Slitherine

Why have Early Anglo-Saxons got 12x superior impact heavy foot noble BG's whereas Early Visigoths have got only 4x superior cavalry BG's?

stockwellpete wrote:Why have Early Anglo-Saxons got 12x superior impact heavy foot noble BG's whereas Early Visigoths have got only 4x superior cavalry BG's?

Clearly because the Saxons were a more noble race than the wandering peasant nomad Visigoths

Seriously though, likly because the Saxons have nothing else except those troops , they need a lot of them to be viable.

I think it should be 3-6, not 3-12. Putting 12 superior impact foot in a block makes them virtually unstoppable in many games. What about head-hurlers? They have them in Total War.

Embrace your Anglo-Saxon heritage. 12 it is written, 12 it shall be...

Seriously though, why no screaching woman or flaming pig units? Oh yeah, wargaming is supposed to be an escape from real life

Didn't they fight in warbands though - which comprised of warriors with varying levels of experience? I don't know how developed their class system and social structure was at this time. If the society did not produce much more than what was needed for general subsistence, then there wouldn't have been much social differentiation. Certainly not enough to warrant 12 BG's of superior foot nobles anyway. What they had was probably an army where some warbands had a certain reputation for "fierceness" centred on certain individuals, nothing more than that really.

Well, I dont claim to know anything about how many warriors they could produce or not but i do know that the FOG system is meant to get the correct ratios/proportions of an army relative to itself and NOT relative to OTHER armies. Otherwise you could never have vikings fight ancient persians(example straight out of the TT rulebook) because "realistically" it would be like 2,000 vs 50,000 for "typical armies"

TheGrayMouser wrote:Well, I dont claim to know anything about how many warriors they could produce or not but i do know that the FOG system is meant to get the correct ratios/proportions of an army relative to itself and NOT relative to OTHER armies.

Yes, OK - and that's what I am referring to really. I am sure all the able-bodied men of a certain age would have fought when necessary and I am sure that there would be some degree of social differentiation. Archaeology has found quite elaborate barbarian military equipment and pottery which suggests that some members of society were not required to farm for a living. This would suggest that Early Anglo-Saxon society was at a similar level to the other barbarian peoples and their armies had similar proportions of "nobles" (more like chiefs, I expect) - so 3-6 for "nobles", 3-12 for superior warrior warbands and 6-24 for average warrior warbands plus your skirmishers.

Otherwise you could never have vikings fight ancient persians(example straight out of the TT rulebook) because "realistically" it would be like 2,000 vs 50,000 for "typical armies"

Yes, I understand and accept your point here.

From Wikipedia. According to Tacitus anyway, the early Anglo-Saxons didn't have nobles as such. There hardly appears to be much social differentiation at all, in fact. If only that were true today! We'd all be much happier.


"The Germania (Latin: De Origine et situ Germanorum, literally Concerning the Origin and Situation of the Germanics[1]), written by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus around 98, is an ethnographic work on the Germanic tribes outside the Roman Empire . . .

. . . In Chapter 7, Tacitus describes their government and leadership as somewhat merit-based and egalitarian, with leadership by example rather than authority and that punishments are carried out by the priests. He mentions (Ch. that the opinions of women are given respect. In Chapter 9, Tacitus describes a form of folk assembly rather similar to the public Things recorded in later Germanic sources: in these public deliberations, the final decision rests with the men of the tribe as a whole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(book)

That smacks of communism.

Hmm, maybe just look at it as the somewhat odd naming conventions Hexwar/Slith have for many BG's. Its not that they are Nobles in the social sence, just noble ethically

Its not like Mongals went around saying send the "best equiped cavalry" around the right and the "less well equiped" to the left, or LRR commanders sending the XI "slack" legion to the rear.

Would be nice if all the BG names were consistant in using either "national" naming conventions or best case translations into English, intead the mixing of both as well as descriptives in lieu of actual names.
Greek cats should be Kataphractoi etc etc

"Slack" legions is by far the silliest offender , especially since they are average quality

TheGrayMouser wrote:That smacks of communism.

Hmm, maybe just look at it as the somewhat odd naming conventions Hexwar/Slith have for many BG's. Its not that they are Nobles in the social sence, just noble ethically

Its not like Mongals went around saying send the "best equiped cavalry" around the right and the "less well equiped" to the left, or LRR commanders sending the XI "slack" legion to the rear.

Would be nice if all the BG names were consistant in using either "national" naming conventions or best case translations into English, intead the mixing of both as well as descriptives in lieu of actual names.
Greek cats should be Kataphractoi etc etc

"Slack" legions is by far the silliest offender , especially since they are average quality

To be fair, the Early Saxon DAG list starts at AD260 and goes past 500AD so that is well after Tacitus was writing - and I am sure that there must be scholarly tomes out there that have studied the impact of Roman society (military conquest, trade, settlement etc) on the barbarian tribes - and I think it likely that this contact accelerated social stratification and the emergence of kingship among them amongst other things.