Who Deserves Inspirational Commanders

[philqw78]

Since JD asked for evidence for additions and footnotes for army lists and inspired commanders is my pet subject at the moment perhaps we should be putting forwards some evidence. There are obviously a lot of armies who deserve them ( e.g. Sea Peoples), but equally in my, not so well educated opinion, a lot who don't ( e.g. Alexanders succesors, if they were inspired they would have held more of the empire together and disposed of their rivals). If we want to add character to our games and lists this is one of the major areas surely.

So for starters:

Sea Peoples:

Rameses III describes how, despite the fact that "no land could stand before" the forces of the Sea Peoples who destroyed the ancient civilisations of Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant

Cyrus the Great - The clue is in the name

Alexander the Great - see above

Bulgar - Tsar Simeon I - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anchialus

and I'm sure there are many more. But as I am happy for my Chinese cataphracts not to dismount, even though there is no evidence that they didn't, in the same vein I'm not happy for everyone to get Inspired leadership.

phil

[ars_belli]

Just to clarify, are you asking members to provide evidence for historical commanders they believe deserve a mandatory IC rating? Because it is my understanding that, at least for tournament purposes, all AoW armies already have the option of fielding an Inspired C-in-C, provided of course that the player is willing to sacrifice the points necessary to do so. If I am mistaken about this, someone please correct me.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[philqw78]

No your not mistaken.
I found out in a previous post that anybody can have an IC, although I personally disagree, and I wasn't asking for evidence of compulsory IC, as any IC could have got a cold and handed over to his useless brother for the day.
In his 'Favourite Army List' post JD asked for stuff about armies for inclusion in the lists with some proof or quotes where possible. Its just that his post turned into a collection of favourite armies instead of an aid to the list writers. Here we get some footnotes for JD and on a personal aside for me some proof of Inspired Commanders. Possibly for use in future army lists.

phil

[hammy]

I think that Phil feels that unless there is evidence then armies should not be allowed the option of an IC.

At present that is not the way the lists have been written. There may be some armies where an IC is compulsary and also some where there will not be an option of an IC as enough is known to be sure that the army in question bnever had an inspirational leader.

This thread it would seem is a debate on that issue.

Hammy

[philqw78]

No, I've given up on changing the interpretation of the lists, I don't even know how far Slitherine have got. What would be useful though is an informed list of Inspirational Commanders for Army List footnotes, if in time, and to educate me.
Although not giving some armies the option of an IC if lesser known armies do have the option seems unfair to them and me.

[ars_belli]

Well, in the interest of conversation, below is a list of "inspiring" commanders I compiled some years ago, when I was toying with the idea of writing my own miniatures rules. This alphabetical list refers to armies and commanders of the Classical Mediterranean and European world, c. 700 BC - AD 500. The list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor am I suggesting that all of them deserve "Inspired" status in AoW. The only purpose is to help spur some interesting conversation.

Alan (Western): Beler
Armenian: Artaxias I, Tigranes I
Bithynian: Zipoetes, Prusias I
British (Celtic): Boudicca
Carthaginian (Early): Hanno
Carthaginian (Later): Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal
Dacian: Burebistas, Decebalus
Epirote: Pyrrhus
Frank (Early): Merovech
Galatian: Deiotaros I
Gallic: Bellovesus, Brennus, Vercingetorix
German (Early): Arminius, Civilis, Maroboduus
Greco-Bactrian/Greco-Indian: Diodotos I, Euthydemos, Menander
Greek (Hoplite Era): Leonidas, Pausanias, Kimon, Epanimondas, Iphikrates
Hellenistic Antigonid: Antigonos II, Antigonos III, Perseus
Hellenistic Asian: Antigonos I
Hellenistic Egyptian: Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II
Hellenistic Seleukid: Seleukos I
Hunnic: Attila
Illyrian: Bardulis
Indian (Classical): Chandragupta, Ashoka
Lydian: Gyges
Macedonian (Alexandrian): Philip II, Alexander III
Macedonian (Hellenistic): Cassander
Nabatean: Aretas III
Numidian: Jugurtha
Ostrogoth (Early): Odovacar
Palmyran: Odaenathus, Zenobia
Parthian: Arsaces, The Surena, Phraates IV
Pergamene (Attalid/Eumenid): Eumenes I, Attalos I, Eumenes II
Persian (Achaemenid): Cyrus, Artaxerxes III
Persian (Early Sassanian): Ardashir I, Shapur I
Pontic: Mithridates VI
Roman (Early): Servius Tullius, Lars Porsena, Cincinnatus
Roman (Early Republic): Camillus
Roman (Middle Republic): Scipio Africanus, Aemilius Paullus
Roman (Late Republic): Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar
Roman (Principate): Vespasian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus
Roman (Late): Constantine I, Julian, Theodosius I
Samnite: Pontius
Sarmatian: Amage
Skythian/Saka: Ateas
Spanish (Classical): Viriathus
Syracusan: Dionysios I, Timoleon

Hope this helps the discussion continue!

Cheers,
Scott K.

[philqw78]

Because I started it then and from the little/few I know


British (Celtic): Boudicca Obviously inspirational, perhaps not tactically, but that should be the players job

Epirote: Pyrrhus How could a man remembered for the Pyrrhic victory be inspiring

Gallic: Bellovesus, Brennus, Vercingetorix The last one, wasn't he soundly thrashed by Ceaser

German (Early): Arminius, Civilis, Maroboduus Definately Herman

Again, any immediate succesor to Alexander no, otherwise they would have taken the reigns after him

Hunnic: Attila Yes

Persian (Achaemenid): Cyrus, For 'making' the empire yes

Roman (Late Republic): Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar The last one, although he did like to dig in

Roman (Late): Constantine I, For destroying all his competitors


But here is the chance for me to learn more about my hobby. I have learnt so much I would not otherwise know from published lists which have then led me to look elsewhere. And whoever decides, if a decision is taken, it will be subjective based on not a lot of evidence in some cases. But then the writers could just decide to let everyone have an IC

[jre]

I should remind you that the history we have is based on biased sources, usually recorded with a definite agenda. For many non-national armies (tribe confederacies, alliances, mercenary bands) just the fact that they field an army is a sign that somebody highly inspirational is in charge. Just because the Romans preferred to record the names of defeated enemies rather than those that defeated them does not mean they were not there.

As well, an IC does not guarantee any kind of tacticall brilliance or strategic savvy. It just means that the troops are inspired by that leader to do things faster and to keep fighting longer. So you do not need a genius, but someone the troops will be willing to follow anywhere, and those are plentiful in history, even if they just lost their first battle and died...

The skill should lie on the player, not the miniatures.

Jos?©

[ars_belli]

Phil,

I think it might be important to bear in mind what an Inspiring Commander appears to represent in AoW terms. From past discussions, it seems to be intended to indicate an army C-in-C who was capable of controlling and motivating his/her forces to a greater degree than the average general. In other words, it is a special tactical characteristic. I would humbly suggest that this can apply to a general who demonstrated a great deal of tactical skill and motivational success on the battlefield, even if that did not necessarily translate into final strategic victory (or "destroying all his competitors'"). Hannibal is the classic example for this, and IMHO Vercingetorix represents a similar case. Again, I am not suggesting that all (or even most) of the commanders on that list should qualify for IC status. However, and given the above criteria, I think that some of Alex's successors may very well do so, even if they never succeeded in taking over all of his former empire.

It does make for an interesting discussion though, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Scott K.

[whitehorses]

Well, in the interest of conversation, below is a list of "inspiring" commanders I compiled some years ago, when I was toying with the idea of writing my own miniatures rules. This alphabetical list refers to armies and commanders of the Classical Mediterranean and European world, c. 700 BC - AD 500. The list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor am I suggesting that all of them deserve "Inspired" status in AoW. The only purpose is to help spur some interesting conversation.

Alan (Western): Beler
Armenian: Artaxias I, Tigranes I
Bithynian: Zipoetes, Prusias I
British (Celtic): Boudicca
Carthaginian (Early): Hanno
Carthaginian (Later): Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal
Dacian: Burebistas, Decebalus
Epirote: Pyrrhus
Frank (Early): Merovech
Galatian: Deiotaros I
Gallic: Bellovesus, Brennus, Vercingetorix
German (Early): Arminius, Civilis, Maroboduus
Greco-Bactrian/Greco-Indian: Diodotos I, Euthydemos, Menander
Greek (Hoplite Era): Leonidas, Pausanias, Kimon, Epanimondas, Iphikrates
Hellenistic Antigonid: Antigonos II, Antigonos III, Perseus
Hellenistic Asian: Antigonos I
Hellenistic Egyptian: Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II
Hellenistic Seleukid: Seleukos I
Hunnic: Attila
Illyrian: Bardulis
Indian (Classical): Chandragupta, Ashoka
Lydian: Gyges
Macedonian (Alexandrian): Philip II, Alexander III
Macedonian (Hellenistic): Cassander
Nabatean: Aretas III
Numidian: Jugurtha
Ostrogoth (Early): Odovacar
Palmyran: Odaenathus, Zenobia
Parthian: Arsaces, The Surena, Phraates IV
Pergamene (Attalid/Eumenid): Eumenes I, Attalos I, Eumenes II
Persian (Achaemenid): Cyrus, Artaxerxes III
Persian (Early Sassanian): Ardashir I, Shapur I
Pontic: Mithridates VI
Roman (Early): Servius Tullius, Lars Porsena, Cincinnatus
Roman (Early Republic): Camillus
Roman (Middle Republic): Scipio Africanus, Aemilius Paullus
Roman (Late Republic): Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar
Roman (Principate): Vespasian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus
Roman (Late): Constantine I, Julian, Theodosius I
Samnite: Pontius
Sarmatian: Amage
Skythian/Saka: Ateas
Spanish (Classical): Viriathus
Syracusan: Dionysios I, Timoleon

Hope this helps the discussion continue!

Cheers,
Scott K.

Hmm, Ancients aren't really my strongpoint, Feudal & Medieval Period's much more my thing.
But I know of Scipio, Caesar, Alexander, Boudicca, Hannibal, Vercingetorix & Attila, so it's not a totally blank page
I blame Comprehensive education LOL

But playing on my limited knowledge of Ancients, how many battles did Pompey win in his career before his War with Caesar? Presumably he'd had a fairly successful career in the field else he wouldn't have been nicknamed Pompey Magnus? Or was he effectively retired by then?


Cheers,
Jer

[ars_belli]

But playing on my limited knowledge of Ancients, how many battles did Pompey win in his career before his War with Caesar? Presumably he'd had a fairly successful career in the field else he wouldn't have been nicknamed Pompey Magnus? Or was he effectively retired by then?


Cheers,
Jer

Jer,

Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) began his military career in 83 BC at the age of 23, when he sided with Sulla, raising three legions from his home territory of Picenum. He distinguished himself against Marian generals in Italy, and won a number of victories in Sicily and Africa. He also used the threat of his three legions to coerce Sulla into awarding him a triumph in 81 BC.

In 77 BC, Pompey was awarded a special command against Marcus Aemiluis Lepidus (Senior), and defeated him. He fought against the forces of Quintus Sertorius in Spain from 76-71 BC, finally achieving victory after Sertorius was assassinated by one of his own generals. In 71 BC, Pompey returned to Italy in time to participate in the defeat of Spartacus. In the same year, he celebrated his second (extralegal) triumph, and was elected consul in 70 BC.

In 67 BC, Pompey was given a special naval commission to combat the Cilician pirates then ravaging Mediterranean shipping. It took him only three months to wipe them out entirely, and restore shipping traffic across the Mediterranean.

From 66-65 BC, he campaigned in Greece against Mithridates VI of Pontus, winning a number of victories and ultimately conquering the kingdom. In subsequent years Pompey also conquered Armenia, Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine, including the city of Jerusalem. By 62 BC, thanks to his victories much of Asia was firmly under Roman control, and vast amounts of wealth and tax revenues flowed back to the city. Because of this, Pompey was awarded his third (and first legal) triumph in 61 BC.

After the collapse of the First Triumvirate and the onset of civil war in 49 BC, Pompey won a great victory over Caesar at Dyrrhachium in the following year, but failed to follow up when his opponent was most vulnerable. This led to Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus, and his death in Egypt shortly after that. So like Hannibal, Pompey's military reputation is built on a large number of impressive victories, but ultimate defeat in the end.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[malekithau]

I believe all armies should be able to get IC as there is no evidence that supports not allowing them. A typical wargame does not recreate a full army and could represent a wing of an army detached under a commander who is indeed inspiring to those under his command but when part of a larger army reverts to the role of wing commander etc. The documentary evidence in a lot of cases is written by the victors and, as such, is often little more then propaganda. The histories that we read tend to be compressed to the extent the we miss much detail (admittedly it may be missing from soiurce documents anyway) . An example would Mithridates coquest of Asia Minor. Most histories move from the opening of the war to the massacre of 80000 Roman citizens to the victory by Sulla at Chaeronea. Some may mention the defeat of Roman forces in Asia Minor but do we hear who inflicted them? What forces were involved? No. Were these forces led by IC? No one can say for sure but I'm willing to belive they may have been.

Just my 2 cents.

John O

[rbodleyscott]

An example would Mithridates coquest of Asia Minor. Most histories move from the opening of the war to the massacre of 80000 Roman citizens to the victory by Sulla at Chaeronea. Some may mention the defeat of Roman forces in Asia Minor but do we hear who inflicted them?

The Bithynian army (allied to the Romans) was defeated by Mithridates's generals Archelaos and Neoptolemos.

One Roman army (see below) was defeated by Neoptolemos and Nemanes the Armenian. The others bottled out and dispersed.

What forces were involved?

Mithridates' total forces (according to Appian) numbered 250,000 foot, 40,000 cavalry and 130 scythed chariots.

The Bithynians (50,000 foot and 6,000 horse) were defeated by the light infantry, cavalry and scythed chariots, the phalanx not having arrived in time for the battle. The Roman forces were divided into three armies, each of about 40,000 men.

Were these forces led by IC?

There is nothing in the perfomance of Archelaos or Neoptolemos to suggest they would qualify as ICs. Mithridates likewise.

The Mithridatic army is one of the few army lists so far that doesn't get the option to have an IC.

OTOH the exploits of another Mithridatic general, Diophantos, in rapidly conquering the Bosporan kingdom and other Black Sea Greek colonies with quite modest forces might qualify him as an IC, so maybe even that would need a re-think.

[malekithau]

The Bithynian army was defeated by Mithridates's generals Archelaos and Neoptolemos. The rest of the Roman forces were defeated piecemeal.

Hi Richard,

Yep knew about this one.

What forces were involved?

Mithridates' total forces (according to Appian) numbered 250,000 foot, 40,000 cavalry and 130 scythed chariots.

The Bithynians (50,000 foot and 6,000 horse) were defeated by the light infantry, cavalry and scythed chariots, the phalanx not having arrived in time for the battle. The Roman forces were divided into three armies, each of about 40,000 men.

Yeah the scythed chariots actually worked. One of, what, 2 example of them working?

Thats right but were all the Pontic forces in one army? I doubt it. The 3 Roman armies were larger, individually, then Sulla's army. In a lot of other historical battles a force of 40000 Romans and allied troops would defeat a force many times larger. Why not this time? Did each 40000 strong army meet 300000 enemy? Unlikely.

Were these forces led by IC?

There is nothing in the perfomance of Archelaos or Neoptolomos to suggest they would qualify as ICs. Mithridates likewise.

I agree with this but were there not other forces operating that MAY have been lead by an IC? Can we prove they weren't? Did a force of 20000 Pontic meet an enemy (Roman, Cappadocian, Galatian or otherwise) in central Asia Minor and defeat them?

OTOH the exploits of another Mithridatic general, Diophantus, in rapidly conquering the Bosporan kingdom and other Black Sea Greek colonies with quite modest forces might qualify him as an IC, so maybe even that would need a re-think.

Exactly. When refighting Charonea I don't think Archelaus qualifies as an IC defintely whereas Sulla does and probably would need to be to be able to replicate the win. OTOH when fighting in a friendly or tournament environment either everyone should ea access to IC or none at all.

I haven't started playtesting yet but looking forward to it immensely. I haven't played much ancients for many years. That's about to change and I think Xyston and Corvus Belli will be getting a lot of money very soon.

John O

[malekithau]

Man what happened to my formatting. Jeez sorry.

[lawrenceg]

In AOW an Inspirational Commander is one who inspires the troops, i.e. has more influence on them on the battlefield.

This does not imply any tactical skill or success in battle. An IC may inspire his troops into suicidal attacks or counterproductive manouvres. One could cite Caractacus as an example: he repeatedy inspired tribes of Ancient British to give battle to the Romans and lost every time.

A historically successful general is as likely to have been a methodical logistician or tactician as inspirational.

[philqw78]

An IC may inspire his troops into suicidal attacks or counterproductive manouvres. One could cite Caractacus as an example: he repeatedy inspired tribes of Ancient British to give battle to the Romans and lost every time.

<snip about IC>This does not imply any tactical skill or success in battle

As well, an IC does not guarantee any kind of tacticall brilliance or strategic savvy

It seems from the battle reports that an IC in AoW gets more choice of terrain fought on, strategic skill.
Tactical skill should come from the player, but IC also get to improve the tactical skill of the player by moving troops more quickly in the opening stages of battle.
If some armies are not going to be allowed an IC those that are should have some proof. It seems strange to me that to get a particular troop type in a list some proof is needed, but to get a particular general type, in the majority of cases, an absence of proof is needed.
I for one would like to read the proof, just out of interest in history if nothing else. I, somehow, don't think I'll change the writers minds, but it would be nice to see write-ups in the list notes of that armies successes to justify IC where possible

[shall]

Great debate guys. Its given me a few ideas of when to take someone as an IC and an FC. If anything it re-inforces my view that it is a lot more fun to let you decide how you think you generals should b represented in the main. That way we can all keep enjoying such debate lonf after the rules come out and try our theories out different ways. I can see an "to IC or not to IC section" for the eventual AOW website being rather fun.

Boedicae made very nice IC for my Britons.

Simon

[whitehorses]

But playing on my limited knowledge of Ancients, how many battles did Pompey win in his career before his War with Caesar? Presumably he'd had a fairly successful career in the field else he wouldn't have been nicknamed Pompey Magnus? Or was he effectively retired by then?


Cheers,
Jer

Jer,

Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) began his military career in 83 BC at the age of 23, when he sided with Sulla, raising three legions from his home territory of Picenum. He distinguished himself against Marian generals in Italy, and won a number of victories in Sicily and Africa. He also used the threat of his three legions to coerce Sulla into awarding him a triumph in 81 BC.

In 77 BC, Pompey was awarded a special command against Marcus Aemiluis Lepidus (Senior), and defeated him. He fought against the forces of Quintus Sertorius in Spain from 76-71 BC, finally achieving victory after Sertorius was assassinated by one of his own generals. In 71 BC, Pompey returned to Italy in time to participate in the defeat of Spartacus. In the same year, he celebrated his second (extralegal) triumph, and was elected consul in 70 BC.

In 67 BC, Pompey was given a special naval commission to combat the Cilician pirates then ravaging Mediterranean shipping. It took him only three months to wipe them out entirely, and restore shipping traffic across the Mediterranean.

From 66-65 BC, he campaigned in Greece against Mithridates VI of Pontus, winning a number of victories and ultimately conquering the kingdom. In subsequent years Pompey also conquered Armenia, Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine, including the city of Jerusalem. By 62 BC, thanks to his victories much of Asia was firmly under Roman control, and vast amounts of wealth and tax revenues flowed back to the city. Because of this, Pompey was awarded his third (and first legal) triumph in 61 BC.

After the collapse of the First Triumvirate and the onset of civil war in 49 BC, Pompey won a great victory over Caesar at Dyrrhachium in the following year, but failed to follow up when his opponent was most vulnerable. This led to Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus, and his death in Egypt shortly after that. So like Hannibal, Pompey's military reputation is built on a large number of impressive victories, but ultimate defeat in the end.

Cheers,
Scott K.

Thanks for that Scott, I had no idea what he'd done pre-Caesar!
Very useful to improve my sadly lacking knowledge of anything Pre-Norman era


Cheers,
Jer

[ars_belli]

Thanks for that Scott, I had no idea what he'd done pre-Caesar!
Very useful to improve my sadly lacking knowledge of anything Pre-Norman era

Cheers,
Jer

My pleasure, Jer! Sharing knowledge back and forth with other interested gamers is one of the aspects of this hobby that I most enjoy.

Best wishes,
Scott