West
t &Wales
(M6-M62)
(MS6-M60-M62)
(MS)
(M4)
South London
(MZ/M3-M25-Ml)
(M2S-Ml)
,M62
E York shown, via junction 44, the
B6481 & A61.
Midlands (M6-Ml)

Notes for Map 2 : Local Area

The map shows the route through the one-way system and is the
08:OO Traders/Garners may gain access to set up best we can manage from the conflicting information available.
08:45 Committee Meeting for urgent business only The area is under continuous development and routes are subject
09:OO Doors Open for Members and Visitors to change. Watch out for signs which we are told are there.
1l:OO AGM (followed by issue of vouchers to members) Pedestrians coming by rail or bus should follow signs (or ask
directions) to the Waterfront Walk which will take you directly
16:30 Prize giving
to the Armouries. There is a Tourist Information point at the
17:OO Doors close
railway station. Local buses do run to the Armouries (so I am
18:OO Venue must have been vacated
told) but I haven’t got further details.

Accomodation
If you are planning to make a weekend of it Local area near the Royal Armouries
and wish to stay overnight then there are
plenty of hotels within easy walking
distance. Most hotels in the city centre are
fairly pricey but those in the University
district (just to the north west of the railway
station) and on the edges of the city centre
are cheaper. The AA map shows a
Travelodge very close to the waterfront but
it isn’t listed in the Accommodation Guide,
that might be worth a try.
Contact the Gateway Yorkshire
Accommodation Helpline for details on
0800 80 80 50.
There is also a website with general
information on Leeds at www.leeds.gov.uk

Other Attractions
Leeds offers more than you might think in
the way of tourist attractions with a number
of museums and galleries as well as a
number of theatres of renown. Eating out is
supposed to be excellent with a wide range
of cuisine on offer.
Victorian architecture is one of Leeds’ big
attractions and there enough ‘shopping
experiences’ to please the most discerning from 344 \’
shopaholic. M62i 34 . via B6481 \
 §lings~ot-fssue210-~~~2000Insert
ntEEtGHTtiLEG1ON
Romanre-enactors
attendingtheSOAAGM andGames
Pap
JohnPoole
FE he full name of our adopted Legion is hio Vlll Augusta
\ !Mutinensis Gallica Vi&x. Our Legion was formed in 59
BC, or possibly earlier, and served with Julius Caesar in
Gaul in 58-59 BC. The emblem of the Legion is the bull.
The Vlll was part of the army Caesar led across the river
Rubicon into Italy itself in 49 BC, effectively declaring war on the
Senate. The Legion fought against Pompey at Pharsalus, in
Thrace (modem Greece) on Sm June 48 BC, winning an
overwhelming victory. Caesar’s victorious army travelled onto
Egypt, and captured the throne for Queen Cleopatra. Finally in
46 BC, by way of Italy, the Vlll Legion took part in a further
victory at Thapsus in Africa (modem Tunisa). The LRgin was
disbanded in 46 BC as nearly all Caesar’s enemies had been
defeated. The last sparks of opposition were stamped out in 45
BC when Pompey’s sons were defeated at Munda (S. Spain).
The death of Caesar left two main contenders for control of
the Empire, Octavian, and Mark Antony. The Vlll Lsgion was
reformed by Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, in 44 BC, and
helped him fulfil1 his destiny as the first Roman Emperor, taking
the name “Augustus” meaning “Venerable” or ‘Magestic”. The
Legion gained its other title “Mutinensis” following a victory at
Mutina (now called Modena, in Northern Italy) in 43 BC
Dzgii VII Augusta provided a detachment of troops for the
invasion of Britain, the main portion of the Legion remained on
the German Frontier. There is evidence that the VIII fought at
Maiden Castle with the II Augusta. It is interesting to note that a
young officer named Vespasianus was present on the II Legion’s
staff at the time. It appears that detachments from the Vlll
Augusta continued to operate in the province for many years
after for the legionary, Junius Dubitatius, was serving with such
a detachment of the VIII Augusta in the 2”d century AD, when he
lost his shield in the River Tyne. The highly decorated boss was
Oxford ‘Jihad by Brian Espie(continued from first page of this insert)
cheer us up. We decided to try and outflank the Nubians wlth
the Nomads while fendiig off the camels for long enough to
allow us to get the Arab cavalry around their flanks. As it tumed
out the few skirmishers the Arabs had were used to good effect,
delaying the Nubian warband in the centre and breaking up
camelry on our left, while the Nomads threatened outflanking
stripped the supports from the second, right hand mass of
camelry. This enabled the Arab bowmen, warriors and
skirmishers to wipe out all the camels and leave the Nubians
with their flanks exposed and a few casualties from
demoralisation. The clock intervened before the Arabs were able
to exploit this and we were slightly disappointed but satisfied by
the resulting draw.
We were still mystified by our first day’s success as we
deployed against our third opponents on the Sunday morning.
We opted for open terrain against our opponents “Barbarian”
Patrician Romans and their Arab allies. After deployment, we
planned a sweeping attack on the Arab right while refusing our
left against the Arab turncoats. Fortunately this plan worked
extremely well. The Romans Arab allies had virtually no effect
on the game, a few of our Arab light troops being enough to
prevent them advancing into contact. On the other flank, the
widely outflanking Nomads drew off both the Roman’s flank
guards and the reserves, exposing a weak point which was
attacked by a mass of Arab cavalry with supporting bowmen
and camels. This attack burst through the Roman line,
destroying the Romans Foederati Knights and the light cavalry
all that was found and has been copied and incorporated into
our present shields.
To come back to the present, our Legiin was formed
approximately 9 years ago and depicts the Roman Army in the
l’, and early 2”d centuries. Our strength is about 20, comprising
an Optio, Vexillarius, Comicen, Legionaries, Auxiliaries, Roman
Women, and not forgetting our inn keeper (retired Legiinary).
We display the various battle manoeuvres, taking of the
oath, roll calls, and religious ceremony, with our re-cons@ucted
Roman altar. Our Legion is the only one in North Wales, but we
have members all over the country, who come to most of our
events which are also scattered around the country as you will
see from the list of events for this year.
Our equipment is all authentic (no plastics here), much of it
is made by the Legion, particularly as our Optio is very gocd at
tuning out armour, and weapons. So if anyone is looking to
follow the purple, we are always looking for new recruits. (phone
number below), or see our web site
LEG10 Vlll AUGUSTA M.G.V.
102 Ffordd Naddyn, Glan Conwy, Ll28 5BJ
TEL/FAX 01492 - 581501 : MOBILE 07808303766
E/mail johnpoolepo@compuserve.com
Website: http://homepage.virgin.net/robin.brown5/html
Events Diary 2000
15* - lsm July Caerleon, Wales
22"d - iSti July Archaeolink (Aberdeen)
29* - 30m July Birdoswold, Hadrian’s Wall
5' - 6* August Birdoswold
lp- 13’August Kirby Hall, Northants
(English Heritage).
sent to support them, completely exposing the flank and rear of
the Roman centre and isolating their right flank. As casualties
mounted the Roman commands began to break and as time
was called their whole army collapsed and fled.
Our final opponents were using another Patrician Roman
am-ry. However, this time it had the minimum of Irregular troops
and a reliable Gothic ally to back up the large number of Psiii
supported Auxilia and Regular Knights. For us normality finally
reasserted itself. A poor deployment left us few options and our
slow moving attack on the right was easily countered by the
Romans’ regular command stn&ure. Frantic efforts to delay
their advance as we desperately tried to manoeuvre to give the
Arabs some slight chance came to nought and the Arabs
collapsed.
Overall it was an enjoyable weekend of wargaming. We were
suprised by how successful we were, especially considering
that we were using an unfamiliar army and we had been facing
some powerful opposition. We learnt more about ‘minor” tactics
and were impressed as we sat back and watched just what can
be achieved by skilled players using regulars, as we were
seriously taken apart in the frnal game. The Arab Conquest
turned out to be quite a useful an-ny and, with more
consideration over its composition, certainly would
seem to have potential. It certainly had some
character and we found that, as luck would have it, it
was a reasonably easy army to use. Maybe I won’t sell
the Mamluks after all and the Jihad could be back!
 §hupfjot - Issue 210
the chronicle. developed in the 15m century BC and soon immensely
The invasions of Ireland did not end with the Tuatha de popular particularly in the north, suddenly appears in the
Danann. Eventually yet another tribe arrived in Ireland, the Mediterranean world between 1250 and 1200 BC, in the Italian
sons of Miled, from whom the later Celtic ruling families of and Greek peninsulas. Spearheads too of continental type
Ireland were supposed to descend. It has generally been appear in the Mediterranean at the same time (Piggott,
assumed that either these were the first Irish of recognisably Ancient Europe, 146, 148, 165 n.57). It has been suggested
Celtic race, or they were merely inserted into the story by later that these weapons belonged to raiders and mercenaries from
Christian churchmen who wished their ancestors not to be continental Europe. This seems likely, but did they all
god-like and apparently very successful pagans. Even so, the originate in central Europe? Nordic swords and other bronze
chronicles never tire to describe new attempted invasions, by products have turned up throughout north and central Europe,
Fomorians and others. It seems clear that Ireland continued to from Scotland, northern England and the Loire valley in
be a prize worth fighting for throughout the Bronze Age and France in the west to eastern Poland in the east and the Alps
well into the Iron Age. Later, better known events prove the in the south.
chronicles right on at least this point, If we are dealing with raiders instead of mercenaries, what
did the raids result in? For most of continental Europe and the
The First Nordic Invasions? Mediterranean, we have only hard-to-interpret archaeological
Ireland was probably not the only target for Nordic expansion, evidence. In the south and east, where we do have more
although for other regions we have even less evidence at our evidence at our disposal, the Bronze Age saw a number of
disposal. serious disruptions. Around 1200 BC, Mycenaean civilisation
Archaeologists, unlike historians, are a peaceful lot, and ended, the Hittite empire, until then dominant in Anatolia,
they do not really wish to see traces of horrible war unless the collapsed, and most Levantine cities suffered at least one
evidence is more than positive or contemporary written major destruction. At about the same time as the Mycenaean
accounts make wars impossible to rule out. According to both civilisation declined, the numbers of central European
written sources and archaeological remains, the Goths moved settlements seem to have risen in numbers. We know nothing
from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, yet many archaeologists about the role of the central or northern European tribes in the
find such migrations hard to accept. Nobody can dispute the Mediterranean disruptions, but they could hardly have been
1066 invasion of England by a few Normans, but the invasion unaware of or unaffected by them. They may even have been
is invisible in the archaeological context; if we had few or none the cause of them.
positive written sources, would the invasion be taken seriously
by the archaeologist? Yet wars take place. As the editor The Nordics at War
pointed out in Slingshot 196, marks and indentations on the Most fighting for Bronze Age Nordics no doubt took place
blades of British Bronze Age swords show that these had been among themselves or against their proto-Celtic neighbours.
caused by other bronze weapons, and that violent encounters For those Nordic generals who are not satisfied in fighting only
accordingly were more prolific than hitherto realised. The proto-Celts, however, there is plenty to choose from.
existence of numerous extensive forts, often built with Remember that we know so little about the movements, if any,
techniques then the forefront of military engineering, provide of Nordic warbands during the period, that you can turn up
yet more evidence. It is unlikely that they were all made for almost anywhere, from the westernmost reaches of Europe to
peaceful purposes. To the contrary, it appears that the Bronze deep into present Russia and certainly to the southern shores
Age, seeing the first known centralised communities however of the Black Sea, and still feel justified that it might just have
primitive, instead was a time of strife, as the various nascent happened. After all, this was the geographical area used as
states fought over the control of important resources and vital happy hunting grounds by the descendants of your warriors.
trade routes. Even during the Bronze Age, the Nordics had trading
There is ample evidence that trade routes connected the connections with most of this area, including the
Nordics with the Mediterranean. The trade in amber to central Mediterranean. Do field your force against the Minoans or
Europe and the Mediterranean from the Baltic is indisputable. Mycenaeans, either as allies, raiders, or mercenaries. Early
In return, bronze of central European manufacture was Thracians and perhaps also lllyrians are possible targets, or
brought to the north. There were very likely also contacts trading partners. By the very end of the period, in the seventh
between the Nordics and the Minoans and Mycenaeans as well to 6* century BC, Cimmerian and Scythian raids ravaged
as Umfield proto-Celts, Villanovan Italians, and the ancestors continental Europe and the Near East on a number of
of the Thracians. The nature of these contacts is unfortunately occasions, so nothing prevents the suicidal among you from
unknown. An intriguing fact is that in Val Camonica, along the fielding a culturally slightly backward force of Nordics against
upper reaches of the river Oglio in the north-eastern Italian Scythian horse archers.
Alps and on the last stretch of the old amber road from the
Baltic to Italy, remains a major concentration of Nordic-style A Final Note
rock art, in shape and content fully comparable to the rock art So you have exhausted even this set of potential enemies? Do
of Sweden. Was Val Camonica the site of a small Nordic not worry, there are always others. According to some,
settlement? Several place-names as well as words in the local unfortunately not very believable theories in vogue among the
dialect appear to be related to Nordic languages. Val lunatic fringe of the US academic community, the Bronze Age
Camonica was the last Italian region to fall to the Roman% and Nordics even sailed to north America! You heard right, bring
then only in 16 BC. out your longboats and sail west. presuming that Phil Barker
Contacts between the Mycenaean world and continental has worked out new proto-Forest Indian army lists by the time
Europe began early, perhaps from the sixteenth century BC you get there.
when the Mycenaeans set up trading posts in several locations Moreover, do not forget that some of the Sea Peoples that
in the Mediterranean, and must be connected with the threatened Egypt and the Near East in the 13* century BC
Mycenaean colonies founded in the Aegean from about 1400 have never been conclusively identified. The fast-and-loose
BC. Contacts must have grown increasingly common. The can always claim that one of these groups came from the
east central European heavy slashing sword (Naue II type), extreme north. prime candidates are the Tjekker, Weshwesh,
§htgdjot - Issue 2 10
and Denyen. The latter came from the land of Danuna, which Larsson, Thomas B. Kult Kra/l Kosmos (“Cult, power,
you may care to pretend proves that they were Danes from cosmos”). Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, 1996.
Tanum. With this expediency, you can even field your Bronze With a summary in English.
Age Nordics in the Trojan War, where your semi-nude LetterI&, F. “Les armes de I’age du bronze”. GazettedesAnnes
priestesses will fit right in together with Paris, Aphrodite, 62 (July-August 1978): 30-37.
Hector, Ares, and the others. Mind you, I certainly do not claim Macalister, R. A. Stewart (ed.). Lebor Gabala Erenn: The Book
this is historically correct, or even likely. However, it is a fact of the Taking of Ireland Part II. Dublin: Irish Texts Society,
that we will never know all details of those long-forgotten wars. Vol. 35 (1939).
Macalister, R. A. Stewart (ed.). f&or G&ala Erenrx The Book
Further Reading of the Taking of Ireland. Part Ill. Dublin: Irish Texts Society,
Almgren, Bertil. “Hillristningar och brons&ldersdrtikt” (“Rock Vol. 39 (1940).
art and bronze age dress”). TOR, 1960,6. Macalister, R. A. Stewart (ed.). Lebor G&ala Erennz The Book
BZgerfeldt, Lars (Lars Blomqvist). /r&ndska kriinikorz Fidn of the Taking of Ireland. Part N. Dublin: Irish Texts Society,
Sten- cch Brondldem? (“Irish chronicles: From the Stone Vol. 41 (1941).
and Bronze Age?“). Gamleby: Arkeo-Fiirlaget, 2nd edn Osgood, Richard. Warfar in the Late Bronze Age of North
1992. Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress/British Archaeological
Blomqvist, Lars. Nord.@n, fomtidens fruktade farvatten? Reports (BAR) International Series 694, 1998.
Funderingar kring fomtida sj6fart doer nona Nordsj6n fijre Piggott, Stuart. Ancient Europe /ram the Beginnings of
vikingamas ankomst dr 789 (“The North Sea, the feared Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
waters of antiquity? Thoughts on ancient shipping across University Press, 1965.
the northern North Sea before the arrival of the Vikings in Rolleston, T. W. Celtic Myths and Legends.Gresham, n.d. n.p.
789”). Gamleby: Arkeo-F&laget, 1992. Senate reprint 1994.
Burenhult, Ciiiran. Arkeolcgi i Sverige 2: B6nder och Saxtorph, Niels M. Warrim and Weaponsof Early Tiies in
bronsgjutare (“Archeology in Sweden 2: Farmers and Colour.Poole, 197 1. First published in Danish as Krigs~lk
bronze-workers”). HQan&: Wiken: 2nd edn 1991. gennem tiden, Copenhagen: Politikens Forlag, 1971.
Butler, J. J. “Bronze Age Connections across the North Sea: A Excellent colour depictions of Nordic Bronze Age warriors,
Study in Prehistoric Trade and Industrial Relations between unlike many other illustrations in the book trustworthy both
the British Isles, the Netherlands, North Germany, and as to colour and content.
Scandinavia, c.1700-700 B. C.“. Palaeohisforia9 (1963). Squire, Charles. Celtic Myth G Legend Poetry & Romance
Coles, J. M. and A. F. Harding. 7he Bronze Age in Europe: An Gresham, 1912. London: Bracken Books reprint as
Introduction to the hehistory of Europe c.2~700 BC. ‘Mythology of the Celtic People’, 1996.
London: Methuen G Co., 1979. Stenberger, M&ten. LM fomtida Suetige (“Prehistoric
Glob, P. V. 7he Mound People. Translated from the Danish Sweden”). Stockholm: AWE/Gebers, 1979.
original. Stillman, Nigel G Nigel Tallis. Armies of the Ancient Near East
Grgslund, Bo. S&d f&n brons&dem (“Swords from the 3,ooO BC to 539 BC. Worthing: WRG, 1984. Does not cover
Bronze Age”). Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, the Nordics but describes the Minoans and
1967. With a summary in English. Mycenaeans.
Hingley, Richard. Settlementand Sacrifice: me Later l?ehistotic Taciti*s. The Agricola and the Gemzanid Translated
People of Scotland Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, The by H. Mattingly and revised by S. A. Handford.
Making of Scotland 4, 1998. Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1970.

1999 PORTUGUESE
Dl3MCHAMPlONSHlP
JorgedeFreitas
esults of the 6th Portuguese DBM Championship that
took place in September/November 1999, organised
by the AJSP (The Simulation Games Association of
Portugal).

12 Diogo Lea1 Scats isles and Highlands

13 Orlando Almeida Later Carthaqinian

1 17 1 Nuno Alves I Later Hebrew 6olomod ~1

1 18 1 August0 Martins I Middle Assyrian I

19 Eduardo Santos Teutonic Orders

20 Matias Guilherrne Italian Condotta (Milan ese)

1 21 1 Jot& Correia I Medieval French I

32
 §hgdjot - Issue 210

GREATBA’M’LESSERIES:ANCIENTCOMPUTER WARGAMING
AN ANCIENTSINTERNET-WARGAMING COMMUNlti ANDWEBSITE
Nik Fincher
Background interest in these games as well as the ancient world at large.
his article is intended as a short introduction to an The third is to educate, both ourselves and others, in the
LAncient period computer wargame series, ‘Great fascinating history of this era.’
@I ’ Baffles’, and particularly head-to-head intemet play of For a full description it is best to visit the ‘greatbattles’ link
it. In my opinion, head-to-head intemet play transforms the above. Basically it comprises the scenarios listed in table 2
game from mediocre to fascinating. Also, the Scenario Editor below. These are the scenarios available for download as of ls
has enabled production of much better battles than those November 1999, some of which are fictional battles.
originally released. Also on the website are :
The Great Battles series of 4 computer games CD’s Description/Review of the Games
includes the battles listed in Table 1 below. Note that the Tourney. Tournaments, Match play, Ladders, details on
Collector’s Edition includes everything, and is the sensible playing online head-to-head
purchase, particularly as it is nowadays commonly available in Scenario Archive. A growing archive of battles created by
bargain bins at around US$l 0. game buyers. These can be downloaded free, but you will
need to own the Collector’s Edition to be able to play them.
History of the Game This area also has some useful downloads for scenario
The game series was developed from the GMT boardgame creation.
series (Great Baffles of History), and I understand is a fairly Forum. An area for discussing GB issues.
close port of that system. An unofficial support page of the Related Info. Links, some historical background material.
boardgame (NOT computer game) can be found at http://
adams.patriot.net/-townsend/gboh.html Basic Game-play (Simplified Description)
All the computer game versions were introduced between Each side has a variable number of leaders with varying
1997 and 1998. ‘Initiative’ levels. Leaders can either have units under their
Game ownership/copyright history is fairly murky. As best direct command or be ‘independent’. The ‘Initiative’ level
as I can ascertain, the code was written by Erudite, the rights affects the number of units which can be given orders, but
then sold to Interactive Magic (AKA Imagic), but the code has leaders can alternatively issue ‘group commands’ which apply
now reverted to Erudite (since acquired by Kean), while the to all units under their command. Giving orders to units of
French company Ubisoft has some selling rights to the another command uses more ‘Initiative’ points, except for
existing games! The game has consequently had poor ‘independent’ leaders. Ordering combat of units adjacent to
manufacturer support. At the time
Table 1 : Original Game Contents
of writing (November 1999), there
are no plans for further issues or Alexander Hannibal Caesar Collector’s Edition
bug-fixing. However, some moves Chaet-onea 338 Bagradas Plains 255 Vercellae IO 1 Paraitacene 3 17
are afoot which may change that. Lyginus 335 Trebbia 2 18 Chaeronea 86 Dertosa 2 15
Pelium 335 Lake Trasimone 217 Bibracte 58 Rhine 58
Description of Website
The Great Battles website (for the
computer game, not boardgame)
can be found at http://www.
wargamer.com/greatbattles/. This
is not an ‘official’ website, but is
actually much better than the last
‘official’ site I knew of (Imagic’s,
since closed). I
This website was started by 2 ’ ’ Magnisia 190 NB: All dates DC
fans of the game, Jeff Vitous and klexander cam aiqn
Hannibal Campaiqn Caesar Campaign
Louis Portillo, and then acquired by
‘The Wargamer’ (http://www. Table 2 : Website Scenarios as of I Nov 1999:
wargamer.com), an online http://www.wargamer.com/greatbattks/scenario.asp
information resource for a variety of
war and strategy games. Jeff and
Louis still run the site. It is
completely free; this is not a The Titans Torentum - 323 Classic Diadochi Light - 313 1 Sentinum - 295 ’
membership club. The 7’0 - 323 Heracleo - 280 Arbela - 33 1 1 Kvnoskepha~~i .-. ._ .
- 197
,
The site is introduced as Kadesh - 1288 Mantinea - 362 Alexander in India
Trebbia - 2 18
follows: ‘The purpose of this site is
Videssos Pydna - 168 Arretium - 49 Persian Gates - 330
three fold. The first is to provide
information about a series of games Cortona - 323 Cannae - 2 16 Tunes - 255 Mat Phantasy Light
on a much neglected genre, Greek vs. Persian Allio - 386 Allio2 - 341 Medway - 43AD
ancient warfare. The second is to Leuctra - 37 I Antioch - 44AD Alexander vs. Hannibal Pyrt-hus vs Carthaao J-
provide a focus for a community of
Gaza - 312 lberian Plains Marathon - 490 He/ice - 229
others that share a common
Plataea - 479 Qadesh - 1288 Raphia - 2 17

33
§hgdjot - Issue 210
hostile units does not use any ‘Initiative’ points. Missile units usually cannot be ordered when they run out of
The game is turn-based. Leaders are activated in a random missiles, even if they have other weapons.
order and each plays his turn. The higher a leader’s ‘Initiative’, The Hannibal disk: The researcher or designer for this was
the better chance he has of getting ‘Momentum’, a 2”d or even distinctly Romanophile. There is no chance of emulating
3rd turn. When all leaders have completed their turns, a game- Hannibal’s manouevres even if the Roman player actively co-
turn is completed. operates. Hannibal can ‘win’ (because the Withdrawal Levels
Each unit has a TQ (troop quality) level. This gets reduced have been structured to allow this) but it does not feel like
by combat and movement, and when zero, the unit routs. winning to me. I personally was so appalled after buying this
Routed units can sometimes be rallied. game I consigned it to gather dust. I only resumed playing
Each army has a ‘Withdrawal Level’ which is a number of after the Scenario Editor was released and I could try to make
Victory Points. Victory Points are basically the total TQ of more historically accurate baffles myself.
eliminated units. When one army reaches its Withdrawal Level, Weak AI: The game’s Al is atrocious in several ways. It is
the other army wins. particularly weak in not having computer controlled leaders
ordering combat of other leaders units adjacent to enemy
Description of Head-to-Head play units. A human player gains a distinct advantage on this.
As many players can play as there are leaders in a scenario, Group Attacks result in units radiating out instead of moving in
but 1 -on- 1 is most common. a common direction. Playing against the computer is distinctly
Multi-player connection types available are IPX easy because the Al is so poor.
Connection, Internet TCP/IP connection and direct modem A Few Bugs: There are still several bugs in the game and
link. Website players mostly use the second method. more particularly the Scenario Editor. However, most of these
Most website players use ICQ (http://www.Mirabilis.com/ are minor and ‘work-arounds’ exist.
download/) to chat through making the connection and to Are you still reading this? So ‘why are you still playing
resume if any crashes happen during play. During play ICQ is it?‘, I hear you say. Well....
not necessary as you communicate in the games own dialog
box, and is not strictly necessary at all, just very helpful. Some Upsides (if playing head-to-head)
Most on-line games take 1-4 hours, but there are both Umpired: There are No Rules Arguments and No Rules
shorter and longer scenarios, and you will speed up with Consultations. The computer, sometimes capriciously,
experience. resolves all.
Requirements for intemet play are a 12OMhz or better Unhurried: There is not the rush of real-time games. You
Pentium, 28k or better modem, a GBCE disk in the drive and have time to think through your moves.
having ICQ running is recommended. Unique: There are no other Ancient Tactical computer
games out there.
Historical Accuracy Easy: It is Easy to Learn, Easy to play. Oh and much
Forget historical accuracy, this is about fun! Cirognards (not more difficult to win now you are playing a human opponent.
lacking in SoA, and including me) will be weeping over their
Friendly: It is good while playing to be able to ‘chat’ to
bowstrings, snapping their sarissas over their knees and
your opponents/allies, other Ancient fans perhaps thousands
skimming their slingstones out to sea. In fairness, many, but
of miles away.
not all, of the website’s posted scenarios/battles have
pretty: Good to watch and listen. OK so some grognards
attempted very hard to attain historical accuracy as well as
will sneer, but hearing the tramp of boots, the whinnying
playability. The scenario notes in the right hand column will
horses, the trumpeting elephants and seeing them in action
give you an idea of what the designer was aiming for before
does something for me.
you decide to download.
Enjoyable: I think most Ancient fans will emerge from a
Historical accuracy is impeded in general by the 3M
head-to-head game having enjoyed it, more so once they
factors, Maps, Movement and Momentum.
MAPS are, especially in Hannibal, often too small to allow become familiar with its foibles.
for proper manoeuvring, or sometimes even initial
deployments. In Closing
MOVEMENT is inadequate for cavalry and heavy infantry. It is an easy retrospect that the decision to directly port the
Sweeping cavalry encirclements and rapid infantry advances boardgame was unfortunate, and prevented the designers
to contact are out, even with the too small maps. utilising many of the strengths of computer games, particularly
MOMENTUM (See 4.2 above) can introduce very simultaneous movement, whether turn-based or real-time. The
unhistorical results and occasionally a high level of luck, game is seriously flawed in both its historical simulation and
although generally head-to-head games depend more on skill the quality of Al. Nevertheless, the Scenario Editor goes a long
than luck. Momentum was a key part of the design and way to addressing the first problem, and head-to-head play a
something players either love or hate. Sadly there is currently long way to addressing the second. The result can still be both
no option to disable it for those who hate it. (The boardgame fascinating and delightful for Ancients enthusiasts like myself.
has a trumping system which reduces the effect). The joy of seeing an enemy line shatter or despair if my own
collapses make all the irritants worthwhile.
Some Downsides We still await a definitive Ancient Tactical Computer
Some unit oddities: Phalanxes are absurdly weak, Game. We may be waiting a long time, as none of the major
Legionaries and Velites too strong. Spanish infantry do not software houses seem to have one in progress. In the interim,
have Saunions. Heavy Infantry can wheel to face attacks, if you can suppress the grognard instinct, Great Battles is well
Legionaries cannot (a rare weakness). Some, but not all the worth a try.
failings can be remedied in the Scenario Editor.
For more info, see http://www.wargamer.com/
Some gameplay oddities: Most contentiously, losing TQ
greatbattles/.
when moving in certain terrain can lead to units routing even
when there is no enemy anywhere nearby. The sequence of
Contact me on : nfincher@rad.net.id
leader activation can unrealistically snarl up movement.

34

THEEVOLUTIONOFDl3M - AREWE SUREIT’S MOVING1NTHERIGHTDRECTION?
Simon Antonp Hall
6Ii
have been wargaming now for over 25 years and over
the past few years have really enjoyed joining the
) competition circuit. So after over two decades I have
finally got round to putting pen to paper to provide an article
for Slingshot - I should be about 60 when I send the next one
on that basis.
As a little more background, I started Ancient Wargaming
at the beginning of 5” Edition, played 6” extensively, missed
most of 7’h and returned just as DBM was starting to gain
popularity. Before progressing further with this article I want to
say that I have a great deal of time for WRG, Phil Barker and
all those in the business of developing rules. I know it is a
difficult task and impossible to please everyone and without
Phil’s hard work over many years I am not sure this hobby
would exist. I hope that the following assessment of the
evolution of DBM will be taken in the spirit of improving both
the game and the historical accuracy of the rules, which is
certainly my intent.
To begin, when DBM version 1 appeared I was very
impressed with the breakthrough - and still am. It is a
relatively simple concept that gives a representation of battle
lies and gave ample opportunity for a good general to
outweigh the luck element in the game. As such it deserved its
success and thankfully has brought a lot of new players into
the game, as is clearly demonstrated by the increased entry to
various competitions.
However, since version 1 there have been numerous
amendments to the rules. My thesis here, and I will go on to
expand on this, is that these changes have reduced the need
for good tactics in the game and increased the tolerance for
mistakes so that luck now outweighs generalship. In addition
the historical accuracy of the rules has also been severely
damaged. I don’t believe that all the steps from version 1 to
today have been negative ones, but the majority - when
analysed fully in the context of the game and history - seem to
have this affect.
To expand on this overall statement this article has three
sections as follows:
l The decreasing importance of good generalship in the
game (or the increasing dominance of luck in the game).
l The armies that are most effective in DBM.
l Some ideas that Phil and Richard might consider for the
future.
The decreasing importance of good generalship
in the game (or the increasing dominance of
luck)
Here is my assessment of alterations to the rules that have
reduced the value of good generalship in the game, followed
by a recognition of some of the changes that have increased it.
Suwrior vs Suoerior as Ordinarv:
This has a massive effect. Historical generals often used
their quality troops as a reliable anchor around which to
manoeuvre. If a player does this today then what in version 1
was a solid holding position with some risk of collapse has
become a dice-driven lottery. Ax(S), LH(S) or Cv(S) against
each other now disappear in droves so quickly that you cannot
rely on them. This can be pretty extreme - my doubles partner
managed to lose a whole command of 10 Huns against 2 LH
(S) that had been left behind as a sacrifice (and did it in 2
rounds of combat!). This is neither good for the game nor
§hgdjot - Issue 2 10
historical. Much of the grading represents morale and there are
many examples of top quality troops fighting for very long
periods because of this - it isn’t logical for (S) troops fighting
each other to crumble as quickly as equivalent (0) troops.
Pushina back Liqht Horse:
One of the most difficult parts of the game used to be to
master your light horse so as to make sure they did not end up
in a mess when your other battle troops recoiled into them.
Once upon a time if a player got his/her Light Horse trapped
behind his main battle troops and he was engaged he would
pay a high price for this. The opportunity to make somebody
pay for mistakes has reduced significantly as a result. As a
result, we can all be quite cavalier in our use of light Horse
when before we had to be quite careful.
Bows unable to contact mounted:
Anybody can now stop a block of bows advancing with 2
elements of Light Horse and the Bowmen cannot even move
forward at their normal movement rate if they fail to shoot
them back because they are not allowed to contact them. It is
now quite possible to limit a bow-line to a move of just over
20mm with a single light horse with little risk, and lmm with
some risk! This problem is compounded by the reduction in
move distance for bows. Historically it maybe true that bows
would not charge formed horse, but the rules are very clear in
pointing out that “contact” does not necessarily represent
physical contact but a closure to minimum firing range. This
would surely be the norm against Light Horse in order to force
them away.
Cavalrv fleeina from Spears and pikes:
This stops another type of foot from progressing - a single
cavalry man placed lmm in front of the line stops the entire
block moving forward with no risk unless the foot want to
sacrifice an element by going round the flank with a side edge.
It also makes a spear line somewhat vulnerable to a cavalry
charge late in a game when the spears have no time to
respond - they need to flee some cavalry away so they can
overlap them. I once launched a risk free Cv(S) charge into Sp
(0) at the end of a game and rode 4 down elements. I was
very lucky to do this, but this isn’t the point - the point is that
there was absolutely zero risk to me. I don’t see the logic of
this rule. Quite possibly cavalry would flee before contact and
the rules are allowing for this, but then how can they be able to
kill the spears if they get lucky? If they genuinely are viewed to
be in real contact, how can they possibly not have the risk of
dying? Perhaps it is only those with missile weapons who
could do anything, in which case we have problems with the
categories. If this is so how is it that a group of Sassanids - all
armed with bows - can barely touch a line of Sp(l) consisting
of troops with small or no shields and limited armour. Surely
this isn’t right either. Or is it a morale effect fiorn the charge?
Whatever the reason, and even if there is a historical precedent
somewhere, the side-effect of allowing Cavalry to stop Spears
and pikes dead needs to be sorted.
Terrain on the flanks:
The l-4 on the flanks for terrain has almost guaranteed
that a defender or attacker can wipe out the flanks on a
battlefield. When defending with six pieces of rough terrain,
each has a 33% chance of being placed on a flank centreline if
the defender so wishes. As a result the flanks disappear.
Remember an attacker can do the same with five H(S) in most
cases or can put a river down. So there is very little chance of
an open flank if either player wants to shut them down. Over
35
 1999, I can only remember one game using competition found to have about the right balance of luck and skill and it
terrain where there were open flanks to manoeuvre around. was less technical than 7”, but the mechanisms are nowhere
This has negated effective and historical use of Light Horse near as good as DBM.
and Cavalry, and while it could be argued that foot armies DBM version 1 seemed to have a very good balance of the
were previously disadvantaged was it really the intention to two. Enough luck that a good player could be beaten and to
commit cavalry armies to the dustbin? make reserves and careful covering of risks an important part
Pikes and Reaular Kniahts followina up: of the game. There were some problems with it: for example,
This has pretty well killed these troop types for use on the too much ambushing, too little for foot armies and the
tabletop. Pikes have little chance against Warband if the game domination of Cv(S) armies that could dismount. However, the
goes with the odds and they win the first round of combat - balance of the game was good.
they push their way into overlaps and die. Regular Knights DBM ver.2.1 seems to be evolving towards a head-on slog
suffer from the same problem and Alexander the Great is by the central commands fought in the open in a valley with
about the most vulnerable thing you can put on a wargames rough terrain on the flanks and it is becoming repetitious and
table - I’ve killed him twice now with Warband. Anybody who boring. As a result, the luck dimension becomes more
used to be a pike expert (don’t look at me), must be a bit put important in the game because there is less room to
out to say the least. manoeuvre and less opportunity to penalise poor generalship.
As the volatility of individual combat results has been
As 1 mentioned, not all is bad and here are some changes that increased significantly through the S vs S rule the random
1 believe have improved the game: factor can easily dominate a game. This can lead to a situation
where you could easily face three or four luck driven
No ambushes in the centre: calamities in parallel, which no amount of generalship can
This allows a foot General to get his troops down the compensate for.
battlefield so that now they play a roll in the battle. It has been Of course while generalship G tactics are still a major part
the most important positive change to rebalance the strength of the better generals will still come out on top on average.
of foot and mounted armies and a very good decision. However, it is my belief that it is getting too luck driven and
Elements not de&roved when their edae is parallel to the line less enjoyable for those that want to become competent
of an enemy recoil: generals and win this way.
This stops the win-win move of wrapping a flank within the We all have to choose what we prefer as a game and 1
line, but still allows it to be done with some risk. This has hope we can get a bit of a survey of views triggered by this
reduced a random effect where previously if there was any article. For my own part, 1 play Bridge not Old Maid, but 1
break in the line of double rank Cavalry, the lucky devil who dislike Chess and Drafts as there is no luck to deal with. 1 find
rolled the six could pretty well guarantee killing 2 more enemy Backgammon a better board game. If we want Chess then lets
elements one way or another (i.e. kill the lapped pair or recoil go back to 7*. If we want Old Maid then we are heading in the
into another pair). This is better than not allowing any flanking right direction. If we want Bridge or Backgammon 1 think we
to go on as in version 1, except in so far as the S vs S rule need to take a few steps back to move forward.
makes it too common an event.
100 oace-move troops allowed to wrap an open flank: The armies that are most effective in DBM
It never made sense that they couldn’t and this gives foot So 1 believe version 1 was largely very good and a
armies a chance to break each other over a long struggle breakthrough in wargaming, but that is in serious danger of
when this was very difficult in the past. It also means that one being frittered away. One of the big arguments is that the rules
needs to keep some reserves of Psiloi around to protect flanks are more historical and DBM isn’t designed as a competition
if anything goes down. game but a historical re-enactment used for competitions
Psiloi destroved bv bowfire: (albeit that the rules clearly state that this intent is to create a
This introduces some cost to slowing down Bowmen within competition set as well). Well if this is the case why is it that
their movement range and this is good. Unfortunately there is the great armies of history are so poor in the rules?
no cost for doing the same with Light Horse as mentioned 1 am no great historian. But it is an interesting exercise to
earlier. They suffer no cost at all and achieve the same thing. try to compile your own list of the top-ten all-conquering
In addition, 1 think the death rate amongst Psiloi may be a bit armies of history and think how they do in DBM. Here as a
high - a Ps(0) shot at by a double rank Bw(0) has a one in starter is my own top-ten in no particular order:
four chance of dying every round. l Alexander’s Macedonians
l Mongol Conquest
So there is a quick synopsis of some changes both positive l Huns
and negative. What is the net result of these on the game? On l Early Imperial Roman
balance the changes in the rules have moved the game away l Arab Conquest
from good generalship and towards luck. l Teutonic Orders
Now this may be a good thing and we all have our own l Maurikian Byzantine
view of what is the right balance. From a personal standpoint 1 l Ottoman Turks
like the game to have good generalship dominate but a large l Hundred Years War (HYW) English
enough luck element that one of the skills needed by a good l Vikings
general is how to cover against the random misfortune that All these armies created empires, invaded areas, crushed
befalls us all at times in the game. Taking a few sets of rules opponents, formed colonies etc. Would you like to take one at
on this basis.. . . random to a competition?!? The Macedonians have been
My impression of 7m edition is that it was almost all micro- killed by the following-up rules. The Early Imperial Romans
management and required incredible knowledge of rule are a waste of time, but the Late Imperial Roman (that lost all
details. 1 have played enough 7” to get the hang of it and do that the Early Imperials gained) is very popular on the circuit.
quite well, but for me it didn’t have enough of the luck element Mongols and Huns are all ruined by the lack of flanks. Arab
in it and gave the generals far too much control. 6* edition 1 Conquest and Maurikian Byzantine simply have weak lists (in

36

DBM terms). Vikings need no further comment. Teutonic is
not bad but rarely seen. The only two from my list to have any
regular exposure as an army on the circuit are the Ottomans
and the HYW English and the latter is disappearing now after
the switch to 2” moves. Even in a historical refight the great
armies of the past do not do especially well - I would prefer to
be Poros the Indian than Alexander the Great.
Instead we see lots of Medieval Portuguese who had
enough trouble conquering Lisbon (OK, not quite but in
comparison to the great armies it’s a fair comment). We have
Dailami as a popular choice - very active in the Middle East
but hardly one of the greats. Early Samurai - actually my
favourite from history so I’m biased and won’t add any more
about them. Classical and Republican Indians are very popular
and are frightening to face given Superior almost everything.
So unless my list is very wrong or I’m mis-reading the
cumulative choices of several hundred competition players
then we all go and avoid the great armies of history. WHY?
Imagine putting two equally competent tabletop generals
down ten times, one with the ten above armies the other using
Medieval Portuguese. I would bet on the Portuguese winning 6,
drawing 3 and losing 1. Might even try it down the club if we
can find the time....
Some ideas that Phil and Richard might consider
for the future
They are not my rules so I will understand if the next section is
ignored, but for what it’s worth here are some suggestions that
might help on both of the above counts. I understand Phil and
Richard prefers ideas and problems to worked out solutions,
so these are not fully play tested but for them to consider.
Stow any reaulars from followina-up. back to version 1 for this:
It is simply lethal and not historical. pikes might push
forward but they wouldn’t do it while exposing their flanks on
both sides. This is what the game actually does to them. The
same is true for Regular Knights.
Make Bows kill LH and allow them to contact mounted:
This puts a price to pay for coming within 300 paces to
slow them down to a crawl and also means that a player needs
to skirmish properly. The death rate feels a bit high for both LH
and Ps so you could make them both 3 against bowfire, or
alternatively make doubling a flee and tripling a kill (it
happens pretty often).
Allow other troops to push back Ps and LH when marchiia:
I would consider allowing other troops to march unless
they come within 200 paces of non-skirmishers, but if they are
pushing back skirmishers they pay an extra PIP per such
march move. The skirmishers could be shoved back to keep
over 200 paces from the advancing player so they can still
march away. We may need to keep this down to 1 extra March
move per bound to avoid walking a Hun army off the table.
This would limit some of the quirky light horse moves - which
I use but don’t like - that can hold an entire command
NEWTITLESFROMPALLASARMATA
A list of new titles have been received from Gareth Simon
issue. Hopefully we can find space in September’s Slingshot
There a number of interesting titles on medieval topics, from 6th century Italy to the Italian Wars and others in between. A few
books on armour and armourers, a collection about the Dukes of Athens and an ancient naval campaign by a WWl admiral.
All available from Gareth Simon, 98 priory Road, Tonbridge,
to G. Simon.
Shgdjot - Issue 2 10
Spartans back for a whole game with 1 or 2 Light Horse. As a
result, skirmishers would slow down opponents but couldn’t
take them out of the game entirely. The development team
would need to test the concept thoroughly to get the balance
right.
Keep the terrain system as is but chanae the oosition dice:
We could have 1,2 on the edge, 3,4, at least 300 paces
from the table edge but not within 300 paces of the centre line
or sector dividing lines, 5,6, not within 500 paces from the
table edge. Alternatively have 1,2 touching the long table
edge, 3.4 touching the short table edge and 5,6 over 300
paces from the table edge. Now we will have some flanks,
albeit that they may be quite dangerous ones with terrain close
by, which could be a much better balance.
Insert shootina from horseback in some form:
As a starter, I would suggest a range of 150 paces for Cv
and LH normally, and 150 paces for LH against anything other
than opposing LH (to represent them running in and running
away all within the move). The factor could be 3 against horse
and 1 against foot. This would help a lot of armies as at
present there is no way to soften-up an opponent with horse
archers. Such a rule would have two effects - 1) there would
be some losses weakening the opposing player’s army, 2)
there would be quite a lot of breaking up of the opponent’s lie
that could be exploited later as overlaps in a charge and it
may make impetuous troops break their line which would
surely be one of their key roles. This would give some benefit
to those armies that used Light Horse Fast heavily - e.g.
Parthians. In response, players would need to learn how to use
skirmishers to protect their main troops from skirmish
interference - isn’t this what they were for? We need to be
careful not want to return to the 7* edition days of missile
anmd horse troops shooting their way across the table lie
Amie on the rampage. Again it would need some careful
calibration that I cannot claim to have attempted in any detail.
Allow pikes and Swars to kill mounted if thev aet too close:
This is critical if you introduce the idea above. It will help in
any case! to stop mounted troops being used to block spears.
Summary
In summary let me restate that DBM is a brilliant creation. It
has changed the face of ancient wargaming for the better.
Having got such a good thing in existence let us not lose it by
having a whole series of amendments that detract from the
balance of the game and result in all the historical greats beiig
exiled from the tabletop. If Phil and Richard were to consider
these points and 8nd solutions from these or other ideas, I
think they will have the best set of rules ever. I may even put
my Portuguese away and get Ghengis out of the box again.
However, this article is just full of my opinions
and ideas. I’ll look forward to reading the many
others in the near future. Oh, and let’s keep it friendly
and constructive guys.. . ..I
of
but unfortunately there wasn’t enough space to get them all in this
Kent TN9 2BP, UK. All prices include PGP. Make cheques payable
3?
§hgdjot - Issue 210
“LIKE BEASTSOFPItti’ - TWACP, THETWACIANS AND DBM; PART3 (AND LAST)
Christopher
Webber
4. Tribes
ut of the twenty or so lhracian tribes and clans (by
Strabo’s count), a high proportion (eight, including all of
the largest) are described as the best warriors.
The ancients were hard put to it to decide which of the
lhracian tribes was the most valiant: the Getae, Odomanti,
Thyni, Dii, Bessi, Bisaltae, and Satrae, Moesians, or Odrysae. As
you can see from the brief extracts below, different tribes also
had different proportions of troop-types in their armies. There
wasn’t always a one third cavalry component. The mountain
tribes favoured infantry, the plains tribes, cavalry. lhucydides
says that principally the Odrysians and the Getae provided
Sitalces’ cavalry. The four tribes (Asti, Caeni, Maduateni, and
Coreli) that composed the 10,000 men who attacked Manlius in
the mountains probably had very few cavalry, if any. It is
probable that different Thracian tribes favoured different fighting
styles. For instance, in the Iliad Chapter 2 “Euphemes arrayed
the Ciconians, men of the spear,...f+yaechmes led Paeonians,
armed with the bow.. .” Mountain tribes were likely to have
fiercer infantry than plains tribes. The mountain tribes included
the Bessi, Satrae, Bisaltae, Dii, and Odomanti.
Bssi
Herodotus 7.111.1 says: “The Satrae [of which the Bessi were a
clan], as far as we know, have never yet been subject to any
man: they alone of the Thracians have continued living in
freedom to this day.. . and they are excellent warriors.”
Strabo is more humorous but less complimentary: “. ..the
peoples who live in the neighbourhood of the Haemus Mountain
and those who live at its base and extend as far as the Pontus- I
mean the Coralli, the Bessi, and some of the Medi and
Dantheletae. Now these tribes are very brigandish themselves,
but the Bessi, who inhabit the greater part of the Haemus
Mountain, are called brigands even by the brigands. The Bessi
live in huts and lead a wretched life; and their country borders on
Mount Rhodope...”(Cimgraphy7.5.12).
Bisaltae
livy (XLV, 30) relates ‘The first district [of the newly partitioned
Macedonia] enjoys many advantages. It has the Bisaltae, first
class fighting men (they live beyond the Nessus, in the
neighbourhood of the Strymon).” The Bisaltae are often referred
to as a source of Macedonian mercenaries, a Macedonian
refuge, or as a place for Athenian colonisation.
Dii
Thucydides declares that the Dii were the most warlike infantry
in Sitalces’ anny (429 BC). The Dii make an interesting
conundrum, as they clearly defeat Theban cavalry by using
peltast hit-and-run tactics, and yet they are always referred to as
swordsmen. However, they loved plunder just as much as other
Thracians.
Thucydides (2.98) states “The most warlike troops among
the infantry [in Sitalces’ army] were the independent swordsmen
who came down from Mount Rhodope.” ‘[Sit&es] summoned
many of the hill lhracian independent swordsmen, called Dii
and mostly inhabiting Mount Rhodope, some of whom came as
mercenaries, others as volunteers” (Thucydides 2.100).
“In this same summer there arrived 1,300 peltasts from the
Dii, one of the Thracian tribes who are armed with short
swords.. . in the rest of the retreat the lhracians made a very
respectable defence against the lheban horse, by which they
were first attacked, dashing out and closing their ranks
38
according to the tactics of their counby, and lost only a few men
in that part of the affair. A good number who were after plunder
were actually caught in the town and put to death. Altogether
the lhracians had two hundred and fifty killed out of thirteen
hundred, the Thebans and the rest who came to the rescue
about twenty, troopers and heavy infantry.” (Thucydides 7.27)
Hemdotus (N, 98) calls the Getae “the bravest and most just of
all the Thracians”. I have already mentioned how their religion
caused them to welcome death, especially in battle. Anian says
the Getae marched out against Alexander with 4,000 cavalry
and 10,000 foot. Appian (lX, XVII) says that the Getae provided
10,000 foot and 10,000 cavalry as mercenaries to Perseus’
army. The Getae lived between the Heamus and the Danube,
and between the Danube and the Skythians. They were in
constant contact with the Skythians, and Herodotus lV,80
mentions a confrontation and royal marriage between Thracian
and Skythian forces.
The Getae were particularly fearless, and were certainty
“eager to take advantage of disordered enemy by charging
home”, as it says in the DBM light Horse Superior definition.
Although Alexander beat them, the Getae captured Lysimachus,
and showed him what tough fellows they were, by eating out of
wooden bowls, while giving the soft Macedonians gold and silver
to eat out of, and draped couches to sit on.
Herodotus (4.93.1) says that the Getae “pretend to be
immortal”, and that they resisted Darius stubbornly. He says
(4.95.2) that Zalmoxis taught the Thracians that none of them
would die, but “they would go to a place where they would live
forever and have all good things.” Plato (Charmides 156d) says
that the lhracian physicians of Zalmoxis Yare said even to make
one immortal.”
‘Arrian (Tactica XVl,6) reports that the northern Thracians jii
the Getae] had learnt the wedge-shaped battle formation from
the Skythiansnx’ Valenus Flaccus confuses the Getae with the
Skythians and Sarmatians. lhucydides (ll,96 G 98) asserts
“Both the Getae and these other tribes are neighbours of the
Skythians and are armed in the same way, beiig all mounted
archers... The Odrysians themselves and, next to them, the
Getae formed the majority of the cavalry.” Valerius Flaccus
(V,95-100) tells us a story that pharaoh Sesostris waged war on
the Getae, but was so terrified by the slaughter of his people he
returned to Thebes and the Nile. Though this story is obviously
untrue, it still demonstrates a great respect for Getic ferocity.
Classifying Getic horse archers as Superior Light Horse
represents fierce Getic horse archers charging in wedge.
Classing some of the peltasts as Fast Warband or Fast Blades
would make them more lie their direct descendants, the
Dacians (who spoke the same language as the Getae).
MO&
“It is a repulsive task to describe the savagery and cruelty of the
Moesians and their barbarity surpassing that of all other
barbarians.” Florus II, XXVI. The/%&an War.The Moesi lived in
eastern Thrace, in the plains bordering the sea and the Danube.
Odomanti
In Aristophanes’ AK- 170, the Odomanti are
described as “the nastiest tribe in Thrace”. They are
mentioned in Thucydides 5.6.2 as useful Athenian allies and
mercenaries. They lived near Amphipolis.

The Odrysae were the most powerful Thracian tribe, the only
one to briefly unite all the others. Most Thracian kings
mentioned in ancient texts were Odrysian kings. They were
based in the central Thracian plain. Their united Thracian army
of 150,000 men was about one third cavalry. Forces of
mercenary Odrysians include “a force of Odrysians, about two
hundred horsemen and about three hundred peltasts, came.. . as
allies from Seuthes across the strait” (Xenophon Hellenica3.2.2)
and “3,000 free Thracians were under their own commander...
Cotys, son of Seuthes, king of the tribe of the Odrysae, had
anived at Citium with 1,000 picked cavalry and about an equal
number of infantry” Livy XLll.52 (168 BC)
ln 429 BC ” The empire of the Odrysians extended along the
seaboard from Abdera to the mouth of the Danube in the
Euxine... The tribute horn all the barbarian districts and the
Hellenic cities, taking what they brought in under Seuthes, the
successor of Sitalces, who raised it to its greatest height,
amounted to about four hundred talents in gold and silver... It
was thus a very powerful kingdom; in revenue and general
prosperity surpassing all in Europe between the lonian Gulf and
the Euxine, and in numbers and military resources coming
decidedly next to the Scythians, with whom indeed no people in
Europe can bear comparison,... so that the whole [of Siilces’
army] is said to have fonned a grand total of a hundred and fifty
thousand. Most of this was infantry, though there was about a
third cavalry, furnished principally by the Odrysians themselves
and next to them by the Getae. The most warlike of the infantry
were the independent swordsmen who came down from
Rhodope; the rest of the mixed multitude that followed him
being chiefly formidable by their numbers.” (Thucydides 2.100)
lhyni
Xenophon (An&& VII, 2) praises the Thyni: “Teres, with a
large army, was said to have had his baggage train taken from
him by the natives, who are called Thyni and are supposed to be
the most dangerous of all the tribes, especially at night fighting.”
The Thyni lived in south-eastern Thrace and included clubs
amongst their weapons.
5. Thmdan Watfate
The Thracians taught the Greeks how to skirmish with peltasts,
but skirmishiig with peltasts is difficult to simulate under DBM.
They can’t shoot, and they have difficulty falling back, as they
can’t retreat in a group. If given the Warband (Wb) or Blade (Bd)
classification, the Thracian peltasts would have some chance
against hoplites, which they did beat several times, for example
An&&s Book 6, chapter 3: “For some time, the Greeks
marched and fought back at the same time, but at a place
where they had to cross a watercourse, the Thracians routed
them and killed the whole lot”. ln contrast, it’s difficult to
skirmish with Auxilia vs hoplites under DBM. Although
possible for Wb or Bd to defeat pikes, it’s unlikely that it will
happen, especially for Fast (F) troops. This is what happens in
the next passage: “The Triballians held their own while the
fighting was at long range; but once they felt the weight and
drive of the Macedonian infantry in close order, and the cavalry,
instead of shooting at them, had begun actually to ride them
down in a fierce assault all over the field, they broke and ran
through the wood to the river.” (Arrian)
Although they lose the above encounter against cavalry, I
have already indicated how, using skinnishing tactics, Dii beat
off some lheban cavalry. For the Thracians, this would be better
simulated by Fast Warband in two ranks, as these have a better
chance against cavalry.
Classification as warband would still leave the peltasts
vulnerable to attack by Macedonian heavy cavalry as related in
Thucydldes 11,100: “The Macedonians... made cavalry attacks
§hgsfjot - Issue 2 10
on the Thracian army when they saw their opportunity.
Whenever they did so, being excellent horsemen and armed
with breastplates, no one could stand up to them...”
Night attacks were a favourite Thracian tactic (see the Thyni
above). Best even suggests that their success led to the
adoption of this tactic by the Greeks, and the disastrous night
attack on Syracuse by Demosthenes.
For hundreds of years the lhracians kept the Greeks and
Skythians out of their homeland. They also got rid of the
Bastamae and Galatians. Although eventually conquered by
Persians, Macedon&s, Gauls, and Romans, they always
recorded some successes against their oppressors, and
eventually threw all of them out, except the Romans.
For instance, the Getae captured Lysimachus, The Brygi
wounded Mardonius, and some nearby Thracians captured
Xerxes’ chariot. Philip II was nearly killed in a fierce battle
against the Triballi, only escaping death through the bravery of
Alexander. As revealed above, 10,000 Thracians defeated the
victors of Magnesia in a defile. It has also already been shown
how they defeat the Bastamae, with the help of the gods. (Livy
x/W
“The Greeks in Thrace suffered from both the bad climate
and the novel local methods of warfare. Between the Persian
and P’eloponnesian Wars the Athenians lost nine expeditions
while trying to colonise the Strymon valley.““. This includes an
expedition inland from Amphipolis, which “was cut to pieces . . .
by a combiied army of Thracians”. (Thucydldes 1,100)
The trust that Greek and Macedonian commanders placed
in them should be noted; many of Iphicrates’ victories were
gained using Thracian peltasts as the main arm. Alexander gave
them many important missions. J.C. Dragan3* attests
enthusiastically that “the Agrean Thracians were good soldiers
who used bows and catapults very skilfully, who took part in
almost all the battles. The Odrysean and Paean horsemen
followed the king in Asia. Siilces, king of the Odrysae, led
regiments of the Acontistae. The light cavalry of the Odrysae
and the Peaons were in the service of the king as well as the
prodromoi and pioneers.. .Alexander could trust his Thracians.”
Phil Barker speculates that on the Greek left wing at Gaugamela:
“the battle swayed this way and that, and the savage Thracian
infantry [took] a major partnu Here the Thracians helped beat
off a sustained attack by superior numbers of cavalry. Although
lhracian mercenaries were usually placed on the left wing of an
army, when placed on the right wing at the battle of Raphia,
Ptolemaic lhracians beat their Seleucid opponents (some of
whom were also Thracians).
Battieswithlessgloriousresutk
In most cases, Thracian defeats seem to be due to their enemy’s
it’s superior numbers and/or superior technology. Where the
Thracians lose, it is not usually a walkover, but a pitched battle.
For instance: “Clearchus.. . made war on the Thracians,
defeated them in a pitched battle and from then on plundered
and ravaged their land and carded on the war until Cyrus
needed his army.” Xenophon, An&Ms, II, 6.
“Then Antiochus went down to the Hellespont and crossed
over to the Chersonesus and possessed himself of a large part of
Thrace by surrender or conquest, He freed the Greeks who were
under subjection to the Thracians.” (Appian, Histwy Xl.U.6).
Here, although the lhracians are defeated, some previous
success is implied, as it shows that Greeks living in Thrace had
to pay tribute to the Thracians.
“Philip M...led out an army against the barbarians, and
marching through the centre of lhrace he invaded the Odrysae,
Bessi, and Dentheleti. Coming to Philippopolis, the inhabits
flying to safety to the heights, he took it without a blow. And
39
Mngdjot - Issue 210
thence, after traversing the plain, and sacking some of the in WC&S further backs up this contention: “There was much
villages, and exacting a pledge of submission from others, he wooded county around the pass, and this put the Macedonian
retumed home, leaving a garrison in Philippopolis, which was phalanx at an immense disadvantage; for the formation is quite
after a time expelled by the Odrysae in defiance of their pledge useless where it could not thrust its long spears ln front of the
of fidelity to Philip.” (Polybius xX111,37). Here the Odrysae, shields to form a kind of palisade, and for this it needed open
though defeated, are later able to regain their position. This country. The Thracians were hindered by their lances [the word
passage is interesting, because there aren’t any hills near translated here is rumpia], of a similarly enormous length,
Plovdiv, only the three steep hills within the town (one of which among the branches which projected on all sides.” Livy xxxi. 39.
is fortified). It may be that the inhabitants retreated to the citadel, 11 (Penguin translation). This sounds very lie Bd(F) adding -2
allowing them to retake the town later. to their combat factor for fighting in woods!
swords
6. Weapons I have already mentioned the Dii swordsmen
Some Thracians were armed with rhomphaias, swords, or clubs. (machaimphoroi) in Siiaces’ army, and as 1,300 expensive
These would be best classed as Blades Fast. mercenaries hired by Athens. These men are always referred to
RhomDhaias as “swordsmen”, or “armed with
“First marched the lhracians, who he [Nasica] himself tells swords”. When coupled with theii
us, inspired hi with the most terror; they were of great stature, description as beiig especially nasty,
with bright and glittering shields and black frocks under them, and their impetuous nature, DBM’s
their legs armed with greaves, and they brandished as they Blade or Warband Fast category wouki
moved straight and heavily ironed spears [rumpia] over their seem to best describe them.
right shoulders.” (Plutarch, Life sfAemiIiusPaulus, 168 BC). “Swordsmen” does not equate with
Scouring most of Bulgaria (except Vama) in 1988 tumed up “skirmishers”, especially when other
about ten rhomphaias (rumpia in Latin). Two in the Plovdiv lluacian infantry are usually described
museum are most interesting: they fit the descriptions of as spearmen, javelinmen, or peltasts.
Plutarch and Valerius Flaccus exactly. One had a blade as long For instance, Alcibiades “had . . .
as its handle (both about 50 cm long). The other had a 80 cm numerous Thracian javelineers and
blade and a 50 cm long handle. Both were made entirely of iron, horsemen.“~. The only other time that
and were “straight”. Most of the Rhomphaias I saw were just the lhracian swordsmen are mentioned is
blade, sometimes with what was obviously a tang for attaching a when Cmesus hired “many Thracian
wooden handle. Aulus Gellius gives the names of swords, swordsmen” for the Lydian army.%
spears, and every other suggested rhomphaia alternative, and The Thracian sword (machaira or
only then observes that “The rumpia is a kind of weapon of the kopis) often comes into special
[
lhracian people.” There is also a reference in Curtius’ history of !!t!lL mention; it may be that the Dii were
Alexander to Thracians using %xes” against the elephants at the F, 1 : a,.,armoured Thraoan especially good at using it. For
Hydaspes battle. mn (fr~m~~k~) example: “Helenus then struck
Plutarch’s story you have already read; Valerius Flaccus (Vl Deipyrus with a great lhracian sword,
94-100) continues: ‘But where the intermingled footmen keep hitting him on the temple in close combat and tearing the
pace with Sidonian reins, thence Aea draws to her the sworn helmet from his head; the helmet fell to the ground, and one of
Bastamae, whom, Teutagonus at their head, a barrier of raw those who were fightlng on the Achaean side took charge of it as
bark arms and an even-balanced rumpia, not shorter in steel or it rolled at his feet, but the eyes of Deipyrus were closed in the
stem. Hard by with twin javelins cloth he strike his white targes darkness of death.” (Iliact Book XIII).
who with an axe digs out the surface of wintry Novas and frozen Interestingly, Archibald (1997, p.203) says “Only a small
Alazon ...- number of Greek sword blades have been found in lhracian
Duncan Head (SIing.sIrot, November 1978) writes: “The tombs, where traditional forms, be it the curved dagger, or the T-
‘barrier of raw bark’ is presumably a shield. This I regard as shaped knife, were the dominant weapon for close combat,
possibly the most important single passage for the identification along with the &n&es and related fom-~s of Skythian origin.
of the rhomphaia. Chronologically, it establishes the use of the Thracian &na/ces usually have longer blades than their Pontic
weapon very close to the time when the Dacian war-scythe is counterparts...The single-bladed curved knife was a popular
depicted on Roman monuments - the Argonautica was written weapon which even penetrated into the Pontic regions in the
in the latter half of the first century AD, probably in Vespasian’s second half of the fourth century.” She says that the Dii were
reign. Geographically it places the weapon on the other side of probably armed with this knife, as the machaira is rare in pre-
Dacian territory from the cisdanubian lhracians; whether the Hellenistic Thracian tombs, and was probably reserved for
Bastamae borrowed from the Thracians or vice versa, it is chieftains only.
inconceivable that the intervening Dacians did not know of the gl&
weapon. Politically, it establishes the Rhomphaia in use by a Before the advent of the famed rhomphaia, other lhracians
people allied to the Dacians. Most important of all, it establishes were armed with clubs. In Xenophon’s Arabsis, the ll~ynians
that the rhomphaia had a wooden shaft, equal in size to the iron launch an attack on Xenophon’s village. “When they were at the
portion of the weapon.. . ” doors of the houses, some hurled javelins at them and others
I quote at length here because this is the only text I know of beat at them with clubs with which they were am&, so they
that hints at the use of rhomphaia and javelin by the same said, in order to knock off the heads of the spears.“=
person. The problem is that there is so little evidence that both All this leads me to suggest that only a proportion of the
javelin and momphaia were used together by skirmishing Thracian peltasts should be armed with rhomphaias, and that
troops, and the sheer difficulty of skinnishiig with such a heavy some or all of those so armed should be classed lie theii
weapon load. In addition, the Thracian peltasts on the Kazanluk Dacian descendants - Bd(F)
tomb painting are shown carrying either a sword or rtrornphaia, Exoendables and Temoorarv Fortifications - Spiked axles,
but no javelin. Use of the rhomphaia alone seems more likely. Waoons, and a fortified cams
This, when coupled with their impetuous nature, would be better Some Thracians apparently used a sort of unpowered
simulated in DBM by Bd(F) than by Ax(S). Their performance scythed chariot. The Cambridge Ancient History quotes Salk&

40

(Hist. Ill 36M), where M. Lucullus (governor of Thrace and
Macedonia) is attacked by the Bessi: “...wheels fastened
together by their axles and studded with short spear-points were
hurled down upon the enemy as they advanced up a steep
slope.” Similar devices though in a more developed form are
also found in use among the Dacians; they may therefore be
considered a Thracian invention.” Phil Barker said to count
these as boulders for the Sti Edition list. For DBM, Richard
Bodley Scott said count them as expendables.
Thracians used wagons similarly. Anian describes how “a
large force of natives under arms and the free Thracians”
defended a mountain pass against Alexander. “They had
collected large numbers of carts, which they intended to use, if
they were hard-pressed, as a sort of defensive palisade, with the
further idea of sending them crashing down upon the
Macedonian phalanx as the men were climbing the steepest part
of the slope.”
This use of wagons is hardly surprising when YFIJ consider
the influence of the “wagon-dwelling Skythians”. Xenophon
(Hellenica Ill 2.1-4) provides further evidence for temporary
fortifications. He describes how Odrysian lhracians built a
fortified camp, with a “stockade which was only about the height
of a man”: ’ ...a force of Odrysians came to [Dercylidas, in
Bithynia] as allies from Seuthes from the other side of the strait...
These troops of Seuthes built a camp and fortified it with a
stockade about two and a half miles from the Greek camp.”
Homeric Thracian generals apparently used chariots, as
chariots have been found in Thracian tombs, and a messenger
in Euripides’ Rhesus (300): says “I see Rhesus [the Homeric
Thracian king] mounted like a god upon his Thracian chariot. Of
gold was the yoke that linked the necks of horses brighter than
snow; and on his shoulders flashed his shield with figures welded
in gold; while a gorgon of bronze like that on the aegis of the
goddess was bound upon the front of his horses, ringing out its
note of fear with many a bell. The number of his army you could
not reckon to an exact sum, for it was beyond one’s
comprehension; many knights, many ranks of targeteers
[peltasts], many archers, a great crowd of light-armed troops,
arrayed in Thracian garb, to bear them company.”
7. FodMcations & hill forts
There is ample archaeological evidence for lhracian hill-forts
(see Hoddinott, Archibald pp.40-41, and others). A Roman
attack on such a fort is described in Tacitus (Annals Iv, XLVI-U).
“.. . Besides their natural ferocity,...they [the Thracians] pointed
to fortresses amid rocks whither they had conveyed their
parents and their wives, and threatened us with a difficult,
dangerous and sanguinary war.” Archibald states that 50 sites
in Bulgaria, and 14 sites in Greek Thrace have been
investigated. Some locations are also rich in megalithic
monuments, and many have been in use since early in the first
millennium BC. While I was in Plovdiv, I witnessed the
excavation of the Thracian fort of Evmolpia, which was located
on the city’s highest hill. I will give more details of these forts in a
later article.
8. Troop rLpes and DBM
Peltasts
As it is so difficult to skirmish with DBM peltasts, perhaps
they should be allowed to retire lie light infantry. That is, if
troops actually fought as skirmishing peltasts (rather than
simply generic loose formation foot) then perhaps they should
be classified as peltast auxilia, and allowed an initial and/or final
180” turn in a group. Not many changes to army lists would be
needed, since this capability could be given to any troops
already called peltasts in the lists. If this is too complicated a rule
amendment, then I suggest that all auxilia be allowed to make
only the initial 1 80° turn in a group.
§fin.gsfjot - Issue 210
Hordes (I) or (F)
The following should at least liven up the Thracian baggage
elements, if not provide some evidence for lhracian Hordes (I)
or (F): “The Triballi were accustomed to draw up their forces in
four ranks: in the first were placed the weaker, in the second the
stronger men, behind them the cavalry and, last of all, the
women, who, if the men wavered, rallied them with cries and
taunts.” (C.A.H. Vol.VlII, ~546). Anian also says that after the
defeat on Mount Haemus, “The women, however, who had
followed the fighting men were all taken, together with the
children and all the gear and stores.” Alternatively, some hordes
could be included to better illustrate the composition of Sitalces’
supposedly 150,000 strong army, a great number of whom
must have been hangers-on or the “volunteers in search of
plunder”. As already noted, Thucydides said that “the rest of the
mixed multitude that followed him being chiefly formidable by
their numbers.”
Tacitus XLVII says that some Thracians took refuge in a
mountain fortress, and all became involved in its defence.
“Sabinus with a strong detachment made himself master of a
narrow mountain-ridge running without a break to the nearest
tribal fortress, which was held by a considerable force of armed
men and irregulars.” Later he refers to the fort’s occupants as
“the whole great multitude of combatants and non- combatants”
Some of these people were rather badly armed, as later he tells
us: “the bakaarians, speeding down in their bands, now battered
the [Roman] palisade with hand-flung stones, stakes pointed in
the fire, and oak-boughs hewn from the tree? (Tacitus U).
Warband (F)
The evidence for Thracian infantry as Warband is given
above. In summary, some of the Thracian infantry should be
especially savage, warlike, uncontrollable, rash, and impetuous,
with a strong tendency to head for the baggage, able to defeat
some cavalry, defeated by knights, able to defeat hopliies, but
still able to operate well in difficult terrain. The proportion of such
troops should increase over time, to make them more and more
like the Dacians. This reflects the Gallic influence - I saw as
many Celtic weapons in Bulgarian museums as any other
(though most modem authors say the Gallic influence was brief
and temporary). They should also be susceptible to elephant
attack, according to livy: U a body of lhracians, amounting to
some 15,000, sought to oppose Muttines the Numidian, who
was reconnoitring in advance of the main army. There were 400
Numidian cavalry and a few elephants; the son of Muttines, with
150 picked troopers, rode through the middle of the enemy, and
after Muttines with his elephants in the centre and his cavalry on
the flanks had engaged the enemy, his son attacked their rear
and created such disorder amongst them that they never got
near the main body of infantry.” Livy XXXVlll.42 (190 BC). ln
my list, no more than half the army can be Warband, as
probably only mountain or late Hellenistic tribes qualify. I don’t
make Ax( S) and Wb( F) mutually exclusive as Ax( S) can be less
ferocious but double-armed Ax, and two tribes (say, one each
from mountains and plains) in the same army could have used
the two fighting styles. I don’t allow Wb(F) to be used with Ax(S)
if any Ax(X) are present, for reasons given below.
Some people thiik that Wb(F) are quite disadvantaged in
wooded terrain because they only fight one rank deep. Actually,
the end result is that they fight the same as Auxilia in woods.
Although they count as inferior on their opponent’s turn, they
can always follow up. In contrast irregular Auxilia often have
trouble finding enough PlPs to follow up, especially in a wood.
Auxilia fighting Warband will 8nd itself in trouble if its PlP dice
are bad, or if its general is preoccupied with other tasks.
One of the major arguments against Thracian Warband is
that lhracian foot never defeated pikes - the only possible
instance is when the Thracians captured Lysimachus or his son.
This argument ignores how unlikely it is for Wb(F) to defeat
§hgdjot - Issue 210
pikes. The combat factors are 6 for the pikes (in four ranks) [Aetolian cavalry] with his first attack.” Livy XLlI, 68. This
versus 4 for the war-band (in two ranks). It is even more unlikely passage illustrates the chief reasons for and against classing the
on the pikes’ turn, when the warband counts as inferior. With this Thracian noble cavalry as Fast Knights. The reasons are their
in mind, I think that the other considerations outweigh this ability to fight in wedge, their fierceness (especially the Cietic
concern. and Odrysian cavalry), their impetuosity and some illustrations
Non-comoulsorv Liaht Infantry of possibly fully armoured Thracian heavy cavalry - descriptions
A less important point is that Thracian light infantry archers that fit the Kn(F) definition. The reasons aaainst this include
and slingers should not be compulsory. They are not always their unknown fighting ability against foot and the ability to work
included in descriptions of lhracian armies. I know of only four with Psiloi.
references to them - one from Polyaenus, the one from Rhesus The Kn(F) definition on p.5 of the DBM rules states they are
(on his chariot) above, one from Homer (the bow-armed “Less heavily armoured riders on lighter horses charging fiercely
Paeonians already named), and one from Plutarch’s Life of at the gallop, and armed with.. .javelins or light spears and
Alcibiades: “Alcibiades... told his friends ...he would within a few shields”. The first part of Livy’s description (“...like beasts of
days have forced the Lacedaemonians [near Aegospotami], prey long held behind bars,
either to have fought the Athenians at sea or to have deserted charged so vigorously...“) seems
their ships... the thing was probable, for that he might have to fit well with this definition. We
brought down by land great numbers of the lhracian cavalry know that Odrysian heavy
and archers, to assault and disorder them in their camp.” Even cavalry are described, because
this passage may be suspect - the Perseus project translation of earlier “Cotys, son of Seuthes,
this passage doesn’t mention the archers at all. king of the tribe of the Odrysae,
Polyaenus (111.9.62) tells how Iphicrates, campaigning in had arrived at Citium with 1,000
Thrace, was harassed by Odrysian archers and slingers: he picked cavalry and about an
discouraged them by placing bound Odrysian prisoners in his equal number of infantry.“”
front ranks, which persuaded their compatriots to cease fire!“.38 Xenophon’s On Horsemanship
Pictures of lhracian archers are also rare (I know of only two or VIII rates Thracian horses to de
Fg. 2: Thracian cavalry with shit.
three), and there isn’t any mention of them in Sitalces’ huge as good as Persian and Greek
army (Thucydides 2, 95). Incidentally, the last passage is the ho&s, and says that the
only reference to Thracian slingers I have found. Apparently the Odrysians habitually ran their
different tribes specialised in different troop-types; some tribes horse races downhill.
wouldn’t have had any archers or slingers in their armies at all. Figure 2 shows lhracian
Most of the illustrations of lhracian archers are hunting scenes, cavalry with shields. Fp 3
and many descriptions of Thracian armies do not mention them. shows a shieldless lhracian
Arrowheads have only been found in three Thracian tombs (out cavalryman depicted on a
of hundreds) so far. helmet that could be interpreted
Greek Allies as beiig covered from head to
It’s wonderful being able to get two more elements of foot in scale or mail armour,
Ordinary Cavalry by having Greek allies, but making this though the leg covering is
compulsory is wrong - Xenophon had the greatest trouble usually interpreted as cloth. The
scraping together 50 cavalry for his army, which is isn’t even scale or mail armour is possible,
enough for half an element. as the helmet it is engraved on comes from northern lhrace,
Auxilia Exceotional (Xl close to the Skythians, and the top half of such a suit has been
The Ax(X) definition on p.7 of the DBM 2.0 rules states they found. Other illustrations show Thracian cavalry wearing
are: “Foot partly or entirely lacking effective shields and relying greaves. Incidentally, there was an Odrysian prince in charge of
on long spear...instead of javelins.” Best? shows that long Alexander’s Odrysian horse, so a few of Alexander’s lhracian
spears and javelins should not be used in the same Thracian cavalry may qualii for this classification.
unit. His idea is that the long spear-armed troops were meant to The ability of lhracian heavy cavalry to defeat foot is
support the javelin-armed troops while the latter skirmished. unknown, though they must have played their part in the
When the javelins ran out, the long spear troops would advance victories listed above. This argument has to be discounted as
to hand-to-hand combat. Archibald (1987, p.202) says the useful either in support of or against the proposed change, as
archaeological evidence suggests that individual soldiers used nothing is known either way. Don’t forget that Kn(F) count
spears of different lengths according to circumstances. I don’t inferior in their opponent’s round. Alexander’s Companions (as
know of any evidence to support either view, except that Fast Knights)
depictions of lhracians only show men armed either with long seem to have
spear or javelin, never both. As the pelte was only a Rly small mostly charged
shield, and often had a rather large hole cut ln it, these long other mounted or
spear armed troops could easily qualify as Ax(X). Alternatively, through a gap or at
since they are not am-red as skirmishers, they could fit ln with disordered foot.
the Wb(F) troops described above. Ax(X) are only allowed in If the lhracian
my early list with Ax(O), as Ax(S) represents an alternative cavalry continues
interpretation - Ax am-red with both long spear and javelin. to be classed as
The Noble Cavalrv - Kniahts (F) Cv(O), perhaps its
“First of all the Thracians, like beasts of prey long held ability to fight in
behind bars, charged so vigorously with a great shout upon the wedge (and other
Roman right wing, the Italian cavalry, that this people, characteristics)
courageous by nature and through experience in war, was should be reflected
thrown into confusion.. . .& spears to attack the infantry, now to by allowing it the
cut off the horses’ legs, now to pierce their loins; Perseus Fig.3 : an armoured lhracian cav&yman, fmm the same rear -suPport
charging in the centre of the line, thrust back the Greeks Letinii plaques in lhtal&che Kunst bonus as Kn(l)

42
 §hgdjot - Issue 2 10
fighting mounted in wedge. The passage from Livy quoted
Thracian 700 BC- 46 AD
above is, however, the only instance I know of where Thracian
cavalry are supported directly by Psiloi, and even this evidence Warm, Ag I, WW, Rv. H (G). H 61, Wd, V. RGo. M Rd. BUA.
is fragmentary (perhaps it is Perseus’ cavalry that are
supported). If the ability for this support was lost, it would matter h-r CavtO), ol7AP. or
C-in-C 1
little - the combat factors of Cavalry supported by Psiioi and lrr KdFl of9AP
Knights are the same against cavalry. In any case, this capability
is only allowed in the list to the later Thracians. Kn(F) would Sub-General
simulate their abilities best.
Boats (1)
Anian says Alexander tried to cross the Danube (to attack
the Getae) using whatever boats could be found. “There were a
great many of these boats [dug-outs] in the neighbourhood, for
they are used by the natives for fishing, and for visiting
neighbouring tribes up to the river, and - fairly generally - for
plundering expeditions.” Enough boats were found to ferry
across in one night about 1,500 cavalry and 4,000 infantry. It is
also interesting to note that Herodotus VII, 111 says “The
following are the Thracian tribes through whose country he
[Xerxes] marched: the Paeti, the Ciconians, the Bistonians, the
Sapaeans, the Dersaeans, the Edonians, and the Satrae. Some
of these dwelt by the sea, and furnished ships to the king’s fleet”.

TroopTypeSummary
Early Thracians
up (700-350 BC):

I
to ha/f Irr r-4*(x) 03AP,
I have shown that the lhracians were exuberant extroverts given or h-r WMFI 03AP.
to wild, impetuous behaviour. Their religion encouraged them to Peltasts
remainder Irr AX(O)
- *-. 03AP. 304
welcome death, and those who died would be remembered as or Irr A*(s) o4AP
heroes. They were feared by their contemporaries as much as Dir swordsmr m
BdF) OS/W’ I o-8
the (War-band-type) Galatians. Their savagery was famous h-r
Thvni clubme n I
throughout the civilised world. They remained great warriors
right into Roman times, and other nations were always keen to
recruit them. Descriptions of battles with Thracians describe Later Thracians (349 BC- 46 AD):
them as “pitched battles” or “hard fought”. They also won many
battles. It was their disunity that led to their downfall. These are
the reasons why I believe the Thracian army list should include
some nastier troops. This means that the army should include
Wb(F) or Bd(F), LH(S), and Kn(F).

TheDBMAnnyList
The Army List (including suggested amendments underliied,
Duqouts and other boats1 Bts(/)
I Irr OlAP
and totals for Greek allies)

Footnm Greek Allks - List: Later Hoplite Greek

30. CAH Vol.VfII, ~546. (Bk 2 List 5). (May include peltasts)
31. Nick Sekunda, The Ancient GE&S, p. 12, 1996.
32. J.C. Dragan, We, The hmcians, Nagard publisher, 1976, Greek A&General I”3or rr stisJ o I YA’P.
SdOT Z7AP
r
Vol.1, p. 179. or Req LtOl oZ8AP I
33. Ale the Great’s Csmpaigns, P. Barker, Patrick I Irr SdOl OYAP.
Stephens Ltd. 1979, p.99. Hoplites
34. Plutarch, Alcibiau’es 37.2.
35. Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.2.10. Greek Cavalry
36. Xenophon, An&&s p. 324, Penguin edition.
37. Strabo, Geosmphy 7.3.2. Greek Javelinmen Reg PsLSIO~AP 1-2
38. Duncan Head, “Thracian Troop Types”, Slingshot, Re AdOI AP (
September 1978. p. 17. Peltasts
37?BC) R: Ai;oi?@ ‘-’
39. J.G.P. Best, 77uacian peltasts and their I&ence on Greek
Warfare, Groningen, 1969. DBM list Notes
After 300 BC, Thracian Ps (S) can give rear support to
40. The gaps in this extract unfortunately represent lost
fragments - it is supposed that this paragraph describes how Thracian Cv, but the army cannot then include Greek allies.
the cavalry’s light infantry detachments fought. Such Greek Cv can be supported by Ps (S). Superior rating for early
descriptions are rare and I thiik this is the only one peltasts is if a proportion also have long spear and later (after
concerning Thracians. about 250BC) with rhomphaia and javelins. in 46AD.
41. Livy XLll.52. Ax(X) cannot be used with any Ax (S), or after 300 BC. This
represents men armed only with long spears. The
[See Part 1 (issue 207 p.53) for the full Bibliography.. .Ed.] combined total of Bd (F) and Wb (F) can be no more
than half the total number of peltasts. Expendables
must be deployed on a hill, otherwise are lost.
Current website: httv://members.xoom.com/thrace
§hgsfjot-Issue210

TUOC’S MATLATZINCA CAMPAIGN 1484-1485 AD. - THE GREATTWUTt EVOLT

RobertRichardson
ear the year end of 1484 AD, in the area of After this battle had taken place, no further armed
Matlatzincas, another revolt broke out. The citizens of resistance was offered. Soon the necessary tribute and
@ Tzinacantepec killed several Aztec tribute collectors. supplication was offered from the remaining towns. The Aztec
This is paramount to saying that any peace treaties or army loaded with plunder and prisoners would march home,
agreements are no longer binding and the Subject City is but this is not the end of the story.
claiming its independence. This was pretty rough on
the collectors also! SATTLE OF TLACOTEPEC 1484-148SM
Ambc cl TM, lczcxcchltlm h Tcbccn
This revolt then spread to the nearby towns of &pm. 24,000 m m
Tecvauthcozcac Cillan, Tozxiuhco (Toxico),
Iczoxochitlan, Tolocan, Tecaxic Ecatlapehco and
Tonalli. The major town of Tlacotepec possibly killed
their tax representatives but on this point I am
unsure.
All of these towns were located to the west of the
Aztec capital, no more than 30 miles distance in the
next valley. This was only about a two or three day
march. The Aztec army numbered no more than
possibly three or four Xiquipilli of 8,000 men each or
some 24,000 to 32,000 men and about 2,000
porters.
The first town to be attacked was that of
Tlacotepec, which was the most southern of the
towns in revolt. King Tezoc’s Aztec army crossed the
mountains and probably mid day on the third day
came into view of the city of Tlacotepec. The forces
of Tlacotepec were probably augmented by the
nearer towns of lczoxochitlan and Tolocan. At most,
these forces could not have numbered more than
24,000 men. As in the previous battles, Tezoc’s
forces being more numerous would match their foe’s
frontage and have the reserve to fall on one of their
opponents’ engaged flanks.
i BATTLE OF TZIMWPEC 1484-1483 Nl
The normal looting and pillaging would occur
with the firing of the city temples. This is paramount
in Meso-American warfare as this would show the
conquered people that their gods were unable to
protect them. Of course, any nobles or heroes
captured during battle were fated to be sacrificed at
the Aztec capital for any new temple construction.
What is unusual is that commoner’s were more likely
to end up on the slave block and were only rarely
killed when thousands of sacrifices were required at
a major temple dedication. One is mentioned with
100,000 people sacrificed over several weeks with relays of The Chalcas, a region to the southwest of the Aztec capital,
priests doing the bloody deed. was granted limited home rule. Here was a region that had
While Tezoc was waging his campaign in the Matlatzinca taken years of conquest to be subdued and had almost wiped
area nearer to the Aztec capital, the two towns of Tetzcoco out the infant Aztec state several hundred years previously.
and Huexotzinca went to war. The Tetzcoco forces lead by The Aztec nobles went berserk. As is noted in the sources, the
Nezahualpilli, who was loyal to the Aztec cause, vanquished real reasons are not noted, but I believe it was an effort by
the Huexotzincas in battle. Perhaps Huexotzinca was trying to Tezoc to win support as his own support started to waiver and
open a second front to the war; in any case they failed. This crumble. I am sure he was an astute man and knew he was in
battle seems to have occurred simultaneously with Tezoc’s political trouble at the very least. There is even a possible
campaign, which leads me to believe it was a second front. suggestion that witches were employed to kill him (Tezoc died
King Tezoc turned his attention next against the town of by poison - perhaps this was a witches brew?).
Tzinacantepec (remember they’re the ones who started the One thing that Tezoc did do was to make it harder for the
revolt). Allied forces from some of the nearby towns joined commoner to advance through martial accomplishment. In
them at this location upon hearing of Tezoc’s defeat of the long run, it hurt the Aztec army throughout his brief rule of
Tlacotepec. The forces of the revolt probably numbered close some six years.
to that of the Aztecs. As in all previous battles, the rebels were The cause of Tezoc’s removal was painfully apparent
defeated once again. The distance between Tlacotepec and throughout his reign; it was one rebellion or brush war after
Tzinacantepec is but a few hours by foot. So the battle another. Aztec prestige was slowly eroding away. The solution
probably occurred midway between the towns. to the Aztec nobility was simple - eliminate the problem which

44
 §fing5fjot-I55ue 210
was Tezoc. There was only one way to do that and poison was Zapotec, Mayan and Toltecs (predecessors to the Aztecs) to
its means. Unlike in most monarchies, the succession did not the Chancas, Incas, Champas and many others which I have
fall to the next in the family; instead it was chosen from not mentioned. Their compositions are varied, what has been
amongst all the nobles for the best-qualified candidate. The lacking is source materials which are now becoming quite
candidates had to have good military records to even be numerous. I have named a few which I have used, at the end
considered. From these a new king by the name of Ahuitzotl of this article. Try the University of Oklahoma press, Norman,
was chosen in 1486 AD, who was to be one of the most OK 73019. They have a very large catalogue with a nice
successful kings. His rule was to last from 1486 through to selection on Meso-American books. I currently have around
1502, about 16 years. 50 books, just on Meso-America. One that would be of help to
the enthusiast would be the Ancient Atlas of the Americas The
Conclusions three I drew most heavily on were Aztec W&wv, and Warfare
lt is the hope of the author that members will have enjoyed and Society in Ancient MesoAmetica by Ross Hassig and the
these articles. If there is enough interest in the subject, I could third book was Aztec and Zapotec Armies published by
hope to write a few more articles on the subject. (I hope you Osprey, which is more readily available.
do! . ..Ed.) In the meantime, it is my hope, that some of the
garners out there will try their hand at wargaming in this Bibliography
interesting period - preferably pre-conquest. The Osprey Aztec, Mb&c and Zapotec Armies by John Pohl. Osprey 1991,
books would be a good place to start with some good ISBN 1-85532-l 59-9.
information for the average gamer. Aztec Warfa~by R. Hassig. 1988, ISBN 0-08061-2121-l.
The armies would use feigned withdrawals, ambushes, The Aztec Empk by Nigel Davies. ISBN O-8061 -2098-3.
trenches, flank marches and envelopment. The troops are Warlords of the Ancient Americas: Cent& America by Peter G.
colourful and in fact the pre-arranged wars called Flower Wars Tsouras. ISBN l-85409-237-5.
were so noted when the colourful troops fell on the battlefield it
War and Society in Ancient M-America by R. Hassig. ISBN
reminded a Meso-American poet of petals on a flower falling o-520-07734-2.
to the ground. For the soldiers, I am sure it was a lot less
History ofthe Conquest ofMexico by William Prescott.
poetic!
History of the lndies by Fray Diego Duran. ISBN O-
The types of armies are quite variable, from the more
8061-2649-3.
popular Aztec to the Tlaxacallan, Huaxtec, Tarascan, Mixtec,

SASSANIANFOES
Phil Halewood

LI.2
t was interesting to
see Brian Letchworth
) asking questions
about historical opponents for
the Sassanians; I wonder how
many owners of armies of
their Gnpire actually fight
such opponents in their
games?
If anyone is interested in
finding out more about the
foes they fought, this table
may be of use. Should you
wish to go further and put pen
to paper (please?!) I would be
willing to help in any way that I
could via phone, letter or E-
mail. This is only a hastily
assembled listing that is by no
means complete.
(AndI;l/aaepa!lhehe/pI~n
get ,‘rom the reades on
t?ua%ag lhmm J?tm #&
Iti iwk&g t7-/ a- gaming Georgians Georgia/Caucasus late CSth - 510
.kik..rn)
Lari Lazica/Caucasus late C5th - c.59 I

lurks Central Asia/Eastern h-an mid. C6th onwards

Himyarite Arabs Yemen c.533 - 577

Khazars Caucasus/Greater Armenia C6th onwards

Desert Arabs Southern Iraq c.602 onwards

§hgsf~ot -Issue 210

CIVITATE1053 - THECHURCHMILITANT!
Stuart Whigham

&ii n 1820 an excavation was conducted at the ruined Aside from the solid core provided by the Swabians, the Pope
city of Civitate. Outside the wails buried in several pits had enlisted most of the major Lombard Duchies and
I were found piles of skeletons, many of men over six principalities and many other minor Lombard barons in his
feet tall, all of whom had died from horrible wounds. As for the army. The Byzantines under the Catapan Argyrus had also
connection between this gruesome find and the fall of Anglo- promised to send troops. The Lombard princes present
Saxon England, it was a ‘forgotten battle’, with ramifications included the Duke of Gaeta, the Counts of Teano and Aquino,
that spread far beyond Italy. It may seem strange that the fate plus Peter Archbishop of Amalfi, contingents from Campania,
of Anglo-Saxon England was really decided 13 years before Apulia, Ancona, the Marsi, and Spoleto were present too. As
1066 and half a continent away, but this is what may have the Papal army marched south the Pope gave it training en
happened at the battle of Civitate on June 17& 1053. route:
“The priest and robber slept in the same tent; pikes and
The Background crosses were intermingled at the front; and the martial
Southern Italy in the 1 I* century was a dangerous place to be saint repeated the lessons of his youth in the order of
ever since the Normans had been invited by the Lombard march of encampment, and of combat.“3
rebel Meles to come and help ‘liberate’ southern Italy from the The one Lombard principality that stayed aloof was Salerno,
Byzantines in 1017 AD. They had been expanding their own ruled by the infant prince Gisulf. Gisulf was the son of Gaimar
power and were a worse threat than the Saracens had ever V who had been the overlord of the Normans and the last great
been to the native Lombards. The Normans’ banditry and Lombard prince. When Pope Leo approached Gaimar he had
brigandage were notorious throughout the peninsula. pressure declined to join the Pope’s army; obviously he was not going
built up for something to be done, nearly all of the major and to see the Normans destroyed, as he would not survive long
minor powers in the southern half of the peninsula had without them. On June 2”d 1052 he was assassinated by his
suffered from the attentions of the Normans, and thus it was four brothers-in-law, but who put them up to it is not known.
that a plan was laid to destroy them. The main instigator was Literally at a stroke, the Normans were in danger of becoming
Pope Leo lX; he told the Holy Roman Emperor Henry Ill that isolated politically and militarily, as Gisulf being a minor was in
the Normans were no position to lend active support to them.
“An undisciplined and alien people... Killing Christians
and afflicting many with novel and horrible tortures... The Normans
despoiling, burning, and tearing down the churches of The Norman army at Civitate was largely a cavalry army. It
saints, recognising no distinction between the holy and was smaller than the Papal army but what it lacked in size it
the profane.“’ more than made up for in experience and ferocity. Some
Pope Leo was no stranger to war. This tall red-haired Bishop 3,000 knights were present under three leaders - Robert
originally from Alsace, had been one Guiscard, Humphrey of Apulia, and
of the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad Richard of Aversa each cornmandiig
Ill’s commanders on an earlier ltaly roughly a thousand knights apiece.
Imperial expedition to Italy. He was Infantry were small in number and
determined to end the activities of were not a significant part of the
the Normans and assert Papal army. This force represented all the
authority over them and it was as troops the Nonnans could put in the
result of this that an expedition was field after garrisoning the towns and
prepared and an army recruited. If fortresses they controlled.
they were successful against the
Normans Pope Leo intended to The Battle
attack the Aghlabid Arabs of Sicily. The Norrnans intercepted the Papal
army as it marched south on the
The Papal Army plain outside the city of Civitate
The Pope had a larger army than that which overlooked the battlefield.
of the Normans. At its core However, the Normans were very
commanded by counts Werner and short of food due to the resistance of
Adalbert were 700 Swabian the Lombard peasants. In fact,
mercenary knights. William of Apulia anything which prolonged this
remarked on their martial abilities: situation would be to the Pope’s
“These Courageous people have advantage, so he began negotiations
fierce spirits.. . They are more with the Norrnans. For not only
capable at administering blows would the Normans be weakened by
with their swords than with starvation the longer this continued,
lances, for they do not control it would also give the Byzantine army
. .. . .
their horses well. Their swords are especrally sharp. . . under Argyrus time to unite with the Papal army. It was also
They stand firmly after they are unhorsed. They would the first encounter between the Swabians and Normans, and
rather die fighting than turn in flight. They are to be the Swabians were not in the least impressed by the Normans,
feared more when they are on the ground than when according to William of Apulia:
they are on horseback, so great is the boldness of this “The tall longhaired Teutons jeered at these Nonnans
people”* of shorter stature.. . . They surrounded the Pope and
 §h.gsfjot - Issue 2 10
arrogantly addressed him; ‘Command these Normans Aftermath
to leave Italy, to lay down their arms here and to return Pope Leo watching from the battlements of Civitate saw the
to the land whence they came. If they refuse this, then destruction of his army and his hopes, and was handed over to
accept not their peaceful proposals’. The Normans the Normans to become their ‘guest’; however respectfully he
departed, sorrowful that they had failed to make peace, was treated he was a prisoner of the Normans. Even though
and carried back the haughty replies of the Gennansn4 Papal propaganda tried to portray events otherwise, the back
Realising this, the Normans had no choice but to attack and of Lombard resistance to the Nonnans had been broken. For
gamble that it would be successful, for their enemies would be after 1054 any chance of the Byzantines and Papacy co-
too strong for them if they united. The Normans attacked operating foundered as a result of a religious schism between
whilst their emissaries were still negotiating with Pope Leo, and the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches. His successors
who are we to doubt the word of the P0pe3~ Thus they caught soon came to an arrangement with the Normans. This was
the Papal army by surprise. The Normans attacked along the formalised at the synod of Melfi in 1059 when Robert Ciuiscard
whole line of the Papal army. The knights under Richard of swore a mighty oath to become the Pope’s liegeman. He and
Aversa quickly routed the Italian levies and pursued them from his successors were thus put in a position to exert a weighty
the battlefield. William of Apulia criticised Pope Leo for influence on the Papacy.
including them in his army and not knowing
“How to prepare their battlelines in the proper order; Aspects of Civitate
they were he observed omnes conglomerate.“6 The really overlooked aspect of the battle is that of logistics
However, there was one exception to the rout of the rest of the which, in this battle, played a crucial part, for the Norman’s
Pope’s army. The Swabian knights had dismounted and HAD to attack since the local peasants were denying them
formed squares on the right of the Papal army, which was food as noted by Norwich:
where they were stationed. They fought the Norman knights They also had another even more urgent reason for
under Humphrey of Apulia to a standstill, the mercenaries haste; they were starving. The local peasantry refused
holding their ground obstinately. It was going to be a long hard them all provisions, and to deprive them further had
fought contest in the heat of an Italian summer. Even when already begun to gather in the harvest, even though
Richard of Aversa returned to help, the Normans could make much of the corn was still green. The Nom-ran soldiers
no headway. Sir Charles Oman and others to the contrary, the often had nothing with which to sustain themselves but
performance of the Swabians showed that infantry in the 1 I* a handful or two of grain, dried before the fire. Their
century were capable of better drill and discipline than they are sudden attack may have been the only way of forcing
usually credited with. As Beeler observes: the issue.“’
‘It seems quite clear that in the middle of the eleventh This indicates two things: that there must have been
century good infantry - in this instance, professional - if strongholds to store the grain in, and perhaps that the priests,
the odds were at all favourable, could hold their as leaders of the local levies, were providing the peasants with
position against what was leadership. It woid be-interesting to
regarded as the best feudal know whether this was part of the
horse of the day. This was to be Papal strategy, a local response to
proven again at Hastings thirteen the presence of the hated Normans,
years later.“7 or one of the generally accepted
lt is unlikely that a cavalry charge rules of warfare. Thiit too may have
would have been effective as the played its part in the Swabians’
knights’ horses would have refused defeat for, although the Fortore
to charge home. The combat would River bound the plain on which the
have probably taken the form of the battle was fought, it was obviously
knights attacking in small groups 3 = to the Normans’ advantage to deny
,- = Lombard.. ion; bards Swbians
(conroi), and using their spears as - z them access to water on a hot and
missile weapons, seeking to wear dusty battlefield. Another point is
the Swabians down by causing a why the Swabians did stay and not
steady trickle of casualties to create march off the battlefield? As with
a breach in their ranks. However, Hastings, it may be that their best
they had to keep out of reach of the == chance of survival lay in holding
Swabians two-handed swords, as == their ground until nightfall and then
lacking any infantry missile support slipping away, especially in view of
of their own, this was probably the the difficulty of manoeuvring
only tactic for them to use. The infantry in the face of superior
intervention of the reserve under numbers of cavalry. Perhaps too,
Robert Guiscard was probably pride played its part, as they may
decisive, as by now, the Norman have been determined to prove they
horses would be tired after a battle =. were not the same as the Italians.
=
lasting most of the day and in need Duke William may have
of rest. Robert Guiscard’s troops, a learned from the knights who
fresh body of men and horses, using their spears probably returned from Italy and served in his anny, of the importance
caused the breach in the Swabians’ squares, which caused of having missile troops; in the light of the Normans’
them to collapse. The Swabians in a battle lasting most of the experience at Civitate, he built up a corps of archers, which
day, deployed in the open with no support, had given 3,000 were to feature prominently in his army. Thirteen years later at
knights a very hard time before being wiped out. The Norman Hastings, the Normans found that knights, used in
losses were not serious; it might have been different if the combination with missile weapons and infantry, could wear
Papal army had been prepared for the Norman attack. down and eventually break large numbers of steady infantry,

47
§liagsfjot - Issue 2 10
without tiring out the knights’ horses. This, along with the otherwise as Blade (0). No element can move whilst deployed
knowledge of how to transport horses in ships (learned from in ‘square’. If one element is forced to recoil this causes the
the Byzantines), may have played a vital part in Duke other element it recoils into to be eliminated. If the player
William’s victory at Hastings. wishes to move out of square formation he must pay 2 PlPs
The non-appearance of the Byzantines is curious. Had they and they will form up 2 elements deep. If anyone else has an
linked up with the Papal army the Normans would have faced idea of how best to replicate ‘Squares’ then feel free to
overwhelming numbers. Was the Catapan Argyrus playing a contribute! Finally the Papal Italian army list 76 Book 3 should
more crafty game of ‘hastening slowly’ to let the two only be allowed Byzantine allies before 1054.
protagonists destroy each other, so he could pick up the
spoils 3 A victory for either army would not have been In the Footnotes
Byzantine interest. However, the Norrnans’ victory was so one 1. Baxter-Wolf p.49.
sided that they emerged stronger than before which was fatal 2. Ibid p.126.
for the Byzantines, and the conquest of their Italian provinces 3. Norwich p.89.
by the Normans was completed in 1071. 4. Ibid p.91.
5. Ibid p.91.
Conclusion 6. Baxter-Wolf p.126.
Civitate is a pivotal battle. The ramifications of the Norman 7. Beeler pp.79-80.
victory were enormous. Had they failed there would have been 8. Norwich pp.91 -92.
no Norman kingdom of Sicily, and no chance of Papal support
for the Norman Conquest of Anglo-Saxon England. It was a Bibliography
battle they HAD to win at all costs. Unfortunately, Civitate is Finch Allibone, In Fursuit of the Robber BamnzRecreatingthe
also a ‘forgotten battle’. Even Terry Gore, in his book of Journey of Robert Guismrd, Duke of Apulia and ‘the Temx
F&gotten Leaders, uses Dyrrachium in 1085 to illustrate of the world’. Lennard Publiihiig 1988.
Robert Guiscard’s prowess. However, if the Normans had not Kenneth Baxter-Wolf, Making History-The Nonnms and their
been successful at Civitate, there would have probably been historians in Eleventh Century /&ily. University of
no Hastings and no Dyrrachium either! Finally, had the Papal Pennsylvania press, 1995.
army held the Norman charge, the battle might then have J. Beeler, Warfare in Feudal Europe 7301200. Cornell
gone either way and could have been ‘a damn close run thing’! University press, 197 1.
John Julius Norwich, 7he Normans in Sicily: The Masnifcent
Wargaming Civitate Stoy of ‘The Other Normm Conquest’.Penguin, 1967.
Recreating Civitate is a challenge. It might make a good solo
John France, Victory In 7he East:A Military History Of 7heFirst
game, options including the arrival of the Byzantines, and the
effect of hunger on the Norrnans, along with the state of Crusade.Cambridge University press, 1994.
preparedness of the Papal army. Under DBM the Swabians’ Stephen Morillo, Warfar Under TheAngloNoman Kings,1066
square formation is impossible to recreate. So allow the 1135. Boydell and Brewer, 1997.
Swabians Blade (0) elements to deploy back to back
simulating a ‘Square’ costing one PIP. They MUST be ‘paired Dedication: To Pam Isaac of Waterstone’s
off with another Swabian element and when deployed the Birmingham for her invaluable help in making this
elements concerned have NO FLANK, so overlaps and flank article possible!
attacks against them are NOT allowed. Whilst acting as a
‘square’ they count as Blade (S) when facing mounted troops,

CANNAt: A RMIUNK ONTHEROMANPERFORMANCE?

StevenNeate
On Martin Matthews’ ‘CannaeRe-Fought- 3 liies!‘, the pmerb was “For a Carmae,you need not only a Hannibal but a
TerentiusVane”. This isa little difficult to duplicate tia soloplayer usinga set like DBM with no weighting fbrgenemls.How about
refighting a battle in which tot/r commanderswere of moderatecanpetence?” Phil Barker, Guardroom Issue 208.

difficulty with Cannae, and with wargaming it, is that in 295 BC, fail so disastrously at Cannae?
many seem to forget that there were two armies The Romans were deployed in greater depth than usual,
present on the day. Poor old Van-o made mistakes on supposedly to batter through Hannibal’s centre. In the later
the day and Hannibal’s obviously well constructed battle plan Republic, able generals such as Caesar and Sulla used
was able to take full advantage of the deployment that he multiple lines of supporting heavy infantry as an effective
expected Varro to make. As we have always known that means of blocking enemy cavalry superiority. Even the pro-
Hannibal was an inspiring genius of battlefield deployment, we Roman Polybius and Livy admit that the Romans heavily
have always assumed that Varro was just another old duffer outnumbered Hannibal in infantry at Cannae. Allowing for,
whose defeat was just another notch on the trunk of Hannibal’s say, a 3:2 heavy infantry superiority to the Romans, how did
elephant. But is this all there was to it? Hannibal’s African infantry get so easily around the Roman
Why did Varro deploy as he did? He must have thouaht he infantry’s flanks? When the Roman front lines were pushing
had a chance to win with such a deployment. I’m sure he forwards against the Gauls and Spaniards, why were the
didn’t say “Hey, I’m facing Hannibal. OK Centurions, line them supporting lines unable to cover their flanks, especially as
up any old how, we’re going to lose anyway.“. Why did the there were so many deployed in these supporting lines at
much-vaunted Roman triple-line system, handled so brilliantly Cannae?
by Scipio and proving the saviour of the Romans at Sentinum I think the reason may lie in two places. Firstly, in the

quality, or lack of it, in the Roman army at Cannae. Two huge
defeats in two years at the Trebia and Trasimene had probably
depleted the available experienced Roman manpower in Italy.
The timescale from Trebia to Cannae may have been
insufficient to properly train and equip the force put into the
field prior to Cannae. For example, were their sufficient
propertied men to serve in the triarii? Sometime soon after
Cannae, the property qualifications to serve in the various
groupings of the army were reduced to provide additional
manpower for the legions including the desperate move of
recruiting criminals to form the ‘penal legions’.
On top of this was the morale problem. Two previous
defeats against a bogeyman who was fast becoming a living
legend had shaken Rome and her ‘allies’. How reliable were
the other levied Italian troops? Many quickly went over to
Hannibal, especially as the ‘allies’ (or socio had to pay to put
their own troops into the field to serve Rome.
Thus I suggest that the Roman army at Cannae was well
below par, suffering from some combination of poor quality,
training and morale. Deployment in extra depth was the only
way to ensure that some quality troops were up front to meet
the Carthaginian attack and, probably, at the rear to stop the
rest bolting at the first sound (or smell) of an elephant.
Secondly, I don’t believe that we know exactly where near
Cannae the battle was fought with regard to the river and the
hilly terrain. Did Varro think that if he moved towards the river
where the terrain was narrower, his deployment in depth would
not have to expose its flanks? Thus Hannibal caught him on
the hop by moving forward earlier to where the more open
terrain was advantageous to the Carthaginians and fitted with
his plan. Use of terrain is a major skill of any military genius.
Now, before you take me for a Roman apologist, I have no
intention of saving the Republic! I think the difficulties the
Roman army was experiencing in quality, training and morale
prior to Cannae would have been well known to a shrewd
operator such as Hannibal. After his recent successes he
probably had a stream of local and deserter intelligence
flowing into his camp. You may add Hannibal’s knowledge of
Varro’s supposed character of rashness, although highlighting
this most ‘un-Roman’ quality in Varro is a typical literary
mechanism used by Latin writers to find scapegoats for her
defeats - it’s always a major character flaw in a particular
general or the lazy nature of pleasure loving troops infected by
eastern luxury etc. Such a literary nuance was well learned
from Herodotus and appears regularly amongst the writings of
Livy, Sallust and Tacitus. Whatever the reasons, Hannibal was
able to formulate a battle plan that anticipated the Roman
RULES
ANDTMNGS
BobO’Men
aving read through Wad-rammer Ancient Battles, looked
at the Rule system, and now seen many comments I
would like to contribute my two penny’s worth.
Firstly, this book is probably the best introduction to Ancient
Wargaming presently available. It has good background
information, deals with terrain, scenery, buildings and machinery
and has lots of sketches and informative pictures. Above all it is
generally written in straightforward language, no convoluted
English. A lot of the information could well be worked into
history lessons.
As for the Rules themselves, they appear to be a little more
complicated than most, going Way Back, not such a bad thing
in itself but perhaps some over-complication in such things as
Character building which could probably be simplified. However,
§hgsfjot - Issue 2 10
deployment in depth and played to his own strengths. This
gave him a free hand to outmanoeuvre the Roman heavy
infantry with his own well-drilled, high morale Libyan heavy
infantry who were able to deliver the crushing flank attacks
that Hannibal desired to annihilate his opponent’s infantry.
Such is the genius of the man.
How may this affect our tabletop games? For a start, I
think that the quality of the Roman army during the Punic
Wars varied quite a bit. Thus, an army under Scipio may be
well trained and high morale, under a Varro it may be pretty
lousy. For DBM, I would propose dropping the quality of the
Roman army for Cannae to mostly ‘Inferior’. This allows it to
be more easily outmanoeuvred. The major difficulty I see with
DBM and Republican Roman armies is that experience over
many games leads me to believe that the abilities of the
Roman linear heavy infantry systems just does not work on
the tabletop. There’s no point in deploying the triarii, the
army’s best troops, in reserve, as commands are often broken
before they’ve been used. The sensible gaming option is to put
them in the front or on the flanks where, in a single line, they
are impassable to Hannibal’s cavalry.
Also, the whole Roman army risks being swept away by
the charge of a few thousand Gauls. This seems not to have
been the case at Cannae where the Gaul’s recoiling and
holding seemed unusual. Thus, for DBM, I would drop the
ability of Warband to break any Roman heavy infantry on a
greater score to only in the Gaul’s OWN turn (if that), the idea
being that once they have lost the initiative they are in a bit of
trouble. This doesn’t remove the problem in DBM of Warband
having infinite ‘kill’ (i.e. shock) ability, but finds a compromise
that requires no book keeping, one of DBMS assets. The
Ciauls should still have the ability to ‘kill’ Romans as Hannibal
seems to have used them as a throwaway part of his army - if
they killed any Romans that was a bonus, but their real job
was to keep the Romans occupied and if they all got killed,
well that was just fewer mercenaries to reward after victory had
been achieved.
A lesson from this battle, as in many of Hannibal’s battles,
is that consideration of the terrain is vital. Too often and
especially in competitions we play on flat, open, dull as
dishwater tables where the terrain is irrelevant. The real world
isn’t like this and utilisation of terrain in a general’s plan is part
of his skill (and knowledge of the rules). Even
cavalry had to contend with unfavourable terrain but
good generals worked it out.
Any further discussions on any of these points
would be most welcome.
there appear to be a few large flaws. Has anyone looked at the
visibility Rules? Apparently everyone looks straight ahead with
tunnel vision so that a charge of cavalry onto a flank outside of
restricted vision is completely unseen! There are also some
contradictions; on p.11 for example we are told that a chariot
cannot charge because it cannot see the enemy, but later on a
chariot is able to shoot all round.
The second point that wants attention is for some
relationship between range and movement to be established,
which means setting up a ground/time scale; otherwise one is
going to get moves of an equivalent full size of 24 feet with long
range for a composite bow of around 150 feet, taking the
extreme of ground scale equals figure scale. Taking a ground
scale of 1 inch equals 50 yards, Infanby move becomes 200
49
Jdhpfjot - Issue 2 10
yards while bow range goes up to something that would be
regarded as excessive for small arms on a modem battle field.
There must be something between these extremes, and bow
range looks too high. It’s all right suspending disbelief but being
asked to adopt a new religion is perhaps taking thiigs a bit too
far!
There is a further point I would question, and this applies not
only to Warhammer rules but to many sets around, both old and
new. That is, the futile business of having players estimate
ranges and charge reaches without measuring. We hear of
charges “falling short” and shooting beiig ineffective because a
player has estimated a few millimetres short. In practice, all the
horses do not suddenly come to a halt because they are going
to exceed some magic “charge reach”, and neither will all the
arrows bury themselves in the ground at 200 paces or whatever.
The overextended charge will arrive a bit puffed and disordered
perhaps, while many of the arrows will reach but with less effect.
For Rules and game purposes we must have movement and
ranges set down but we are not playing games of “chuck and
hope” at a fairground. We have got to assume that the leaders of
your units on the table will be able to estimate range and
distance - and that is why they are leaders.
The other pernicious tendency, around for a long time, and
popping up for air from time to time, is the use of Cards,
Markers and Rosters of Death which clutter up the table and
slow up games. In particular, the use of cards to tell a unit when
it can or cannot take some action. This is best summed up by a
friend and long time opponent - “If I’ve got my bods into what I
think is the right position I expect them to get on with it, not just
make faces while they wait for a card to tell them they can draw
swords or whatever. All right, they may make a Dog’s breakfast
of it but at least they will have got Stuck in.”
It would be good to see a move towards as little record
keeping as possible, combined with some attempt at less
transparency, so that if you have unit/s or a division in some
trouble not immediately apparent visually, say morale getting
dodgy, this should not be known right away to your opponent.
Not easy, but one idea suggested to me was for the mechanics
of particular Tests to be altered game by game; for example,
say, a morale test of 1 or 2 means Trouble in a particular case.
Before the game started each player would secretly write down
his own two dice scores that would give this bad result; the odds
are the same, so one could write down say 3 and 5. These notes
would be put aside under cover and would stay for the duration
of the game. Perhaps someone has some views on this, or has
already tried something out.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that in the normal game
most of our units/elements or whatever you call them will be in
a steadily progressing state of disorder after a few moves?
Consider what we do with our units: the first six moves might be
move ahead Full, Move ahead half, Halt, Wheel right, Retire half
move, Wheel left. Except for skirmishers, your standard close or
even loose order troops will be heading for some confusion, and
the less well trained and organised will be ready to fall apart.
What I would like to see is some order system which would
overlay most existing Rules sets with little or no modification, the
main object beiig to emphasise the “Fog of War” - in the
player’s mind!
The only requirement is that each force is made up of a
number of groups, divisions, commands or whatever fits the
period and armies involved. Each group would be led by a
Wanted
Armies or units of Garrison, Hinchliffe, Corvus or Citadel: Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Successors, Persian,
Late Roman & enemies, Arab, Byzantine, Mongol foot or Ghaznavids in 25mm. Painted or unpainted.
Contact: Carlo Antonelli 01733 340835 after 6.00pm - 9.00pm.
Or email list to: franco@prufc.freesere.co.uk
50
General, selected and graded according to the main playing
Rules. He can of course be another player, in which case he will
no doubt bring his personal qualities, if any, into the
management of his group.
Following terrain selection and deployment according to
main Rules, each Group would be given an order. The type,
extent and if necessary the duration of an order must be clearly
defined in the “overlay” Rules, avoiding Ifs and Buts if humanly
possible. Many years ago in WRG we introduced a system of
Orders and Reaction Tests. The Reaction Tests worked to a
reasonable extent, but it very soon became apparent that:-
. Only a minute proportion of wargamers could write a clear,
concise and unambiguous Order.
l Standing Orders, which we foolishly allowed, developed into
minor Military Manuals for each unit concerned!
l With hindsight we should not have concentrated on units but
on whole formations.
Tentative proposals for Group Orders I would suggest as
follows:-
1. HOLD - deploy for defence as thought fit and allowed by
main Rules. No forward movement allowed except for
skirmishers up to the range of a General’s authority.
2. ADVANCE - giving direction, and objective, and qualii
by speed (Cautious, Normal, or Rapid). This order covers
fighting for the objective if it is found to be enemy occupied, or
to engage any enemy blocking the route to the objective. The
objective is deemed to be achieved if the General has reached it
and is not in close combat. Order then reverts to Hold until a
new order is received.
3. SKIRMISH/HARASS - implies advancing to appropriate
range and “amusing the enemy” by, say, long range bow fire or
skirmishing and/or opportunist attacks by light troops.
Obviously this is an Order normally to be given to a mobile
wing, not one for massed pikes or warband. The latter would
most likely ignore it anyway! If enemy advances in force this
order would imply falling back skinnishiig.
4 RETIRE - either without qualification, or by reference to a
given position. Again, not an Order to be given lightly, and more
difficult for a “heavy” Group, which would need to be covered by
a Light group if the enemy was a wee bit too near.
Orders can only be changed:-
* By the C-in-C issuing new order - either measuring distance
to indicated force Commander, or sending suitable courier
figure.
l By enemy action - if a group with “advance” orders is
attacked it will temporarily change to “Hold” but revert to
original order once enemy is beaten off. Otherwise, if the
Group is defeated it will follow whatever procedure is laid
down by the main Rules and will forget the original in its
attempt to save itself or get off the table.
There would also be provision for time delays for certain orders -
an Advance order may be given to take effect in a number of
turns. If it is then attacked before that time it is assumed to be on
Hold orders. Withii each Group units would act according to the
main Rules, subject to the overriding Group order.
These are only suggestions at this stage, but I hope they will
provoke some interest and get players thinking about
some at least rudimentary plan of Battle; there is still
too much “catch as catch can” in many games.
 Sfing5fjot - kiue 210

T~UTON1CSPORUNDERAT~NNERI
Matthew Bennett

B-?
espite having less and less time in which to wargame, painted black-and-white with Teutonic crosses or other
LI do enjoy the painting and modelling aspect of the designs - which look very effective. Of course, if Armati
hobby, and with the introduction of DBA a few years Optimal is being used then it may be necessary to convert
ago it is now possible to produce a small force ready to fight in some more crossbowmen and use axemen figures to support
a fairly limited time. So it was, over Christmas 1999 that I set them to make up the 16 figures needed per unit. The Saracen
myself the task of creating a fightable army using the new Warriors box will provide both the light cavalry (LH/LC) and
ltalieri plastic figures featuring the Teutonic knights and their can be used for the infantry Ax/SI. Simply painting-up the
opponents. These have already been reviewed (issue 207) but turbaned helmets as fur caps will do. It’s such a pity that no
I have a particularly soft spot for such figures. This is partly less than five of the mounted figures in the box are on camels.
nostalgic, since I began wargaming with Airfii figures in the Really these should be relegated to the baggage train, as I
mid-60s; partly economic - they’re so cheap in comparison to doubt that any medieval armies actually used them in warfare
metal figures; and partly aesthetic: professional designers (and I include those coming from Berber North Africa).
know how to sculpt a figure in perfect proportion (something As far as opposition to the Teutonic host is concerned, the
which metal figure designers often fail to achieve). Mongols look very good. A box contains eight barded horses
I know that ‘plastics’ have their problems: often they and nine lighter mounts, so that two boxes will make up at
depend upon outdated research and are simply wrong in least five Cv/HC bases (+l general) and up to 9 LH/LC. All
terms of equipment or weaponry; often they come in very right, so I know that there are not enough dismounted
exaggerated poses which no sane person would adopt in bowmen; but what kind of wimpy Mongol general would want
battle; sometimes the scale of man and horse is different, and to dismount the finest cavalry in the world anyway? Light
so on.... But, the new breed of plastic figures represented by infantry (Ps) can come from the Saracen Warriors box and it
HiT and ltalieri are much better. In fact, the ltalieri medievals doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to make up an artillery
make it possible to create really good looking armies for very team from these either (especially the pair of irritating left-
little money. By buying just one box each of the Teutonic handed speannen). Of course, you can always use some of
;zhts% Crusaders Kniahts and Saracen Warriors (@f&2.99 the money which you have saved to buy a nice artillery piece
= s9.97) it is possible to create a DBA or Armati from the many metal ranges (or you can make your own).
Introductory size army. In fact, the three boxes provides more So there it is - medieval2Omm wargaming on a shoestring.
than this, including the beginnings of an opposing force, and Maybe people prefer to spend heavy money on heavy metal
by buying just one more box of the Teutonic Knights it is nowadays, but if you don’t, and also enjoy a bit of extemporising
possible to make up an Armati optimum-sized force. Even as I with plastics, why not give it a try? As far as I can tell, the plastic
was writing this I found that ltalieri had brought out Monaols. ranges are only going to increase, and I haven’t even told you
Add two boxes of these and you have enough to recreate the how to create a Roman versus Carthaginian encounter for less
Mongol invasion of Europe in 1240 (total 6 boxes = E17.94 for than a post bellurn round in the pub yet....
two armies). I also understand that there is a box of Alexander I attach a table giving a visual display of how the
Nevskv Russians, but I have not seen these so far. So let’s say numbers work for the Eastern European armies
we get two boxes of them (total 8 boxes = Q3.92 for three described above. Underlininq indicates Bonus Units
armies). Not bad, eh! which could be added to the basic list in Advanced
Karl Heinz Ranitsch’s review is quite fair - there are a Armati Army Lists.
couple of very slight problems with the Teutonic figures. Also, Armati
I found that the crosses all painted up fine, despite his No. DBA Armati 0ntrol
(Optimal1
strictures, although purists may wish to carve off the eagle. ’ eutonic 17 2 Kn Brethren (2 bases per
Apart from this, all the modifying I did was to replace a couple . Wqhts cav ’ ’ Kn 2 1 Kn Brethren unit)
of axes and maces with wire lances, to produce an impressive 1 General 1
I I I I
line-up. The Crusader Kniahts box provides enough to make 1
1-HC bergeants
up two bases of kni hts (incidentally the heraldry on them is (21
’ ’ ‘” 1-l-K Serqeants
correct for the 13 P century Kingdom of Jerusalem). By \
Crusader 1 4-K Crusaders
painting up two of the knights as Teutonic Mounted Sergeants Knights
9 cav
I-M Crusaders
(21
(Cv or HC for DBM and Armati respectively) this gives two
bases of them as well. In addition the footmen in the box 16 foot 1 x SP l-Ft SpX-bows PiI
provide the spearmen. There are only two crossbowmen, but
two more can be created by using the figure of a man running
Saracens 6cav 2xLH iiz (21
holding a mace against his side. Do this by trimming off the
mace’s head and drilling a hole to hold a piece of wire as the 5 camel NW
bow. This is still not enough for two DBA bases but by using (21 e. .
two spearmen as pavisiers, the base can be made up to 12 foot 2 x Ax ~;;hws’x- instea d of
numbers and two pavises can be constructed out of card and LC

Jodie Con 2000 from Phil Viverito

A note for your American readers or garners travelling to the Eastern US in August 2000. There will be a Jodie
Con Event called “To the Strongest”. This is a Successor State weekend campaign using Classical Hack Ancient
Warfare 600 BC to 600 AD.
For more information go to:
I http://users.nac.net/jthomas/Jodie/Succes~rsOO/SuccessorsOO.h~l

51
§hgdjot - Issue 210
cHARIcnLoRDs-aashofAlmsGameq1999.
Reviewed by John Graham-Leigh.
One of the great board games of its time was Ancient Conquest
@calibre Games, 1977). It was played on a hex-grid map
covering an area from Egypt to Elam and Phrygia to Media, and
depicted the period from circa 1500 to 550 BC in 15 turns.
Each of the four players controlled a group of peoples, which
had individual victory conditions and units of the appropriate
numbers and strength to achieve them. Each group had one
“super-power”, respectively Egypt, Assyria, the Hiies and the
Chaldeans, plus several medium-sized and insignificant peoples.
For example, the Assyrians had the mightiest armies, arriving in
several batches of reinforcements, and a host of geographical
objectives (“Subdue the Elamite in his own den, occupy Susa
by turn 8”) and military targets (“Cast gloom into the land of
Urartu - smite 12 factors of Urartians”), all expressed in
appropriately Biblical language.
My friends and I played Ancient Conquest incessantly, but
eventually its very 1970s mechanics, with a crude combat
results table, clumsy hex-movement and unimaginative
graphics, helped to relegate it to the shelf.
A few years later another great game appeared - Britannia
(Gibson Games, 1986). This had the same basis, four players
each controlling a group of peoples over a millennium, covering
the history of Britain from 43 to 1066 AD. Its mechanics showed
a marked advance over Ancient Conquest, with area
movement, population growth (“replacements”) and a simple
unit versus unit combat system, plus innovations such as
named leaders (Arthur, Alfred, Harald Hardrada) and greatly
superior physical quality, but the basic idea was the same.
Britannia was a roaring success, spawning several imitations
such as Maharajah (Avalon Hill - Indian history from the Maurya
to the British), Hispania (Azure Wish - Spain from the
Carthaginians to El Cid) and our own Thorn Richardson’s The
Dragon and the Pearl (China from the aftermath of the Han up to
the Mongol conquest).
The latest in the line is Chariot lords (Clash of Arms Games,
1999) designed by Charles Vasey. It covers the same ground as
Ancient Conquest - the Near East from the rise of the Hiite
Empire and Egyptian New Kingdom to the fall of Assyria - but
has numerous improvements. physical quality is excellent, with
a colourful mounted map and counters with attractive pictures
of the troops they represent.
The Chariot Lords map includes a larger area, including
western Anatolia, Cyprus, Upper Egypt and Libya. It is divided
into areas which are either fertile, hilly, mountainous or desert
(plus one area of marsh, in which the remnant Sumerians lurk).
Movement is by area, with limited sea movement. Each of the
10 turns represents approximately 90 years.
The game starts with the Kassites, Canaanites and Mitanni
as the established powers. Elam, Sumer (the Sea-land) and
Hatti are minor powers. In Egypt, a mighty host led by pharaoh
Thutmosis Ill is assembling, ready to burst into Canaan. On the
second turn, a small Assyrian kingdom appears (large
reinforcements to follow later), an even smaller force of
Achaeans turns up on the Aegean coast, and vast
reinforcements turn Hatti into the mighty Hittite Empire. On the
next few turns the Jews arrive in Canaan, Elam has its moment
of glory, the Libyans start their irritating raids and three lots of
Sea Peoples burst on the scene. So it goes on.
Each nation has its own set victory conditions and earns
victory points for fulfilling them. Some are time-limited
(“Occupy Phoenicia by Turn 2”) some are defensive (“prevent
enemy occupation of Susa from Turn 4 to end of game”), some
are aggressive (“Slay 4 units of Egyptians”). The format and
52
language of the victory condition tables are very familiar to the
Ancient Conquest player.
There are two main types of units, Infantry and Chariots.
Chariots are much more powerful than infantry in fertile terrain,
but inferior in mountains. Minority types are Cavalry (in the later
tums, equal to chariots on the flat and in mountains but better in
hills), and Camels (as cavalry, but better in deserts). Unit density
is quite low - a typical “Imperial” people will have 12- 15 units on
the map. Up to five units can stack in an area. Combat is
simple - units are lined up opposite their opponents and attack
with a die-throw each, the score needed to hit varying according
to unit type, terrain and presence of leaders or special units.
Each battle lasts a maximum of two rounds - if neither side has
retreated or been eliminated by then, the attacker must retreat.
lnnovations (compared with Ancient Conquest) include:
Replacements. Eliminated units go into a “dead pile”. At the
start of a nation’s turn, the player can move a counter from the
dead pile to the map as long as a similar or better counter is
taken from the dead pile out of the game. This means that a
nation which has been unlucky in war can recover. Only one
counter can be replaced for each area the nation occupies at the
start of its tum.
Random turn order. This is the most radical change, seen in
neither Ancient Conquest nor Britannia. instead of a fixed order
for the nations’ turns within each game-turn, each nation has a
counter which is drawn out of a cup to determine when it
moves. This has dramatic effects - for example, on the first turn
the Egyptians may go first and catch the Canaanites napping, or
the Canaanites may be able to launch a pre-emptive strike.
“Enwire wints”. Victory points are counted at the end of
each nation’s turn. Apart from the preset objectives (the
Assyrians need to “Raid into Van, put to the sword 4 units of
Urartu”, for instance) they can be gained for simply occupying
any areas. Thus, the player has an incentive to spread units out,
forming impressive if short-lived empires. Without this excellent
rule, many areas would be empty for much of the time, giving
the map a rather under-populated look.
Leaders and special units. There are numerous leader
counters in the game, including two kings of Israel, two Hittite
kings, four Egyptian pharaohs and no fewer than six Assyrian
kings. Each leader can influence battles in his (no female
leaders!) nation’s favour and, crucially, can prolong combat
beyond the normal two rounds. This represents the intensive
campaigning of a Shalmaneser Ill or a Solomon. Special units
include “Terror” - Assyrians only, increasing the effectiveness of
infantry - and “Siege” - Nubians only, compensating for their
lack of chariots.
Double turns. Once in the game, on a preset tum, one
nation for each player (Assyria, Nubia, Chakiea and Media) is
“Beloved of the Gods” and takes two turns in succession. (This,
of course, is equivalent to a “Major Invasion” in Britannia.) This
gives that nation the chance to erect a mighty empire, and the
last two are likely to be essential if Assyria is to be overthrown.
The game plays extremely well, and anyone who lied its
distinguished predecessors will enjoy it. It is fast-moving and all-
action, with plenty of carnage and splendid visual appeal as the
brightly-coloured counters spread over the map to establish or
destroy empires. The combat system is simple and elegant.
Some nations do have too much to do - the Medes are unlikely
to get far into Anatolia, for example, nor are the Chaldeans likely
to reach the Mediterranean. However, this doesn’t really spoil the
fun. It takes a long evening to play through - five or six hours -
but the time passes in a flash. It’s also perfectly practicable, and
nearly as much fun, to play solo.
Chariot Lords would be an excellent basis for a campaign,

stopping the action at appropriate points and getting the figures
out. There will probably be at least one important and
reasonably even battle in each game turn.
Highly recommended, and I congratulate Charles on
producing a really entertaining game with at least a fair degree
of historicity. I just wish that he’d acknowledged his debt to the
two predecessors.
Available from: Leisure Games, 91 Ballards Lane, Fiichley,
London, N3 IXY, U.K. (Tel: 020-8346-2327, Fax: 020-8343-
3888) for f39.95. Also, Esdevium in Aldershot (Hampshire) are
the UK importers.
(02vksb& pqWgswmsttntw3xz9axbdvlwa~pb~
bwsb7tkGbiULcmk Gn3~~hh7atCL!.~iarntia~~..
w with the usual caveat that if I’m short of anything (apart from
FOUNDRY 25mm Trojan Wars. Jerakl Tmcy.
I received a new batch of the Foundry Trojan War figures. My
humble opinions follow:
AMY13 Kings and Heroes - This is a highly varied set of
eight figures. I can recognise Agamemnon and Nestor straight
away from the pictures in the Connolly Odysseus book, the
apparent source of many of these designs. Unlike the highly
animated Classical Heroes packet (AMY7) this crowd is mostly
standing about looking manly. A trumpeter in a nightshirt seems
to have sneaked in amongst his betters, but the rest are quite
rice with a good variety of poses and panoplies. I recognise
some personalities besides the ones named above, but will have
to go back to Connolly to put names on ‘em. A nice pack.
AMY 14 Hector’s Chariot - This includes what now appears
to be the standard Foundry Trojan War chariot and two-horse
team. If you’re going to have a lot of these you might consider
swapping some of the horses with other ranges for variety.
Anyhow, here’s Hector with an overhand grip suitable for sword
or spear and a driver with a horsehair plumed helmet and textile
or hide armour. There is a third figure in a homed helmet and
shield strap, and one hand down in what looks to be a grip on
the side rail of the chariot. I’m not sure if these third figures are
meant to be shield-bearers for the heroes or alternate fighting
figs - I can’t see getting three dudes into these jalopies but, then
again, I haven’t yet tried - any ideas? The extra fellow could
easily be converted to a foot figure. I like Hector’s scale annour,
a taste he shares with Nestor, and he sure looks determined to
poke someone’s eye out with that overhand toss. Another good
effort, though I’d like the ‘backup’ to be a little less relaxed.
AMY15 Achilles’ Chariot - Same chariot, with a driver in a
quilted tunic and horsehair plume. Achilles is looking suitably
fierce, with an open-mouthed warlike expression and a
downward thrusting overhand grip. His sidekick is in a bronze
breastplate and a helmet with bronze crest, wielding a weapon
with a three-quarter motion. Of all the charioteers, I like the
Achilles figure best, with a pose and facial animation befitting
the greatest warrior of the age.
AMY 16 Warriors At The Ready - the most sedate pack in the
range thus far. A good variety of armour and helmets, but the
poses are rather blah - there is only so much you can do with ‘at
the ready’, I suppose. Some of the facial expressions are very
good, ranging from stoic through earnest to excitable. Several
frgs have swords included, but most of these fellows will get
spears in my army. The poses are such that a sword will look a
little odd, to my eye anyway. I’d rate these fair, as I prefer a bit
more ferocity for my lead dollar.
AMY17 Diomedes’ Chariot - Diomedes’ driver has a nice
brush crest helmet and linen tunic but a Sunday-drive pose.
Diomedes himself has an impressive brush crest and horns
combo on his noggin, my favourite helm so far, and a bronze
breastplate over a quilted hauberk (or whatever you’d call it in
this era). His weapon delivery is sidearm. Diomedes’ pal is a bit
static, with a helmet last seen on Otto Graham. The Diomedes
§hgsfjot-Issue210
figure is great, the other two okay.
So far I am enjoying the range - the variety of gear and
animation of poses has been superb. I cannot yet compare them
with their Redoubt counterparts (on order), but I will do so when
the big box from Sabre’s Edge arrives.
GRIPPING BEAST
. 25mm Sassanid Persians.
Rewwed by Alan Hills
Here’s a review of the GB Sassanids I purchased at Triples in
Sheffield. Stock levels were good and the guys had everything I
needed. The only hiccup was that the spears/bows/swords
(which are very nice) weren’t in the packs with the figures and
the guys had to grab a handful and chuck ‘em in a separate bag
personality, good looks and money) to give them a phone. As a
consequence of this they probably chucked in loads more than I
need and I can see some of the extra lances beiig used in my
Front Rank Polish Napoleonic Lancers! I bought a load of
figures, El35 worth, about 30 speannen, 16 archers, 16
Javelinmen/sliigers, 32 ‘Asavaran’ clibanarii, 12 horse archers
(No LC spears...yet) and 2 elephants.
SAl Speannen standing globe hat: 8 different poses, 4
resting their shields on the ground, hands on top almost as if
they’re waiting for ‘move’ orders! and 4 holding their shields. 4
clean shaven, 4 beards, zero flash and small bases (which I
like.) All of the GB figures have a mix of daggers, different
pouches etc on their waist belts which adds to the individual&y.
SA2 Speannen advancing globe hat: A lie flash on these -
usual armpit/neck stuff. All are walking, hesitantly towards the
enemy. All different figures with head variants and the usual
mish mash of pouches, daggers etc. Spears are angled tiom
horizontal to vertical (probably pointing down).
SA3 Speannen Charging globe hati These were d&rent
poses, same flash and accoutrement variations etc but these
guys are running. Some have one foot off the ground and they
all look lie they’re about to impact the enemy, some almost
look lie they’re leaning into their shields in preparation for
impact (I don’t know if it was intentional but looks cool). I don’t
think there were any guys screaming though, which would have
been a nice touch! Spears are angled from horizontal to vertical
(probably pointing down).
SA4 Spearmen advancing with mail shirts and globe hat:
These were different poses, less flash, with accoutrement
variations etc and have a mail shirt over their tunics which stick
out from underneath with belts and accoutrements on top.
Majority of these have their spears held horizontally.
SA7 Leaders and Standards: This was a nice command
pack, no musicians though, consisting of 2 standard bearers, 3
guys which could be standard bearers or spearmen, 2 with spear
and one reaching behind his shield for his sword. 3 have have
mail shirts on. Breakdown is as follows, 1’11go into this command
pack in a bit of detail as there’s a lot in here!
Two standard bearers are holding the standards in both
hands (could possibly put a spear in there) 1 has a shield slung
and has a nicely detailed floppy eared pointy hat - this guy could
be an ally standard bearer as he looks a bit like an archer. The
other has a cloak and globe hat and is definitely a standard for
the spearmen.
The next 3 have open hands either for spears or standards.
One has a square infantry shield and Globe hat (spearmen
NCO?), one has a conical helmet with mail neck pro&&ion
(aventail?) this guy looks lie a commander and has a beard
and mail shirt and looks like he’s barking orders. He also has his
spear almost vertical and has a round shield with a small shield
boss. The last guy has a spangenhelm style helmet (mildly
conical with reinforcement up 4 sides, you know what I mean!)
cloak, round shield with a lion boss. He almost looks like the son
of the commander in this pack, out for some work experience!
53
§hgdjot - Issue 2 10
My imagination is running riot here but that’s what good figs
should do!
Of the last 3, one has a round shield and ‘bird’ hat and is
thrusting a spear. This guy has recently been promoted to
elephant crew by me as it’ll be a nice change for him and
replaces a duplicate elephant crewman figure. The next guy has
a mail shirt and globe hat reaching behind his shield for his
sword. The last guy has a mail shirt, rectangular shield and
spangenhelm (look I know what I mean!) and it looks like he’s
got a club hanging from his belt although it could be a weird
water skin or even a saggy pouch.. ...easy!
A nice pack with ample scope for conversions and using
these guys in your line units or allies. They don’t all look like
figures that have to go into the speannen units so that’s a bonus
and you could possibly fit bows on some of them for further
variation.
SA5 Javelin/Slingers: These were all different poses again, a
little flash, with accoutrement variations etc. All were dressed in
tunics and trousers. One was bareheaded kneeling, one with
conical helmet and slung shield with open hands to have one
throwing and perhaps holding one or 2 spare javelins. One was
bareheaded and again had two open hands. One in a conical hat
throwing, 2 in spangenhelm with two open hands, different
poses and the last one had a slung shield, conical helm and
again two open hands. These guys did have a weapons pack
and had a funny wee lead blob as well as javelins and I’m
assuming this is the sling.... I suppose a strip of leather may be
difficult to cast. All these guys were in good ducking and diving,
bobbing and weaving skinnishiig poses.
SA6 Archers: These were different poses, no flash, with
accoutrement variations etc. None had any armour other than a
helmet and were dressed in tunics and trousers. 4 were standing
with drawn bow, 3 kneeling with drawn bow and 1 kneeling,
reaching for an arrow.
The standing guys break down as follows, 1 bareheaded with
slung round shield, 2 with skull caps, not globe or conical and
one with spangenhelm. The kneeling guys had one conical
helm, 1 skull cap, one soft conical hat and one was bareheaded
with a beard. These guys could be set up either skirmishing and
kneeling behind cover or as a nice firing lie depending on what
you fancy.
Summaw
Right, I need to do some work now so 1’11leave the Cavalry
for another time, (it’s my turn to tease you all) but they’re really
nice! The excellent elephant review you’ve already seen but one
addition to it is that as mentioned, they are cast in resin rather
than metal and the detail on the elephant’s skin is much better
than any metal elephant I’ve ever seen. The resin seems to hold
the ‘wrinkles’ better.
All in all these figs kick ass! They are much better
anatomically than the Foundry stuff which I thii look a little too
‘cartoony’ if you know what I mean? If you want to buy
Sassanids then don’t wait for the Foundry to produce half a
range, buy these, then if the Foundry ever do release some
figures, buy them as well and mix them in! Altogether, top class
figures, and I can’t fault them at all. Buy them, you deserve it!!
Gripping Beast, 15 Fieldview, Bucklesham, Ipswich, Suffolk
IPlO OEE, UK. Tel/FAX +44 (0) 1473 659771. Website: http://
www.bath.ac.uk/-ccspgo/gripping.html
OWlANDGAMESl5mmByLantineDBAAfmyPadc.
. basically land-locked
RelImedbyTonyBalT.
Outland Games has sent me a large selection of figures from
one of their new DBA army packs for review. Although labelled
simply as “Byzantine” the figures are clearly intended for an
Early Byzantine army (DBA List 86) judging by their
appearance. All the expected troop types for such an army were
represented among the figures received. I understand that these
54
figures are from an old range, recently acquired and revived by
Outland Games. This accounts for the fact that the style of the
figures is old-fashioned, lacking variety of pose and beiig true
15mm in scale. Detail is sparse but adequate. The figures are
cast in lead free pewter, which means that spears and lances,
though thin, are reasonably strong. The nearest equivalent to
these figures in terms of size and detail is probably Tabletop
Miniatures’ own ranges. No individual figure codes have been
supplied, so the following comments must rely on the
descriptions for identification.
Horses: Four different horses were included in the pack, two
heavy and two light. One heavy horse has frontal scale or
lamellar armour, the other beiig in a similar pose but
unarmoured. These horses are in a walking pose, not very lively
but fine for regular heavy cavalry. likewise the two light horses
are in similar poses, the difference beiig that one is festooned
with horse-tail decorations while the other is plain. The light
horses are in a much livelier pose than the heavies and, given
the large heads, make good steppe Ponies.
Cavalrvmen: Two different cavalrymen were found in the
pack. The heavy Byzantine cavalrymen with long lance, cloak,
bow case and small round shield appears to be based on plate
162 in The Am&s and EnemiesofImperial Romeby Phil Barker
(WRG 1981). Though there is only one pose, these should look
acceptable en masse. The other cavalryman included for review
is a nomad horse archer with scalp lock and carrying javelins as
well as his bow. This figure seems to be based on plate 81 in
Amies of the Dar/c Ages, by Ian Heath, and must therefore
represent an Avar. This figure is small, even for a true 15mm
figure, but is withii the expected size range for such types.
lnfantrv: Eight different infantrymen make up the rest of the
figures in the pack, two spearmen, one javeliian, two archers,
a slinger, a staff slinger and a crossbowman. One spearman,
mail-clad with a plumed helmet and with a large oval shield,
holds his long spear nearly upright while other wields a shorter
spear overarm. The archers are in similar pose, taking an arrow
from the quiver, one wearing a cap, the other bare-headed. Both
have small round shields. The javelinman carries two javelins
and a small round shield. The slinger carries a shield as well as
his sling. These two, together with the staff slinger and the
crossbowman all appear to be variants on one basic figure.
Fiial Comments
For those looking to expand armies of older figures these
could well fit the bill. They will also find favour with those on a
tight budget as these figures are cheap (USS4.50 for 20 foot or
10 cavalry). They will not, however, mix well with more modem
15mm figures, which are larger, bulkier and more detailed. I
have put scans of these figures on the Society web site, in the
figures section. Look under 15rnrn Figures.
The only source known for these figures is: Outland Games,
PO Box 457, Phillipsburg, Ohio, 45354, USA. Tel. (937) 884 -
8822. Email: outland@erinet.com Web site: http://
outlandgames.biiosting.com/index.html
Princeton University Press, paperback printing 1999, ISBN O-
69 l-00968-6. Reviewed by Karl Heinz Ranitzsch.
We rarely associate the ancient Jews with seafaring, thinkkg of
them first as desert nomads and later as inhabits of a
country. Of the better-known biial
stories neither the tale of Noah nor that of Jonah strike one as
typical nautical situations. Even so, the author, Rafael Patai, has
managed to collect an impressive amount of information about
Jewish seafaring, not only from the obvious sources, the Bii
and Flavius Josephus, but also from otherwise inaccessible
Rabbinic and Talmudic literature.
Whenever Israel had access to the coasts of the Red Sea, the

Mediterranean or other bodies of water, maritime
developed, whether it be Solomon’s expeditions to Ophir or
local fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Jewish expatriate
communities were also active in river trade in Egypt and
especially in Mesopotamia, a subject Patai discusses in fair detail
and which is usually neglected in books on naval subjects.
Jewish ships and shipbuilding owed much to the traditions of
their more active neighbours, the Phoenicians, Egyptians and
Greeks, Hebrew sources have preserved information that may
no longer be available from their original inventors.
Patai discusses at length trade routes, nautical practices,
laws, customs, sailor’s tales and legends, down to such details
as a Hebrew longshoreman’s working chantey. Much of it is
eminently practical, some of it is magical practices based on
other people’s beliefs and superstitions. Both these categories
differed little from Greek or Phoenician practice. Indeed, many
ships had mixed crews and, for example, in a dangerous storm
it was common practice that every member of the crew would
pray to his own god for help.
Jewish religion, of course, also receives its due attention in
the book and the author discusses the way the mosaic law was
applied to the peculiar situations that could arise on the seas.
‘The rabbinic scholars applied themselves to this task with all
their usual wisdom, sagacity and sometimes hairspliing
occasionally with odd results. Thus, on the Sabbath it was
allowed to throw items from one ship to another if they were tied
together, but not if they were merely anchored side by side.
Read the book for the reason.
There is also a chapter on naval warfare, which starts with a
summary of Phoenician and Babylonian
navies - again with some information not
otherwise easily accessible. And yes, there
was a Jewish navy, although not much is
known about it. The Hasmonean kings of
the last century BC (as a devout Jew,
Rafael Patai prefers to quote dates as BCE
‘Before the Common Era’ and CE
‘Common Era’ rather than the more overtly
Christian BC ‘Before Christ and AD ‘Anno
Domini’) struck coins with anchors and Fig 1
galleys on them. As far as is known,
these were small, fast craft like
libumae, suited for trade protection or
raids rather than fleet battles. Indeed,
king Aristobulus was accused of
supporting pirates. In the great Jewish
revolts, pirates out of Palestinian ports
were active against the grain transports
from Egypt to Rome. Flavius Josephus
also describes in some detail various
coastal actions, although these involved Fig 2
local cargo or fishing vessels used for
improvised actions rather than proper
warships.
The last chapter deals with ‘Ports
and port cities’ and discusses the
history and geography of all the port
cities on the coast of Palestine, place
by place, from the bronze age to the
mkkue ages.
There is an appendix ‘Biblical
seafaring and the. book Mormon’ Fig 3
written by John M. Lundquist which
should not be read uncritically.
Overall, an interesting and readably written book on a
subject where little information is available elsewhere. And
much of the information should apply equally well to other
seafaring countries in the Mediterranean.
§hgdjot - Issue 210
activity Fisures:
Fig 1 : A Hebrew seal from the 8ti or 7* century BCE. The
ship is similar to Phoenician vessels of the period. Note the
animal (horse?) head at the prow and the shields hung from
the side. The inscription gives the name of the seal’s owner,
Oniyahu ben Merabh. ‘Oniyahu’ means ‘God (Yahu) is my
strength (Oni)‘. However, Oni also means ‘ship’.
Fig 2 : A coin of Archelaus, who ruled 4 BCE - 6 CE,
showing a warship with oars and a cabin.
Fig 3 : A coin of Titus commemorating his victory over
Judaea (70 CE). Note the ship’s bow on which the emperor
placed his foot. A naval victory was evidently considered an
important part of Titus’ triumph.
PfGWMSbyTod Kershner. Rulespubliiby
Black Falam Publiiing. James Manto.
Tod Kershner is best known for his very successful and best-
selling set of 18’ century miniature rules Warfarein the Age of
Reason With Prg Wars, he moves into the popular area of Dark
Ages skirmishing. pis Wars is subtitled “Dark Age Skirmish,
When Men were Men and pigs were Money”, and this sets the
tone for these rules. PWis meant to be a fast, fun and furious set
of rules in the ‘beer & pretzels’ genre. It is ideal for those hidden-
logic, agenda ‘trust me’ sort of games with an emphasis on deal-
making and back-stabbing.
For your USS20.00, you get a professionally produced,
heavily illustrated 40 page booklet (8’/2 by 11 inch in size), full-
colour card cover and staple bound. The centre-leaf of the book
is a pair of heavy paper, player reference sheet which is easily
removed and cut in two for use during the game. A third player
reference sheet is reprinted on the back page of the book for
ease of location during a game. The rules take up the first 17
pages, which include some interesting ideas for optional rules
once you are comfortable with the basics. The rest of the book is
historical background and three scenarios. One is a multi-sided
skirmish with Nonnans, Saxon rebels and assorted mercenary
bands, each run by a different player with their own objectives.
The second is a straight forward refight of the Battle of Hastings
and the third is a Roman punitive expedition in the Rhineland
sometime in the 1st century AD.
My friends and I managed to play a game with our figures
mounted for ‘battle’ type games (most infantry were based in
pairs), but collections of individually based figures are ideal for
these rules. The rules give a very quick and bloody game. The
combat resolution is quite novel; Pw uses a deck of ordinary
playing cards for each unit instead of a die roll as the random
generator. Thii gives a different statistical spread than dice-
rolling and helps to equaliie the different types of fighters
without using a points based ‘army list.’ A mechanism I
particularly liked was the random die roll for movement through
bad terrain. It is simple and effective. Another interesting feature
is “The Official Prg WarsLooting Table” which details how many
men are required to carry off certain items and how many
victory points are gained. This will make the game-master’s job
much easier in setting out villages and farmsteads for the
rampaging warbands to fight over. My only quibble with the
rules is that there is no movement mechanism for the livestock,
which presumably wouldn’t be standing still until captured.
Perhaps a die roll (determined by type of beast) in inches away
from the nearest warband or burning building is required?
The focus of the rules is obviously the “Dark Ages” from the
6mthrough to the lZm century in Western Europe; the Viking
raids, the Nom-ran conquest, the battles in Spain with the Moors.
However, the rules are simple enough that they can be extended
back in time to the ancient Greeks or forward until the advent of
plate armour and gunpowder. The author specifically
accommodates Romans fighting in the Rhiieland with some
optional rules for pila etc. Kg Wars,with their emphasis on man-
55
§hgdjot - Issue 2 10
to-man combat would be particularly good for warfare in Heroic,
Bronze Age Greece if someone came up with some rules for
chariots. Another avenue to explore would be the exploits of
Cuchulain and Fii Mat Cool in ancient Ireland. A clever and
amusing chrome-rule at the end is some dice rolling to
determine if the players get mentioned in a saga or heroic
poem. It all helps to add to the flavour of the game and gives us
GUARDROOM
RepubliiandPtindpate!Romansh~N0ate
Information on colours is pretty thin on the ground. In fact, more
probably it is non-existent. All that you can aim for are the
obvious base colours of red, white and blue with white or yellow
patterning. A bit basic, but makes some sense without solid
evidence to go on. I know of no evidence that talks of different
shield colours for different cohorts and I don’t believe that this is
consistent with Roman practice. Most probably, standards are
used to identify cohorts.
Auxiliaries were organised into 6 formations:
l Cohors Quingenaria Peditata 480 foot (6 cohorts)
l Cohors Quiigenaria Equitata 480 foot (6 cohorts) and 120
cavalry (4 turmae)
l Cohort Milliaria Peditata 800 foot ( 10 cohorts)
l Cohors Milliaria Equitata 800 foot (10 cohorts) and 240
cavalry (8 turmae)
l Ala Quiigenaria 512 cavalry ( 16 tunnae)
l Ala Milliaria 768 cavalry (24 turmae)
These are, of course, theoretical strengths. Of the few known
trwp returns we have, all show the infantry to be under strength,
by as much as 30%, but the cavalry is up to strength probably
because it pays better!
All of these units are in operation through the period 50-150
AD. Field and provincial armies are usually composed of a
variety of these formations.
My own feeling is that the auxiliaries are heavy infantry and
are cheap expendable legionaries as they are not citizens.
Always important not to get citizens killed - looks bad to the
voters back in Rome! This is why they can be deployed in front
of the legions - not because they have some mystical power to
withstand ‘barbarians’ that the legionaries don’t possess.
Basic equipment is that of the legionaries except that they
carry throwing spears instead of the pilum. Their flexibility is in
their smaller formations but even this had largely disappeared
by the mid-first century AD as legionary vexillations were in
extensive use (i.e. combining cohorts of different legions to do a
particular job).
Books to look out for:
Roman Warfarr by Adrian Goldsworthy (Cassall, 2000) - GOOD
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
?he Roman Amy at War by Adrian Goldsworthy (Clarendon
press, 1996) - A MUST HAVE!
Tiajan’s parthian War by F.A. Leper (Ares Publishers, 1948)
he Ranan Army in B&in by P.A. Holder (Batsford, 1982)
The Roman Art of War by C.M. Gilliver (Tempus, 1999)
Roman Military Equipment by M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Co&ton
(Batsford, 1993) - SUPERB!
The Rcnnan Imperial Amy by Graham Webster (Constable,
republished 1996) - A CLASSIC
Tmjan’s Column by Frank Dapper G Sheppard Frere (Alan
Sutton, 1988) - GOOD PICTORIAL
he Auxilia ti the Roman Amy by G. Cheesman (Oxford,
1914) - ANOTHER CLASSIC
The Roman Car&y by Karen Dixon G Pat Southern (Routledge,
1992) - EXCELLENT
Don’t forget to look through the Penguin classics. Try:
Josephus - he&&s/r War: campaigns in Judaea in 66-72 AD
56
more reasons to buy some Gripping Beast livestock and
villagers and start looting!
PKi WARS by Tod Kershner and is published by
Black Falcon Publishing, 41 Greengate Rd., Don Mills,
Ontario M6S 3K3, Canada. Suggested retail US
$20.00.
Tacitus - The Histories the civil wars of 68-70 AD
As you can see, there are a range of excellent books
available. The WRG book is a bit dated now but a useful @de
also. All of these will give excellent infonnation on formations
and known armies. Happy hunting.
(u4?obti&&bk?G4Ytm&7up~~!d!.?..~)
StuatiWhiihamonfheuse5ofterrain
I fully agree with Adrian Garb&t’s comments in the January
issue of Sbgshot (207) about terrain and objectives,
‘Wargaming in the new millenium’. At present the sole objective
in any DBM battle is to destroy the opposing army. Whilst this
may be a valid objective, such set piece battles were relatively
rare occurrences in history. Usually rai&g to deny the enemy
resources, skirmishing, and sieges took place until one side was
either forced to give baffle, or withdraw.
Perhaps the system used in principles of War’ could be
adapted for DBM. ln that set of rules players allocate points to
terrain objectives on the table, (in secret) those in the enemy
half of the table beiig worth more, this makes standing on the
defensive less of an option, yet a player can still win by denying
the enemy their objectives, even if they do not know what they
are until the game is over! Although it is possible to work it out if
the opposing army heads for it, what if it is a feiit?
At present most encounters take place in a strategic
vacuum and are artificial in being focused on head-on clashes
with the sole objective of killing enemy troops. To reflect a wider
reality perhaps more attention should be paid to terrain
objectives, such as blocking the enemy lie of communication.
For example blocking a road leading off their table edge or
taking their baggage (perhaps causing the enemy army to flee
as a result) or, if using Vikings or other raiders, taking bridges
blockiig a river, or a built-up area (BUA) or ravaging fields and/
or enclosures. It would also make greater use of the terrain that
players bring along and make for a more interesting game
rather than just another exercise in bashing the enemy.
On a separate point in the same issue of Slingshot, I also
liked Karl Heinz Ranitzsch’s ideas on ‘Feigned flight under DBM’.
This I think would make a valid addition to the repertoire in the
DBM rulebook, and inject a bit more realism into the rules by
replicating a historically valid tactic.
Paul AUwood queries moementofekphantsinDBM
Would an element of Elephants be prevented from moving if
having only one PIP to move and an enemy’s front comer
restricting it to less than a full move? Several club members say
this is the case and it must pay two PIPS to move but if so what
does this represent, surely it has been halted by the presence of
the enemy and has not suddenly become easier to control.
(~f~Bwker~&~~Y~tca?t~kSF~a~~~
-tPma.. e!)
RobinPlympbnasksaboutSids?
In a book I have been reading on ancient mercenaries by Serge
Yalichev I found some references to the City of Syracuse using
large units of Sicels mercenaries to augment its forces.
Unfortunately the author didn’t give details as to what troop type
they were. I’m assuming that they were a type of light infantry.

The information I’m seeking is as follows: If they were used
as light infantry what type of weapons did they use? What type
of shields if any did they use? What was their mode of dress?
What figures (15mm) would you recommend to use to create a
unit of Sicels?
Richard Lodwood questions Greek Hoplii numbers
in Persian armies
I’ve been having difficulties believing the number of mercenary
Greek hoplites quoted by the sources as being present, and
killed, in Persian armies at the battles of the Ciranicus and Issus.
So, lots of questions below, some of which I am trying to look
into, but other members may already know some of the answers
or have views.
We are told that all but 2,000 of the 20,000 were killed at the
Granicus, the remainder made captives. So none survived to be
part of the 30,000 at Issus, of whom only 5,000 escaped with
Darius. Add the two totals of 20,000 and 30,000 together and
that’s 50,000. That’s a lot of Greek mercenaries. What’s more,
that’s a lot of dead Greek mercenaries! Yet I do not recall ever
seeing this number questioned - indeed the usual comments are
along the lines of “Darius certainly needed that many given the
state of the Persian infantry” and “he could easily afford it”.
Could there really be 50,000 mercenary Greek hoplites in
Persian service? Remember, this could not be a “City state”
sponsored force such as Thebes had previously supplied, since
all but Sparta were nominally aligned with Philip and Alexander
against the Persians.
What was the hypothetical total size of a lily mobilised
Greek state’s army of this time? Is 50,000 too high a proportion
to be credible?
How did all these hoplites get to Persia? They would need a
lot of boats! Xenephon’s description of Cyrus gathering his
10,000 suggests it could be a slow business even if Greece was
in relative peace. Given Philip’s hostile stance to Persia, it cannot
have been easy.
Do the Granicus and lssus battlefield deployment and
performance of the mercenary Greek hoplites support these
numbers? Taking the analysis of lssus by N.G.L Hammond in
his book Alexander the Great,King Col-nmnderandstatgman,
where he provides a credible reading of the battlefield site and a
scale map, suggests that the hoplites must have deployed over
20 deep. Seems excessive to me.
At Issus, how did the Persians move 90,000 foot into a
defensive position? How does the communication and chain of
command work? Look at the problems Napoleon used to have
manoeuvring his Corps totalling not dissimilar numbers, and
failing to get them into the right places at the right times.
What do other sources tell us of the use and numbers of
mercenaries in the periods before and after, and how many
other mercenaries were in other employment at the same time?
Certainly we know all about Xenephon and the 10,000, and we
get the impression that this was a significant gathering. We hear
that Philip of Macedon makes much use of mercenaries, as does
Phokis, in the Sacred War (350~347BC), but never more than
10,000? Philip’s initial lO,OOO-strong invasion of Persia is
usually considered to have consisted largely of mercenaries, and
this is at the time when some or most of the 50,000 must have
been in Persian service.
Could 18,000 hoplites really be killed at the Granicus? Is a
defeated phalanx ever seen to take such casualties, in either
previous hoplites wars or in the following wars of the
Successors? I get the impression that surrender on terms was
more likely, and a fight to the death avoided by generals who
could ill-afford needless losses. Could Alexander really have cut
down 18,000 hoplites at the Granicus with virtually no loss
(which the sources say is what happened) when the latter knew
it was a fight to the death? And would he really have chosen to
§hgdjot - Issue 210
do so, even as an example to the rest of Greece? Try closing
your eyes and imagining the killing of 18,000 professional
soldiers - how long it might take, the casualties involved in
doing it. Maybe if they broke formation and made a run for it,
but that doesn’t seem to be what happened.
Finally, would the death or disappearance of 50,000 male
Greeks in the space of a year or so be a major catastrophe, a
significant event that would be noted somewhere in the history
of a city state? In the context of the previous scale of warfare
known to Greece, where hundreds seem to have died rather
than thousands, is it strange that no mention of it has survived?
Call me stupid, but I just don’t believe. So come on,
convrnce me.. . .
Ridtatd Jefhey-Cook responds on Hoplii numbers
In response to Richard Lockwood’s query about the number of
Greek Mercenaries in Persian service, I have some suggestions.
There were a considerable number of Greek cities under Persian
control at the time of Alexander’s invasion. I think it would be
wrong to assume that these Greek mercenaries had come only
from the Greek mainland or islands.
It is also worth remembering that Alexander planted a lot of
Greek Mercenaries in the conquered Persian territories (over
30,000 I believe, see my article on Stasanor in Slingshot Issue
99, but unfortunately I did not quote a source!). This shows that
there were a lot of mercenaries about!
On the same lies, do all these mercenaries have to be
Greek? Could they actually be from other races, but armed “in
the Greek manner” so to speak? Other examples from a later
period include archers being described as from Crete and
Tarentines being used to describe cavalry with shields.
I don’t have the linguistic ability to go back to the original
sources, but history has a tendency to be written by the winners
(i.e. Alexander!) and I would agree that killing 18,000 infantry
who didn’t flee would be very time consuming and not without
loss. Large casualties occur when armies flee, not when they
stand and fight. “last stands” such as the Spartans at
Thennopylae, tend to get remembered. Xenophon and the
10,000 show how a large body of troops maintaining formation
were very difficult to destroy!
The problem with a lot of Ancient History is that sources are
so sparse that if we discredit the few sources we have, we are
left with nothing at all!
A Libyan Fostsdptfrom Duncan Head
I am grateful to the Editor for publishing in Slingshot 209 my
appeal for information on the North African cavalry figurine.
However it may help potential searchers to know that the
illustration has been printed the wrong way round in S/ingsn~
the rider actually has his shield on his left arm.
diinttomemmembers
Many thanks for my first two issues of Slingshot. After many
years of consideration I finally joiied. I had no idea of the quality
of the publication - simply superb, even my Wife picked up a
copy! I work full-time as a 25mm figure painter, and I would be
happy to offer members a 10% discount. Details are as follows:
Ever Victorious Miniatures, 19 Newstead Avenue, Mapperfey,
Nottingham NG3 6GB. Tel 0115 9573450 or e-mail DaveW
EVM@tinvonline.co.uk I am also a trade show s&G
Newline Designs 25mm Ancient ranges and can offer members
a 10% discount at shows ONLY. please contact me if further
details are required.
Painting Palmyfans asks Antoine Bourguilleau
Any hints on painting Palmyran foot archers 3 In his Armiesand
Enemiesof Imperial Rome, Phil Barker suggests they have a
57
§hgsfjot - Issue 2 10
uniform, which I find a little bit dubious - though I’m definitely
not a reference in Syrian Military History! So the real question is:
If you had Palmyrans, how would you paint them?
That Mr Know-It-All Steven Neate answers.....
I would use lots of white or off-white as my base colours and
then add coloured borders and patterns. Obviously, the slightly
richer foot archer might have a different coloured shirt or
trousers but white is the predominant colour of clothing in the
area. I’ve seen some reliefs lying smashed on the ground at
Palmyra which depict foot archers. I took a photograph but my
camera gave up from heat exhaustion! The archers had pretty
patterns and borders on both tunics and trousers. The scenes
could have been mythical but the costume was probably based
on what the fashionable Palmyran on the street was wearing in
the 2”d or 3ti century and match the costume from (wealthy?)
tombstones.
Daniele Varelli speaks up for Armati
As a new member of the Society of Ancients, I found Brian
Mischel’s coverage of Armati in the January issue (“DBM versus
Armati”) rather simplistic.
The contemporary setup of armies in Armati can be difficult
if your opponent doesn’t deploy as you expected, but I’m not
sure that alternate deployment is more realistic. In Armati you
can’t do “grand tactical” moves, because the gaming surface
represents only the battlefield, with the armies ready to clash,
and not its surroundings. Terrain is not limited to no more than
two pieces and some armies can use even five terrain features.
There is the possibility to use a waterway, if the two players
agree. Bulky units are difficult to manoeuvre as it was in reality.
Uncontrolled units can’t move (except for contacting the
enemy) but you are not compelled to use uncontrolled units. In
hati you have only one general, but you can lose him and still
win the battle. Army lists are a quarter of those of DBM, but with
the same ruleset you get rules and army lists for early and late
renaissance and ECW/TYW (and campaign rules too). All army
lists have been playtested; if they are not well researched but
just translated from DBM lists, it means that DBM lists are not
well researched. Just as an example of the diversity of troops in
Armati, there are four different Hellenistic phalangites: PH 8( 1) 1,
PH 8(0)0, PH 7(0)0, PH 6(0)0 and not only “7 or 8 for
legionaries and pikes”.
Apart from impetus, some examples of specific tactical
ability taken in account in Armati: elite foot can wheel and
move - others can’t; light troops are dispersed by heavy troops;
elite cavalry and heavy cavalry with bows are not forced to do
obligatory charges; skirmishers and light infantry are superior to
elephants in close combat; etc etc. Having said this, I agree that
Annati has some (or many) weak points but so does every rule
set and I’m sincerely sorry that he does “not want to play
another game with it”.
QualiiConbd?asksStuatiWhgham
It is very disappointing in view of how recently the ‘revised’ DBM
army lists have been released, that Richard Bodley Scott is
asking people to send him errata and amendments via the
Internet to his homepage. I appreciate that the development of
an army list may be an organic process, but it would benice to
thiik that the information being sent to Richard Bodley Scott will
be used to create the next generation of army lists instead of
correcting the existing ones. After all, three years or so have
elapsed between the publication of the first set of army lists and
the ‘revised’ army lists. Time enough I would have thought to
have checked their content and revise the army lists
accordingly. However, if a little more ‘quality control’ were
exercised beforehand, then we would have all benefited, WRG
especially. I fully agree with WRG’s efforts to cut down on
58
gimmick troop types and spurious rule changes, and Phil Barker
G Richard have my full support with regard to this.
Secondly, instead of printing 5 booklets at DO+, why not
incorporate the rules and army lists into an A4 ring binder, so
that if amendments are necessary, then they could be
incorporated more easily, instead of everyone struggling with
amendment sheets, and then amendments to the amendments.
I cannot imagine it would cost more to produce than the
booklets, and a ringbinder would be a lot easier to manage. How
about it WRG?
NkdasHeidomasksabouttheParthinNavy?
I am doing research on the Parthian Empire, specifically their
military. I have amassed quite a bit of knowledge on all forms of
land units, however have no knowledge of any sea power. I find
this hard to believe since they were a coastal Empire and ideally
located between Rome and China. Did they have any ships at
all? Or perhaps even further, did they have a navy? If you have
any information please help. Thank you.
lateRomanQueGonsfnxnMikeMenm
I am currently building a 4* - 5* century Eastern late Roman
army using Gladiator figures ( 15mm) for DBM. They produce a
range that includes a fully armoured figure (no shield) on an
armoured horse which they call Cliiarii and an am-roured
figure (with shield) on a half armoured horse they call
Catafractarii. I have read the relevant articles in Slingshot (I have
the complete discs) and also the Osprey books on the Late
Rcman Cavalryman and the Gwmanic Wanicf and the situation
is still unclear.
I want to use both troop types as Regular Knights (X) (as I’ve
never used this troop type before) and have the following
problems:
l Are the Gladiator labels correct?
l Can troops on half armoured horses be used this early for
either troop type or must they all be on fully armoured
horses?
l Can either of them be on unarmoured horses and still remain
Kn(X) or must they then become Kn(F), which it appears
from the army lists cannot be used after 354 AD?
I would be very grateful for any help in clarifying this situation.
lateRomanCataphracb:afeplyfromStevenNeate
I think the situation is unclear because the historical situation is
unclear. For a historical assessment of the evidence look for a
book called Cataphmcti and CLbanarii by Mariusz Mielczarek
(Poland, 1993, PB $12.95 from Oxbow Books). lt is in English
by the way!
The Gladiator labels probably come horn the DBM army
lists. By the DBM rules Kn(X) are fully-armoured men on
armoured horses whose job is to lumber in and spit you on a
lance. The suggestion is that such troops were called cliiarii if
they came from the east and cataphractari if they came from
the west but the terminology would have probably been quite
blurred. Their weaponry is the two-handed kontos.
Under DBM, Kn(F) are other troops who will charge you
anyway, armoured or not. These could be armoured men (from
just a coat of mail to having additional arm and leg protection)
on unarmoured or half-armoured horses and armed with spear
or kontos. It’s much of a muchness.
I think you can happily mix your armoured and half-
armoured horses for the late Roman period as there is lie or no
proof that field units had uniformity in their annour. Even in the
early- and mid-Imperial period we know that cavalry troopers
(and certainly foot officers) were able to alter their armour,
helmets and weapons as they could afford to reflect theii own
perceived wealth and/or importance. I can’t see why this would
not have continued into the later periods.
 The beauty of the late Roman period is that it can be concerned it is completely irrelevant. T H White has a keen
extremely flexible. The army lists have always made it that it can sense for the mystery of Celtic legend and magic and its
be all things to all people. attractions for the modem Briton, an excellent sense of
(Iht~,,butCllbguyjLcstk~aqop/i7gup~~~~!...Mlj humour and is a good storyteller to boot. I don’t think we could
call him an historian in his dealings with Arthur.
Ageism and Arthur : A Retort from Tony Hughes If we can call the late pre-historical period in Greece ‘The
As is all too common Alan Colquhoun confuses the Medieval Homeric Age’ surely ‘The Age of Arthur’ is not an
romances, possibly based on foreign sources from the 1 lti or unreasonable title for the late 5* to mid Sti century resurgence
12’ centuries and drawing on earlier material from Celtic of Romano-British resistance. I have never heard this term
legends surviving in Wales and Brittany, with factual evidence. applied to the whole of the ‘Dark Ages’ in Britain anyway and
There are admittedly only a few scraps of evidence to even John Morris’s book of that title stops at 650 AD.
suggest the existence of a person such as Arthur and none are In an historical sense the Age of Arthur existed in that it
accurately datable nor do they name him. As to the references was looked back on with reverence and regret over the
to KING Arthur, the medieval concept of kingship did not exist generations that followed. Something made it special enough
in the 5*/S* century and the Roman offices of Dux, Comes or to have lived so strongly in Celtic memory and that seems to
protector (the possible roles that ‘Arthur’ may have filled) have been the contrast between the anarchic situation after
would not have been understood by Mallory; he would have about 550AD and the comparative stability of the preceding
used terms and concepts familiar to his audience. The title of generation or two. I accept that we cannot reliably pin this on
Arneraudur (Emperor), attributed to Arthur by later Welsh an historical Arthur but then Homer is only a name, not a
writers, is more likely than Rex (King) but is still unlikely to person who can be identified with much more certainty.
have been used by or of ‘Arthur’ during his life. As to “Arthurian warbands”, look at the catalogues and the
Mallory’s story about Arthur is a description, even a wargame rules. At the greatest stretch of imagination they are
celebration, of the late medieval concept of Knightly behaviour called Knights: the warbands in the Romano-British
and courtly love. The legend of ‘King’ Arthur is merely used as armies are either Saxon mercenaries/allies or Irish/
a convenient vehicle to present the ideas in a ‘user friendly’ Celtic tribesmen. If he refers to the Gripping Beast or
format and is in no way to be taken as an attempt at historical Foundry figures as a “drab warband” I can’t imagine
narrative. As far as the history of later Roman Britain is what he thinks is colourful.

A DAYOUTOFt3lBLUL PROPORTIONS
THESOC1m ‘MINI-CONFERENCE’;14Tn OCTOBER2000
PaulSpscikievhq
andtanRussell
Lowell

E.B
he Society of Ancients has organised a one-day Madduwatta in the west and Mita in the east is exponential. For
conference based around a large-scale campaign game the island based Ahhiyawa and the imperial Egyptians it is truly
\ / to take place on 14* October 2000 for up to 25 people. dominating.
The venue for the game is St Mark’s Church Hall, Brickhill Road, The game is a balancing act between the Anatolian powers:
Wellingborough. ‘War without Frontiers, Games without Fear’ the Hittites waning but with still enough bite to attack the Levant,
is a multi-player campaign game designed by Ian Russell Lowell the Ahhiyawans anxious to back any expansion into new
based on events taking place circa 1360 BC in Anatolia. The territory, the Arzawans girding up to be the power in Anatolia,
Egyptian pharaoh Amenhetep Ill is expanding Egyptian Mitanni wanting to dominate the Levant and Egypt, under
influence throughout the lands and islands of the eastern Amenhetep, spinning a web of intrigue like a patient spider.
Mediterranean while the Hittite Great King Tudhaliya I faces The map on the following page shows the area over which
rebelliin and invasion of the Hittite kingdom from all four the action takes place.
quarters. Various opportunists are ready and waiting, both to
suck up to Egypt and to lay claim to a greater bit of real estate. The lion’s share of the day will be the game, but the event
From the Aegean to the Levant. War and politicking is rife. will also include workshops that aim to generate useful
The catalyst for the events to be covered in the game is discussions that will hopefully lead to articles in Slingshot.
Madduwatta, an Atzawan renegade. Madduwata seems to have
been intent on matching or even replacing the power of the A rough timetable for the day is as follows:
tiktites in Anatolia. He started life as an Arzawan lord, but after
beiig the victim of an attack by Attarissiya of Ahhiyawa, he g-9.30 Arrivals
turned to Tudhaliya for support, agreeing to become his vassal. 9.30-10.30 introduction and organisation and coffee
He was reinstated with Hittite support, then proceeded to create 10.30-4.00 The game with opportunities for committee
havoc in western Anatolia. After an unsuccessful attack on decision-making, diplomacy, and table-top combat
Arzawa, when he had to be rescued by the Hittites once again, resolution. (Working luncheon of sandwiches served during
he then leads a Hittite general into a deadly trap during a the game/or short half-hour break).
campaign against the Lukka Lands. Furthermore he allies 4.00-4.30 Quick debrief of what happened over tea.
himself with his former enemies, Kupanta-kurunda of Arzawa 4.30-6.30 Workshops on such themes as
and Attarissiya of Ahhiyawa and attacks central Anatolia and l Committee-gaming an absolute monarchy;
the island of Alasiya (Cyprus). l Simulating chariot warfare on the table top:
The game has several major roles for players. Madduwata l Using Bronze Age source materials effectively in game
provides an excellent opportunity for an ambitious, empire- design.
building leader. Tudhaliyas l/l1 has to manage a temporarily
shaky Great Power, not only against traditional enemies such as The organisers would also welcome any interest from people
the Gasgan tribes but also the rising powers of Arzawa and who might like to put on a workshop of their own.
Mitanni. The scope for initially minor opportunists like

59
§hg5fjot - Issue 210
Each player will receive a briefing pack, before the day,
which will give them some details of their strategic situation and Paul Szuscikiewicz
resources at their disposal. If there is any particular role that 7 Combermere Road, London,
attracts you, do specify it when you write in. SW9 9QG.
The cost of the event is ElO, to be received ASAP for an
assured place, and which includes your lunch. If you wish to Make cheques payable to “The Society of Ancients”.
participate, please write to :

60
 §fitupljot - I5sue 210
13-16 Jul: “HOTZk” CL Historical
Origins Team 2000, COLUMBUS, OH.
Hosted by HMGS-GL. John Paiva at EVENTS- WORLD rr
~1
AndonMini@aol.com or 175 Annapolis Dr.
Ckuemont, CA 9 17 11 Ph 909-62 l-3459. 1 10-13 Aue: GEN CON Milwaukee. WI POC: 1
WEB: http://www.wizards.comJorigins/ 1 WOTC 80-529-3976 Web: www.w&ds.com 1
ORG2Wwelcome.a.m .
26 Aug: AUGUST SPEARHEAD Gateway 35 Nov: E FALL IN Eisenhower Inn &
13-16 Jul: ORIGINS Columbus, OH POC: Convention Cntr. Collinsville. IL NFIP Con Cntr, Gettysburg, PA. HM.POC: Bob

‘1
NO’K 800-529-3976 Web: www.wizards.com
20-23 Jul E HISTORICON, Lancaster
Host Resort Hotel, Lancaster, PA. POC:
JamesE. Thomas, Jr, 83 14 Sprague PI., New
&rollton. MD 20784.301-552-4879 Email:
kingjt@&l.com Webpage: www.hmgs.org
25-27 Jul: QUINCON Quincy, IL. Mxd.
WC: Tammy, POB 3892, Quincy, IL 62305-
3892 ggamingguild@otmail.com or
moonwolf@sni.net
r
46 Aug: “Alexander’s Successors 323
BC” GI JodieConZk - Ancients Campaign
Weekend. at FORT MONMOUTH, NJ.
Email: JodieCon@yahoo.com, PO Box 372,
Oceanport, NJ 07757 Clubs/Groups call
(732) 460-0250. WEBSITE: http://users.nac.
net/$ho&Jodie/JodieCon.html
15-17 Sep: CL Advance the Colors, Holiday
29 Sepl Ott: Trinoc*coN, Durham Marriott,
Durham, NC RP, Art, SciFi. POC: Trinoc*coN
POB 10633, Raleigh, NC 27605
web: wwwtrinoc-conorg
checked with the organiser. Details are
Giglio, 5732 Goldfinch Ct., Ellicott City,
MD21043,Ph: @efore9p.m.)410-465-
7688, E-mail: ECWCaptain@aol.com
17-19 Nov: COMMAND CON, Jefferson
Barracks, St Louis, MO. HM. POC: Big
Muddy HGA. web: http:/www.apci.net/
-ipw4/bigmud 1.htm
Please note that events should be
printed in good faith from information
supplied. Neither the Society nor the
Editor is responsible for inaccuracies.
More information may be available on
the SoA website

Please show your card or quote membership number to obtain your discount
10% discount is offerred by : 5% discount is offered by :
l Donnington Miniatures l Irregular Miniatures (non-credit card purchases only)
l Lancashire Games l Curtey’s Miniatures - Essex stockists (incl. free post)
l Peter Pig
l Museum Miniatures 25% discount on their publications
. Sabre (for former QT 25mm) l Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
l POP Enterprises (scenery & buildings)
l Veni Vidi Vici (shield transfers) 15% discount
l East Riding Miniatures l Pharoh’s Gaurd Hobbies - Shawnee, OK 74864, USA
l Jacobite Miniatures (on sales over El0 at shows) Old Glory and Battle Honours stockists
l OJL Buildings (France) 15% on orders up to $125,20% for larger orders
l Ainsty Casting Company (on sales over f;25 only)

SOC1ET?POSTALSALES
Publications Thirty Years of SZ&g&ot
‘The Ancient Strategists’ - combined wisdom Slingshots from 1965 - 1995 (2 CD set) Q4.00 $45.00
of Sun Tzu and Vegetius f3.00
‘Wargaming the Baltic Crusades’ s2.00 g:; SZng&ot
‘Medieval siege rules’ El.00 Slingshot Index (Includes Part 1 FREE) a.50 $6.00
‘Start Ancient Wargames’ a.50 s1:oo Slingshot Back Issues:
Society Games All prices are per year set
Lytel Guthan (Dark Ages Skirmish) 3x50 1997 E16.00 f30.00
Aquitaine ( 100 Years War) a.50 1994, 1995, 1996 E15.00 $30.00
Legion (Roman & Punic warfare for 2 players) Qt.50 1989,1990,1991,1992, 1993 212.50 $25.00
Emperor of the Steppes (conquest of China) a.00 1979,80,81*, 83,86 E10.00 $15.00
Get Sparta (hoplite warfare for 2 players) s3.00 1982,84,85,87,88 E7.50 $15.00
Gladiolus (game of gladiatorial combat) CL00 * 1979/80/8 1 only available while stocks last
Clothing
T-shirts (check colour availability). E1O.OO $25.00 All products are now available from the Membership
Society ties f3.00 $6.00 Secretary.

All prices include postage and packing in the UK, add 10% for Europe airmail and 20% for the rest of the world airmail. prices
in .$ include world airmail. Payment may be made using Mastercard or Visa. Include your name as given on the card, your card
number and expiry date when ordering this way. Orders may be placed by e-mail to psales@soa.org.uk

61
 §fingsfjot - Issue 2 10

Editorial .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Actions with Alexander - Wargaming with Macedonians in DBM : Gavin Pearson ...................................................................... 1
A fourth century BC Makkan army : Stephen Turn ....................................................................................................................... 1
“With the bow let us win cows.” - Wargaming with Vedic Indians : Richard Andrews .................................................................. 2
DE MULTiTUDfNUS SKIRMISH ‘99 - Various Wargaming Adventures at the SOA Skirmish ‘99 : Barry Harman ..................... .7
Skirmish ‘99 Results : Adrian Garbett .......................................................................................................................................... 11
At the Ends of Empire - Alexander’s Bactrian War : Peter Hall .................................................................................................. 12
THE BATTLE OF MEGIDDO - 1481 BC (A Scenario for WHAB) : Andrew Bishop .................................................................. 16
Vegetius 1:X the Physical Evidence : Jim Sye ........................................................................................................................... 18
On Horses, Chariots, Bows and Scythes : Martin Charlesworth .................................................................................................. 21
Basing Figures : Tony Barr ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
The Cousins’ Wars - Part 2 - A Beginners’ Guide to the Wars of the Roses, by a Beginner : John Hastings ............................ .26
Wars and Warriors of the Nordic Bronze Age 2 -The Struggle for Ireland, 1772-1457 BC : Michael Fredholm von Essen .... .29
Oxford Jihad : Brian Espie .......................................................................................................................................... Centre Pages
AGM 2000 - Full details of the AGM with events, traders and maps ......................................................................... Centre Pages
The 8th Legion : John Poole ....................................................................................................................................... Centre Pages
1999 Portuguese DBM Championship : Jorge de Freitas ........................................................................................................... 32
Great Battles Series: Ancient Computer Wargaming - an Ancients Internet-wargaming community & website : Nik Fincher 33
The evolution of DBM - are we sure it’s moving in the right direction? : Simon Antony Hall ..................................................... 35
“Like Beasts of prey” - Thrace, the Thracians and DBM, part 3 (and last) : Christopher Webber ............................................. 38
Tezoc’s Matlatzinca Campaign 1484-1485 AD. - The Great Tribute Revolt : Robert Richardson ............................................ 44
Sassanian Foes : Phil Halewood ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Civitate 1053 - The Church Militant! : Stuart Whigham ............................................................................................................... 46
Cannae : A rethink on the Roman performance? : Steven Neate ................................................................................................ 48
Rules and Things : Bob O’Brien ............... ................................................................................................................................................................ z;
Teutonics for under a Tenner! : Matthew Bennett
Slingshot REVIEW : John Graham Leigh, James Manto, Jerald Tracy, Allan Hills, Tony Barr & Rafael Patai.. ......................... 52
GUARDROOM : Steven Neate, Stuart Whigham, Paul Attwood, Robin Plympton, Richard Lockwood,
Richard Jeffrey-Cook, Duncan Head, Dave Woodward, Antoine Bourguilleau, Daniele Varelli, Nicolas Heidom,
Mike Merva & Tony Hughes ............................................................................................................................................... 56
A day out of Biblical proportions - The Society ‘Mini-Conference ‘*, 14* Oct. 2000 : Paul Szuscikiewicz G Ian Russell Lowell .59

Resident sf=Etary Tourer Editor

Phil Steele Peter Barham Graham Fordham Steven Neate
78 Glendon Road 2 Singleton Drive 64 Gold Street 50 Poundgate
Rothwell Ensbury Park DESBOROUGH ALTON
KETTERING BOURNEMOUTH KETTERING GU34 2HL
NN14 6BS BHlO 4BT NN14 2NQ
Tel: (01420) 544057 (8-l lpm)
Tel: (01536) 711 798 Tel: (01202) 240640 EMail: editor@saorg.uk
EMail: secretary@soaorg.uk

The Committee Direction of Correspondence:

Tony Barr (Webmaster)
1 The Woodlands, Goddard Avenue, Hull, HU5 2BW Membership Enquiries: Richard Jeffrey-Cook
EMail: webmaster@soa.org.uk Changes of Address: Richard Jeffrey-Cook
Phil Halewood (Slingshot Contributions Officer) Material for Slingshot: Steven Neate
7B, Harlech Road, Blundellsands, Liverpool, L23 6XA Orders for Society products: Richard Jeffrey-Cook
Tel: (0151) 932 1075. EMail: philhalewd@aolcom Society promotion:
Peter Hall c/o 78 Glendon Road, Rothwell, Kettering, NN 14 6BS
103, New Road, Woodston, Peterborough, PE2 9HE. Society AGM: Richard Jeffrey-Cook
Tel: (01773) 565430. EMail: Pete.Hafl@uirginnet Figure Review Co-ordination: Editor
Richard Jeffrey-Cook (Membership Secretary) Trade Liason: Chris Ager
“Mabar”, Blackheath Lane, Wonersh, Guildford, GU5 OPN
Tel: (01483) 894052. EMail: membership@soa.org.uk Ombudsman: Phil Steele
Phillip Sabin (Events)
53 Station Road, Sidcup, Kent DA15 7DY AU OTHER CORRESPONDENCE: Peter Barham
Home Tel: (0208) 302 4229
Alison Manfove Slingshot Layout: Tony Hughes
64, Gold Street, Desborough, Kettering, NN14 2NQ EMail: tony.hughes@liv-coll.ac.uk
Paul Szuscikiewicz
7, Combermere Road, London, SW9 9QG Society Website: www.soa.og.uk
Tel: (0171) 326 1131. EMail: paulbrewer@lineone.net
Complaints: In the first instance contact the person concerned (missing Slingshots; contact Membership Secretary), failing that
the Secretary and failing that the Ombudsman.
Printed by Printall Company, 22 Ogrnore Crescent, Industrial Estate, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan.