Arab Conquest troop classifications?

Agesilaus · Post by **Agesilaus** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:39 pm

Anyone have any thoughts on how the Arab Conquest army circa Battle of Yarmuk will be clasified in FOG? I'm wondering how I should rebase some figures. I suppose the impetuosity can be represented by troops being Undrilled, Superior, and either Unprotected or Protected, with only a few Armoured?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:33 pm

Agesilaus wrote:Anyone have any thoughts on how the Arab Conquest army circa Battle of Yarmuk will be clasified in FOG? I'm wondering how I should rebase some figures. I suppose the impetuosity can be represented by troops being Undrilled, Superior, and either Unprotected or Protected, with only a few Armoured?

HF, Protected, Offensive Spearmen for the main foot

Cavalry, Protected, Lancers, Swordsmen (which can dismount as above) for the Jund cavalry.

Agesilaus · Post by **Agesilaus** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:22 pm

Thanks Richard.

What about the early Arab Conquest troops rated as LMI/LHI in the old 7th Edition lists? Will there be any such troops (MF?) in FOG, or do I need to start rebasing?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:08 am

Agesilaus wrote:Thanks Richard.

What about the early Arab Conquest troops rated as LMI/LHI in the old 7th Edition lists? Will there be any such troops (MF?) in FOG, or do I need to start rebasing?

MF Light spear Superior or Average for the Arab ones.

MF Protected or Armoured, Superior, Impact Foot, Swordsmen for the Dailami

Agesilaus · Post by **Agesilaus** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:46 am

Thanks Richard! So I can still trot out my fanatical Arab horde, based as MF, with all Superiors isntead of all Irreg A? Obviously the extras would be Average.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:59 am

Agesilaus wrote:Thanks Richard! So I can still trot out my fanatical Arab horde, based as MF, with all Superiors isntead of all Irreg A?

Well the bulk of the foot should be HF, Offensive Spearmen, but I doubt if anyone will quibble over the base depth difference if you use your current basing.

Switzer · Post by **Switzer** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:07 pm

What about the archers- they were either attached or separate depending on how you read the sources

The early arabs mainly stood and took it until a suitable moment arrived - they werent spartans so
offensive spear seems a bit excessive - yarmuk lasted for 5 days before they went forward.
Not that offensive.
Surely superior or elite defensive might be a possibility

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:24 pm

Will the camels be poor or average ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:27 am

What camels?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:37 am

Switzer wrote:
What about the archers- they were either attached or separate depending on how you read the sources

Both will be allowed.

Switzer wrote:
The early arabs mainly stood and took it until a suitable moment arrived - they werent spartans so
offensive spear seems a bit excessive - yarmuk lasted for 5 days before they went forward.
Not that offensive.
Surely superior or elite defensive might be a possibility

Do not confuse basic tactical doctrine with how they may have been asked to behave at a particular battle. SInce you mention Spartans their behavoiur at Thermopylae was basically just as defensive as the Arabs at al-Yarmouk. Ditto Plataia for more mased Greek hoplites.

The Arabs most defensive battles were against opponents whose main strike arm was their cavalry - Romans and Sasanids - and Offensive Spearmen do not have to test not to charge mounted so can easily remain on the defensive. Against more foot based armies - the Ridda wars are a good example - they were quite keen to attack.

Within FoG their best classification is easily Offensive Spearmen.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:41 am

nikgaukroger wrote:What camels?

Based on previous interpretations of this list, they were allowed camel scouts and camels disguised as horses/elephants. I wondered if these would be covered

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:54 pm

On checking back to the draft I find that we have allowed a single BG of Unprotected Camelry with Bow, Superior or Average. Could be interesting to use

The disguised ones were only used at Qadisiyya, IIRC, and so are only allowed then - Poor, Protected, less useful I think

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:35 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:On checking back to the draft I find that we have allowed a single BG of Unprotected Camelry with Bow, Superior or Average. Could be interesting to use

Slipping up in your anti camel crusade there aren't you Nik

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:17 pm

hammy wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:On checking back to the draft I find that we have allowed a single BG of Unprotected Camelry with Bow, Superior or Average. Could be interesting to use
Slipping up in your anti camel crusade there aren't you Nik

ate camel in outback australia. remarkably like beef.

so there might still be a use for them nik.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:15 pm

One hump or two ?

Arab Conquest troop classifications?

Arab Conquest troop classifications?

Re: Arab Conquest troop classifications?