Khmer

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:25 pm

Seems FoG even helps in getting some of those we already considered lost back to the gaming table. Only problem is one of them currently owns only Khmer. Since it's a save bet we won't see an official Khmer list for at least another year I'm tried to put one together myself. However while I know a bit about Indian armies, everything farther east is basically beyond my knowledge. Hence this list is basically a conglomeration of army lists from other systems, some internet research and some extrapolating from Indian armies.

I'm especially unsure on the cavalry and the armored infantry. I'm also wondering if those chariots should be included (so far I opted not to do so).

Thanks,

Karsten

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:39 pm

Seems a plausible starting point.

What side-arms did the Armoured infantry use?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:41 pm

IIRC the book I have illustrating the Angor Wat, etc. reliefs do not show any side arms for the infantry.

Also it suggests that there are no separate bodies of Ph'kak men but that they are officers.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:44 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:IIRC the book I have illustrating the Angor Wat, etc. reliefs do not show any side arms for the infantry.

Also it suggests that there are no separate bodies of Ph'kak men but that they are officers.

Which being the case, the armoured infantry should not get swordsmen capability.

As Nik says, probably no separate ph'kak men.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:31 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Which being the case, the armoured infantry should not get swordsmen capability.

As Nik says, probably no separate ph'kak men.

Ok, removing the ph'kak men is fine (I'm not sure anyone makes minis for them anyway).
Removing the swordsmen from the armoured infantry might be justifiable, but afaik these were standing troops as well as something of an elite? Without swordsmen capability they are barely better then the drafted (unarmoured) infantry. One option would be to downgrade the unarmoured to poor, but I think that would make for a rather weak army overall (although I admit I've no real idea what their opponents did field).

Karsten

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:43 pm

Ghaznavid wrote:Removing the swordsmen from the armoured infantry might be justifiable, but afaik these were standing troops as well as something of an elite? Without swordsmen capability they are barely better then the drafted (unarmoured) infantry. One option would be to downgrade the unarmoured to poor, but I think that would make for a rather weak army overall (although I admit I've no real idea what their opponents did field).

I would think that protected, drilled infantry would already enjoy a significant advantage over unprotected, undrilled infantry, so adding swordsmen capability to the former is probably "overkill."

Cheers,
Scott

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:05 pm

ars_belli wrote:I would think that protected, drilled infantry would already enjoy a significant advantage over unprotected, undrilled infantry, so adding swordsmen capability to the former is probably "overkill."

Granted, but Khmer infantry seems to have used two distinct types of shields. The smaller ones justify unprotected, but unless rather flimsy the large ones suggest protected, hence they got both options.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:39 pm

Ghaznavid wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:Which being the case, the armoured infantry should not get swordsmen capability.

As Nik says, probably no separate ph'kak men.
Ok, removing the ph'kak men is fine (I'm not sure anyone makes minis for them anyway).

Karsten

grumpy's miniatures does the ph'kak men.

i painted one of these armies awhile back.

i seem to remember (it was almost 10 years ago) some dispute about the use of ph'kak at all. maybe there were mostly ceremonial? i forget.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:45 pm

Ghaznavid wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:Which being the case, the armoured infantry should not get swordsmen capability.

As Nik says, probably no separate ph'kak men.
(although I admit I've no real idea what their opponents did field).

Karsten

khmer were heavily influenced by hinduism, and hindu armies. so you'll want to model them on those.

as for the opponents? there's a chinese traveller/historian who states that the opponents were "rushing" armies of thai and vietnamese, i.e. unprotected impact foot, .

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:52 am

Anyone serious about designing a Khmer army really must consult The Armies of Angkor; Military Structure and Weaponary of the Khmers, by Michel Jacq-Hergoualc'h, published by Orchid Press and available online from Abe Books.

It has lots of line drawings based on Angkor Wat, Bayon and Banteay Chamar. It also has excellent photos from these sites.

On chariots, he concludes, "We cannot therefore say there was ever a single example of a chariot in Cambodia, but if there were any, they did not take part in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, in armed combat." p. 52

On shields, he goes into great detail about the different types of round and long "bucklers".

On "body armour", he notes that it is soldiers of higher rank riding elephants and horses that tend to have the the special wrap around form of breastplate, rather than infantry.

The most common infantry weapon is the "lance", followed by the bow. Swords and sabres tend to be found in the hands of elephant and horse riders. The phka'k axe is carried mainly by elephant and horse riders at Angkor Wat (but not infantry) and by some foot soldiers at the Bayon and Banteay Chmar (suggesting the DBM limit of just 4 Blade fast axemen is about right in proportion to the rest of the army, possibly a little high).

Cheers!
Stephen

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:31 am

However, IIRC, the ph'kak men are not grouped together and the writen part of the book contains the suggestion that they are officers. The DBM list's Bd are only viable if the ph'kak users were grouped.

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:38 pm

I am not sure if iagree with all the protected infantry. A moderate sized shield and padded armor does not seem to be enough to rate a soldier as protected for army troop types based on the rules description AND in cases of battles with ahistorical opponents.

Being rated as protected for battles against only historical opponents ,especially those with less protection would be reasonable. I am sure that how to rate based on this issue may need more study.

I have obtained the work mentioned by Zoltan through the Inter-Library loan program at my local library. The program is a great way to obtain difficult to find books.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:51 pm

Rudy_Nelson wrote:
I am not sure if iagree with all the protected infantry. A moderate sized shield and padded armor does not seem to be enough to rate a soldier as protected for army troop types based on the rules description AND in cases of battles with ahistorical opponents.

You only need to rate them against historical opponents for their FoG classification.

Rudy_Nelson wrote:
I have obtained the work mentioned by Zoltan through the Inter-Library loan program at my local library. The program is a great way to obtain difficult to find books.

True - although I found this particular book easily available on Abebooks when I got it a few months ago.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:52 pm

zoltan wrote:The most common infantry weapon is the "lance", followed by the bow. Swords and sabres tend to be found in the hands of elephant and horse riders.

Sounds a bit like the spear was usually retained for hand-to-hand combat rather then thrown? Or did they carry several spears? Maybe it's worth considering classing them as Spears?

Thanks,

Karsten

domblas · Post by **domblas** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:45 am

and what about light artillery on elephants? wich is the originality of this army.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:02 am

domblas wrote:and what about light artillery on elephants? wich is the originality of this army.

Now thought to be non-existent sadly. The depictions are now thought to show transport elephants.

domblas · Post by **domblas** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:31 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
domblas wrote:and what about light artillery on elephants? wich is the originality of this army.
Now thought to be non-existent sadly. The depictions are now thought to show transport elephants.

iiiiik what am i gonna do of my nicelly painted artillery on elephants!!!! bagages i presume
snif

richard when do u estimate khmer army list to be published?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:38 am

If the list has artillery use them as that - look too cool to not use IMO

Mind you I'm not convinced there isn't one depiction that looks as though they may be shooting from elephant top - but in the rules they'll still just be artillery.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:22 pm

domblas wrote:richard when do u estimate khmer army list to be published?

First half of 2009 hopefully.

domblas · Post by **domblas** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:22 pm

hi

don't u forget naphta throwers. i red that khmer did receive some from chineses.

edward