Slitherine

Hello! The new East African lists for Ancients and Medieval got me thinking. Would it be possible to include any West African list in the game?

Probably the easiest one to implement would be a 1464-1500 for Songhay, for the reign of Sunni Ali and the early part of Askia Muhammad's.

A list for Kanem-Bornu also might be doable, especially taking into account that later visual evidences correlate well with models already in-game, but early sources about its composition are more scarce.

I don't have any information.

Can you supply proposed lists with eivdence?

Yes. For Songhay we have the Tarikh al-sudan, the Tarikh al-fattash, the account of Leo Africanus and the records from the Saadi expedition in Songhay. The sources were all written later, but the two first were composed using earlier sources, both oral and written, and the latter reflect Songhay realities in the late XVIth century. However, due to the Tarikhs, we know that the military of Songhay didn't substantially change between the reign of Sunni Ali and the collapse of Songhay, other than a high level reorganisation of the distribution of forces under Askia Muhammad and the incorporation of a 4000 strong cavalry force of eunuchs in the last years of Songhay rule.

Overall, we know that the Songhay army was based on a cavalry core of Songhai ethnical extraction, supplemented by infantry of (mostly) unfree status. I'll cite John Hunwick in Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire:

We may thus best understand al-Sadi's term 'Songhay folk' by thinking of it as representing a cavalry-based group of clans constituting a ruling class superimposed on agricultural, hunting and fishing populations and, despite taboos on intermarriage with them,71 no doubt genetically intermingled with them, and also with captives from other neighbouring groups. The model would thus be one analagous to that of the Mande horsemen who conquered Gonja and remained as a ruling elite.

The importance of cavalry is also reflected in the primary sources, as they are ones mentioned the most in the sources when talking about armies:

One day when Akil and Timbuktu-koi "Umar were sitting together on the hillock of Amadia, Sunni "Ali's cavalry appeared, standing at the river's edge on the right bank

Ismail gave charge of the cavalry to Kurmina-fari Hammad W. Aryu, who pursued him until he caught up with him, and engaged him in battle. The unbeliever [Bakabiila] kept them at bay, and when the news reached the askiya, he sent word to the Kurmina-fari to hold out until he could get there in person. So the Kurmina-fari urged his soldiers on, saying, 'Sud (an expression of encouragement of theirs), 'You know full well, without a shadow of a doubt, that when the askiya
comes he must find we have acquitted ourselves well, so to battle!' The unbelievers then killed nine hundred of their horsemen, but they killed Bakabiila and the pagans (al-mushrikiin) and took so much booty that, in the market of Gao, a slave was sold for 300 cowries


In the sources it is stated that the Askia, the Kanfari and the Balma'a had each a contingent of the army as a standing force. John Hunwick in African Dominion and others see in this, and some other things, traces of professionalism amongst those forces, mostly cavalry.

Standard Songhay armies probably were a third cavalry to two thirds infantry. We know that the Askia had a 9000 force in Gao, with 3000 cavalrymen and 6000 infantry. The 3000 cavalry number is given by Leo Africanus, and because of the entourage the Askia took on his pilgrimage to Mecca (500 cavalry, 1500 infantry), Hunwick estimates the above 9000. There is also the numbers of the battle of Tondibi. The Tarikh al-sudan gives a 30000 infantry and 12500 cavalry figure, while the Tarikh al-fattash gives a 9700 infantry to 18000 cavalry figure. I believe that the first number reflects standard Songhay ratios (and a large normal army) while the second reflects better the actual numbers of the battle. The Tarikh al-fattash was written by sponsor of the Arma regime, who were descendants of the Moroccan expedition, so he has no incentive to give a smaller Songhay figure. However, it gives the lower number, and less infantry. We know that the Songhay response to the invasion was disjointed, so the higher number of cavalry can be explained by their standing force status, and the higher speed of their marches, while the lower infantry numbers are explained by the slower mobilization of the unfree infantry (many from southern provinces or the banks of the Niger river) and the lack of the contingents from important provinces of the empire (like Dendi).

Songhay cavalry fought with what in game is conceptualised as light spear and with swords. There are multiple references of spears thrown in melee, as well as thrusting. They also used helmets and shields, and there are some vague Saadian references to armor (mail probably, and rather uncommon). The infantry were mostly archers, as it is recorded in the Saadian accounts and in Leo Africanus, who says talking about Songhay:

The king has a special palace set aside for a huge number of wives, concubines, slaves, and eunuchs assigned to watch over these women. He also has a sizeable guard of horsemen and foot soldiers armed with bows.

The account of a Spanish spy in Morocco also supports this:

This army could have been more than 80,000 men, including 8,000 horsemen, mounted, however, on small horses. Some bore lances, but they were few, because of the shortage of such persons. The others were armed with javelins
which they threw at their enemies. The foot soldiers were all archers.

Hence it will be necessary, beyond the troops the king maintains in this land, and which are necessary in order to retain what has been conquered and maintain it in peace, to send considerable new forces to undertake the new conquest. The greater part of these forces will have to be made up of musketeers, on whom success depends in these regions; for otherwise the Blacks are all archers, and without firearms, these arrows are very dangerous for these people, because they carry few defensive arms on their persons to ensure their safety

They also used Tuareg contingents, since Timbuktu and other areas had previously been ruled by them, and there are records of Songhay armies of mostly Tuareg extraction, as well as Tuareg contingents in majority Songhay armies.

I am trying to get the internal primary 16th century sources about Kanem-Bornu, because a reference in Leo Africanus reinforces the later 19th century sources, but he is a problematic source talking about Bornu because he did not go there.

In addition, preparing for this thread, I have discovered some sources from which a tentative 15th century Hausalands list can be made, if it is interesting.

Changdao wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 1:22 pm Yes. For Songhay we have the Tarikh al-sudan, the Tarikh al-fattash, the account of Leo Africanus and the records from the Saadi expedition in Songhay. The sources were all written later, but the two first were composed using earlier sources, both oral and written, and the latter reflect Songhay realities in the late XVIth century. However, due to the Tarikhs, we know that the military of Songhay didn't substantially change between the reign of Sunni Ali and the collapse of Songhay, other than a high level reorganisation of the distribution of forces under Askia Muhammad and the incorporation of a 4000 strong cavalry force of eunuchs in the last years of Songhay rule.

Overall, we know that the Songhay army was based on a cavalry core of Songhai ethnical extraction, supplemented by infantry of (mostly) unfree status. I'll cite John Hunwick in Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire:

We may thus best understand al-Sadi's term 'Songhay folk' by thinking of it as representing a cavalry-based group of clans constituting a ruling class superimposed on agricultural, hunting and fishing populations and, despite taboos on intermarriage with them,71 no doubt genetically intermingled with them, and also with captives from other neighbouring groups. The model would thus be one analagous to that of the Mande horsemen who conquered Gonja and remained as a ruling elite.

The importance of cavalry is also reflected in the primary sources, as they are ones mentioned the most in the sources when talking about armies:

One day when Akil and Timbuktu-koi "Umar were sitting together on the hillock of Amadia, Sunni "Ali's cavalry appeared, standing at the river's edge on the right bank

Ismail gave charge of the cavalry to Kurmina-fari Hammad W. Aryu, who pursued him until he caught up with him, and engaged him in battle. The unbeliever [Bakabiila] kept them at bay, and when the news reached the askiya, he sent word to the Kurmina-fari to hold out until he could get there in person. So the Kurmina-fari urged his soldiers on, saying, 'Sud (an expression of encouragement of theirs), 'You know full well, without a shadow of a doubt, that when the askiya
comes he must find we have acquitted ourselves well, so to battle!' The unbelievers then killed nine hundred of their horsemen, but they killed Bakabiila and the pagans (al-mushrikiin) and took so much booty that, in the market of Gao, a slave was sold for 300 cowries


In the sources it is stated that the Askia, the Kanfari and the Balma'a had each a contingent of the army as a standing force. John Hunwick in African Dominion and others see in this, and some other things, traces of professionalism amongst those forces, mostly cavalry.

Standard Songhay armies probably were a third cavalry to two thirds infantry. We know that the Askia had a 9000 force in Gao, with 3000 cavalrymen and 6000 infantry. The 3000 cavalry number is given by Leo Africanus, and because of the entourage the Askia took on his pilgrimage to Mecca (500 cavalry, 1500 infantry), Hunwick estimates the above 9000. There is also the numbers of the battle of Tondibi. The Tarikh al-sudan gives a 30000 infantry and 12500 cavalry figure, while the Tarikh al-fattash gives a 9700 infantry to 18000 cavalry figure. I believe that the first number reflects standard Songhay ratios (and a large normal army) while the second reflects better the actual numbers of the battle. The Tarikh al-fattash was written by sponsor of the Arma regime, who were descendants of the Moroccan expedition, so he has no incentive to give a smaller Songhay figure. However, it gives the lower number, and less infantry. We know that the Songhay response to the invasion was disjointed, so the higher number of cavalry can be explained by their standing force status, and the higher speed of their marches, while the lower infantry numbers are explained by the slower mobilization of the unfree infantry (many from southern provinces or the banks of the Niger river) and the lack of the contingents from important provinces of the empire (like Dendi).

Songhay cavalry fought with what in game is conceptualised as light spear and with swords. There are multiple references of spears thrown in melee, as well as thrusting. They also used helmets and shields, and there are some vague Saadian references to armor (mail probably, and rather uncommon). The infantry were mostly archers, as it is recorded in the Saadian accounts and in Leo Africanus, who says talking about Songhay:

The king has a special palace set aside for a huge number of wives, concubines, slaves, and eunuchs assigned to watch over these women. He also has a sizeable guard of horsemen and foot soldiers armed with bows.


They also used Tuareg contingents, since Timbuktu and other areas had previously been ruled by them, and there are records of Songhay armies of mostly Tuareg extraction, as well as Tuareg contingents in majority Songhay armies.

Following all of this, the list could have two thirds infantry, with standard massed archers using both the medium archers model and the expert nubian archers, to reflect differences between archers from southern provinces and archers of northern provinces. Also, maybe throw in some archer skirmishers, but not too many. The Songhay cavalry should be light spear/swordsmen cavalry, average or above average and protected (the closest model probably would be the Bedouin light horse with darker skin, but if not Beja cavalry or the veteran cavalry (bow) of the Blemmyes might do the trick). Some light javelin horse might be appropiate, to represent skirmishing Songhay and Tuareg.In addition, they should have access to some Tuareg lancers (up to 5 or so) and maybe a few Tuareg foot.

For the Hausalands army, there would have been four distinct elements. First, the heavy lancers in the Sahelian tradition equipped with quilted cotton armor for rider and horse and/or mail (rare at this point in time and in this area, though more common in Sudan or Bornu). These lancers are part of an old tradition originated in the Sudan possibly in antiquity (there is a reference during Ptolemy II campaign in Nubia and a possible Meroitic stone graffiti), but surely there in the Middle Ages (there are graffiti from Christian Nubian kingdoms), possibly spread in the Early Middle Ages from the Sudan to the west. Thanks to 19th century sources, we know that they extended to Bornu, Hausaland, Nupeland and the northern Cameroon grasslands. Moreover, in the Tarikh al-sudan they are mentioned as part of Hausa forces in 1554, but there is no reason to believe it would not have been there in the previous century:

The twenty-four Songhay horsemen encountered four hundred Katsina horsemen in quilted armour at a place called Karfata

Leo Africanus refers to a Hausa kingdom in Kano before the Kebbi hegemony in the late 15th century/early 16th century as follows:

Formerly their king was very powerful; he had an important court and numerous cavalry, so much so that the kings of
Zegzeg and Katsina were his tributaries

In addition to the heavy lancers, there is the more numerous Hausa/Fulani riders of the lighter West African tradition, initiated by the Berbers. These fought with light spear/swords, and used little armour (some cotton or metalic protections/decorations for the horse, as can be seen in precolonial drawings or even in modern Hausa and Kanuri durbars).

Regarding infantry, both archers and spearmen were used in the Hausalands, as recorded in pictorial evidence from the 19th century and the accounts of the Fulani jihad of Usman dan Fodio. There is also accounts of Hausa spearmen assaulting walls in sieges during the 18th century. In addition, there is mentions of camel mounted Tuareg auxiliaries in the 19th century. Since all evidence points that at their presence in northern Hausaland by the late Middle Ages, its not hard to imagine that some would have been present in Hausa armies in the 15th century.

Thus, a potential list could be composed. Hausa armies in the 19th century had a 1:4 cavalry/infantry ratio, and I believe it is reasonable to project this ratio backwards to the 15th century. The heavy lancers (lancers/swordsmen) should be superior and I'd say that an armor rating of Some Armour is fine. a maximum of 3 resonates with the number given in the Tarikh al-fattash and in later sources. The best model available is that of the Nubian Cavalry in Christian Nubia lists.

For the main cavalry, average, Lightly Protected, Light spear/Swordsmen is reasonable. Up to 12, with 5 as mandatory is also reasonable. The Beja cavalry are the closest model (although the model has a lance). Some Tuareg camel lancers (no more than 2, not mandatory) are appropiate as well.

For the infantry, I'd say that 30% melee troops and 70% archers is a good compromise, filling the rest of the list. The melee infantry should be protected light spear/swords medium foot or irregular foot. I'm not sure about this one. The best model is the Arab foot in the latest Christian Nubia list. The archers should be regular massed archers, and the best model is the expert Nubian archers one.

The Cities of Gold army list book (for Field off Glory Renaissance) covers a lot of Western African armies from 1500 onwards. I have no idea if the research in that book is up to date, or if they are at all relevant to the pre 1500 armies, but they might make a good basis for medieval army lists.