The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity

[Easy E]

Greetings all,

I wanted to get your take on something that bugs me a bit in Ancient wargaming, and that is the fascination with ethnicity in our ancient armies. 

We spend a lot of time researching ancient armies and trying to recreate or capture them on the table.  Yet, much of the time I see people focusing a lot on the "ethnic" make-up of a force rather than worrying about what those units were supposed to do on the battlefield. 

A couple examples off the top of my head: 

1. Alexander's Agrianian troops - I have seen a decent amount of ink spilled on these guys, and some designers try to bend over backwards to add them into the army lists.  However, despite all the press they are "just" light infantry Peltasts.  Is there anything special about them beyond any other peltasts?  Do they really need a "special entry"? 

2. Numidian Light Cavalry - Again, these guys get called out in many a game system like a regiment of renown.  However, were they really that different in role, performance, and function than Light cavalry for a designer to do something extra with them?   

3. Balearic Slingers - Another famous Carthaginian unit was the slingers from the Balearic islands.  Did they do something really different than other slinger units?  Is there a need to call them out special in the rules or army?

4. Finally, the big one; Spartan Hoplites!  We get a lot of talk from their Athenian admirers about how great these guys were in battle.  There are some notable marching abilities, but in a wargame do they do anything substantially better than standard heavy infantry?  There are a few authors out there who claim Spartan combat prowess were just a "Bronze Myth".  Therefore, do they deserve anything special in a army list or game rules?

Of course I am sure there are counter-examples out there as well.  Where the ethnic troops did something substantially different from other types of similar units and DO justify a new stat line, special abilities, etc.

Therefore, I turn to you my fellow forumites to add examples and counter-examples of ethnically diverse enough to justify something different than other units of a similar type or battlefield role.  Is a game about Alexander falling short if they don't have special rules for Agrian javelin-men, but just light infantry?  Is a game lax if it doesn't have special rules for certain named ethnicities in an army list?  Just because an ancient author mentions a ethnic group of the army, do we need to call them out in our rules?   

What do you think?     

[Daeothar]

Well, I think first and foremost; they add colour to an army (excusez le mot ). And by that I mean; they stand out from the rest of the army because of their origin. It gives us the opportunity to lavish some special attention to a unit with a different paintscheme, a nice banner perhaps, etc. And often, they would indeed have looked quite distinct from their compatriots.

Would they be any different than other units fulfilling the same role? Depending on the granularity of the rules, I'd say most of the time, no.

But then; they were specifically mentioned in historical sources, and often were praised for one or another skill, weapon or tactics that others obviously did not have. Or else they would not be hauled over from the other side of a continent. So their presence was preferable to local/regional/domestic units, and hence they must have had added value. Even if that was just for them to be (in)famous.

There are many examples of this; the Varangian Guard, Batavian Cavalry, Swiss Pikemen, Goumiers; the list goes on and on...

[Pattus Magnus]

I agree with Deothar’s points. Also, in at least some cases, available historical sources suggest that the warriors in some societies were trained under unusual circumstances that contributed to their skills/ reputations. The Spartans were a prime example of this - their society was considered unusual by other contemporary Greeks and gave their warriors a lot more time to train (and possibly greater intensity in their training practices) than warriors in neighboring cities. We could hand-wave that away as propaganda, but I think it’s more likely that Spartan warriors really were a level up from their neighbors. Basically like the difference in skill between full time professional soldiers and trained militias. The second guessing and rationalizations behind the “bronze myth” arguments seem way more tortured than accepting that contemporary observers were describing a real difference. (And why the hell would non-Spartans want to promote the myth so consistently anyway? It’s not like Herodotus was on their payroll…)

Balearic slingers are another, less well documented, example. Their day to day life as shepherds left them a lot of time to practice sniping predators (2 legged as well as 4 legged). I suspect that when fellows decided to “go professional” there are good reasons why they could find work as desirable military specialists, recruiters noticed a difference in performance. And again, why would a contemporary or near- contemporary observer bother singling them out if they’re just like other slingers? More plausible to accept that the folks at the time noticed some differences in tactical skill worth remarking on.

As for including different ethnic troop types in wargames armies, for me it is primarily about visual appeal, even when the game stats are identical (I also favour “going light” on special abilities or stat changes).

[Hobgoblin]

But then; they were specifically mentioned in historical sources, and often were praised for one or another skill, weapon or tactics that others obviously did not have. Or else they would not be hauled over from the other side of a continent. So their presence was preferable to local/regional/domestic units, and hence they must have had added value. Even if that was just for them to be (in)famous.

There are many examples of this; the Varangian Guard, Batavian Cavalry, Swiss Pikemen, Goumiers; the list goes on and on...

Yes - and Welsh longbowmen and then English longbowmen would be good examples too. As Daeothar says, the origin of a particular fighting group is often significant because they introduced a new style of fighting.

Isn't it true, too, that in many cases, the ethnic label outlasts the actual ethnicity? So, in the late eleventh century, quite a few members of the Varangian guard appear to have been English exiles rather than genuine Varangians (Viking adventurers/"oathsworn men"). And isn't there quite a lot of evidence that certain units in the later Roman army retained ethnic labels long after their links with a particular people or region appear to be broken (I'm vague on the details of this, but isn't there, for instance, a strong argument that "Sarmatian" cavalry units stationed in Britain had that label more as a regimental name than a reflection of their members' ethnic origin?).

That isn't always the case, of course: members of the Pontifical Swiss Guard are still Swiss (although links with Switzerland were more tenuous in the 19th century).

In gaming terms, I suspect the ethnic labels are simply convenient and colourful for distinguishing troop types: I'm sure that lots of mounted archers in Attila's Hunnic forces must have had Gothic or other Germanic heritage (and it would be unsurprising if "Little Daddy" himself has some Gothic admixture to go with his name, although some aspects of his appearance - notably his eyes - pointed to his "Scythian" heritage, according to Priscus/Jordanes). And others must have been members of subordinate tribes that weren't actually Hunnic. But for a wargame, you surely just want to call them "Huns".

[Tarnegol]

It's possible that, in many cases, ethnicity has less to do with rules than with the figures you put on the table. Army lists are sometimes about aesthetics.

[Ninefingers]

It's all about that bizarre word "flavour", isn't it? You see it with figure ranges all the time - in order to make each "faction" distinctive, stereotypical factors are exaggerated. If you were cynical, you might think that's so that figure manufacturers can sell you two ranges of figures rather than just one that can be used for both sides. It's unlikely that the three armies that were active in England in 1066 looked particularly different in terms of arms and equipment when it came down to the average foot soldier, for example. But because of the need for difference, all Saxons have handlebar moustaches, Vikings have long flowing beards, and Normans have the back of their head shaved.

I think something that happens generally with History is that events or ideas with very few sources are taken as fact. An example of this - last week I was talking to my brother about Viking Shieldmaidens. I asked, should I keep them all in one unit or intersperse them within others. He pointed out that there is only a small amount of historical and archaeological evidence for female warriors in that period, which I countered with, about as much evidence (if not more) than for Ancient Britons painting themselves blue or Harold being hit in the eye with an arrow.

I hope I've made some sort of sense or point with this ramble!

[Khusru2]

The units you point out were renowned in their own time as exceptional in their battlefield roles. Who are we to question those ancient writers? They were there, and we were not.
It's not too different from your chariot critique really, is it?

[cadbren]

The Spartans were a prime example of this - their society was considered unusual by other contemporary Greeks and gave their warriors a lot more time to train (and possibly greater intensity in their training practices) than warriors in neighboring cities. We could hand-wave that away as propaganda, but I think it’s more likely that Spartan warriors really were a level up from their neighbors. Basically like the difference in skill between full time professional soldiers and trained militias.

People today like to pull down established truths and do it even when there is no merit to it. People point to Spartan defeats when their civilisation was on the decline but ignore what made them a respected name amongst their own contemporaries. They were the best of the best during the 6th to 4th centuries. This coincides with the Persian invasions and the Peloponnesian war. A couple of generations later though they were no better than their neighbours and they were later sidelined under the Macedonians, not even much help to their colony of Taranto. So it's important to know what time period is being referenced when discussing any people.

[Pattus Magnus]

Very true! It is definitely important to be specific about which time period the army list (and any special treatment in the rules troops might qualify for). I would argue that’s the case because the better (or worse) performance in the battlefield wasn’t due to their “ethnic” identity and an inherent characteristic of the people, it was due to their social and cultural practices at the specific point in time. So, Spartans weren’t inherently superior warriors (qualify for bonus on grounds of ethnic label), they were superior warriors because in their society 5000 warriors were assigned a farmstead to support their upkeep so that they could devote themselves to training full time and there was intense social pressure through the communal living system to actually do the training (bonus due to specific economic and cultural practices). The Perioikoi in Lakonia were close kin to the Spartans and followed some of their practices, but lacked the land allotments to support full time military practice and didn’t have the same reputation.

I think the biggest factor in Sparta losing its military edge was loosening their social and economic system in response to heavy attrition in the Peloponnesian war and the wars that followed- they exceeded the replacement rate that their social and economic system could maintain, and their performance dropped correspondingly. Essentially, Sparta’s system evolved in a context of short duration wars fought in a relatively local area, but it was inflexible and couldn’t expand when Sparta took on the role of directly dominating Hellas. So, no Spartan bonus for wargames armies depicting the later period, no matter how many lambdas they have on their shields!

It’s similar for other “ethic” special abilities- they’re probably justified for specific battles or periods, but the grandsons of the conquerors aren’t so grand. Unless they keep the original social and economic practices (and conquerors rarely do).

[Ninefingers]

People today like to pull down established truths and do it even when there is no merit to it.

Often there's no merit to the established truth.

[FierceKitty]

Often there's no merit to the established truth.

Mmmm, and people arrested in a police state are sometimes guilty of real crimes. How sensible to abolish forensic trials!

[Ninefingers]

Mmmm, and people arrested in a police state are sometimes guilty of real crimes. How sensible to abolish forensic trials!

Are you alright?

[modelwarrior]

I think ethnicity has use in wargaming as other walks of life. If I am about to be charged by a battalion with fixed bayonets I am most likely to be a little apprehensive,ifs its a battalion of Gurkhas I am most likely giving it billy big steps. I think fear factor is attached to certain ethnic troops along with reputation.
 A modern example would be me playing rugby next week(I stopped playing 10 yrs ago thank god) and the coach saying its against a touring Samoan team The Ethnicity of the team tells me they will be built like brick outhouses and I am likely to end up in A&E.

[SteveBurt]

All of the units you list are elites; recognised as such by their contemporaries

[Pattus Magnus]

A more important question than linking ‘elite’ status to some troops that are identified with specific ethnicities may be - how elite is ‘elite’ in the game rules?

A +1 modifier might not seem like much, but on a 1d6 that’s 16.6% step up (as I’m sure everyone on LAF already knows) - does the actual historical performance advantage of the troop type actually warrant that big an advantage? I’m not sure that it always does, and in some cases where it is warranted in terms of quality, is the number of elite troops available at the scale of battle represented in the game large enough that the quality isn’t washed out by the higher number of lower quality troops they operated with?

So, giving the Balearic slingers a +1 for shooting and movement in a skirmish level sheep raiding scenario would be justified, but maybe not in a field battle where they represent 400 soldiers in a skirmish screen of thousands… (would depend on how many skirmish figures/bases are on the table and whether it makes sense to bother giving a +1 to 1 or 2)

Spartan full-citizen hoplites in 480 BCE would probably qualify for a bonus at most levels of scenario, since they’re both individually highly skilled and numerous enough to represent a significant part of a force in a large battle like Plataea.