Slingshot 069
Slingshot 069
Slingshot 069
JANUARY 1977
Official Journal Of The Society Of Ancients
THE SOCIETY OF ANCIENTS
DIRECTION OF CORRESPONDENCE
.
The Treasurer - Membership enquiries, subscriptions, changes of address and requests
for back numbers of ‘Slingshot’.
The Wargames
Championship Championship battle results, and enquiries about the Championship and
Organiser - its rules.
I
The Secretary - All other correspondence.
~ - i
EDITORIAL
At the start of the New Year, it is customary to look forward to better things. As
members who attended the AGM will have heard, 1976 was a difficult year for Slingshot,
partly due to a shortage of articles, and partly due to serious production and distribution
problems with the printer. In consequence, members’ copies have been arriving late or not
at all, and much confusion and inconvenience has been caused. The printing and distribu-
tion is now in other hands, and we must now hope all will be well again, and apologise to
members for the inconvan;ence which they have suffered.
In the meantime, the supply of articles has improved, and I must thank the membership
for responding to the call made at the AGM. Particularly welcome are reports of Society
Meetings - I wrote in the November issue that na-one submitted them now and promptly
received two.
In a forthcoming issue, we propose to send out a survey to readers, to find out what
you actually want in Slingshot. I hope the response will be as big as for the survey into the
Wargames Championship,
The first Commrttee meeting for 1977 will be held on Saturday, February 12th at the Ordnance
Arms commencing at 2.30, so all those members elected to serve on the Committee should
present themselves at this time or their apologies to me by at least the day before. Minutes of
the previous Committee meeting will be sent out by the end of January together with the Agenda
so if there is any proposal or item Committee members wou Id like on the Agenda, these should
be sent to me by Thursday, January 27th.
For the benefit of new members, the Ordnance Arms is opposite County Hall, near
Waterloo Station.
N. Dickinson
t
1977 AGM - A firm booking has been made by the Secretary for the York and Tudor Rooms at
Caxton HaII for September 3rd, 1977.
Ten officers and Committee members met on November 6th for the last Committee,
Meeting of the 1976 Committee with a full Agenda to conclude the years’ work. ,
The Treasurer was pleased to report that membership was only slightly down on the pre-
vious year but he had expectations of increased membership by the end of the year and
certainly during 1977 with the present subscription of E3.50 to continue. The Editor w&s .
receiving more articles of a varied nature so he too had hopes of a brighter and more interest-
ing future for Slingshot.
The Wargames Organiser felt the Society competition was continuing in the usual manner
of previous years but he would like the results of games notified to him more regularly and it
was important that results up to the 31st December should be advised to him by January 15th
at the latest so he could work out who would be the next Society champion. The Secretary
read various letters from members and mentioned that the Society had been offered a table for
demonstrations of ancient wargaming at the forthcoming Loughborough University Wargames
Convention and that interested Society members should get in contact with the Organiiser at
the earliest opportunity .
It was felt that debates at the AGM were not well-balanced and therefore a system of
organising these for future AGM’s will be put into operation. Following the recent controversy
during the Election, it was decided to bring in new Election Rules which any candidate will be
asked to abide by. In order to increase interest in the Wargames Championship, explanatory
articles of the Championship would be inserted in Slingshot regularly.
N. Dickinson
3
GUARDROOM
Paul Beckman writes: Seeing Ernest F. Raddatz’ article regarding the use of cavalry at Hastings
spurs me to write and I hope, show some other factors he does not seem to have considered.
Firstly the difficulty at that time of transporting large numbers of horses across the Channel
- I see no reason why the Normans should not have transported perhaps 2 - 3,000 horses. The
Bayeux Tapestry shows boats of low freeboard (one in particular carrying 10 horses) most of these
boats are undoubtedly war vessels, designed for speed rather than carrying capacity. However,
it is unlikely that anything like the whole fleet was of war vessels, but consisted mainly of
merchant vessels pressed into service; in this case the most likely type of vessel was a ‘Knarrar’,
a well known Viking type ship. Many of the long distance voyages of the Vikings were made in
these vessels, which carried livestock as well as supplies in their holds. These vessels were
surely the ancestors of the straightforward operation - using a hoist from the yard to lift horses
out and over the side of the vessel.
Secondly; the idea of Normans scouring the countryside for horses seems rather ridiculous,
because of the Saxon prediliction for oxen for use in ploughing and the general low level of use
of the horse throughout England at the time (not forgetting the Housecarls at Stamford Bridge).
Any Norman Knight worth his salt would not, I think, fancy trying riding into battle on some
small ladies’ hack or similar animal pinched from the local thegn’s house. He would ride his own
destrier, an altogether heavier beast trained to smash into contact - after all a ‘refusal’ right
outside the Saxon lines would not be too pleasant
As to why the Normans did not charge straight into contact, Ernest doubtless will know
that ‘The Alexiad of Anna Comnena’ book four on the battle of Dyrrachium illustrates how effect-
ive Varangian guard axe-bearers were against the Normans of Robert Guiscard. It is perhaps
also worth considering the quality of the Housecarls - Harold Hardrada considered any one of
them worth two of his best men, and his troops were not exactly inexperienced.
Let me illustrate my point by doing a little reconstruction of the battle. The Saxons stood
in shield wall, with the Housecarls undoubtedly in the front line and perhaps 10 ranks of the
Fyrd behind them. Picture then, an intrepid Norman Knight thundering towards them, let us
say that standing waiting for each knight are some twenty infantry Before our hero makes
contact he has to dodge some eighteen assorted (and I mean assorted) missiles, from javelins to
throwing axes, from 15 lb. throwing hammers to the humble but effective rock. Anchored
firmly in his high saddle our hero is rather hampered in his dodging movements and although he
may boast of his ability to ride through brick walls he is perhaps a little unnerved by the distinct
possibility of riding through what would, I think, feel like a good reconstruction of riding into
a brick wall. Should our hero manage to get through this hail of missiles he would be faced by
two large shields and two five foot long axes sweeping down on either his or his horse’s head.
It is also worth noting that a horse will gallop better and faster uphill than it will down,
so the Saxons were in a perfect position as far as the Normans were concerned, What I feel did
happen was that the Norman cavalry did a spot of feigned charges and withdrawals inorder not
only to tempt the English out of the shieldwall, but as a prime obiective to draw the Saxon
sting by enticing them to throw every missile they could find at a safe range. Naturally in this
situation a spot of lance-hurling could come in handy and these would be a selection of suitable
spears stuck in the ground around for use later.
Let me close this subject by saying that if the Normans did scour the countryside for horses
it is surely unlikely that they would be for use in the coming battle. I put it to Ernest that what
they in fact did with the horses would be what many French rroops did in many later (and
earlier?) periods when they felt hungry.
On the subject of regular Vikings and Paul Szuscikiewicz’ letter I think l agree~that there
may be a case for the Jomasvikings, but I am distinctly dubious. Why though should Harold
Hardrada’s army be ‘definitely’ barbarian - after all he and his ‘huscarl’ had served thie Roman
Emperor in the Mediteranean. I think to be realistic, that the Vikings had no regular troops in
their armies but like many barbarian armies had a superbly trained core of warriors. In the case
of the Vikings this ‘core’ was perhaps larger than in many other barbarian armies. May I throw
another rather old gauntlet by asking why do we count Varangian guard as regular? To my mind
we should not do so up to the date 1100 (i .e. approx. 1 generation after Hastings Andy therefore ,
allowing for the birth and training in the guard of Saxon emigres). Unfortunately, many of
these went down at Dyrrachium.
I
John Norris writes: I was surprised to see 1st Lt Donald Wolff’s defence in the November
‘Guardroom’ of the ludicrous combination of scalesand base sizes in the “legion” grand
tactical rules. They use the ground scale and base sizes of the WRG rules, but arbitrarily
increase the number of men represented by a figure, on a base of the same scale area; from the
WRG 20 to “50 - 100”. In Ctesias’ review last July, I took the excsnple of 80 men in 4 ranks
per figure and showed that the resulting scale frontages per man were absurd. 1st Lt Wolff has
now shown that reasonable scale frontcsges can be maintained with the minimum 50 men in 8
ranks, but be omitted to mention that if the correct spacing between ranks were maintained a
quarter of the men would be in limbo off the back of the base. This should not come as a
surprise, for the “Legion” rules attempt to cram 23 to 5 times as many men into the WRG scale
base area. Something has got to give; either the men wil I be packed too tightly, or ‘some will
not get into the base area at all. It is arrant nonsense in any case.
1st Lt Wolff went on to suggest that the variation in the “Legion” figure scale between
50 and 100 men to the figure is better than a fixed scale, because in his military experience he
has always found units to be under or over their nominal strength. I am sure that is true, but
was he really suggesting that if .two nominally equal units met in battle it would not affect the
‘,
5
result if one were actually twice as strong as the other? Surely not. That difference should be
represented by fielding different numbers of figures for the two units, representing their actual
strength according to a fixed scale.
l should Iike to support Mr. C.J. Peers’ justification of the Thessalian heavy cavalry in
his Macedonian wargame army. There is evidence of a contingent of Thessalian cavalry armed
and equipped like the Companions in Macedonian service, and there are many references to
Thessalian cavalry in the accounts of Alexander’s victories. The organisation of his cavalry is
wel I discussed in E .W. Marsden’s excellent book on the Gaugamel a campaign. That brings me
to Mr. D.C. Parish’s criticism of Ctesias’ review of “Alexander”, Avalon Hill’s boardgame of
Gaugamela. Mr. P arish criticised Ctesias for adopting a Macedonian deployment that was a
“guaranteed loser”. That is less than iustified, for the deployment is actually the ‘historical’
one used in the game and printed on its map-board. I entirely agree with Mr. Parish that in a
good simulation of Gaugamela the Macedonian deployment should not stretch from edge to
edge, and should leave scope for flanking movements, but the deployment cited is the great
fault in the design of “Alexander”. I was pleased to see Mr. Parish putting in a good word
for Alexander’s opponent Darius. While not in the same class as a general, Darius was a ruler
of some ability and displayed a good grasp of strategy in getting a larger force across
Alexander’s lines of communication in the lssus campaign, as described by Mr. Peter Tickler
in his article in ‘Slingshot’ a year ago.
Timothj/ Hubbard writes: I wonder if anyone can suggest why the illustration of a Galatian
Mercenary in Duncan Head’s article in the September issue is described as a Byzantine
infantryman in the Guinness Book of Land Warfare.
David Warwick writes: - The short answer to Ed Camfield’s fourth query is “Yes”, the Romans
did use War Elephants, but not on a permanent basis, only when they believed they might be
usefu I, Rome obtained many from the Punic Wars but didn’t use them until 200 BC when a
Roman force under S. Galba was sent to Greece with an unknown number of elephants. These
were first used in 199 BC against Philip of Lycestis. 10 more were sent in 198 to the force now
under Flaminius who probably used them against walled towns. They also contributed to final
victory in 197 at Cynoscephalae when Philip, lacking elephants, was decisively beaten.
In 192 another Roman expedition with 35 elephanrs was sent to Greece, and drove out
Antiochus who had landed with 6 elephants in his army, reinforced by more later. In 190 BC
Cornelius and Scipio Africanus followed Antiochus over the Hellespont. At Magnesia their
smaller African elephants, lacking towers, were used as support for the front line of Roman
troops, so avoiding contact with the larger, and turreted, Indian elephants of Antiochus. The
Romans won.
171 saw P. Licinius Crassus’ army of 37000 men, Numidian cavalry, and 22 elephants
beat Ahenobarbus in 121 against the Allobroges at Vindalium (Rhone Valley area).
Later Roman users were Caesar, during his African campaigns, while it is possible that
Claudius brought one or more to Britain when he invaded. The last reference I can find to the
Roman use of elephants is at the battle of Sargana between Maurice and Bahram.
6
RESULTS OF CHAMPIONSHIP BALLOT
from Stephen Reed
Now that sufficient time has passed for overseas members ballot forms to come’in I can
present the results of this ballot. The response was higher than I had expected with 269 forms
being returned, of which 148 were from competitors. The results were as follows:-
YES NO NO PREF. -
Ql DO you wish to see a play-off among the leading contenders
for the Championship? 105 110 54
The first preference votes cast for each of the alternatives for the Championship system were:-
B League system 39
135 voters said they would be interested in a Handicap Tournament, 123 they would not.
192 voters said they wou Id be interested in a Society organised weekend competition KO,
62 said they would not.
It may be of interest to note the differences between competitors and non-competitors and
overseas members in these results.
Ql was voted against by players but for by non-players by about 30% in each case.
Q2 was voted marginally no by players but massively yes by non-players and yes by 4 to 1 by
overseas members,
Q4 was voted no both by players and non-players, although more decisively by players, but
non-players were nearly 2 to 1 against. Overseas members a Iso voted heavily against.
7
The general trend on retaining or changing the system was for players to want to keep it
unchanged whi 1st non-players wished to see changes. There was no significant difference
between players and non-p layers on the Handicap or KO proposals.
Following the ballot, with the results in hand at the 18th August, which included all but
24 of the above, mainly from overseas, the committee then considered what proposals it would
recommend to the AGM. At that time the result of Q1 was exactly even but the position on
other questions was essentia I ly the same, although Alternative A did not command majority
support , having only 48% of the votes. I proposed that the resu I ts of the ballot should be
implemented, with Ql being resolved as in favour of the play-off. The committee decided to
recommend that separate Overseas competitions would not be organised but allowed to take
place if the members wanted them in view of the practical difficulties of getting sufficient
players together. The committee agreed to retain the system as it stands with the exception of
a play-off among the top four players in the 1977 competition. However, despite the voting
figures the committee voted not to recommend either a Handicap Competition or a Society week-
end competition. The committee recommendations were accepted by the AGM.
I will not attempt to portray the arguments of those members of the committee who decided
to disregard the voting results lest I am accused of mis-representing their case, but I hope they
will see fit to write in with their reasons, in fairness to those members who voted for these
suggestions.
Postal Championship
Players will be grouped in sections of about 5, and will play all others in the section
simultaneously. The winners of each section will then play off for the Championship. Games
wil I be played under WRG 5th edition. Each player will chose an army from a list which he
will use in all his games. The Umpire will send out a map of the position, lists of casualties,
etc. after each move and will receive from the players any new orders they wish to issue,
charges to dec lure, etc. Players will thus be in the same position as in table games except that
they will have to visualise from a map and wi II not move the troops or throw the dice them-
selves.
8
Postal League
Pairs of players will compete against each other in identical campaigns (not involv,ing
any factors other than military operations) making strategic decisions and laying out the
deployments and general orders for battles but not controlling the detailed tactics. Players
will be able to rate themselves in comparison to the results achieved in the other campaigns.’
The games will be fought by the Umpires using a set of rules for large battles.
The newly formed ‘East Rand Wargames Association’ of ,locaI wargames clubs, proved a
great success particularly for Society of Ancient members.
Julius Hermsen (Bokesburg Wargames Group) emerged as the top General with a 93%
victory rate generally using a Byzantine Army against all comers.
Mark Snegg (Springs Wargame Society), with his invincible Indian Army, being voted
rising General 1976.
) /
WRG 4th edition rules were used early in the year but at present we have switched to
5th edition. The General consensus of opinion is that 5th edition rules are a distinct improve-
ment and give a better game. Armies in the association, are 25mm scale usually but there has
’ been a big swing to 15mm scale armies being formed.
-_...- I
__ 8, J’-
IlWflIM.
POnsN L.‘.L L ! L.“:
L / i ;’ 13 ;Ll !
” I l&t::, I’
5rLfmq L.L. /- wkl
-2
9
For many players this is the most interesting part of an ancient naval wargame. Any set
of rules must therefore maintain this interest, but before going into rule details I shall outline
my concepts of a boarding action.
In considering the first and second phases, I am sure that marines primarily boarded at
bow and/or stern areas. Some evidence supports this view, the position of deck shields on
early ships and the towers on later Roman Dekares. Also the usual approach direction i.e.
bow to bow, presents the bow area as an immediate boarding area. Ships which contact in
other areas would suffer probably outrigger damage and definite oar damage as these were not
quickly retractable in this period of history.
Ship Engagement
Rules governing the positioning of ships about to engage in a boarding action can simply
be added to existing collision rules (see previous issues) as follows:-
A collision where hulls contact, the bow (not ram) or stern being in contact with the
bow (not ram) or stern of another ship, allows grappling to be attempted prior to boarding.
I have found that this gives the “boarding school” adequate chances to manouver into a
boarding position . Grappling can be decided by the luck of a dice throw, which slightly
favours the grappler.
Perhaps the most difficult phase in terms of “playability”, i.e., the balance between
realism, time involved and volumes of rules.
There are many factors involved, all of which combined together may result in a
successful boarding attempt. In reproducing the action on our wargames table, an immediate
problem is the small but relatively wide range of figure numbers on the different ship types,
as foI\‘ows:-
10
The method I have adopted to overcome this “numbers” problem, and this also simplifies
other rules, is by grouping the figures into marine detachments, and by basing all combat
rules and effects on these detachments.
The figures that are eligible to take part in hand to hand combat, form a marine
detachment, and on Triremes the detachment maximum strength is 2 figures during phase (2)
of the boarding action. While on Hepteres the detachment maximum strength is 4 figures
during phase (2) of the boarding action. 1
Only one detachment of a ships marines is permitted to be in action at bow and/or stern
areas.
Missile fire can conveniently be split into three priorities and categories:-
For a given weapon three basic tactical factors are required, which can then be
supplemented by generally accepted missile firing factors. Any figures required to fire
missiles automatically fall into one of the three categories thus avoiding those long arguable
‘.. priority assessments.
The effects of various weapon types against varying armour protection have to be con-
sidered with the special circumstances of naval combat in mind. A good example is the long
spear, in repelling boarders it must have been very effective. However, when used in a
boarding attempt its length would have been a handicap. As the figures on board all
perform in a very packed (unformed) formation, they can be mounted on the same size base,
and their armour protection categorised as follows:-
I have found that the throw of one average dice, counting the lowest score 2 as a
factor of - 1, the highest score 5 as a factor of + 2, with appropriate factors for intermediate
dice scores, is adequate. The lowest and highest scores can be further modified to different-
iate between elite and poor quality troops. The final hand to hand combat factor and number
of figures in action are applied to a casualty chart for casualties inflicted. However, these
and missile casualties form the total inflicted during a particular move, which is used, with
the random dice score previously thrown, in assessing the action that a detachment makes
after a melee round.
This action is the result which completes the method I have developed, to produce an
automatic morale response, simply by relating a detachment’s morale to achievement of aim.
Thus, time consuming morale tests and mclgicai morale numbers are not necessary. Without
doubt, many will disagree, but I would mention that achievement of aim and faith in leader-
, ship are the key factors affecting morale. By incorporating “situation” factors in the tactical
factory list, the particular situation is accounted for, and directly affects the detachment’s
performance.
In assessing performance, i.e. the result of a melee round, the winning detachment
(the side which inflicted more total casualties than it received), may continue and succeed
in the attempt to board provided that:-
1. That detachment did not receive more than X casualties per figure, where
X is equivalent to the random dice score thrown in that melee round.
This struggle follows the previous phase, with similar rules, with additions and slight
changes to suit the situation . A boarding action is prolonged by the recoil rules, which
provides for at least two melee rounds, after boarding has been achieved.
Where there is insufficient room for a detachment to recoil full.distance, that detach-
ment fights disorganised on the next melee round.
interested Warguners requiring a set of rules or any other details should write to:-
Mr. R.M. Turpin, 115 Little Walden Road, Saffron Walden, Essex.
,
4
.
What tactics should infantry use against horsemen ? Although cavalry are ineffective
in frontally attacking well-drilled spearmen/archer units and other well-prepared footsoldiers,
their high-speed mobility is normally sufficient to preserve them from infactry attack. How-
ever, I believe that there are ways by means of which footsoldiers may take the initiative and
dictate the conditions if not the course of the battle.
Firstly, depending upon their disposition, cavalry may suffer heavy casualties from the
missile fire of archers and slingers. Under such attack cavalry are vulnerable and must either
withdraw or counter-attack. Archers and slingers are relatively defenceless in close combat
ond must be supported by close-order troops able to resist the charge and give a good accbunt
of themselves in a melee. Byzantine archers were often preceded by twelve ranks of
spearmen.
Secondly, by the use of guile and deceit, cavalry may be lured to attack an apparently
weaker force only to find themselves entrapped by concealed forces. The timing of such an
operation where the concealed troops need to take up new positions without giving the I
attacking forces time to cal I off their charge is critical.
Thirdly, cavalry may sometimes be subiect to surprise attack which would plunge them
into hand-to-hand fighting and rob them of the impetus of the charge. Such an attack may be
carried out from heavy cover or by unsuspecting cavalry allowing infantry to approach and
mount an attack from a position too close to develop an effective counter charge.
So much for the offensive. Defensively speaking the great problem is, of course, the
vulnerability of the flanks to the faster-moving wheeling cavalry. Solid flank support is
vital and elephants or such cavalry as is deemed necessary must’thwart the outflanking
manoeuvres of the opposing horsemen and give the infantry time to come to grips with the
centre and rol I back the enemy line.
_-
13
The early Middle Ages in Western Europe have been unfairly neglected by ancient and
medieval wargamers, at least until recently. The period has a great deal to offer. The
emphasis is on close combat, “hewing at the war-linden”, and there are relatively few light
troops of any description. It is possible to concentrate on the more fundamental tactical
decisions, such as when and where to commit your elite units and reserves in attack or defence,
without being plagued by the gimmick weapons and fancy tactics that are often used in more
complicated periods. In this article, I shall cover the two armies present at one of the great
battles of the period: the Anglo-Danish, hereafter called Saxon, and Norman armies present
at the Battle of Hastings. In this first part I shall deal with the organisation and tactics of the
Saxon Army.
Before I begin, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the help I have been given
by several members with a wider knowledge than my own of this period. I am particularly
indebted to Phil Barker, Matthew Bennett, Roy Goodwell Boss and Ian Heath for their advice,
and to Roy and Ian for drawings. I also had the benefit of reading Roy’s articles in “Slingshot”
before writing this article, and of Ian’s recently published book “Armies of the Dark Ages
600 - 1066” before revising and submitting it. A list of suggested reading and sources will be
given at the end of the series.
The Huscarls
The backbone of this army was provided by the King’s personal stipendiary troops.
Earlier Saxon Kings had mainturned a comitatus, or bodyguard, in the Germanic tradition.
By 1066, this comitatus had generally been absorbed into the furious Huscarls, a Danish
institution. The “Flateyiarbok” maintains that they were introduced into England by King
Swein, but it is more generally accepted that his successor Cnut was responsible, as stated by
Sveno and Saxo. Though WE have no sources that describe the organisation of the English
Kings’ Huscarls precisely, it is clear that they were paid troops, though many were also land-
holders. Sveno’s 12th Century account of the organisation of Cnut’s Huscarls states that they
.~
received pay and subsistence from the King, in peace as well as in war, and that they hod
their own system of justice. It seems probably that there were about 3,000 of them, as stated
by Sveno, rather than the figure of 6,000 put forward by Saxo.
Our sources mention various other kinds of warriors who fought for pay. These were the
“hired” or “hiredmenn”, the “Iithsmen” and the “butsecarls”. “Hiredmenn” seems to have
been a general term covering paid warriors like but not necessarily actually Huscarls. The
“hiredmenn” of Earl Tostig are also described as “bus karlas”. Such corps seem to have been
raised by the great Earls of our period, similar to and incorporating the Germanic comitatus.
Each probably numbered about 300, the traditional strength of a comitatus and attested in this
period by the example of Earl Tostig’s, 200 of whom were killed and some of whom escaped.
14
The “Iithsmen” and “butsecarls” were a different kind of “hiredmenn”, emphibious in th,at they
served on land and at sea, in garrison as well as in ships. This profusion of terms, some of
which were interchangeable though each with its own shade of meaning, is confusing. How-
ever, I think it is not unreasonable to refer to them all hereafter as huscarls, in the general
sense of Norse-type stipendiary warriors. The huscarls of the various Earls would push the
total number available above the King’s 3,000 or so.
Despite the importance of the huscarls, numerically they were a relatively small
. proportion of the total strength available. The King could also call out the levies of freemen,
on either or both of two bases. These are referred to by Warren Hollister as the select fyrd
and the great fyrd. The former was a militia, in which the obligation to serve rested on the
holding of land. It can be seen in the Domesday Book entry for Berkshire that one soldier
was provided from each five hides of land, and supported by them. (The hide was an
Anglo-Saxon measure of land that was not constant in size but varied from place to place
depending in part on the value of the I and. It was a basic unit for taxation, such as the gold
tax imposed to maintain the royal huscarls, and the hidage of an estate might be, and quite
often was, reduced by the King to remit some of the taxes due from its holder either as a
favour or because it had been impoverished by war or “Act of God” .)
It has been argued that this form of assessment for selective military service was peculiar
to Berkshire, andthat elsewhere the system was different or did not exist at al I in that form.
However, I think it is fair to say that the balance of evidence is in favour of the Berkshire
‘system existing in
most of England. It has been shown that a large number of holdings in other
counties were in or made up of,groups of five hides, and that the assessment of many towns
was in multiples‘of five hides. The major exception is the Dane1 aw, where I and was assessed
not in hides and virgates but in carucates and bovates. The latter form of assessment was also
used in East Anglia, and in Kent assessment was in sulungs and iuga. However, there is 1
evidence that an obligation to provide selective military service based on the holding of land
did exist in the Danelaw. Evidence has been put forward for a unit of six carucates there
serving the same purpose as the five hide unit. These six carucate groups are not found in
East Anglia, and the nature of any relationship there and in Kent between land holding and
selective military service is not known. However, it probably existed, based on the assess-
ment of land for taxation, as elsewhere.
In 1066, the lesser noblemen, or Thegns, who often held estates of five hides, would
probably have provided most of the select fyrd. The balance would be made up of superior
men of the lower classes, who usually only served if the landholders of their five hide group
did not include a Thegn or as the warrior representatives of towns. Attempts have been made
to argue that in addition to any system of territorial service Thegns owed personal service by
virtue of their rank. This is a complex question, which rests largely on the interpretation of
various excerpts from the original sources. I do not propose to go into it here, but to say
that this assertion regarding personal service seems to me at best unproven and at worst more
or less refuted. (The two sides of the argument are given by Stenton, in favour, and
HOI lister, against.)
15
It remains only to assess the military potential of the select fyrd, Compared with the
Norman feudal system, it was in some ways superior. Service was for terms of 60 days, but 60
days whenever needed in wartime rather than 60 days a year. Thus,in some years the select
fyrd was called out several times. The select fyrd was available for service not only anywhere
within the Kingdom, but also for service abroad,,which occurred in the reign of Cnut. The
select fyrd system was capable, at least in theory, of raising comparatively large numbers of
men of considerable military value. Any attempt to assess the total theoretically available
must contain a large element of speculation, but the 10th Century copy of the earlier Tribal
Hidage suggests afigure of over 45,000 at one for every five hides, and as late as 1094 the
Norman King William II Rufus was able to summon a force of the select fyrd reckoned at
20,000 by the chroniclers.
The organisation of the great fyrd was complicated by the special arrangements made
on the Scottish and Welsh marches. These areas obviously needed a greater and more
flexible capacity for defence than more peaceful parts of the country, .and the military
obligations of the fyrdworthy men there were correspondingly heavier. There are references
to a special service term of 15 days. Service was evidently much farther afield than half a
day’s march, and there were towns where the fyrdworthy men were obliged to accompany
expeditions against the.Welsh. On the Scottish marches, there was also a variety of special
forms of landholding which may have included additional military obligations, though this is
only clear in a case providing for foreign, i.e. across the border, service against the Scats.
Fortunately, such complications do not concern the Battle of Hastings, fought in Sussex.
SAXON TACTICS .
It is not certain just how closely packed the shield wall actually was. A relief of
c. 1000 shows a shield wall with the round shields actually overlapping, and such locked
shields do seem to fit better the sense of a solid barrier that is inherent in the descriptions.
The shield wall formation could be and was maintained in advancing; Florence of Worcester
states that the advance at Sherston in 1016 was kept slow to maintain formation. However,
the use of a double-handed axe across such a barrier would be very difficult, a problem of
considerable importance in 1066, and the barrier itself would be harder to form with the kite
shields then replacing the round ones. These arguments suggest a somewhat less closely
packed formation, and Ian Heath in his book points out that literary sources describe a much
more individualised and mobile form of combat than would be possible in a formation with
locked shields.
My own view is a compromise. I am firmly of the opinion that the order when taking
the impact of a charge was locked shields, and that in an orderly advance such as that at
Sherston a slightly looser version of that, probably shield to shield rather than overlapping
shields, was maintained. This is analogous to the formations used in Greek phalanxes, where
the usual order for movement and attack was a frontage of three feet per man, i .e. the width
of a hoplite shield, but where a locked shields frontage of one and a half feet per man could
be used in defence. In a melee, or a less orderly advance, the formation of the shield wall
would naturally become looser as men fell or the pace of the advance quickened. It was
the melee which saw the more individualised combat rather than the impact.
The argument for Saxon cavalry rests almost entirely on a 13th Century description of
the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066 by Snorri Sturlusson in his “Heimskringla”. This account
has the Saxons riding up to the shield wall of the Norse under King Harald Hardrada and
throwing their spears into their ranks, supported by a barrage of archery. Snorri also describes
how, after the cavalry were repulsed, the Norse charged forth and were cut down by the
rallied horsemen. This is remarkably similar to the accounts of the Battle of Hastings and to
the tactics adopted by the cavalry of the Norman army there. Depending on whether you
conclude that this shows that Snorri was describing authentic mid-l 1 th Century tactics or that
he had confused the two battles, the similarity adds to or detracts from the weight attached to
his account, which is different from the accounts of Stamford Bridge by English chroniclers.
But there are other items in the scales against Snorri. He describes twenty of the Saxon
huscarl cavalry as having mail coats for man and horse alike. While some Bretons rode
armoured horses as I ate as the 9th Century, and this was still standard equipment in the
Byzantine forces, where Harald Hardrada had served, I find them highly improbably in the
Saxon army. It seems likely that Snorri was either confusing them with Byzantine equipment
of the period or with the barded horses of his own day in Western Europe. Snorri fails to
mention the heroic stand of a Norseman, who held Stamford Bridge single-handed and thus
gave his compatriots time to form up on the bank behind him; such an heroic exploit, the
very stuff of Norse sagas, is known to us from an account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
apparently a later addition to the original, but not from Snorri. I may as well mention lastly
that Snorri also contrives to get the various Saxon leaders muddled.
There is no doubt that were Snorri’s account of Stamford Bridge accurate, then the
other accounts of Saxons operating mounted could in many cases be reinterpreted to include
mounted action in battle as well as on the march and in pursuit; after all, they do not deny
that Saxons fought mounted in battle but merely fail to mention their doing so. While it
seems unlikely that the select fyrd would have fought as cavalry, since they did not serve for -
training like the later knights but only for war, and noting the performance of the select
fyrd with Earl Ralph’s knights at Hereford, the huscarls would certainly have had the time to
learn to do so, being in continuous service.
However, my own conclusion is against Snorri, and therefore against Saxon cavalry.
There are manifest shortcomings in his crucial account of Stamford Bridge, and it seems to me
that we must accept the weight of evidence that Saxons only used horses to ride to battle and
sometimes to pursue after it, but not to fight on during it.
It does not seem that missiles played any great part in Saxon warfare. There do not seem
to have been many archers, though the settlement of the Danes in England may have increased
the number somewhat. The Danes had a much higher opinion of the bow as a military weapon
than the Saxons themselves. Such archers as there were seem to have taken up places in the
ranks behind the shield wall much like any other warriors, rather than serving in separate
units. The maiority of missiles were probably hand-thrown, including spears, javelins and
smal I throwing axes. Missiles in general were discharged just before the shield wall came into
contact with the enemy, though they were also used to some extent in the subsequent melee.
I should perhaps add that were Snorri’s account of Stamford Bridge accepted, a reassess-
ment of the above would be necessary. Snorri’s account suggests a much higher prop&ion
than would otherwise be the case, operating possibly as separate units in support of cavalry,
who themselves used a considerable number of hand missiles rather than coming into contact
with the enemy shield wall.
(to be continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TRADE STANDS: El .50 booking fee for 6 ft. frontage approx. NO other charges as we don’t
believe in making the trade subsidise such shows, to which they contribute
so much.
OTHER SPACE: Must be booked in advance; plenty available. There are also ideal outdoor
sites for demonstrations by re-enactment societies, weather permitting.
I
I
COMPETITIONS: Our usual KO Skirmish championship; we provide troops and rules (not’
available in advance) First 16 entries accepted on the day. All other com-
petitions - entry on the spot; no fees charged.
SPECIAL for Society of Ancients Championship games: tables and terrain reserved,
FACILITIES: just turn up with your army.
COMPETITIONS various
First prize awarded in each class; second and third where we think it justified. Enter by 2 pm.
I
19
BATTLE REPORT
by Keith Owens
When Alexander and his Macedonian army were on their expedition across the Danube
river, they were reputed to have met a warband of Gauls. I think that they may have been
Picts who had lost their way; it was a good excuse for a wargame anyway!
We had 1125 points aside. The Picts were commanded by McIntosh (Neil Brodie) and
McTavish (Dave Harrison). The Macedonians were commanded by Alexander (Me), and Ptolemy
(Don Green). We used WRG rules (5th edition), and the armies were composed as follows:-
Macedonians Picts
M. 3bJf
l-l
20
The armies deployed as shown. Our plan was to concentrate against the Pictish right flank and
destroy it before the left flank could interfere. We felt that the Picts could not resist the
temptation to take hill I.
The Pictish battle plan, which we obtained from prisoners after the battle, had a’ lot in
common with those of Celtic supporters. After a lot of debate, they decided to advance and
crush al I opposition. (What a simple plan!)
The Pictish L.M. infantry and archers advanced onto hill 1, with the Medium infantry in
support. There they met the Peltasts and Hypaspists, who swept them from the hill in rout. They
never ra I lied, and later surrendered to the Peltasts. The Medium infantry were then set upon by
the Hoplites, Hypaspists and Phalanx 1. They not surprisingly routed, and the Peltasts came up
just in time to accept their surrender also; (this brought their total to 1600 prisoners!).
So by period 5, the Pictish right flank was non-existent. Unfortunately for Alexander
and the Companions, things were not working out on the right flank.
They had set off confidently, and rather stupidly, to climb hill 2, when a veritable horde
of filthy Picts poured over the top and cut the Companions to pieces. The L. Cavalry, who
thought that there was safety in numbers, had followed them to the hil I. Just then, McTavish
and his chariots came round the hil I and charged them in the flank. Thus Alexander left the
field with great haste, (and I9 casualties), closely followed by the two cavalry units.
In the middle, McIntosh was rather puzzled. He had charged, and contacted, our
archers; yet they somehow managed to escape unharmed to the swamp, where he could not
fo I low them. Yet his L. Cavalry, ignoring all weapon factors, charged phalanx 3, and routed
them after being pushed back! They were helped in this glorious feat of arms by the archers on
hill 2. Ptolemy was attempting to rally this unit, when the same L. Cavalry caught phalanx 2
disorganised and routed them also. What rejoicing there was by the mob of Picts on hill 2.
The stage was set for the final scene. Phalanx 1 charged the incredible L. Cavalry
unit, catching it in the rear as it tried to evade. It routed and in one beautiful move swept
away the archers and slingers. The M. infantry decided to call it a day, and retired. The
peltasts were the only unit left standing, aside from the chariot units, and so the Picts decided
to withdraw under darkness leaving the field and 1600 prisoners to the Macedonians.
21
They had only lost 3 nobles from their chariot force, and as they said, who cares what
happens to the peasants. A lot of Macedonian ladies would be weeping that night for their
lost husbands. Alexander, you’ll be pleased to know, recovered from his wounds despite
Pictish claims that their spears had been dipped in cow dung. (I wondered what the funny
smell was). Ptolemy was promoted to governor of Egypt, whilst McIntosh had a hard time
retaining the leadership of the Picts.
I Stuart A. Asquith writes: I recently purchased some 25mm Sumerians made by ‘Grenadier’
figures in the States. They were something of an impulse buy inspired by the novelty of the
figures themselves, and the idea of wargaming the period, which up to now has been the
exclusive province of the Egyptians (all those chariots!).
Needless to say I came up against snags more or less at once. I could only lay my hands
on two sources of info., Don Featherstone’s ‘Wargames through the Ages vol. 1’ and Saxtorph’s
‘Warriors and Weapon’s’. The latter was excellent for an idea of colourings, but an interest-
ing point came to light. Saxtorph claims the Sumerians didn’t know the bow, Don says they
did, can anyone shed any light on this please?
The whole period of the Sumerians, usually quoted as 3,00 - 2,500 B.C. is naturally
sparse on information and if any member can provide any knowledge I would be most grateful.
Incidentally, if I have wetted anyone’s appetite, the ‘Grenadier’ range consists of nine
infantry figures (including an archer!), plus a four onager chariot.
I have ‘Warfare in Biblical Lands’ on order, but surely the Sumerians would pre-date
this?
: If anyone would like to contact me before the two month gap in ‘Slingshot’, or would
like more gen on ‘Grenadier’ figures, please drop me a line: Stuart A. Asquith, 196 Torbay
Road, South Harrow, Middlesex.
Brian Hammond, 28 Edgehi II Road, Aberdeen, AB2 4JH, writes to enquire if any reader can
help him in regard to the Seleucid Hypaspists ‘Regular B’ LHI, long thrusting spear, mentioned
in Ancient Wargaming (Airfix magazine guide9) by Phil Barker.
Were these soldiers equipped like Phalangites but with a shorter weapon? Were they
armoured versions of Macedonian Hypaspists? What~ sort of shield did they? In short how were
they equipped?
22 *
I have been using a Caroligian army for over a year; this was based on my own
researches and its agreement with other opinions can be discussed later. The ‘be of
Charlemagne’ can be said to revolve round 800AD, the pinacle of Frankish power. This
includes some overlap the earlier period of the Mayors of the Palace and leads into their
replacement by the Normans. It is accepted that the basis of a Frankish army is its heavy
cavalry, but this is only true of a late Frankish army and the Caroligian army is a transitional
one from a basically infantry army to a basically cpntact cavalry army.
This army was an unusual one as it was not truely feudal; this system was just being
instituted at this time to support the demand for heavy cavalry It was not a standing army in
the sense of that of the Roman Empire but neither was it a barbarian rabble or a feudal levy.
Every year in Spring, the army formed up and at least its core campaigned during the summer.
Personally, I classify it as irregular but there is a case for a regular cavalry core.
The Cavalry
The major problem in all studies of soldiers of this period is a Ia& of definitive pictures.
The only real data comes from illuminated manuscripts and the weight which should be put on
these religious illustrations is difficult to assess.
From V. Normans’ ‘Medieval Soldier’, data is given on the requirements that each
mounted soldier had to bring to the March Field of muster. These were:- Byrnie (Mail Coat),
Helm, Spear, Shield, and Bow. An illustration from the Psalterium Aureum of a Frank shows a
knee length mail coat with loose sleeves down to below the elbow, but not to the wrist. This,
is true for both mounted and foot soldiers. The bow is occasionally shown being used by a
horseman, but is mostly used by men on foot. It seems likely that it was handed to the mounted
soldiers’ servant for use in support.
Thus, the bulk of the Frankish cavalry was heavy under W.R.G. rules. However, in 773,
Charles Martel and his guard are described as wearing iron greaves or leg armour (‘Life in the
Age of Charlemagne’, P Murry). These would therefore seem to be extra heavy cavalry.
Also from the ‘Medieval Soldier’ is a description of the armour of the Lombards, C790AD, who
were subject to Charlempgne and formed a maior part of his supply of cavalry. Th’ese were:-
Lorica (Mail Coat), Helm, Ocrea (Greaves), and Shield. The Lombards were thus extra heavy
cava!ry. They could fight either mounted or if necessary on foot as spear armed infantry.
The question of the length of mail sleeve which changes heavy cavalry to extra heavy
cavalry is certain to be raised. I cannot equate a Lombard or Frank with leg armour and mail
half way down his forearm with a Macedonian Companion cavalryman in bronze plate on
leather armour from the waist up and no arm protection .
Another subject race of the Franks were the Avars, and these could have provided either
bow and javelin armed Light cavalry or extra heavy cavalry with kontos and bow, for
Charlemclgne.
23
The Infantry
As has been mentioned previously, the tombards could fight dismounted as super heavy
infantry armed with spear. Further there is a picture in the Psalter Stuttgart showing an archer
with a mail coat, thigh and forearm armour; super heavy infantry with bow? Unarmoured
infantry with bow composed of the cavalry’s retainers was also available.
The rest of the infantry is difficult to find out about, It probably consisted of medium
or heavy infantry with spears with some light medium infantry in a more open formation.
Light infantry is also possible armed with javelins and also bow of Avars. They are certainly
irregular.
The Artillery
This formed an intergral part of the army of Charlemagne and was probably used on the
battle field. It would consist of light bolt throwers with light stone throwers for seige work.
Standard
In conclusion, the army of Charlemagne produces a balanced irregular force and is not
merely irregular fanatics heavy cavalry armed with kontos.
Fran kish
Guard EHC kon tos Aor B 5 - 10%
Cavalry
The percentages given are rather conjectural as they are difficult to find in 9th century
sources. Charlemagne could certainly field an almost totally cavalry army or have a strong
infantry force too. I tend to favour the former as it was the aim of Charlemagne and the
feudal system he created.
This was held, as usual, in the University Student Union. There was an excellent turn-
out on the Saturday, with 26 battles in progress simultaneously at one point in the afternoon.
This was unusual for a large meeting, in that there were few spectators.
For the Sunday an Underworld adventure was organised, using the ‘Empire of the Petal
Throne’ format. 38 players took part, entering the underworld via four entrances, three on
level one, one on level two. There were two more levels below this. The catacombs were
well peopled with monsters, treasures and fiendish traps. Each player was given a character ,
which might be Warrior, Magician or Priest, each with his own special abilities, spellslor
magic weapons. In addition he would be Good or Evil, the only difference between these
being that the evil groups were entitled to fight among themselves. Each player was given
sufficient gold Kaitors to furnish himself with a certain amount of equipment, and to hire a
torchbearer and a couple of spearmen to guard his back. Each of the four groups had an umpire,
and a spokesman to make group decisions during the movement phase of the action. Each of
the groups was al lowed to operate on its own timescale.
The two Good groups performed many feats of heroism, gained treasures, and finally
emerged decimated from the pit. The evil groups fell foul of their own treachery. In one
group, one player, under a Spell of Control from another, fired a “Doomkill” spell down a
shaft at the rest of the party, killing seventeen. The survivors eventually found their way out
of the depths. The other evil group reached level four, where they proceeded to hurl spells
and more substantial missiles at each other until there were only two left. These then had a
lot of treasure, but very little chance of escaping alive from level four when the game ended.
I was going to print a list of players in order of treasure acquired, but decided that this
was one game where the pleasure was very much in the playing, rather than in winning, for
the umpires as wel I as the players. Overa II, a very successful and enjoyable weekend.
25
CONVENTlON REPORT Submitted by G.M. Cavanagh III
The fifth annual western U.S. convention took place as scheduled on July 31 and
August 1 in Balboa Park which is near the center of San Diego. Following what has been the
usual format for U . S. gatherings; the first day saw individual challenges, bountiful
exchanges of information covering painting, conversion and genera I ly improving the historical
accuracy of ones’ figures and some well executed displays of “model” wargame armies from
different segments of the ancient period. The high point of the day occurred when some of the
local enthusiasts demonstrated their original, well detailed and highly entertaining chariot
race game.
After adjourning for our evening meal , we reconvened for a business meeting during
which we discussed the future of the Society within the state in addition to possible sites for
next year’s convention, At this time also the judges for the painting competition announced
the following results:
The meeting ended with the assigning of roles for the mass game on Sunday.
Maintaining the format used during previous conventions, we planned a game with roles
(separate commands) for as many individuals who were interested in participating. Our game
deviated a bit from prior convention games in that it was based literally on a historical
encounter (Raphia 217 B.C .), and its salient feature was a concept of our own design which we
label led the “works eye view”.
The purpose of this concept (as applied to wargaming) is to eliminate the’aeriel view’
which is more or less an automatic by product of the use of miniatures and we accomplish this
by representing only the front ranks of the various opposing formations (with the exception of
light infantry) on the table. When a given unit has come to within six inches of an enemy,
both units are then considered to be close enough for each to determine the full strength of the
other.
The stage was set and the hostilities commenced as all four wings of the two forces
leaped into action. On the Seleukid right, their heavy cavalry under Antipater (Bill Butler)
attempted to skirt (understandably) the opposing elephants and engage the numerically inferior
Ptolemaic heavy cavalry commanded by Polycrates (Bob Kinkead). Though given an easier
breaking point in our situation (in accord with Polybios’ account) and outnumbered as well, the
Ptolemaic elephants plowed through their Seleukid opponents; a turn of events which was to
significally influence the eventual outcome of the battle.
26 On his own right, Ptolemy (Gene Wilson) had ordered a fighting withdrawal to entice
the enemy into a quick advance which he hoped would disrupt their formation at the precise
moment that his left wing was swinging around its opponents’ flank. His light cavalry
commander Echecrates (Rob Kinkead) duly romped about with his horsemen, making sure all
the while that they remained within striking distance of the Seleukid light horse led by
Themison (Dennis Alman) who were vainly attempting to penetrate the enemy line.
The units to the immediate right of Themison consisted of twelve Cardaces, twelve Lydian
javelinmen, twenty-four Asian Archers and twelve Thracian peltasts commanded by Lysimachos
the Gaul (Art Turney) . They and their closest colleagues (twenty-four Median and twenty-
four Arabian medium infantry) commanded by Aspasianos the Mede (Mike Holcomb) advanced
cautiously but deliverately toward the Ptolemaic line opposite them. On the other side
Phoxidas (Lou Henry) seeing the relative inferiority of the troops opposed to him, rushed
forward to engage them. Though the ensuing melee was hard fought by both participants,
weight foretold the outcome as the twenty-four mercenary hoplites, twelve Galatians and
twelve Thracian peltasts led by Phoxidas broke their opposition (both the forces of Lysimachos
and Aspasianos) with the mercenary hoplites remaining along on the field.
By now the two massive, opposing pike phalanxes connected with a ponderous crunch and
began shoving back and forth; each attempting to break the other’s cohesion; a contest which
shattered the Seleukid combat-effectiveness (especially when the victorious hop lites of
Phoxidas hit them on their shieldless flank!) but left the Ptolemaic phalangites too disrupted
to follow up. The Seleukid phalangite commanders Nikarchos (Kevin Crozner) and Theodotos
Hemiolios (Greg Schweger) watched in profound awe as they were outdiced by Sosibios (Carl
Ecklund) and Arsinoe (Colleen Wheaton) on the Ptolemaic side.
The fiercest and longest lived struggle occurred on the left of the Ptolemaic phalanx as
thirty-six Libyan spearmen led by Nikolaos (Ernie Exner) were totally annihilated in a clash
with forty-eight enemy hypaspists screened by the same amount of I ight javelin men qommanded
by Byttakos the Macedonian (Dale Sheldon). Nikolaos received the dubious distinction of
being the only general killed during the battle. Byttakos’ Hypaspists retaining their cohesion,
swung toward the flank of the Ptolemaic phalanx but were themselves pinned by a flank attack
from some Ptolemaic peltasts who had been unexpectedly called from ‘fall back’ status by their
intrepid commander, Sokrates (J. Kris White). This action virtually cleared the field as
immediately preceeding it, Sokrates and his colleague Skopas of Aitolia (Mike Baulch) who
collectively led thirty peltasts, thirty hybaspists and twelve Cretan archers; defeated and
routed a forty-eight man Greek mercenary hoplite phalanx under Hippolochos the Thessalian
(Tyronevilleneuve). Hippolochos’ troops were the first non-light infantry to flee the field. All
of the above mentioned infantry action either began or terminated simultaneously; but as
these various engagements were being resolved, the entire battle was decided by a cavalry
action which had begun as the first move of the game.
Following his first move and after successfully avoiding the elephant melee on his left,
Polykrates penetrated the enemy line almost to its baseline then halving his forces, he seht one
unit to occupy Antipaters reorganizing horse while leading the others toward the rear of the
Seleukid center. Antiochos (Keith Polan) already accepting the grim reality of the failure of
his planned double-envelopement, watched in dismay as Polykrates’ cavalry first sighted his
base camp (the capture of which would spell almost certain tactical doom) and then rode wildly
through it plundering it freely.
27
The results of this re-enactment were pleasingly (to the organizers) realistic. The size
of the battle-lines coupled with the “worms eye view” completely masked individual actions
from all but their immediate participants, giving the air of confusion experienced in reading
primary accounts of actual ancient battles. As was the case in many ancient battles, victory
was not immediately apparent. Each pike phalanx broke the other’s cohesion, though the
Seleukids suffered a few more casualties in the melee. The Ptdlemies finished out the conflict
with substantially more units intact (though not enough for a full fledged pursuit) SO the
deciding factor turned out to be the capture of the Seleukid base camp.
Photo supplied by G.M. Cavanagh III from the San Diego Union.
28
mmm. . on up
. . F
cd s
6..
mmmmmrq
29
A NAVAL ENGAGEMENT OFF CARTHAGE 203 B.C.
by Marek K. Ziebart
This battle took place quite late in the second Punic War and was fought about the time
when Hannibal was preparing to leave Italy. The situation of the conflict was north-east of
Carthage, off the harbour known locally as Rusucmon.
The Roman fleet was commanded by Scipio (later to become Africanus) who was directing
operations from Tunis, which had been deserted by its garrison. Carthage could be seen from
Tunis as it is only fifteen miles distant, so when the Carthaginian fleet was seen leaving the
harbour, Scipio took action and sailed out with his fleet.
As soon as the Carthaginians saw the Romans approaching they fled north and took refuge
within Rusucmon .
On the first day, when the Romans were sighted, the Carthaginians were nervous to
leave port because of their previous defeats at the hands of the Romans in the first Punic War.
If they had left on the first day they could have taken the Romans in a tight spot because of
Scipio’s orders:- He had the warships sent JO the rear of the formation and sent the transports
to the fore. The reason for this will become apparent later, and in order to stop the formation
from breaking up he did this:- Livy writes “To prevent the regular formation from going to pieces
in the heat of the battle, he had the mash and yards laid across from one ship to another and
the whole lashed together with stout ropes to form, as it were, a single unit.”
Boards were laid from ship to ship so that foot soldierscould pass along the line. Four
lines of ships (transports) were laid out, with the biremes and triremes behind.
A great store of weapons, mostly missiles were brought up to the front, 1000 picked men
were placed in the transporh, gaps were left in between the transports for small assault craft to
pass quickly out.
The next morning the Carthaginians sailed out, expecting Scipio to attack them, but after
a long stretch of nothing happening they attacked the transports. When the two forces came
into missile range the usual exchanges took place, but the Carthaginians had to bend their backs
and fire upwards, seldom did they find a mark. But the Romans could sweep the enemy decks with
fire from above. Another vexing problem for the Carthaginians was the fact that they could not
use their rams against the flanks of the enemy’s ships because of the wooden boards which
connected them.
However, the Romans also had their problems, the small assault craft that slipped out
from time to time got in the way, the men in the transports were reluctant to give them covering
fire because they feared that they would hit their friends. These assault craft were no real
danger to the Carthaginians as they were often crushed between the great bulks of the Carthaginian
ships .
The Carthaginians began to fear of not making any imprint whatsoever on the Roman line
Jntil they changed their tactics. They hurled grappling hooks onto the sides of the transports,
attached to chains. The Roman crews could not disconnect the hooks and the triumphant
Carthaginians began to tow the enemy ships out of the line. The Romans were frantic, as each
ship was attached to the next, soon whole squadrons were being dragged out of the line, because
the ships could not be separated fast enough. Soon the Roman fleet was a shambles, the
warships did not even take part, but fled on their captains’ orders.
This was a great boost to the Carthaginian naval arm, experiencing victory instead of
the usual abiect defeat.
There is no information about the number of ships involved, or the name of the Punic
commander. Perhaps someone can throw some light on this subiect?
FOR SALE - 1 Hinchliffe Persian Chariot EG3, 20 Persian Archers API. All well painted and
based. E4.00 o.n.o. Telephone: P.A. G. Sabin, Blackpool 41246, evenings or at weekends.
FOR SALE - Painted Hinchliffe Sassanid/Byzantine/Hun Infantry and Cavalry superbly painted,
reasonable prices. S.A.E. for details to: T. Bebbington, 93 Stoney Lane, Bloxwich, Walsall,
WS3 3RE. Telephone: Bloxwich 77089.
FOR SALE - Complete Republican Roman Army. 150 M/HI, 20 L1,20 LC, 20MC, 15 HC and
C in C. All very nicely painted, varnished and based E50. Contact: Pedro Santos, 4 Park
Avenue, London NW11 7SJ. Telephone: 01 455 9415.
FOR SALE - Boxed, 3 Volume set of Dungeons & Dragons in perfect condition and including
playsheets. Chainmail, also in perfect condition. Arquebusier - 1974 & 1975 copies. Both
in good condition and 1974 copies converted for storage in ring binder. Offers to: Ian Wall,
236 North East Road, Southampton, SO2 8BB. Telephone: 0703 441581.
FOR SALE - 25mm Persian Army, all painted and based. 215 Infantry; 47 Cavalry.
Price: E23.00. Contact: Gregory Perry, 6 Vale View Road, Dover, Kent.
HULL ARMY LISTS - Would all members who have enquired for these please write direct to:
Sylvia Lazenby, Secretary, Humberside Wargames Society, 109 The Parkway, Willerby, Hull,
WORTHING MEETING - Weekend 19/20th February. For details please write with S.A.E. to
Bob O’Brien 75 Ardingley Drive, Goring By Sea, Sussex, who can arrange accommodation if
required. Entrance 50~ for both days, 25~ for either Saturday or Sunday.
31
Before “Armies of the Dark Ages” induces a commercialized Islamic revival along strictly
cost-effective lines, I thought it might be of interest to intending proselytes to know something
of the trials and the tribulations encountered at the head of a worthy band of early “converts”
(Airfix conversions’.) in the early years of 3rd. Ed .) of pure enthusiasm for certainty, and
willingness to die.. . . . and their slow degeneration into the decadence of ersatz Elephants
and “A” - class snobbery.
Actually, far from any such noble sentiment, Arabs were my choice because they were
plus 2 bonus-no-need-to-test-charge-reaction fanatics, which could be modelled readily using
Airfix “Arabs” and “Robin Hood” figures (alas out of production).
Early attempts at “Conquest” reached no further north than Bristol where a small ‘fleeing-
column’ of double-armed LC and L. Camel Cavalry operating in five figure units were
respectfully but firmly shown the road south successively by Sassanid Persian and then by Hunnic
forces. Such are the just des(s)erts for historical infidelity. Appropriately, back in the
wilderness of Somerset, revelation disclosed the Greek roots of “dromedary”: “dramas” -
running!
Bob O’Brien reckoned then, and I still do, that camels were not ridden when it came to
“in-fighting” Furthermore, discussion in “SI ingshot” led to the rejection of the kontos.
Amendments reduced camel B.O. (quite conveniently’as it turned out). And increased reliance
upon infantry was confirmed by Phil Barker”s “Arab Manual ‘I. Indeed an inexperienced
Byzantine permitted LI to rout EHC frontally! On the other hand, his HI remained untouched,
and untouchable once Arab LC plus 2 factors had been exhausted. True, Ml and MC were
present, but those were the days of LC invulnerability to thrusting spear and missile (and most
else besides). As for Ml: what was the point? Then (as now) they stood no chance against
regular close-order infantry, and could only destroy cavalry by sneaking up ‘real-close’ to
avoid disorganization: 20 disordered Ml equals 10 LI.
Nonetheless, 7 point LC, 4 ,point LI, and rather expensive camels enjoyed the annual
raid in the direction of Carthage, But they lacked stamina; an army of “one-shot” units
rapidly exhausting their plus two factors, avoiding for the most part close-order infantry, and
the deficiency in numbers hindering exploitation of success. Fanciful and freakish, but not
‘realistic’. . . . until 5th. Ed).
A new army was required: HC and Ml with plenty of camels. “A’‘-class expense, and
no more plus 2 factors; but then no minus 1 in subsequent periods.
32
The dispositions require MI to meet all attacks: cavalry are seen off, while the advances
of regular HI or Ml are awaited and then checked for four push-backs - avoid Uncontrolled
Advances by Arab Ml since initial success is unlikely, and failure leads to 2nd period
disorder, that is, immediate rout. Uncontrolled Advances can be used (almost) selectively b;
“A’‘-class; the bonus involved, repeatedly. This should assist cavalry success on the wings
in time to save the infantry from the otherwise inevitable.
Historically, Arabs had most success against cavalry armies, adequate infantry were less
common but caused most headaches - Charles Martel and all that. ln this connection, it is
to be noted that the favoured formation incorporated a second rank of close order archers
which, whilst useful against (particularly recoiling) cavalry and Ll skirmishers, cannot weaken
infantry significantly for purposes of melee.
In a nutshell: swings and roudabouts - Swinge cavalry opposition, and around the,
flanks of infantry centres.
Mind you, real elephants discourage the over tens from playing swings and roundabouts.
In compensation, a plentiful supply of reasonably priced camels boosts one’s scouting total,
and permits swift, deep penetration by infantry off the board, trouble being that when I tried
this 200 pts stayed off the board: Is it fair, though, that one figure elephant units can hang
around taking rapidly mounting sub-figure casualties without this reducing the number of dice
used for reaction tests?
Finally, don’t bother with a bodyguard, just one messenger will do; rather, scrounge a
few more points and employ a sub-general. If not intending to outflank, put him in command
of the infantry if he is ‘cautious’, the cavalry if rash. And remember that unlike the original
“D”-class fanatic exhaustion, “A”-class Irregulars are always worth rallying for another go.
So which would you prefer: 4th. Ed. headlong charges and inability to stand ground,
or the stubbornness of 5th.Ed. defensive/offensive?
The late medieval period, despite the excellent supply of figures available, has never
been one of the most popular of wargaming periods. This has probably been due to the lack of
l’qualityL’ rules available, but now that situation has been rectified. Here, in 29 pages of
well thought out rules, the author has apparently catered for every situation, including field
defences and treachary. The layout of the rules and mechanics of play are along the long
established W .R .G. lines. One excellent feature, and one that 1 would like to see followed
by other writers, are the army lists provided free in the back of the rules. These are of great
help not only for arranging competition games but also to help newcomers to the period start
their first army.
Definitely recommended at only 70~. available from:- Tabletop Games, 11 The Green,
Ruddington, Nottingham. ’
33
BATTLE REPORT
by David M. King
For a fairly long time Peter Manning, the Minifigs 15mm designer, and I, had been
trying to find enough time to stage a large ancient battle using as many of our figures as poss-
ible. Earl~y this summer the opportunity arose.
The armies used were exact replicas but were loosely based on a later Imperial Roman
army and a Macedonian army. The ground was set out on a six feet by four table and was made
typical of the coastline of Southern Asia minor, with the sea to the South and to the North
wooded foothills, impassable to all but light infantry, leading to the steep, mountainous
country in the interior. Between the two an extent of fairly level plain with little or no
habitation, typical, in fact, of the type of terrain which earlier had witnessed the victory of
Alexander over Darius at the mouth of the Issus.
The rules used were Tony Bath’s “Peltast and Pila” which made for a faster game than
would WRG rules and were to give some rather more drastic reaction test results than would the
latter. The other pqint, of course, is that with only two players the WRG rules would prob-
ably have the game last forsome days. The fact that the Roman Commander was also a
Director of Tabletop Warfare Ltd., as well as Tony Bath, may well have influenced the choice
of rules somewhat’.
As Tony’s rules give only three classes of troop types it was decided, for moral purposes,
to class units as Elite, Regular or Levy depending upon the fighting qualities of their original
counterparts rather than upon the fact of whether or not they had received training in the
Greek or Roman style or whether or not they were mercenaries (a rather dirty word in recent
times). Thus the Thracians were classed as Regular and riot Levies in view of their fighting
qualities on the battlefield.
All figures used were Miniature Figurines , most of them designed by Peter.
Both armies totalled 1000 points under Tony’s rules, The Macedonians comprised 583
men including elephant riders and artillery crews whilst the Romans totalled 528 men. Although
outnumbered, it must be borne in mind that most of the Roman cavalry were shielded and the
Macedonian cavalry, apart from the Levy armoured cavalry, were unshielded. The whole of
the Phalanx was unarmoured as were the Hypaspists on the flank. There is, to my mind, still
some doubt as to whether or not the Hypaspists should be unarmoured.. Robert Lane Fox in his
biography of Alexander leans to the view that they were armoured. The Roman cohorts were not
only armoured but were also armed with both javelins and pila. The elephants on each side
were armoured and, by agreement, had been limited to five in number (if not so limited they
become a mite too lethal under Tony’s rules).
The armies were set’out in battle order as per map 1, the units were as follows:-
ROMAN MACEDONIAN
Before finally positioning the camels we remembered to throw a dice for wind direction
and, to the great ioy of the Romans, the wind was found,to be blowing from the East, and thus
driving the smell of the Roman camels straight up the nostrils of the Macedonian cavalry. It
was at this point that the Macedonian Commander made his first mistake, his camels were left
too near his own cavalry, a move which after the first four periods of play was to cost him dear.
Strategy
The main idea behind the Macedonian Commander’s formation was to use the light troops
in the front line to deal with the enemy elephants, by use of their javelins, and also to entice
the cohorts to discharge their pila at them, making it a little safer for the phalanx to engage.
The elephants in the second line were to disorganise the central cohorts; the cavalry units 10
and 11 were to skirmish with the enemy elephants and inflict enough casualties, hopefully, to
bring on a stampede. The main attack was to wait for the Roman elephants to be dealt with
before delivering the coup de grace. The flanks of the phalanx would be protected by the sea
to the South and by the Thracians to the North. The Macedonian heavy and medium cavalry
would advance with the last line and guard the North against enemy cavalry attack.
The Roman cohorts were set up in classic formation, except that they were in column to
narrow the frontage, giving room for their light cavalry in the centre, ready to advance to
either flank should the need arise.
The Roman elephants were to attack and disorder the phalanxes. The camels, being
upwind of the Macedonians to start with, were to exploit this advantage by advancing against
the enemy cavalry, an order which they carried out with alacrity throughout the game.
The Game
The opening move by the Romans was to advance their elephants towards the Macedonian
phalanx and to advance their light cavalry in line astern diagonally across their own front
towards the Macedonian left wing.
In the valley to the North both units of light cavalry had come within bow shot, the
Romans suffering the greater casualties.
The cohorts began their advance which continued in the second move and changed forma-
tion from column to line in the process which move extended their frontage and closed the gap
left by the advance &f the light cavalry.
The Macedonian rear line stayed in position for the first two moves but their light infantry
advanced in order to counter the advance of the enemy elephants and the light archers on the
left flank covering the advance of the Roman camels and extra heavy.cavalry.
The middle row of the Macedonian formation now divided, with the Camels advancing to
their front and the cavalry units advancing diagonally right to skirmish with the advancing
menace of the Roman elephants.
36
The Macedonian elephants were advancing by half moves to allow the skirmishers room to
move.
During the third move the Roman camels came within bow shot of the Macedonian left
wing and, on throwing for reaction on being shot at for the first time, had to retire a half move.
By the fourth move (map 2) things had begun to happen which were to have direct effects
on the remainder of the game and could be said to be the beginning of the end.
The light troops of the Macedon ian units 4 and 5 had come into javelin range of the
Roman elephants and, in attempting to attain a high enough morale score to get in to close
range, had failed and had to fall back to long range.
The Macedonian Camels had also come into javelin range of the Roman light cavalry and,
having suffered five casualties in one move had to retire a full move. This threw utter con-
fusion into the cavalry in the rear rank which had by now started its somewhat belated advance.
The cavalry commenced avoiding action by moving to their left in order to keep three inches
away from the wretched camels.
37
The Macedonian skirmishing cavalry also had to throw for morale, their left flank being
left uncovered by the hasty retreat of the camels. As the cavalry units were both Levies the
dice throw needed was one of 80, a score which both units failed to attain and both had to
retire in conformity with their neighbours. In so doing the Assyrians received fire from the
Roman elephants in the rear, and also a subsequent attack, and as a result were wiped out to a
man. The Dahae horsemen received fire in the rear and,retired still further.
In the valley to the North the Roman cavalry had been routed but the Macedonian
cavalry had suffered such heavy losses in trying to force a way past the foot archers hidden in
the woods that they also had to retire.
On the Roman left the cohorts had remained stationary for two moves awaiting the out-
come of the centre field battle between their elephants and the Macedonian skirmishers, also
by now it was becoming obvious that the Macedonian elephants were definitely heading in their
direction.
On the Macedonian left wing the light archers and catapaults had let fly at the advanc-
ing Cataphractarii and, to everyone’s surprise, had not only inflicted casualties but had also
caused them to halt for a full move while deciding whether to continue with their advance.
The Roman advance on the Macedonian left continued with some success during the next
four moves as did the advance of the elephants of the respective armies. The infantry not really
coming into the picture until the eighth move.
By the end of the eighth move the situation had altered so dramatically that the
Macedonian Commander was mumbling about loaded dice and other Roman malpractices.
Due to the number of casualties suffered by them the light units 4 and 5 had now fled the
field.
One of the Hoplite units (19) throwing to see if they intended to stay and contest some
ground with an elephant, threw a total of 6 from a possible total of 99, decided that a spear
was not the ideal with which to face a melevolent tusker who was probably on musth to boot
and promptly departed somewhat hastily in the general direction of the Aegean. The three
units on their right now each threw to test their reaction on having their left flank exposed to
the advancing beasts. Each unit threw below the required minimum and, in accordance with
the rules had to retire in conformity with their retiring neighbours. This left only two units of
Hoplites on the table, although both units remaining were Elite.
The Macedonian General, although hopping about on one leg with some little annoyance,
had to admit that faced with the same situation he would probably have come to the same con-
clusions as the Hoplites had done. *
On the Northern flank the Roman Cataphractarii had been wiped out after having been
hit in the flank by a unit of Companions. Prior to this the Romans had succeeded in clearing
that flank of the Macedonian light archers.
38
Two units of Roman light cavalry.has assailed the Macedonian armoured cavalry and had
been joined by the Roman medium cavalry in the process. The Macedonian armoured cavalry
were gradually decimated although they had inflicted several casualties on the Romans during
the process.
The Macedonian Camel archers had been destroyed in trying to force a passage through
the valley in the North.
The Thracians on the Macedonian left had killed three of the Roman elephants and,
although they were themselves all killed in the process, had helped to slow down the attack on
the phalanx. A further Roman elephant had been killed by a direct hit from the balista.
In their attack on the cohorts two of the Macedonian elephants had been killed by archery
fire and two more had stampeded, fighting each other in the process, with one of them being
killed. The Romans had lost one of the armoured archer units to the attacking elephants, which
although leaving a gap in the Roman formation , was quickly replaced by one of the cohorts in
the rear rank.
All this time the phalanx and the remaining hoplites were gradually closing with the
cohorts of the left wing, although the hoplites on the left were about to receive a charge from
the Roman light cavalry unit B.
Closing Stages
The two final moves of the game persuaded the Macedonian Commander that he ought to
concede. Although he would undoubtedly inflict severe casualties on the cohorts facing the
phalanx and would push back, if not break, those three units, the flank and rear of the phalanx
would then come under attack from the remaining cohorts and Roman cavalry.
On the north flank one unit of Companion cavalry (14) was opposed by two units of
Velites and one of medium cavalry. The Macedonian armoured cavalry had by now been com-
pletely wiped out.
In the centre the Elite hoplites had driven off the unit of light cavalry (B) after two
rounds of fighting but were now faced by three Regular cohorts and one unit of light infantry (K)
as well as the remaining Roman elephant.
Although the remaining unit of Companions (15) had been able to rejoin the phalanx they
had left it so late that it was very doubtful if they would be of much use. On the left of the
phalanx the remaining unit of Macedonian light infantry (6) had been forced to go back against
the second unit of Elite hoplites.
The only elephant remaining under control was moving at reduced speed, due to the
number of hits it had received, and was unable to attack the rear of the cohorts, although it
I
was able to mount some archery fire on them. I
‘, u&I c
12
I!! /a -N--x.-
---
A--.
F
-_ - --\r
- -
DID
‘9 j& l
The overal I position at the end of the game is shown in map 3. The Macedonians had four
full units of infantry left and one unit of Slingers plus two units of Cavalry as opposed to ten
Cohorts of Romans plus three light units and three Cavalry units. As the game had by now been
in progress some nine hours victory was conceded to the Imperial army.
Conclusions
It had become obvious, early on in the game, that for armies of this size it is really nec-
essary to have more than one person on each side. If this had been the case here the game
would have been finished in well under nine hours, the bulk of that time being taken up in
moving the various units about the table.
The Macedonian Commander’s positioning of his camels showed a remarkable lack of fore-
thought and his Cavalry was, as usual, brought in far too late to be effective. The Hoplites
and the Phalanx should have been placed nearer to the enemy at the start of the game in which
case they, too, might have some effect on the outcome.
Even with the mistakes of the Macedonian one must not underestimate the very effective
use made of the Roman Camels, Cavalry and Elephants and the eventual pinning of the Phalanx
by the Roman left wing. It will be seen that the Romans had anticipated that the Macedonian
line up would be fairly conventional, with their main strength on the right and had, accord-
ingly, placed their own troops to counter this instead of merely following suite.
10
NEWS
by Ctesias
Another short column this month, as there were few items of news or for review at the
time of writing. Hopefully, quality will make up for the lack of quantity!
From Lamming Miniatures I have received samples of some additional Norman and Saxon
figures for 1066 and a couple of medieval ones. The “1066” period is a favourite of mine,
and these new figures will be very useful. They are two Saxon fyrdmen, one armoured and
one not, and a “Norman” mercenary spearman suitable for many armies of this period. All,
come with the usual Lamming separate equipment, both figures and accoutrements being n&at
castings. The two medievals are an armoured knight of c. 1403 an foot and a pikeman. Thz
former is in a very good pose with arms overhead to strike down with a two-handed tieapsn
such as the poleaxe supplied, though thpt needs its haft shortening and a Lamming warhammer
looks better; the figure takes one of the Lamming range of heads and crests.
A range of Ancient Chinese figures has apparently been released by Skvtrex in the new
Conquest range in 25mm scale. I have no? seen them yet, but hope to do so at the latest at
the Model Engineer Exhibition. A report on them and other items at that Exhibition should
be in the next column.
I should like to finish this one with congratulations to the Harold Wood Wargarners, who
organised a very enjoyable ‘Lunden Wapentake” at the Caxton Hal I in November. (I was
obliged to miss most of it on account of an unfortunately arranged Society Committee meeting.)
The Wapentake was most enterprising, especially for a club of moderate size, and featured a
siege in our period among a number of interesting disploys. Such a new meeting in central
London is particularly welcome when the last two, the South London Warlords’ “Salute” and
the Model Engine:r Exhibition, have moved out to Margate and Wembley respectively. I hope
the Haro!d Wood wargamers will pvt on a second “Wapentako” next year, when it should get
the pub!icity it deserved from the hobby press.
WARGAMING CONTACTS WANTED - Brian Hammond, 28 Edgehill Road, Aberdeen, AB2 4JH.
Timothy Hubbard, 5 Nursery Gardens, Bedford, would like to contact other young members in
the Bedford area
Wargaming contacts desperately needed - Apply Marek Ziebart, Minffordd House, Pistyl I,
Pwllheli, Gwynedd, North Wales or telephone Nefyn 517 after 5.00 p.m. any day. Will
fight any ancient army with his Carthaginians.
Geoffrey Whiting is anxious to contact anyone fighting under ‘God’s Acre’ rules in the London
area. Telephone: 01 352 2412.
Contrary to popular. belief, beyond the Wall is not uncivilised and any wargarners desiring to
test their skill and ingenuity against what they fondly believe to be a band of undisciplined,
not to say hairy, Scats will find the road to ruin.
Still, the Glasgow & District Wargames Society is willing and able to present the best
wargarners in the country for anyone who wants to come along. Write to the Secretary - Bob
Low, 23 Bankhead Road, Carmunnock, Glasgow, for details.