Slitherine

Ardaeshir wrote: It seems that prussian pagan subjects provided mostly spearmen and archer infantry. Ex-chieftains who converted to christianity usually became "westernized" in one or two generations and would probably fight as normal mounted vassals. I'd sooner assume large cities like Danzig, Konigsberg or Thorn to field some small amounts of auxilary light cavalry.
In any case, their numbers would be limited. IMHO, FoG has far too many "turkopole" style cavalry asssigned to the Teutonic list.

What the list SHOULD have is half-brother cavalry. Half-brothers played several important roles in the Teutocnic knight society, but when it comes to warfare they fought in a similar fashion to regular knights, but most had cheaper weapons and armor and likely few were as professional as brother knights. So I'd see them as average armored drilled knights.

Interesting stuff there. Do you have any thoughts about the Turkopolen being solely "light horse" rather than "cavalry"? I realise it might be a rather false or artifical way of trying to distinguish between different troop types - but at the moment I have the sense that the turkopolen were primarily skirmishers, not horsemen who charged en masse.

Ardaeshir wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:Another is the issue of the "Turcopoles", or more correctly the Turkopolen, who were light cavalry indigenous to the Baltic region. They certainly consisted of Livonians, who were predominantly horse archers, and the Lithuanians who were light lancers who also carried a bow. There were other pagan, or former pagan, societies in the Baltic region who may also have supplied light horse contingents to the Teutonic army. But it does mean that there is a question about the Turcopole (medium) cavalry in the DAG list. I have not come across these yet in my readings, although I am still waiting to get my hands on Urban's quite recent "Military History of the Teutonic Knights".

It seems that prussian pagan subjects provided mostly spearmen and archer infantry. Ex-chieftains who converted to christianity usually became "westernized" in one or two generations and would probably fight as normal mounted vassals. I'd sooner assume large cities like Danzig, Konigsberg or Thorn to field some small amounts of auxilary light cavalry.
In any case, their numbers would be limited. IMHO, FoG has far too many "turkopole" style cavalry asssigned to the Teutonic list.

What the list SHOULD have is half-brother cavalry. Half-brothers played several important roles in the Teutocnic knight society, but when it comes to warfare they fought in a similar fashion to regular knights, but most had cheaper weapons and armor and likely few were as professional as brother knights. So I'd see them as average armored drilled knights.

I think the assumption in the list is that the BGs of knights are composed of front ranks of the best equipped knights with more lightly equipped troops in the rear/supporting ranks. Therefore the Brother knights should be considered to include the half-brothers within the same BG as providing the back rank troops. Is there any evidence indicating that the half-brother cavalry operated independent of the brother knights on the battlefield?

Chris

stockwellpete wrote:

Ardaeshir wrote: It seems that prussian pagan subjects provided mostly spearmen and archer infantry. Ex-chieftains who converted to christianity usually became "westernized" in one or two generations and would probably fight as normal mounted vassals. I'd sooner assume large cities like Danzig, Konigsberg or Thorn to field some small amounts of auxilary light cavalry.
In any case, their numbers would be limited. IMHO, FoG has far too many "turkopole" style cavalry asssigned to the Teutonic list.

What the list SHOULD have is half-brother cavalry. Half-brothers played several important roles in the Teutocnic knight society, but when it comes to warfare they fought in a similar fashion to regular knights, but most had cheaper weapons and armor and likely few were as professional as brother knights. So I'd see them as average armored drilled knights.

Interesting stuff there. Do you have any thoughts about the Turkopolen being solely "light horse" rather than "cavalry"? I realise it might be a rather false or artifical way of trying to distinguish between different troop types - but at the moment I have the sense that the turkopolen were primarily skirmishers, not horsemen who charged en masse.

Remember that cavalry is quite capable if skirmishing. The lists for the various Baltic peoples also give them the option to deploy their mounted as cavalry or as LH or as a mix of both, whichever you believe is historically more accurate.

Chris

The Teutonic Order was a very centralized and bureaucratic system, in some aspects more similar to XIX century kingdoms than to XIV century ones. There was a goverment system of workshops and smiths who produced weapons for the brother knights, the half-brother knights, the garrisons of verious forts and castles (who were mostly free prussian peasants). There was a special magistrate that was responsible for weapon and armor production who was called "Frater de minori fabrica" and another magistrate responsible for horse equipment such as saddle production who was called "Frater de domo sellarum".

The order also bought a large amount of weaponry and armor from a few specialized private craftsmen living in big cities Many times we even know these people by name - like Master (master in the craftsmen, not order sense) Jakub who in 1409 provided the Order with 32 kettle helms. Master Paul Bernstein in 1409 provided 43 knight shields for the order, including the one used by the Grandmaster of the order Ulrich von Jungingen during the battle of Grunwald in 1410.

For example, we have records from 1391 about the stockpiles of shields. Out of 2360 stored shields, 2150 were a type of infantry pavises called "stormtartschen". Only the remaining 210 were shields for riders. This can be seen as not representative for the entire army however, as it was a city arsenal and no doubt these "goverment issue" weapons would first and foremost go to townfolk raised during war.

We also have stockpiles of armor. in 1409, there were at least 2556 documented sets of armor stockpiled, 994 sets of those were plate armor.

So about the numbers and various military groups:

1) First of all, Brother Knights were rare. In 1400 the largest convent was in Malbork (aka Marienburg) which had 65 brother knights in total. Second largest was in Konigsberg with 51 brother knights, while the strategically vital castle in Golub had only 4 brother knights.
We don't have any precise info on the total number of brother knights before the 1450s, but as you can see their numbers were hardly immense.

2) The second group were the half-brothers. They fulfilled almost all administrative duties that Brother knights did (except very high ranking functions), but they did not take the monastic vows. They were allowed to wear a T-shaped "half-cross" on their cloaks and shields. It seems they were slightly less numerous than brother knights.

3) The most numerous were the so called "serving brothers" who took the vows only for a certain time and then returened to civlian life. They were mostly commoners and the weapons they used was goverment issue. It seems they were some 8-10 times as numerous as Brother knights.

Then we have the "civilian" contingents, which varied greatly. First there were two types of mounted troops:

4) Co called "Rossdienst" (larger noble landowners). People serving under this law were supposed to show up in heavy cavalry garb bringing with himself two other mounted men". Some of those acted as mounted crossbowmen.

5) Then there was the "Platendienst" (smaller noble landowners). These were men that were ordered to show up alone with a lighter armor and one horse. It seems they were more common than the heavier "Rossdienst".

6) Witings, aka free (not serfs) prussian subjects that were mobilized to fight "Sub forma Pruthenicali" (in Prussian fashion). This probably meant archers and light spearmen (the document does not specify what "Prussian fashion" was. It was likely obvious to everyone back then). Some of them, usually from the Warmia region, were mounted and described as "Equites Prutheni" (they were usually raised by local Bishops).

7) Town levies. The Order had several big and rich port cities, so its likely that the regiments from Danzig, Thorn, Elbing, Marienburg or Konigsberg were heavy crossbowmen with large shields. Levies from lesser towns may have been light spearmen, although this last part is my own speculation. According to Nowakowski, the large cties could field some 1900 men each, but a large part of that remained in the city as garrisons.

Peasant levies. Same as all other european powers, though less numerous, mostly because the Order was rather "urbanized" and that a large part of commonfolk were the "free prussians" I already mentioned.

And then we have mercenaries and foreigners:

9) Foreign "guests" or "Crusaders". These were your regular "2nd and 3rd sons" of western noblemen who came to Prussia looking for a religious experience and to fulfill one's duty in the war against pagans. Some probably came looking for "fame, fortune and adventure" as well.

10) "Knechts". They were a sort of "local mercenaries" - poor burghers and perhaps some peasants or social outcasts. They were hired by the order to fight as members of the Brother Knight's mounted entourage. Some probably also acted as infantry (probably spearmen and crossbowmen) and they received "goverment issue" equipment. These "infantry knechts"are similar to the "Large city levies" I mentioned, but probably more disciplined and expirienced.

11) Foreign mercenaries. According to a 1430s paper, they operated in groups of 3 mounted men, two armored lancers and one mounted crossbowman.

In general the mercenaries were paid well, about 2 times more than mercenaries in Polish armies of this period. The afformented "3 mounted men" earned 11 or 12 Grzywna a month. While an equivalent in Polish armies earned some 5 Grzywna.

Sooo... we have at least 11 different categories of potential troops, not including artillery.

Leter on I'll try to make a 500 point army out of that (not including leaders).

I think the assumption in the list is that the BGs of knights are composed of front ranks of the best equipped knights with more lightly equipped troops in the rear/supporting ranks. Therefore the Brother knights should be considered to include the half-brothers within the same BG as providing the back rank troops. Is there any evidence indicating that the half-brother cavalry operated independent of the brother knights on the battlefield?

It is hard to say really. We know that knights operated in groups with several (2-5) mounted knechts for each knight, brother or half-brother alike. Wether we want to use them as "separate" units game-wise is a decision that should be left open for the player, as the sources we have are not precise in taht matter.

stockwellpete wrote:Interesting stuff there. Do you have any thoughts about the Turkopolen being solely "light horse" rather than "cavalry"? I realise it might be a rather false or artifical way of trying to distinguish between different troop types - but at the moment I have the sense that the turkopolen were primarily skirmishers, not horsemen who charged en masse.

Once the order landed in Prussia, the name "Turkopolen" was hardly if ever used. I think the lesser nobles, some cities and maybe some "Equites Prutheni" provided the light horsemen. Were such units fielded in large battles in unknown. Perhaps they acted mostly as scouts, recon and messengers and were relegated to camp duty during battles? Its all open to interpretation, but either way they didn't seem to play a major role in pitched battles.

Fabulous stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share it.

Where has the info come from, if you don't mind me asking? Might you have studied it academically and got into the primary historical sources? Is anything of this detail available on the web anywhere, do you know? I am still waiting for my copy of William Urban's book on the Teutonic knights from the library where I work. It seems to be a very good and highly regarded recent study of the Order.

And do you know the film "Valley of the Bees" by Vlacil? It is about the Order and is much more interesting, in my opinion anyway, than Aleksander Ford's earlier "Knights of the Teutonic Order" (some of it is excruciating to watch ).

On the "turkopolen" - I imagine them as scouts and reconnaisance really and maybe they were used to ambush enemy foragers and scouts and to harass and slow down larger formations of enemy troops. Perhaps that name was used for their light cavalry in the 13thC and then it dropped into disuse quickly after that.

batesmotel wrote: Remember that cavalry is quite capable if skirmishing. The lists for the various Baltic peoples also give them the option to deploy their mounted as cavalry or as LH or as a mix of both, whichever you believe is historically more accurate.

Yes, that's a fair point. These must be the "Oath of Fealty" lists you are referring to here. They have the early Teutonic knights included in them too, I believe.

Ok, here is my 500 point historic Teutonic list (not including leaders), 30 BGs in total. This is to represent a large "field" army of the Teutonic Order like that fielded in the early 1400s. For a "Grunwald 1410" battle you could add more "guests" while lowerign the numbers of prussian troops.
For a late 1300s army, you could add more witings and one more guest, while removing the bombards and mercenaries.

2x Brother Knights&Mounted Knechts - Knights, Heavy Armored, Superior, Drilled, Lancers& Swordmen
9x Mounted Serving Brothers or Half-Brothers - Knights, Heavy Armored, Average, Drilled, Lancers& Swordmen
2x "Rossdienst" Vassals Knights, Heavy Armored, Superior, Undrilled, Lancers& Swordmen
1x "Crusader Guests" Knights, Heavy Armored, Superior, Undrilled, Lancers& Swordmen
4 x "Platendienst" Vassals - Knights, Armored, Superior, Undrilled, Lancers& Swordmen
1 x Foreign Mounted Mercenaries - Cavalry, Armored, Superior, undrilled, Crossbow, Lancers&Swordmen
1x Equites Prutheni - Protected, Average, Cavalry, undrilled, bow, light spear, swordmen

1x Knecht&Serving Brother Spearmen - Heavy Foot, Protected average, drilled, defensive spearmen
1x Knecht&Serving Brother crossbowmen - Medium Foot, Protected average, drilled, crossbow
2x Witing Infantry - Protected, Average, Medium Foot, undrilled, bow, light spear
3x City Levies Spearmen - Heavy Foot, Protected, poor, drilled, defensive spearmen
3x City Levies Crossbowmen - Medium Foot, Protected, poor, drilled, crossbow
1x Peasant Spearmen - Medium Foot, Protected, poor, undrilled, light spear
1x Peasant Bowmen - Medium Foot, unprotected, poor, undrilled, bow

1x Bombard


Notes -
A) It is unclear how large percentage of the infantry were "townfolk" and how many were rural levies. As I said before, the Order was a centralized bureucracy. Its lands were mostly forests, swamps but also some very big and rich cities. Therefore I assumed that out of the "commoner" infantry 6 would be townsfolk, 2 would be rural pesants, 2 would be Witings (rural prussian style infantry).
B) Rossdienst and "Guests" are the same stat-wise. They respresent wealthy large landowning nobles.
C) Prussian horsemen are represented as protected cavalry, but this is my own view. If one wants, they could be seen as protected or unprotected light horse archers, as we really have no sources specifying how these people were armed.
D) Rural foot spearmen are medium foot with ligth spears, not "Defensive spearmen". This is to express the fact taht unlike town levies, they probably did not receive "goverment issue" weaponry. Therefore they might also be depicted as unprotected or even mob if you wish, however definitally not "defensive spearmen" like the printed book says.
E) "Platendienst" are depicted as armored knights (because they are nobles, just poor ones), but if one wants they could be "downgraded" to armored or even protected cavalry. Sources say that they had "light" armor, but this can be understood as "light in comparison with brother knights or rich landowners" and this is how I see it.

Where has the info come from, if you don't mind me asking?

Mostly from Nowak&Stolarczyk "O wojskach Zakonu Szpitala Najświętszej Marii Panny Domu Niemieckiego w Jerozolimie zwanego krzyżackim" (eng: "On the military of the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem, also known as Krzyżacy"). He gives most details, including the description of the weapon&armor stockpiles, as well as the Rossdienst, Platendienst etc. conscription laws.
Some general social info (social classess, rough percentage etc) from Gerard Labuda's "Dzieje Zakonu Krzyżackiego w Prusach"
Some info also from Stefan Kuczyński's "Bitwa pod Grunwaldem" and "Wielka wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411".
English-language sources are few and most are not that good from what I heard (usually taking Dlugosz's anti-Teutonic XV century propaganda as fact). In general, most in-depth sources are in Polish or German.

And if anybody wants to try a game or two with Ardaeshir's Teutonic army then you can now (not possible to create it with the DAG) . . .

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Battle ... 20PWv1.rar

I have added leader flags - "field", "troop" and "troop" - and I have removed 1xBG of "Mounted Serving Brothers or Half-Brothers" so there are now eight of these, not nine. Because this then gives us an army of exactly 500 pts (32BG's).

The opponents are the Poles who also have a 32 BG army.

If you notice any errors please let me know. Thanks.

Ardaeshir wrote: English-language sources are few and most are not that good from what I heard (usually taking Dlugosz's anti-Teutonic XV century propaganda as fact). In general, most in-depth sources are in Polish or German.

The book I mentioned by William Urban is this one . . .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teutonic-Knight ... 443&sr=1-1

I had not heard of Dlugosz before . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_D%C5%82ugosz

stockwellpete wrote: I had not heard of Dlugosz before . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_D%C5%82ugosz

That's him. He is the Polybios of 15th century eastern Europe, if you want a fancy name for it
The information his chronicle provides is massive and the staple period source for all historians dealing with Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Hungary and Germany of this period. However, like Polybios, his personal opinions are somewhat biased as he is a Polish official of the era and his sympathies lie with the Jagiellon dynasty. So while most of his information is in general "solid", one should always remember whose side was he on.

The book I mentioned by William Urban is this one . . .
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teutonic-Knight ... 443&sr=1-1

I'd take a closer look, if I were not so low on income these days, which is a shame naturally

I have removed 1xBG of "Mounted Serving Brothers or Half-Brothers" so there are now eight of these, not nine. Because this then gives us an army of exactly 500 pts (32BG's).

Yeah, taht was likely a typo on my side. My bad.

Another interesting point is about that film I mentioned "Valley of the Bees". Vlacil made it at about the time of the "Prague Spring" in 1968 and really it is a critique of the Stalinised Czech Communist Party (a very centralised and bureaucratic organisation, to use your phrase) that was running the country then - and Vlacil used the Teutonic Order as a metaphor in his polemic to get past the censors.

Well, I've been thinking about this for quite some time and finally decided to post my version of a 500 point Seleukid army from the campaings of Antiochus III in the "upper satrapies" 209 BC -206 BC.

During this "anabasis" Antiochus fought the Hyrkanians, Partians, and Bactrians. He managed to restore Seleucid rule over Carmania, Hyrkania, Bactria and Sogdiana. He forced the Bactrian ruler Euthydemos to become his subject, forced the Parthians into the steppe taking their cities of Hecatomphylos and Syrinx, as well as making his way to India and procuring 150 elephants.

In general this army is somewhat based on the FoG seleucid list, but it features some key differences both becaus eof its "oriental" character, as well as some difference in troop equipment and use in comparison with the armied fielded against the Romans or Ptolemaioi.

2x Hetairoi (Cavalry, armored, elite, drilled, lancers, swordmen)
4x Heavy Median or Persian Cavalry (Cavalry, armored, superior, drilled, lancers, swordmen)
3x Persian or Armenian horse archers (light horse, unprotected, average undrilled, bow)
1x Skythain horse archers (light horse, unprotected, average undrilled, bow, swordmen)
2x Oriental mounted skirmishers like Hyrkanians or Arachosians (light horse, unprotected, average undrilled, javelins)
8x Hypaspist "peltasts" (Medium foot, armored, superior, drilled, offensive spearmen)
2x Colonist Thureophoroi (Medium foot, protected, average, drilled, offensive spearmen)
10x Colonist Phalanx (Heavy foot, protected, average, drilled, pikemen)
2x Babylonian Spearmen (Heavy foot, armored, average, drilled, offensive spearmen)
6x Zagros Hillmen (Medium foot, protected, average, undrilled, bow, heavy weapon)
10 x Persian, median or babylonian archers (light foot, unprotected, average, undrilled, bow)
6x oriental slingers (light foot, unprotected, average, undrilled, bow)
6x oriental javelinmen (light foot, unprotected, average, undrilled, javelin)

Notes:
Heavy cavalry:
We know taht the king brought at least 2 000 personal bodyguards, which were likely elite hetairoi. To taht, we should probably add at least another 2000 - 5000 median cavalry armed in the same fashion. There are no cataphtracts mentioned and indeed it seemes taht Seleukids adopted the cataphract precisely after this campaign as a result of their new expirience against the Parthaian and Bactrian horsemen.

Light Cavalry: We can easily asume that mounted archers as well as javelin-armed horsemen were present. These likely came from Persia, Media but there were possibly allied regiments sent by Xerxes of Armenia or by Skythian tribes.

Heavy&Medium infantry:
Polybios clearly mentions phalangites, though they didn;t seem to paly any major role in this campaign. They were almost certainly macedonian and greek colonists living in cities in Media. Polybios in the fragments concerning Antiochus's campaign reminds us that "to protect it (Media) from the neighbouring barbarians a ring of Greek cities was built round it by the orders of Alexander". These were military colonies, who provided the phalangites in question. So the phalangites were culturally greeks and macedonians loyal to the king and well motivated. They were definitally not "poor" asiatic levies, I rate these as average.

Then we have the case of 10 000 "pelasts". They are mentioned as distinct from pikemen, as during the description of the battle on mt.Labus, it is noted that the baggage train and phalanx had to move therough the gully, but other "more mobile forces" were able to scale the mountain and avoid the ambush. Amongs these men we have some "with big oval shields" who are mentioned separately from "slingers, archers and javelinmen".
Judging from the name "peltast", we could assume these 10 000 were simply some sort of heavy peltast skirmishers. However, there are several faults to such reasoning;

1) If they are skirmishers, then why did Polybios list them separately from all the " "slingers, archers and javelinmen".
2) Antiochus takes these 10 000 peltasts and light troops to accompany his cavalry bodyguard of 2 000 on a suprise strike at a Bactrian heavy cavalry force of 20 000 (and wins the battle). Surely he would not bring just them along if they were simply skirmishers, seeing that they are brought against cavalry, it seems pretty logical that these are large-shield spearmen. Also notice taht Polybios again mentions the 10 000 separately of "ligth troops": " he (Antiochus III) gave orders for the rest of his army to start next day at daybreak; while he himself, with the cavalry and light-armed troops and ten thousand peltasts, started in the night and pushed on at a great rate"
3) At another account, 10 000 seleucid "peltasts" are storming a wall breach during a city siege. Again, hardly a suitable task for unarmored skirmishers.
4) If we add these 10 000 men to all the other "slingers, archers and javelinmen", then we would get an almost entire army of just skirmishers. This seems quite odd, as from all major seleucid battles we have good info about, we know that the majority of seleucid foot were phalangites. Moreover, the number 10 000 in these accounts always refers to Agryraspides, never any other unit.

So, what is my conclusion? That these 10 000 "peltats" that Polybios mentions here are actually the elite Seleucid foot soldiers, variously referrd to as hypaspists, agryraspides or royal foot agema. In big "flat ground" battles like Panion or Magenesia, these appeared in regular phalanx order with a long sarissa, but in special occasions like sieges, force marches or rough terrain they appeared with a large pelta shield (hence why Polybios calls them peltasts) ans a shrter speak akin to Alexander's Hypaspists.
This is hardly my own original thesis mind you, already several people including Kretchmer and professor Kęcik suggested the same thing when researching Seleucid armies.
The upper satrapies campaign was definitally a "rough terrain" one and whenever we see heavy infantry other than the colonist phalanx, they are always the "large shield type" and this is why I decided to portray the 10 000 hypaspists as armored, superior offensive spearmen

Speaking of heavy spearmen, we know taht in previous campaigns (like aganst Antigonos) the Seleukid kingdom fielded Babylonian spearmen. Seeing that mesopotamia and MEdia were the two main supply hubs for this campaign, its hard to imagine that no babylonian spearmen would be present.

We know that the Seleukids often raised large groups of Zagros and Cappadocian hillmen. these medium foot were armed with bows, but were also capable melee infantry. The FoG lists these as "light spears", but surviving antic depictions actually show the hillmen as heavy axemen. Thus I'll depict them as average protected medium foot, bw/heavy weapon infantry.
We can also assume some minor numbers of regular Thureophoroi from the macedonain colonists.

Light foot: We have various archers from Persia and Media, who must have been present in significant numbers. But Polybios directly mentions that "Their (seleukid skirmishers) most deadly weapons however proved to be the slings, which could carry a great distance". Who were these slingers? I sincerely doubt they were cretans, as the seleukides had little to none influence in crete at this time. Asia minor and Greece were well out of their reach as well. So they were Zagros hillmen, persians or perhaps jews. Either way, they would be dressed and acted in the fashion of "oriental" skirmishers rather than the european or cretan style.

Elephants:
We have no info on any elephants taking part in this campaign, moreover, Antioch finishe dthe campaign by procuring 150 elephants from the indian prince, so this would suggest that there were very few if any elephants left in the royal stables (also we learn from the description of the Battle of Raphia that most elephants were caputed by the Ptolemaic soldiers). So no elephants in this campaign.

Chariots:
While we cannot be 100% sure taht no chariots took part in the campaign, it seems at least that they were not fielded in any battle whatsoever. So no chariots in the list.

First effort at an Early Serbian army (1300-1344)

8x Serbian nobles (with bow) 152pts* (three of these as commanders - "field", "troop" and "troop")
12x Greek archers (average) 60pts
2x Greek archers (poor) 8pts
3x Tatar (light horse) 24pts
3x Tatar cavalry 24pts
3x Wallachian cavalry 33pts
2x Western mercenary knights 36pts
4x Voynuks (with spears) 36pts
6x Border foot 30pts
6x Levies 12 pts

So that is 49 BG's.

The * in the Serbian nobles column is because the DAG does not have Serbian nobles with a bow, but in the scenario editor you can use the Russian lance/bow figures and they cost 19pts each - so adding the bow costs another 3 pts. It might also be interesting to use bow* units to signify that the bow has only just been introduced among those nobles. For battles fought towards the end of the period then the bows might be replaced with crossbows.

Ardaeshir wrote: Judging from the name "peltast", we could assume these 10 000 were simply some sort of heavy peltast skirmishers. However, there are several faults to such reasoning;

1) If they are skirmishers, then why did Polybios list them separately from all the " "slingers, archers and javelinmen".
2) Antiochus takes these 10 000 peltasts and light troops to accompany his cavalry bodyguard of 2 000 on a suprise strike at a Bactrian heavy cavalry force of 20 000 (and wins the battle). Surely he would not bring just them along if they were simply skirmishers, seeing that they are brought against cavalry, it seems pretty logical that these are large-shield spearmen. Also notice taht Polybios again mentions the 10 000 separately of "ligth troops": " he (Antiochus III) gave orders for the rest of his army to start next day at daybreak; while he himself, with the cavalry and light-armed troops and ten thousand peltasts, started in the night and pushed on at a great rate"
3) At another account, 10 000 seleucid "peltasts" are storming a wall breach during a city siege. Again, hardly a suitable task for unarmored skirmishers.
4) If we add these 10 000 men to all the other "slingers, archers and javelinmen", then we would get an almost entire army of just skirmishers. This seems quite odd, as from all major seleucid battles we have good info about, we know that the majority of seleucid foot were phalangites. Moreover, the number 10 000 in these accounts always refers to Agryraspides, never any other unit.

So, what is my conclusion? That these 10 000 "peltats" that Polybios mentions here are actually the elite Seleucid foot soldiers, variously referrd to as hypaspists, agryraspides or royal foot agema. In big "flat ground" battles like Panion or Magenesia, these appeared in regular phalanx order with a long sarissa, but in special occasions like sieges, force marches or rough terrain they appeared with a large pelta shield (hence why Polybios calls them peltasts) ans a shrter speak akin to Alexander's Hypaspists.
This is hardly my own original thesis mind you, already several people including Kretchmer and professor Kęcik suggested the same thing when researching Seleucid armies.
The upper satrapies campaign was definitally a "rough terrain" one and whenever we see heavy infantry other than the colonist phalanx, they are always the "large shield type" and this is why I decided to portray the 10 000 hypaspists as armored, superior offensive spearmen

You can add that Aelian (Taktiké Theoria 2.18 ) says “The peltasts have similar equipment to the Macedonian, but lighter: For they carry a pelta and light-weight arms, and spears shorter than a sarissa”.

Middle Serbian "model" army . . .

4x Serbian Nobles (vlastela) 76pts (three of these as commanders, "field", "troop" and "troop")
4x "Bosnian" Nobles (vlastelincici) 68pts (these should really be labelled "lesser Serbian nobles")
8x Serbian light horse (gusars) 64pts
8x Greek archers 40pts
4x Greek archers (LF) 20pts
1x Greek archer 3pts
3x Wallachian mercenaries 30pts
2x Western Knights 36pts
4x Voynuks 36pts
6x Border foot (krajisnici) 30pts
6x Levies 12pts

So that is 50BG's in total.

There is just one qualification that I would like to make - I think it quite likely that there would have been a greater number of western knights in the mid-Serbian army (reign of Stefan Dusan to 1355). The Serbian Crown received large incomes from the mining operations in its territories (gold, silver, copper and other metals) which allowed the king to buy mercenaries. These knights should be "superior", in my opinion, not "average". They also served as a very important political counterweight to a very fractious Serbian nobility. If it was possible to pick 4 western knights from the DAG then I would do so (by losing a few archer and Wallachian mercenary units).

I share the sensibilities in this thread for creating authentic historical armies. There are two philosophies existing in Field of Glory play. There are those (probably the majority) who build their armies to their wishes within the limits of the army lists. And there are others who try and build armies that are more historically realistic or authentic. I'm not saying one philosophy is better than the other, just recognising that there are two schools of thought.

Personally, I'm in the latter, historical category. My philosophy is to adapt myself to my chosen army rather than adapt my army to my own style of play. I see every army as having their own unique flavour. I try to research a little about my chosen army and bring out that flavour, by trying to build the most representative army I can and trying to employ tactics that the army historically used. I see it as a bit like an actor in Ancient Greece would put on a mask and become transformed into their character. So, in FoG I try and embrace my army's philosophy and emulate the way they organised themselves and the style in which they fought.

Regarding map size and 400 point armies. I favour 500 as it allows for a greater ratio of map width for the number of battle groups. Even at this scale I feel FoG favours melee troops. For MF bow armies or horse archer armies I feel they can be a bit constrained by map size and so usually lose against a melee army. I'm willing to give 400 a go, though. I also like inspired generals because I think with the additional initiative and morale bonuses they make much better investments than field commanders for their relative points costs, but I don't mind trying something different if both players are playing by the same self-imposed rules. Also, what about double moves for historical battles? Normally, I always use double moves as they can make battles more dynamic but how realistic are they?

the_iron_duke wrote:I share the sensibilities in this thread for creating authentic historical armies. There are two philosophies existing in Field of Glory play. There are those (probably the majority) who build their armies to their wishes within the limits of the army lists. And there are others who try and build armies that are more historically realistic or authentic. I'm not saying one philosophy is better than the other, just recognising that there are two schools of thought.

Personally, I'm in the latter, historical category. My philosophy is to adapt myself to my chosen army rather than adapt my army to my own style of play. I see every army as having their own unique flavour. I try to research a little about my chosen army and bring out that flavour, by trying to build the most representative army I can and trying to employ tactics that the army historically used. I see it as a bit like an actor in Ancient Greece would put on a mask and become transformed into their character. So, in FoG I try and embrace my army's philosophy and emulate the way they organised themselves and the style in which they fought.

Yes, I couldn't aree more. This is the way that I am interested in playing now and it is completely at odds with the "power-play" philosophy that is required to be successful in competitions.

Regarding map size and 400 point armies. I favour 500 as it allows for a greater ratio of map width for the number of battle groups. Even at this scale I feel FoG favours melee troops. For MF bow armies or horse archer armies I feel they can be a bit constrained by map size and so usually lose against a melee army. I'm willing to give 400 a go, though. I also like inspired generals because I think with the additional initiative and morale bonuses they make much better investments than field commanders for their relative points costs, but I don't mind trying something different if both players are playing by the same self-imposed rules. Also, what about double moves for historical battles? Normally, I always use double moves as they can make battles more dynamic but how realistic are they?

I am playing a number of games a 400pts at the moment with a "field", "troop", "troop" command structure to get a sense of the size and balance between troop types in various medieval armies (I have made a lot of scenarios now so I have a reasonably good idea of the composition of western European armies already). Of course, it is a relatively simple job to increase the army proportionally to 500 or 600pts if required (although you can not always do this without distorting your army). I have tended to play most of my games at 500pts in the past.

I do quite like not having "inspired" commanders because anything that reduces the influence of leaders on the medieval battlefield strikes me as making things more authentic. Quite often the leader would be in the thick of the fighting and would not be able to direct his army much beyond the initial deployments.

I prefer "double-moves" on as it allows flanking movements and much more interesting pre-battle manoeuvering. With it off battles can be plodding affairs at times although in the larger battles (700-800pts) it would be OK to turn that option off as the map is full up with troops anyway.

Does any one have suggestions on Bzyantine armies, 6th Centurty and later?

jimudon wrote:Does any one have suggestions on Bzyantine armies, 6th Centurty and later?

I have found it quite interesting to cross-reference the DAG with another rule-set's armies. For example, a 6thC DBA Byzantine army would look like this (it is 12 units to an army) . . .

http://www.stapells.com/wargames/armies/maurikian.php

So that will give you a comparative idea of the proportions of horse to foot and a rough idea of the different types of horse and foot. And then you can cross-reference further by looking up some of the main battles on a resource like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's always a good first stop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army