Carthaginian Army with Republican Roman army added

[Yankeepedlar01]

The bulk of my Carthaginian army for the Punic Wars project I've been working on since May.. Much more about it over on my blog ~
www.talesfromghq.blogspot.co.uk

[has.been]

Very nice.  My first opponent had a Carthaginian army.
I lost to it often with my Romans, Early Imperial not Republican,
but I was eleven & knew no better.  Airfix didn't do Republicans.

[SJWi]

Beautiful figures. I recognise the A&A Miniatures elephants. Who produces the infantry?

Thanks.

[Yankeepedlar01]

Beautiful figures. I recognise the A&A Miniatures elephants. Who produces the infantry?

The figures are from Aventine Miniatures, A&A, Crusader Miniatures and Wargames Foundry.

[Burnin Coal]

That’s a great looking game...it’s highly motivational to see entire armies on the table - keeps me painting knowing what can be achieved....I enjoyed reading your blog too....thanks for sharing

[Yankeepedlar01]

Republican Roman army added to the mix. More over on my blog for the (very) odd interested reader ~
www.talesfromghq.blogspot.co.uk

[Ray Rivers]

2 wonderful armies! 

A long time ago I had the same project, with both Roman and Carthaginian armies. Unfortunately, I lost interest about half way through the project.

Looking at yours, makes we wish I had finished mine.

[olicana]

Very nice.

About Allied and Roman cavalry deployments. The two histories that are followed, Polybius and Livy (the latter seemingly using Polybius as his own main source), who both wrote well after the event, put the Roman cavalry on the right and the allied cavalry on the left of consular armies. All well and good except that, the allied cavalry outnumbers the Roman cavalry by 3:1 but both wings perform equally well (or as badly) as each other, and the Roman cavalry wing is never specifically targeted by the Carthaginians who deploy their cavalry more or less equally to each wing - funny that, don't you think?

Here's a thought. One third of the Allied cavalry were hived off from the rest to perform 'special duties' such as scouting and given the rather splendid title of Extraordinarii (spelling from memory). Now, if you take this specifically separated third and add it to the Roman third, you suddenly get two equal wings of cavalry using only existing structures. Extraordinary, don't you think? It's a little theory of my own, totally unprovable of course, that I use to make the historical narratives of the battles work a little better. Also it justifies my preferred deployment of equal Roman cavalry wings on the table-top - because a weak 'Roman only' wing always gets specifically targeted by my opponents, of course, and why wouldn't it.

It's a thought, isn't it.

Edit: Oh, and one more thought on this. Latin Allied states were littered with Roman settlers who had been encouraged to relocate to (colonise?) the Latin states and help run them with the incentive of an improvement in social status (Rome society was strictly class structured): A Roman run bureaucracy is how the Latins became Romanised so quickly. This would mean that many more Romans in the Allied states would become 'Equestrian class' than normal, and consequently eligible for cavalry service. Taking this one step further, could one third of the Allied cavalry have been made up these 'Allied Equestrian Romans' and, if so, were these the Extraordinarii and, if so, wouldn't that mean all the cavalry of the right wing (including extraordinarii) would actually be Roman thus making the histories and me right? All Romans, no matter where they lived, were always considered Roman and indistinguishable from their peers: no Roman author would dare to suggest otherwise.

It might be a case of semantics but, the statement "The Allied states raised three time more cavalry than the Romans, the Romans fighting on the right, the Allies on the left." doesn't necessarily mean that only one third fought on the right because many citizens of the Allies were, in fact, Roman and, I suspect, of the higher classes (the Allies probably didn't need immigrant artizans).

[aphillathehun]

Nice armies.  The colors give them a unified look without making theme too regular.  Nice figures and nice painting of them.

[Hu Rhu]

Very nice.

About Allied and Roman cavalry deployments. The two histories that are followed, Polybius and Livy (the latter seemingly using Polybius as his own main source), who both wrote well after the event, put the Roman cavalry on the right and the allied cavalry on the left of consular armies. All well and good except that, the allied cavalry outnumbers the Roman cavalry by 3:1 but both wings perform equally well (or as badly) as each other, and the Roman cavalry wing is never specifically targeted by the Carthaginians who deploy their cavalry more or less equally to each wing - funny that, don't you think?

Here's a thought. One third of the Allied cavalry were hived off from the rest to perform 'special duties' such as scouting and given the rather splendid title of Extraordinarii (spelling from memory). Now, if you take this specifically separated third and add it to the Roman third, you suddenly get two equal wings of cavalry using only existing structures. Extraordinary, don't you think? It's a little theory of my own, totally unprovable of course, that I use to make the historical narratives of the battles work a little better. Also it justifies my preferred deployment of equal Roman cavalry wings on the table-top - because a weak 'Roman only' wing always gets specifically targeted by my opponents, of course, and why wouldn't it.

It's a thought, isn't it.

Edit: Oh, and one more thought on this. Latin Allied states were littered with Roman settlers who had been encouraged to relocate to (colonise?) the Latin states and help run them with the incentive of an improvement in social status (Rome society was strictly class structured): A Roman run bureaucracy is how the Latins became Romanised so quickly. This would mean that many more Romans in the Allied states would become 'Equestrian class' than normal, and consequently eligible for cavalry service. Taking this one step further, could one third of the Allied cavalry have been made up these 'Allied Equestrian Romans' and, if so, were these the Extraordinarii and, if so, wouldn't that mean all the cavalry of the right wing (including extraordinarii) would actually be Roman thus making the histories and me right? All Romans, no matter where they lived, were always considered Roman and indistinguishable from their peers: no Roman author would dare to suggest otherwise.

It might be a case of semantics but, the statement "The Allied states raised three time more cavalry than the Romans, the Romans fighting on the right, the Allies on the left." doesn't necessarily mean that only one third fought on the right because many citizens of the Allies were, in fact, Roman and, I suspect, of the higher classes (the Allies probably didn't need immigrant artizans).

That is exactly how I have organised my Republican Army.  Using Hail Ceasar army lists, there is no discernable difference between Latin allied and Roman cavalry.

[FierceKitty]

Some good ideas there about cavalry matters.

[Yankeepedlar01]

28mm figures. Mostly Aventine Miniatures with others from A&A Miniatures, Foundry, Agema Miniatures, and Crusader Miniatures. Shield transfers from LBM and bases from Warbases as ever. More over on my blog for the interested ~
www.talesfromghq.blogspot.co.uk

[Tonhel]

Fantastic work!

[Yankeepedlar01]

Two more bases of Allied Italian cavalry added to the Republican Roman army.

[Frostie]

Very nice armies.  I have them in 15mm.  I have just finished rebasing 600 Romans from FOG style bases to Imputus style