THE SOCIETY OF ANCIENTS

PRESIDENT HON. LIFE VICE-PRESIDENTS

Phil Barker Tony Bath
Deryck Guyler
SECRETARY
lain Dickie, COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The Bungalow, Bruce Douglas Sue Laflin-Barker
Dewlands Road, Ian Greenwood Darrell Lias
Verwood, Wimborne, George Gush Michael Wasilewski
Dorset. Trevor Halsall John Westwood
Telephone: Verwood 824907

WARGAMES CHAMPIONSHIP ORGANISER

TREASURER Sue Laflin Barker,
Bill Thurlow, 757, Pershore Road,
“Courtenay”, Selly Park,
15, Longfleet Road, Birmingham 829 7NY
Poole,
Dorset, BH15 2HN POSTAL CHAMPIONSHIP ORGANISER
Telephone: Poole 2396 (5-6p.m.)
Darrell Lias,
71, Penryn Avenue,
EDITOR The Grange, Royton,
Nr. Oldham, Lanes. OL2 6JR
Duncan Head,
Telephone: Shaw 841744
2, Sewell Avenue,
Wokingham, MEMBERSHIP ORGANISER
Berkshire, RGI 1 1 NS.
John Westwood,
Telephone: 0734-784242 14 Radford Road, Selly Oak,
Birmingham, 829 4RB
CTESIAS
Ian Smith, AMERICAN CTESIAS
10, Sussex Close, John Boehm,
Boreham, 3120 Orwell, Lincoln,
Chelmsford, NE 68516, USA
Essex, CM3 3ED
Telephone: Chelmsford 466502

DIRECTION OF CORRESPONDENCE

to the Treasurer - enquiries about membership, subscriptions, changes or address, requests for back copies of
“Slingshot”.

to the Editor - all articles etc. for publication in “Slingshot” except items for review, comments and
suggestions on the magazine; please see the note to contributors on the back cover before
writing your contribution.

to Ctesias - Items for review in “Slingshot”, offers to contribute reviews, etc.

to the Wargame - Championship battle results, and enquiries about the Championship and its rules.
Championship
Organiser

to the two Postal - enquiries about the competitions they are running.
Organisers

to the Secretary - all other correspondence,

All letters requiring a reply must be accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope if from within the UK, or by an
addressed envelope and the appropriate number of International Reply Coupons if from overseas.
 1

No. 101 MAY 1982

GUARDROOM
On Romans

Derek Harrison writes: I would just like to make a few minor points concerning Jon Coulston’s article The army of
Hyginus in Slingshot 99 (January 1982, page 45). I gleaned much of the following from S. Frere’s “Hyginus and the-
First Cohort” in Britannia Xl, 1980. Firstly, Frere’s article showed that Hyginus’ army list could date from as early as
Domitian’s Marcommanic War of AD 89. Secondly, the line in Jon’s table for cohortespeditatae quingenariae should
read I I I with 1,440, not 1,920, in the pedites column. Thirdly, there is another alternative identification of the Getati,
which could be amended as Gaetuli, There were a tribe who lived to the south of Numidia and Mauretania, and they
could have been brought in for the campaign at the sam,e time as the Mauri.. Gaetuli were first recorded in Roman ser-
vice in 46 BC, were used again in Nero’s reign, but are mentioned by Ammianus as still raiding Roman Africa in the mid
4th century. They chiefly fought as javelin-armed light infantry, may not always have used shields, and their style of
fighting was sufficiently distinctive to give their name to a type of gladiator. Some authorities regard the Getae as an
unlikely candidate for the Getati because as a nation they were on the way out, having-been defeated by various inva-
ders including the Dacians amongst whom they are included by Pliny. However, acceptance of the earlier date for
Hyginus might increase their credibility.

Phil Barker writes on armour: Commenting on Derek Harrison’s !etter (January 1982 page 32) Vegetius does not say
that Roman foot wore metal cuirasses until the time of Gratian, and Ammianus does not in fact mention mail but
loricis, corselets. Leather can be just as highly polished. The main argument against the York statue and the Arch of
Constantine corselets being mail is that they follow the body shape too well. The argument in favour of mail is that in
each case the corselet projects over the shoulders so as to prevent the arm being raised if the material is rigid. If both
opposed suggestions are impossible, a third must be found, and simplest is to assume a close fitting rigid corselet with
vertical armholes and the arming doublet’s short sleeve projecting through. There does appear to be an indication of a
join on the left shoulder of the York statue, but the whole surface is rather worn. That area on the Arch of Constantine
corselet is concealed by a cloak. I go along wjth the small pteruges at the bottom of the corselet being attackbed to the
corselet. This is obviously the case on the large statues illustrated by Robinson in The Armour of imperial Rome,
plates 429 to 432. However, his figure 158 equally shows that both smal! and large shoulder pteruges are part of the
arming doublet.

Duncan Headasks: If Phil Barker considers that Vegetius’ reference to corselets being worn until the time of Gratian
probably includes non-metallic corselets, does he accept the obvious corollary - that after Gratian, no infantry
corselets or helmets of any material were worn?

On chariots

Further lines from R. M. Turpin: An article on chariot tactics by David Edwards (January 1982, page 14) invited a
response. I feel able to oblige, although I freely admit that I have never ridden one. I believe that David has made an
error in his observations of Egyptian stone reliefs and so his “essentially skirmishers” interpretation is incorrect. This
also demolishes his assumptions on how ancient commanders reacted to cavalry developments. Alse, a point he did not
explore, just who were the opponents that a massed chariot force attached?

The drawing is part of one strip of the battle scene, with infantry and chariots advancing, perhaps charging,
into enemy who have already given ground to other Sea People mercenaries, if not even in rout. Those are not shown
neither is the complete line of Egyptian infantry, nor are the 5th and 6th chariots which are on the relief, but I would
confirm that they are represented in the same way, i.e. the horses’ forelegs across the chariot or horses preceding.

There is no way that it can represent a column. If viewed from 90’ to one side, a plan view would reveal a
staggered line abreast, or if viewed from some oblique angle to the front and to one side, a plan view would reveal a
straight line abreast. This is not an isolated case. On the same relief an exact repeat is seen as chariots pursue enemy
chariots. Also on a relief of Rameses I I I against the sea peoples, chariots are again shown in the same way. Of interest is
the bow armed driver and the shield with javelin armed warrior in each chariot.
 If I may use David’s own words “had they been intended to use shock tactics then they would have been in
line abreast”!

Undoubtedly chariots were assembled to fight other chariot forces. It was the struggle between opposing
aristocratic warriors, and if a substantial victory was obtained, the remaining second class troops and levies were then at
a distinct disadvantage, if not as good as dead! Whatever chariot formations were used, and I believe a line~abreast,
which by the way must have made a very impressive sight, their objective was to clobber the enemy chariots, But surely
not by a series of head on collisions! As soon as a chariot force moved at speed any variation in “horse power”,
charioteers’ weight, grass or not, loose stones, soft sand etc, too, creating gaps, to which they would have aimed and
passed through. Casualties inflicted with bow at long range, and with javelin at close range. It is also interesting that our
Egyptian charioteers did not fire their bows, I believe because they did not want to hit their own men. When they
pursued enemy chariots, they are shown firing and driving with reins around their waists.

After bursting through the enemy lines, it could have been “form up again for another bash”, or perhaps it
was every chariot for itself. ‘Is that properly termed “skirmishing”, or “hand to hand”? In my opinion the latter, but
not in the static manner. Did they, the irreplaceable aristocrat warriors ever choose to fight the hordes of 2nd class
levies who could easily be replaced? Attack them in the flank, finish off routers, yes but the concept of charging facing
stood firm spears, seems to me to be suicidal and must have appeared so to them!

I agree with David that the rules do need changing, but not as he suggests. Rules are needed which reflect the
“passing through of each others lines”. Massed chariot warfare was different, so why don’t we make it so on the
wargame table? Perhaps WRG wouldn’t want to change their rules, yet again? Having fired my arrows, I’ll raise a shield
and drive on through.

Phil Baiker considers the Irish juggernaut:ihose of you who have read the latest edition of Armies and Enemies of
imperial Rome may remember that I expressed a lingering doubt that Celtic armies may not after all have used chariot
scythes. Michael Hessian has now drawn my attention to the following excerpt from Thomas Kinsella’s translation of
the Cattle Raid of Cooley:

‘!He stepped into his sickle war chariot that bristled with points of iron and narrow blades, with hooks and
hard prongs and heroic frontal spikes, with ripping instruments and tearing nails on its shafts and straps and loops and
cords. The body of the chariot was spare and slight and erect, fitted for the feats of a champion, with space for a
lordly warrior’s eight weapons, speedy as the wind or a deer darting over the level plain. The chariot was settled
down on two fast steeds, wild and wicked, neat-headed and narrow-bodied, with slender quarters and roan breast, firm
in hoof and harness. .”

Michael says that there are further passages later on describing the use of all these nasty sharp things, and goes
on to point out thta apart from a few harness mounts in the National Museum in Dublin, the only evidence for Irish
chariots is in that very epic, so we should logically either accept scythed chariots in Ireland or none at all.

For those wanting to check, Kinsella’s translation appears in The Tain, Dolmen Press, 1969.

If any one can save me from having to upgrade at least Cuchulain’s chariot to two-horse scythed light chariot with
“Irregular A” crew of unarmed driver and one with JLS, I invite their immediate assistance!

Stagnated Slingshot?

Paul Marks asks “Why not why? rather than what?“: I was quite taken with Harold Gerry’s article in the January issue
(page 9) and I would like to echo some of his comments in a stronger way. I have been in the Society for twelve years
and these days I really resubscribe for sentimental reasons more than anything else. In all that time I have never contri-
buted anything to the magazine so I am on dodgy ground when it comes to criticising. From 1970 for a number of
years I was a very active ancient wargamer with a staple diet of WRG editions plus amendments, These days I have littie
contact with ancients apart from Richard Bobley-Scott’s computer games (but that’s another story). This is the back-
ground which leads me to the following comments.

Slingshot is wonderfully researched and academic. A look through the January edition left the impression of
coverage in these areas:

- (1) Historical articles, that would be at home in the Journal of Roman Studies, etc,
(2) Figure reviews;
.‘_ (3) Competitions;
y (4) WRG rule amendments/developments;
* - (5) Harold Gerry’s article. This one stuck out like a sore thumb. Instead of being based solely on other
people’s books, figures or rules it contained ideas.
.
! am leading up to this; Slingshot strikes me as boring and sterile because the work is all research and opinion
but no inspiration. If people think there is not an alternative approach to wargaming then I suggest they contact War-
games Developments and read their magazine The Nugget. It contains ideas to facts in the reverse ratio to which they
appear in Slingshot. For example, all Dark Age wargamers should read Andy Callan’s work.
 3

I must make clear that I am not having a go at the editor as he can only print what is submitted. I am aiming
at the membership in general, which is ten times as large as WD yet fails to come up with anything original. I cannot
believe that no-one out there is doing any wargaming that rates as frontier breaking, so can someone please prove me
wrong? From my seat as a relative outsider Slingshot seems to have moved along several courses which stifle change and
evolution. The future for imaginative ancient wargaming is bleak if the articles do reflect what people really discuss and
do these days. Another point is that there is no published discussion of the reasons for the existence of the Society.
Surely it is not perfect, and yet nobody seems to query anything apart from spear lengths! If this is what the members
want I had better retire quickly but I feel that many specific topics are covered in great depth while the wider prob-
lems of how to wargame the period are completely overlooked.

AZTEC WARSUITS AND HELMETS

by Neil Grant

1) The basic protective garment of the Aztecs, the ichcahuipilli. This was made of quilted cotton or
maguey cactus fibre soaked in brine for added strength. Perfectly suited to the Mexican climate, this garment
was light and effective, being short-sleeved and hip length. Ideally two to three inches thick and left in nat-
ural colours it was the minimum level of protection worn by all Aztec warriors excepting possibly the novice
warriors.

2) This illustrates the one piece cotton battledress worn by veterans. Of similar construction to the
ichcahuipilli, they were covered with finer cloth, fur or feathers. It affords greater protection in that it ex-
tends to wrists and ankles. It is often combined with decorative helmets and head-dresses constructed from
bone, wood or similar materials, and decorated with feathers, being inlaid with precious metals and painted
or dyed bright colours.

Helmet: this type was worn either with the warsuit illustrated or a plain suit as Fig. 4. The neck
covering is black with gold ornaments hanging from it. The helmet itself is white with a green band, The disc
on the band is coloured, from the centre out, yellow to blue to red. The ‘shuttlecock’ is composed of a white
ball and white feathers with two black stripes followed by a green macaw tail feather plume. The ornamental
rods are brown with blue blocks three quarters of the way up the rods. The hanging ornaments are gold.

Suit: this warsuit is white with black blocks and a red collar. That which matches Fig.‘3. can be
yellow with black blocks and red collar or plain blue with matching loincloth.

3) An alternative helmet similar to Fig. 2. Black neck covering with gold hanging ornaments, a yellow
helmet with blue band higher up; otherwise as before excepting the ‘shuttlecock’, which has three black
stripes on the feathers.

Second alternative; Dark brown hood composed of thin strips, blue helmet with red band, otherwise
i as above but lacking the frontal decoratioti and rods.

I 4) The standard plain warsuit with an opening for the loincloth. These almost always have red collars.
In the rare instance of a different collar colour, this is white. The loincloth either matches the warsuit or is
white, although it is likely that wealthier warriors would have decorated borders. Standard colours for
warsuits are yellow, red, blue, green, turquoise, white or orange.

1.
5) This sui‘t is white with red vertical stripes on the loher arms and legs. A glyph runs over the chest; I
do not know what this symbolises. The top stripe is red, the lower yellow. The petals in the centre run, top
to bottom, single yellow to two red to yellow-blue-yellow. Alternatively, this glyph can be matched with
plain f&e, red, yellow or turquoise suits.

The helmet main colour always matches that of its accompanying suit. The teeth, nose, eyes,
hangings and horn on the forehead are yellow. If the suit and helmet are yellow, the eyes can be yellow or
brown. If the helmet is white and the suit as illustrated, the horn, teeth and eyes should be white. The comb
at the back of the helmet is always purple, and a green plume comes from a ‘shuttlecock’ composed of be-
tween oTie Sid three layers of white feathers.

6) A Puma suit and helmet. This is similar to a jaguar knight suit excepting the lack of spots. Both
helmet and suit are yellow, with white ‘shuttlecock’ and green plume on the helmet. Eyes and teeth are
yellow.

An alternative is red suit and helmet with a white line delineating the mouth.

7,8 & 9) This type of helmet is often found with the barred suit,.although this is more heavily barred than
that of Fig. 2. The suit and helmet colour are the same. Examples are red with black bars, light blue with
dark blue bars,‘yellow with black bars, white with black bars, plain blue, yellow or green or black with white
dots. One example of the red suit with black bars has a white collar.

Helmets: coloured as suits with hanging golb ornaments. The lotier border embroidery is usually the
same colour as the remainder of the helmet. On two red examples this is white. Half way up the helmet is a
band holding a disc. The colour combinations are as follows.

a) ‘. Black and white spotted helmet with a white band; disc has red centre with white surround.
b) Red helmet with white trim and blue band; disc has blue centre with white surround.
cl Red helmet with blue band; disc has blue centre with yellow surround then red surround.
4 Blue helmet with yellow band; disc has yellow centre to blue ring to yellow ring to red ring.
4 Blue helmet with black band; disc has yellow centre to white ring to red ring.
f) Blue helmet with red band; disc has yellow centre to blue ring to white ring to red ring.
9) Red helmet with yellow band; disc has yellow centre to red ring.
f-4 Red helmet with green band; disc has yellow centre to red ring.

9) Yellow helmet and trim, gold ornaments as before. Green band; disc with white centre with blue ring
to white ring to red ring. At the top of the helmet there is a yellow cotton or feather ball followed by banded
feathers running from the base blue to red to green to yellow followed by a green macaw plume.

10) The tunic and kilt are red with a red lower band on the kilt straps. The feather tips below the straps
run, from left to right, green to yellow. An alternative suit is yellow, again with the red lower band with the
tips running yellow to green.

The helmet has a yellow cap and hangings with a red lower band on the hangings. Below these are
alternate feather tips running yellow to green. The feather crest is banded, from the bottom up, red to green
to yellow to red.

a) Alternatively, a similar helmet can be matched with a plain red suit, the feather crest being red leading
to yellow tips. I .-
b) As for a) with the addition of a circle on the cap, this being, from the centre out, yellow to blue ring to
red. The suit is of the kilt type and is all red.
cl A plain yellow suit with yellow cap and hangings with a red lower stripe on the hangings. Below these
are alternate green to yellow feather tips. The bands of colour on the crest run blue to red to green to
k yellow to green.
4 As c), the crest running red to green to yellow to green.

13) Is a slight variation on b) The-cap, as usual, is yellow with yellow hangings and a red lower band on same. The
disc is also yellow, and the feather tips yellow to green. The feather crest has coloured bands running red to green to
yellow to green.

Alternatively, no disc, the crest being yellow with white tips.

11) Possibly a coyote helmet, this is yellow with a white feather ‘shuttlecock’ and a green plume. Eyes and teeth
are white.

: 12) Another type of suit with lower arms and legs of a different colour to the remainder of the suit. Colourings
are green with red lower limbs, red with white lower limbs, and white with purple lower limbs. This type of suit is
always shown with a back banner but no helmet.
 13. 16.

17.

14) The suit of a jaguar knight. The helmet is coloured as the suit, with trim and shape as per Fig 6. Colours can be
natural, white with black spots, turquoise with dark blue spots or red-brown with black spots.

151 A suit with extra padding on the lower limbs. The suit is white with red aud white striped pads. These tended
to be worn by the higher ranking officers and provided some slight measure of extra protection.

16) This is taken from a figurine in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It represents a coyote helmet and
shows the method of wearing such helmets.

17) An Eagle knight suit, a spectacular construction of feathers, with reproduction claws at ankle level and with
feathers attached to the arms to simulate wings. Some suits also have tail feathers. Alternatively the suit can be only
calf length. The feathers are natural colours.

18) Eagle Knight helmet from a bust in the National museum, again showing method of wear.
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE VANDAL NATION ,. -_
- Part 2 2
,t

by Paul Halliday
The Vandal empire (439-477)

j Se_cure in the possession of his new kingdom the ambitious Gaiseric searched around for new areas of conquest
with which to satisfy the restless spirit of his barbarians and their greed for plunder. Surveying hisposition he found
the southern deserts too inhospitable and unprofitable but the coasts to the north, laden with the accumulated spoils
of centuries of peace proved an irresistable lure. Carthage, for obvious historical reasons, was ideally suited as a base
for a Mediterranean sea war. With the abundant timber of North Africa and the skills of his African subjects Gaiseric
built up a formidable fleet. Finding crews however was a different matter; the Vandal warrior aristocracy looked none
too kindly on the pirate life preferring rather the luxury of their African villas and leaving a mix of Moors, Africans
and mercenaries to form the bulk of the crews.

Every Spring, therefore, the Vandal fleets led by Gaiseric in person would leave Carthage to plunder the
Medit,erranean -coasts from Spain to Asia. The Vandals were always careful to take as many horses as required for a
thorough raid into the surrounding-countryside. The sole object of these raids was plunder, no attempt was made to
occupy the mainlands. Gaiseric instead pursued his conquests in the Mediterranean islands, which might provide
colonies and timber, bases, and shelter for the raiding fleets. Moreover unlike the mainland the islands were defensible
by sea where the main Vandal strength lay. , *.
I .. ?I ’
<
Ever aware of his precarious position and of the relatively small numbers at his command, Gaiseric was fre-
quently called on to exercise his skill at diplomacy to maintain his people in their possessions. By 441 the Empire was
again‘ready to challenge the Vandals for Africa and a large fleet from both East and West was assembled at Sicily.
However the ambassadors of Gaiseric had been busy soliciting an alliance with Attila and on the appearance of the Im-
perial fleet the Vandals pressed their allies for support and the resulting Hun pressure on the Eastern frontier forced
the recall of the troops. Gaiseric’s son Hunneric was married to the daughter of Theoderic king of the Visigoths, until
Gaiserig decided she had tried to poison him and had her mutilated and sent home. Theoderic not surprisingly was
eager to take up the Imperial cause and attack Africa. Gaiseric was quick to send large gifts to his allies and the foll-
owing Hunnic invasion of Gaul forced the abandonment of Theoderic’s plans. After the deaths of Attila and
Theoderic. Gaiseric renewed his alliance with the new Visigothic king Theodoric II, ever alert to the possibility of
usind their arms to divert the Empire from African affairs.

The sack of Rome 455 AD

As was usual in the 5th century the internal convulsions of the Imperial court provided the best opportunit-
ies for exploitation by an ambitious barbarian. Following the death of Valentinian the throne passed to his assassin
Petronius Maximus who compounded his crime by forcing Valentinian’s wife Eudoxia into marriage. The unfortunate
Empress looking around for a champion settled on the king of the Vandals.
 The lure of Roman gold probably provided a stronger pull for Gaiseric, but at any rate in June 455 three
months after the assassination of Valentinian.the Vandal fleets anchored at the mouth of the Tiber. At the approach!
of the Vandals, Maximus fled his palace only to be murdered in the street by Burgundian mercenaries in sympathy with
Eudoxia Three days later the Vandals advanced from Ostia to be met only by Pope Leo asking mercy for the city.
The gates of Rome were then opened and over 14 days the Vandals emptied the city of everything of value, moveable
or not. They also carried back to Carthage many skilled Roman craftsmen and their ‘ally’ Eudoxia with her two
daughters.

Vandal Expansion

Following the sack of Rome the Vandal expansion into the Mediterranean islands gathered momentum.
Sardinia was invaded in 456 and remained a Vandal colony until 533, despite its recapture for a short interval by
Marcellinus in 468. Sicily was the scene of much hard fighting, both sides having successes but the most notable, the
defeat of the Vandals by the Patrician Ricimer at Agrigentum in 456. It was Marcellinus who formed the main oppos-
ition to the Vandals in Sicily, but even so they had sacked Palermo by 460 and on the death of the general they over-
ran most of the island. Sicily remained under Vandal control until 476, when a treaty with Odoacer returned the island
to the Kingdom of Italy on payment of an annual tribute. The tribute was witheld by Odoacer’s successor, Theodoric
the Ostrogoth, who gave Lilybaeum back to the Vandals as a dowry for his sister Analfrida on her marriage to the
Vandal prince Thrasamund. The Balearic Islands, long harassed by raids, were finally occupied by 465. Corsica, first
invaded in 450 was long disputed by the Vandals and the Gothic allies of Rome until its capture by Gaiseric in 469.
From then on the occupation lasted 65 years and the island provided most of the timber for the Vandal fleets.

During the struggle for Corsica in 456 the Patrician Ricimer defeated a Vandal fleet of over 60 ships. In recog-
nition of his victory he was given the title ‘Deliverer of Italy’, and he used his new found fame and influence to force
the abdication of the Gothic puppet emperor Avitus. In his place Ricimer bestowed the purple on his friend and ally
Majorian.

The campaigns of Majorian 457-461

If Gaiseric had any doubts about the intentions of his new enemy then they were soon dispelled by his actions.
In 457 Imperial troops surprised and destroyed a Vandal fleet fresh from a raid on Campania. Gaiseric’s brother-in-
law was killed in the attack. Despite these setbacks the Vandal raids on the Italian coast continued unabated and the
pressure grew on Majorian to do something about it. Lacking a powerful fleet to challenge the Vandals at sea he deter-
mined to check the trouble at source and attempt the reconquest of Africa.

Due to the growing apathy of his Roman subjects Majorian was forced to recruit his army from among the
foederati and barbarian mercenaries The army he assembled in Liguria consisted of Imperial mercenaries, Gepids,
Ostrogoths Burgundians, Suevi and Rugians. As in most barbarian mercenary armies their strength in numbers and arms
was balanced by the distaste with which the differing nations viewed each other, the whole being bound together only
by the force of Majoriarrs personality and the depth of his treasury. Led on by the Emperor in person the army crossed
the Pyrenees in a severe winter and arrived in Spain around May, having on the way subdued the hostile city of Lyons.
Once in Spain, Majorian defeated Theoderic II and admitted the Visigoths to his alliance. By his diplomacy he also won
over the Bagaudae to his cause.

With Gaul and Spain temporarily reunited under Imperial authority Majorian turned his attention to the ques-
tion of naval superiority. He recognised the need for a naval force to support his alnd forces and to challenge the Van-
dals at sea and keep the supply routes open. To this end the Apennine woods were felled and a fleet of over 300 galleys
and transports were assembled in the bay of Alicante at Cartagena. According to Procopius Majorian then disguised
himself as his ambassador and visited Gaiseric in Carthage.

Aware of the growing threat Gaiseric tried repeatedly to force a delay or a treaty on the Emperor but with-
out success. Gaiseric realised the Vandals were in no position to withstand a landing in force which could occur at any
point on the coast. He also felt his Vandals to have been softened by the luxury of the south and patently distrusted
his African subjects whom he knew hated him as an Arian. Accordingly he adopted a scorched earth policy in
Mauretania burning the villages and poisoning the wells.

However, Majorian’s plans were betrayed to Gaiseric by traitors among his allies and the Vandal fleets swept
down on Cartagena and destroyed the invasion fleet. Gaiseric immediately renewed his offer of peace and this time
Majorian was in no position to refuse. This defeat destroyed the Awe in which Majorian was held by his troops and
on his return to Italy he was deposed by the army at Tortona, the last Western Emperor worthy of the title.

The full force of the Vandal raids in the Mediterranean was directed mainly against the Western empire. The
reasons for this were as follows. After the sack of Rome and the abduction of Eudoxia with her daughters, Eudocia and
Placidia, Gaiseric’s son Hunneric was married to Eudocia and as she was of the Imperial house of Theodosius, Gaiseric
demanded a part of the Imperial patrimony as a dowry. The usurpers in the west refused to recognise this claim but
the Theodosian emperors in the east paid a ransom for the return of Eudoxia and Placidia and secured themselves a
degreee of immunity from raids. Also the west, being on the verge of collapse, was unable to support fleets to defend
itself and Gaiseric constantly played on the animosity of east and west to divide their forces. The west implored the aid
of the east many times but the east would only mediate with the Vandals on their behalf, to little effect. The eastern
emperor, Marcian, was also supposed, while a captive of the Vandals, to have promised not to attack Africa.

However with the death of Marcian and the elevation of Leo I the policy of the east took on a more vigorous
and hostile stance. As the pressure of the raids increased Ricimer was obliged yet again to seek aid from Constantinople;
Leo, after confirming his position by the disgrace of Aspar, was persuaded on political, economic and religious grounds
to pursue an African war. Realising Ricimer was powerless to act against the Vandals alone, Leo used his influence to
blackmail the west into accepting his collegue, Anthemius, as Emperor. The two thrones thus united the preparations
began for the invasion of Africa.

Expedition of Basiliscus 468 AD

I
The African war was opened by the landing in Tripoli of the Praefect Heraclius with the troops of Egypt,
Libya, and Thebais, joined via the desertby their Arab allies. Heraclius immediately subdued the cities and defeated-the
garASons of the region. The province secure he at once set off for Carthage to join the Imperial army there. The
Imperial forces, under the command of Basiliscus who was the Empress’ brother, consisted of 1113 ships and 100,000
troops and sailors. This force sailed from Constantinople direct to Africa and anchored at Cape Bona, 40 miles from
Carthage.

Besieged as he was by the powerful armies of the east, it was the activities of Marcellinus and the-forces of the
west that caused Gaiseric most alarm. Marcellinus, after the death of Majorian, refused to accept the authority of Rici-
mer and set himself up as an independent Patrician in Dalmatia. His fleets raided Italy and Africa and proved the most
formidable opponent to Vandal control of the sea. Following the nomination of Anthemius by Leo, Marcellinus was
reconciled to the throne and his Dalmatian fleets formed the main armament of the west in the African war. They
expelled the Vandals from Sardinia before sailing to join the imperial forces at Cape Bona.

The combined forces of Basiliscus, Heraclius and Marcellinus had defeated all the tentative opposition the
Vandals had so far offered and looked certain to march on Carthage. The appearance of a vast army at the gates would
probably have overcome the badly overstreched and disorganised Vandals and the fall of Carthage would certainly mean
the fall of Africa. However Gaiseric, lacking the military strength, fell back on the tactics of delay and treaty and by
protesting fidelity to the Empire and pleading for time to organise the surrender of the city, he tricked Basil.iscus into
accepting a 5 day truce. Whilst the truce lulled Basiliscus into a dangerous sense of security, Gaiseric rallied his forces
and studiously assessed his enemies position, formed his plans and waited a chance to attack.

When the wind turned in their favour the Vandals set sail from Carthage, their galleys towing large barges filled
with wood and brush. The Vandal attack, under cover of darkness, achieved complete surprise. The barges were set
alight and floated down into the closely moored and unguarded Imperial fleet. The galleys that escaped burning were
picked off by the main Vandal fleet waiting for them further out at sea. At the first sound of attack Basiliscus, who was
anchored furthest from the action, declined to engage and fled immediately for the safety of Constantinople. Heraclius
and his army retired through the desert and Marcellinus retired to Sicily.
.
The loss of over half the invasion force at a cost variously estimated at 70-130,000 Ibs of gold and 5,200-
700,000 Ibs of silver left the Imperial treasury bankrupt for over a generation. The failure of this expedition and the
subsequent murder of Marcellinus in Sicily left the Vandals once again in control of the seaways. The raids resumed
with redoubled ferocity and Gaiseric soon reconquered Sardinia and Tripoli.
 9

In 476 AD Gaiseric finally succumbed to the overtures of peace and signed a treaty with the Emperor Zeno.
The treaty provided a brief respite for the African Catholics who had endured ruthless persecution throughout
Gaiserics reign, Over a reign spanning nearly half a century Gaiseric, by the force of his own will, had carved out of the
ruins of the western empire a formidable empire for himself and his people. The Vandal fleets ruled the Mediterranean
seaways and mercilessly harried the coasts of the civilised world. With the Vandals in control of the African granaries
the people of Europe lived perpetually under the threat of starvation. So it was, that with the Vandal empire at its
greatest extent and at the height of its power King Gaiseric died on January 25 477 AD.

MORE IN SORROW.. ..
by Phil Barker

In reply to Jon Coulston’s critique of Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (November 1981, page 351, the
fact that I don’t give detailed citations of sources does not prevent anyone that wishes to from picking up the phone
and asking me! I’m not fond of the practise of quoting them in writing. As all too often seen in learned journals and
theses, citations are trated as evidence of truth rather than places to examine yourself for supporting e\*idence. They are
not usually checked, and tend to give all sources an equal weight. Publication by a historical journal and authorship by
an academic proves nothing. I give one horrible example on page 77. Also take into account that many of the
reconstructions are composites based on several pieces of information. We have recently had two articles in Slingshot
which between them mentioned all the sources for evidence on Roman cataphracts. Similar discussion of all 140-odd
figures in the book would treble or quadruple its size and cost.

I am pilloried for not including an adequate bibliography. May I point out that the 13 books I do list have in
turn very detailed bibliographies? Anyone that reads the books I suggest will start on the right track and is then safe
to go on to the others. I could have easily produced a composite list of my own, showing off how well read I am -
and up would have gone the price again!

The theoretical structure I postulated for Late Roman units is merely claimed to be consistent with all avail-
able evidence from both Roman and Byzantine sources. Since no one has managed to disprove it since it was first
published in 1972 and it has won the qualified backing of some very prominent later Romanists, it will continue to do
until something better comes along. The Diocletianic unit strengths which Jon quotes from Duncan-Jones predate the
reforms. The very different version of these that I include on page 13 is based on the same raw figures for annona,
stipendium, salgamum and donativa, but as analysed by A.H.M. Jones on pages 187 to 189 of Vol. l l l The Later Roman
Empire.

The tribune Terentius at Dura does indeed have a yellow crested helmet, though described in one secondary
source as having none. The evidence for Palmyran regular light cavalry is based on the possible use of uniform, and is
not purely from the Dura Synagogue paintings. Jon has missed the tomb evidence from Dura and Palmyra.

I stick by the crested helmet for the Housesteads archer. I have examined the original and could not detect
long sleeves or breeches, so did not depict them. To me the axe seems to have a square end. The crest is really
remarkably plain. You can even see it on photographs (for example Plate XVI in Webster)

I do not take shield shapes and sizes uncritically from sculpture; I take it from sculpture because that is all I
have. The Dura oval shields are of too late a pattern, the Dura scutum is something of a freak survival at that period and
needs to be treated with caution, the only other scutum was a mass of crushed fragments making reconstruction diffi-
cult, and the recent Doncaster shield has little affinity with sculptured shapes and is probably native.

I could go on, but I’ll content myself with one last fling re the Picts. I see no logical reason to refer to the
Broth builders as “Proto-Picts” instead of Picts just because they had not yet acquired that name from the Romans.
The greatest density of broths is on Orkney, from whence they spread south into mainland Scotland as far as the Moray
Firth in quantity. There is a local group on Skye, and a few scattered through the lowlands. We know that the lowland
tribes had affinities with those of Northern England with a similar language and culture. We know that the Picts had a
different language and a matrilinear culture. The evidence points to a new culture moving south and absorbing previous
political units. Wheel house building does seem to have replaced broth building, but broths stayed in use. Jon says.
flatly that the Aberlemno stone is too abstract to use in the question of broths. It’s no more abstract than Assyrian
war sculpture! It has the same marching warriors and heaps of heads, and the centre piece does seem to be a broth. I
think he would do well to be less respectful of academic authority and take a dispassionate look at the physical
evidence.

If he is nice to me, I might even tell him the story of Graham Webster and the Claudian Crown-and-Anchor
board, which might go far towards instilling a healthy scepticism! .

WARGAMERS SOUGHT IN ESSEX: Steve Huntsman would like to contact all wargamers of 16 plus in the south central Essex area
(Basildon, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend) with the view to forming a wargames club. Write to 10 Harrods Court, Biller&y, Essex,
or ring Billericay 54.163, after 6pm
ORDO SANCTAE MARIAE DOMUS THEUTONICORUM
&~ERES~LTMTTANE
ihe Teutonic Order, circa 144b AD
by Jim Masson

The Teutonic Order of the Hospital of St Mary at Jerusalem was originally a hospital in the Crusaders’ camp at
the siege of Acre, founded by German monks and merchants of the Hanseatic cities of Lubeck and Bremen. Only two
years later the hospital and its members were made into an Order by papal bull, and given quarters in the captured city
of Acre in 1191. The Order differed from the previous Holy Orders by only accepting men of German noble or knight-
ly blood as brethren.

Due to pressure from the Templars in Palestine and the Hospitallers in Syria the Deutschorden was forced to
look to Armenia for territory in the Holy Land although as their prestige grew they acquired holdings in Germany,
Italy, Spain and England. The Order’s major action in the Holy Land was the Cilician campaign of 1210, which
proved disastrous. In 1230 the Order accepted an invitation to campaign in Prussia against the heathen Balts.
The next year the colonisation of the Ostland began with the Hochmeister, Hermann Von Salza, leading an
army.across the Vistula in a a venture which had the support of the nobility of Western Europe, since it had
been given papal blessing as a crusade, yet was cheaper than going to the Holy Land! One major difference between this
crusade and those to free Jerusalem was that the conquered land was incorporated in the Holy Roman Empire and
rapidly colonised by German and Prussian Christians. By this time the Order had become almost completely military,
only the Rules betraying their religious beginnings.

During the years until 1410 the Order managed to’overcome the insurrections of the natives and create a state
which had an effective administration, but this was due as much to the divisions between their enemies as to the
military prowess of the Order. In 1410, the Lithuanians and Poles formed an alliance which also included the various
dispossessed peoples of Prussia, and sought battle with the Order. The main purpose of this was to reunite the Baltic
coast with the Polish trade centres and to lessen the threat of the Order to Poland. The battle of Tannenberg which re-
sulted was a head on clash between the numerically superior Polish-Lithuanian army and the better equipped Order and
its mercenaries. The large numbers of artillery deployed by the Order were rendered useless by a shower of rain and
this, allied to an adherence to obsolete tactics, led to the destruction of the Order’s army, among whose dead were the
Grand Master and many knights. By contracting their lands into Germany after Tannenberg the Order was able to sur-
vive although Prussia later became an independent state and the Order would never again have the political and mili-
tary muscle of previous ages.
Army list, circa 1440

Notes Troop type cost Numbers

(I) Hochmeister as SHK, lance, shield 100 points 1

(2) Landmeiste; as SHK, lance, shield 50 points 1 to 2
(3) Ritierbrudern, “Regular A” SHK, lance, shield 21 points 5to 10
(41 Dienendebrudern, “Regular C” HC, lance, shield 10 points 14to40
Dienenbrudern, “Regular C” HI, long spear, shield 6 points up to 10
(5) Artillery, bombards with 4 “irregular C” crew 50 points upto
(6) Livonians, “Irregular D” LC,bow 3 points 10to50
‘Extra to make LC “Irregular C” 1 point up to 20
Extra to give LC javelin and shield instead of bow 2 points up to 15
(7) Pruthenians “Irregular D” LI, bow 1 point up to 30
(8) Prussians, “Irregular C” or “Regular D” Ml, light spear, shield 3 points up to 50
(9) Crusaders, “Irregular A” SHK, lance 17 points up to 10
Crusaders, “lrregular,B” SHI, two-handed weapon, shield 19 points up to 12
To make Crusader SHI “Irregular A” 1 point up to 12
(IO) Genoese, “irregular C” LMI, crossbow 2 points up to 20
To give Genoese pmavise 2 points up to 5
(11) English, “Irregular C” LMI, longbow 2 points upto 18
Extra to make LMI into LHI 2 points up to 38
Extra to upgrade LMI or LHI to “Regular C” 1 point up to 38
To give regular longbowmen stakes 1 point upto
(12) Swiss, “Regular B” Ml, pike and shield or two-handed cut and
thrust polearm 5 points up to 24
(13) Danes “Irregular B” LHI, two-handed axe or long spear or crossbow 4 points up to 15
To give Danes shields 1 point up to 15
(14) Army standard 20 points 1
.- To count army standard as C-in-C’s personal standard 10 points upto 1
To count army standard as sacred standard 120 points upto 1
(15) Personal standard for sub-general 10 points uptol
Caltrops.to cover the frontage of 4 Regular Ml 4 points upto
 11

Standards of the Order

(1) Grand Banner (2) Lesser Banner (3) Treasurer’s Banner

Cross gold, black, and silver Black cross on white field White key on Ned field
from centre outwards; black eagle
on gold shield; white field.

(4) Livonian Master’s Banner (5) Reverse of (4) (6) Genoese mercenaries
Blue and white robes; gold haloes; Grey armour; gold halo; Red cross on white field
remainder natural on white field. rest natural on white field.

(7) Knights of the Rhineland -(8) Knights of Livonia (9) Prinz Konrad of Silesia
Blue bend on white field Red near pole; yellow over white. Black eagle on yellow field.

..,.___...
_....,.
.
._.
(IO) Von Hassendorf
A crusader. Black serpent on
yellow field
(1 I) Swiss mercenaries
White wolf on red field
(12) Danish mercenaries
Any colours

Rittenbruder, mounted Dienendebruder, mounted crusaders, English, and Swiss with halberd may fight in wedge.

Notes to army list

(1) Hochmeister is the Grand Master of the Order.

(2) Landmeister is a provincial commander of the Order.
(31 RittFrbrudern are the brethren, and because of the training they received I feel they qualify for Regular status
under the WRG definitions.
(4) Diendebrudern are the sergeants of the Order who normally accompanied the knights on expeditions, again
well trained but not s-o well equipped. 1 do not know whether the HI are true infantry or dismounted heavy
cavalry. They may only be used to bolster the levy.
(5) The Order used large quantities of artillery on occasion, and these should also be Regular.
(6) These are the subject Balts who remained with the Order after Tannerberg, of doubtful reliability.
(7) Prussians recruited from outlying villages.
(8) - Feudal levy from the estates of the Ordensstaat, There may be a case for long spear for those classed as regu-
lars, when bolstered by HI.
(9) Western knights were eager to serve with the Order and many notable figures earned knigh;hood on the field
in the east. The shield was slowly being dropped by the fully armoured knight in Wester% Europe around this
.-.’ time.
(IO&l 1) Genoese crossbowmen are mentioned in the sources as good mercenaries, as are the bands of English longbow-
men. Until the introduction of a “feudal” morale class I think that the mercenaries should be regular.
(12) At a time when Swiss mercenaries were the crack troops of Europe, fighting oniy for money in advance, units
of Swiss were serving with the Order without pay.
(13) References speak of “Scandinavian axemen”, but other data give the option of crossbow or long spear instead
=-’ of axe. LHI basing is on Phil Barker’s advice.
(14) These three are the same standard, illustration No. 1. It usually marked the flochmeister:s position and by the
definition in WRG 6th edition rules can count as a sacred banner.
(15) This would be the banner of the Chapel of which the general is in command.
* -i-
d
Bibliography -1
‘I
Tannenberg 1410/1914 by G Evans
Mediaeval Warfare by H.W. Koch
Renaissance Armies by George Gush
Military Religious Orders by F C Woodhouse
The Cambridge History of Poland edited by W F Reddaway
Renaissance Army Lists for use with WRG rules, 1490-l 660
Mediaeval Army Lists for use with Lance rules, 2nd edition
Armies of Feudal Europe by Ian Heath
$”

:+. ,,

:jkE R&OLT
__~ OF JULIUS CMLIS (AD 69-70)
.I _.z _i by Chris Brann

Julius Civiljs was a Batavian of Royal descent, who hated the Romans due to being put in irons and accused
of rebellion on trumped up charges. He commanded a Batavian Auxiliary Cohort and as Tacitus said “Civilis was
unusually intelligent for a native and passed himself of$ as a second Sertorius or Hannibal, whose facial disfigurement he
shared” (namely, the loss of an eye).

Opening of the revolt

As open rebellion involved the risk of being attacked as an enemy of Rome, he posed as a friend and supporter
of Vespasian. He was helped in this by a letter from Antonius Primus, an agent of Vespasian, who was revolting against
Vitellius. Civilis started by enroling Cannenefates, Frisii and Batavians. He then proceeded to destroy the local Roman
forces. A Tungrian Cohort went over to him in these operations. This caused the German tribes to offer him their help.

Muniui Lupercus, Legate of Vetera, led out part of the depleted 5th and 15th Legions along with Ubii, auxil-
iaries from adjacent units, some Treviran horse and a Batavian Auxiliary Cavalry unit. With these forces he crossed the
river Waal and faced Civilis. The Roman left flank was exposed by the Batavian cavalry joining Civilis, the Ubii a%d
Treviran Auxiliaries were routed by the Germans and.in.the confusion the Legionaries retired to Vetera.

Meanwhile 6 Batavian and Cannenefate auxiliary Cohorts, part mounted, at Mogontiacum who were on
their way to join Vitellius revolted and marched to join Civilis. Herdeonius Flaccus, commander at Mogontiacum and a
Vespasian supporter, let them go. His men, angered at this, made him tell Herenius Gallus, Commander-of what passed
for the 1st Legion, at Bonn, to try to stop them as he would be following with his men. Flaccus then changed his’ mind
and didn’t follow, but Gallus’s men forced him to give battle. Therefore, 3,000 Legionaries plus some untrained Belgian
Cohorts and camp followers burst out of Bonn’s gates as the numerically inferior Batavians passed by. The Auxiliary
Cohorts being old hands formed square and broke the thin Roman line forcing the Belgians to route and the Legionaries
to retire into the camp, losing heavily. ~_

Civilis who now had an army of German tribesmen backed by one auxiliary Cavalry regiment and eight
auxiliary Infantry Cohorts, some mixed cavalry and infantry, got his men to swear allegiance to Vespasian. He sent an
 13

appeal to the 5th and 15th Legions at Vetera to do the same, but they replied that they had an Emperor in Vitellius.
Civilis moved in a rage to Vetera and attacked the 902M x 621M camp which was defended by 5,000 troops and foll-
owers of the 5th and 15th Legions. The first assault by the Germans were repulsed but this didn’t lower their morale
as is normal in Barbarians, so they decided to starve the Romans out, as they only had a few days provisions.

Flaccus, hearing of the siege, moved the 22nd Legion up the Rhine, first to Bonn to join the remnants of the
1st Legion and then to Cologne where they were joined by Gallic recruits. Here the Roman troops, who were resentful
and mutinous, mainly because they supported Vitellius while they thought (rightly) that Flaccus and others supported
Vespasian, tried to kill Flaccus, so Vocula took command and moved to Novaesium to join the 16th Legion. From
Novaesium, Vocula moved some of his force to Gelduba and put them through a training programme. By now it was
November and Flaccus and Vocula hearing of Vespasian’s victory at Cremona forced their men to swear allegiance to. him.
Civilis was then asked to stop his revolt as Vespasian had won, but his answer was an obvious no. Civilis now holding
back part of his force sent his Veteran Cohorts and the keenest of his German troops against Vocula and his army
at Gelduba. They caught the Romans by surprise and the Nervian Gallic Cohorts (newly raised) routed or changed sides
and exposed the Legions, who lost their standards and were retreating into their camp with heavy losses, when some
Spanish Cohorts arrived and the Germans, thinking it was the main army, ran. The Batavian Cohorts left many dead
but the Cavalry got the standards and prisoners away.

Vocula now reached Vetera and relieved the 5th and 15th legions, so Civilis attacked the Roman supply line
causing Vocula to split his men up along the route. They didn’t like this and so Vocula retired to Novaesium with the
Ist, 4th and 22nd Legions, who killed Flaccus and followed Vocula to relieve Mogontiacum of its German attackers.
Civilis laid siege to Vetera and the 5th and 15th Legions again, while the 16th Legion just broke up.

In the New Year, AD70, Vocula with the Ist, 4th and 22nd Legions, Gauls, and a Treviran Cavalry Regiment
marched on Civillis at Vetera. When he got there the Gauls and the Treviran units joined Civilis while the Legions killed
Vocula and then swore allegiance to the “Gallic Empire” of Civilis and his allies. Vetera, on hearing this, gave in but the
Germans unfortunately for Civilis fell on the garrison as they marched out and massacred the majority of them. Civilis
sent the 1st and 16th Legions to Trier, while the Gallic tribes joined him.

Counterattack by Vespasian

Mucianus in Rome, acting for Vespasian, sent parts of the 8th, 1 Ith, 13th, 21st and 2nd Legions from Italy
under Petilius Cerialis and Annius Gallus. He also ordered the 14th Legion from Britain and the 6th and 1st Naval from
Spain. Cerialis with the 21st Legion plus auxiliaries crossed to Mogontiacum then marched to Trier defeating a large
Treviri force on the way. At Trier the defecting 1st and 16th Legions rejoined the Roman allegiance. Civilis was’forced
to fight and marched to Trier. His right flank was held by his Batavian Cohorts, his centre by the Ubii and Lingones
(Gauls) and his left flank by the Bructeri and Tencteri (Germans). The Romans, caught by surprise, had their auxil-
iaries broken and the Legions were pushed back till Cerialis rallied the 21st Legion, hit the Germans who were busy
looting, and routed them.

Civilis retired to Vetera gathering German reinforcements. Cologne came over to the Romans and Civilis had to
watch the coast because of the 14th Legion and the British fleet. Cerialis now with the 6th, 2nd, 21st and another
(said by Tacitus to be the 14th but possibly the 13th or 1 Ith) as well as the 1st and 16th, plus auxiliary infantry and
Cavalry, moved on Vetera but was repulsed in the first day’s fighting due to the swampy ground. On day two Cerialis
formed his front of auxiliary Cavalry and Infantry backed by his parts of 6 Legions. Civilis put his auxiliary Cohorts
and Batavians and his right while his left was held by the Germans, by the river. Some Germans got round the Roman
right flank by swimming and threw the auxiliaries into confusion and flight. The Legions stepped into stabilize the
position, Cerialis sent 2 auxiliary Cavalry units guided by a Batavian turncoat round the swamp, got round Civilis’s
right flank and routed his army.

A little while later Civilis had one more fling when he hit the 10th legion at Arenecium, the 2nd at Batavo-
durum, and the auxiliary Cavalry and Infantry at Grinnes and Vada. All four of these attacks were beaten off and
Civilis gave up. Vespasian cashiered 4 Legions after the revolt,,the IV Macedonia, Ist, XVI and XXII Primigenia all of
which had supported Civilis at some time.

To wargame this army there are two lists available, the Kadesh to Dyrrachium Civilisian list or the WRG
Book One 3000 BC - 75AD Early German list. Neither would I say are quite right. What is needed is compulsory tri-
bal Germans, back by Auxiliary Infantry and Cavalry, with the option to have Gauls and poor class Legionaries. The
Germans and Auxiliaries should be of good class and morale, while the Gauls should be only average or poor.

Bibliography

Tacitus, Histories
Michael Grant, The Army of the Caesars
Warfare in the Classical World, Salamander
Table Top Games, Kadesh to Dyrrachium (Army lists for the Ancient period)
Wargames Research Group, Army Lists Book One 3OOOBC - 75AD
i4

THE INT&ODUCTION OF THE GREEK HOPLITE

PHALANX

by Trevor Roberts

I was pleased to see David Halligan (The Greeksat War, July 1981 and since) bring the Greeks back into the
focus of attention. They have been neglected for too long. In this article I will concentrate on the archaeological and
literary evidence for the introduction of the hoplite equipment and the phalanx and hope it will encourage some mem-
bers to look deeper into Archaic Greek history, since the hoplite revolution cannot be seen totally in isolation. I am
greatly indebted to A.M. Snodgrass’ works on the subject and apologise to members who are already familiar with
them. I would be grateful if more learned society members who have any more recent evidence could pass it on either
in Slingshot or contact me at 46 Sketty Road, Uplands, Swansea, W. Glamorgan.

The Shield

The shield is taken by most historians to be the distinguishing mark of the hoplite. Andrewes (Greek Tyrants
p.31-33) has suggested that as soon as the shield was invented the hoplite phalanx came into existence. What he is talk-
ing about of course is the specific advantages and disadvantages of a man equipped with the hop/on, a round shield
employing a double grip system with a central armband (porpax) and handgrip (antilabe) situated near or on the rim.
The earliest undoubted representation of the shield is on the Middle protocorinthian aryballos from Lechaion, dated
about 685BC. It clearly shows the double grip system in use. Unfortunately none of the actual surviving examples can
be dated so early; the earliest found at Olympia are dated to the last quarter of the seventh century. r-

Snodgrass states (EGAW p.67) that ‘the hoplite shield was certainly in use in Greece by the beginning of the sev-
enth century and probably during the eighth’. An early Protocorinthian aryballos (the Still Life from Delphi) dated
about 700 BC shows early Corinthian helmets and certain other objects. One of these Snodgrass considers a porpax, and
compares it with the surviving ones from Olympia. At each end there are finger-like protrusions, explained as the wear-
ing away of paint. The fact that the shield itself is not represented is explained by saying that as it was made of wood it
would be of no interest to the artist whereas theporpax, made of bronze, would. Likewise the flying birds represented
could be detached bronze blazons. If so could the propellor shaped object be the antilabe (made of bronze)?.

Snodgrass’ other main argument is the appearance of figuredblazons on large round shields at the end of the
eighth century in vase painting, accepting Miss Benton’s idea (BSA 48/1953) that such a blazon can only be carried one
way up, implying a fixed position for the shield which only the two handed grip could give. However these are rare at
the turn of the century. Much more common is the pattern blazon, concentric circles, rosettes, whirls, spoked wheels
and stars. These eighth century patterns continued into the seventh and are found on some hoplite shields. A terracotta
model from the Agora clearly shows the porpax and antilabe in conjunction with a blazon of concentric circles. Thus
patterned blazons do not rule out hoplite shields but the argument for the figured blazon only representing hoplite
shields is convincing. Thus we candefinitely say the hoplite shield was in use by the second decade of the seventh cen-
tury and almost certainly in use a decade or two earlier.

The Helmet

The earliest actual find of a bronze helmet of the period comes from the Argos warrior grave of the late eighth
century. It is a fairly crude design consisting of several pieces rivetted together with a high arching crest holder reminis-
cent of the tall crest which ‘nods menacingly from above’ characterised in the //iad (i.e. Hector’s in VI 469 FF). This
type was soon superseded by a more sophisticated design known as the ‘Corinthian’ helmet. This was beaten out of a
single sheet of metal, covering the whole head, with the cheek pieces continuing the lower rim of the helmet, leaving
only a T-shaped aperture for the eyes. nose and mouth. The ‘Still Life’aryballos from Delphi is the first representa-
tion of such a helmet, about 700 BC. Several similar early examples have been found at Olympia. The design of the
Corinthian helmet improved greatly through the seventh century but the standard features are always apparent (see
Connolly, Greek Armies). The Corinthian helmet remained the standard headwear for hoplites despite the many other
bronze helmets which appeared. Thus we can be certain that a bronze helmet was in use from the late eighth century
and the Corinthian helmet itself was known in its simplest form by 700 BC.
rr, .!-
The Corselet

The Argos grave also contained an extremely well preserved example of the standard hoplite body armour until
the sixth century, the ‘bell corselet’. This consists of a frontplate and back plate, hinged down one side and fitted with
metal pins or loops on the other side and on the shoulders. The corselet curves in at the waist and then juts out strongly
to the lower rim, hence the ‘bell’ shape. It is remarkably similar to a corselet from Caka, Czechoslovakia, dated to the
13th century BC and numerous other Central European corselets in the intervening centuries. It is also similar in basic
design to the main back and chest plates of the late 15th century BC armour found at Dendra. Thus, as Snodgrass
states (EGAW p.82) ‘the Greeks of the late Geometric period somehow came to adopt a form of corselet, long establish-
ed in Central Europe, but ultimately derived from the type worn centuries earlier in Greece itself.’
Greaves

The earliest find comes from a Tholos tomb at Kanousi in Crete (fragment of a pair restored in the Heraklion
Museum). These have been dated to about mid-eighth century due to relief decoration which is identical with that on
two sphyretaton female figures from Dreros. They are small (only 23.3 ems high) but do show the beginning of the
trend towards more accurate leg moulding. About the same date (but even smaller) are examples from Praisos. The
greave which became standard usage was about 40 cm high, covering the kneecap. Its size made it necessary to mould it
accurately onto the leg. It first appears on Protoattic vases of the first half of the seventh century (the Hymettus
amphora-in Berlin is the earliest representation).

The Spears

Snodgrass (EGAW) gives a detailed catalogue of early Greek spear head finds. In the eighth century there is an
overwhelming preponderance of those most suitable for throwing, though thrusting spear heads became prominent in
the seventh century. Battle scenes first appear on vases at the end of the eighth century and from these it can be seen
that there was no standardisation of weapons in the seventh century.

From equipment to tactics

Thus we have seen that by the late eighth century bronze body armour and helmets were definitely available
and the hoplite shield was probably known, as were primitive forms of greave. Thrusting spears were also known but
throwing spears were more common. Does this allow us to say (as Andrewes, Greek Tyrants p.33) that the hoplite sys-
tem was adopted in Southern Greece in the first quarter of the seventh century, since the nature-of hoplite equipment
is such that it must from the first have been used in formation and cannot have been adopted piece-meal? Snodgrass
takes the opposite view, that hoplite equipment does not presuppose the hoplite phalanx. This is a more plausible view
and can be supported by vase paintings which will now be considered. To be fair to Andrewes, he was writing before
Snodgrass’ researches had begun to bite. A word of warning about vase paintings as evidence. As Snodgrass points out,
Greek artists could seldom resist showing as much of the human body as they could. Nevertheless we must assume that
if bronze armour was worn the artist would regard it as of sufficient interest to be included. There is also the problem
of the technical proficiency of the artists themselves. Andrewes suggests (Greek Tyrants, p.33), that hoplite phalanxes
are not shown earlier because of the technical difficulties of making adequate representation and this may be a valid
point, my knowledge of ancient (or modern) painting methods being nil. ‘_

The Lechaion aryballos, dated 685 BC, gives a good representation of warfare early in the seventh century. It
shows warriors wearing Corinthian helmets with no visible bodyarmour. One of the warriors clearly carries a double
grip shield, while the others carry D/pylon shields. The latter have been dismissed as heroic inventions by many writers,
including Snodgrass. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the Shield but for a counter argument see
Greenhalgh (EGW ch.4). He argues that the Dipylon shield is a valid design for Dark Age,warfare and I am inclined to
agree with him. The warrior carrying the hoplite shield also bears a long spear held in the underarm, thrusting position
(longtime members will be relieved to hear that I am not going to go into this thorny problem here). He also carries
what appears to be another spear in his left hand, which is also holding the antilabe. The ‘Dipylon’ warriors are also
armed with two spears. For good measure there are very light armoured (naked) infantry, including an archer. Thus we
have three elements of the hoplite, shield, helmet and long thrusting spear, but the picture is of disorganised warfare,
similar to that described in the Homeric epics (ignoring the poet’s need to keep the limelight on his heroes). The helmet
would appear to have become common by this time but armour must still have been rare. Since both would have been
expensive, it would make sense for an individual to choose a helmet rather than corselet, as the body could be partly
protected by the shield (any sort of shield) whereas the [lead could not. Therefore, although the elements’of thehop-
lite were in existence, there is no evidence of them being combined as a hoplite panoply, which would suggest a phal-
anx formation.

Representations of warriors uniformly dressed as hoplites going into battle in a phalanx formation do not
appear until the mid seventh century. The most famous is the Chigi Vase, dated about 640 BC (there is a good drawing,
of it in Connolly’s Greek Armies). It shows two hoplite armies closing for melee. Both sides wear Corinthian helmets
and greaves, while the warriors advancing from the left wear bell corselets and the double grip shield is clearly shown.
The army on the right are presumably wearing corselets as well, these being covered by the shields. On these can be seen
a variety of blazons, variations on the flying bird being the most popular. The army on the left is being accompanied by
a piper, essential to keep order and encourage the troops. As on the Lechaion vase, the warriors are carrying two spears;
at least, some of them appear to be doing so. The two front ranks are shown closing with spears held in an overhead
thrusting position. There are also spears held upwards. The spears are not directly being held by the warriors but must
be assumed to be so as there are the same number of upward spears as there are warriors. It is possible that the posi-
tion used actually represents a throwing one, there is little basic difference between thru&ng and throwing positions,
especially when ‘the left arm normally outstretched pointing at the target is encumbered by a hoplite shield restricting
movement, but it is also possible that the artist is trying to encapsulate the two actions into one, simulating the two
lines casting their throwing spears as well as closing to melee. The second line of the army on the left only carry one
spear each but behind them are two warriors preparing themselves for battle and each has two spears, and, complicat-
ing matters, both have throwing loops on them. Since the artist is not just representing long range warfare it can only
be assumed that the spears being carried are multi-purpose, sujtable for both throwing and thrusting. However, ,the real
importance of the Chigi Vase is that it is that it is the first battle scene showing hoplite phalanxes closing for action,
that is by 640 BC hoplite warfare as we know it was taking place in Greece.
 Further evidence comes from the Still Life Corinthian Aryballos (in Berlin) of about the same date. It shows a
hoplite panopoly of Corinthian helmet, corselet, greave, sword and a flying bird, representing the bronze blazon of
the shield. Two spears are shown, one, which is shorter, has a throwing loop. This makes it clear that one of the
spears was intended to be used as a javelin, to be thrown as the ranks close, while the other was a long thrusting
spear;to be used in the ensuing melee. The fact that all the elements of the hoplite panopoly are shown together
must indicate that the user fought in a hoplite phalanx. No longer are the armour and weapons adopted piecemeal, as
on the Lechaion Vase, but are used in combination as the standard equipment of the hoplite.
,>
There ‘is some contemporary evidence to be considered, firstly the Homeric poems; in the //iad there are
certain passages which can perhaps be called ‘hoplite’ passages. It is possible that they were the work of the latest
‘Homeric’ poet retouching the narrative with contemporary features of the mid-late eighth century (see Prof. Webster,
From Mycenae to Homer). They can also be seen as seventh century interpolations to the text. In other words they
can be used to fit any theory you like about hoplites and phalanxes, if they are taken as hoplite passages. Snodgrass
(EGAW p;l76-9) discusses ten of these examples and it is worth considering a few of them here.
-3.
B.457-8 ‘the shining glitter reached to heaven from the wonderous bronze’ of the Greeks. This is very ambiguous
since it need not refer to the bronze of the whole panoply, but just the weapons.

B.543-4 The Abantes are ‘spearmen, eager to rend the corselets on the chests of foes with their outstretched ashen
spears’. This could just as easily be a bronze age passage, when corselets would be more likely to be rent.
_.
D.281-..2 ‘the close packed phalanxes’ of the Greeks mill round the Aiantes ‘blue-black, bristling with shields and
spears’. The word phalanges is used about 30 times in Homer, only once in singular (Z6). It is best translated as ranks,
giving the impression of a great host, rather than a phalanx.

D.447-9 = H 61-3 The Greeks and Trojans clash with ‘their hide shields, their spears and the fury of bronze-
corseleted men, their bossed shields press on each other and a great din arose’. There is no evidence of hoplite shields
of hide. This is more like a bronze age passage, conventionalised as-it is used twice.
\_
N.340-3 Both sides join battle ‘with the long, flesh-rending spears they grasped; and the gleam of bronze
dazzled the eye from shining helmets, new burnished corselets and gleaming shields, as they came on all together’.
This passage is a lot more difficult to dismiss. Here we have all the elements of the hoplite and the last phrase cer-
tainly suggestssome sort of close formation. However to accept this as an 8th century passage goes against the rest
of the evidence, unless of course one wants to believe that all the passages are hoplite ones. It is best to accept this
as seventh century interpolation.

‘. Tyrtaeusof Sparta, writing around the middle of the seventh century, composed several poems encouraging ’
the Spartan army in their war against Messenia. There are several examples of this army being a hoplite one:- for ex-
ample ‘and standing foot to foot, shield pressed on shield, crest to crest, and helmet to helmet, chest to chest engage
your man, grasping your sword-hilt or long spear’ (Frag 8 - line 31). Apart from the mention of the sword (which
would be a last resort if the spear was broken) this is a good picture of the hoplite melee. Thus we can say that hoplite
warfare was established In the Peloponnese by the mid seventh century. This is supported by several lead Spartan
hopiite’figurines of the same date.

The aristocrat Archilochus of Pares, born about 706 BC seems to have lived a ‘wine, women, song and fighting’
life; his poems must have been written between 680-640 BC. He speaks of tiis spear:-

‘By my spear I have barley-bread, by my spear lsnarian wine. And I drink reclining by my spear’. (Frag. 2).

and his shield.

‘Some Thracian waves my shield, which I was forced to leave behind, undamaged hidden under a bush. Bu; I
saved myself, why
: should I care about the shield? Let it go. I’ll get another just as good again’. (Frag 5).

The shield would undoubtedly have been a hop/on, otherwise he would have no need to cast it aside. The
spear’would appear to be a long thrusting spear and it is Archildchus’ trusted weapon. Thus we can say that hoplite equip-
‘merit had reached the islands by 650 BC. It is more difficult to infer hoplite phalanx warfare as well but it is probable,

Also about the middle of the seventh century, the Ephesian.poet Callinus, exhorting his fellow countrymen
in the war against the Cimmerians, twice refers to long range warfare:
z
-‘And let each man throw his spear before he dies’ (Frag. 5), and ‘Often he will escape the carnage and the -
sound of javelins’ (Frag 1-14).

This does not rule out the possibility of Callinus describing hoplite armies, especially as in the seveith ientury
hoplites were likely to carry a javelin as well as a long spear, but if hoplite warfare was in use it might be expected that
Callinus would give a description of a melee similar to that of Tyrtaeus. The tone of these two lines is very Homeric in
style and content, much more so than that of the other poets mentioned, and this might explain the reference to the
 17

javelins. At best it can be said that warfare was in a transitional period amongst the Greek Cities of the Asiatic
mainland. Against this we have the evidence of Herodotus preserving the tradition of the lonian and Carian mercenaries
who were a major part of the Egyptian Psammetichus I’s army which reunited Egypt around the middle of the seventh
century. These ‘brazen men’ must have been hoplites.

In conclusion, we have seen from the archaeological evidence that hdplite equipment was in use by the beginn-
ing of the seventh century and the phalanx by tlie mid seventh century in southern Greece. The literary evidence does
not contradict this conclusion but does little to augment it. How widespread its use was is difficult to say. Certainly
some states never developed strong hoplite forces and others which later did use the phalanx, such as the Boeotian
cities, leave little evidence of their use at this time. As for the introduction of the phalanx there is no evidence ofwho
the innovator was or how such a decision was made. Strenuous attempts have been made to assign it to certain histor-
ical events, a particular war (i.e. the Lelantine War, probably fought in the late eighth century in which, according to
Thucydides, all Greece was involved), or the rise of the tyrants (i.e. Pheidon of Argos). The, most important factor
seems to have been economic. With the expansion of the economy more warriors were.able to afford armour, which
was more readily available due to overseas trade, and thus with more heavily armed men, it was perhaps inevitable, that
someone would eventually see the possibilities of combining such warriors into close formation as shock troops. As
Forrest says (EGD p.90) ‘the tactical revoltition is less relevant in itself than the economic revolution or the revo!ution
in equipment which the latter created of which the former was a result.’

Bibliography

A.M. Snodgrass Early Greek Armour and Weapons (EGAW)

A.M. Snodgrass Arms and Armour of the Greeks
P.A. Greenhalgh Early Greek Warfare (EGW)
A. Andrews The Greek Tyrants
W.G. Forrest The Emergence of Greek Democracy (EGO)
0. Murray Early Greece
P. Connolly The Greek Armies

ALTERNATIVE TERRAIN SYSTEM

by Keith Smith

The WRG 6th edition terrain system, while interesting, has a number of major flaws. For ivstainc8, a player may
split the battlefield with three rivers, or it may become a forest. To suggest a new system is a little drastic, and eve;y n&w
system is never acceptable to everybody. So for use in competition games and society games I propose the following
alterations.

(1) Terrain pieces are restricted to - low, steep and rocky hills; woods; scrub; soft sand; marsh. The possible size of
pieces is not altered.

(2) Die roll modifiers. As one of his six choices a player may now select to modify his opponent’s die roll for one of
his pieces. So a player may even choose six die roll modifiers for his opponent, and no terrain for himself. If he chooses,
he can put more than one modifier on one piece. The limit is that he cannot increase his opponent’s score needed to
retain a piece to above six, so it is not possible to deprive an opponent of all chance of keeping a piece.

I have used this system quite satisfactorily and I am sure it will provide a more balanced terrain system for
competitions that players are less able to exploit. Viking players may throw up their arms and cry “unfair!” I am a
Viking player myself, and the terrain system without some modification is unfair. I have seen Society games where a
player with absolute firepower superiority surrounded his deployment area with a,river and a wall. The terrain pieces can
certainly be used for friendly games but if one of the players intends to be serious about it then I am sure this modifi-
cation will give a more balanced game.

Duncan Head comments: I have my doubts about this being a system that players will be less able to exploit; the die roll
modifier adds another layer of complexity, and every new ingredient gives new ground for exploitation. I suggest that
Keith’s proposed limitation of the terrain pieces permitted would by itself achieve his object - which seems to be “less
terrain”, or less of the more defensive pieces, the question of whether or not it is fair or balanced being largely subjec-
tive. To my mind, the most glaring weakness in the WRG system is that it positively encourages a defensively-minded
player, or one with a rough-terrain suited army, to choose a village - yet I cannotthink at the moment of one ancient
battle in which a village played a major part in a field action (streetfighting inside cities andplundering raids are obvious-
ly diffepent questions) though they may have been a little commoner in mediaeval actions. Greek and Roman generals
tended deliverately to avoid such “terrain” -thus, before Cynoscephalae, Flamininus and Philip V skirmished for a
while in the orchards and suburbs of Pherae, but withdrew almost by mutual consent as this was no kind of place to fight
a serious battle.

WANTED: Slim Mumford’s mediaeval siege rules. Original or photocopies, name your price. Please ring 044128 3398 after Spm or
write to Mr. Andrusikiewicz, 159 Pennard Drive, Pennard, Swansea SA3 2DR.
 - ‘FRENCH HERALDRY 1283 - 1304 :
by Ian Sumner

What follows is a list of the arms of some French knights active in the latter part of the thirteenth century and
the early part of the fourteenth. It spans the period between the campaign in Aragon in 1285 and the battle of
Mans-en-Pevele in Flanders in 1304,, by way of Gascony (1297), Flanders (1298) and the battle of Courtrai (1302).
Some of Charles d’Anjou’s household in Italy are also included. The sources are contemporary rolls of arms, especially
the Chifflet-Prinet roll dated c1297, using the edition of Max Prinet in ¥ Age, 2nd series, vol 31 (1920) pp l-50;
Other sources are listed in Paul Adam-Even’s article “Etudes d’heraldique medievale; catalogue das armoriaux francais
imprimes” in Nouvelle Revue Heraldique, New series, vol 1 (1946) pp 19-29.

.~- ‘Heraldic tinctures: Or - yell0 w or gold Argent - white or silver

Gules - red Azure - blue
I Sable - black Vert - green
Purpure - Purple ,, :... 1
Philippe IV, King of France:Azure,seme de lys or,-dimidiated with gules, an escarbuncle of chains or. Philippe “the
Fair” (d. 1314) succeeded his father Philippe III in 1285, and was King of Navarre in right of his wife-Joan. When she
died in 1304, the title passed to Philippe’s son Louis (later Louis X).
-iv- _
,Robert, Comte de Clermont: Azure, seme de lys or, overall a bend gules. Robert (d. 1317) was Philippe’s uncle. His
son Jean bore three lions passant on the bend.

Charles, Comte de Valois: Azure, seme de lys or, a bordure gules. Another of Philippe I II’s sons. Died 1325.

Louis, Comte D’Evreux: Azure, seme de lys or, overall a bend compony argent and gules. A third son of Philippe III.
Died 1319.

Charles II, King of Naples, Sicily and Jerusalem: Azure, seme de lys or, a label of three points gules, impaling argent, a
cross potent between four crosses or. ZHaving~secured the Kingdom of Sicily at the battle of Benevento (1266) and Tag-
liacozzo (1268), he persuaded his nephew Philippe III to invade Aragon in a costly and ill-conceived campaign. Died
1309.

Robert II, Comte d’Artois: Azure, seme de lys or, a label of three points gules, each point charged with three castles or.
Son of count Robes killed on the Seventh Crusade at Mansourah, this Robert led the campaigns in Flanders in 1297
and in/ 1302../’ when
,-- hei-,:was killed
. at, Cour$rai. .- i-
;;. 1
Jean II de Brienne, Comtk d’Eu et de Guines. Azure, billety and a lion rampant or. Succeeded his father in 1294, and
was killed at Courtrai.
>--
Jean’de Ponthieu,, Cot&e d’Aumale: Azure, three bends or within a bordure gules. Killed at Courtrai.

Guillaume de Chalons, Comte d’Auxerre:.Gules, on a bend or an escutcheon bendy or and azure a bordure gules. Took
part in the Flanders campaign of 1304 and was killed at Mans-en-Pevele. ’ ._

Etienne II, Comtkde Sancerre: Azure, a bend or double cotised argent. Took part in the campaigns in Aragon, Gascony
and Flanders (1302), when he commanded the garrison of Lille. Died 1306.

Hugues XIII de Luslgnan, Comte de la Marche: Barry argent and azure. Took part in the Courtrai campaign and died
that year.
-
Rem&d, Comte de Dammartin: B,arry of six argent and azure, a bordure gules, a martlet sable for difference. Fought
at Courtrai, and later at Graveiinesand Mons-en-Pevele. .:

Thjbaud, Vicomte .,. de Donges: Vairy or and azure,

._ fought at Courtrai, and in 1303-4. ^-.
,,
Richard, Vicomte:de Dreux: Or, a lion rampant sable, overall a label of three points gules. Nephew of Herve de Leon
(q.v.). Served ‘in Aragon and in 1303-4.

Guy I I,-Vicomte de Thou&s: Or, seme de !ys azure, a canton gules. Served in 1302, 1303, and 1304.

Guy de.Clermont-Nesle: Or, seme of trefoils, two bars addorsees both gules. Marshal of France. Killed atCourtrai.
t
Jean II D’Harcourt. Gules, two bars or. Accompanied St. Louis to Africa, and served in Aragon. Later made a Marshal
of France:

Simon de,*Melun: Azure, seven roundles and a chief both or, three martlets gules in chief. Seigneur de La Loupe et de
Marcheville, Marshal of France and senechal of Limousin, Perigord and Quercy. Killed at Cout-trai.
 YCTE DE TWUARS

flA%+tAL OE CLE~ONT MAk?%AL DE HARcoUUT tlAUS+W- OE I’lELUY

Raoul de Clermont: Gules, seme de trefoils and two bars addorsees both or. Seigneur de Nesle and Constable of France.
Killed at Courtrai with his brother Guy, the Marshal. ‘. _

Foucard de Merle: Gulest three~cinq*foils argent. Appointed Marshal of France in 1302, and took partin the campaigns
of 1302
_. and 1304.

Gerrard d’abbeville: Argent, three

. escutcheons gu,les. Seigneur de Boubers-en-Vimeu. Killed at Courtrai.

Pierre d’Ambdise: Paly of six or and gules. Served in Flanders in 1302 and 1304.
; , . .+l
Gaucher-d’Autreches: Gules, three pales vair, on a chief or a lion passant of the first. Was charged with the defence of
Bruges in 1295 and 1296 by Philippe the Fair. Bailli of Vermandois 1297-8, and was Castellan of Lille in 1302.

Enguerrand
~____- de Bailleul: Gules, an orle ermine. Seigneur de Bailleul, Dompierre-sur-Authie et d’Helicourt. Served with
St. Louis in Tunisia, and was appointed Admiral of Galleys for the Aragon campaign. His nephew, Jean, became King of
Scotland. , : f **
t
Hugues de Baussay:Or, a cross moline gulei.I Fought
. in Aragon and in Flanders in 1303b. . ~- r
: :. iT-
Jacques de Bayon or Beon: Argent, on a bend gules three eagles displayed or, over,all a label of three points azure.
Served in Flanders 1297, and held the Flanders frontier after Courtrai, defeating William of Julich at Arques in April
1303.
_. .’
Jean I de Bazoches: Gules, three pales vair, on a chief or two lions passant contournes gules. Vidame of Chalons.(a
vidame was a lay local representative of a bishop). Killed at Courtrai.

Jean de Beaumanoir: Azure, billety argent. Summoned in 1303 and 1304. _ -

Godefroi de Boulogne: Or, a gonfanon gules, overall a baston azure. Son of Robert V, Comte d’Auvergne et de Bou-
logne, killed at Courtrai.

Hugues de Bouvilie: Argent, on a fess gules, three annulets or. Seigneur de Bouville, Farcheville et de Milly en Gatinais,
and the King’s Chamberlain. Killed at Mans-en-Pevele.,

Godefroi de Brabant: Sable, a lion rampant or, overall a label of three points gules. A younger son of Henri I II Duke of
Brabant, and Lord of Aerschot. Killed at Court&i.

Adam de Bruyeres: Or, billety and a lion rampant queue fourchee sable. A member of Charles d’Anjou’s household in
Sicily in 1270-84. Summoned by Philippe IV in 1303 and 1304.

Adam de Cardonnoy: Or, on a cross sable, five escallops argent. Served in Aragon, at Lille in 1296 and commanded the
garrison of Bruges in 1299.

Jean de Charny: Gules, three escutcheons &g&t

Guy de Chemille: Or, an orle of martlets and a canton gules. Served’in Aragon.

Anseau de Chevreuse: Argent, a cross gules between four lions rampant azure. Seigneur de Maincourt, and a cadet
branch of the Lords of Chevreuse, who bore eagles instead of lions. Anseau served with Charles d’Anjou in Italy and
was appointed Marshal of Sicily. He returned to France in 1301 ,.and was killed three years later at Mons-en-Pevele,
where he carried the Oriflamme.

Pierre de Corneuil: Or, a fess between three roundels gules. Served in 1303 and 1304.

Jean de Courtenay: Or, three roundels gules. Seigneur de Champignelle and de la Ferte-Loupiere. Fought at Mons-
en-Pevele. A branch of this family became Earls of Devqn. I.
.-
Raoul VI de Flam.ent:Or, ten lozenges gules, overall a label of three points a;ure. Seigneur de Canny and Verpillieres.
His father, Raoul V, was a Marshal of France..Killed at Cqurtrai.
i-i- 7
Ybn de Garancieres: Guies, three chevrons or. Served 1285-7 and in 1304.
._ ?
Gilles‘de Haverskerke: Or, a fess gules, overall a’label of th:ee points azure. Seigneur
de Watten. Served in the 1302
campaign. ,i
.;
Jean de Haverskerke: Or, a fess gules.Seigneur de Hondschbote. Defended Cassel against William of Julich in 1302,
with his brother Gilles, some of the few Flemings who supported Philippe IV.
21
Jean de Heilly: Gules, a bend of five lozenges or. Jean the eider was summoned for service in 1296, but died the foil-
owing year. His son was also called Jean.

Herve de Leon: Or, a lion rampant sable. Seigneur de Chateauneuf en Thimerais, Senonches and Noyon-sur-Andelle.
Was summoned with his son (also named Herve), who differenced with a baston gules, in 1303.

Jean de Maignelay: Gules, a bend or. Served in Aragon in 1285, and irvas Sbnechal of the Agenais from 1294 to 1296.
when he resigned.

Briand de Montejean: Or, fretty gules. Summoned in 1303 and 1304.

Pierre de Preaux: Gules, an eagle displayed or. Fought in Flanders in 1304.

Renaud de Pressigny: Barry of six or and azure per palecounterchanged, on a chief of the first, two pallets of the
second, gyronny at the corners, overall an escutcheon argent. His father died in Tunisia in 1270. This Renaud served
in Aragon and was summoned in 1303 and 1394,

Jean de Raineval: Or, on a cross sable five escallops argent. Killed at Cout-trai.
: -
Pierre de Rostrennen:Barry of six erm’ine and gules. Summoned in 1303.

Jean de Rouvray: Barry of six or and azure, over-ill a lion rampant gules collared argent. Fough; in Flanders in 1304.
--
Jean de Saint-Martin: Or, billety gules.

Raoul de Soissons: Or, a lion passant within a bordure both sable. A younger son of Jean I II Comte de Soissons, who
bore gules on or

Robert de Tancarville: Gules, an escutcheon argent, within an orle of~angemmes or. Chamberlain of Normandy. fought
at Furnes, in the Flanders campaign of 1297, and was killed at Courtrai. =.

Hugues de Thouars: Or, seme de lys azure, on a canton gules a sword erect, pommel in base, argent. Served-from 1295
to 1304. -

Mathieu de Trie: Azure, a bend or. Seigneur de Fontenay-en-Vexin e.;tdu, Vaumain, Royal Butler and Grand Chamber-
lain. Served in Aragon.

Renaud de Trie: Or, a bend compony argent and azure. Killed at Courtrai.
. _ -.
. ..
 23

Geoffroi de Vendome: Argent, a chief gules, overall a lion rampant azure, charged on the shoulder with a fleur de lys
or. Seigneur de la Chartre-sur-le-Loir and Lassay, and son of Pierre, Comte de Vendome. Served under Charles de Valois
in 1302.

Eudes le &run de Vernoil: Quarterly gules and vair, Son of Geoffrorle Fournier de Vernoil, a Marshal of France. Killed
at Mons-en-Pevele.

Robert de Wavrin: Azure, an escutcheon argent, overall a label of three points gules. Seigneur de Saint-Venant, Cham-
berlain to the Count of Flanders, and Senechal of Flanders. Fought in Aragon, Gascony and at Mons-en-Pevele

Arnoul de Wesemael: Gules, three fleurs de lys couped in base argent. Hereditary Marshal of Brabant, killed at Courtrai.

lLATERROMANFORTSAD200-400;Partl
by Derek Harrison

This is the first part of a four-part series; part two will appear in the next issue.

The re-introduction of siege rules in the 6th edition of the WRG Rules may lead to more emphasis being
placed on the siege activities of armies, particularly in the ancient period, which seem to have been neglected by
wargamers of late. With this in mind I thought it might be worthwhile to outline some of thetypes of Roman fortifi-
cation found during the third and fourth centuries AD. Although this article concentrates on forts, it should be emphas-
ised that these provided only one element in later Roman defensive plans. Troops were a(so increasingly billeted in
towns, a practice which seems to have started in the Eastern Empire, while the limitanei, especially in Africa, were acc-
ommodated along with their families in fortified fortresses-cum-watchtowers. Despite the increasing integration of
soldiers and civilians inside fortifications, I intend only to cover those fortifications built for the use of the military and ’
I have endeavoured to exclude those built for civilians which became common in this period. While I have drawn
examples from all over the Empire the coverage is not evenly distributed, as archaeological excavation has not procee-
ded to the sarne extent in all areas, and while many well-preserved sites are known in Africa and the Middle East, they
are not all accurately dated. This fact, and Professor von Petrikovits’ conclusion that forts cannot be assigned to a
particular period just by their design features, means I have not attempted to show a line of development. Most
attempts at classification of late Roman fortifications have failed so I have just arranged a collection of individual fort-
ifications into groups which I think have something in common for ease of description. In order to emphasise the vast
variety of sizes and shapes of the later forts I have attempted to keep my drawings to a constant scale of approximately
I:2000 (except where otherwise stated). Where I have used shaded blocks to represent interior buildings rather than
their ground plans the blocks do not include colonnades, these being outlined by dots which do not necessarily repre-
sent the positions of the supporting columns. I have not always differentiated between excavated and unexplored
features, but where there is doubt over a feature, or I have included my own interpretation, this is outlined by a pecked
line.

Early Imperial “playing card” forts.

In order to appreciate thechanging philosophy in Roman fort design during the third and fourth centuries AD
one must contrast the later types of fort with those of the early Empire, which are often described as having the shape
of a playing card, and which survived in use throughout this period, especially in backwaters like Britain.

Siting in the early Empire was largely governed by strategic factors, with tactical considerations coming a poor
second. Preferred sites had a good water supply and also a good outlook towards the enemy, a classic example being in
Pannonia where the forts often faced out over the Danube gorge. The Forta Praetoria led nowhere, and they were
sited so close to the cliff top that the erosion which has often destroyed at least part of their remains caused many to
be rebuilt further back from the edge. Lateral and internal communications were not ignored. This strategic emphasis
could cause the fort to be placed in a tactically disadvantageous position, such as the fort at Low Borrow Bridge which
was built on low ground at the junction of the valleys of the Borrow beck and the Lune. In the case of the later forts,
while strategic considerations could demand their presence in certain areas, tactical considerations were paramount in
the final choice of site. These considerations usually consisted of looking for the highest practicable hilltop in the area,
preferably with limited access. Steep-sided plateaux were also popular. On lower ground a position where a river could
protect one or more faces of the fort was sought.

The “playing card” fort is characteristically Roman and was derived from their earlier temporary camps.
Although each is unique they present a greater degree of uniformity than the later types. This type of fort will be
familiar to most Slingshot readers, but I’ve outlined most of the basic features in figure 1. This is based on the earth-
and timber phase of Kastell Kunsing,circa AD 90-I 20. While the fort is not quite so elongated as classic examples
such as Housesteads, the reduced retentura is quite common, and in the case of the rather unusual classis Britannica
fort of Dover it is omitted entirely. The via sagularis (the road running round the inside of the fort behind the rampart)
is often referred to by archaeologists as the interval/urn road. The size of the fort depended on the size of the unit it
was first intended to house, but this was not a fixed ratio and there is considerable variation, and it appears continen-
tal forts were more generously proportioned than their British counterparts.

--
 In their earli’est forms these forts consisted of an earth rampart closely encircled by one large or two smaller
ditches of ‘V’ shaped section, access to the gates being by bridges, or more commonly by causeways. The killing ground
extended outwards from the rampart to the limit of effective javelin range, some 30m. The Roman fort at Hod Hill
shows the defences of theearly Empire in ideal form. The causeways narrowed towards the gate to precipitate into the
ditch the outer members of any dense mob which tried to charge across it, while the outer edge of the killing ground
was defined by a ‘Punic’ ditch, a name which indicates its treacherous nature, the gentle inner face hindering an
attacker’s advance less than the steep outer face hindered his retreat. Few forts of this date displayed this level of sub-
tlety, although they did add a variety of obstacles within the killing zone according to the ingenuity and energy of the
defenders. These included concealed pits, thorn bushes or stakes, a palisade with gaps between its poles so it provided
an obstacle but not cover, or even more ditches, although it has been suggested multiple ditch systems are associated
with the introduction of artillery into the defensive system.
i-z=: Wall: known/probable/tentative - Building (with colonnade)
KEY
-T ._
Ditch :<$$,T :;
,* a Earthwork
xxx *--
Riverbank or shoreline
IIII Steep slope
WI ‘ l t

Figure 1

: ‘- PRAETENTURA
. ii
*. :
b
i.

i LATE RA
PR,AETORII ‘.

M VIR

RETENTURA

:
Later methods of construction

From the early second century the earth rampart which had been revetted with turf or timber began to be
faced with a stone wall. Where this was added to an already existing fort it necessitated cutting back the rampart
to take the new wall, and also often the filling in of the inner ditch. New stone constructions incorporated a wider
berm between the,wall and the inner ditch in order to prevent the weight of the stonework causing it to collapse into
the ditch. Corner and interval towers were’usually built with their outer faces flush with the the outer wall of the fort
although there are cases where the gate towers project, but generally this is not enough to provide effective enfilades.
There were variations from this norm. Slaveni in Dacia has slightly projecting angle towers, while theportapraetoria
of the classis Britannica fort at Dover has projecting round-fronted towers although the intended effect of these was
probably more monumental than defensive. The fort of Bretcu (Angustia) on the eastern frontier of Dacia has circu-
lar corner towers enclosed between two parallel stone walls. However, such exceptions form only a small proportion
of known Roman forts.
.-
. Forts of the third and fourth centuries AD differed not only in their abandonment of the “playing card” ”
shape and its regular internal layout, but also in the methods of construction. While earth-and-timber construction
survived to be used for fortlets and a few major forts such as Gelduba, Oudenberg I and I I, and at Richborough, it was
eclipsed by the use of very thick stonewalls, usually without an earth backing. These massive stone walls were up to 5m
thick, built of a variety of types of masonry. The Romans didn’t think their concrete was waterproof, and forttie most
part rubble and concrete cores were encased in brickwork or ashlar, which could be decoratively patterned. Stonework
of small or irregular blocks had tile or brickwork binding courses. The berm between wall and ditch was now much
wider, up to 30m, while the ditch system itself could be either two or three of the usual ‘V’ shaped ditches or a single
massive ditch up to 16m which could have a flat bottom. Inside the fort the ground level was sometimes artificially
raised; in eastern examples this is sometimes described as earthquake protection, while in western European examples
it is though to be a protection against mining.

Provision for artillery

Many of the features of the new style defences can be ascribed to the increased use of artillery in a defensive
role. Specially built emplacements called ballistaria had previously been rarities, their presence at Hod Hill being linked
to the presence of a legionary detachment and its integral artillery. Large stone-throwing engines required special plat-
forms as ,their recoil shattered stonework. The ball&a at High Rochester threw rocks of up to 175 pounds and required
a rubble and clay platform 7.6m wide extending 9.8m back from the fort wall. The moral effect of such missiles sho~uld
not be underestimated. Ammianus records how, during the siege of Hadrianopolis in AD 378, the arrival of a rock from
such a machine, although it did not hit anybody, scared away a body of Goths. The main sort of defensive artillery
was, however, the bolt-shooting engine. Recent work by Dietwulf Baatz on fragments excavated from a fort at Orsova
in Rumania have shown these machines to be very similar to the light bolt-throwers shown on Trajan’s Column, which
are called carroballista. Carroballista is thought to be a latinisation of the Greek cheiroballistra - “handgun” - and the
Trajanic machine is sometimes referred to as “Heron’s cheiroballistra”. However it would appear that the Greek word
is itself a direct translation of the Latin manuballista, a word which occurs in Vegetius, and as the text describing the
components of the cheiroballistra uses other words derived from Latin it seems likely that the “Heron” who described
it was not the Heron of Alexandria who described the gastraphetes but a later author, possibly Byzantine. The true
cheiroballistra is a much smaller weapon than the Orsova bolt-thrower, being a large torsionpowered crossbow. “Fjeld
frames” - frames which held the torsion springs - for such a weapon, found in the fort at Gornea, were only half the
size of those of the Orsova machine, but the fact they were found in the corner towers of the fort indicates that
manuballistae were used in the same defensive role as the heavier engines as well as by skirmishing infantry. It is diffi-
cult to say whether the manuba//ista was derived from the larger weapons or if they were scaled up from it, but it is
possible to use ‘Heron’s’ text as a guide for reconstructing a garrison Lrtillery piece, My illustration (figure 2) is based
on Baatz’ reconstruction of the cheiroballistra (since writing this article and drawing the figure I have been informed
by Professor Baatz that a revised reconstruction of the cheiroballistra is illustrated in Gallia 1981, fast. 2, which should
be available now; it is very similar, but superior, to my figure 2) but I have made a few minor changes, such as altering
the field frames so the vertical strut with the arch in it will accommodate the torsion arm when it is fully drawn back.
I have also added a stand similar to those of the Trajanic machines, but not their cylindrical bronze spring sheathes,
which may not have been needed by garrison machines stored under cover, and replaced the stock of the small machine
with a windlass, although a stock might have been useful on a larger machine. The wide spacing of the torsion springs
and the arch in the upper crossframe gave a much larger sighting picture than the wooden frames of the bolt-shooters
which pieceeded the carroballista in Roman service, and this enabled the gunner to engage moving targets. To take
maximum advantage of this it would be best for the gunner to correct his aim constantly up to the moment of dis-
charge rather than fix the weapon on a point ahead of the target by means of the struts, thus adding the difficulty of
predicting the target’s movement to judging direction. I think the weapon may have been held by the gunner and
aimed by the movement of his body and legs, in much the same way as some light Oerlikon guns were aimed, and this
would be assisted by some form of stock.

Towers

While it would not have been impossible to mount light field carroballistae on earlier walls and towers, the eff-
ect of these and garrison bolt-shooters was enhanced by placing them in projecting towers which increased their firing
arcs and also enabled them to enfilade the curtain walls. Towers now usually projected from the walls for at least half
their depth, while they were often entirely external. In plan they ranged from square or rectangular to circular, with
.a- ‘.
_’, *-\

Figure 2
 many variations in between, although these were often built on a square or rectangular foundation platform. Few
Roman towers have survived to their full height, but the upper parts of fort towers can be reconstructed from those
with similar ground plans which survive as part of town walls. One example from Semis in France is a tower with a ‘U’
shaped plan which straddles a,3.3m wide town wall, projecting 0.7m to the rear of the wail, and with the curved front
face projecting on a 3m radius (figure 3). It is constructed of small blocks of stone (faces about 1 Icm square) with lon-
ger blocks (1 Icm by 26 to 44cm) at the corners and in the curved face, with rows of two to three 25mm thick tiles
every 9-12 courses. Just above the level of the rampart walk, which was some 7m above the ground, there was a row
of three large windows, with semi-circular arched tops, in the curved front face, with a single similar window in the flat
rear face. These are now blocked up, as is a second arcade in the story above, because they would have become a
:-liability when the bolt-shooters for which they were designed were lost. The roof is unfortunately missing, and although
these towers are usually restored in models and drawings as having crenellations and fiat rooves, there is some evidence
for pitched rooves. The Ribchester helmet has a browband which depicts the round-fronted projecting towers of a town
.i
wall, and these have both large windows and conical rooves. Drawings in the Notitia Dignitatum show both square and
circular towers which combine pitched rooves with crenellations as well as bastions whose flat tops are level with the
ramparts, but the buildings on which they are represented are not forts. These towers also provided access to the rampart
walk as there was often no equivalent of the stairway which went up the rampart-back of the earlier forts. In the
Palestinian fort of En Boqaq a rough stairway parallel to the wall was built to give access to the rampart walk, but only
after the interior of the towers had been burnt out, probably in the early seventh century AD. These towers were
entered at ground level through doorways that were both low (1.65m high) and narrow, although these widened towards
the interior of the tower, and were rendered even more difficult to attack by being approached through a narrow twisting
alley between the barrack blocks and the wall.

Gateways
. ..
The traditional “playing card” forts had always been equipped with more gates than were needed. The
commonest design was two portals between twin towers, but this extravagance was recognised at the time they were
built, and it was common for one portal to be kept permanently closed, and in the case of stone-built forts they were
later filled by a stone blocking wall. Gates of the third and fourth centuries AD were much fewer in number, many
forts having only one main gate, although there was an increasing use of small posterns. The majority of these gates
have only one portal, often quite narrow, but while many have complex designs some are extremely simple. The north
and south gates at Porchester and the east gate of Pevensey are merely arches in the curtain wall with nothing done to
enhance their defensive powers. In both these cases projecting towers in the curtain wall enfilade the gates but the neat=
est neighbouring tower at Portchester is 12m away. Another~common gate type has a single archway passing through
the base of a single tower which may be anything from internal to entirely external. Other plans are-more complex. At
Portchester (figure 4) the passage is defended by twin towers set back from the line of the curtain wall which turned
inwards towards them to form a courtyard, while Pevensey’s west gate has rectangular internal towers and round-fron-
ted external projections which may be either towers or bastions (figure 5). Gate openings were usually closed by a two-
leaved gate, but the portcullis which was known from Hellenistic fortification was in use in some town gates-including
the Pot-ta Nigra at Trier.

Posterns were narrow passages through the curtain wall and often emerged near the base of a projecting tower.
At Richborough the passage leads into the interior of a tower and then turns left to emerge through the side wall of the
tower, while at Luxor in Egypt an opening in a similar location is reached by a stairway descending from the tower
interior (figure 6). Sometimes the postern passage makes a couple of right-angled turns as it passei through the curtain
wall.

Figure 4 Portchester Figure 5 Pevensey

Figure 6 Luxor
Garrison strengths

One other influence on fort design was the size of units to be accommodated. I’ve already said there was a
loose connection between the size of a “playing card” fort and the unit it was originally intended to accommodate,
although they often ended up as home for an entirely different sort of garrison or as the base for additional units, such
as irregular num~at’i. The ideal strengths of the various units of the earlier Empire can be found in Phil Barker’s Armies
atid Enemies of Imperial Rkie, Geo. E Middleton’s “Cohortes Equitatae” in Slingshot No. 97 (September 1981, page
24) and my own article which supplemented it (“Cohortes Equitatae - some evidence”, No. 100, March 1982, page 8).
Ideal strengths are seldom achieved, most units tending to exceed or, more commonly, fall short of this mark, but many
forts will have been built for a unit in its ideal form and modified in detail to suit the units which occupied them. From
the few remaining Roman strength reports it would appear that at the beginning of the third century AD units
conformed loosely to the ideal model but by the end of the century many units were greatly understrength, at least as
far as the auxiliary units were concerned, although the evidence is subject to more than one interpretation. Mr Barker
gives a table of strengths for certain units in Egypt on page 13 of Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, based on
A H M Jones’ interpretation of Papyri showing payments to these units, for which Jon Coulston gives a&t-natives in
Slingshot No. 98, November 1981, page 35, which are based on payments in kind as well as cash payments. Mr
Coulston omitted a couple of minor points. Even if one accepts A H M Jones’ interpretation these figures include a few
 .27

slight miscalculations, while the figure given by Mr Coulston for A/a /I Herculania dromedariorum may be too low as
the unit had previously been overpaid and this was being reclaimed. R P Duncan Jones suggests a more likely figure is
the 100 kameloidespotikoi mentioned in a different papyrus as being at Elephantine in AD 295. On Hadrian’s Wall
the forts may have had an effective strength of only 8.5% to 15% of their old complements, but this suggestion rests on
soldiers’ families moving into the forts at a much earlier date than is generally accepted.

WARGAMES FORUM
Andy Gittins writes on cavalry v infantry melees: As regular readers of Slingshot may have noticed, I am no great
lover of WRG 6th Edition rules. However, I feel it is necessary to come to their defence against Hugh Fisher’s
comments in January Wargames Forum (page 17). Although I agree entirely with his second point, I believe his first
problem comes out of directly comparing 5th to 6th Edition.

Mr Fisher seems to suggest that there is something wrong with foot-mounted melees being as short as
mounted melees, but I can see nothing wrong with this. When cavalry-charge foot, the most likely result is either that
the infantry break formation at or just before impact, or that the cavalry, faced by an unbroken formation, will pull
up just before contact, When the cavalry do make contact, the critical period of the melee is very short. If the cavalry
fail to disrupt the formation, they will normally break off as they have no chance in a prolonged slogging match. On the
other hand, if the horses can get in amongst the infantry the infantry’s morale will probably crack quite rapidly. In this
context, and given the WRG obsession with weapon factors, the effect of cavalry against disorganised infantry is quite
justified; reading ‘recoiled by a mounted charge’ as infantry having their formation broken into, it is quite reasonable
that mounted troops should be more ‘effective’ following up than charging. Trying to analyse a melee situation in terms
of casualties and factors can be very misleading; on this occasion WRG seem to have produced the right effect, although
possibly for the wrong reason.

Richard Jeffrey-Cook discusses morale and weaponry: First may I express my sympathy to the Hun general who had all
his troops rout before they had received any casualties. (Slingshot January 1982, pp 12). My Parthians suffered an
almost identical defeat when they faced Later GreeksAlthough historically Parthians often ran away, it does make
rather a dull battle. May I suggest Phil Barker examines the morale rules; why should horse-archers be worried when
they are charged by infantry? They are not normally in any danger, anyway.

I also agree with Harold Gerry when he suggests that tactics are being overshadowed by equipment. Perhaps
the lack of emphasis on generalship in the WRG 6th edition is why there are so few articles on tactics in Slingshot. Five
years ago I started wargaming mainly because of the challenge in out-thinking an opponent. Now because movement
orders last only to period three and then only cause small limitations to where a unit can move, an opponent can react
almost immediately to a brilliant tactical move. ! have also found that I rarely use either messengers or signals with 6th
edition. Normally I don’t need to change the orders of a unit to meet an unexpected threat. I far prefer the movement
instruction system of the 5th edition, which is a-pity, as overall I believe 6th edition is better.

I regard these points as flaws in the rules rather than minor quibbles and hope these are set right, before too
many people give up Ancient Wargaming to its detriment.

Phil Barker covers the same points: Harold Gerry’s contention that current rules are too weapon-oriented makes an
interesting contract with D. Hannan’s account of-a battle in which morale decided the issue with hardly a blow struck!
I agree Harold’s general thesis, and have spent the last 15 years doing something about it. If he likes to check back to
the rules in use before WRG came along, he will find that they had more weapon and armour categories than are
currently in use. Checking the back numbers of Slingshot will also demonstrate that those 15 years have been spent
stoutly resisting continuous pressure to X&ease those categories.

Harold mentions the plight of players whose troops find themselves facing a factor differential of 6 to 1 or 0.
That 6 would require a combination of either heavy throwing weapon or two-handed cutting weapon with javelin. The
first would have to be shieldless, and the second could not be heavier than medium infantry, so even the cheapest med-
ium infantryman with short spear could not have a basic weapon factor worse than 4.

Apart from failing to read our amendments of last July (I believe the battle predated the amendments: Editor),
D. Hannan’s Hunnic opponent does seem to have made most of the possible mistakes, the most important and least
easily cured being throwing 8 with 3 dice. His opponents cannot count on him always doing that, and in future he is
unlikely to t,ry skirmishing at close range in front of advancing troops, or to neglect measures to stiffen the morale of
his right wing. He can console himself with the thought that such things did sometimes happen historically, The defeat
of the Danishmend Turks at Heraclea by the First Crusade in 1097 offers a reasonably close parallel.

Chris Morris deals with navalproblems: Jon Perkins raises a problem with the WRG ancient naval rules (Wargames
Forum, Slingshot September 1981 page 9). He finds it difficult to see how fleets actually come to blows without incurr-
ing massive morale penalties. The answer is probably twofold. When the invasion was being ‘mounted, it was very rare
for the invaders to head straight for the enemy city unless they knew the enemy had no fleet.(e.g. the Sparfans after
Aegospotami). Instead they sought to establish a base nearby, preferably a town that could supply food, but failing that
a defensible camp where mainsails etc could be safely left (e.g. The Athenians in their attack on Syracuse, established in
advance where they could place their camp).

When a fleet left its base to go into action, it seems likely that they went at a fairly leisurely slow cruise to
conserve energy until the enemy was in range. The WRG rules leave even the best crews exhausted within 7 turns in the
fastest vessels. This is quite realistic for a battle if one takes the WRG standard of 1 hour : 1 turn but is obviously ridi-
culous if applied to normal voyaging, To illustrate the great difference between the usual and possible speeds, it is
recorded that one ship managed to reduce a 24 hour start to practically nothing when trying to overtake another on a
220 mile voyage. A reasonable way to represent this in a campaign is to permit the off-table movement at a speed no
more than 2/3rd of battle speed to be ignored when totalling movement factors expended that day. On the other hand,
fleets making a long journey might have a penalty of movement facrors expended, before the battle even begins, and if
they’re caught with their mainsails up or aboard, well that’s their hard luck!
I_
_However, the interface between tabletop battle and campaign on paper is a difficult subject and one which I
would like to see discussed in Slingshot.

MMZIKERT REFOUGHT
. by Ian Wilson

This battle was an attempt by the Scimitar wargames group to refight an historical battle with a reasonable
degree of accuracy, and to this end then participants were each given a narrative and objective to carry out in an attempt
to force certain issues during the game. The players were Gregor Fotheringham (Romanus Djogenes), Pete Duckworth
(Andronicus Ducas), John Cunningham (Nicephorus Bryennius and Alyattes) and Pete Smith (Alp Arslan and Soundaq).
The author acted as umpire and the rules were WRG 5th edition with extensive local amendments,

The battle

As’most students are aware, the newly crowned Byzantine Emperor, Romanus Diogenes, assembled a large army
to face the Seljuk Turk invaders of Anatolia led by the Sultan Alp Arslan. The armies met near Manzikert in 1071 and
after prolonged skirmishing the Emperor, in an effort to maintain his lines of cummunication, gave the order to retreat.
The army misunderstood1 the order and became disordered, and Andronicus Ducas left the field, leaving the Emperor to
face a fresh Seljuk onslaught alone. As a result the army wasdestroyed and Romanus captured.
..
The-armies ..- ;: ‘L’ .’
“.
ByzantiJles i * _ Seljuk

(1) 12 “Regular B” SHC, kontos, shield (A) IO “Regular” B HC, spear, bow, shield ._
(2) IO “Irregular C” LC, javelin, bow,shield 03 10 “Regular C” HC, spear, bow, shield
(3) 12 “Regular C” HC, half kontos and shield, (Cl 10 “irregular D” LC, spear, shield
-half bow.
(4) 24 “Regular C” HI, long spear, shield (D) IO “Irregular C” LC, javelin, bow, shield
(5) IO “Regular A” SH I, axe, shield (El As (D)
,031 As (4) (I=) As 0
(7). As (3) (G) As ID)
(8) As (3) 0-U As 0
(9) - As (2) (I) As (D)
(1) 10 “Irregular C” HC, bow, shield w Sultan Alp Arslan
(11) 10 “Irregular C” HI, axe, shield (T) Emir Soundaq
(12) 10 “Irregular C” HC, kontos, shield
(13) 10 “Irregular B” HC, kontos, shield ..
W) Andronicus Ducas
o() Nicephorus Bryennius
WI Alyattes 7 :.
(a Romanus Diogenes
,.
Tiie Wargap ., i

The battle commenced with charges by all the Thematic cavalry (3, 7,8) and the mercenary cavalry (2,9)
forcing the Seljuk cavalry (D, E, G) the Bedouin (C) and the Kurds (H, I) to evade. The rest of the Byzantine line (I, 4,
5,6) advanced with the Hetaeria (11, 12) in support, whilst the Normans and the border nobles (10, 13) covered each
flank. The remaining Seljuk cavalry unit (F) retired in the face of this advance, and shooting caused minor casualties to
he Byzantine cavalry. Following the charge the Thematic and mercenary cavalry rallied and the remaining Byzantine
Inits continuedito advance in the face of Seljuk skirmishing, with minor casualties suffered by both sides.

Th.i Tagmatic cavalry (I), led by the Emperor in person, then’rushed into unauthorised advance against the
;eljuk cavalry (E), who evaded off the field, and the mercenary cavalry (9) charged uncontrolled into the Bedouin {C)
.,
 29

SELJUKS

l--K - 121 @.I l-3

BYZANTINES ~I I ”

and routed them. The other mercenary cavalry (2) charged the Kurds (H, I) who also evaded off the-field. The rest of the
Byzantine army continued to advance and the Mamiuk cavalry (A, B) emerged from the Seljuk camp. The Tagmatic
cavalry continued. their charge arid ran into the ‘Mamluks, who held them in t&melee. The Thematic cavalry (3,7,8)
charged again and the Seljuks (G, D) evaded off the field, whilst the infantry continued to advance and the reserve
covered the rear. Following this the Seljuk and Kurd cavalry (D, E, F, G, H) returned to the field and the Thematic cav-
alry began to rally. A general cavalry engagement then took place with the Kurds (H) routing the mercenaries (9), the
Seljuks (D, E, G) routing the Thematic cavalry (3,8), the Tagmatic cavalry (1) pushing back the Mamluks (A, B) and the
infantry (4) pushing back the Seljuks (F). The remaining Kurdish cavalry (I) then returned to the field, and the inlfantry
(6) and Thematic cavalry (7) charged into the Mamluk melee routing tine unit (B) at the same time as another Seljuk
unit (F) routed,

The Emperor then gave the signal for the army to withdraw, and chaos reigned in the Byzantine ranks. ihe
infantry (6) and Thematic cavalry (7) stood in disorder and the whole of the reserve line (IO, 11, 12, 13) turned about
and began marching directly off the f!eld. At this point the Kurds (I) charged into the rear of the infantry (4), and the
pursuing Seljuk$.and Kurds (D, E, G, H) all rallied. Luckily for the Byzantines, the Turks were too exhausted to con-
tinue the battle further, and contented themselves with skirmishing with the Byzantines as they withdrew, and looting
the baggage train.

Analysis

A final count showed that the Emperor had only the Tagmatic troops (1,5) and the Thematic infantry (4,6)
left effective in the field, while the Sultan had most of the Seljuk cavalry (D, E, G), the Kurds (H, I) and one much re-
duced Mamluk unit (A). As a reconstruction the game went fairly well and reasonably represented the real thing. The
defection of Ducas and the misunderstanding of orders would probably have been more effective one or two moves ear-
lier and the quality of some of the Byzantine units could have been a grade lower. But in the final analysis, the players
enjoyed the game, and in the long run that is what it’s all about.

WARGAMES IN HANOVER? A group of’five wargamers including three or four Society members are planning a long weekend in the
BielefeldlHanover area of West Germany during August/September. General idea is to see the scenery for modern wargames but we
would be interested to meet any locals. especially any that could help with overnight accommodation. Please contact Paul Marks, 7
Station Road, Hockley, Essex SS5 4BZ. England.
APULIAN NORMAN ARM,Y ’ for sale, fully based, painted and varnished, all Lamming figures. 60 LI bowmen, 20 LI crossbowmen, 60
Ml, 20 LC sergeants, IO LC horsebows, 65; HC, 20 E-HK, Bohemond of Apulia and personal banner/army standard bearer. El20 includ-
ing postage and packing. Contact S W Huntsman on Billericay 54163 (after 6pmj or write to 10, Harrods Court, Billericay, Essex.
MEMBERS IN KUWAIT: Steye Sykes will be in Kuwait for the next six months and would be glad to contact any Society members out
there. Contact him C/o Mike Gough, ICL, PO BOX 115, Safat, Kuwait.
FOR SALE: Citadel, 12 Late Byzantine Kataphraktoi I6 EHC kontos, 6 HC bow); Hinchliffe, 2 Late Byzantine Tagmatic HC bow; all
WRG based and painted, E6.50 including p & p. Clive Richards, 55 Pensbury Street, Darlington, Co. Durham, OLI 5Lj.
FOR SALE: 24 Indian infantry, archers and javelins; B Saka horse archers; both groups well-painted 25mm Minifigs, f5 and f3.50
including p & p, respectively. Contact Richard Jeffrey-Cook, 116 Riddlesdown Road, Purley, Surrey CR2 1 DD, or telephone
01 660 9570.
 ,.-_ ~~
THEGREEKSATWAR,500=400BC
,=+&I:;.;
5-
L 2-mI
._
Part 5 - Down to the sea ..- _
by Dave Halligan

The ships

Of all the ships inlhistory that have come to characterise the people that produced them, the trireme of the
Classical Greeks must be a leading example. Though supported in small numbers by earlier galleys, lembui and biremes,
the trireme dominated naval matters to the Greeks in the same way that hoplites ruled the wars on land. Each city state
that possessed a navy reckoned its strength in its number of triremes and the accounts of contemporary authors reflect
this-strong bias. Not unnaturally different states adapted the basic design to suit their own needs but the ship itself
dominated the Greek world for over 150 years, a tribute to its designers and builders rather than a criticism of the
ingenuity of its users.

The first stage in the production of such a vessel was, of course, the provision of suitable timber. As the fleets
grew in size, especially in Athens, during the 5th century, the sources of the vast quantities required became scarce in
southern and central .Greece, suitable forest land not being a feature of the area. The states of northern Greece and the
kings of Macedon, therefore, assumed an increasing importance as the demand grew and they were drawn more into the
affai,rs of their more advanced, and richer, neighbours. Perhaps, for the Greeks, this attraction and contact would have
been better avoided!
‘. _- * .-
-z
- _
Having obtained sufficient timber from their erstwhile allies the shipwrights’ work could commence. Unlike
the’Atlantic ships of later Britain and Scandinavia, the Greek vessels’ planks were laid edge to edge: rather than
overlapped, and secured with finely worked mortice and tenon joints. Also contrary to more recognised practice the
hull itself was contructed first with the framework and ribbing being later added to the existing shape as reinforcement.
Decking could then be constructed over the assembled framework. The timbers and planking were waterproofed with
a treatment of wax or far, or a mixture of the two, while the outer hull was usually covered with a thin sheet of lead.
Bright paintwork, probably as individual to each ship as shield blazons were to each hoplite, would add to this
protection. A trireme, or any ship contructed in similar manner, could then have a life expectancy of about twenty
years before the sea finally took its toll.

As was the case with all ships prior to the i9th century propulsion was achieved with sails or oars or a
combination of the two. Merchant ships tended to favour sails alone, as reliance on the elements reduced the expense
of crew wages and increased the potential payload. The winds in the Mediterranean are relatively constant so trade
routes could be established and relatively reliable timing could be achieved, even though such ships were at a
considerable disadvantage on the occasions that the weather was against them. Between the bulk carriers and the
warships were smaller merchantmen, and troop transports of unclear extraction, that sought both the speed and
manoeuvrability of the oar and the range and cargo allowance of the sail. This would be especially useful for troop
transports, which had to maintain contact with their warship escort, and merchant vessels operating with valuable or
urgent cargoes or in unsafe waters. Warships were also equipped both with sails and oars but they were seldom used
together. The masts of the triremes were fully retractable, witness the fact that the Syracusans, raiding the Athenian

, c_ -. -* .~

CYPRIOT MERCHANT SHIP c 500 BC

2:
 1 1 TRIREME 5th CENTURY BC
c. 30 Ft.

base at Plemmyrium in 413, captured the masts and gear of 40 triremes that were currently in action. This is an entirely
logical feature as the shock of a ramming impact would quite probably bring down a mast, with obvious consequences
for the crew. The complete removal of the mast from the ship, however, was obviously only practical when there was
a friendly base close at hand, as to put to sea without them would subject the oarsmen to unneccessary and potentially
disastrous exertion. The oars were reserved for emergency movement and planned manouevre, such as escaping bad
weather or docking, and for battle. Whether the intention was to ram and back water, leaving the enemy crippled
or to board, propulsion by the ship itself was essential- a quick glance at Caesar’s campaign against the Veneti will
highlight the disadvantages of reliance on the elements at the expense of a backup system. f

The main offensive capability of the warshipwas the bronze ram, or beak, fitted to the prow of the vessel,
either at or just below the waterline. Unlike the earlier ships of the 6th century this was,a strongly fitted device, such
earlier vessels having their rams nailed to the keel to allow them to be torn free after an over-zealous ramming. To
facilitate speed and handling the ram was usually hollow but the Corinthians and Syracusans, when faced with Athenian
expertise, tended to reinforce both bows and rams to cause more damage in head-to-head rams. Such alterations would,
of course, slow the ship down by inducing drag in th-e bows so could only be used when manoeuvre was restricted by
space. Generally bow rams were avoided as damage to the attacker was as likely as it was to the attacked. In addition
to the ram some ships could carry fighting towers, used by the Athenians at Syracuse aboard a ship of 260 tonnes
burden, or siege engines, again deployed by Athens, this time at Megara (Thucydides 3.51). Apart from these special
cases most triremes were equipped with a low tower, a forerunner of the later forecastle, with a possible primary
function of preventing enemy boarding when a ram on the enemy ship had been successful, the enemy marines being
faced with what amounted to a defensive wall.
. ,. Y . -=
The actual numbers of ships deployed obviously reflected the strength or otherwise of the individual city
states -though powerful Sparta, a primarily land-based and landlocked power, tended to devote her resources to other
areas - and the purpose for which the fleet was intended. In terms of numbers alone, however, Athens was as
exceptional a case at sea as Sparta was on the land. Thucydides reports that in 431 the city could deploy some 300
triremes, of which 250 were in active service -the remainder presumably being laid up, refitting or under repair.

Outside the period I am covering, Athens was able to run out 492 triremes, with other large ships then being produced,
in 330 BC. A glance through the pages of Thucydides gives a general idea of the numbers usually deployed.

At Salamis in 480 BC the Greek fleet was provided as follows, the numbers referring to‘triremes only:

Aegina 30 Corinth 40 Keos 2 Sicyon 15

Ambracia 2 Epidaurus 10 Kythnos 1 Sparta _ __I-= 18
Athens 180 Eretria 7 Leukas _ 3 Styra 2
Chalcis 20 Hermione 3 Megara ’_ 20 Troezen 5

The most obvious fact about this list is that of the 356 ships, over half were provided by Athens. The nature-and pos-
ition of the battle may well go some way towards accounting for this as a number of Peloponnesian ships, especially
those of Corinth, must have been kept away as a reserve in case of disaster. However it is a fact that Athens’ navy,
througholrt the 5th and much of the 4th century, was over twice the size of any other Greek state.

At Corcyra in 433 a naval action took place as part of the civil dispute in that city. External intervention
produced these fleets:
 Corey ra 110 vs Corinth 90 Ambracia 27
-Athens IO Megara 12 Leukas 10
>A+~ -1.. 1
-‘I-.- Elis 10 Anactorium
<---
Notable d,ifference,s in the number of ships provided seem to reflect the nature of Greek politics, even allowing for the
47 years between the two actions. many of the northern and western cities either remained neutral or were not totally
dedica$e$othe defence of Attica and the Peloponnese, quite apart from those.states which stood wjth the Persians.
However the situation in Corcyra affected them very much so there was a greater turnout by these states actively
involved in the area: During the subsequent Peloponnesian War Corcyra, with Chios and Lesbos, contributed ships to
the Athenian “alliance”, the other “all@” be-ing called upon to turn out troops or money. A further idea of possible
numbers can be gained from the Spartan tail for her allies in Sicily and Italy to provide a total of 500 ships in 431.
__
The crews

One of the greatest misconceptions about the ancient world must have been put out by Hollywood in films
such as Ben Hur. In one scene we see the hapless slave oarsmen lashed into action but thrown into panic and confusion
as a pirate vessel bears down on them. The Roman flagship immediately loses her headway and= manoeuvrability and is,
of course, an easy target, thoroughly deserving the inevitable ramming. On the very rare occasions !hat slaves were need-
ed for such service they were @mediately freed and were treated as any other free crewmen, *--_
~.- -2. I. ; -~ ..- -
--. _
The_crew-of a typical trireme would number about 20b, of which some 170 would be oarsme:. The oars of
the trireme were arranged in three banks and each was manned by a single oarsman, though the men were arranged in
only two banks or benches which were set obliquely to the ship’s hull, the outer ends being forward of the inner. This
arrangement allowed for free movement by the two oarsmen seated on the upper bench, a further refinement being the
positioning of the outer man in an’outrigger which’allowed for free movement of the oars themselves (an arrangement
of the oars is shown in the illustration, though the oars are largely omitted for clarity). The men were generally dressed
in tunics only and had the minimum of equipment beyond the absolutely essential bench cushions. In retrospect it
also seems quite likely that even tunics would be the exception rather than the rule.
.: ,. _.
-&, It was very unusual, allowing for this, forthe oarsmen to be expected to fight, though Cleon equipped them as
well as possible at Sphacteria in 425 to supplement his land forces, leaving only the lower bank of men on-the ships.
In this the Greeks were disadvantaged by the Persians and their levies, who deployed larger number of marines on their
ships and were-able to capture whole vessels and crews intact. The fighting complement of a trireme was provided
by ten to fourteen marines equipped as hoplites, who may have avoided metallic armour for obvious reasons, and four
marines armed as archers. These men were respohsible for resisting boarders and launching attacks themselves, protect-
ing the ships when beached and operating in much the same way as the modern concept of marines.

Overseeing the complement was a relatively small number of officers. The prow officer occupied the foc’sle
and acted as a forward observer and marine commander. The bosun was responsible for the morale, training and discip-
line of the oarsmen. Regattas and races were frequently organised to promote these three essentials, ascendancy in
which gave Athens her superiority at sea. The helmsman was obviously responsible for steering the ship, the one man,
through careful balancing of the twin steering oars, being easily able to operate the steering gear. In many cases the
helmsman may also have been the ship’s first officer but the captain, the trierarchos, could also be assisted by a deputy.
The trierarchos in addition to commanding the ship, had to engage the subordinate officers, the better men receiving
high salaries, and maintain the vessel, so he tended to come from the wealthier classes. He was, however, seemingly
freed from the expense of paying the whole crew as the Athenian oarsmen in 415 each received one drachma per day,
with ten drachmai per month in addition to buy provisions.

.’ As this rate of pay was also noted in 428 it can be readily seen that the navy must have been the chief wartime
expenditure for Athens. As stated above the city deployed 250 triremes, each of which had a state-paid crew of almost
200, assuming that the officers were paid by the captains, though the men operated on half pay and received the rest
when paid off. This discouraged desertion, perhaps not too much faith was placed in the earlier mentioned morale and
discipline, and saved expense if the cynical view of not needing to pay those whodid not come back is recognised. It
may also have been a financial expedient for the hoplites sent to Mytilene in 428 to row their own ships, though
alternative arguments may suggest crew or ship shortages even in Athens.

:. The main difference between the navy and the army was that the seamen were, and had to be, subjected to a
greater discipline and a greater proportion failed to achieve the property qualification needed for full citizenship. Here
-naval service had a great attraction as all the man neededto provide was himself. However the extension of the politi-
cal system that reached the army also reached the navy,,and any officer could be replaced if the crew demanded
the move. Naturally, as in the army, this state of affairs could have the advantage of each man knowing that he is in a
situafi-on entirely willingly and he was a!vvays free to air his grievances. The disadvantage was that politics could disrupt
a crew’s cohesion and team spirit, this being noted in the Corcyraean civil war of 427. Two of the ships deserted to the
enemy,.presumably the crews were unanimously opposed to their official government, and many other ships saw their
crews fighting amongst themselves. Needless to say the,random attacks mounted by the Corcyraens gave their Pelop-
onnesian opponents no problems and forced their Athenian allies to retire rapidly.
 33

Movement
,_ ._. -. ,-.: _
The need to travel more easily and carry merchandise to greater effect and profit was the main factor when the
Greeks decided to take to the sea, especially as their largely hostile homelands tended to be more of’an isolater than a’
unifier. Primarily the sea was used as the highway of the merchants who could see the advantage of a single shipload as
opposed to many wagons with attendants and drivers. Not surprisingly the advantages were readily recognised by the
generals.

With favourable winds both warships and merchantmen could achieve four to six knots, or 100 to 150 miles
per day, assuming movement throughout the 24 hour cycle. However ancient mariners were generally reluctant to leave
the comfort of sighted land so shipping routes tended to hug the coasts and island-hop. Except on the clearest nights, therefore,
I would doubt that captains regularly risked the dangers of shallows or reefs by night sailing. Progress could also be hindered
by heavy weather as the ships tended to be low in the water and were liable to flooding if caught in high seas. At Pylos in 425
the Athenians were unable to blockade Sphacteria completely as their triremes could not maintain station on the windward side
of the island. (I have experienced a Mediterranean storm myself whilst aboard a cruise liner, so I would certainly never blame
an ancient crew for seeking to avoid one.) Obviously then the 150 miles per day was very much the exception rather than the
rule.

When compelled to stop over merchant vessels had to seek ports or natural harbours, or at least the leeward
shelter of islands, their small crews and deeper draught making beaching impossible -well, extremely inadvisable at
least! The triremes were able to put ashore at any point where they could find a gently sloping beach. Turning stern to
the beach and having pulled in the steering oars the ship could slowly back water until it grounded. The crew could
then pull the ship up on the beach, completely clear of the water if necessary. This greatly assisted the preservation of
Greek warships as they could occasionally be dried out and cleaned. The Greek ships at Artemisium and Salamis, and
the Athenians at Syracuse, were unable to do so and were consequently heavy and sluggish in the subsequent actions,
having water-soaked timbers and encrusted hulls. Ships were also beached in this way when a long period of inactivity
was envisaged, with shipsheds providing protection from the elements. These would have resembled modern boathouses
or locomotive sheds in general plan. Away from their home dockyards ships, on shore while their crews were engaged
in siege activities or had to remain at their stations for the winter, could be protected against the worst of the elements
with canvas and leather covers. Stockades were often built around the ships as a defence and stakes could be driven into
the seabed to prevent an enemy from dragging the vessels off.

The lightness of the triremes also, on occasion, allowed the crews actually to move the ships overland when a
particular situation demanded it, unlike the engineering feats accomplished by the army of Xerxes. After their limited
success at Corcyra the Peloponnesians were warned by fire signals that a fresh Athenian fleet was approaching from the
south. Not wishing to engage it, the Peloponessians sailed towards it at night and very close to the shore, finally hauling
their ships over the Leucas peninsula to avoid detection. Of a more permanent nature wa.s the~paved way laid down over
the Isthmus of Corinth from the Gulf to tke Bay of Sajamis in the 6th century, this being in the form of a
double track designed to take heavy carriages. Perhaps these are the machines mentioned by Thucydides (3.15) when he
relates that the Corinthians hoped to catch Athens unprotected in 428.

The battles

With the exception that a greater emphasis was placed on actual manoeuvre, Greek sea battles largely tended
to reflect those on land, though the power now to be feared was obviously Athens. As on land the various contingents
were still allotted their place in the line, the senior contingent present holding its own preferred pride of place. The
battle of Corcyra in 433 is even described as a land battle on the sea (Thucydides 1.49) as the two fleets, using antiqu-
ated tactics, merely rushed together, locked, and fought a massive series of boarding actions, tactics and manouevre
being limited by the lack of space and the numbers involved. The more advanced Athenians did not fully engage as
they still hoped to avoid a full-scale war with the Peloponessians.

This emphasis on coming to close quarters and boarding was very much a feature of the Peloponessians fleets
whereas the Athenians preferred the more subtle approach of manoeuvre and ram, it being quite possible that Athenian
triremes increasingly managed without regular marine detachments. The advantages of the latter approach were high-
lighted at Naupactus in 429 when 47 Peloponessian ships adopted a circular formation, sterns to the centre and prows
pointing outward, to allow their heavily laden ships to cross the Gulf of Corinth. Seeing this, Phormio, the Athenian
commander, ordered his 20 captains to scare the enemy into contracting their formation. Inevitably the ships began to
foul each other and chaos grew as the various crews’ shouting drowned the officers’ commands. When the Athenians did
attack, the result was inevitable, the training and expertise of their crews allowing the ships to manoeuvre, ram and
withdraw before the enemy could effectively interfere.

In the face of greater numbers or more skilful opposition commanders usually attempted to equal the balance
by fighting in restricted areas. At Salamis the Greeks managed to lure the Persians into the narrows where their over-
confidence and numbers led them into disastrous difficulties with the Greeks driving flank ships in on the centre.
65 years later it was enemy expertise which led the Syracusans to provoke battle within their own great harbour.
Though the Athenians used merchantmen anchored 200 feet apart to rally behind, their movements were generally
restricted and the Syracusans were able to negate the disadvantage of having inferior crews. They also sent out many
small boats to sail under the oars of enemy vessels, from which troops could attack the oarsmen.
 Of the actual tactics employed by the more skilled crews we know relatively little. They obviously supported
each other to’expose the enemy or sought to outwit a slower opponent, one tactic in this being the diekplous whereby
ships in line ahead would drive through a fleet deployed conventionally in line abreast. In turning to meet the threat,
the line became confused and weak flanks were exposed to the shearing of oars and ramming. If the line held steady
then it would be faced by enemy vessels to front and rear - a situation very definitely to be avoided if possible.
_* _.
L,,. ----

RULES-ASUITABLECASE
_ FORTREATMENT?~qrt4
1.I- - : -
. .
:.:. ; 1-

by Darrell Lias
, __I~_ ~~ I+= tF..y~ i
This, the fourth article in the series, will’cover the weaponry available to troops, and the mechanisms for its
use in shooting. An alternative treatment of melee will be described.in the next article, but the guiding premise behind
both shooting and melee within these rule sugge,st]ons. is th_at the ability of an individualto use a weapon will vary far
less wildly than is currently envisaged by WRG 6th edition. To facilitate this idea, the casualty table has been stretched,
so that the number of casualties doubles for an increase of four factors, as opposed to three under WRG. In this way,
the random factor (described later) can be less dramatic than the “plus 4” - “minus 3” miracles that can make a battle
-. -
a game of chance, rather than a clash of generalship.
.*- ; .~ __::. .::. .:
The classification of weapons is~always a subjective enterprise, and this is most vividly demonstrated in a com-
parison between the WRG and Newbury rules, and is frequently the subject of articles and letters in Slingshot. Hence, it
is not my intention to defend the correctness of the following classifications, since they are designed to fit the mech-
anisms of the rules.
.: _
Weapon Classes: In addition to a side-arm (SA), such as a mace, sword or dagger, a figure usually carries at least one
other weapon, which may be a Missile Weapon, or a Melee Weapon, as defined below:

Missile Weapons: These are,all weapons that have their effect at a distance, and are:- -~- --~

Bows (B) whether composite or short.

Crossbows (XB) whether manual, stirrup, windlass or repeating.
Longbows (LB) whether Indian, Japanese or Welsh/English.
Slings (HS) when used one-handed.
Staff-slings (SS).
Light Missile Weapons (LMW)
The last of these jncludes javelins, darts, and other light hand-hurled missiles, such as rocks wielded by lesser
armed peasant levies. Cavalry, camelry, and chariotry and elephant crews, may use any of the above, except HS and SS,
and may also use the LMW class in melee if no melee weapon is carried, or when fighting chariots or elephants.
~ -.r.
Melee Weapons: These are all weapons for use in Handto-Hand combat, and are:-
.- -
Infantry weapons:
‘Thrusting Spears, whether Short (STS), from 6 to 8 feet in length, or Long (LTS), from 8 to 14 feet.
Pikes (P), from 15 to 25 feet long, and held with both hands.
Two-Handed Cutting or Consussive Weapons (THCW), including swords, axes, clubs, bills, halberds and
tiaginata.
Heavy Throwing Weapons (HTW) such as pila, angons and other similar weapons thrown solely at contact.
Side-arms are used in melee: a) if none of the above is carried, b) in the second or subsequent periods of a
melee, if armed with HTW, and c) in any period of a current melee in which troops armed with STS, LTS or
P have suffered a push-back.

Cavalry and camelry weapons:

Lances (L), whether the 12 foot Kontarion, the Medieval lance, or other stout spear used couched.
Spears (SP), which are primarily used overarm.
Side-arms are used in melee: a) if neither of the above, nor LMW, are carried, or b) in the second and
subsequent periods of a melee in which troops used L in the first period.
*. .,
Chariotry and Elephant crews may use P and LTS, but may participate in a melee even if armed only with
missile weapons.
Artillery models are initially counted as 4 engines, and are classified as Light (LA), or Heavy (HA), with HA
having a longer range. Chinese rocket launchers are classed as LA, because of their inherent inaccuracy.

As with most rules, my alternative ideas ignore ammunition supply, but unlike others, the timing of fire is
important.
.. ., .,
Timing of Shooting: The act of shooting includes the preparation and aiming of certain weapons, and hence there is a
need to restrict the ability of such weapons to be fired whilst the bearer is moving. This implies:
 a) Troops armed with LMW, and mounted figures armed with B, LB or X6, may fire on the move.
b) Foot troops, including dismounted figures, armed with LB, XB, or SS, who move up to half a period may
still fire. Ranges and targets are determined at the end of the period, using target priority rules.
c) Foot troops, including dismounted figures, armed with B or HS, must be stationary for ‘/ period to fire.
Ranges and targets are determined at the end of the ‘/4 period, or later in the period if the troops remain
halted. Target priorities apply at the time of firing.
d) Any troops which remain stationary throughout the period, may fire at anyconvenient time, provided
the target priority rules are adhered to. Similarly with troops allowed to fire on the move.

The target priority rules in WRG 6th edition are basically identical to those in 5th, except for the restricted
ability to nominate a priority, which is somewhat unreasonable in my opinion. Hence, whilst using the basic system
the alternative idea is to allow a single written priority, which must be one of:

i) a particular enemy troop-type, ii) a particular enemy unit or body, iii) any enemy occupying a parti-
cular terrain feature, or iv) supporting fire to a particular friendly body or unit.

The rules, used as a basis for this series were created to simplify the usual mechanisms whereever possible, and
to include additional ideas where they seemed appropriate, Thus the concept of half-ranks has been avoided by the use
of whole ranks only, both in shooting and melee, which means that the representation of discipline in a body implies
the following:

Ranks Eligible to Shoot:

Up to 3 ranks of a single body of regular troops on foot may fire, if armed with B or LB. Up to 2 ranks of a
single body may fire, if irregulars armed with B or LB, or if any troops armed with XB or SS, or if mounted regulars
with B. Only 1 rank of a single body may fire if using LMW or HS.

NB. The above restrictions do not apply if shooting down from, or up at an elevation such as a hill or an elephant;
however, the overhead firing rules do apply. Notwithstanding this, only 1 rank of a single body may fire when using
any weapon in a wood, or at night.

Overhead Firing:

No weapon may be fired over a friendly figure or model, if it is beyond half the maximum range of the
weapon, or if it is within 20 yards of the target. Otherwise, troops may fire overhead of any troops if the target is vis-
ible to the firing figure. (There is no need for any restriction on the proximity of the firers to the troops being fired
over, and in fact this can produce anomalies, as in WRG 6th, where the crew of an elephant may not fire over a friendly
body if it is within 20 paces, but may do so if it is 25 paces away!)

Shooting arcs are fairly standard throughout most rules, so do not need any comment here. However, the
ranges used in most rules are often difficult to achieve in practice (I have tried throwing objects about, and used bows,
but have great difficulty in getting anywhere near the ‘effective’ ranges of some authors), therefore an alternative set of
ranges are as follows:

Weapon Ranges: These ranges are not necessarily the maximum possible, nor are they the effective ranges for Olym-
pian heroes; but they are an attempt to give the distances of effective fire for an average soldier in battle.

Weapan Maximum Range

LMW, thrown by open-order infantry, or elephant crew 60 yards
LMW, thrown by any other troops 40 yards
* B, fired whilst mounted 120 yards
B, fired by infantry 200 yards
* LB, fired whilst mounted 180 yards
LB, fired by figures on foot 240 yards
HS, 100 yards
ss, 180 yards
XB, fired mounted or on foot 280 yards
LA, (including Chinese rocket launchers) 360 yards
HA, 480 yards

(* dismounted figures using LB achieve infantry ranges, whilst those using B retain the mounted range.)

Troops firing from a hill (but not an eletihant on level ground) add 20 yards to all ranges, whilst those firing
up at a hill.deduct 20 yards. Maximum range for all weapons in a wood, or at night, is 20 yards.

The random factor mentioned earlier in this article, is identical for both shooting and melee, and is designed
to be as simple as possible, while. (a) incorporating the erratic nature of Irregulars, when contrasted with Regulars, and
(b) fitting the concepts put forward at the start i.e. the narrowing of the variation in fighting ability due to chance.
 The result is a simple throwing of one die; numbered 1, 2,3,4, 5,6, for irregulars, and, 2, 3, 3,4,4, 5, for
regulars the factor being taken from the table below:

Die Roll:- 1 2 3 4’ 5 6

Factor: -1 -1 0 +-I +1 +2

The random factor is then applied as normal, to the weapon factor (see below), along with the tactical factors.

Weapon Factors: These are grouped for convenience, and not through any conriection between particular weapons.

LChf l&h/
Target type: LI * HI SHI LC/ LCm HC/HCm SHC EL

LMW/B/HS:- 4 2 0 5 3 2 2

LB/LA/HA:-- 3 3 3 4 4 4 3
xwss: 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

(* Artillery crews are shot at as LI, but always count shielded.)

Tactical Factors: The factors are cumulative and modify the weapon factor in accordance with the situation of the
firers and their target.

Add 1 if:
a) the target figures are LI, HI, LC, HC, or any camelry, which are unable to use shields at the time
of firing unless LA or HA.
b) the target figures are SHI or SHC which are unable to use shields at the time of firing, if LB, XB,
or SS.
c) the firers are Veteran troops.

Deduct 1 if:
a) the target figures are beyond half range, unless using LMW. .~
b) the firers are Irregular troops.
cl the firers are Untrained troops.
d) any cjf the firing body are firing overhead of any figures of another _. friendly bbdy.

Deduct 2 if: I. ,,
,,
a) the target body is in open-order.
b) the target figures moved over 80 yards this period, or are ending the period in contact with firers
friends, but not firers.
cl the target figures are in or behind cover when using any weapon except HA or-ro&Kets; -
d) the target figures are riding armoured mounts when using atiy weapon except LA or HA.

The target figures are always the nearest figures of a target body, thus preventing the tac@c of picking off rear ranks
who may be less well armoured.

Any comments criticisms or suggestions on this, or previous articles may be sent directly to me at the address
inside the front cover of this issue -or may be sent to the Editor for possible inclusion in Slingshot. I am grateful for the
letters already received,‘and the comments etc. they contain, but unfortunately, I am unable to send people copies of
the rules referred to in these articles, at least for the present.

Errata in part 3: Unfortunately there were two errata in part 3 of this series, in the March issue. On page 12, in the
paragraph headed Rallying, insert at the end of line 4 the work “ends”. In the paragraph headed Changes of direction,
the words given here in italics were omitted from line 5:

“Turns of 90 or 180 degrees take % period for open order troops and veteran or trained regulars,arid take %
period for all other troops.”

FOR SALE, GREENWOOD 81 BALL CARTHAGINIANS, all unpainted unless stated. 4 painted slingers, 50~; 10 Numidian LC, riders
weI!-painted, f4; 7 Numidian LI, fl ; 8 well-painted citizen spearmen, f2; 21 citizen spearmen in reserve, partly painted, f2.60, Also
9 Dixon landsknechts, El; Airfix ancient Britons, 50~. Buyer to pay postage or collect. SAE for details to Philip Grass, 27 Queens Drive
Stokesley, Middlesborough; phone Stokesley 710600.
OPPONENTS SOUGHT IN NORTH YORKS/CLEVELAND: Philip Grass seeks opponents for his 25mm Carthaginians for Society and
friendly games. Contact him at 27 Queen’s Drive, Stokesley, Middlesborough, Cleveland TS9 5HA or phone Stokesley 710600.
WESSEX WARGAMES SOCIETY: The President and Secretary, to wit Mike and Anita Powell respectively, have moved, and can now
be found at 66 Petworth Gardens, Lordswood, Southampton.
 37

LITERATURE REVIEW
by H. Charlesworth

All I can say about my suggestion that I would review the latest journals is that “it seemed like a good idea at
the time”. I have collected a list of 70 journals which carry articles which may be of use. However, articles of direct
relevance to our interests are few and far between and I am quickly getting to know those journals which contain gems
and those which do not. I would prefer to leave reviewing articles to those who know more about the subjects concern-
ed than I do. In general, I have started to check through journals starting around October 1981. The abstracts are
presented in the following way:-

Journal Tide Volume, Number, Month, Year, Page No., Authors Name, Title of Article (and other information).

Where the article is a review of a book, the reviewer’s name is in brackets. Also in brackets, are the names of
the publishers and so on, presented in the following order:-

(Place of publication, name of press, year, other information).

I hope members will find something of interest in the articles presented below.

. Antiquity Vol. LV No. 215 Nov. 1981.299 Review:- Levi, P. Atlas of the Greek World (Snodgrass A.M.)

Britannia Vol. XII 1981. 7. Speidel, M.P. “Princeps as a title for ad hoc commanders.” 253. Green, M. “Model objects
from military areas in Roman Britain.“There are a number of other general articles concerning Roman Britain.

Current Archaeology No. 79, Vol VII No. 8 Oct. 1981. 230. Alcock, L. “Early historic fortifications in Scotland.“
243. “Hamwih. A Saxon excavation.” 250. Williams, J.H. “Northampton.” No. 80 Vol. VI I No. 9 Dee 1981. 269.
“Canterbury” (Includes illustration of Roman horse-brasses).

English Historical Review Vol. XCVI No. 381. Oct. 1981. 721. Leyser, K. “Ottonian Government”. 848 Review:-
Smyth, A.P. Scandinavian York and Dublin. The History and Archaeology of two related Viking Kingdoms. rr (2 vols.
Dublin - Templekiern Press, N.J. - Humanities press. 1975 and 1979 E2.10 and f7.50) (Christiansen, E.)

History Today Sept. 1981. 58. Review:- Barrow, G.W.S. Kingship and Unity in Scotland, 1000-1306. (Parker, G.)
61 Henig, M. “Image of Augustus.” History views Caesar Octavius.

Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol C, 1980. 1. A B Bosworth “Alexander and the Iranians” (.Covers Iranians in the army as
well as government.) 73. N G L Hammond. “The battle of the Granicus River.” (Defends the account of an attack
straight across the river). Vol Cl, 1981. 17. A B Bosworth, ” A missing year in the history of Alexander the Great.”
(Chronology of the campaigns of 328.)

Journal of Asian History Vol. 15 No. 1. 1981. 73. Review:- Ahrad, F. The later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay.
The Dynasty in Afghanistan and Northern India 1040-1186. (Bosworth, C-E.)

Journal of Asian Studies Vol. XLI No. 1. Nov. 1981.45. Barfield, T.J. “The Hsiung-Nu Imperial Confederacy: Organi-
sation and Foreign Policy.”

Medieval Archaeology Vol XXV 1981. 90. Good, G. L. and Takraham, C.J. “Excavations at Threave Castle, Galloway.”
141. Hirke, H. “Anglo-Saxon laminated shields at Petersfinger - a myth.“1 57. Long, J.T. “Viking-age spear socket
from York.” 160. McGrail, S. “A medieval longboat from the R. Calder.”

Northern History Vol. XVII 1981. 231. Kershaw, I. “A note on the Scats in the West Riding, 1318-1319.” 269.
Review of Arthurian sources. Morris, J. Age of Arthur (Chichester - Phillimore 1977,3 vols - f2.50 each), (Wood,
I.N.). Arthurian Period Sources 7. Gildas’ “The Ruin of 6ritain”and other works. (Edited and translated by M. Winter-
bottom), (Chichester - Phillimore 1978, f5.00 or f2.50 paperback). Arthurianperiod Sources 9, St. Patrick. His writ-
ings and Muir&e’s “Life’: (Edited and translated by A.B.E. Hood), (Chichester - Phillimore 1978, f4.00 or f2.00
paperback). 274. Reviews:- The making of Northern England. Sawyer, P.H. From Roman Britain to Northern England.
(London. Croon-r Helm. 1979. f14.95). English, B. Lords of Holderness. 1066-1260. A study of feudal society.
(Oxford University press for the University of Hull. 1979. f 14.00).

Nottingham Medieval Studies Vol XXV 1981 13. Loud, G.A. “How ‘Norman’ was the Norman conquest of Southern
Italy?”

Past and Present No. 92 August 1981. 3. Linder, A.P. “Nomadism, horses and Huns.” (Argues that the Huns west of
the Carpathians suffered from shortage of pasture, hence relying increasingly on infantry.)

Popular Archaeology Vol. 3 No. 6 Dec. 1981. 8. Webb, A. “How did the bow develop?” 13. Wilson D. “Medieval
moated sites”.
:8

Scottish Hktorical Review Vol. LX2 No. 170 Oct. 1981. 160. Lamont, W.D. “Alexander of Islay, Son of Angus Mar.”
183. Review:- Kapelle, W.E. Norman conquest of the North. The reign andits transformation, 1100-l 135. (London,
Croom Helm. 1979. f14.95). (Stephenson, W.B.).

Speculum (Journal of Medieval Studies) Vol. 56 No. 3 July 1981. Reviews:- Brandon, P. (ed). The South Saxons
(London and Chichester,. Phillimore press, 1978. USA publishers - Rowan and Littlefield, Totowa, N.J.)
Bruce-Mitford, R. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial - 2. Arms, Armour, and Regalia. (London, British Museum 1978).

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration Vol. 10 No. 4 November 1981: Review:-
Morrison, J. Long Ships and Round Ships, Warfare and Trade in the Mediterranean, 3000 BC - 500 AD. (London,
HMSO, 1980 f2.95), (Farrell, A.W.)

THE INVASION OF EGYPT BY THE ARABS - Part 2

by John Feilla

The battle of Heliopolis

Famous since antiquity, known then as On, and as Ain Shams (fountain of Sun) by the Muslims, Heliopolis-
was the site of the Arab camp. Located on rising ground. it was separated from Babylon, which lay Southwest of it, on
the Eastern bank of the Nile by a flat plain, about nine kilometres wide.

The Arab army, as I have stated earlier was about 15,000 strong. The morale was very good and some of the
units were of excellent quality (Companions and Helpers of the Prophet, that had arrived with the contingent of Zeil
ibn al Awwam). The force at Heliopolis, as usual with early Muslim armies, must have comprised a strong infantry divis-
ion (men from the cities Medina and Mecca, armed with spears, swords and bows), supplemented by Bedouin (noma-
dic element) light cavalry and a small contingent of heavy (mailed) cavalry.

The Byzantine army that had mustered in Babylon was definitely stronger in size than the opposition, about
20,000, probably more. Their morale however was not as firm as their opponents. As reported by A.J. Butler (The
Conquest of Egypt, p.230), the infantry (spearmen and archers) formed the major part of the host. The cavalry was
under the command of Anastasius (Prefect of Alexandria) and Theodosius (Prefect of Fayoum).Theodorius was Comm-
ander-in-chief and we have already commented as to the extent 07 his tactical abilities. Possibly lured into a sense of
deceptive superiority through his numerical advantage, probably urge-d on by the rising water of the Nile, Theodosius
finally decided to give battle.

Early in the morning, mid July of 640, the Byzantine army emerged from the groves surrounding Babylon, and
marched across the open desert toward Heliopolis. The Arab host readily informed by their scouts had followed suit, and
the armies probably met about mid way, on the plain between Helipolis and Babylon. But a factor of extreme import-
ance had occured prior to ttie Roman sortie. Amr ibn al-Aasi either specifically informed or sensing the imminence of
the battle had sent the night before, two cavalry detachments one (1000 strong) in the vicinity of Umm-Dunain (see
map 4), the other under Kharija (500 strong) concealed behind the Mukhattam hills, east of Babylon and.Misr (present
day site of the Cairo Citadel).

N
Map 4: Tentative reconstruction of
the battle of Heliopolis, June 640.
(a) Arab cavalry, (b) Arab infantry; ii A a C
(c) Arab cavalry; (d) (e), Hidden units.
(I), (3), Byzantine cavalry, PERIOD
(2) Byzantine infantry. , I-
,:

.
 39

Totally ignorant of the threat menacing their rear and west flank, the Byzantines met the Arab army head on.
A confused and indecisive melee ensued. But suddenly, Kharija’s party emerged from behind the Mukhattam hills and
spiritedly charged into the backs of the engaged Byzantines. Stunned and confused, they fell back westward, only to
run into the onrushing Umm-Dunain contingent Total rout followed and with it, as usual, a heavy pementage of casual-
ties. (As one could have expected Theodorius was able to escape the carnage.) The remnants of the army withdrew into
the fortres of Babylon. Misr surrendered unconditionally. Umm-Dunain was stormed and only 300 soldiers escaped to
Nikiou.

On learning of the disaster of Helipolis, the army defending the Fayoum withdrew via the Nile to Nikiou.
Besides Fayoum the Arabs occupied the towns of Athrib and Manuf, 45 kilometres North of Babylon. By eliminating
all organised resistance in the field and occupying two rich provinces (Misr and Fayoum), the Arabs had dramatically
consolidated their strategic position. The fall of Babylon, in view of the Byzantines dismal performance and shattered
morale was in fact but a matter of time.
Siege and fall of Babylon

The fortress shape was that of a quadrilateral enclosure, with its northern side wider (160 metres) than the
southern (70 m). and about 300 metres long The western side as well as the southern one (due to an inlet in the course
of the river), were directly in contact with the Nile and a small harbour was present on the southern apect of the fort
(See map 5). The walls rose to about a height of 20 metres and were approximately 2 metres thick, built of alternate
layers of brick and stone Two massive towers reaching a height of 70/75 metres, surmounted the western wall and ass-
ured the occupants of the fort of a commanding view of the river and surrounding area. Two gates interrupted the
continuity of the wails one on the west the other most important, on the south (the “Iron Gate” of the Arab
historians) protected by an iron covered portcullis. The fortress was surrounded by a moat filled with the water from
the Nile. The island of Raudah, in the middle of the river, was fortified (walls and tower), and definitely improved the
defensive potential of Babylon.

r--- ----- ..---,

GATE
I
f !
I I
t
i I
I I
I
I
! BARRACKS 7 I
I I CHURCHES
I
I
I i
I I
I I
: !
I I
!k--------..---d I __---- -- ----
r------
I
I
0
I BUILDINGS
\ !

CHURCH OF
ABU SAAPAH

Map 5: The fortress of Babylon (Kasr ash-Shamaa)

 In September of 640, when the actual siege started in earnet, Amr ibn al-Aasi must have realized the magni-
tude&f the task facinghim. The-fortress was well supplied and garrisoned (5000 men, including Theodorius and Cyrus)
and he lackedasusuai good siege technology and material. The surrounding Coptic population was unreliable, for if
not religiously attuned to the new invaders, they were unsympathetic to Cyrus and the Romans. In spite of all this,
the fortress was,ljkely to withstand Arab attacks for a long time. Acknowledging however the indifference if notthe
outright hostility of the native’copts and knowing the improbability of receiving any succour from Byzantium, Cyrus
secretly made contacts with the Arabs, in order to open negotiations. Emissaries were sent from both sides; messages
and propositions were exchanged. Finally, Amr ibn al-Aasi sent a deputation headed by Maslama ibn Mukhallad to the’
island of Raudah, to meet with the Patriarch Cyrus. Whereas the Byzantines were proposing to buy the departure of the
invaders with a hefty sum of money, Amr ibn al-Aasi offered the three usual Muslim options: conversion to Islam thus_
obtaining equal status (theoretically), retention of Christianity with payment of a tribute and relegation to an inferior
social status, and finally war to its final conclusion. Sensing the irreducible determination of Amr ibn<al-Aasi, Cyrus
opted’for the tribute payment and submission. This course was refused by the military command in Babylon. It is &I<=
ing the final stages of the negotiations that a strong. sudden sortie was operated and a general fighting ensued.
Eventually, the Byzantines were progressively pushed back into the fortress.

As a result of the failure of the sally, negotiations were reopened, and a treaty by which submission, payment
of the tribute and preservation of religious freedom for the native Copts was agreed upon. The field situation however
was to remain unchanged, pending final approval by Heraclius. Cyrus left Babylon for Alexandria, whence he sent
the treaty’s draft and explanations about the local situation to Byzantium. Heraclius, though ageing, refused to sanct-
ion the treaty. He sent for the immediate recall of Cyrus, who once in Constantinople was convicted of betrayaFand
sent into exile.

When Heraclius rebuttal of the treaty was known in Egypt, hostilities were promptly resumed. It was at this
juncture, that a certain percentage of the native population started siding with the Muslims. However frequent the
attacks on the fortress, the invaders failed to make any dent on the fortifications. The Arabs were even beaten back
once during one of their raids by a Byzantine force that had mustered in the Delta (possibly as a relief attempt?) The
siege dragged on all winter round But in early March, news of the death of Heraclius arrived from Constantinople. The
morale of the garrison was deeply affected. The invaders. sensing the defenders depression, seized~the opportunity and
launched in early April an all-out attack on the fortress’ walls. Finally, during a night attempt, Zubair ibn al-Awwam
at the head of a small assault group was able to secure.a foothold on the castle’s walls. In my opinion, the little Muslim
force could and should have been cut down or pushed back in the moat’s water, if a vigorous counter-attack had been
mounted immediately. But at this stage. one senses that determination had been bled out of the defenders. The garrison
was indeed tired of fighting. The commander offered to negotiate (the usual initial step toward withdrawal), Amr ibn
al .Aasi agreed immediately. A capitulation was drafted whereby the garrison was to retire and leave’the fort intact (with
its supplies). On April 9, 741 (Easter Day) the Byzantine force duly left. The fall of Babylon was the momentous event
of the whole campaign; for the impact on both the military and psychological levels was self evident. The fortress in-
deed was the vital centre of the defensive system, being as it were the gate to Upper as well as Lower Egypt. By
conquering the Eastern side and the apex of the Delta, Amr ibn al-Aasi had actual control over more than half of Egypt.
Failure on the part of the Byzantines to relieve, by%1 possible means, the besieged garrison and the sanction of the
reddition of Babylon are to be considered as the cardinal military error of the campaign.~

The March on Alexandria

After the fall of Babylon in April 641, the pacification of the provinces of Misr and Fayoum was rapidly
achieved. Before setting off, Amr strongly garrisoned the fortress, leaving Kharija ibn Hudhafah in command.

In early May, the Arab host, after crossing the Nile at Gizeh took to the desert, following the Rosetta branch
of the Nile. They rapidly arrived in view of Tarranah, 60 kilometres from Misr, where they made contact with a strong
Byzantine contingent that was rapidly pushed back in disorder toward Nikiou. They arrived in sight.of the city on May
13th. Nikiou was then an important, fortified city, seat of an important bishopric and a strong defensive centre on the
road to Alexandria. It was well supplied and garrisoned, but unfortunately commanded by the inefficient Dementianus
(ex Prefect of Fayoum). On hearing of the arrival of the Arab army, he-ignominiously abandoned his troops and esca-
ped by boat to Alexandria! The effect of this desertion on the troops was disastrous. Refusing to fight, they tried to
make as quickly as possible to the river, where boats were moored. They were somewhat slowed down by the utter
panic that followed and the flow of civilians that.were attempting to flee toward the river. And upon that chaos the
Arabs fell. No battle actually took place, but a carnage rather, where civilians and soldiers, women and children, Byzan-
tines and Copts were indiscriminately cut down by the thousands. Nikiou, the Muslim army recrossed the Nile, and
moved North again, but at Kom Sharik a strong Muslim advance group was surprised by a large Byzantine column un-
der the command of Theodorius. It was roughly handled, almost-encircled and would have been totally anihilated if it
were not for the timely arrival of reinforcements sent in all haste by Amr ibn al-Aasi. Meanwhile fresh troops had been
received from Constantinople and Theodorius again, tried to stop the oncoming Arabs at Damanhour. After an obstin-
ate stand, the Romans were pushed back, but in good order; Finally at Kariun, Theodorius at the head of a strong army
(note 7) deployed in a good defensive position, took on’the Muslim Host. The battle lasted on and off for ten days, and
the fighting had been vicious and stubborn. In the end, tactically the battle was a draw according to John of Nikiou (us-
ually impartial in his judgements). The Byzantine Army, slowly and in good order made for Alexandria. Strategically
it was beyond doubt an Arab victory for now short of Alexandria the whole of Egypt was within control of Amr ibn
.~
al-Aasi.
 Map 6: The march to Alexandria

Events in Constantinople

The dismal situation in Egypt was but the reflection of the political chaos actually prevailing in Byzantium.
Heraclius had died on February 11,641, while Babylon was still besieged. His second wife Martina, though strongly
opposed by the people and Constantinople’s Patriarch, promptly proceeded, through the usual web of court intrigues
to assure her son Heracleonas, then fifteen, of the throne. They were opposed by Constantine, Heraclius’ first son (his
mother was the Empress Eudocia) who had already received the title of Augustus, the accession of Heracleonas had
been ratified by the Senate since July 638. All the intrigues had been made possible because of the poor health of
Constantine, who actually died (of pulmonary consumption) In May 641. Noteworthy is the fact that he had had a few
weeks prior to his demise (note 8) a consultation with Cyrus (who had been recalled from exile) and Theodorius. It
is not unwise to assume that the conference finally crystallised upon the decision to continue with the fighting and re-
sist any further Arab invasion in the Delta (in spite of Cyrus’ probable opposition). The reinforcements shipped to
Alexandria as well as the stronger stands demonstrated at Damanhour and Karium would tend to confirm this point of
view.

Right after Constantine’s death, Martina attempted to have Heracleonas proclaimed sole Emperor. But
Constantine had a son Constans, twelve years old then, who supported by the people was forcibly associated (through
the influence of Valentine, commander of the military force in Asia Minor) to the power.

It is very possible that during the turmoil fostered-by the imperial succession power plays, that the Empress
Martina had succumbed to Cyrus’ views on Egypfitotal withdrawal). The Partriarch disembarked in Alexandria on Sep-
tember 641. With his ominous arrival, the fate of Egypt seemed, with good reasons, to be irrevocably sealed.

The Fall

We had left Amr ibn al-Aasi and the Arab army facing Alexandria. As I pointed out in the introduction, Alex-
andria was then a formidable city of about a million people, almost on par commercially, financially and intellectually
with Constantinople. Though being, like most of the great Mediterranean City-Ports, a typical ethnic mosaic of Greeks,
Copts, Italians, Jews, Arabs, Nubians, and the disquieting brewing cauldron of multiple seditions, reflecting the pert-
urbing dichotomy (blue and green factions) and instability of Byzantine politics, it remained nonetheless an almost
impregnable bastion.

With its approaches protected by the sea (let’s remember that in 641, Byzantium still ruled the waves in the
eastern Mediterranean), lake Mareotis, numerous canals, formidable towers and walls, only its Eastern side was left to
the would-be attackers. It is evident to me that if Constantinople was able successfully to sustain the siege of 670
against the more numerous, sophisticated (in siegecraft), navally oriented (they had achieved maritime superiority and
 entered the Golden Horn unopposed) host of Mu’awiya, Alexandria (better natural defensive position too, possibly),
then had theoretically all the chances on earth to withstand an interminable and probably victorious siege. Amr rea-
: lized the overwhelming difficulty of the task after being bloodily repulsed in a foolhardy attack on the walls. Accepting
-apparently the impregnability of Alexandria, he decided to rejoin Babylon and thus before the flood convered again the
Delta. Leaving a strong observation force in front of Alexandria, he moved back toward Babylon by way of
Damanhour, Tukh and Damsis. The latter two were fortified and well defended. They spiritedly resisted the usual
storming and the Arabs had to retire to Babylon. It is around that time that work was started on the silted up Trajan
canal (note 9) and that Amr founded the city of Fustat (today’s Cairo covers Misr, Babylon, Memphis and Fustat).

Amr ibn al-Aasi’s last attempt on the Coptic towns of the Northern Delta shows so well that the game was
still far from being totally over. Dramatic and decisive successes had been achieved by the Arabs, but the core of the
Delta and its capital Alexandria (Egypt’s vital centre) were not as yet in a state of submission. It also speaks highly of
the natives’ reluctance to accept the new invaders. In my opi&n, had Heraclius lived longer, or if succeded by a man
with martial attributes such as Leo III or Nicephorus Phocas, Egypt (even at this late stage) would have been kept within
the Empire.

In the latter part of October, Cyrus set oiit for Babylon to meet formally Amr ibn al-Aasi. From their negoti-
ations a treaty was officially signed on November 8,641, by which the Byzantines agreed to withdraw from Alexandria,
with all their property and goods. The natives were permitted to conserve their religion, pay a polrtax and be under
Muslim protection. It was a pure and simple teddition ofEgypt to the Arabs. The treaty was approved by the Calif
Umar ibn al-Khattab and the Emperor Heracleonas. In Alexandria unrest and riots marked the recognition of the,tteaty.
Cyrus was somehow able to appease the masses and the commotion slowly died out. Over the next few months, the
Byzantine forces evacuated the city, and in September of 642, Alexandria opened her gates to the Arab invaders (note
10). It was the end of a chapter in the history of Byzantium and the beginning of a new one in Egypt’s long and
colourful, epic.

Fazit

It is with a certain unsettled resignation that one views the ultimate abandonment of the Province of Egypt,
for it should not theoretically have happened. Many factors *indeed had to coalesce, in order to promote this critical
situation. Thus for instance: the devastating Persian and Avar wars (617/627) that exhausted Byzantium (as well as
Persia), the concomitant rise of Muhamad and the incredible (predestined?) chance of surviving the day at Uhud, the
grave error of Cyrus’ appointment as Patriarch of Alexandria and Governor of Egypt, with his subsequent condemnable
religious policies that alienated the native population and his unnecessary defeatism, the reasons for which still baffle
me, the untimely death of Heraclius with its depressive effect upon the garrison at Babylon, the ineptitude of the
high command in Egypt, and last but not least, the debilitating effect of political intrigues back in Byzantium, between
green and blue factions, Martina, Heracleonas and Constantine. In view of all these disturbing elements, one wonders
how Egypt could have resisted for so long. In my opinion however, and in spite of everything, Egypt could have resisted
almost indefinitely, even with just Alexandria and the inner Delta left, as long as naval superiority was retained. To
illustrate my point suffice it to remember the protracted fight put on by many towns of the Northern Delta (Tinnis in
particular) against the invaders, and this well after the fall of Alexandria. Viewed in this light, the surrender of Egypt
by the Byzantines was but an act of unnecessary defeatism.

Notes

(7) Sensing the importance of~the oncoming battle, many contingents from all over the Delta area had been mus-
tering at Kariun.

(8) Probably between the fall of Nikiou and the battle of Kariun.

(9) Built under Trajan, the Byzantines had allowed it to silt up. Made operational through the works ordered by
Amr ibn al-Aasi. It permitted boats from the Red Sea to teach the Mediterranean via the Bitter lakes, lake
Timsah, and the Nile at a level close to Umm Dunain.
(IO) In the fall of 645, Alexandria was recaptured by a naval force (300 ships) sent by Constans, under the
command of Manuel, The Arab garrison, 1000 strong, was overwhelmed and exterminated. It is worth pointing
obt that at this juncture, the native population sided massively with the Arabs. A fierce encounter occurred at
Nikiou and ultimately the Byzantines were pushed back. Alexandria was stormed and in part burnt and des-
troyed through the treacherous opening of a gate by one Ibn Bisamah (a Copt).

Bibliography

Primary sources

Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan, Ed. Goeje, Leyden.

Ibn al-Hakam, MS Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
Ibn Youssef, Mohamed, The History of the Governors of Egypt, New York, 1908.
Nikiou, Jean de, Chroniques, in t.XXIV des Notices et Extraits des MS de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Ed. Zoltenberg.
Tabati, Al Tarik al Rusul wal Muluk, Ed. Goeje, Leyden. -
 43

Modern Sources

Bury. J.B., History of the later Roman Empire, London.

Butler. A.J , The Arab Conquest of Egypt, Oxford, 1902.
Glubb, J.B , The Great Arab Conquest New York 1964

CTESIAS
News - Rospaks have given me the following list of ancients that are planned for the future; Macedonian Pikemen to
be issued by March followed by six packs of Persians; Immortals, Archers (kneeling firing), Spearmen, Infantry of the
Kardakes, horse archers and armoured cavalry. These will be followed by Celts, one pack each of two types of swords-
men and of Javelins and Slingers, plus one of Cavalry. After an interlude to satisfy Napoleonic wargarners (whoever
they are) further Greek Light Infantry are planned and later on in the year elephants, catapults and chariots. Prince
August have no specific ancients planned but two sets from their forthcoming Fantasy range should be worthwhile.
No. 681 Barbarians will make Saxon or Viking figures and No. 652 Men of the City appear to resemble late Romans.
Incidentally when you buy a Prince August Mould Pack it includes a chart giving all the variants possible from the
various moulds.

WRG Army Lists - Book 2; Reviewed by Mark Moon.

The second in the series of the WRG Army Lists ARMY LISTS
continues a comprehensive and detailed selection of various
nations covering a further 60 armies from 55BC-1000 AD,
though of course many of them overlap these dates and some
from Book 7 also come into Book 2’s realm.

There seem to be less of the “wierder” armies than

in Book 1, but some of these present are even more obscure.
Once again, the aim has been to provide historical opponents
for some of the more popular armies but someone some-
where might like to adopt them. Thankfully, I cannot see
‘stampedes’ of players rushing down to their local toyshops
to stock up on farmyard animals.

The format is exactly as before with notes on each

army following the list -there is little else to be said except
they are thoroughly recommended as were Book 1, at the
very least as a starting point for personal research and
development.

There is a list of minor errata for Book 1 at the back of this one, nothing to get worried about, though I did
head of a player who had refused to accept his opponent’s New Kingdom Egyptian slingers because “they weren’t in
the lists”, which does tend to show the danger of them in the wrong hands. Without spending a whole day, I can’t spot
any omissions in this 2nd volume; though if there are any, they’re sure to be included in the 3rd which is due out in the
summer sometime. Price remains at the moment at f2.70, though the postage increases will probably have affected this
by now.

Something to really look forward to is Ian Heath’s forthcoming Armies of the Hundred Years War I am
informed it’ll be around 190 pages, so start saving now!

Mikes Models 15mm Heraclian Byzantines reviewed by Graham Jones

These are the first figures produced by Mikes Models on behalf of “The Committee for Better Wargame
Figures”. They are designed by Ally Morrison whom the manufacturers describe as their premier designer, also respon
sible for the current Renaissance range. The figures show yet another change of style in the ancient ranges and with it
some further improvement. The standard of casting and detail is the best yet produced. The lines are crisp and the
detail over-exaggerated for ease of painting. The infantry are true 15mm scale being precisely 15mm excluding base
and crest, the cavalry rather larger at about 23/24mm. The figures are:-

AP 326 Kataphraktos with kontos, bow and shield. AP 332 Skutatos officer.
AP 327 Kataphraktos officer with mace. AP 333 Psilos javelinman, wild run, head down.
AP 328 Kataphraktos standard bearer lvexiflum). AP 334 Psilos crossbowman, at ready bow on hip.
AP 329 Jrapezitos with kontos and shield. AP 335 Psilos archer, lowering bow after firing.
AP 330 Skutatos with spear and shield, at ready, spear 15’ off vertical AH 30 Half armoured Byzantine horse.
AP 331 Skutatos standard bearer with draco. AH 31 Unarmoured Heraclian Byzantine horse,
 The figures in general show a greater degree of animation than previous issues, and the light infantry particu-
larly benefit from this. The horses are cast in “flared nostril” gallop, a happy change for Mikes Models whose horses
tend to be static indeed. Otherwise the horses are disappointing, and cannot be compared with those of Minifigs or
Tabletop Games which are comparable in size. It must also be noted that the new horses will not fit the older figures,
i.e. all the rest of the ancient ranges. Actually they do not fit the new ones either and considerable work with knife
and file is needed to get a passable result.

All the models are accurate enough and conform &‘the descriptions in reference books such as Armies and
Enemies of imperial Rome. Possibly the most pleasing thing about the models is the vast improvement in the anatomy
with the figures showing a reasonable level of proportion. Someone said once that Mikes Models’ concept of 15mm was
to take a 18mm figure and squash it. Such criticism of these models would be unjustified, although there are still
faults, particularly in respect to the size of helmet and head.

. How to assess the range? Overall they would seem to have two disadvantages:- (1) the range is as yet
incomplete, lacking such fundamental types as light horse archers, and whereas required types may be obtained from
other Mikes Models ranges these will be designed and cast in a noticeably different style. Mikes Models have gone
through many design styles as new ranges are added and some re-modelled, and the difference can be as great as
between different manufacturers. (2) In pure technical terms they are inferior to Minifigs who offer an alternate range,
and Tabletop Games whose late Romans can supply many light troops. These two ranges are interchangable and
together offer a wider choice. Any advantage these figures have must lie in their size, and how much this is important
to the prospective buyer. Prices are infantry/riders 8p, horses 9p.

Finally, Mikes Models have issued a pack camel AM10 suitable for any period and priced very competitively
at 2Op, 18mm to its droinedarian hump, it’s a rather nice model, very well detailed andable to mix readily with almost
all styles and sizes of 15mm. Recommended.

15mm Conquest Draught Animals reviewed by Graham Jones.

At the society AGM last October I noticed some figures on the Skytrex stand which looked applicable to our
period. Skytrex subsequently kindly sent some samples, whereupon I discovered they were designed for the post 1750
era, appearing in the Napoleonic lists. Nevertheless on the principle that an ox is an ox is an ox, they are worth a
review. There are three models. Cl 020 team of oxen: Cl 021 Heavy horse team: Cl 022 Pack mule team. All come in
packs of 6 models for f 1 .I 0.

All &e maeIs are large even-by “large 15mm” scale. The horse is 18mm to its shoulder, the ox 14mm, the
mule 13mm:‘representing heights of about 7 ft, 5ft,6ins, and 5ft respectively, thus depicting giants of their breeds. The
horse is a shire tbpe and only really appropriate to the late Mediaeval period even if the modern harness could be over-
looked. The‘model itself is too thin but otherwise adequate. The ox comes with yoke and apart from its size is quite
useful. The mule comes with a clutter of various pack items and is a good model. For most purposes it could be used as
a horse, as the more mulish characteristics are obscured by pack and the stance.

Summing up, both the ox and mule are good enough figures if the size is acceptable, the horse less so but pass-
able. However at 18p each they are very dear indeed and even if the models were superior to rival manufacturers
something not easily demonstrable, I feel few would consider the extra cost worthwhile.

hilike’s Models Achaemenid Persia& reviewed by Naomi Standen.

The figures as a batch, go together well,‘with the usual continuity of design and follow, as ever, the WRG
books, in this case Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars.

AS17 Persian Chariot with two AH3 Indian chariot horses and AP32S Persian chariot driver (photo 1). By far
the best of the range, this chariot comes with separate wheels which fit well but need careful alignment and for added
strength the horses’ bases should be glued together. The horses’ poses are rather static which is a pity as the chariot
driver is quite dynamic, with his whip behind him, about to flog his animals into action. Also in photo 1 are AP304
Persian noble mounted and AP305 Persian noble on foot. Both are well detailed, the foot figure being somewhat spoil-
,ed by its stance.

Photo 1
 45

Photo 2 Photo 3

-_ -
Photo 4 Photo 5
Photo 2 shows AP306 late Persian armoured cavalryman on AH29. AP312 foot standard bearer (unfortunate-
ly I cut the ends of the standard crossbar on this one). AP313 Immortal with spear, bow and shield; a cluttered figure
but they must have looked overloaded in real life. AP314 Persian infantry with spear, bow and shield and AP307
late Persian light cavalryman with spear on AH29.

On Photo 3 are AP308 Persian/Median armoured cavalryman with spear bow and shield, a veteran campaigner,
bearded with his cap squashed to one side. AP315 late Persian Cardaces with spear and shield, AP316 Persian archer,
AP317 Persian slinger, AP311 mounted standard bearer on AH29; the standard is big enough to have’fun painting
complicated designs on it.

Photo 4 AP318 Assyrian with spear and shield, wearing short sleeved, quilted tunic with fringing which has
rather been overdone. AP319 Sakae infantryman with bow, AP309 Bactrian cavalryman with spear and bow on AH29,
a disgruntled looking veteran, his trpusers are nice and baggy with good folds. Bactrian Infantryman with spear and
bow, AP321 Ethiopian infantryman with spear and bow. A badly proportioned figure, his right arm is far too long, also
he does not have the headress or shield as shown in (AEGPW).

Finally Photo 5 has AP310 Sakae light cavalryman with bow mounted on AH29, good detail, he adds a short
cloak to the standard tunic and trousers. AP322 Egyptian marine with axe, another linen cuirass that looks like scale.
But it is obviously difficult texture to model, more active than the other figures. AP323 Lycian marine with bow and
javelins, excellent detail. AP324 Phonician marine with javelins, the right arm is slightly out of proportion and once
again the figure has a rather static pose.

In general there was very little flash on any of the figures, even between the front legs of the horses, only the
Sakae light cavalry was poor. The fit of all cavalrymen to their horses was generally very good. Mike’s Models‘ best
points are the modelling of creases and folds in the clothing and the expressions on their faces which turn the figures
into individuals. On the debit side, the figures are not always correctly proportioned especially their right arms and
hand; feet are poorly represented as well. These points may only be due to modelling or casting restrictions. Something
that could be avoided is static poses; I long for a screaming, charging Barbarian, a javelinman mid-throw, an officer
heroically leading his men and so on. This aside, these figures are certainly worth a try, it really depends on whether
you like Mike’s Models or not.

Naismith Late Roman cavalry: Reviewed by Steve Lunn

To complement the infantry range we previously reviewed is a range of eight mounted figures. First l should
warn prospective purchasers that you will have to be prepared to do a lot of work in order to make the figures sit upon
their mounts correctly. The best way to do this is to remove the saddle, as the riders cover these anyway it doesn’t
matter too much.

LR 11 Light cavalry horse archer (Equites Sagittari). LR 13a Light cavalry helmet, large shield
LR 12 Light cavalry bare head, small shield LR 14 Heavy cavalry
LR 12a Light cavalry bare head, large shield LR 15 Clibanarius
LR 13 Light cavalry helmet small shield LR 16 Cataphract

LR ‘11 is firing his bow to the left, his quiver on his right hip. He wears a short cloak, high boots and ls bare
headed. The boots are reminiscent of the feet of a duck, and the sword on his left hip has a peculiar curve. Facial detail
,~ is rather apeish and the cast lines tend to be prominent. LR 12 and 12a are the same figure, with just a change of shield.
This figure has the applied tunic decoration of an elite unit. Facial detail is really nice although the beard and mous-
tach tend to make him look about 60. The hunchback does not help either! LR 13 and 13a are also the same figure
with different shields. The applied tunic decoration is again in evidence. The helmet is of the Attic type and has ~--_ a rather
sma!l plume. This figure is a lot better than the previous figure and seems a bit younger. LR14 is meant to represent a
heavy cavalryman; the large stomach is proof of this! The mail looks very good and the head and helmet are also well
executed. All in all this figure is not too bad but the attitude in which he sits his horse is rather strained. LR IBcarries
i his bow and case on his right hip. The mail is very good althoughthe leg protection tends to look more like cricket pads
than lamellar. -Gis !ance is held horizontally in his right hand and he wears his sword on his left. Facial detail is very
bad but the helmet is excellent. LR 15 looks really grotty but having seen it painted I must say that it looks quite good.
Mail and helmet decoration stand out very well, but the armour plates are very shoddy.

The horses supplied with these figures are really scrawny looking beasts, especially the half armoured version,
which looks more like a large cat than a horse! Comparing the mounted part of this range to the foot section is very
unfavourable. The foot figures are really excellent, but the mounted are very poor and not really worth bothering with.
. .~ zy i
‘k - _I
Essex Miniatures 25mm- Releases

Late Roman Cavalry: Ever since Brian Gregory asked me for some help in choosing the figures to model for this range
I’ve been looking forward to seeing them. The detail and casting on them is outstanding, they really are miniature
sculptures and would probably be mistaken as such if not for the price. The figures, AR8 to AR14 comprise; General,
,.Catafractarii, c@anarii, Heav.y, Light, Equites Sagittarii and finally a mounted officer. Three new horses complement
the range; HI6 fully armoured, HI7 half armoured and HI8 late Roman heavy cavalry; these (plus the new horses
reviewed by David Barnes) are ideally suited to these figures. I hope the photographs can do them justice. All that
remains now that I have my army list from WRG’s Book Two, is to persuade Brian to expand the range to include all
their enemies and allies. r _

kR8 Generai AR12 l&ht cavalry AR14 Officer

.L ., . .

@9 Cataphract ARiO Clibanarius AR1 1 Heavy Cavalry

 47

Mediaevals, reviewed by David Barnes. Brian Gregory has released a group of warrior monks, a cardinal, a King, and
some new horses of the medieval period. He has tried to present a varied choice of monks suitable for a religious contin-
gent or for a larger group of figures to be used as an army unit without too much duplication. He is also planning to
expand the range to cover the later Medieval period, starting with both mounted and dismounted figures for the period
1300 - 1375. If the response to these is good he will follow.with figures for 1375-1450. The first lot of figures:.
should be ready in May. In the group I have are ten figures and three horses. 1 shall give the price cqde and the Essex
catalogue number and title of the figure.
.: I -_- _
DF32 Monastic standard bearer: This figure stands with long r_obes to the ground, looking left,,holding in the lefthand
a religious standard. In the right hand is a mace. He has a pot helmet on his head. At the belt a crucifix and purse. The
drapery is very well shown. C.F33 Preaching monk holding CIOSS. A figure of pleasing simplicity, cowl thrown back to
show the tonsured head and austere features. The left forearm holding a crucifix is cast on the base next to the right
foot and can be cut off and placed in the open cuff designed to receive it. C.F34 Monk with two handed mace. A beard-
ed figure in simple pot helmet, with a quilted aketon with cross hanging on the breast. He holds a murderous two
handed mace waist high across his body, C.F35 Monk in mail shirt with flail. The helmet of this figure has a nasal and
the mouth is open showing the teeth. The detail is very fine. C.F36 Monk with club and shield. Aninteresting figure in
wide plaited sunhat and a large sack over his shoulder, which looks empty. Striding forward the figure is well animated
in flowing robes. C.F37 Monk with mace and shield. An ugly-looking customer; his mace on his shoulder and his wicker
shield held low on his left, his laced hood up, he awaits action in confident pose. He has a coat of plates over his habit.
C.F38 Monk holding large cross. This figure looks up ecstatically to his open right hand, cast to accept the large cross
cast upside down from the base to the outside of the hand - easy to separate and glue in place.

D.F39 Mounted Cardinal. Wearing the red hat proudly, this cloaked figure will fit any of the new horses and
most of the other nine feudal horses produced. Ask for advice. He looks particularly good on H19, I think. D.F40
Mounted King. A regal figure with crown surmounted heaume and epaulers (shoulder defenders). His right fist is on his
hip in “Coeur de Lion” pose. The head looks quarter right which subtly animates the figure: C2 Knight c.1290,
wounded in shoulder by arrow, fallen to ground. Some wargarners like these vignettes and they can be used in skirmish
wargames to replace similar figures. It is beautifully modelled, a miniature sculpture really. At 45p good value.

E.Hl9 Unarmoured horse halted. A noble animal with proudly arching neck, both the cardinal and the king would look
good on this. The king would not ride his destrier all the time of course, a la Robert the Bruce. E.H20 Unarmoured,
trotting. This horse has a nice spring about it. The floppy mane helps the effect. E.H21 Unarmoured, walking. An alert
looking horse to complete the new releases. All these figures are finely detailed and finely cast - from Essex Miniatures,
3 Bay Close, Canvey Island, Essex, SS8 OAF. Prices, A 19p, B 2Op, C 23p, D 35p, E 28p, F 32p, G 34~.

Ctesias in America

The first column of Ctesias in America will be rather sparse from the standpoint of actual reviews, for two rea-
sons. The first is that I was caught in the middle of a job change when I received notification that I would be doing this -
column. The second reason is that, while I did manage to send out my initial correspondence to the various manufactur-
ers, I have as of yet received no feedback. First, I have a few comments on items which I hope to be able to describe in
greater detail in future issues. Ral Partha has announced some new 25mm ancients, including a Persian command group,
two armoured Gallic horsemen, an armoured Gaul, and a naked Gaesati. Stone Mountain Miniatures (Box 33195,
Denver, CO 80233) has recently released a list of shafted weapons with cast on heads (ie. shafts) which includes all
types of pikes, lances, halberds, axes, and pila for 25mm figures. My unofficial sources tell me that they will be follow-
ing with more in the way of 25mm ancients in the near future.

For medieval fans a new society is being formed called the Sword and Scimitar Society for the purpose of
studying medieval warfare and promoting medieval wargaming. A journal entitled The Battleaxe will be published.
Interested individuals should write to William Hamblin, 1514 McIntyre, Ann Arbor Ml 48105. It all sounds a bit remin-
iscent of the beginning of the Scoiety of Ancients. I wish them luck. On another note, I just finished reading Mary
Renault’s new books, Funeral Games, by Pantheon Books. This is the third book of her Alexander the Great series;
It begins with Alexander’s death and involves the early struggles of his successors. While interesting reading, there is
little mention of the battles and military campaigns involved.

Ian also asked me to comment on the avaiability of British figures here in the US. While the primary purpose
of this column is to describe American products and figures, this does provide me with a general lead-in to my next
point, which is the current situation here in the US involving the status of figure manufacturers. Many British figures
are available here through various suppliers and distributors, including Mike’s Models, Hinchliffe, Warrior, Lamming,
Citadel, Garrison and Minifigs. Both Minifigs and Citadel, and perhaps Hinchliffe as well, manufacture their figures
here in the US. Some of these must be ordered from suppliers by mail but our own local hobby shop regularly stocks
Minifigs, Garrison, Hinchliffe and Mike’s Models. It is discouraging though that many of the interesting figures by
other makers described in Slingshot are not more readily available here:From this standpoint it would be helpful if
prices and overseas mail order policies could be listed in Slingshot when such figures are reviewed. It is very trying to
have to write to the maker and wait for a reply before ordering. This would be particularly nice in the case of new
releases which are often long delayed before reaching US markets. As to overseas mail order, l have some friends who
so do on an occasional basis, and they have never informed me of any real problems. I recently ordered some of the
new Rospak figures and received them very promptly.
48

The general status of American manufacturers is not as good now as it was 3 to 4 years ago. By this I’am not
referring to quality but rather to variety and availability..Several makers have discontinued existing lines or have even
gone out of business entirely. Grenadier has apparently discontinued their extensive ancient line, as has Archive. Heri-
tage has dropped its Thermopolite range and its 15mm Romans and Carthaginians. (Interestingly enough 15mm figures
do not seem as popular here as in England, at least not among the gamers I know.) McEwan and Bresica have disappear-
ed entirely. Even Minifigs USA never released the long awaited Greek and Persian Wars range or the entire Dark Ages
range, Rumour has it that they have cut back on their other ancient ranges as well, with the exception of 15mm.
Unfortunately, much of this cutback appears to have been caused by a shift to the apparently more lucrative fantasy
and adventure game market. On the positive side, Ral Partha is going strong and Jack Scruby is still in bushiness after all’
these years. There are also promises of new figures to come from some of the other manufacturers.
L .. ./_, _-_..
1
Finally, I should like to review a net set of rules entitled The Killing Ground, Book I: Megiddo to li;lortgart%
by Conflict Simulation Systems,- P.O. Box 805, San Francisco CA 94101. The price is about $9.00 or f4.50under cur-
rent exchange rates. The Rules have many similarities with the WRG rules and the authors readily acknowledge the con-
tribution of WRG. This may be good or bad depending upon your preference for WRG rules, but when competing with
an existing and successful set of rules may be a virtual necessity. At any rate if you are one of those who are not entire-
ly satisfied with the existing sets of rules you may weli wish to give them a try.

There are some small areas which I found to my personal dislike such as the rathr confusing ground scale of
2.5 metres to the centimetre and the use of metrics for the distance measurements. Also there is’an occassional use of
terminology that seems strange and rather inappropriate such as defining a pike as “any pointed stick four or more
metres in length”.

The rules are divided into two parts, a basic set with no order writing, and an advanced version with orders
and various optional rules which increase the complexity and perhaps realism of the game. Dne part of-the rules that I
found most interesting was the turn sequence. This involves melee resolution first, then charge declarations, -missile fire,
morale resolution, and movement. This concept alone, I believe would greatly speed and simplify play. The rules also
incorporate a command and control test system which is separate yet tied to morale. This concept also appears promis-
ing from the standpoint of gauging the reaction of troops.

- Interesting optional rules include a breakthrough provision, use of pila as missiles, and a fanatic state which is
separate from morale grade classification. The use of a terrain effects chart is very helpful, as well as a liberal use of
examples and a section entitled “Drill Manual” which contains several diagrams explaining formations and movement.
All in all this looks like a very good basic set of rules, one which I intend to try in the near future: ~-’ . ’ ‘.

Ctesias in America is John Boehm

A LANCASTRIAN ARMY OF THE 15th CENTURY

by Andy Gittins

-The army described here is one from the Wars of the Roses, although the description also fits earlier armies,
from the later stages of the Hundred Years War. It is described as Lancastrian because such is my preference, but the
forces’of Evil (Yorkists) would be similar.,
: -- 7
In the fifteenth century, the feudal levy had become obsolete in Western Europe, and had been replaced by
companies of mercenaries raised and financed by great lords. Italian mercenaries, the condottieri, have been given a
bad press by Machiavelli, but this is largely unjustified; in general professional soldiers in Italy and elsewhere were far
more effective than militia. To call these troops mercenaries does not imply that they were foreign. Most Cl 5 mercen-
aries were raised locally. In England, no lord was allowed to raise companies of mercenaries without royal permission.
However, with a war in France and the Scottish and Welsh borders to be defended it was not normally difficult to
obtain permission. Both knights and commoners might be taken on, serving for specified periods, for cash.

By tradition, the English knight fought on foot. His armour was full plate by the 1450’s, making manoeuvre
difficult and escape after defeat virtually impossible. A variety of weapons were used, such as poleaxe, axe or sword,
normally a two-handed weapon since the strength of armour made a shield unnecessary. Footmen were divided into
‘bows’ and ‘bills’. The bowmen, usually recruited from Wales or the Welsh marches, were armed with the longbow.
Improvements in armour since Crecy had reduced the effectiveness of this weapon, so the proportion of bowmen to
billmen had decreased over the last century. By the Wars of the Roses, the numbers of each would be about equal,
.possibly even with more billmen than bowmen. Billmen would be armed with a long spear, or some variation on the
halberd. The proportion of footmen to knights could vary wildly, but five foot to one knight is about average. The
regulars were very occasionally supplemented by feudal militia. For example, in 1459 Lord Audley was given a royal
warrant to levy the militia of Cheshire, who promptly lost to the Earl of Salisbury’s much smaller force of regulars
at Blore Heath.

Artillery was rarely used, but could be quite effective when available (as anyone who took part in Tewkes-
bury at the 1977 Exeter Convention will know). The footmen at least would wear livery in their employer’s colours;
that is a surcoat in the principal colour from his coat of arms, trimmed with the principal metal from the coat of arms
 (heraldically, yellow and white are metals, all the other primary shades are colours). There are some notable exceptions
to this, for example Lancastrian troops in blue and white, Yorkists in mulberry and blue, and the Beaufort family
troops reputed to turn out in red, green and white barber’s pole diagonals! Family badges would be worn on the sleeve
or breast; examples are the Stafford knot or the Neville ragged staff. The red rose and white rose were not worn.

Tactics were essentially defensive, perfect for WRG 6th Edition. The army would form up, usually in three
divisions or ‘battles’, if possible behind stakes, barricades or a ditch. Bowmen would form the front ranks with billmen
behind, possibly in some sort of chequerboard formation. Occasionally a reserve would be formed, normally mounted.
The archers would shoot at approaching enemy then fall back for the billmen and knights to engage the survivors.
Though superb in defence the army was ineffective in attack. At Formigny in 1453 the French refused to attack, instead
potting away with their artillery at long range. When the English advanced in an attempt to get into range, the French
charged and scattered them. During the Wars of the Roses the tactics cancelled each other out and armies were reduced
to archery duels, followed by a rugby strum melee. At Tow-ton, the Yorkists took advantage of the wind to shoot from
outside the Lancastrians’ range. Apart from this, there was little attempt made to use any sort of tactical sophistication.

For the painter, this army offers colourful horse trappings and banners, plus the challenge of putting compli-
cated coats of arms on very small shields. For the wargamer, the army can pose some interesting problems under cer-
tain rules; under WRG rules they are liable to be highly successful but not very exciting.
t

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

15th/i 6th May Bournemouth Convention

For details send an SAE to Bill Thurlow, at the address inside the front cover.

29th May Roll Call ‘82 in Luton

South Beds Immortals open day. Trade Stands, Wargame Exhibition Matches, painting
competition etc. Main feature of interest to S of A members is the finals of the 15mm
National Championships for both ancients and mediaevals. For further information
contact D Scott (Liaison Officer) 27, Mountgraa Road, Luton, Beds.

1 Ith/l2th September Armageddon in Reading

Newbury and Reading Wargames Society’s Annual Convention in the Top Rank Suite,
Station Hill, Reading. Wargames competitions in six periods including ancient and
mediaeval, entry 62. Demo games, wargames tables available, trade stands, painting
competitions. For further details send an SAE to Graham Hyland, 6 Meyrick Drive,
Wash Common, Newbury, Berks (phone Newbury 46627).

13thll5th November Societies weekend in Kendal

The now well established Societies weekend at Kendal Youth Hostel, a residential
weekend open to Society of Ancients and Pike & Shot members. Cost 618.20 (only
2Op up on last year) including all accommodation and meals from supper Friday to
lunch Sunday. A deposit of f6.20 is required but you can pay it all in advance. Con-
tact Jim Webster at Page Bank, Rampside, Barrow in Furness, Cumbria. Tel: 0229
21561, noon-lpm or after 6pm.
 CONTENTS

Guardroom - On Romans, chariots, and inspiration 1

Aztec warsuits and helmets - illustrated by Neil Grant 3
A short history of the Vandal nation - part 2, the Vandal Empire, by Paul Halliday 6
More in sorrow . . . -by Phil Barker 9
Ordo Sanctae Mariae domus Theutonicorum Jheresolimitane -the Teutonic Order, by Jim Masson 10
The revolt ‘of Julius Civilis, AD 69-70 - described by Chris Brann 12
The introduction of the Greek hoplite phalanx - discussed by Trevor Roberts 14
Alternative terrain system - suggested by Keith Smith 17
French Heraldry 1285-1304 - arms for a popular army, by Ian Sumner 18
Later Roman forts, AD200-400 - first part of a series by Derek Harrison 23
Wargames Forum - cavalry and infantry, morale and weapons, naval problems 27
Manzikert refought - a wargame described by Ian Wilson 28
The Greeks at War, 500-400 BC - part 5, naval warfare described by Dave Halligan 30
Rules - a suitable case for treatment? - part 4, on missile fire, by Darrell Lias 34
Literature review - H Charlesworth notes recent articles which may be of interest to members 37
The invasion of Egypt by the Arabs - part 2 by John Feilla 38
Ctesias - reviews of 15mm and 25mm figures, army lists, and the first contribution by Ctesias in America 43
A Lancastrian army of the 15th century - for painters and wargamers, described by Andy Gittins 48

Copy date for the July issue is May 15th; for the September issue, July 16th

Please note that the opinions expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of the Society or of the Editor, and
that no part of this magazine may be reproduced without the consent of the author(s) of the part concerned and the
written consent of the Editor.

NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS

“Slingshot” depends on your support. The editor is always pleased to receive contributions, but they will be
received much more gratefully if they are in a form which is easier to use. It is a great help if an article can be typed
double spaced; if it is handwritten, please write clearly on the alternate lines. In either case, do put your name after
the title and add the approximate number of words. Please note that paragraphs should be indented. If you want words
to be emphasised by bold or italic type, it helps the Editor if you underline them rather than using block capitals. If
your article can be made equivalent to a number of whole pages of “Slingshot”, so much the better. The first page of an
article, with the title, usually contains about 750 words, and subsequent pages between 800 and 900, without illus-
trations. Illustrations make your article more attractive to the reader; they shpuld be drawn neatly in black, not in blue
ink or in pencil, on plain white paper or tracing paper, or be black and white photographs, preferably not wider than
the text of a “Slingshot” page. In historical articles, it helps those readers wishing to explore the subject further (and
adds to the credibility of your argument) if you can give a bibliography or otherwise indicate your sources.