Historical army setup of alans

[Witan]

Some days ago i spoke with someone, that is playing "De Bellis Magistrorum Militum" by Phil Barker and after what he said the Alan army should consist of up to 1/4 infantry. i said to him that in Field of Glory the Alans do not use infantery in their list.

So i got curious:

Is there any historical evidence or source that the Alans also used bigger numbers of infantry or (and I'm assuming that) both lists are rather speculative, as there is not enough concrete information?

[rbodleyscott]

As you may know, Phil Barker and I compiled the De Bellis Multitudinis lists together. (DBM was the precursor to DBMM, before our paths diverged - he went on to write DBMM, I went on to co-write FOG).

The DBM version also included infantry in the Alan army list. However, I was never particularly convinced by them - if I recall correctly the (somewhat tenuous) evidence for them came from a later period. (The DBM Alan list attempted to cover the Alans for the entire period from 50 AD to 1500 AD, with no changes in the list through the entire period!)

[Witan]

As you may know, Phil Barker and I compiled the De Bellis Multitudinis lists together. These also included infantry in the Alan army list. However, I was never particularly convinced by them - if I recall correctly the (somewhat tenuous) evidence for them came from a later period.

Yeah, i heard about that

I already thought that this is based on a tenuous evidence, especially because I could not find anything that proves this.

Could I ask to which "evidence" Barker referred at that time?

[rbodleyscott]

As you may know, Phil Barker and I compiled the De Bellis Multitudinis lists together. These also included infantry in the Alan army list. However, I was never particularly convinced by them - if I recall correctly the (somewhat tenuous) evidence for them came from a later period.

Yeah, i heard about that

I already thought that this is based on a tenuous evidence, especially because I could not find anything that proves this.

Could I ask to which "evidence" Barker referred at that time?

I don't recall, and we did not mention the infantry at all in the explanatory text for the DBM Alan army list.

[Witan]

I don't recall, and we did not mention the source in the explanatory text for the DBM Alan army list.

No problem, thank you anyway for the information

[AlexDetrojan]

Richard said: 'As you may know, Phil Barker and I compiled the De Bellis Multitudinis lists together'...gosh Richard you're that old!? I remember playing the old WRG ruleset!
Cheers
Alex

[jomni]

Dismounted horsemen I guess

[rbodleyscott]

Dismounted horsemen I guess

I don't think so, as they were listed in the list as Axemen. Highly dubious IMO.

[Delbruck]

Considering the thinness of historical sources any Alan army list is pretty hypothetical. Of course this is true of many armies, including major ones. Most steppe armies, such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns and Mongols, occasionally made use of large numbers of infantry, either natives or more likely from subject tribes. Considering this, personally I wouldn't require any steppe army to be 100% cavalry (except for specific battles). But since it's all a matter of opinion, clearly the rules author has final say.

[rbodleyscott]

Considering the thinness of historical sources any Alan army list is pretty hypothetical. Of course this is true of many armies, including major ones. Most steppe armies, such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns and Mongols, occasionally made use of large numbers of infantry, either natives or more likely from subject tribes. Considering this, personally I wouldn't require any steppe army to be 100% cavalry (except for specific battles). But since it's all a matter of opinion, clearly the rules author has final say.

Aye, it would probably be reasonable to add some Irregular Foot and probably light foot archers to any steppe army - at least those who had subject tribes. The Alans spent quite a lot of their history being pushed around by other tribes, so perhaps might be less likely than most to have subject foot.

We do prefer not to put in purely speculative stuff. Also, from a game point of view, it is good if not all steppe army lists are the same!