Slitherine

Okay, here's something I don't get.

In FOG (I only play digital, presumably this is the case in the tabletop version as well), not only are Spanish Caetrati classed as light infantry (fine by me), but also as ranged skirmishers (or whatever that's called).

But was not FOG developed by the guys at Osprey? And this is what one Osprey title has to say about the Caetrati:

"The caetra was used in conjunction with the falcata sword and the Spanish light infantry were famous for their ability, speed and agility in this type of sword-and-buckler fighting. ... The Iberian swordsman with falcata and caetra should not be excluded from the heavy infantry, for, despite his lack of defensive equipment, his style of sword-fighting verged on the acrobatic, and his caetra and falcata made him more than the equal of any Roman legionary in a straight sword fight."

--Terence Wise, Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC (Oxford: Osprey, 1982), pp. 19 & 21 [boldfacing mine].

So unless this source is in error (and I guess that some might say that it's out of date, going back to 1982, after all), the Caetrati in the game shouldn't function as ranged skirmishers, but maybe more like those units (mostly cavalry?) that can disengage with medium and heavy foot after plowing into them and chopping them up some. It always chafes me in game when my Caetrati face even odds against other javelineers in a straight fight. Caetrati should own other light infantry! No? I could be completely off base here.

>some caetrati are classed as LF w Jls and are unprotected...but some (Lusitanian) are MF impact protected

I suppose designers had reasons for not bumping the LF up a notch in quality somehow...they seem to work quite well as is...overall effect of the Spanish armies is good

Ah, interesting, I didn't notice that the Lusitanian Caetrati were MF impact protected. Thanks for the info!

Osprey are only the publisher of the book version, not involved in the development of the game on PC or tabletop. Our views on history may differ from theirs

Oh dear! Tsk tsk tsk, whatever will the neighbours think? Cheers...

iainmcneil wrote:Osprey are only the publisher of the book version, not involved in the development of the game on PC or tabletop. Our views on history may differ from theirs

I suspect that also applies to the relationship between Osprey and the authors of books like the Men at Arms and Elite series that they publish. I doubt very much that Osprey has a historical review board to insure that all the authros they publish have views that conform withthe official Osprey party line on history .

All things considered I don't see the FoG Spanish lists as being terribly out of line with how they are described in the Men-at-Arms (or Elite, don't remember which it is) about the Spanish.

Chris

That Osprey excerpt seems quite strange and not in line with anything i've read about ancient military history.
Saying that a mostly unarmored caetrari wielding a small shield should be considered heavy infantry up to roman legionary standards because their "acrobatic swordfighting" don't make much sense to me. Heavy infantry an acrobatics don't mix well

In a one to one fight or difficult terrain an expert caetrari could do well, but in a massed fight in close formation and open terrain (what heavy infantry usually does) i wouldn't bet on the caetrai. Not much use for acrobatics in that kind of situations...
IMHO opinion that excerpt seems more off the mark not the FoG list

One would have to wonder where he ever pulled that quote about acrobatic swordsmanship from in the first place. From what I have heard the Spanish with those swords were a nasty combo, but I feel the army works the way it is supposed to as it in the list, but who wouldn't like to see superior lights doing cartwheels and hacking off Legionaries arms and heads
We can only dream of those things. Even Hannibal considered his Spanish allies less reliable than his Africans from what I understand.