Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Smith]

For those that are interested, I have activated the Marian Roman
army page on my site. The URL is:

http://www.miniwars.com/MarianRoman.html


Dave
http://www.miniwars.com

[joncleaves]

This is very, very cool, Dave. I think it's the best post I've seen in a
long time. Everyone would be well served to check out this part of your
site.

Well, heck, all parts of your site....

Thanks.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Kollmer]

It is great. Painting is fantastic and the translations of Caesar is an
added bonus.
----- Original Message -----
From: <davidsmith@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Marian Roman's


> For those that are interested, I have activated the Marian Roman
> army page on my site. The URL is:
>
> http://www.miniwars.com/MarianRoman.html
>
>
> Dave
> http://www.miniwars.com
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com

Dave, many thanks for that link. Your site is awesome. Now can I
use that as a hook back into a debate that bounced around a few
months ago. How best to represent a historical Marian legion in
Warrior ? I see that your 1600 point army has units of 4 elements
of legionaries. I can see that some might see this as an optimum
size HI unit for a table-top army of this size. But if they are
meant to be cohorts, it looks to me as if they are all the same
size, viz 960 men. I wonder why we aren't restricted in Warrior to
cohorts of a size that all my reference books tells me was used ...
viz approx 480 men, or 2 elements of HI ??? I've debated this with
fellow players in Australia and the doubters (or to be fair, the
people who disagree with me) argue from various pragmatic positions
that run the gamut from 'they lumped their cohorts together anyway'
to '2 element units are too small' .. but as far as I can see, all
their arguments are trying to make the history fit the game they
want to play. I must admit to only having read the popular
histories and accounts of the Marian army but they all, without
exception, say cohorts of 480 men, with some debate about exactly
when a double-sized first cohort of 960 men was introduced.

Forgive the rave, and I ain't going to tell another player how to
run their army. But on a point of history and list making, can
someone point me to a source that refers either to cohorts being
lumped with other cohorts or refers to legions made up of bigger
cohorts. And please, I mean a source, not a pragmatic argument
based on what works on the table-top.

Or alternatively, does anyone out there successfully run Marian
legions with 2 element legionaries ???

Cheers, and thanks again for the brilliant site, Dave.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "David Smith <davidsmith@k...>"
<davidsmith@k...> wrote:
> For those that are interested, I have activated the Marian Roman
> army page on my site. The URL is:
>
> http://www.miniwars.com/MarianRoman.html
>
>
> Dave
> http://www.miniwars.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2002 03:55:09 Central Standard Time,
jerryhearnau@... writes:

> Or alternatively, does anyone out there successfully run Marian
> legions with 2 element legionaries ???
>

Jerry, no one agrees with your concerns more than I. Warrior WILL be the
game that most accurately reflects the manipular legion. That is one of the
main reasons why Imperial and Classical Warrior will be done last - we have
to get those list rules right.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Please note that grouping 4E into one 'unit' for command purposes is not the
same as a cohort being 'double strength'. It might be that a 4E Warrior
'unit' plays exactly as two cohorts working closely together would.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2002 09:38:39 Central Standard Time,
grimmetttb@... writes:

> Has some thought been given to the problem being the factor assigned to HTW
> vs mounted?
>

Yes, it has. And by mounted, do you mean knights? or any cav? How Romans
act when charged by medieval knights will never be something that drives how
we simulate romans.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tim Grimmett]

Has some thought been given to the problem being the factor assigned to HTW
vs mounted?

If non-shooting Romans didn't get blown away in the first round of HTH other
list-driven fixes would become easier.

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:10 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Marian Roman's



In a message dated 12/18/2002 03:55:09 Central Standard Time,
jerryhearnau@... writes:

> Or alternatively, does anyone out there successfully run Marian
> legions with 2 element legionaries ???
>

Jerry, no one agrees with your concerns more than I. Warrior WILL be the
game that most accurately reflects the manipular legion. That is one of the

main reasons why Imperial and Classical Warrior will be done last - we have
to get those list rules right.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jerry,

Well, I lost what I had written so dilligently a while ago!

Anyway, larger 16 or 24 figure units are run to have greater staying
power against high charge punch armies such as armies with EHK or SHK
troops. 8 figure cohorts are very effective against large foot units
such as Pike armed foot and large barbarian units. Coordinated
charges and then not following up with one cohort will allow gaps to
develop in your opponents line which can be exploited by the smaller
cohorts very easily.

Greg Regets and I have put some troops on the table to watch what
happens and this tactic is VERY effective. If Greg reads this, he may
be able to explain it better than I.

I have also seen players allowing gaps to develop in their own lines
and using smaller units to charge into flanks of opposing units when
gaps develop in their own lines. Good Aztec players use Irr. A Otomi
and Priest units to do this. This could be very effective against an
unwary knight player. Keeping small cohorts in reserve to exploit
gaps in your own line would be very interesting to try. Your higher
morale legionaries should be able to weather the onslaught. A little
patience and good tactics should give the unwary knight player a
nasty little surprise ;-)

Personally, I prefer Early Imperial Romans to Marians but I do have
both. EIR have better allied light and support troops. You should be
able to use the Marian figues as early period EIR list troops as the
change in armor was not immediate and I suspect that many legions
retained older armor for quite a while. But Marians should give any
foot army something to think about. Oh, have a look at the Hutchby
and Clark 7th edition lists. I believe Pompeii's army has loose order
option legionaries and some interesting allied support troop choices.

Hope this helps some....

Chris

[scott holder]

Has some thought been given to the problem being the factor assigned to HTW vs
mounted?

Yes, it has. And by mounted, do you mean knights? or any cav? How Romans ac
t when charged by medieval knights will never be something that drives how we
simulate romans.

>Let me also add that I don't see any "problem" with HTW factors vs "mounted".
I'd strongly urge people interested in my take on this to go back and look a
t some old posts of mine that go into nauseating detail as to how we (FHE) hav
e looked at how Marian/EIR interacted with their any of their cavalry-heavy co
ntemporaries and are gonna most likely interpret the historical record. Moreo
ver, remember that HTW as a weapon catagory covers a multitude of sins and as
such, the various impact of said weapon vis a vis "mounted" is problematic. Is
the Prussian "throwing axe" the same as the Roman pila in its (in)effect on o
pposing mounted? Probably not. What is clear, as I'll elaborate on hereafter
, weapons we lump into the HTW category never had a great track record against
mounted opponents. But I'll limit my lengthy discussion to good ole Rome.

>The Roman tactical model (the "republican" model under it's various names du
juer like Camillan, Polybian) as we see it develop was designed (originally) t
o do one thing: kill hoplites. It just so happened that it worked well again
st the ultimate hoplie, a phalangite built along the Macedonian tactical model
. The Roman tactical model also benefitted from having really good generals f
ight really bad ones (as was the case with most if not all of the Roman vs Hel
lenistic encounters of the post-punic era right down to the annexation of egyp
t). A secondary developmental impetus of the Roman tactical model was to coun
ter charging hordes of barbarians. But.......the manipular tactical model was
never really adept at doing that because some tiny maniple was expected to ho
ld of a significantly larger (heh heh, both in numbers and in size) tactical o
pponent. You see a noticeable shift away from the manipular model after the f
irst encounters with Hellenestic armies again because Roman commanders found t
hat really small units just couldn't pila and swordplay their way to victory a
gainst enemy *formations* that just brought to much bulk to bear on a given po
int along the battle line. This shift was completed during Marius' time when
the Romans started to *really* deal with barbarian hordes, both Germanic and G
allic, for the first time. A series of incompetent Roman generals leading arm
ies that, even though they were most "cohortal" by that time, couldn't stand u
p to screaming barbarian hordes. Hence, you see the finishing touches on the
cohortal system that provided some tactical unit strength (in numbers and pres
umably in coordination down at the accutely local level) to deal with this typ
e of infantry foe. The development of the Roman tactical model of the Camilla
n/Polybian era to that of the Marian/EIR area was *still* the result of Rome's
focus on defeating *infantry* opponents. More in a minute.

>But, whenever the Roman tactical model came up against really good generals a
nd/or opposing tactical models sufficiently different from that which the Roma
n tactical model was designed to efficiently kill, woe to the Roman commander.
And the Roman tactical model wasn't designed to deal with cavalry or combine
d arms (and don't let the Hellenistic encounters fool you, they were overwhelm
ingly pike in nature plus their generals *were* morons) or to a lesser extent,
barbarian foot with enough numbers, morale, or weapons to really thwack the c
rap outta a Roman "unit" early on in any given engagement. The Spanish are a
case in point. Raid, counterraid, and overwhelm Roman maniples with a classic
whacko barbarian charge *combined* with weaponry the Romans would later adopt
(both the sword and pila) and suddenly Rome would spent a loooong time dealin

 g with Spain. There's a good reason that every rebellious Roman general of th
e late Republican era went to Spain to recruit; he had a willing base of peopn
st Roman AND they were familiar with the weaponry. Second case in point is Ha
nnibal. Obviously a talented general using a combined arms approach to fighti
ng battles. Rome couldn't deal with that until they produced better generals
and learned how to fight better battles. Third case in point would be the ear
ly encounters with the Parthians. Carhhae pretty much sums up how poorly even
a Marian-reformed cohortal army dealt with horse archers and armored cav.

>After Augustus makes Rome master of the Med, he had two tactical models oppos
ing him: barbarians in the north and cavalry in the east. The tactical devel
opment of EIR armies was aimed more at countering the barbarian threat. Remem
ber that the Gallic sack of Rome in, I think 285 BC (or was it in the late 300
s, dammit, I don't remember off the top of my head) plus the Germanic invasion
s during Marius' time seared Roman conciousness, thus, it was far more importa
nt to develop a tactical system to defeat barbarians that were seen as much to
o close for comfort rather than those cav weenies way far away in the east. N
o Roman could ever see the Parthians getting to Rome much less sacking Rome.
Thus, you see EIR armies that were efficient barbarian killing machines by dev
eloping full time professional soldiers breaking up charges with his pila and
then comfortably hiding behind his scutum and stabbing with his Spanish-derive
d sword. Combine this with mobile artillery support and the northern barbaria
ns just don't hack it. And yes, Warrior doesn't replicate that as well as it
might, hence the most likely list rule of some type of "swordsman" rule. Howe
ver, EIR armies were still awfully suceptible to cavalry-heavy opponents. Rea
d Arrian's accounts of this. Now he discusses a tactical formation he used ak
in to an orb (facing in one direction, however) which I have on my list of thi
ngs to explore as another possible list rule for EIR armies. There is no evid
ence that Arrian's "anti-cav" formation was an institutional feature of EIR ar
mies or something he dreamed up on the spot to prevent another Carhhae. And a
gain, it highlights the concern Roman commanders felt in the EIR period when f
acing what was to them, *still* an alien military system. That's another reas
on why auxiliary (or allied) troops from other parts of the Empire were wanted
and expected to fill that tactical void.

>Because we strongly feel the historical record supports an interpretation tha
t the Roman tactical model up thru the EIR period was susceptible to cavalry,
it damn well awta be really susceptible to "super cavalry" ie, knights.

>Finally, in response to an earlier post, please remember that the man per fig
ure ratio is variable so stating that a Roman cohort *must* be 2 elements can,
in some instances, be misleading. One of my favorite examples is the Late Ma
cedonian pike formations the Romans fought against. If using a certain figure
ratio in TOG, these units *must* have been 16 element units. By adjusting th
e ratio, you get them down to 12 elements. Also remember that it's possible t
hat some things going on in the early Roman tactical model occur below Warrior
's mechanical simulation level (ie things are assumed to be occurring).

>To summarize, the earlier Roman lists will most likely have some list rule si
milar to that which you currently see in FW. The Marian/EIR list will not hav
e that list rule (which is really more of an interpenatrive rule) but will mos
t likely have some type of "swordsman" benefit (we'll probably have the bugs w
orked out of that as a result of current work on NWW). And the EIR list might
have some type of special formation akin to a one way orb designed to withsta
nd a cav charge. Again, all of this is subject to change. Right now, I hafta
make sure I get the Swiss right although I think the current set of FW list r

 ules seems to have solved *that* nagging problem.

>Let me stress that no one is more interested in this than me. It's a period
I *know* and actually have some academic training in so I'll be taking great c
are to see that we get it right.

Scott
List Ho

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/22/2002 06:23:07 Central Standard Time,
grimmetttb@... writes:

> PS--Jon. You should know I chose the word "mounted" carefully
> in order to clarify I didn't mean knights.
>

Oh, that was *you*. lol

My research is not as extensive as Scott's but does reveal the same thing.
The Roman formation was built to kill Greeks and had consistent trouble with
lancers.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tim Grimmett]

Thanks Scott. I learned something today.

Where can I find some background on Carhhae. I suspect I'm
close to the ground in question. Unlike Patton I cannot drive over ground
and tersely tell my driver to turn right because I can smell a battlefield.
I thought that the horse archers had to run the Romans ragged until the SHC
closed in for the kill. A general under Warrior can just ride over the top
of Romans.

Or part of the smell around here is a result of there being 5000
years of battlefields in the immediate vicinity.

And more to add to the smell on the way.....

Tim

PS--Jon. You should know I chose the word "mounted" carefully
in order to clarify I didn't mean knights.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:51 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Marian Roman's


Has some thought been given to the problem being the factor assigned to HTW
vs
mounted?

Yes, it has. And by mounted, do you mean knights? or any cav? How Romans
ac
t when charged by medieval knights will never be something that drives how
we
simulate romans.

>Let me also add that I don't see any "problem" with HTW factors vs
"mounted".
I'd strongly urge people interested in my take on this to go back and look
a
t some old posts of mine that go into nauseating detail as to how we (FHE)
hav
e looked at how Marian/EIR interacted with their any of their cavalry-heavy
co
ntemporaries and are gonna most likely interpret the historical record.
Moreo
ver, remember that HTW as a weapon catagory covers a multitude of sins and
as
such, the various impact of said weapon vis a vis "mounted" is problematic.
Is
the Prussian "throwing axe" the same as the Roman pila in its (in)effect on
o
pposing mounted? Probably not. What is clear, as I'll elaborate on
hereafter
, weapons we lump into the HTW category never had a great track record
against
mounted opponents. But I'll limit my lengthy discussion to good ole Rome.

>The Roman tactical model (the "republican" model under it's various names
du
juer like Camillan, Polybian) as we see it develop was designed (originally)
t
o do one thing: kill hoplites. It just so happened that it worked well
again
st the ultimate hoplie, a phalangite built along the Macedonian tactical
model
. The Roman tactical model also benefitted from having really good generals
f
ight really bad ones (as was the case with most if not all of the Roman vs
Hel
lenistic encounters of the post-punic era right down to the annexation of
egyp
t). A secondary developmental impetus of the Roman tactical model was to
coun
ter charging hordes of barbarians. But.......the manipular tactical model
was
never really adept at doing that because some tiny maniple was expected to
ho
ld of a significantly larger (heh heh, both in numbers and in size) tactical
o
pponent. You see a noticeable shift away from the manipular model after the
f
irst encounters with Hellenestic armies again because Roman commanders found
t
hat really small units just couldn't pila and swordplay their way to victory
a
gainst enemy *formations* that just brought to much bulk to bear on a given
po
int along the battle line. This shift was completed during Marius' time
when
the Romans started to *really* deal with barbarian hordes, both Germanic and
G
allic, for the first time. A series of incompetent Roman generals leading
arm
ies that, even though they were most "cohortal" by that time, couldn't stand
u
p to screaming barbarian hordes. Hence, you see the finishing touches on
the
cohortal system that provided some tactical unit strength (in numbers and
pres
umably in coordination down at the accutely local level) to deal with this
typ
e of infantry foe. The development of the Roman tactical model of the
Camilla
n/Polybian era to that of the Marian/EIR area was *still* the result of
Rome's
focus on defeating *infantry* opponents. More in a minute.

>But, whenever the Roman tactical model came up against really good generals
a
nd/or opposing tactical models sufficiently different from that which the
Roma
n tactical model was designed to efficiently kill, woe to the Roman
commander.
And the Roman tactical model wasn't designed to deal with cavalry or
combine
d arms (and don't let the Hellenistic encounters fool you, they were
overwhelm
ingly pike in nature plus their generals *were* morons) or to a lesser
extent,
barbarian foot with enough numbers, morale, or weapons to really thwack the
c
rap outta a Roman "unit" early on in any given engagement. The Spanish are
a
case in point. Raid, counterraid, and overwhelm Roman maniples with a
classic
whacko barbarian charge *combined* with weaponry the Romans would later
adopt
(both the sword and pila) and suddenly Rome would spent a loooong time
dealin
g with Spain. There's a good reason that every rebellious Roman general of
th
e late Republican era went to Spain to recruit; he had a willing base of
peopn
st Roman AND they were familiar with the weaponry. Second case in point is
Ha
nnibal. Obviously a talented general using a combined arms approach to
fighti
ng battles. Rome couldn't deal with that until they produced better
generals
and learned how to fight better battles. Third case in point would be the
ear
ly encounters with the Parthians. Carhhae pretty much sums up how poorly
even
a Marian-reformed cohortal army dealt with horse archers and armored cav.

>After Augustus makes Rome master of the Med, he had two tactical models
oppos
ing him: barbarians in the north and cavalry in the east. The tactical
devel
opment of EIR armies was aimed more at countering the barbarian threat.
Remem
ber that the Gallic sack of Rome in, I think 285 BC (or was it in the late
300
s, dammit, I don't remember off the top of my head) plus the Germanic
invasion
s during Marius' time seared Roman conciousness, thus, it was far more
importa
nt to develop a tactical system to defeat barbarians that were seen as much
to
o close for comfort rather than those cav weenies way far away in the east.
N
o Roman could ever see the Parthians getting to Rome much less sacking Rome.

Thus, you see EIR armies that were efficient barbarian killing machines by
dev
eloping full time professional soldiers breaking up charges with his pila
and
then comfortably hiding behind his scutum and stabbing with his
Spanish-derive
d sword. Combine this with mobile artillery support and the northern
barbaria
ns just don't hack it. And yes, Warrior doesn't replicate that as well as
it
might, hence the most likely list rule of some type of "swordsman" rule.
Howe
ver, EIR armies were still awfully suceptible to cavalry-heavy opponents.
Rea
d Arrian's accounts of this. Now he discusses a tactical formation he used
ak
in to an orb (facing in one direction, however) which I have on my list of
thi
ngs to explore as another possible list rule for EIR armies. There is no
evid
ence that Arrian's "anti-cav" formation was an institutional feature of EIR
ar
mies or something he dreamed up on the spot to prevent another Carhhae. And
a
gain, it highlights the concern Roman commanders felt in the EIR period when
f
acing what was to them, *still* an alien military system. That's another
reas
on why auxiliary (or allied) troops from other parts of the Empire were
wanted
and expected to fill that tactical void.

>Because we strongly feel the historical record supports an interpretation
tha
t the Roman tactical model up thru the EIR period was susceptible to
cavalry,
it damn well awta be really susceptible to "super cavalry" ie, knights.

>Finally, in response to an earlier post, please remember that the man per
fig
ure ratio is variable so stating that a Roman cohort *must* be 2 elements
can,
in some instances, be misleading. One of my favorite examples is the Late
Ma
cedonian pike formations the Romans fought against. If using a certain
figure
ratio in TOG, these units *must* have been 16 element units. By adjusting
th
e ratio, you get them down to 12 elements. Also remember that it's possible
t
hat some things going on in the early Roman tactical model occur below
Warrior
's mechanical simulation level (ie things are assumed to be occurring).

>To summarize, the earlier Roman lists will most likely have some list rule
si
milar to that which you currently see in FW. The Marian/EIR list will not
hav
e that list rule (which is really more of an interpenatrive rule) but will
mos
t likely have some type of "swordsman" benefit (we'll probably have the bugs
w
orked out of that as a result of current work on NWW). And the EIR list
might
have some type of special formation akin to a one way orb designed to
withsta
nd a cav charge. Again, all of this is subject to change. Right now, I
hafta
make sure I get the Swiss right although I think the current set of FW list
r
ules seems to have solved *that* nagging problem.

>Let me stress that no one is more interested in this than me. It's a
period
I *know* and actually have some academic training in so I'll be taking great
c
are to see that we get it right.

Scott
List Ho


























To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

Thanks Scott. I learned something today.

>You're most certainly welcome. I'm a historian first, wargamer second, or iz
it the other way around?

Where can I find some background on Carhhae.

>Plutarch's "Lives" has a bio on Crassus complete with battle coverage. Dio C
assisu (which I haven't read) also has an account. In Hans Delbruck's "Warfar
e in Antiquity" (Vol 1), he devotes an entire chapter to Rome vs Parthia up th
ru Antony's expedition. Although later historians often dispute Delburck's an
alysis on things, this book is an excellent point of departure for all things
Roman and the changes instituted in the late Republic.

I suspect I'm
close to the ground in question. Unlike Patton I cannot drive over ground
and tersely tell my driver to turn right because I can smell a battlefield.

>Carrhae was a caravan city that I *think* is now called Harran (or was later
called Harran, beats me). Crassus crossed the Euphrates at a place called Zeu
gma but again, I don't know where that is.

I thought that the horse archers had to run the Romans ragged until the SHC
closed in for the kill.

>To setup the battle, first, the Romans had 4,000 cav which at least 1000 was
Gallic (so it was HC/MC JLS, Sh). Some portion of that cav was lured away fro
m the main route march of the army and destroyed. So it's hard to know how mu
ch cav was left when Crassus actually met the Parthians. When he learned they
were nearby, he was on the march and didn't have time to setup a good Roman c
amp (he had 7 legions with him). Instead, he formed the army into what I best
understand it to be some type of huge square, hollow in the middle. Now how
that translates into any gaming system's tactical mechanism is anybody's guess
. Regardless, it appears as if he had the legionaires close ranks (akin to th
e "Arrian" formation used 200 years later) so that no flanks were open. Here,
then, is Plutarch's account, verbatim:
"the Parthians now went back a long way and began to shoot their arrows from a
ll sides at once. They did not need to aim at specific targets for the Roman
ranks were so densely crowded that it was impossible to miss the target even i
ntentionally. They kept up a dense volley with their large, powerful bows, cu
rved so as to give their arrows the maximum impetus. Straightaway the plight
of the Romans was very awkward. If they remained in their ranks they were wou
nded one after another; if they attempted to come to close quarters, they were
unable to achieve anything and still suffered casualties. For the Parthians
shot as they fled and do this most effectively, next to the Skythians. The Ro
mans endured so long as they had hopes that once the Parthians had used up all
their arrows, they would either break off the fight or engage at close quarte
rs. But when they realized that large numbers of camels laden with arrows wer
e at hand and thatthose who hard first ridden round them were getting more, th
an Crassus saw no end to it all and began to lose heart."

Fromere, Crassus began a retreat after darkness. First he went to Carrhae a
nd after a short rest, continued to retreat during the night. He was lured in
to a parlay with the Parthians who killed him and it appears that most Roman c
asualties occurred during the overall retreat.


 It's easy to see this in Warrior terms. But first, we need to keep in mind th
at we're playing on a BIG table so that the Parthians pretty much get to ride
round and round the Romans in the center. Continued shooting at the Romans me
ans most likely 1 CPF per turn on any given number of units. 2CPF means halt
or waver (duh, Romans are gonna "halt"). Keep this up over time and as Roman
units get tired and close to exhaustion, Crassus decides it's time to get the
hell outta dodge. And as he tries to march, he's easy pickins.

At no time to the cataphracts come into play on this. I'd also add that it's
hard to talk about SHC vs Roman infantry from this era in Warrior terms becaus
e so few players play these armies or these games. I can say that based on th
e FW games we've run where these matchups are common place, the SHC doesn't si
mply run over the Romans. Yeah, they push em back disordered but the SHC (in
a 2 element unit) usually doesn't have the oomph to keep killing the disordere
d but not tired Romans, unless you get the whacky dice fluctations or you mana
ge to push the Romans back again and have em blow the waver test. I think thi
s is fairly accurate. Like anything else, you need a supporting unit to slam
into the Romans to finish the job begun by the SHC.

Scott
Carrhae Ho

My first ancient army was Parthian, and I still run it at Cancon
every January in 15mm (WRG 7th). It goes really well in 15mm on the
big tables. Cataphracts do not always beat legionaries, but most of
the time they will. It is certainly a good idea to have support units
about or use a lot of cataphracts just to be safe. The perception is
that Parthians will usually defeat the Romans.

In January this year at Canberra I only fought one Roman army in six
rounds, and that was a Late Roman army, the general of which saw fit
to hide all his foot in brush. Naturally we drew. I was not that keen
on sending D grade peltasts into the brush to face hordes of auxilia
who can charge more than once without taking a waver test!

I have only run Parthians in a comp once in 25mm and it was a
disaster - there just wasn't the room required to coordinate the
horse archers and cataphracts.

Adrian

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott <FHWA>"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> Thanks Scott. I learned something today.
>
> >You're most certainly welcome. I'm a historian first, wargamer
second, or iz
> it the other way around?
>
> Where can I find some background on Carhhae.
>
> >Plutarch's "Lives" has a bio on Crassus complete with battle
coverage. Dio C
> assisu (which I haven't read) also has an account. In Hans
Delbruck's "Warfar
> e in Antiquity" (Vol 1), he devotes an entire chapter to Rome vs
Parthia up th
> ru Antony's expedition. Although later historians often dispute
Delburck's an
> alysis on things, this book is an excellent point of departure for
all things
> Roman and the changes instituted in the late Republic.
>
> I suspect I'm
> close to the ground in question. Unlike Patton I cannot drive over
ground
> and tersely tell my driver to turn right because I can smell a
battlefield.
>
> >Carrhae was a caravan city that I *think* is now called Harran (or
was later
> called Harran, beats me). Crassus crossed the Euphrates at a place
called Zeu
> gma but again, I don't know where that is.
>
> I thought that the horse archers had to run the Romans ragged until
the SHC
> closed in for the kill.
>
> >To setup the battle, first, the Romans had 4,000 cav which at
least 1000 was
> Gallic (so it was HC/MC JLS, Sh). Some portion of that cav was
lured away fro
> m the main route march of the army and destroyed. So it's hard to
know how mu
> ch cav was left when Crassus actually met the Parthians. When he
learned they
> were nearby, he was on the march and didn't have time to setup a
good Roman c
> amp (he had 7 legions with him). Instead, he formed the army into
what I best
> understand it to be some type of huge square, hollow in the
middle. Now how
> that translates into any gaming system's tactical mechanism is
anybody's guess
> . Regardless, it appears as if he had the legionaires close ranks
(akin to th
> e "Arrian" formation used 200 years later) so that no flanks were
open. Here,
> then, is Plutarch's account, verbatim:
> "the Parthians now went back a long way and began to shoot their
arrows from a
> ll sides at once. They did not need to aim at specific targets for
the Roman
> ranks were so densely crowded that it was impossible to miss the
target even i
> ntentionally. They kept up a dense volley with their large,
powerful bows, cu
> rved so as to give their arrows the maximum impetus. Straightaway
the plight
> of the Romans was very awkward. If they remained in their ranks
they were wou
> nded one after another; if they attempted to come to close
quarters, they were
> unable to achieve anything and still suffered casualties. For the
Parthians
> shot as they fled and do this most effectively, next to the
Skythians. The Ro
> mans endured so long as they had hopes that once the Parthians had
used up all
> their arrows, they would either break off the fight or engage at
close quarte
> rs. But when they realized that large numbers of camels laden with
arrows wer
> e at hand and thatthose who hard first ridden round them were
getting more, th
> an Crassus saw no end to it all and began to lose heart."
>
> Fromere, Crassus began a retreat after darkness. First he went to
Carrhae a
> nd after a short rest, continued to retreat during the night. He
was lured in
> to a parlay with the Parthians who killed him and it appears that
most Roman c
> asualties occurred during the overall retreat.
>
>
 It's easy to see this in Warrior terms. But first, we need to keep
in mind th
> at we're playing on a BIG table so that the Parthians pretty much
get to ride
> round and round the Romans in the center. Continued shooting at
the Romans me
> ans most likely 1 CPF per turn on any given number of units. 2CPF
means halt
> or waver (duh, Romans are gonna "halt"). Keep this up over time
and as Roman
> units get tired and close to exhaustion, Crassus decides it's time
to get the
> hell outta dodge. And as he tries to march, he's easy pickins.
>
> At no time to the cataphracts come into play on this. I'd also add
that it's
> hard to talk about SHC vs Roman infantry from this era in Warrior
terms becaus
> e so few players play these armies or these games. I can say that
based on th
> e FW games we've run where these matchups are common place, the SHC
doesn't si
> mply run over the Romans. Yeah, they push em back disordered but
the SHC (in
> a 2 element unit) usually doesn't have the oomph to keep killing
the disordere
> d but not tired Romans, unless you get the whacky dice fluctations
or you mana
> ge to push the Romans back again and have em blow the waver test.
I think thi
> s is fairly accurate. Like anything else, you need a supporting
unit to slam
> into the Romans to finish the job begun by the SHC.
>
> Scott
> Carrhae Ho