Areas open to misinterpretation & why are velites protec

[miffedofreading]

Guys,
Played a Carthaginian V Roman game last night, no rules queries up came up we could not deal with.

One interesting point came up. I had glibly assumed that the ++ shooting bonus against unprotected cavalry meant anyone on a horse including light horse which of course it doesn’t.

Are there any other areas that people know where the rule may be fine, but there is scope for the unwary to think they read something they didn’t??

Why are Roman Velites Protected? As far as I have ever seen they are completely unarmoured with a very small shield and a helmet, yet most other light troops have to be unprotected. Carthaginian LF are usually depicted with a light shield and a helmet??

Ta

Andy

[hammy]

Several people seem to miss the point that if there is no POA for a particular circumstance or target then there is no POA.

Shooting at LH, LF and single ranked cavalry is always at 0 POA unless one of the any circumstances pops up.

There are a lot of places where people seem to assume things that aren't written. It is difficult to list them but perhaps we could put together a common misconceptions thread rather than adding things to the FAQ.

Roman Velites have the option to be protected so as to give them an edge in melee against contemparary skirmishers. A velite has far better close combat potential than for example a balearic slinger and if they were unprotected the balearics would have an advantage because of being superior.

[WhiteKnight]

Lists allow both options for velites but not for similarly armed LSp/Jav armed foot...if velites are better fighters in some way, shouldnt this be reflected by "Sup" status Unpr LF rather than "armour class"? Their LSp give them the edge in impact but once it gets to melee, surely its theur better training etc that counts?

Bet this has been discussed before and sorry if it has but new to the forum.

Martin

[hammy]

Lists allow both options for velites but not for similarly armed LSp/Jav armed foot...if velites are better fighters in some way, shouldnt this be reflected by "Sup" status Unpr LF rather than "armour class"? Their LSp give them the edge in impact but once it gets to melee, surely its theur better training etc that counts?

Bet this has been discussed before and sorry if it has but new to the forum.

Martin

If you make the velites superior then as well as improving their hand to hand capability you also imporve their morale and their shooting. Velites were not renowned for particularly effective showers of javelins so protected allows them to be good in close combat with other light foot but not over effective as shoorters or in terms of moral fibre.

[miffedofreading]

I am a little uneasy that we appear to be saying that Roman LF can be protected when for example carthaginian LF with the same javelins and shields can not be, not because the Roman lights wore more armour but because we are fiddling a perceived superiority of the ROman velites in hand to hand combat?

Now funnily enough I can see an opposite example, I am very dissapointed to see the much vaunted numidian light cavalry being useless in this game, if we were adding protected to troops to give them a fighting edge my vote would be on Numidian cavalry not Roman velites.

Hammy do you know if classical greek and hellenistic greek peltasts will be protected LF. I presume they will be as these are represented in most other rules sets as some form of LMI. Something that Velites are never represented as.

I have no problem with Velites having a melee edge against slingers, I do have an issue with them having a melee edge against both carthaginian javelin LF and numidian LC

Andy

[rbodleyscott]

I am a little uneasy that we appear to be saying that Roman LF can be protected when for example carthaginian LF with the same javelins and shields can not be, not because the Roman lights wore more armour but because we are fiddling a perceived superiority of the ROman velites in hand to hand combat?

Velites had 3 foot diameter strongly contructed shields offering much better protection than the flimsier leather shield carried by Numidian javelinmen (and light horse).

Now funnily enough I can see an opposite example, I am very dissapointed to see the much vaunted numidian light cavalry being useless in this game, if we were adding protected to troops to give them a fighting edge my vote would be on Numidian cavalry not Roman velites.

Numidian cavalry are very far from useless in the game.

Their present classification (and that of Numidian LF) encourages their use in a historical manner - ie. as skirmishers and not as close combat troops.

[hammy]

I am a little uneasy that we appear to be saying that Roman LF can be protected when for example carthaginian LF with the same javelins and shields can not be, not because the Roman lights wore more armour but because we are fiddling a perceived superiority of the ROman velites in hand to hand combat?

Now funnily enough I can see an opposite example, I am very dissapointed to see the much vaunted numidian light cavalry being useless in this game, if we were adding protected to troops to give them a fighting edge my vote would be on Numidian cavalry not Roman velites.

Hammy do you know if classical greek and hellenistic greek peltasts will be protected LF. I presume they will be as these are represented in most other rules sets as some form of LMI. Something that Velites are never represented as.

I have no problem with Velites having a melee edge against slingers, I do have an issue with them having a melee edge against both carthaginian javelin LF and numidian LC

Andy

Numidian light horse in period are actually pretty good. Most powers don't actually have any light horse to speak of so they can make full use of their missile capability against Roman cavalry and be relatively sure of being able to evade their charges.

Against protected velites (not all velites are proteced remember) the Numidians are a POA up at imact with double the dice of the velites and in melee while they are a POA down they still have twice as many dice. Protected velites cost 5 points a base and Numdians only cost 7 so there is a good chance that there won't be a lot of difference in numbers.

Early Greek peltasts are unprotected light foot, later 'peltasts' can be mediums.

I suspect that most Roman armies will not use protected light foot anyway. It makes them 25% more expensive and really speaking is of little if any value as the only thing that they are better than (other light foot) can always evade.

[miffedofreading]

Thanks as ever for the reply Richard,

I guess we are discussing points of view now rather than rules so opinions may differ.

I don't remember Velites having a 3ft diameter shield, I thought it was less than 2ft, certainly all the velite models I have purchased carry what seems to be about a 12-18" shield certainly not a hoplon sized shield!

Personally I have yet to see the Numidians achieve anything, I think they are awful, but we may just have to differ in opinions there. I was nevertheless dissapointed to find them unprotected average troops, I had expected something to make them stand out, probably being superior.

Andy

[rbodleyscott]

I don't remember Velites having a 3ft diameter shield, I thought it was less than 2ft, certainly all the velite models I have purchased carry what seems to be about a 12-18" shield certainly not a hoplon sized shield!

Check out Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head. (An impeccable secondary source).

Roman Velites were clearly equipped for close combat (Numidians LF and LH weren't). We could quite reasonably have given Roman velites swordsmen capability as well, but decided it would be OTT.

I think it is fairly clear that Roman velites were quite dissimilar to the light troops of many other armies.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I wonder whether the Roman view of the Numidians in the Punic Wars was coloured by the comparatively poor cavalry available to them? Generally the earlier Roman armies do not seem to have coped well with light horse of any description and had to use allies to address the issue.

I'll have to finsih painting up my Numidian ally and try it out against some mid Republicans. I'll also have to go back to Polybius and Livy.

Regards

[miffedofreading]

Having Velites as swordsmen as well would be fun.....

But perhaps just a little OTT

I presume greek and helinistic peltasts are protected in the forthcoming army list book?

Andy

[nikgaukroger]

Hammy do you know if classical greek and hellenistic greek peltasts will be protected LF. I presume they will be as these are represented in most other rules sets as some form of LMI. Something that Velites are never represented as.

The LMI "peltasts" in other rules/lists are thyreophoroi (thureophoroi) and not proper peltasts as in skirmishing troops (Achaian exception noted). It is not comparing like with like.

[nikgaukroger]

Greetings

I wonder whether the Roman view of the Numidians in the Punic Wars was coloured by the comparatively poor cavalry available to them? Generally the earlier Roman armies do not seem to have coped well with light horse of any description and had to use allies to address the issue.

Roman cavalry in the Punic wars was perfectly good cavalry and defeated Carthaginian/Gallic cavalry on a number of occasions. Their weakness compared to Carthaginian armies was that there weren't enoigh of them - they lost because they were out numbered.

Note also that at Cannae the cavalry facing the Numidians were not defeated by the Numidians but when the other wing of carthaginian cavalry started to attack them in the rear. Numidians were good but had their limitations - and were outclassed by similar Spanish cavalry at a later date IIRC.

[miffedofreading]

On this occassion I am referring to real peltasts as used from the Pelopennesian wars onwards into Alexanders period?

I know they are to be represented as LF but are they unprotected or protected??

It would seem wrong to force them to be unprotected.

Andy

[ars_belli]

I don't remember Velites having a 3ft diameter shield, I thought it was less than 2ft, certainly all the velite models I have purchased carry what seems to be about a 12-18" shield certainly not a hoplon sized shield!

From Polybius, Histories 6.22 (translation from Lacus Curtius):

The youngest soldiers or velites are ordered to carry a sword, javelins, and a target (parma). The target is strongly made and sufficiently large to afford protection, being circular and measuring three feet in diameter. They also wear a plain helmet, and sometimes cover it with a wolf's skin or something similar both to protect and to act as a distinguishing mark by which their officers can recognize them and judge if they fight pluckily or not. The wooden shaft of the javelin measures about two cubits in length and is about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long hammered out to such a fine edge that it is necessarily bent by the first impact, and the enemy is unable to return it. If this were not so, the missile would be available for both sides.

Personally I have yet to see the Numidians achieve anything, I think they are awful, but we may just have to differ in opinions there. I was nevertheless dissapointed to find them unprotected average troops, I had expected something to make them stand out, probably being superior.

According to Polybius, Livy, Sallust and Caesar, the Numidians would often catch Roman generals by surprise with their 'hit-and-run' skirmishing tactics, but they also tended to flee from Spanish, Gallic and other aggressive, melee-oriented cavalry. I am afraid that I can't find any evidence indicating that the Numidians were superior to other javelin-armed skirmishing horsemen.

Cheers,
Scott

[rbodleyscott]

Personally I have yet to see the Numidians achieve anything, I think they are awful, but we may just have to differ in opinions there. I was nevertheless dissapointed to find them unprotected average troops, I had expected something to make them stand out, probably being superior.

According to Polybius, Livy, Sallust and Caesar, the Numidians would often catch Roman generals by surprise with their 'hit-and-run' skirmishing tactics, but they also tended to flee from Spanish, Gallic and other agressive, melee-oriented cavalry. I am afraid that I can't find any evidence indicating that the Numidians were superior to other javelin-armed skirmishing horsemen.

Yes, I am afraid it falls into the category of "wargamers myth".

[rbodleyscott]

On this occassion I am referring to real peltasts as used from the Pelopennesian wars onwards into Alexanders period?

I know they are to be represented as LF but are they unprotected or protected??

It would seem wrong to force them to be unprotected.

Thureophoroi told off as skirmishers (Euzonoi) with javelins and thureos do indeed count at Protected.

The earlier peltasts with the smaller and lighter (wicker) pelta don't.

As usual the question arises of where do you draw the line - that is where we chose to draw it.

[miffedofreading]

Thanks guys,

I admit I don't entirely agree with all of your decisions, but you can't please all the people all the time, and I have no problem at all playing the army lists and the rules as they are printed.

Really enjoying the game BTW, please redouble efforts on biblical lists just for me

Ta

Andy
PS Someone tell all the figure manufacturers their velites need MUCH larger shields

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Greetings

I wonder whether the Roman view of the Numidians in the Punic Wars was coloured by the comparatively poor cavalry available to them? Generally the earlier Roman armies do not seem to have coped well with light horse of any description and had to use allies to address the issue.

Roman cavalry in the Punic wars was perfectly good cavalry and defeated Carthaginian/Gallic cavalry on a number of occasions. Their weakness compared to Carthaginian armies was that there weren't enoigh of them - they lost because they were out numbered.

Note also that at Cannae the cavalry facing the Numidians were not defeated by the Numidians but when the other wing of carthaginian cavalry started to attack them in the rear. Numidians were good but had their limitations - and were outclassed by similar Spanish cavalry at a later date IIRC.

While I'm not sure I'd class Roman cavalry as being 'perfectly good' (although my view may just be GRW (generally received wisdom) rather than being right - hence the reference to me needing to go back to the sources) I would agree they seem to usually have been adequate man to man and that their major problem was indeed attributed to lack of numbers compared to their Punic opponents.

Polybius' description of Cannae indeed makes clear that the Numidian role was effectively to pin/nullify the allied horse - who clearly did not cope well wth dealing with them (although admittedly they are likely to have been outnumbered). The allied horse fled when Hasdrubal's cavalry appeared in their rear. The Numidians were then used for pursuit leaving Hasdrubal's Celtic and Iberian cavalry to fall on the Roman rear:

"The Numidian horse on the Carthaginian right were meanwhile charging the cavalry on the Roman left; and though, from the peculiar nature of their mode of fighting, they neither inflicted nor received much harm, they yet rendered the enemy's horse useless by keeping them occupied, and charging them first on one side and then on another. But when Hasdrubal, after all but annihilating the cavalry by the river, came from the left to the support of the Numidians, the Roman allied cavalry, seeing his charge approaching, broke and fled. At that point Hasdrubal appears to have acted with great skill and discretion. Seeing the Numidians to be strong in numbers, and more effective and formidable to troops that had once been forced from their ground, he left the pursuit to them; while he himself hastened to the part of the field where the infantry were engaged, and brought his men up to support the Libyans. Then, by charging the Roman legions on the rear, and harassing them by hurling squadron after squadron upon them at many points at once, he raised the spirits of the Libyans, and dismayed and depressed those of the Romans." {source: Polybius 3.116 from Perseus}

Regards

[miffedofreading]

On this occassion I am referring to real peltasts as used from the Pelopennesian wars onwards into Alexanders period?

I know they are to be represented as LF but are they unprotected or protected??

It would seem wrong to force them to be unprotected.

Thureophoroi told off as skirmishers (Euzonoi) with javelins and thureos do indeed count at Protected.

The earlier peltasts with the smaller and lighter (wicker) pelta don't.

As usual the question arises of where do you draw the line - that is where we chose to draw it.

Richard & Team,
I reread my old Armies of macedon book by Duncan Head. I concede Velites are heavier than most skirmishers and protected is reasonable.
They also rate peltasts as heavier than Psiloi though (as does everyone else) sounds as though peltasts and Psiloi are the same thing under FoG?