Lost Scrolls errata, etc

[DBS]

First off, errata: page 49, Pre-Islamic Arabian - Javelinmen should be divided into a Medium Foot line, which is printed correctly, and a Light Foot line, which unfortunately has all been shifted one column to the left.

Second, some observations. Somewhat surprised that the Campanian Triarii (p29) are not given the option of being Armoured; their cities were after all wealthy. To some extent, ditto for the earlier Hoplites - presume this relates to the (in my opinion always dubious) decision in Immortal Fire to rate all hoplites post-460 BC as only Protected. The problem is that you hit a bit of a fault line here in early Italy: call the Campanians hoplites, rate them protected; call the Romans, Latins and Etruscans "infantry of the 1st class", and rate them armoured right up until 280, even though most people consider them essentially hoplites... The Umbrians get the best of both worlds: armoured hoplites

Wonder about the generosity of Drilled amongst the early Italians, eg Samnite infantry exclusively Drilled.

Also, something that I wondered with the Arab Conquest list, and doubly so with the new Pre-Islamic Arabian and Bedouin lists - rating all Arab cavalry and light horse as Lancers. Can understand it to some extent with the Conquest list, since they were clearly by then able to take on East Romans and Persians in a straight fight. But I should have thought that there was a case for at least options of Light Spear, or even Light Spear, Bow*, especially amongst the Bedouin influenced by both the Romans and the Sassanids. (Now, the Lydians in Immortal Fire probably should be Lancers if one regards Herodotus as reliable.)

All that said, a very welcome volume. Thanks.

[timmy1]

You were doing so well until 'if one regards Herodotus as reliable' :)

[peterrjohnston]

more reliable than that vile anti-Etruscan propagandist Livy...

[thefrenchjester]

Hi ,

the Samnites are a wrong exemple , they were not only the sheperds you think , they were reliable , resilient and disciplined read the good history books don't hear the propaganda of some ancient pro Roman Historians ,they knew nothing on the sheperd job in their great cities
they v'e gone under the yoke as their comrades if they came out of their cities

Best Regards

thefrenchjester " a Samnite view from the hill "

[DBS]

TheFrenchJester - I never mentioned shepherds. And as someone who has studied classical history for 30+ years, I have read the odd good history book. My point is this: Greek citizen hoplites do not get drilled status at this period. I have no particular problem with this. But I struggle to see the evidence for Samnite, or indeed Umbrian or many other Italian peoples showing marked signs of drilled behaviour; it is a somewhat higher threshold than simply forming up in an organised body. Even the Romans - who certainly deserve drilled status by the point that they are operating in manipular formations of the classic hastati / principes / triarii will have taken some time to get there - I would see no reason why they should be rated as such during, say, the "Etruscan model" period. And even the transitional period - Livy and Diodorus' five classes - tells us more about social organisation (or later perceptions or possible half-truths of it) than necessarily advanced tactical method. Put it another way - by all means allow the Samnites et al the OPTION of drilled; they may have raised their game if only in response to the Romans raising theirs.

Timmy1 - most critics of Herodotus recognise that what ever his weaknesses, his strength was personal observation. He may not have got the size of Xerxes' expedition right (but was probably no different to any other Greek in that regard, and probably many a Persian), but as Professor Cook for one observed, his descriptions of the appearance of the different ethnic contingents are strongly suggestive of either his own personal observation or close questioning of other witnesses. Herodotus came from Asia Minor. He will have been too young to have personally observed Croesus' cavalry, but I am inclined to accept his broad description of the Lydian cavalry. It is no worse than regarding Polybius as our best source for the Roman army during the Pyrrhic or 1st Punic War...

[timmy1]

DBS

I don't really disagree - he is a far better source than most we have. Some (though not all) authorities over the past 30 or so years have revised our opinion of the 'Father of History' but some more recent works such as Barry Strauss's Salamis make more considered use of his work.

I also agree with your statement 'The Umbrians get the best of both worlds: armoured hoplites' - who would choose anything else?

[philqw78]

If any of this could have been edited as poorly as the lists I might understand it

[ravenflight]

more reliable than that vile anti-Etruscan propagandist Livy...

Friend for life Peter.

Let me know your bank account details so that I can send you my life savings!

*grumble* Livy *grumble* Roman *grumble* apologist.

[AlanYork]

TheFrenchJester - I never mentioned shepherds. And as someone who has studied classical history for 30+ years, I have read the odd good history book. My point is this: Greek citizen hoplites do not get drilled status at this period. I have no particular problem with this. But I struggle to see the evidence for Samnite, or indeed Umbrian or many other Italian peoples showing marked signs of drilled behaviour; it is a somewhat higher threshold than simply forming up in an organised body. Even the Romans - who certainly deserve drilled status by the point that they are operating in manipular formations of the classic hastati / principes / triarii will have taken some time to get there - I would see no reason why they should be rated as such during, say, the "Etruscan model" period. And even the transitional period - Livy and Diodorus' five classes - tells us more about social organisation (or later perceptions or possible half-truths of it) than necessarily advanced tactical method. Put it another way - by all means allow the Samnites et al the OPTION of drilled; they may have raised their game if only in response to the Romans raising theirs.

Timmy1 - most critics of Herodotus recognise that what ever his weaknesses, his strength was personal observation. He may not have got the size of Xerxes' expedition right (but was probably no different to any other Greek in that regard, and probably many a Persian), but as Professor Cook for one observed, his descriptions of the appearance of the different ethnic contingents are strongly suggestive of either his own personal observation or close questioning of other witnesses. Herodotus came from Asia Minor. He will have been too young to have personally observed Croesus' cavalry, but I am inclined to accept his broad description of the Lydian cavalry. It is no worse than regarding Polybius as our best source for the Roman army during the Pyrrhic or 1st Punic War...

Have to agree on this, if close order Athenian hoplites count as undrilled it does seem odd that loose order Samnites are all drilled. The bar seems to have been set a lot lower for the Italians than it does for the Greeks.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

Have to agree on this, if close order Athenian hoplites count as undrilled it does seem odd that loose order Samnites are all drilled. The bar seems to have been set a lot lower for the Italians than it does for the Greeks.

Isn't this exactly the design objective? Troops are graded not in any absolute sense but against their neighbours. Samnites performed better against Italians than Athenians did against Greeks, that in a hypothetical battle the Athenians would have outperformed the Samnites is irrelevant.

[ShrubMiK]

And I don't see how whether troops are "close" or "loose" formation has any bearing on whether or not they are classed as drilled.

Whether the Samnites would actually perform "better" than the Athenian hoplites in an a historical tabletop battle due to being classed as drilled is unclear. Once they get into frontal contact the drilled status doesn't really help, whereas HF vs. MF does. So the implication is that the Samnites have to be sneakier and either use terrain or manoeuvre to gain local advantages. Being drilled does make it easier for them to manoevre than e.g. a swarm of Thracian MF.

I don't claim to be an expert on the era, but Samnites running around cleverly in terrain and trying to harass flanks rather than getting into a standup frontal slog vs. heavier opponents doesn't sound unreasonable to me?

[AlanYork]

I'm not saying that Athenians could march and counter march etc in the manner of Spartans but I would argue that fighting efficiently in a hoplite phalanx requires some level of basic "drill" for want of a better word and certainly more than is required to fight as loose order infantry.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

The problem here conflating drill as a human activity with "drilled" as a label on a game mechanic. The mechanic is applied to troop types to render plausible results in historical battles. The label has nothing to do with history per se just of what the game designers think would be a representation of training or experience.

[ShrubMiK]

Indeed.

I repeat:

Being able to "fight efficiently in a hoplite phalanx" is represented in the game by being classed as HF, Offensive spearman.

Being classed as drilled does not directly affect fighting ability at all.

So what exactly is the actual problem (i.e. not just disagreeing with terminology) you perceive, Alan?

[AlanYork]

Indeed.

I repeat:

Being able to "fight efficiently in a hoplite phalanx" is represented in the game by being classed as HF, Offensive spearman.

Being classed as drilled does not directly affect fighting ability at all.

So what exactly is the actual problem (i.e. not just disagreeing with terminology) you perceive, Alan?

Other than the explanation I have already given, if I was perfectly honest with you (and I should say I don't own an Athenian army or an Italian hill tribe one, I have Macedonians and Yorkists) it just "feels wrong".

I take onboard the point about classifications being relative to opponents fought but to have drilled Italian hill tribes fighting against undrilled Athenian hoplites, who let's remember had 2 years basic training when they hit 18, well I'm sorry, all I can say is that it just doesn't feel right to me.

I may be wrong but IMO it's all subjective anyway.

Regards
Alan

[rbodleyscott]

Samnites are only drilled from 355 BC, before that they are Undrilled.

Athenians are (can be) drilled from 370 BC.

Wherein lies the issue?

[petedalby]

I love it when you do that.

[AlanYork]

Samnites are only drilled from 355 BC, before that they are Undrilled.

Athenians are (can be) drilled from 370 BC.

Wherein lies the issue?

There isn't really an issue, it's only a game after all. I just happen to agree with DBS that giving Italian hill tribes "drilled" status is a little "generous" though I can see the reasons behind it. At the same time I feel denying that status to Athenians of the Peloponnesian War is a little "harsh" (just because the Spartans had better drill it doesn't make the Athenians undrilled IMO).

No way of telling if I'm right or you're right without a time machine of course, as I said before it's all subjective.

[rbodleyscott]

Samnites are only drilled from 355 BC, before that they are Undrilled.

Athenians are (can be) drilled from 370 BC.

Wherein lies the issue?

There isn't really an issue, it's only a game after all. I just happen to agree with DBS that giving Italian hill tribes "drilled" status is a little "generous" though I can see the reasons behind it. At the same time I feel denying that status to Athenians of the Peloponnesian War is a little "harsh" (just because the Spartans had better drill it doesn't make the Athenians undrilled IMO).

No way of telling if I'm right or you're right without a time machine of course, as I said before it's all subjective.

Indeed. I must, however, take issue with your calling Samnites "Italian hill tribes" with the apparent implication that this means that they were rather barbaric and/or disorganised. They weren't wealthy, and they did live in the hills, but their armies were organised into cohorts and legions rather than into tribal groups, and it is widely believed that the Romans (who were divided into 35 tribes themselves, and lived on 7 hills) reorganised their army copying some Samnite practices following the first Samnite War.

We take the start date for non-tribal Samnite organisation as roughly corresponding to the formation of the Samnite League, for want of better information.

As you say, we can never know for certain, but we try to do the best we can with the information available. And of course there is nothing to stop consenting adults from classifying their troops any way they think is historically appropriate.

[MatteoPasi]

Next tournement in Torin I'll play with my Etruschi list .... I never thougt I'll play them in a competition