Anatolian Turcoman - Full Army

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:03 pm

Since I questioned whether there would be a full army list; Richard suggested I take a stab at it. I will be the first to admit that I am NOT an expert on the era or the army in particular. I brought it up since DBM/DBA have separate lists and I have a pile of unpainted lead

Starting with the basics by expanding the Ally list in conjunction with the DBM list, I get:

Heavy Cav 6-12
Light Cav 6-18
Light Cav (LH) 8-30
Foot Archers - either LF or MF 6-24
Spearmen 6-24
Add optional troops:
Light Arty 0-2 after 1380
Mob 0-8

This allows 800+ points with some flexibility.

Thoughts??

John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:25 pm

Not sure whether there is evidence for so many spearmen.

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am

Weeelllll..........

Scaling up the DBM list gives about 90 bases of infantry, up to half of which can be Spear.

Didn't find any references that detailed any specific amounts of foot, just mounted.

BTW: How many men does a base represent?

John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:13 am

recharge wrote:Weeelllll..........

Scaling up the DBM list gives about 90 bases of infantry, up to half of which can be Spear.

Didn't find any references that detailed any specific amounts of foot, just mounted.

BTW: How many men does a base represent?

From the point of view of army lists, that is unimportant, as the numbers in army lists are based on proportion within the historical army, not on actual numbers.

This is because, to fit the number of bases we use on the table, many armies need to be scaled up or down.

The army lists are supposed to represent the main army of each state, however big or small, not task forces including an unusual ratio of troops. Despite this, the minima and maxima are fairly gewnerous which, in practice, allows a fairly wide variation in composition.

I will post the guidance that we issue to new list contributors as a sticky - when I find them.

tadamson · Post by **tadamson** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:23 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Not sure whether there is evidence for so many spearmen.

Depends on what/who the list is covering.

Turkoman started as a , somewhat derogatory, term for the poor, mostly turkic, tribesmen who expanded into areas depopulated by the wars. They were mostly herdsmen with flocks of sheep and goats but some practiced arable farming and others were assimilated locals who hadn't moved out. As time passed, many served as auxiliary troops, fighting for money, loot or glory. Tribal chieftans got richer and more powerful, they then consolidated their power and started tribal states (still calling themselves turkoman but now with some pride. Sizeable armies could be raised by charismatic (or rich) leaders.

Some armies were entirely, or largely mounted, others (including some in the first crusade) were mostly infantry with javelins as the prime weapons.

The archetypal turkoman warrior was a lightly armoured horse archer, with bow, sword and often a light lance. Leaders and wealthy individuals had better kit and tended to acquire armour, though they would still fight within the tribal group. Some leaders would have enough well equipped family, friends, guards etc (even small units of ghilman) to form bases of heavier cavalry. There is no direct evidence of the heavies forming distinct BGs. (though Nik read through most of the Arab sources recently, and will, i hope, comment)

So a variable list with a lot of 'low end' troops sounds fine. Infantry would have some in the traditional 1 rank spear, 1 rand sword, 1 rank bow organisation, but others more akin to "mob of hillmen" formations.

Armies could be surprisingly large for the period, but were not well disciplined.

Tom..

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:55 pm

I think some dates need to be defined for this discussion to make sense.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:15 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I think some dates need to be defined for this discussion to make sense.

Presumably the list is intended to cover the Anatolian emirates (apart from the Ottomans, Black Sheep Turcomans and White Sheep Turcomans) from the collapse of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (finalised in 1307) until their (second) conquest by the Ottomans by 1468.

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:30 am

OK, I reworked the numbers based on the guidelines you posted. I get:

Heavy Cavalry 4-20
Light Cavalry Cv/Lh 12-54
Foot Archers Mf/Lf 4-20
Spearmen 4-20
Mob 0-8
L. Arty 0-2

These minima give 240 points and the maxima gives 1190 without the arty.

Remember please that I am not disputing anyone's historical knowledge; just trying to maximize lead utilization

John

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:50 am

tadamson wrote: Infantry would have some in the traditional 1 rank spear, 1 rand sword, 1 rank bow organisation,

I have severe doubts about that at this date - all the evidence for it is much earlier IIRC, it was very much an Arab thing.

tadamson · Post by **tadamson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:20 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
tadamson wrote: Infantry would have some in the traditional 1 rank spear, 1 rand sword, 1 rank bow organisation,

I have severe doubts about that at this date - all the evidence for it is much earlier IIRC, it was very much an Arab thing.

Starts very early and seems to be an Arab tactic. Though its still seen in a 13th c Ghurid army (with supporting naptha troops).

Dates are pretty wide though, Anatolian turkomen armies were the first opponents of the 1st Crusade, and others fought against Timur over 300 years later.

Tom..

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:52 am

tadamson wrote:Dates are pretty wide though, Anatolian turkomen armies were the first opponents of the 1st Crusade, and others fought against Timur over 300 years later.

But the list (if it is meant to be the equivalent of the DBM list as John stated) is only intended to cover from circa 1260 AD.

And even if it wasn't, are you seriously suggesting that Daneshmends in Anatolia had Arab style infantry?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:23 am

tadamson wrote:Though its still seen in a 13th c Ghurid army (with supporting naptha troops).

Really? Which source does that come from. When I trawled through the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, etc. I found no real references to bows used by Ghurid infantry and no real details of how the infantry fought.

tadamson · Post by **tadamson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:48 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
tadamson wrote:Though its still seen in a 13th c Ghurid army (with supporting naptha troops).

Really? Which source does that come from. When I trawled through the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, etc. I found no real references to bows used by Ghurid infantry and no real details of how the infantry fought.

It was Brendan that came up with it, a long time back when we were discussing Ghurids and/or Naptha troops. I'll have to look into files on my old computer when I get back home this weekend (cos we didn't cite our sources on TNE!). I'm pretty sure it was one of the Persian historians.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:22 pm

If you do it'd be best to start a new topic on Ghurid foot rather than continuing to hijack this topic

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:12 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:If you do it'd be best to start a new topic on Ghurid foot rather than continuing to hijack this topic

Well, if no ransom demands are made

John

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:11 am

recharge wrote:OK, I reworked the numbers based on the guidelines you posted. I get:

Heavy Cavalry 4-20
Light Cavalry Cv/Lh 12-54
Foot Archers Mf/Lf 4-20
Spearmen 4-20
Mob 0-8
L. Arty 0-2

These minima give 240 points and the maxima gives 1190 without the arty.

Remember please that I am not disputing anyone's historical knowledge; just trying to maximize lead utilization

John

Well, back to this one which I believe meets the sticky for guidleines

John