The follows selection of extracts have been collected from the DBM Mailing list. Topics range from tactics, figure selection, army recommendations and historical debates. These extracts come various writers, in particular Nigel Tallis and Duncan Head, both major contributors to the DBM army list books.
Subject: Mitanni Alik-Ilki Spearmen
>>Should the Alik-Ilki Spearmen of the Mitanni army be graded as Ax(X) instead of Ax (O)? <<
There's not much evidence for Mitannian infantry, it wasn't the glamour corps and didn't involve great expense so they don't appear in the textual record in any detail. They were raised through the ilku land-grant system and were armed with dirks, javelins and light shields, probably leather helmets. Not a lot of difference between them and late Amorite troops, save the absence of substantial cutting weapons. It's only the Assyrian battle accounts that enable us to grade their elite infantry as Bd (F) on function, sadly we have nothing like this for Mitanni, but this would also be a possibility.
What little info there is suggests Ax (O). Until something new turns up. Speaking of which, I see there's a new-ish NKE representation of a charioteer's hauberk. The paintings are similar to Kenamun's in composition, but unfinished, so we can't see if the neck-protector is solid or made of scales.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
>>Question: I'm looking for historical battles where warband frontally beat Roman legionaries, if anyone can point me to such battles it would be greatly appreciated.<<
This is tough because we depend almost entirely on Roman historians for such accounts. These have much more detail on Roman victories than
defeats. If you read the fate of the Roman captives after Teutoburgiensis Saltus you will be aware that losing to Germans was a very traumatic experience. Dwelling on the defeats was not a style of writing familiar to Roman historians who believed that Rome was
destined to greatness. Nonetheless, the Iceni turned the 9th legion into roadkill- although almost nothing is known here. The Goths
destroyed Decius and his army in 251AD in a stand up battle (the Romans defeated the first two lines of the Goths and were then destroyed in
the struggle against the last line). The consular armies of Paprius Carbo, Cassius, Aurelius Scaurius, Servilius Caepio and Mallius Maximus
were wiped out by the Cimbri and Teutones. Little is known of these battles also- although the Germans were described as attacking like a
raging fire (ie. not skulking in woods, exploiting ambushes). There may be more in the wars against the Quadi and Marcomanni by
Marcus Aurelius but I am not familiar with these.The encounters of Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus appear more one-sided. But Tacitus includes a cautionary note in his Germanica that these victories were hard-won and expensive.The German avoidance of standup encounters (noting that earlier the Cimbri and Teutones displayed no such reluctance) during the campaigns of Drusus and Germanicus is attributable to the concentration of Roman (8 legions plus auxiliaries) and allied forces against tribes isolated by diplomacy and pre-emptive raids (such as the attack on the Chatti during the campaign against the Cherusci).
Further, the Arminius and Maroboduus appear to have correctly recognised that their best strategy for defeating the Roman armies sent against them was a war of attrition. Ultimately both Arminius and Maroboduus remained in power with prestige and forces intact- despite the determined campaigns by the Romans against them. On the basis of these outcomes, the campaignsagainst the Germans can hardly be the successes the Romans claimed (albeit they stabilised the frontier after the loss of Varus). Why should the Germans have risked a 'decisive' battle against a large Roman army when they were winning the war of attrition?
Brendan Moyle M.Sc., Ph.D b.j.moyle@massey.ac.nz
Subject: Carthaginian chariots - what did they look like?
>>Question: So what should an EarlyCarthaginian chariot look like?<<
While there are no illustrations of Carthaginian chariots, we do have representations of Phoenician and Cypriot vehicles (and actual excavated examples) which we can assume were similar if not identical. Chariots were still used in warfare on Cyprus into the early C5th BC (Herod. V,113, war chariots of Salamis) which seems to mirror other Punic practice, and there are very many Cypriot terracotta models of chariots from the C7th to the C6th, plus actual chariot remains from Salamis in Cyprus (mid C8th-C7th BC, see AANE fig 191 and text). There are also representations of Sidonian royal or sacred chariots on C5th Sidonian coins. Phoenician silverware of the C8th-C7th (found throughout the Med. area) is also a prolific, if eclectic, source of chariot representations, to which we can add Punic chariot parts and illustrations of grave slabs from C8th-C7th Spain.
Taken together, the above sources indicate that, as one might have expected, Punic chariots followed NE styles and closely matched the latest designs and practice of Assyrian chariotry from the C8th-C7th (e.g. royal or command chariots were similarly distinguished by parasols). They continue to keep up with the latest forms in the C6th, e.g. the later Salamis chariots and chariot models from the Levant have double draught poles for the 4-horse yoke. The continued use of war chariots is interesting, as the Phoenicians were the last semi-independent NE power with an unbroken military tradition. I'd use parts from late neo-Assyrian and Persian scythed-chariot models to make them. I think the Essex versions have double draught-poles, but I might be wrong.
Interestingly, Diodorus records 300 Punic "2-horse" chariots, plus 2000 2-horse teams as "spares" (xvi, 67,2), again, supporting the idea of 4-horse chariots based on the NE tradition, despite first impressions from the text. It's also another pointer to why chariot-use was so expensive.
Nigel Tallis
Subject; Middle to Early neo-Assyrian infantry
>>Question: I am attempting to put together a Middle Assyrian to Early neo-Assyrian army for DBM. So far everything is going well except for finding figures for the Bd(F). Any suggestions would be welcome. Also, if anyone has any reading suggestions that would cover such things as colors and tactics and such I would appreciate it.<<
Chariot has a good range of 15mm Early nA figures - EAS1 or 2 are Bd(F), though they're depicted still carrying their javelins, with EAS4 as officers/archers. The chariot EAS15 etc. is _particularly_ good for a C9th vehicle, and even fits on a DBM base! For mA chariots/figures you should use some from the new range for Mitanni. I've not seen them but they should be fine for anything pre-1st Mill. One or two Essex figures could do, can't remember which offhand, but they're mainly best for C8th Assyrians or Babylonians/Early Achaemenid levy. Don't forget to use a few neo-Hittite/Aramaean figures for variety as vassals incorporated in a C9th army.
Not much tactical or colour evidence pre-C9th, or at least not much easily accessible in one place or in translation for military specialists, but I think Yadin or AANE still just about covers it. Better pictures in Yadin, perhaps :) Hope this is some use.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------
The Essex ones (15 mm) are pretty good. Be warned though that the heavy infantry javelin men (BS65) have no armor but a large rectangular shield while the unarmored ones (BS67) are the same figure and pose with a small round shield. I prefer the former for the Bd (F). The armored archers (BS66) are armored and should be used as dismounted charioteers while BS68 should be used for the Ps (O) supported the Bd (F).
Kirk Greyson (I think) has a couple of books that are translations of Assyrian inscriptions. Some of those covering Tiglath Pileser I (circa 1115-1085 BC) discuss some infantry described as "My troops equipped for a fight to the finish" which are the troops classed as Bd (F) in DBM. I am not sure there are any better descriptions of their equipment or dress than this though.
Also you might look at Yadin's "The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands" (or some such). This has lots of good info on artistic representations of Assyrians, although mostly from the neo-Assyrian era. Good color pictures too.
Stillman and Tallis's book by WRG remains one of the best books, academic or otherwise, on the topic.
BTW, the Middle Assyrians of the late Bronze Age (say prior to 1000 BC) are one of my favorite armies: they have an interesting history in an interesting era, the chariots, etc. look really nice on the table and it fights pretty well in DBM. Good luck.
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Paintng Neo-Babylonian Chariot Colors
>>Question: I am working on a Neo-Bab army and looking for advise on chariot colors (colours). The excellent Armies of the Ancient Near East by Nigel & Nigel provide no information on Neo-bab or Neo-Ass chariot colors. No doubt because there is no evidence.<<
Thanks for the compliment, but there is an Assyrian chariot in colour on the front cover! Actually, the only pictorial evidence for colouring are the wallpaintings from Til Barsip (from the bathroom - just what one wants to look at in the bath). Leatherwork was usually tanned red, green, or yellow-brown.
This shows nA chariots to be red, brown, blue and green. Mind you, it also shows many horses to be blue! Either this is due to degradation of the paint over time, or an attempt to render grey (especially as iron helmets are rendered in blue), or an indication that the Assyrians, like the Bedu, stained grey horses with indigo as a sunscreen. Perhaps British woad was just a sunblock, all that naked pale celtic flesh - makes sense!
>>What is the conventional wisdom for this. Plain hide sided chariots? Plain >wood sided? or brightly painted racing chariots?<<
At this date I suspect wood covered with thin sheets of iron then painted in solid colours as above with decorative borders, or with complex geometric floral patterns. Royal chariots would be gilded of course, with no expense spared. Wheels seem to have been plain wood apart from the metal fittings, though I think some C9th wheels are green.
Woodwork and tack would be covered with decorative bronze studs and naves, draught-pole clamps etc. were sheathed with bronze decorated in repousee (Ashurbanipal's d-p clamp has Inanna within a nimbus, but I'd like to see that in 15mm!)
Don't forget the carpet on the chariot floor.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Structuring Command Sizes
You might want to consider the break points of your commands and the army as a whole.
First commands ideally should have 3n + .5 EE (or 3n + 2 EE) (where n is an integer). This makes them tougher to break. For example your SG seems to have 18 EE, you could increase your break point by adding another .5 EE here.
Second you should look at what it will take to break your army. An army breaks when it looses .5 EE, so you don't want 2 equal sized commands, if you do then your army break when either command goes down. With 2 commands you want 1 small sacrificial or maneuver command and one gigantic command designed for going toe to toe with the enemy. Given that you have 2 commands and 41 EE, I would recommend one command of either about 7 or 10 EE and a huge command of 31 or 34 EE. (BTW, if you have a giant command led by the CinC, try to keep him in reserve as long as possible so he can maneuver the reserves, flanking or supporting troops into action at the right time and place. The CinC can then form the final reserve to deal with a critical spot). You might try putting some Kn (S) and maybe a few Ps in the small command.
Another point to keep in mind is that a command with Irr impetuous troops, you can only afford to have 1-2 different maneuver groups in a command. If you have Irr Kn they are going to suck away 1-2 PIPs every turn, even when you roll a 1.
One particular problems that can crop up with the Spanish is that if you have a group of Kn and LH, the bound you need o pull back the LH to save them from the enemy you will roll a 1 and need to use that to control the Kn, so be careful not to get the LH into a spot here you have to spend PIPs to save them if you are not prepared to see the Kn go bonkers. The CinC is really the only one who can be trusted to command a couple of groups.
Also, keep in mind that Kn (O) can be quite brittle. You might consider mixing them in with the Kn (S), or at least using 2 (S) in their group to guard the ends of the line of Kn (O).
Finally I would strongly recommend using 3 commands and having some Ax (S) to make the army fearsome in RGo/DGo as well as the open. You might consider dropping the Kn (O) to pay for the extra general and Ax(S).
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: DBM Chariots and what they looked like
>>Question: Except for experts like Nigel Tallis who is going to complain about inaccuracies. Just make them beautiful and have a great time with them!<<
Egyptian lists of booty from Megiddo mention command chariots as gold or silver, from memory. The Armana letters have some descriptions of the chariots that Tushratta of Mitanni sent as wedding presents. Can't remember if we quoted them in AANE. The tomb of Ken-Amun also has colour depictions of Mitannian chariots and panoply. I used them as the basis of the early NK Egyptian charioteer and chariot in AANE, Yadin has some colour repros too, but not all, alas.
The colours for the Mitannian illos in AANE come from textual sources which mention red, green and yellow-brown tanned leather. The colour of birch bark was mentioned in another post, various fittings and clamps were of bronze or white stone.
Don't forget, as most Egyptian horses seem to have come from Western Asia you can use Egyptian representations of horses for colours.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Painting a Neo-Babylonian army
>>Question: I am going to start painting a Neo-Babylonian army dating about 600 BC. Iwould appreciate advice on what colors to use for the different troop types. I realize the armor is bronze and I have read the Neo-Babylonians used a lot of Assyrian equipment. Also what colors should the militia and levy be painted? Thanks for your help.<<
Iron was in common use for armour, tools and weapons at this date, and had been so for a few hundred years. Bronze was still used though, for example it seems to have been reserved for particular forms of helmets - and both the later Achaemenian "Persian" helmets I know (one from Egypt and the other dedicated at Olympia) are of bronze. Iron helmets could have inlays in other metals. Assyrian helmet decoration seems to have conveyed information concerning unit and rank - helmets of men from the Ishtar division seem to have had images of Ishtar on them etc. (not that you'll paint this in 15mm :))
Assyrian styles of military equipment spread throughout the Mediterranean and beyond during the Orientalizing period. Babylonia was a major centre of textile production throughout the ancient period, and a quick skim through some of the nB texts from Sippar (just the nearest on the bookshelf in this case :)) shows many are concerned with reciepts for wool or the delivery of garments, some specifically for soldiers. Military equipment was partially issued from royal sources as part payment for service, so even the poorest troops might have reasonable clothes at the beginning of a campaign.
If you stick to natural woollen cloth with coloured trims for most troops with the elites in reds, greens and yellows I think you'll be OK. Decoration could be embroidered, woven, or in the form of felt or metal appliqus. Also look at modern tribal carpets with zigzag decoration for inspiration (AANE has some patterns for Assyrians, you'll see the similarity). The king or crown prince will be happiest in purple.
Goat leather for belts and sandals would be yellowish or dyed red or green. Shields could be made from woven reed or by inserting reeds through a backing sheet of leather. This produces a zigzag effect on the front in the colour of the leather. The reeds might be natural or painted. Avoid blues other than for the elite since this was an expensive colour.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Early Samurai Army & Back Banners
>>Question: I just purchased some Two Dragons Samurai figures and I had a few questions...I'm putting together an Early Samurai Army (900-1300) and was wondering when the sashimono (back banners) came into fashion?<<
I generally think that they are post 1400 or so. However Eiko Ikegami claims they were in use MUCH earlier.
>>Question: Where they worn during this period? Of what significance where they?<<
They were worn to identify the Samurai's (or other soldier's) lord. Therefore each unit should have the same symbol, called a mon. Note also that relatives often (but by no means always) had similar mons. Often mons were on the clothing as well, hundreds of small symbols on the fabric. Occassionally a mon would appear on the front of a helmet too.
Some sashimono's also indicated the function of a soldier, messangers often had a centipede on their sashimono. BTW, Revo makes transfers of various mons. I think they have 4 different types in about 4 different colors each. You can get these from Wargames.
FWIW, I have an Early Smaurai army and used the sashimonos becuase they look good. An army with hundreds of flags appeals to me. (I also have lots of troops carrying larger flags and other standards). Each command has a different color so I can quickly identify which command an element belongs to. Also helps with assigning dice, just make the dice color match the sashimonos for that command. This is probably not historically accurate (although Ikegami thinks it is) but I like it.
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
>>Question: Kind of hoping someone can help a new DBM player out here. I have just assembled my army for DBM (war of the roses, Richard III) I now need some tactical advice from all the old hands on the list. Any obvious traps to avoid etc.<<
The first problem you will encounter is flanks. Your army will generally be quite small compared to your opponents so you will need to secure your flanks. This can be done
1) with WW or other terrain on the flanks. WOrks best against mobile Cv and LH armies. Consider bring a ship if you like this sort of thing.
2) attack in echelon on one flank (and being off-center towards the flank you will attack on), hold back your center and refuse the other wing while you skirmish this open flank. The idea here is to win on your attacking flank before the enemy can get around your refused flank. This works best against armies with poor C3 and slow armies. It's pointless against Mongols.
3) Skirmish on the wings. Best against slow enemies where you can break his center with yours. Pointless if the enemy center can skirmish.
4) Small suicide forces on the wings, that the enemy must beat, then regroup after the pursuit, before he can get onto the flank of the main body. Best against armies with poor C3 or where his center is weak enough that you can shatter it pretty quickly. Avoid the temptation to reinforce your loosing wings and make sure they are small enough not to break your army when they go. (The center should be 67%+ of the armies EE).
5) Form a very shallow line to extend your formation. This works best against highly maneuverable, low quality armies (Ax armies, LH & Cv (O) armies, etc.) A variation of this is the river defense. Always keep a mobile tactical reserve that can counterattack. (Kn (S/O) and Mounted Bw (S) work well).
6) Hold up in a defensive position with good flank coverage from terrain. This can often be combined with either (a) small suicide attacks to draw the enemy out of position (if he is impetuous especially), or (b) a good mobile reserve to counterattack once the enemy commits himself to the attack. (A static defense with no reserves almost always fails as the enemy pins your line, then hits a weak spot and everything crumples up). This works best against impetuous armies or players who are aggressive. Can be a disaster if the enemy has lots of Art or good LI to infiltrate your flank positions. Also these are usually dull boring games.
Anyway these are just some suggestions.
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
>>Question: I am playing in my first convention for sdfgdgf years (well pre 7th edition anyway) and as my Polybian Romans aren't ready I have borrowed some Alans (very similar armies, I don't think). Any polite comments on the two following lists would be much appreciated. Note I am limited to: 12 Kn, 29 LH, 6 Ps, 16 Bd.<<
With Alans 4 commands are usually a big part of the attraction.
Perhaps:
Cmd 1: 6 Kn (F), 4 LH (S), 8 Bd (I), 1 Ps (O), 2 Bg (I) [18.5 EE]
Cmd 2: 6 Kn (F), 4 LH (S), 8 Bd (I), 1 Ps (O), 2 Bg (I) [18.5 EE]
Cmd 3: 14 LH (S), 3 Ps (O), 4 Bg (I) [15.5 EE]
Cmd 4: 3 LH (S), 1 Ps (O) [3.5 EE]All general are LH (S), I assume the CinC is in Cmd 1 to control one lot of Kn. You can afford to loose all the Kn (F) without breaking any commands. (If you want to have a bit more hitting power but run some risks then make general in Cmd 1 & 2 Kn (F)). The Bd (I) are filler, although they could be used to chase off enemy Bw or Sp (I) with Ps support that are threatening your Kn or even tackle Ax (especially those nasty Ax (S) with PS support) that wander into the open. The 4 LH (S) act as reserves or flank guards for the Kn (F). Cmd 3 deploys 1st followed by 4, then 1 & 2 which allows you to get the ideal mach ups for your Kn (F) and keeps the enemy from getting Bw parked in front of the Kn. (Alternatively Cmd 4 or 2 can flank march). Cmd 2 is pretty much point and shoot, although by keeping them back you can control when they get into action. Cmd 1 is actually pretty maneuverable with the CinC's PIPs.
Also this is an army that gets to defend a lot, which is a potential problem for LH (S) armies. With so much LH is important to put out some H (G) when defending so that you have plenty of potential ambush spots which keeps the enemy (especially Cv (S)) from rolling forward and pinning you on your base line on turn 1).
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Assyrian Guard Supporting Archers
>>Question: Perhaps some of the more Assyriolost-minded list members could tell us why the Foot guards get 1 Ps for 4 sp, but almost everyone else in this list has half psiloi/half [whatever is being supported]?<<
Guards are only ever depicted 1:4, and that rarely.
>>Question: Hmmm..I presume that 1:4 ratio is in terms of actual figures "carved into the rock"? Which begs a question - if supporting psiloi are supposed to represent just a very few men as a rear rank or 2, and Spearmen, Ax, Bd, etc are supposed to be 4-5 ranks deep per element, a 4:1 representation would be all that's required for support wouldn't it? Also should a 1:1 depiction should give a fairly large number of spare psiloi or Bw??<<
I knew it was tempting fate to give a terse answer :)
Yes, it depends how you interpret the relevant reliefs for the guards. For most of their duties they clearly didn't need missile support, and, as with line infantry, missile support was only assigned when required. They have it when undertaking the really dangerous pioneer work at sieges (firing gates and the like) but usually not when depicted defending the king, for example. When they do its a 1:4 ratio, and this can be interpreted in several ways, but since the guards were many
thousands strong, and the reliefs only depict a limited number of representational figures, one has to go for the simplest solution which will achieve the right DBM effect without being too restrictive on choice.
For the other foot we have textual evidence as well and, in short, it's clear that the ideal ratio here was 1:1, 1 company of archers with 1 of spearmen, though often the archers were understrength. I've posted on this several times. In DBM, the psiloi/Sp combination gets the right effect.
As for the various imaginative deployments suggested in the thread, I suppose it depends at what level one likes to think the DBM model operates. I always imagine it's sufficiently high that this sort of deployment is OK.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Figures for Commagene
>>Question: Commagene - might just need horse archers I have plenty of Scythian type LH(F) but aren't these boys meant to be Arabs? If they are I would then only need the cavalry and javelinmen/spearmen to morph into the Arabo-Aramaeans. If they aren't Arabs do they look like Parthians?<<
The Commageneans certainly weren't Arabs. They may have spoken or written Aramaic by the Roman period, but I think the evidence even for that is uncertain. The name of the state goes back to Kummuhu, a Neo-Hittite state formerly occupying the same area. The people are therefore probably mostly Hellenized Anatolians. The 2nd-century AD philosopher Lucian, from the former Commagenean capital of Samosata, was a fairly thoroughgoing Greek in culture - whatever he may have been in
ancestry. The well-known reliefs of Antiochus the Somethingth of Commagene at Nimrud Dagh show some fairly Parthian-looking clothing, plus the flowerpot-shaped royal crown with tiara-style neck- and cheek-flaps also seen on Tigranes of Armenia's coins, and a mixture of Greek, Anatolian and Iranian imagery.
Since the Arab-Aramaean states (with the partial exception of Nabataea) were also under heavy Parthian sartorial influence, a mix of Parthian and Palmyran horse-archers should be usable for both Commageneans and Arab-Aramaeans. If you sling in some Armenian figures and even some bare-legged Hellenistic-looking figures, they won't be out of place either.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
Subject: Marian Romans - how to make them work?
>>Question: I've got a Marian Roman army. Does anyone know how to make them work? From my limited experience of using them in DBM they crumble at the mere whiff of Kn's(F/S/O/X). Warbands can be a problem, but that's a matter of using supporting troops, terrain, and luck. It's the knight problem I can't resolve (other than hunkering behind a series of ditches).<<
There are two basic ways to do this: one is to rely on Roman troops, the other is to buy some allies.
If you rely on Romans go for the Art (O), use them interspersed among the Bd. They might kill a few Kn on the way in and will often get push backs on the approach giving you overlaps in close combat. Buy the El (I) too, it will often scare Kn. You can give it some Ps (S) escorts or just pay the PIP penalty to move with the Bd. You should also have Ax (S) or Ps (S) to rule the RGo/DGo and channel the K attacks plus hopefully get a flank on them. Finally LH/Cv detachments can try to
work around the flanks of the Kn - works best against Irr. In any case the key unit should be the Art (O), if you can keep the Kn from marching you should get about 4+ shots, which should kill about 1 Kn per 2 Art (O) you own, aggressive use of Ps can slow the Kn down even more giving you more shots.
If you want to go the ally route, Arabs with 6-10 Irr Cm (O) are quite tough for Kn to fight, plus you get some LH. The problem with them is that you need to keep them away from the enemy infantry – still if you can reduce the fighting to an infantry fight it should help the Romans with all their Bd (O). Alternatively you can go for a big Numidian ally with loads of LH (O) and just try to go for flanks and pull the Kn apart.
Finally you should always seriously consider a flank march against an Irr Kn army, they have real trouble turning to face such a threat (other than by the mad impetuous rush) and it can get you into the soft under-belly of his filler troops. This can get you Bd out of the way of his Kn too.
Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Polybian Roman Uniforms & Shield Colors
>>Question: "I am in the process of painting up some Polybians c. 168 BC, can anyone help with shield colours?<<
There seems to be no definite evidence on Republican Roman shield-colours, or what shield-blazons, if any, they used. Nick Sekunda, in the useful Osprey "Roman Republican Army", illustrates a sculpted shield from Spain which "may" represent a Roman type of the Second Punic War, with a wolf-mask on the boss. But the shields on the Aemilius Paullus monument, the obvious source for 168 BC, have no blazons sculpted: blazons could have been painted on, but this may indicate that the original shields were plain.
There is one hint that different legions were already distinguishable: in the lead-up to the battle of the Metaurus, Hasdrubal recognised that new Roman troops had arrived because of the different shields. This could just mean that they were old, worn shields, or a slightly different shape (legions raised in different years getting their shields produced by different contractors?) rather than coloured differently, but colours are certainly a possibility.
I would therefore represent each legion (= about 4-6 hastati elements, with a corresponding proportion of principes, triarii, "and" velites) with shields of a different solid colour.
So, what colours? White is a popular ancient shield colour generally, possibly indicating that it was cheap and simple to bleach, or whitewash, or rub chalk into, a leather shield-face. It's the obvious first choice. And you can hardly have Romans without red shields somewhere. Otherwise, your guess is probably as good as mine.
Cavalry, though raised as part of a legion, were rich enough to provide their own equipment, so may have been more individualistic, and there is some evidence for shield-blazons for cavalry.
>>Question; "Many illustrations of Polybian legionaires has their tunics color coordinated with their shields. Is this accurate or just a guessimate on the illustrators part?<<
Just guesswork. There's no hard evidence for Polybian tunic colours, either. It is unlikely that they had quite our modern concept of "uniform". Sekunda thinks that 5th-century Roman hoplites had uniform red tunics, but that as the army expanded in the 3rd century they may have already adopted the unbleached off-white wool which is now thought to have been the commonest military tunic colour in the early Imperial period. So you _could_ justify co-ordinating off-white tunics with white shields - as Sekunda does, in his Osprey illustrations. But this is really no more than informed guesswork. Armies on campaign were sometimes supplied wth fresh tunics by allied cities; it is therefore quite possible that they'd finish the war dressed in a different colour to how they started, though undyed material in various shades of off-white is likely in all cases of issued clothing, simply for cheapness.
Officers and cavalry, being of the upper classes, would probably wear bleached white tunics with the purple stripe of "equites" rank. The theory now seems to be that this was a vertical stripe from right shoulder to hem (possibly matched by another one on the left), but I don't know what the evidence for that is.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
Subject: Who makes decent Early T'ang?
>>Question: (i) Who makes decent (ie not Essex) T'ang figs in 15mm ( and is a Chinese > cataphract like a Tibetan one?).<<
Outpost make a tolerable range - historically accurate, artistically OK but not great. They are not the best figures I've ever seen, they tend to be a bit scrawny - especially most of the horses - and their lances and polearms are very delicate and bendy, but they are the _only_ Tang range I know of that's close to historically accurate, based on Karl Heinz Ranitszch's book plus some sources I sent in. Most codes have a couple of variants, I think randomly supplied. The infantry spearmen have separate shields and weapons, so you could replace the weak spears with wire. The Sui heavy cavalryman is particularly nice, and would be usable for Very Early Tang; he has a nicer horse than most. He's in leather armour with plaques, one variant shooting bow and the other with lance, straight off a Dunhuang cave-painting (the one that's on the cover of Yang Hong's Chinese arms & armour book, if you know it). The lamellar-armoured Tang Cv (S) with lance and bow is OK. Avoid the bolt-thrower, which is one of the double-bow types not attested earlier than the Sung: maybe try the Chinese bolt-thrower from Tabletop if you can get it, it's a simple but convincing multi-arrow job.
And no. The Chinese descriptions suggest that Tibetan cataphracts were quite distinctive. On the other hand, there are no contemporary illustrations that can be definitely identified as Tibetan cataphracts, and most Tibetan ranges seem fairly imaginary, so when compared with the figures you have, who knows? A Tang cataphract of c. AD 700 is illustrated in both Karl Heinz Ranitsch's Montvert Tang book and the appropriate one of Chris Peers' Osprey books. However the Outpost cataphract is based on earlier, Sui (well, Late Northern Dynasties-Sui-Very Early Tang) styles.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
Subject: The Great Auxilia Debate!
>>Question: There is a disturbing similiarity of the equipment of Hellenistic thureophoroi and legionaries. Indeed it would be hard to deny that these two types are closely related in there seperate evolutions from the hoplite types of Greece and Early Rome.<<
I'd be careful here. The similarities in equipment seem to me to be superficial - they both have oval shields, swords, and helmets – rather than "disturbing". Thureophoroi are typically unarmoured, legionaries are typically armoured.
(Care here, of course: there is one illustration from Sidon of a mailed thureophoros, who may or may not be a thorakites or an "imitation legionary", and there are several representations of thureophoroi in what looks like typical Hellenistic linen-or-leather cuirass, including some mythological paintings from Alexandria and a Bactrian plaque. And there is a case - which Sekunda makes, but which I am not wholly convinced by - for seeing 4th/3rd century hastati as unarmoured legionaries. But I think that the contrast is fair, provided you stress the "typically".)
Legionaries originally wear one or more greaves. Thureophoroi don't.
The shields obviously have a common ancestry, but are different in size and shape. Thureophoroi carry flat shields that reach from chin to mid-thigh, or thereabouts; republican legionaries carry broader, concave shields (or convex, depending on which side of the shield you're standing on ....) that reach from chin to mid-calf. (The contrast in shape is interestingly repeated in the Imperial period, when auxiliary shields are flat. The difference between flat and concave shields would thus seem to be significant.)
The legionary's typical shafted weapon is the pilum, a specialised heavy, shield-neutralising, weapon. The thureophoroi carry a pair of ordinary light javelins and/or a thrusting spear.
Both carry swords. However the legionaries have adopted the Spanish sword by 200 BC, a very effective cut-and-thrust sword. (Peter Connolly had an article in Mil. Ill. about the sarissa, maybe last year, which referred to recemt re-appraisals of an old find of Republican swords from Slovenia, the earliest Roman "Spanish" swords known. It suggested that the original Republican "Spanish sword" was a good bit longer than previously thought. I think Connolly's reference was to a forthcoming
article by someone else in "Arma". Has anyone seen it?) Thureophoroi cary the standard Greek short sword. There is no indication that they ever adopt the Spanish sword, nor that the sword is ever their primary weapon.
In general, it seems fair to say that the legionary is a heavily-protected swordsman, and the thureophoros is a lightly-protected spearman and/or javelinman.
Mark was talking about equipment, and of course tactics are another question. But it is worth noting that:
One of the descriptions of Philopoimen's reforms - I think in Plutarch's "Life " of Ph. - describes the tactics of the pre-reform Achaian League thureophoroi as "peltastikes" - peltast-like. I don't think anyone ever applies this term to legionaries.
The same passage says that they did not fight in "speirai". Organisation into effective small units is the key to Roman legionary tactics, and Plutarch here is denying that thureophoroi were so organised.
Descriptions of Philip V's army in Polybios describe his mercenaries as among the "euzonoi" - "light troops" (5.22-23), but not among the "psiloi" - "skirmishers" (5.7.11). They aren't specifically identified as thureophoroi, but it seems to me that thureophoroi are the most likely candidates for this in-between infantry.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
>>Question: Is artillery in DBM worth it? I'm wondering about icnluding some Art(S) in a Macedonian outfit I am a great fan of Art(S) and I usually pick as much as possible when selecting an army.<<
Artillery is useful for a number of reasons:
- It is great if your opponent sets up in a defensive position.
- It can be used to deny areas of the battlefield to your opponent.
- It can be used to destroy troublesome eenemy elements (El, WWg, Generals)
- Troops dont count (S) against artillery, and in comps there are alot of (S) troops.
- It has a long range.
The key to using Art(S) is to deploy them correctly and to move them early in the game. With my Ottomans the Art are usually deployed in the centre with the CinC and they are moved as far forward as possible in the first turn. They can then form a support platform for light horse to harass the enemy. By running your light horse 400-500 paces in front of the artillery you can often draw enemy troops into range of the guns and then withdraw your LH.
They also make it harder for the enemy to redeploy from one flank to another or to reinforce troops under attack. Artillery can also be used to fire across the front of a defensive line of troops or across the path of attack of your own troops (which is great for dispersing enemy skirmishers trying to slow your advance). In general dont line up the artillery in the same direction as your army is facing. By splitting the artillery into two groups it is possible to advance one group while the other group is ready to fire. You can then advance your artillery and advance the "no go" zone to their front.
Art(S) may seem to cost alot of points but if the enemy wants to destroy then they will have to commit many more points (and PIP's) to ensure success. They can try and mask them with skirmishers but this can be PIP intensive. I usually try an attack the enemy skirmishers with my own LH. If the enemy reinforce their skirmishers than pull back the LH and blast away at their reinforcements.
Against enemy who have large numbers of skirmishers it is perhaps better to deploy the artillery on the flanks. Here they can use their long range to break up groups of enemy skirmishers.
The one thing that you must do is to stop enemy troops marching up to 200 paces from the artillery as this
will negate their long range.Happy shooting
Martin Morgan <martin.morgan@opendirectory.com.au>
Subject: Burgundian Ordonnance - an analysis
Burgundian Ordonnance is an army with a little of everything but nothing in abundance. You get regular dismounting knights, mounted superior bowmen, pikemen, psiloi... you name it, but never in numbers. Even so, with tactical skills and some eye this army is not a loser, but fairly lethal.
The first think to keep in mind is that YOU must have the initiative. You are almost certain to be outnumbered and overwhelmed. Therefore you must get the enemy befor he gets you.
The C3 of this army is excellent. You get three regular generals which also are good in the hacking thing.
The steel fist of the army are the gendarmerie: regular dismountable knights. They really rock. They are just as lethal as their irregular counterparts, and much more controllable and not liable to go berserk. About the only thing sans elephants you should avoid with these guys are irregular knights which may prove troublesome. You can dance around with these guys, and even Irr Kn should not prove too much touble - with a little help of friends.
If the gendarmerie is the steel fist, the Ordonnance archers are then the blowtorch. Reg Bw(S) is poison with a capital P. Anything not crushable with Kn can be dealt with these guys. They kill almost anything sans Ps(S). You should maximize their numbers. They are their worth of weight in gold. If you have to bargain in points, then bargain in Kn, not Bw. The key here is to use the archers in combination with the Kn. Separately both are toast: together they can handle almost anything. Irr Kn are a delight to be sucked against these guys...
Other Ordonnance infantry mostly suck. Crossbowmen are best to left at home. Ordonnance pikemen are few, but four of them make a nice block. Handgunners are few, but Ps(S) is the proper way to spell "nuisance". Take all four of these. Low Countries pikemen (Reg Pk(I)) are also a worthy buy. They are excellent to be used to swell the numbers and raise the breakpoint of the army. Don't buy voulgiers - they are few, and if you need good infantry, just dismount a couple of gendarmes.
Italian knights are best to left at home, but their LH is a must. Feudal troops are a liability. Irr Kn(I) suck big time, and why waste points on Irr Bw(O) mtd while there is need for points for Reg Bw(S) ? Besides, Irr Bd(S) produce control problems due to their impetuosity.
Ordonnance artillery is fairly decent. Bombards are a good buy, and organ guns make fairly good camp guards, especially if protected by palisade. A petardier element in ambush will produce also nasty surprises...
This army is an army for a player who knows what he is doing. The keyword is co-operation. Duke Charles failed in this, and it was his undoing. Same applies to a player who tries to win on only one part of this army. It is an integre entity which requires using all parts of this army closely together: knights, archers and lights. Keep your ranks close and archers near the knights - there you go ! Have your knights adventuring alone and your archers facing some pike phalanx alone... goodbye. This army is a mediocrity in hands who don't know what to do, and a fine instrument for a cunning, devious and ruthless gamer. It isn't a straightforward killer like French Ordonnance, or a manouevre army like Hungarians. It has its own nature, which may require several games to notice.
But certainly this army isn't the loser it's been labeled here either !
"fleur-de-lis" <tvi@mikrolog.fi>
Subject: Building a Later Hebrew Army
>>Question: I'm wanting to build a Later Hebrew army using Essex figures. Essex don't specifically make Hebrews. Can anyone with a knowledge of Essex figures advise what substitutes could be used? Thanks<<
In any case the advice I have received and give is as follows. L. Hebrews coexist with the Middle/Neo-Assyrians and largely copy them. I basically have a Chariot Miniatures army, but you would get the same stuff from Essex. I use a mix of Late Assyrian spearmen for the Sea Peoples Sp(O), Middle Assyrian Ashsharittu for the Gibborim, a mix of Assyrian 2 and 4 horse chariots for the Cv/Kn (I use a mix of 4 horse types as I would assume that the Hebrews are forced to make do with less than the cutting edge of technology and are slower to replace chariots), Assyrian medium cavalry becomes the Reg Lh(O). I use a mix of near eastern types for the Ax/Ps/Bw.
I like this army quite a bit. One thing to be careful of is getting trapped in a RGo mindset. You will generally field between 20-24 Ax(O/S) in a 400AP army and have 2 mandatory terrain pieces. This makes you really want to junk up the board as much as possible. This is a mistake. Hebrews are a perfectly competent Biblical period open field army. You will probably have 16+ chariots, reg generals, at least 2 Lh(O) and up to 4(?) Lh(I) and 4-8 Reg Sp(O). Don't be afraid of fighting in the open. Use you terrain and superior light troops to create powerful flanking opportunities that you opponent is forced to respond to, don't get tempted into making them you main effort. One thing I have been trying lately is taking one of my terrain picks as a road. Use this to create a potential avenue of attack for your chariots. If you clear a path with the Ax you can generate some surprising attacks. At the very least it gives you opponent something to think about.
Ethan R. Zorick ezorick@essex.ac.uk
Subject: Classifying Hittite Infantry
>>Question: Nigel was quizzed on the classification for Hittie infantry<<
Ah, the H-word again. And they're a nightmare to try and classify! In Hittite Old Kingdom manuals the guardsmen have drills for moving from very open (15 metres apart!) to close order, and changing role from marching in close file to running ahead of moving chariots they are guarding. Reversing files and other minor drills are mentioned. This is the NE norm for the time, but the fact that the Hittites needed to record it as part of court protocol might suggest it was all rather new for them. However, despite this, and in view of the fact that thrusting spears rather than javelins are mentioned as their main weapon I think Ax (S) "drilled to fight in close formation when necessary" should be considered as an additional upgrade option for some of the OK list. They might just be subsumed as runners within Cv (O) chariots, of course.
In the Empire period, the two large bodies of Hittite infantry singled out for mention by the Egyptians at Qadesh are actually described as elite troops (teheru)! One interpretation would be that they were kept in reserve to guard the king - though some Hittite infantry had attacked with the chariots early in the battle, but then remained behind to guard the river fords). I'd be tempted to class this lot from Ax (S) to Pk (I), the latter encouraging the dense formations we see in the Qadesh reliefs.
V(ines) should go on terrain options and after 1340 BC there should be Shaasu or Sutu Bedouin, Irr Ps (O) & Irr Ax (I), to plant false intelligence on the gullible Egyptians, plus Ugaritic warships and marines with fire pots.
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Khwarizmian questions
>>Question: I need to field an historical opponent against Later Crusader and I was thinking about Khwarizmian. Can I safely morph their lancers from earlier Turks or did they have a more "Islamic" appearance? What can I use for the foot archers? I don't have any reference about them, it's not my period :), any suggestion?<<
The old out of print "Armies and Enemies of Ancient China had color schemes of the Khwarizmians. I used them to paint my Khwarizmian army way back when. These are from several sources from the area in the early 1200's AD.
Tunic colors for unarmored cavalry or invantry: dk blue, light green, grey, dk brown, madder red. Trim on the tunics is around necks, upper sleeves and diagonally across the chest to below the arm from the neck and is of a contrasing color. Examples:
- lt brown on a dk blue tunic
- lt red on a dk brown tunic
- dk round on a lt green tunic
- madder red on a light grey tunic.
An infantry man had a sheild of lt blue with black boss and dk brown rim of a floral pattern of repeating convex arcs.
The Shah is portrayed as in purple tunic, hat and trousers the hat and tunic had a gold embroidery in a repeating rectangular patern I couldnt discribe except as a stylized Altaic horse and rider. Infantry tunic colors in this source black, red, purple, light pink!
Army standard: 4 black tugs with a gold band in the middle and a gold fringe on the end. The tug is a like a long triangle with its tip tied to the pole widening out to fringed end. These were arranged up the pole like horsetail standards.
Other standards were:
- one with a metal ball at the top of a pole with a red feather and black horsetail afixed to the pole top poking thru the ball.
- a black bear on a rectangular white field The flag is twice as long along the pole as it is wide.
Armored cavalrymen wore a surcoat over their lamelar armor covering the torso to the knees. but exposing the armor of the arms and below the knee. There is an illustration of their elephants too. Armored cavalrymen type crew. 1 driver, pikeman and archer. atop a elephant with no howda but with a quilted pad covering its back and sides. The WRG book Armies and Enemies of the Crusades has several illustrations of turkish troops in it too. That is still in print.
George Smithson
Subject: Inscrutable Mystery of Ottoman Deployment
There's been some talk about the battlefield merits of the Ottoman deployment system, and what it was the Sultan was trying to do, and will it work in DB*.
I contend that the Turkish deployment didn't reflect some particular Ottoman tactical plan ( so cunning you could pin etc etc) but was a simple reflection of the troop types, order of march, size of army and length of campaigning season. When a Sultan such as Selim, Mehmet or Suleiman went on campaign they didn't need or want anything other than the largest army they could muster. They were bent on conquest not contest.
When the Turks marched into Europe word would go out to the Rumelian and Anatolian provinces to the governors (beys) to muster the Timariots who owed service for land they worked. These men were the feudal spahis. The hangers-on, mounted and dismounted were the Akinjis and Azabs, who may have owed service or simply saw gain in the adventure.
Meanwhile in Istanbul the Sultan's household,( the Janissaries ,Spahis of the Porte and the Artillery train) were ready and would set out prior to the arrival of the Timariots of Anatolia. Thus the line of march as the different elements caught up with each other on the road would be:
- Akinjis and Azabs, in bands of varying size, way out front of the army, not well controlled, scouting and looting with the confidence that the main army followed.
- European Spahis, well controlled and leading by virtue of their head start and necessity to grow and coalesce as different contingents joined them from provinces not directly on the line of march.
- Jannissaries and the Sultan's household and train, the main body of regular foot ,cav ,artillery and train, marching together from Istanbul.
- Asian Spahis, following up the rear because of the extra distance they had to come, growing fatigue, and late arrival with the marching army, and some very hopeful Akinjis and a few tired and footsore Azabs.
When Suleiman besieged Vienna the first time, Akinjis raided as far away as the Inn river (look at a map) so some of them didn't see their duty (or opportunity) with the main army. Back on the line of march contact and intelligence of the main enemy body would be made by roaming bodies of Akinjis and Azabs which would bunch up between the two armies as they closed. The Sultan's household (including artillery and wagon laager would deploy closest to the line of march and the two more mobile bodies of Spahis to the flanks. What control the Sultan may have had to control his irregular light troops to the front is debatable but the more dutiful would understand their task to cover the deploying main army.
For the main army, I think foot in the middle with cav on the flanks is such a typical deployment in and out of the DB* period as to not require explanation. The Akinjis simply get there first, the Azabs keeping a slightly more sensible distance from the enemy, the real army deploying behind because that's where they were when intelligence of the enemy reaches them.
That Artillery deployed in advance of the foot is common in DBR period,so that they may actually get a shot at the enemy.
So Ottoman battlefield deployment reflected the manner of mobilisation, marching looting and foraging. It is the default deployment of such an army comprising the best and worst controlled troops.It has similarities with the WW1 mobilisation by timetable. It was the only way to get their firstest with the mostest and get back home in the campaigning season, remember the Azabs, Akinjis and Feudal Spahis had to plant and harvest and serve the Sultan as well.
EXAMPLE: TCHALDIRAN 1514
The Sultan Selim invaded Persia with this "default" mobilisation and order of march. On the plain of Tchaldiran the Persians (all mounted) blocked the line of march and the akinjis and azabs covered the deployment of the main body of the Turks, though the Shah did not contest the deployment.
The Persians charged driving in and pushing aside the light troops. The European Spahis having marched the furthest and with mounts in the poorest condition were broken completely with heavy loss , but the laagered Janissaries held out as did the right wing Asiatic Spahis until the wounding of the Shah caused the Persians to retire from the field. Selim went on to take Tabriz.
The turks probably would have not got there soon enough in good enough condition had they done it any other way.They simply deployed as efficiently as they could from the most efficient order of march arising from the most efficient method of mobilisation.
Luke Taper <matador@fastlink.com.au>
Subject: Painting Vedic/Classical Indian Chariots
To answer a question on colouring info for Indian chariots and elephants, I rummaged around in a few books last night, but didn't come up with much of use that's not already in Armies of the Mac and Pun Wars. You have all got a copy of that, now haven't you? :-)
The Ajanta paintings of elephants are disappointing in that, at least in the pictures I've got, they don't show the saddle-cloths so aren't much help on colours. What they do show is large "collars" round both forehead and neck depicted as gilt and jewelled, the forehead ones sometimes with white tassels hanging from the edges. There are also gilt bands round the tusks in some pictures. Sometimes there are white parasols on the backs; this is in hunting scenes, though, not war. Drivers mostly seem to be wearing white. Sculpture from Sanchi and elsewhere show the cloth hangings with decorated edgings and various zig-zag and criss-cross patterns, but are no help on colours. Written sources mention golden trappings, bells, etc.
As for chariots, the zig-zag pattern on the edge of AMPW 177's chariot-body is from Sanchi and is fairly typical. The epics frequently mention bells and flagstaffs, sometimes canopies against the sun, and kings at least have parasols (usually white with gold ribs). Some chariots are said to be covered in tigerskin, or even elephant-skin according to one note. The floor is often carpeted.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
Subject: Why did Chariots disappear?
>>Question: Why does the Chariot go from doombringer to dodo in decades? Is it a case of training costs or cost advantages of cavalry (no wood & wheels needed), or just easier logistics (I wonder what a chariots' reliability up-time was), or better tactical flexibility, or the traditional explanation that not until c9th were horses big enough and robust enough to carry men many miles on their backs? <<
Chariotry and cavalry each had their own advantages and drawbacks, and we can see the Assyrians maximising the military potential of _both_. It was my belief, as expressed in AANE, that the enthusiastic nA adoption of cavalry in the C9th resulted in a gradual supplanting of chariotry, but my analysis of newly collated material shows that this was not so - the Assyrians developed a huge cavalry arm, _and_ expanded the chariotry! Chariotry remained important in the nB period, the reason given for NII not following up his invasion of Egypt was because of the losses to his chariotry.
I think there's no single reason, all of the above are fair points. It is cultural and economic. If we look at the Chinese we find a similar pattern, they adopted the chariot late (from steppe peoples, ironically) in the late Shang; military chariot use peaks in the Zhou dynasty, declines after 771 BC, but is only finally supplanted by cavalry in the C4th BC. Steppe nomads were still using the chariot in the 1st Mill. BC, and, of course continued to use (4-) wheeled vehicles in war for a few mill. more.
>>I note that the Medes and Persians never felt the need to replicate it<<
Ah, but they _did_ - in a very unusual way. Unable or unwilling to maintain a "real" chariot establishment after the C7th BC, they attempted to get a part at least of the same effect on the cheap by developing the infamous scythed-chariot. By taking to extremes the morale effect of each vehicle by adding scary blades they tried to maintain part of the late chariot's "shock" role without having to maintain thousands of vehicles and thousands of highly trained crews and teams.
I don't think any more than 400 or so were ever used at one time, compare that to the 5000+ "real" chariots at Qarqar, or the 3000+ in the late nA army, this and the fact that the gimmicks were no substitute for the real thing meant they were never very effective. Even so, the scythed chariot was still being played around with for hundreds of years after "real" chariot use had ceased (even longer according to the LIR list :) ).
>>maybe a simple thing like good cavalry, solid foot and disciplined bowfire finally doomed the wheelies.<<
I think it is partly cultural but mostly for economic reasons that chariot use _for war_ declined. The Assyrians had all the above, as, say, did the Kushites. Don't forget how rich the NE states were – Arpad once bought Assyrian military support for 30 tons of silver in the C8th BC, Tyre the same with 4.5 tons of gold! 4 tons of gold was found in the tomb of Sargon II's queen at Nimrud - that's 4 tons permanently removed from circulation for _one_ royal burial! The Assyrians devoted this vast wealth to war, the Persians didn't.
With cavalry one could get the same effect, with a gain in flexibility in some areas (perhaps a loss in others), for less investment of resources. Chariots remained prestige vehicles, though under other names, until a few generations ago
Nigel Tallis nigel@akkade.demon.co.uk
Subject: Morphing Turkish Armies
>>Question: Would later Turks (c 9th - 11th century, say Uighurs & Seljuqs) look somewhat different or would they still retain the appearance as described for earlier Turks.<<
When the Uighurs were the imperial power in Mongolia and thereabouts, circa 720s-840s, they'd probably look much like earlier Turks but with an increasing proportion of armour, and of expensive Chinese silks. The khagan keeps a standing army of 3-4,000 cavalry who might be regulars (if there were room for them in the list) and might have had some rudimentary uniform - the Esen article I cited befroe has a reference to one Turkish leader's guard not Uighur in this case, dressed in red silk, and I can certainly see the khagan dressing his elite troops from one batch of Chinese tribute-silk. There is also a Chinese reference to Uighur female horse-archers in this period. But pictorial sources or detailed descriptions are scarce. (There is one famous Chinese drawing of the Uighurs surrendering to the Tang general Guo Ziyi (Kuo Tzu-i), which shows them as elaborately-equipped heavy cavalry in very Chinese-style armour. But it's a later picture - Sung dynasty – and probably not reliable.) When the Uighurs take refuge in the Tarim basin, art shows almost exclusively heavy cavalry, quite heavily armoured including horse-armour, long armoured sleeves, etc, and princes in brightly-coloured patterned silks. But it's hard to say what the lighter troops would have looked like. I suspect that they would have looked much the same as the earlier ones: certainly 10th-century Chinese paintings of Turks show a lot of similar features. The hair is still worn long in Uighur paintings, though perhaps not quite as long – braids to chest rather than waist level.
The Seljuks I know less about. There are plenty of paintings from the later end of the Seljuk period - start for instance with the drawings in Ian Heath's WRG
And "did banners ever start to be introduced in the later outfits?" They may even have been used in the early armies. The wolf's-head standard was the emblem of the khagan only: it was used by the original Gok khagans and was later adopted by the Western Turk and the UIghur khagans. Esen's article has an Uighur painting showing a standard with a metal wolf's-head and a long cloth banner issuing from its mouth. Lesser Uighur standards were white flags: they are mentioned in the Tang sources being carried by an Uighur allied contingent in the 750s, and both David Nicolle's Osprey Attila and Karl-Heinz Ranitszch's Montvert Tang Army books show later Uighur paintings of cavalry holding white flags. I think John Greer's old WRG book claimed that the Kirghiz used red flags, but I've never found a source for this. Other lesser standards might have been the famous horsetails, but early illustrations of these are rare.
Duncan Head headd1@Midas-Kapiti.com
