I have a nice 25m Bosporan army, so I'm not desperate--but I really enjoy playing Mycenaeans. Can we have a guess as to when the Bronze Age book will come out?
I'm an historian in a small way (usually a historical novelist--my Hellenic Greek novel "Tyrant" just came out in the UK.) End shameless plug. I've done considerable research on the Bronze Age and the Achaeans. I recognize that Osprey and the authors have access to all the superb research and art from over the years, but I still feel I might have a few things to add. where should I post my thoughts?
Great set of rules, BTW. In Toronto alone I know half a dozen players totally re-energized on Ancients by FoG.
Chris Cameron
Biblical Lists
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28287
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Biblical Lists
Post them here and soon please. We are working on the Bronze Age lists currently but they won't get published till early in 2009. However, the production schedule is such that the finalised manuscript has to be with the publisher many months before publication.Kineas1 wrote:I have a nice 25m Bosporan army, so I'm not desperate--but I really enjoy playing Mycenaeans. Can we have a guess as to when the Bronze Age book will come out?
I'm an historian in a small way (usually a historical novelist--my Hellenic Greek novel "Tyrant" just came out in the UK.) End shameless plug. I've done considerable research on the Bronze Age and the Achaeans. I recognize that Osprey and the authors have access to all the superb research and art from over the years, but I still feel I might have a few things to add. where should I post my thoughts?
Great set of rules, BTW. In Toronto alone I know half a dozen players totally re-energized on Ancients by FoG.
Chris Cameron
Mycenaean list
I'll draft a reply tomorrow.
Thanks!
C.
Thanks!
C.
Draft Achaean List (long)
List first, comments later
Achaeans
CinC Inspired/Field Commander/Troop Commander
Sub Commander Field Commander/troop Commander
Core units
Chariots (Eqeta/Followers) Light Chariots, Light Spear, Bow*, Swordsmen (1) Superior, Drilled@14
Dismounted Followers Heavily Armoured Offensive Spearmen, drilled, Superior (2)@14
[Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 8-12]
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Drilled, Offensive Spearmen, Average@8
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen, Average@7
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen, Poor@5
[Bases per BG 8-12, total bases 24-48]
Swordsmen Medium Infantry, Protected, Drilled, Javelin, Swordsmen, Average@8
Swordsmen Medium Infantry, Unprotected, Drilled, javelin, Swordsmen, Average@7
[Bases per BG 6-8, total bases 6-24]
(After 1250BC) Warriors Medium Infantry, Protected/Armoured, Undrilled, Swordsman, Impact Foot, average@7/9
[bases per BG 6-12, total bases 6-24]
Archers Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, bow, Average/poor@5/3
Slingers Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, sling, Average/poor@4/2
[At least as many bases as Eqeta whether mounted or dismounted, Bases per BG 6-8, max bases 16]
Optional Units
African Mercenaries Light Infantry, Protected/Unprotected, drilled (3), Bow, superior (8/6)
[Bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Myrmidons (the best of the Achaeans) Medium Infantry, Protected/Armoured, Undrilled, Superior Swordsman, Impact Foot, Superior@13/10
[bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Heroic Archers Medium Infantry, Protected, drilled, bow, average@7
Heroic Archers Medium Infantry, Protected, drilled, swordsmen, Bow*, average@8
[bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Javelinmen Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, javelin, poor/average@2/4
Javelinmen Medium Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, light spear, javelin, poor/average@@2/4
[bases per BG 6-8, total bases 0-24]
After 1250BC
Hippeis Cavalry Armoured, Drilled, light spear, Superior@15
Hippeis Cavalry Protected, Drilled, light spear, Superior@11
[Bases per BG 4, Total bases 0-4]
Comments—Nowhere here have I differentiated between “:Minoan” and “Mycenaean” peoples, a difference which, until proven to exist, has more to do with rival archeologists then with what we can glean from the historical record. (I admit this is a sweeping statement, but just peruse the literature and see how freely authors writing about one “people” borrow objects and digs from the other.) For gaming purposes, I chose to name the list after the most famous exemplars of it—the Achaeans of Homer.
Archers and Slingers are probably the servants of the Eqeta. There must be at least as many bases of archers and slingers as there are of Eqeta.
The dismount option for the Eqeta (2) above (which costs the same as the mounted option) is to cover the Dendra armours and their possible use as dismounted elite infantry arriving in Chariot taxis. Opinions on Achaean chariotry differ widely among scholars. Taking into account the social and military implications of both archeology and the Linear B tablets, my guess is that chariots served first and foremost to allow a King to move troops--elite, well-armoured troops--as rapidly as possible within his borders. After all, the defensive situation of Pylos (for example) is roughly analogous to that of the Saxon Shore--sea-borne raiders could touch and wreak havoc on your economy, and only rapid reaction could defeat them. I'm not proposing that this was done at the decisive battle scale of FoG--rather, 50 elite troops following a line of beacons to the site of an incursion would have a decisive advantage over the crew of a single 52 oared raiding ship (based on the latest nautical archeology of the period). And it is worth considering that chariots could be used the other way, as well--much the way Vikings stole horses on landing to raid inland farther and faster. this seems more likely to me than using heavily armoured spearmen in light chariots as "shock" troops. Littauer and Raulwing have consistently undermined the idea that ANY chariots could be used for "shock" against formed troops. But a raiding ship with half a dozen chariots could try to steal the horses on landing, and then move raiders inland rapidly. 9Digression--Egyptian records have demonstrated that chariots could be broken down easily for shipping by sea, and there are several terracotta toys that suggest that chariots and ships shared military use. Note also the similarity between Minoan "cabins" and chariot bodies. But I digress woefully).
I have upgraded many troops to swordsmen (1) and I am aware of what a debatable point this is. My take is that Achaean finds show a remarkable number of good, solid swords, and enough variation of types to suggest experimentation with styles. One is tempted to look at the early rapiers with an eye to the glancing surfaces of the Dendra armour, for instance... At any rate, the short stabbing sword that seems pretty common based on a handful of finds bears a strong resemblance to Roman types, as well as having a strong tang and a useful guard (image AN34647001 at the British Museum is a good example of the type and can be looked at online). The Pylos wall paintings seem to show a specialized swordsman troop type.
I have not included the traditional rear-rank bowmen of other rules sets. First, I don’t think that they were there—I think the evidence for such bows is based entirely on the presence of one figure on the Niello dagger in the Mycenae shaft graves. But the Achaeans did have bows, and some of them were used by nobles (at least based on grave finds) so I have made the chariotry Bow* (after all, every other chariot power in the mid-east had twinned the bow and the chariot, and there are three pieces of evidence that the Achaeans did as well) and I have introduced a single unit of bow-armed “heroes.” Readers of the Iliad tend to read the Poem to suggest the warrior’s contempt for the bow—I think that such a reading really suggests that everyone is contemptuous of Paris, but I’d note that if the bow was not a heroic weapon, Odysseus wouldn’t use one to kill the suitors!
The “Captain of the Blacks” vase tends to suggest that the Achaeans were familiar with some African (3) troops, and the Achaean “officer” seems to suggest that they are in Achaean or “Minoan” service. I agree with the author of the 2005 Osprey book—what seems most likely is that the Egyptians and the Achaeans traded mercenaries. My reasons for making them drilled and superior is based on purely circumstantial evidence from other periods—that a handful of foreign mercenaries tend to become elite troops. And I sought to make them different.
Finally, with the exception of the Africans, I kept troop quality down. What we know of the Bronze Age is so limited, it is nigh impossible to guess what levels of quality might have existed. I was tempted to make the Myrmidons (or whatever they should be called) elite—after all, if the Myrmidons aren’t elite, who is? Likewise, I was tempted to provide an option to upgrade some spearmen and warriors to superior—but that way madness lies. Most soldiers are average. If allowed, I’d be tempted to have either some Eqeta or some Myrmidons or both upgraded to elite.
I'll close by saying that I love the Iliad, and I've biased my list towards the Iliad for two reasons. First, because that's the army I'd like to play--and for which many manufacturers sculpt! Second, because despite a great many differences, it must be confessed that archeology has shown a surprising number of agreements with the Iliad. Despite this, Chadwick and Palmer and a number of historians, professional and wargaming, have dismissed the notion that the highly ordered Palace Culture of the Pylos and Knossos tablets could be the heroic world of the Iliad. I'll note that 15th century Frenchmen and Victorian British empire builders both lived in highly ordered and bureaucratic societies that yet had room for individual heroism and cults of single combat (Nicholson Sahib has to give Achilles a run for his money, as could Bayard). While mass battles--decisive engagements--may have offered little scope for such fighting, and may allow some to dismiss the idea, I'd like to note that there's more to war than the day of battle. If chariots actually provided the scouting forces (and they must have), daily combat at a very personal level would have resulted--a constant, wearying, and vital service calling for a great deal of heroism (witness Odysseus’s scout in the Iliad). Despite that, many of those same heroes might have been very effective bureaucrats, landowners, and even scribes.
Who would know? It was the Bronze Age, and more has been lost than will ever be found.
Hope you like it!
Achaeans
CinC Inspired/Field Commander/Troop Commander
Sub Commander Field Commander/troop Commander
Core units
Chariots (Eqeta/Followers) Light Chariots, Light Spear, Bow*, Swordsmen (1) Superior, Drilled@14
Dismounted Followers Heavily Armoured Offensive Spearmen, drilled, Superior (2)@14
[Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 8-12]
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Drilled, Offensive Spearmen, Average@8
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen, Average@7
Spearmen Heavy Infantry, Protected, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen, Poor@5
[Bases per BG 8-12, total bases 24-48]
Swordsmen Medium Infantry, Protected, Drilled, Javelin, Swordsmen, Average@8
Swordsmen Medium Infantry, Unprotected, Drilled, javelin, Swordsmen, Average@7
[Bases per BG 6-8, total bases 6-24]
(After 1250BC) Warriors Medium Infantry, Protected/Armoured, Undrilled, Swordsman, Impact Foot, average@7/9
[bases per BG 6-12, total bases 6-24]
Archers Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, bow, Average/poor@5/3
Slingers Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, sling, Average/poor@4/2
[At least as many bases as Eqeta whether mounted or dismounted, Bases per BG 6-8, max bases 16]
Optional Units
African Mercenaries Light Infantry, Protected/Unprotected, drilled (3), Bow, superior (8/6)
[Bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Myrmidons (the best of the Achaeans) Medium Infantry, Protected/Armoured, Undrilled, Superior Swordsman, Impact Foot, Superior@13/10
[bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Heroic Archers Medium Infantry, Protected, drilled, bow, average@7
Heroic Archers Medium Infantry, Protected, drilled, swordsmen, Bow*, average@8
[bases per BG 4-6, total bases 6]
Javelinmen Light Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, javelin, poor/average@2/4
Javelinmen Medium Infantry, Unprotected, Undrilled, light spear, javelin, poor/average@@2/4
[bases per BG 6-8, total bases 0-24]
After 1250BC
Hippeis Cavalry Armoured, Drilled, light spear, Superior@15
Hippeis Cavalry Protected, Drilled, light spear, Superior@11
[Bases per BG 4, Total bases 0-4]
Comments—Nowhere here have I differentiated between “:Minoan” and “Mycenaean” peoples, a difference which, until proven to exist, has more to do with rival archeologists then with what we can glean from the historical record. (I admit this is a sweeping statement, but just peruse the literature and see how freely authors writing about one “people” borrow objects and digs from the other.) For gaming purposes, I chose to name the list after the most famous exemplars of it—the Achaeans of Homer.
Archers and Slingers are probably the servants of the Eqeta. There must be at least as many bases of archers and slingers as there are of Eqeta.
The dismount option for the Eqeta (2) above (which costs the same as the mounted option) is to cover the Dendra armours and their possible use as dismounted elite infantry arriving in Chariot taxis. Opinions on Achaean chariotry differ widely among scholars. Taking into account the social and military implications of both archeology and the Linear B tablets, my guess is that chariots served first and foremost to allow a King to move troops--elite, well-armoured troops--as rapidly as possible within his borders. After all, the defensive situation of Pylos (for example) is roughly analogous to that of the Saxon Shore--sea-borne raiders could touch and wreak havoc on your economy, and only rapid reaction could defeat them. I'm not proposing that this was done at the decisive battle scale of FoG--rather, 50 elite troops following a line of beacons to the site of an incursion would have a decisive advantage over the crew of a single 52 oared raiding ship (based on the latest nautical archeology of the period). And it is worth considering that chariots could be used the other way, as well--much the way Vikings stole horses on landing to raid inland farther and faster. this seems more likely to me than using heavily armoured spearmen in light chariots as "shock" troops. Littauer and Raulwing have consistently undermined the idea that ANY chariots could be used for "shock" against formed troops. But a raiding ship with half a dozen chariots could try to steal the horses on landing, and then move raiders inland rapidly. 9Digression--Egyptian records have demonstrated that chariots could be broken down easily for shipping by sea, and there are several terracotta toys that suggest that chariots and ships shared military use. Note also the similarity between Minoan "cabins" and chariot bodies. But I digress woefully).
I have upgraded many troops to swordsmen (1) and I am aware of what a debatable point this is. My take is that Achaean finds show a remarkable number of good, solid swords, and enough variation of types to suggest experimentation with styles. One is tempted to look at the early rapiers with an eye to the glancing surfaces of the Dendra armour, for instance... At any rate, the short stabbing sword that seems pretty common based on a handful of finds bears a strong resemblance to Roman types, as well as having a strong tang and a useful guard (image AN34647001 at the British Museum is a good example of the type and can be looked at online). The Pylos wall paintings seem to show a specialized swordsman troop type.
I have not included the traditional rear-rank bowmen of other rules sets. First, I don’t think that they were there—I think the evidence for such bows is based entirely on the presence of one figure on the Niello dagger in the Mycenae shaft graves. But the Achaeans did have bows, and some of them were used by nobles (at least based on grave finds) so I have made the chariotry Bow* (after all, every other chariot power in the mid-east had twinned the bow and the chariot, and there are three pieces of evidence that the Achaeans did as well) and I have introduced a single unit of bow-armed “heroes.” Readers of the Iliad tend to read the Poem to suggest the warrior’s contempt for the bow—I think that such a reading really suggests that everyone is contemptuous of Paris, but I’d note that if the bow was not a heroic weapon, Odysseus wouldn’t use one to kill the suitors!
The “Captain of the Blacks” vase tends to suggest that the Achaeans were familiar with some African (3) troops, and the Achaean “officer” seems to suggest that they are in Achaean or “Minoan” service. I agree with the author of the 2005 Osprey book—what seems most likely is that the Egyptians and the Achaeans traded mercenaries. My reasons for making them drilled and superior is based on purely circumstantial evidence from other periods—that a handful of foreign mercenaries tend to become elite troops. And I sought to make them different.
Finally, with the exception of the Africans, I kept troop quality down. What we know of the Bronze Age is so limited, it is nigh impossible to guess what levels of quality might have existed. I was tempted to make the Myrmidons (or whatever they should be called) elite—after all, if the Myrmidons aren’t elite, who is? Likewise, I was tempted to provide an option to upgrade some spearmen and warriors to superior—but that way madness lies. Most soldiers are average. If allowed, I’d be tempted to have either some Eqeta or some Myrmidons or both upgraded to elite.
I'll close by saying that I love the Iliad, and I've biased my list towards the Iliad for two reasons. First, because that's the army I'd like to play--and for which many manufacturers sculpt! Second, because despite a great many differences, it must be confessed that archeology has shown a surprising number of agreements with the Iliad. Despite this, Chadwick and Palmer and a number of historians, professional and wargaming, have dismissed the notion that the highly ordered Palace Culture of the Pylos and Knossos tablets could be the heroic world of the Iliad. I'll note that 15th century Frenchmen and Victorian British empire builders both lived in highly ordered and bureaucratic societies that yet had room for individual heroism and cults of single combat (Nicholson Sahib has to give Achilles a run for his money, as could Bayard). While mass battles--decisive engagements--may have offered little scope for such fighting, and may allow some to dismiss the idea, I'd like to note that there's more to war than the day of battle. If chariots actually provided the scouting forces (and they must have), daily combat at a very personal level would have resulted--a constant, wearying, and vital service calling for a great deal of heroism (witness Odysseus’s scout in the Iliad). Despite that, many of those same heroes might have been very effective bureaucrats, landowners, and even scribes.
Who would know? It was the Bronze Age, and more has been lost than will ever be found.
Hope you like it!
This looks like a fun list.
Not knowing much of the history, my only comment is about the classification of "swordsmen". You say there is evidence that they had swords, but to count as "swordsmen" they need to be effective hand to hand fighters in melee. Other weapons, if used in melee, can contribute to a "swordsmen" classification.
Achilles' Myrmidons may also need to be classified as an allied contingent, who can only be commanded by Achilles.
Not knowing much of the history, my only comment is about the classification of "swordsmen". You say there is evidence that they had swords, but to count as "swordsmen" they need to be effective hand to hand fighters in melee. Other weapons, if used in melee, can contribute to a "swordsmen" classification.
Achilles' Myrmidons may also need to be classified as an allied contingent, who can only be commanded by Achilles.
I didn't do the ally thing because, although other list writers have chosen that path, I don't see any reason for the "best of the Achaeans" to be treated as other than Achaean. Patton sulked in his tent on a number of occasions, and was not an ally... The Myrmidons (or simply the Best Warriors) serve at times under Patrocoles and I seem to remember under Phoenix as well, so need not be fielded with Achilles... and it is a thin line between making a list that allows the player to field the Achaeans of the Iliad while still trying to keep the list in touch with Bronze Age archeology and the Linear B tablets...
I have a problem with allies, as, outside of a few historians like Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, they are a wargaming concept more than a historical term...
As for the swordsmen--everything from the styles of swords found in graves (see my list notes) to vase and seal stone depictions of men dueling lions with swords, to some postures, leads me to believe that they are competent swordsmen, OR CAN BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH without leaping outside of the historical box.
I have been a fencer for 32 years and a historical sword guy for twenty. I'm no "expert" but I know what postures and muscles shaped by exercise ought to look like. (and I could be dead wrong, too!)
Finally, it is important to remember that the armies of 1300BC already had 3000 years of military history behind them. Notions that military learning were not transmitted are constantly overturned. People in the bronze age traveled, and so did ideas. And it is worth building Bronze Age lists that depict viable armies that do not "shock the conscience" rather than dull armies that are unplayable.
Or that's my 2 cents, anyway.
I have a problem with allies, as, outside of a few historians like Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, they are a wargaming concept more than a historical term...
As for the swordsmen--everything from the styles of swords found in graves (see my list notes) to vase and seal stone depictions of men dueling lions with swords, to some postures, leads me to believe that they are competent swordsmen, OR CAN BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH without leaping outside of the historical box.
I have been a fencer for 32 years and a historical sword guy for twenty. I'm no "expert" but I know what postures and muscles shaped by exercise ought to look like. (and I could be dead wrong, too!)
Finally, it is important to remember that the armies of 1300BC already had 3000 years of military history behind them. Notions that military learning were not transmitted are constantly overturned. People in the bronze age traveled, and so did ideas. And it is worth building Bronze Age lists that depict viable armies that do not "shock the conscience" rather than dull armies that are unplayable.
Or that's my 2 cents, anyway.
Re: Biblical Lists
Good grief. It's sitting on my bedside table right now, the next book to read once I've finished Conn Igulden's Caesar saga.Kineas1 wrote: I'm an historian in a small way (usually a historical novelist--my Hellenic Greek novel "Tyrant" just came out in the UK.) End shameless plug.
Chris Cameron
Of course, this means I'll know who to complain to if it doesn't measure up
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28287
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Being competent swordsmen does not necessarily mean that troops are classified as swordsmen under the rules. Offensive and Defensive Spearmen are assumed to used spears or swords as appropriate in the melee. We don't believe it likely that "spearmen" and "swordsmen" were organised into separate battle groups.
Most of the infantry in the Iliad period we are currently classing as Offensive Spearmen.
To quote the Iliad:
"even so did the serried phalanxes of the Danaans march steadfastly to battle.
The chiefs gave orders each to his own people, but the men said never
a word; no man would think it, for huge as the host was, it seemed
as though there was not a tongue among them, so silent were they in
their obedience;"
"When they were got together in one place shield clashed with shield
and spear with spear in the rage of battle. The bossed shields beat
one upon another, and there was a tramp as of a great multitude- death-cry
and shout of triumph of slain and slayers, and the earth ran red with
blood."
Most of the infantry in the Iliad period we are currently classing as Offensive Spearmen.
To quote the Iliad:
"even so did the serried phalanxes of the Danaans march steadfastly to battle.
The chiefs gave orders each to his own people, but the men said never
a word; no man would think it, for huge as the host was, it seemed
as though there was not a tongue among them, so silent were they in
their obedience;"
"When they were got together in one place shield clashed with shield
and spear with spear in the rage of battle. The bossed shields beat
one upon another, and there was a tramp as of a great multitude- death-cry
and shout of triumph of slain and slayers, and the earth ran red with
blood."
No argument with offensive spear--I may well have missed the point of swordsman.
On the other hand, there's all those illustrations of guys fighting lions with swords.
And I keep thinking about what the figure 8 shield would be like as a fighting shield
And then there's al the Pylian wall paintings with men armed only with sword
And most of the heroes, when THEY fight, throw their spears, and then fight sword to sword. Some finish the job with the spear, some throw rocks.
But I have no problem with offensive spear.
On the other hand, there's all those illustrations of guys fighting lions with swords.
And I keep thinking about what the figure 8 shield would be like as a fighting shield
And then there's al the Pylian wall paintings with men armed only with sword
And most of the heroes, when THEY fight, throw their spears, and then fight sword to sword. Some finish the job with the spear, some throw rocks.
But I have no problem with offensive spear.
No argument with offensive spear--I may well have missed the point of swordsman.
On the other hand, there's all those illustrations of guys fighting lions with swords.
And I keep thinking about what the figure 8 shield would be like as a fighting shield
And then there's al the Pylian wall paintings with men armed only with sword
And most of the heroes, when THEY fight, throw their spears, and then fight sword to sword. Some finish the job with the spear, some throw rocks.
On the other hand, there's all those illustrations of guys fighting lions with swords.
And I keep thinking about what the figure 8 shield would be like as a fighting shield
And then there's al the Pylian wall paintings with men armed only with sword
And most of the heroes, when THEY fight, throw their spears, and then fight sword to sword. Some finish the job with the spear, some throw rocks.
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28287
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
I don't think we should take any notice of the methods of fighting of heros when deciding the classification of battle groups. The heroic style of fighting can be expected to be entirely different from fighting in formation. That is why I quoted the quote above. In particular spear fighting only really works in formation.Kineas1 wrote:And most of the heroes, when THEY fight, throw their spears, and then fight sword to sword. Some finish the job with the spear, some throw rocks.
In FOG spearmen formations can include some guys fighting only with swords - cf Arab spearmen, Vikings etc, who certainly fought in mixed formations of spearmen and swordsmen - we classify the mix as spearmen.
The overall effect of the battle group is what matters, not the equipment of some individuals in a mixed formation.
We don't believe in separate BGs of spearmen and swordsmen simply on the basis of contemporary illustrations of individual swordsmen.
We still believe in an earlier style of fighting with large body shields and long spear - and we classify them as Defensive Spears.And I keep thinking about what the figure 8 shield would be like as a fighting shield
Armoured Cavalry ?
You got any suggestions for models in 25mm ?
Would these be any good form A&A miniatures ?
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/sn20b.jpg
You got any suggestions for models in 25mm ?
Would these be any good form A&A miniatures ?
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/sn20b.jpg
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Feel free to post your thoughts, we certainly found your stuff above interesting. The lists team is open to cogent arguments and we are well aware that we aren't experts in all periods - on many occasions members of the team have had their views changed during the rpocess of drawing up a list.Kineas1 wrote:Hmmm.
Don't agree. But it isn't my game!
As I said on my list, this is the Bronze Age, and any honest historian admits there's not much in the way of facts... so when I say I don't agree, that's with the full weight of my ignorance behind it!
But here's my argument anyway. Defensive spear suggests that the spearmen are using their weapon to keep enemies out of their formation. Right or wrong, I see this as an anti-cavalry doctrine. The argument might be made that they are anti-chariots, but you must have seen in my line notes that I don't really believe that the Mycenaean chariot played a major battlefield role. I believe in Littauer and Crouwel et al--those fifty pound chariots had no impact capability at all--so there didn't need to be a formation to drive them off. And mostly, these guys fought each other and their own barbarians, right?
In fact, and here I confess to being out on a historical limb, I suspect that they fought very like hoplites. Look at the muscled athletes in Minoan and Mycenaean art--clearly, some of the gymnasium culture survived (and I'm a heretic who is suspicious of terms like "dark age of Greece"). I believe that social and cultural imperatives create military systems as much as contact with the enemy, and that suggests, in arid and difficult Greece, that many of the same systems should evolve aeon after aeon.
At a far more tactical level, the illustrations of men fighting lions--which may be entirely symbolic, but heck, they are what we have--show men thrusting overarm with the spear. Defensively trained spearmen would be standing to receive--a style of lion hunting you can see practiced in Africa. But the Achaeans aren't standing to receive--they are leaning forward into their spears, attacking. It's a small point, but given the scarcity of information, not to be ignored.
Also, the figure 8 shield would be very light--maybe six pounds, maybe ten--and like the later Greek hoplite shield, it has the round upper edge in which to place your shoulder and PUSH against the back of the man ahead of you. If you look at the position of straps in several illustrations, it looks as if it strapped on to provide just this angle.
And finally--and I've already said this, so I'm being dull--I like to think of Bronze Age armies as being at the END of 3000 years of battlefield evolution--not as a bunch of primitives. I suspect that by 1300BC, the major powers had experimented with most of the combination of ancient weapons that would be used until 500AD, barring only fully armoured cav and the horse archer.
One note on the swordsmen. I was against it (not in a rules way, but in a historical way) but many of the points raised by the guy who wrote the Osprey Mycenaean book intrigued me. I'll confess that he caused me to view the evidence I'd already seen in a new way. So I'd seen all those short, really well made cut-and-thrust swords like the Roman gladius, a and I knew the Pylian wall paintings, and I knew the various seals and pots--I just hadn't put them all together. There's lots of room for disagreement (heck, I disagree with a lot of his other ideas) but on the swordsman issue, he sold me. So now I'm trying to sell you--which somehow seems circular!
But here's my argument anyway. Defensive spear suggests that the spearmen are using their weapon to keep enemies out of their formation. Right or wrong, I see this as an anti-cavalry doctrine. The argument might be made that they are anti-chariots, but you must have seen in my line notes that I don't really believe that the Mycenaean chariot played a major battlefield role. I believe in Littauer and Crouwel et al--those fifty pound chariots had no impact capability at all--so there didn't need to be a formation to drive them off. And mostly, these guys fought each other and their own barbarians, right?
In fact, and here I confess to being out on a historical limb, I suspect that they fought very like hoplites. Look at the muscled athletes in Minoan and Mycenaean art--clearly, some of the gymnasium culture survived (and I'm a heretic who is suspicious of terms like "dark age of Greece"). I believe that social and cultural imperatives create military systems as much as contact with the enemy, and that suggests, in arid and difficult Greece, that many of the same systems should evolve aeon after aeon.
At a far more tactical level, the illustrations of men fighting lions--which may be entirely symbolic, but heck, they are what we have--show men thrusting overarm with the spear. Defensively trained spearmen would be standing to receive--a style of lion hunting you can see practiced in Africa. But the Achaeans aren't standing to receive--they are leaning forward into their spears, attacking. It's a small point, but given the scarcity of information, not to be ignored.
Also, the figure 8 shield would be very light--maybe six pounds, maybe ten--and like the later Greek hoplite shield, it has the round upper edge in which to place your shoulder and PUSH against the back of the man ahead of you. If you look at the position of straps in several illustrations, it looks as if it strapped on to provide just this angle.
And finally--and I've already said this, so I'm being dull--I like to think of Bronze Age armies as being at the END of 3000 years of battlefield evolution--not as a bunch of primitives. I suspect that by 1300BC, the major powers had experimented with most of the combination of ancient weapons that would be used until 500AD, barring only fully armoured cav and the horse archer.
One note on the swordsmen. I was against it (not in a rules way, but in a historical way) but many of the points raised by the guy who wrote the Osprey Mycenaean book intrigued me. I'll confess that he caused me to view the evidence I'd already seen in a new way. So I'd seen all those short, really well made cut-and-thrust swords like the Roman gladius, a and I knew the Pylian wall paintings, and I knew the various seals and pots--I just hadn't put them all together. There's lots of room for disagreement (heck, I disagree with a lot of his other ideas) but on the swordsman issue, he sold me. So now I'm trying to sell you--which somehow seems circular!
For Keith--Assuming that the Mycenaeans used cavalry at all, and that the mounted guys aren't just messengers or mounted infantry, than I'd look at the Bronze Age horsemen that Wargames Foundry makes. That's what I use.
One thing this culture had, until it toppled, was armour... but I've never been good at armour definitions, so it may be that they're just protected, and not armoured. But no missile weapons! And no armoured horses until the Cimmerians or even later.
Wow, that sounds like I know the answer. Please insert "I think" in all of the above.
One thing this culture had, until it toppled, was armour... but I've never been good at armour definitions, so it may be that they're just protected, and not armoured. But no missile weapons! And no armoured horses until the Cimmerians or even later.
Wow, that sounds like I know the answer. Please insert "I think" in all of the above.
-
Niceas
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:03 pm
- Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
RE: Swordsmen. I'd be a little more circumspect comparing Roman gladii to the bronze age swords, as if you accept the general consensus, the Romans copied that sword off the Spanish, and one assumes, the style of sword play as well. Its what, almost a 1000 year difference?
Obviously, there's nothing to say that simialr ideas didn't occur in different places and times, but just the same, I wonder at the comparison.
I'll be quiet now.
Obviously, there's nothing to say that simialr ideas didn't occur in different places and times, but just the same, I wonder at the comparison.
I'll be quiet now.
Robert Sulentic
The only constant in the Universe is change. The wise adapt.
The only constant in the Universe is change. The wise adapt.
Niceas--I can't argue. (Okay, I can, but I shouldn't.) What we know about the Bronze age is utterly dwarfed by what we don't know... Did they practice swordsmanship? Did it have a practical effect on their fighting style?
Don't know. But I'll put this another way--if we had some scraps of Roman armour, a few Gladii, and a bunch of pila, would we guess that the shield/sword combo was the mainstay of the fighting line? Or would we think they were armoured guys with heavy javelins?
I think I'm repeating myself (for which, apologies) I just dislike the idea that Bronze Age people were "primitive" compared to classical--I think that in many cultural, non-military ways, we keep finding the BA to have been at least as advanced as the Classical--and my contention, right or wrong, is that if a culture is advanced, its military system is advanced, as well.
That's all so gut-wrenchingly theoretical that I'd probably win more converts if I said "I have 385 figs of these guys painted and I'd like them to do well".
: )
Chris
Don't know. But I'll put this another way--if we had some scraps of Roman armour, a few Gladii, and a bunch of pila, would we guess that the shield/sword combo was the mainstay of the fighting line? Or would we think they were armoured guys with heavy javelins?
I think I'm repeating myself (for which, apologies) I just dislike the idea that Bronze Age people were "primitive" compared to classical--I think that in many cultural, non-military ways, we keep finding the BA to have been at least as advanced as the Classical--and my contention, right or wrong, is that if a culture is advanced, its military system is advanced, as well.
That's all so gut-wrenchingly theoretical that I'd probably win more converts if I said "I have 385 figs of these guys painted and I'd like them to do well".
: )
Chris