Slitherine

Many thanks to the FoG design team for providing this new experimental army list forum!

Let me start the ball rolling with one of my pet projects, the Early German armies as described by Caesar and Tacitus. For clarity and consistency, I have chosen to use a format similar to that found in the Tabulae Novae Exercituum (TNE) wiki.

Book Name: Legions Triumphant
List Name: Early German

1. Hundreds
2. Wagon laager
3. Families

1. New core troops: Hundreds

Author: Scott ('ars_belli')

Proposal: Add the following new core troops:

Hundreds - Medium Foot, Protected, Superior, Undrilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen, 8 points, 4-6 per BG, 0-12 total
(The total number of Hundreds bases must equal the total number of Cavalry bases.)

Justification:
In the account of his campaign in 58 BC against the Germanic Suebi chieftain Ariovistus (Proto-Germanic: Harjawissas), Julius Caesar described the unusual 'combined arms' tactics employed by his opponents:

"The method of battle in which the Germans had practiced themselves was this. There were 6,000 horse, and as many very active and courageous foot, one of whom each of the horse selected out of the whole army for his own protection. By these [foot] they were constantly accompanied in their engagements; to these the horse retired; these on any emergency rushed forward; if any one, upon receiving a very severe wound, had fallen from his horse, they stood around him: if it was necessary to advance further than usual, or to retreat more rapidly, so great, from practice, was their swiftness, that, supported by the manes of the horses, they could keep pace with their speed."

Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1.48:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D48

In his description of Germania and its peoples, written in the late 1st century AD, the historian Tacitus added:

"On the whole, one would say that their chief strength is in their infantry, which fights along with the cavalry; admirably adapted to the action of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked from the entire youth of their country, and stationed in front of the line. Their number is fixed,—a hundred from each canton; and from this they take their name among their countrymen, so that what was originally a mere number has now become a title of distinction."

Tacitus, De Origine et situ Germanorum 1.6:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hapter%3D6

From the descriptions of Caesar and Tacitus, these 'hundreds' appear to have been specially chosen warriors, and not typical skirmishing light infantry javelinmen. IMHO, their attested combination of high status, mobility and staying power would best be represented in FoG by small BGs of superior protected MF with light spear capability at impact, and swordsmen capability in melee, working in close cooperation with matching BGs of Cavalry.

2. Optional troops: Wagon laager

Author: Scott ('ars_belli')

Proposal: Add the following optional troops:

Wagon laager - Field fortificatins, 3 points, 0-12 total

Justification:
In his account of the Battle of the River Vosges (58 BC), Caesar described the use of a 'wagon laager' by the Seubi under Ariovistus:

"Then at last of necessity the Germans drew their forces out of camp, and disposed them canton by canton, at equal distances, the Harudes, Marcomanni, Tribocci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii, Suevi; and surrounded their whole army with their chariots and wagons, that no hope might be left in flight. On these they placed their women, who, with disheveled hair and in tears, entreated the soldiers, as they went forward to battle, not to deliver them into slavery to the Romans."

Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1.51:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D51

This account would be in keeping with the wagon laager option already available to the Gallic tribes who closely interacted with the Early Germans, as well as the Early Visigoths and Vandals who succeeded them.

3. Optional troops: Familes

Author: Scott ('ars_belli')

Proposal: Add the following optional troops:

Families - Mob, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, 2 points, 8-12 per BG, 0-12 total

Justification:
See #2 above.

ars_belli wrote:
2. Optional troops: Wagon laager

Author: Scott ('ars_belli')

Proposal: Add the following optional troops:

Wagon laager - Field fortificatins, 3 points, 0-12 total

Justification:
In his account of the Battle of the River Vosges (58 BC), Caesar described the use of a 'wagon laager' by the Seubi under Ariovistus:

"Then at last of necessity the Germans drew their forces out of camp, and disposed them canton by canton, at equal distances, the Harudes, Marcomanni, Tribocci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii, Suevi; and surrounded their whole army with their chariots and wagons, that no hope might be left in flight. On these they placed their women, who, with disheveled hair and in tears, entreated the soldiers, as they went forward to battle, not to deliver them into slavery to the Romans."

Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1.51:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D51

This would also be in keeping with the wagon laager option already available to the Gallic tribes who closely interacted with the Early Germans, as well as the Early Visigoths and Vandals who succeeded them.

I see possible issues for discussion/investigation here.

1. 0-12 FF will not be enough to "surround their whole army" which is what the quote says. Maybe 60-100 would be needed

2. However, I am not sure what the quote goes on to say really supports FF. It is stated to be to stop flight and that the soldiers go forward into battle whic may be more consistent with the wagons actually being behind the troops after an advance to combat. Would also explain why the woemen are there as well rather than soldiers lining the wagons. Is there any mention of the Germans actually fighting from behind the things?

Maybe the already allowed Fortified Camp is the best representation.

3. Is it common to all the Germans? Or was it an isolated tribe/case?

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Nik!
My responses follow your comments below.

nikgaukroger wrote:I see possible issues for discussion/investigation here.

1. 0-12 FF will not be enough to "surround their whole army" which is what the quote says. Maybe 60-100 would be needed

2. However, I am not sure what the quote goes on to say really supports FF. It is stated to be to stop flight and that the soldiers go forward into battle whic may be more consistent with the wagons actually being behind the troops after an advance to combat. Would also explain why the woemen are there as well rather than soldiers lining the wagons.

Most of the discussions of the battle that I have read do indeed interpret the passage as meaning that the wagons were placed behind the Suebi forces, and I do as well.

Here is one visual example: http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/map5.jpg
I probably should have made this clearer in my initial posting.

nikgaukroger wrote:Is there any mention of the Germans actually fighting from behind the things?

I have found one clear citation, from Caesar's battle against the Usipetes and Tencteri in 55 BC:

"Having marshalled his army in three lines, and in a short time performed a march of eight miles, he arrived at the camp of the enemy before the Germans could perceive what was going on; who being suddenly alarmed by all the circumstances, both by the speediness of our arrival and the absence of their own officers, as time was afforded neither for concerting measures nor for seizing their arms, are perplexed as to whether it would be better to lead out their forces against the enemy, or to defend their camp, or seek their safety by flight. Their consternation being made apparent by their noise and tumult, our soldiers, excited by the treachery of the preceding day, rushed into the camp: such of them as could readily get their arms, for a short time withstood our men, and gave battle among their carts and baggage wagons; but the rest of the people, [consisting] of boys and women (for they had left their country and crossed the Rhine with all their families) began to fly in all directions; in pursuit of whom Caesar sent the cavalry."

Caesar, De Bello Gallico 4.14:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D14

nikgaukroger wrote:3. Is it common to all the Germans? Or was it an isolated tribe/case?

In addition to Caesar's descriptions of the Suebi, Usipetes and Tencteri, I have found two more references to the presence of Early German wagons in battles:

Battle of Aquae Sextae (102 BC): During their defeat of the Teutons and Ambrones, Marius’ legions chased the Ambrones “back to their camp and wagons,” where the women attacked the Romans and Ambrones alike.

Plutarch, Life of Marius 19.6-7: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

Battle of Vercellae (101 BC): Marius’ legions drove the Cimbri “back to their entrenchments,” where the women “in black garments, stood at the wagons and slew the fugitives.”

Plutarch, Life of Marius 27.1-2: see link above.

And we think that our wives can sometime be tough on us after a hard day at work!

The cases cited above are all alike, in that the wagons were kept at the rear with the baggage. This appears similar to the practice of the neighboring Helvetii and Belgae, as well as the later Germanic Goths - most famously at Adrianople in AD 378. There also appears to have been a Proto-Germanic word for a 'wagon laager,' i.e. 'karrhago.'

nikgaukroger wrote:Maybe the already allowed Fortified Camp is the best representation.

Possibly, but then the same could also be said for the Gauls. I think that either representation could be fine, as long they are consistently applied to both lists.

Salve,
Scott

The Early German list could use some more distinction between tribes in my opinion.

- Tacitus mentions that the Batavi and Chatti were the most courageous of the German tribes, which would warrant Superior status.
- The Tencteri were considered skilled and expert horsemen, why they are classified as average LH is unclear to me. An increased amount of Superior cavalry would make more sense.
- Since most tribes' strength was in their infantry, perhaps an option for average cavaly would be applicable.
- The Cherusci were seen as slovenly and slack by Tacitis' time. Average Impact Foot seems a bit generous then.
- Warlike noble youths fought for other tribes as well. Perhaps an option.
- Iron collar wearers of the Chatti, and perhaps other tribes in earlier times should be added too.
- For other tribes, an option for all MF or HF should be considered. Most tribes lived in heavily forested areas, or between swamps. I guess that that tribes would fight to make us much use as possible of their native land. Something similar to the Gallic hilltribe or lowland options would not be strange.
- Some tribes used long spears instead of the lighter framea. An option for some offensive spearmen would be nice.
- Any tribe should have an option to have the chief's bodyguard/companions as a separate upgraded BG (similar to Ancient British list).
- The army list should have an optional BG of slingers. In the Netherlands, a Roman fort destructed by a Frisan uprising was excavated near IJmuiden and a lot of sling stones were found. Apparently, these stones were used by the Frisians.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... /chap1.htm has a translation of Tacitus' Germania. I'll add relevant quotes later.

Greuthungi wrote:The Early German list could use some more distinction between tribes in my opinion.

- Tacitus mentions that the Batavi and Chatti were the most courageous of the German tribes, which would warrant Superior status.

They are simply the most courageous. Either this is a spread within average, or the rest are inferior.

- The Tencteri were considered skilled and expert horsemen, why they are classified as average LH is unclear to me. An increased amount of Superior cavalry would make more sense.

You have to be good skilled horsemen to be even average mounted troops.

- Since most tribes' strength was in their infantry, perhaps an option for average cavaly would be applicable.
- The Cherusci were seen as slovenly and slack by Tacitis' time. Average Impact Foot seems a bit generous then.
- Warlike noble youths fought for other tribes as well. Perhaps an option.
- Iron collar wearers of the Chatti, and perhaps other tribes in earlier times should be added too.

First you would have to agree what the iron 'collar' (bangle or ring is a better translation bty) actually meant.

- For other tribes, an option for all MF or HF should be considered. Most tribes lived in heavily forested areas, or between swamps. I guess that that tribes would fight to make us much use as possible of their native land. Something similar to the Gallic hilltribe or lowland options would not be strange.
- Some tribes used long spears instead of the lighter framea. An option for some offensive spearmen would be nice.

What archaeological evidence there is suggests a mixture of light throwing, heavy throwing and longer (c 2.5 - 3 m) spears.

- Any tribe should have an option to have the chief's bodyguard/companions as a separate upgraded BG (similar to Ancient British list).
- The army list should have an optional BG of slingers. In the Netherlands, a Roman fort destructed by a Frisan uprising was excavated near IJmuiden and a lot of sling stones were found. Apparently, these stones were used by the Frisians.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... /chap1.htm has a translation of Tacitus' Germania. I'll add relevant quotes later.

Good suggestions though..

Tom..

tadamson wrote:

Greuthungi wrote:The Early German list could use some more distinction between tribes in my opinion.

- Tacitus mentions that the Batavi and Chatti were the most courageous of the German tribes, which would warrant Superior status.

They are simply the most courageous. Either this is a spread within average, or the rest are inferior.

Based on what please? Remember the Gauls usually found it hard to come to compete even with the 'less courageous' Germans, so inferior does not look like an option.

tadamson wrote:

- The Tencteri were considered skilled and expert horsemen, why they are classified as average LH is unclear to me. An increased amount of Superior cavalry would make more sense.

You have to be good skilled horsemen to be even average mounted troops.

See my post below.

tadamson wrote:

- Iron collar wearers of the Chatti, and perhaps other tribes in earlier times should be added too.

First you would have to agree what the iron 'collar' (bangle or ring is a better translation bty) actually meant.

Why? In what way is how it looked important to how the people wearing them behaved and fought?
The probably most correct translation is 'Eisenreif' btw.

Where does the LH classification of the Tencteri horseman come from anyway (aside of the DM lists perhaps)?

Caesar tell us in BG IV.4.18 about 800 Tencteri Cv defeating 5000 of his Gallic cavalry:

"But when they fought back once more, the enemy, following their usual practice, jumped down and unseated a number of our men by stabbing their horses in the belly. The rest they put to flight, driving them on in such panic, that they did not stop until they came into sight of our marching column."

That might be an argument for making them Elite (no saying we should), but skirmishing LH seems dead wrong.

Also Tacitus mentiones in the Germania

32: The Tencterians, besides their wonted glory in war, surpass in the service and discipline of their cavalry. Nor do the Chatti derive higher applause from their foot, than the Tencterians from their horse. Such was the order established by their forefathers, and what their posterity still pursue. From riding and exercising of horses, their children borrow their pastimes; in this exercise the young men find matter for emulating one another, and in this the old men take pleasure to persevere. Horses are by the father bequeathed as part of his household and family, horses are conveyed amongst the rights of succession, and as such the son receives them; but not the eldest son, like other effects, by priority of birth, but he who happens to be signal in boldness and superior in war.

As for the longspears mentioned by Greuthungi, Tacitus mentiones in his Annales:

1.64: The Cherusci, on the other hand, were habituated to marsh-fighting, long of limb, and armed with huge lances to wound from a distance.

2.14: (still on the Cherusci): The barbarians' huge shields, their enormous spears, could not be so manageable among tree-trunks and springing brushwood as the pilum, the short sword, and close-fitting body-armour.

He also mentiones however: Their first line alone carried spears of a fashion: the remainder had only darts, fire-pointed or too short.

2.21: In hardihood the Germans held their own; but they were handicapped by the nature of the struggle and the weapons. Their extraordinary numbers - unable in the restricted space to extend or recover their tremendous lances, or to make use of their rushing tactics and nimbleness of body.

In Histories 5.18 he uses similar words for the Batavi:

their huge stature and their extremely long spears allowed them to wound our men from a distance.

Sure sounds like steady spears vs. swordsmen in this one.


Also Cassius Dio in 38.49.2 (on the Suebi):

in fact, they came to so close quarters with them that the enemy could not employ either their pikes or long swords.

Based on that an optional rating as Offensive Spears for Cherusci, Batavi and possibly Suebi could be considered. However one might also argue this to be more like 1 rank of Offensive Spears with the second rank as Light Spears, swordsmen. Not sure that's really an desirable option.


As for the Cherusci, not sure if downgrading is really necessary, this might be just some veiled critic from Tactitus to his own people. If a downgrade is considered however it should only apply after the death of Arminius in 21 AD. It was not until the punitive campaigns of Germanicus sapped a lot of manpower from the Cherusci, worsened by the internal strife that had plagued the for a long time Chersuci, which grew only worse after Arminius was dead.


I would also allow all tribes to field their foot as HF or MF without requiring all to use the same classification. It's pretty much certain that most German (or Gallic) warriors were able to cope well with terrain if required, but also to fight in a dense shieldwall in the open. It might be able to single out certain tribes to favour one or the other, but that seems an unnecessary complication based on an artificial classification mostly there because our toys just need some piece of cardboard or wood beneath them.


I don't think Iron Ring wearer formed seperate units, it seems more likely they formed up in the front ranks. So BGs stiffened by Iron collar wearers may be the way to approach upgrading to superior.

If Vikings can be Offensive Spears....................

Would be a nice variant, and would give the Romans significantly greater trouble - the Germans were the ones who seemed to give the Romans the most trouble (at least until the Goths come over the Danube in significant numbers)

Ghaznavid wrote:Where does the LH classification of the Tencteri horseman come from anyway (aside of the DM lists perhaps)?

Caesar tell us in BG IV.4.18 about 800 Tencteri Cv defeating 5000 of his Gallic cavalry:
"But when they fought back once more, the enemy, following their usual practice, jumped down and unseated a number of our men by stabbing their horses in the belly. The rest they put to flight, driving them on in such panic, that they did not stop until they came into sight of our marching column."

That might be an argument for making them Elite (no saying we should), but skirmishing LH seems dead wrong.

Also Tacitus mentiones in the Germania 32:
"The Tencterians, besides their wonted glory in war, surpass in the service and discipline of their cavalry. Nor do the Chatti derive higher applause from their foot, than the Tencterians from their horse. Such was the order established by their forefathers, and what their posterity still pursue. From riding and exercising of horses, their children borrow their pastimes; in this exercise the young men find matter for emulating one another, and in this the old men take pleasure to persevere. Horses are by the father bequeathed as part of his household and family, horses are conveyed amongst the rights of succession, and as such the son receives them; but not the eldest son, like other effects, by priority of birth, but he who happens to be signal in boldness and superior in war."

I have to agree with Karsten that there appears to be no historical basis for rating the cavalry of the Tencteri as LH. On the other hand, pairing a BG of Early German superior Cv with a matching unit of MF 'hundreds' does tend to give these troops an historically-appropriate advantage over their Gallic and Roman opponents.

Cheers,
Scott

Just to raise this 'thorny chestnut' again ....

I think that there is now reasonable historical evidence for the use of field fortifications by Early German armies (probably more so than for the later ones IMO).

If we look specifically at the AD9 Varus Disaster (Battle of the Teutoburg Forest) battle-site evidence - what we see is that Arminius' Cherusci built a series of earth and wooden palisade walls/banks that were constructed at the edges of the wooded hill around which the legions were finally 'funneled' and ambushed between the steep wooded hill & the marsh. These earth banks were obviously significant enough to be a major obstacle to the fleeing Romans and when one of the collapsed (presumably during the desperate break-out melee) it buried both men & pack mules underneath it - so they were obviously originally of a reasonable height.

I would thoroughly agree that what we don't want is too many field fortifications in this list, as that could dramatically change the nature of the way the army is played, allowing some FF - even if only to Cherusci seems reasonable, and maybe limited to use in certain terrain features - although at least one of these 'walls' at Kalkriese (the modern name for the battle site) was build across the solid flat land at the base of the hill between the wood & the march (just around the corner of the hill where it couldn't be seen by the bulk of the Roman army as it entered the trap via the Kalkriese pass - clever old Arminius!).

Although, there is now a view that other German tribes (Chatti in particular) used similar 'ambush' tactics on the Romans, as it is better understood that following AD9 the German tribes tried on at least 2 other occasions to ambush Roman Legions on return from their summer campaigns (specifically during the Germanicus & Drusus campaigns) neither with the same successes as AD9 but both in similar difficult terrain using natural features to funnel the legions into topographical bottle-necks & then ambush them -although these battle sites have not been identified, so there's no archeological evidence of an field fortifications.

So certainly a case for some FF I think - even if only for Cherusci?

Mark