My problem with rules for skirmish games

[Nordic1980s]

For games set in earlier periods -i.e. before black powder weapons- it is almost irrelevant that you field Vikings or Late Empire Egyptians: they all fight the same in most rules. An Egyptian lad with a shield behaves on the table just the same that a Roman lad with a shield. I get it is almost impossible to do otherwise; after all, we have not field manuals for Rahmses III!

From rules point of view, yes. But! Miniature wargames are visual things (for otherwise we would be playing mere board games with chits and maps) and a main part of the attraction pull of the game is the visual "feel" of the era. I personally would argue that visual 28mm splendour of Viking shields, Danish axes, long beards, striped pants etc. always comes first and any kind of rules, or lack of them, always comes second.

Again, this is not a rant but a try to pick the collective brains of wargamers, with years of experience under their belts! In other words: is it really possible to design a small action/skirmish game that is distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable?

Battlelust of the Hârn line of games comes to mind, easily adaptable to historical medieval backdrop. Or would Knights and Knaves fit the bill better, as it's a 100 % historical game? For anyone having a look, be sure to check out the author's pieces there on general wargames design. I found them very interesting read.