Arab Conquest

[Scrumpy]

May I ask when the Arab Conquest list will be out ?

Also, will the warriors be superior impact foot swordsmen ?

Cheers

[nikgaukroger]

I believe that the book with the Arab Conquest list in will be out in October this year - rather a way off I'm afraid

The warriors will be Superior, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen ...

[neilhammond]

The warriors will be Superior, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen ...

Interesting. This implies that arab conquest spearmen formed in a phalanx type formation rather than a looser fierce "swarm" when attacking or defending. I've got a general background knowledge in this period but haven't studied it in detail. Out of curiosity, where does most of the evidence come from? Byzantine sources?

[nikgaukroger]

I would tend to use terms such as steady, close formation and cohesive body than phalanx which has too many overtones for my liking. Loose fierce swarm is definitely out .

Sources are mainly Arab although, for obvious reasons, mostly through secondary/tertiary routes such as Hugh Kennedy's books - although translations of al-Tabari and al-Balahuri, for example, are readily available if you wish (but you can't have mine )

It has to be said that the Arabs were a touch tricky as at this period they used both spears and swords quite freely in melee depending on how it was going - but in general is was spears followed by swords. Light Spear, Swordsmen was considered, however, this did not give appropriate resilience against Byzantine cavalry.

[Scrumpy]

Interesting, given their previous classifications this is quite a change. Out of interest do they keep the superior rating when they become mounted Jund ? Assuming that is covered of course.

And what of my 36 camels painted up for mounted warriors ?

[nikgaukroger]

If by previous classifications you mean the DBM Wb(S) well I'm afraid that was always a load of sheep droppings - it wasn't even consistent with its own army list notes You will notice that the DBMM lists now have them as Bd(O) - even Phil had to admit he'd been wrong ...

I suspect the Jund cavalry can be Average or Superior - don't have the list to hand I'm afraid.

As for the camels, ah , well ... there are no mounted infantry types in FoG as it stands so I'm afraid they're about as much use as the 30 bases of mounted infantry troops I have (and commissioned from Outpost) for my Dynastic Bedouins

[Scrumpy]

The OS fits in with the figures I have, I am guessing a figure in Arab dress with a spear will cover a few lists.

Looking forward to seeing the Arab lists when they arrive, with the exception of Arab_Indian, dread to think how bad the Hindu foot will be in these lists.

[rtaylor]

HF or MF? The "swarm" would suggest MF.

[nikgaukroger]

And as we don't believe the "swarm" idea they are HF

[Scrumpy]

They are not going to be MF for your bloody Medieval Germans to ride down Roger !

[matrack]

Interesting. This implies that arab men formed in a phalanx type formation rather than a looser fierce "swarm" when attacking or defending. I've got a general background knowledge in this period but haven't studied it in detail. Out of curiosity, where does most of the evidence come from? Byzantine sources?

You're right, that's an interesting observation about Arab military tactics. Most of our evidence for this period comes from a mix of sources, including Byzantine chronicles, Arab historical accounts, and archaeological findings. The Byzantine sources are particularly valuable, as they often provided detailed observations of their opponents. However, it's always good to cross-reference multiple sources, as each can have its own biases. Have you come across any specific accounts that discuss these formations in detail? I'd be curious to hear more if you have!