The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity

[pallard]

A very interesting and complex matter. Numidian cavalry in foreign service has been mentionned for exemple. This is a point of interest in French roman historiography for instance due to the colonial period. The units close to the role of light cavalry in l'Armée d'Afrique, had an influence on the way historians viewed the actual ancient african cavalry in Roman military development, and their role in Africa. But we see that some of these ancient units in long stations in Asia for instance ( Egypt notably) where soon no more racially Numidians or Maurish in their majority.
This is not in contradiction to the fact that they had a tactical role ( see the Dacian wars) quite specific, related to what early Roman or Hellenistic historians wrote about them. Gallic cavalry had different specialties, and you could not employ Germans in that exact role neither. The moment when an ethnical tradition becomes a tactical trade is an open question, still to be defined academically in my opinion.

[Freddy]

Military training is not a standard thing across the globe even today, so I do not really understand why wouldn't there be a distinction between where the troops come from. A Gaul light infantry might use similar tactics or weapons like a Numidian one, but, for example, they are surely better in stealth actions in forest areas while the Numidians surely keep more of their strength after a forced march in the desert. Similarly, a Republican Roman auxiliary force from Southern Italy surely has more common elements with the Greeks while a Northern one is more Gaul. Caesar himself writes that the German tribes breed inferior horses compared to the Gauls who were maybe the best horse breeders west of the Black Sea. This surely showed in the quality of their cavalry. Another factor is who is fighting on the home turf, or simply how the current war affects each nationality.

Indeed. On the Spartan theme, there was a big difference between the Spartiate, who were full-time professionals, and the other Lacedemonians, who had day jobs and were not much better than citizen soldiers of other states. The Spartiate, at their height, numbered around 6,000 in about 12 lochoi, dwindling to a mere 1,000 in 4 smaller lochoi later. This is out of a total population of about 40,000-50,000 inhabitants (estimated, including slaves and non Spartans) dwindling to maybe 30-35,000.
Even at their height, the Spartiate were not a national identity but an elite, professional force within a potentially larger national army.

The whole term "Spartan" might just be a later, maybe Roman invention as their state was called Lakedaimon and most antique writers (at least the ones I read) refer to them as such. Even their famous up-pointing arrow shields refer to that (a Greek Lambda letter, according to the Greek fashion of displaying the initial of their state on the shields). Sparta was "only" the capitol city.

[cadbren]

A very interesting and complex matter. Numidian cavalry in foreign service has been mentionned for exemple.

Actual make-up aside, the Romans employed the Numidians because of their training. If the skills were so easily transferable they would have created light cavalry from men in Italy or Gaul which would have been logistically a lot easier than bringing hundreds or even thousands of North Africans over to Europe along with their mounts. There are probably cultural considerations too, the locals in Europe may have felt that light cavalry was beneath them, much like archery for combat use was looked down upon over most of Europe.

[Citizen Sade]

To muddy the waters a little, Tarentine cavalry features in a number of successor armies. So much so that Tarentine seems to mean equipped or fighting in the Tarentine style rather than hailing from Tarentum in Italy. I rather suspect that the same applies to Cretan archers.

[Rick]

Maybe. There is a strong warrior culture in many of these groups that the Romans were quick to exploit in their favour. The warrior culture would be expressed in different fighting styles and weaponry/equipment that could complement the Roman fighting style/equipment.
And yes, I am drawing a distinction between the Roman and Spartan professional, full-time, military and the Gallic, Germanic and other cultures that emphasised a strong warrior fighting tradition.

[Freddy]

Actual make-up aside, the Romans employed the Numidians because of their training. If the skills were so easily transferable they would have created light cavalry from men in Italy or Gaul which would have been logistically a lot easier than bringing hundreds or even thousands of North Africans over to Europe along with their mounts. There are probably cultural considerations too, the locals in Europe may have felt that light cavalry was beneath them, much like archery for combat use was looked down upon over most of Europe.

Cavalry soldiers need two things
-horses, which most Mediterranean nations did not have a lot as they lacked grasslands needed to raise them
-a lot of training, much more than for infantrymen. Ideally people who live amongst horses and ride them from their childhood
So Romans had difficulties to train their own cavalry, were happy to use any cavalrymen willing to fight for them, let them be Gaul or Numidian.

[Rick]

Sorry Freddy but I don't think things are that simple. Romans had a lot of horses, they rode them, used them to pull carts, chariots and transport vehicles, and in agriculture. They had no difficulties in training horses for any of these duties, they just didn't fight from the back of them. Similarly the ancient Germans, Saxons and Anglo-Saxons had herds of horses, bred them extensively and rode them everywhere, but they would ride their horses to a battle then get off and fight on foot. Compare the English and French knights of the 100 years war - mounted jousts were popular in both countries, horses were equally well trained and bred in both countries, yet English knights preferred to fight on foot whilst French knights preferred to fight mounted. I think there was a lot more to it than how much grass you owned!

[Freddy]

Sorry Freddy but I don't think things are that simple. Romans had a lot of horses, they rode them, used them to pull carts, chariots and transport vehicles, and in agriculture. They had no difficulties in training horses for any of these duties, they just didn't fight from the back of them. Similarly the ancient Germans, Saxons and Anglo-Saxons had herds of horses, bred them extensively and rode them everywhere, but they would ride their horses to a battle then get off and fight on foot. Compare the English and French knights of the 100 years war - mounted jousts were popular in both countries, horses were equally well trained and bred in both countries, yet English knights preferred to fight on foot whilst French knights preferred to fight mounted. I think there was a lot more to it than how much grass you owned!

Nah, Romans used mules for most of the work for horses, the mule being far less choosy of what to eat. They used all the arable land for producing wheat for their ever hungry city. Horse was a luxury to them only rich people could afford them, the rest used mules.

Regarding fighting from horseback, the invention of a stirrup made it a lot easier, also it mostly depended of who to fight against. 1300s English knights fought on foot to protect their archers and because cavalry charge was ineffective against the Scottish schiltrons. English archery quickly made the French (who never met the Scottish lance tactics) to adopt fighting on foot tactic after Crécy. In Eastern Europe knights always fought on horseback, the Ottomans having neither longbowmen nor phalanx-capable infantry. Btw Hungarian knights had bows well into the 13th century- being the descendants of nomadic people, horse archery was simply part of being a cavalry soldier to them.

Also no one said that it is ONLY about the grasslands available, sure, there is a lot more. But grasslands are an important factor regarding cavalry, even up to the 20th century, Russia and the Soviet Union maintaining a huge cavalry force other nations were simply unable to match.

[ErikB]

One reason I can suggest for being interested in the ethnicities of different units is because it is fun to learn about history! 

Sometimes it's about which people are cooperating with which others and why.  Sometimes it is interesting to learn about trade, different tech and terrain, conflict and cooperation, and so on. 

Arabs and Indians with Damascus steel, maybe some kind of + points on attack.

Mongol and Assyrian archers being able to accurately shoot their bows behind them while galloping.

Just figuring out which color pallet to use for some of our minis leads to learning about all sort of history.  To me, that's most of the fun.

2. Numidian Light Cavalry
My wife's family descends from Numidia (and the Barbary Coast Pirates).  It's fascinating learning about them.  I wouldn't have looked into this if there were no discussion about Numidian units, specifically, as opposed to generic light cavalry.  Learning about this scored me some points with my in-laws, too.

They come from a hot, coastal, desert, area which is different from, say, European lancers who grew up in a cold, rainy climate.  Not sure how this would be different in wargaming terms.

3. Balearic Slingers
Very specialized, unique, and famous unit.  There was nobody quite like them except... some very curious evidence in South America, such as light skinned tribesmen in the jungle, use of exactly the same type of sling, and even carrying it wrapped around the head (like a sweatband) in the same way.  This suggests that people from Roman times sailed to S. America, way back when. 

I have no idea if the theories are true or not but it's a fascinating thing to look into.  Never would have noticed these documentaries if I had not started learning about the Balearic slingers.

Maybe extra range, accuracy, and penetration for their shots at higher expense.

4. Spartan Hoplites! 
Special, unique, and famous, as well.  They were my high school's mascot, as well.  That they were the only full-time soldiers (that I know of) in ancient Greece was a big deal.  Not sure how to model that for wargaming but they were special.  Other city-states usually had their men train once per week or month plus a few weeks per year, like the National Guard.  Not the same.

Maybe model them with higher morale, bonuses on attack and defense, and increased unit cost.

English longbows were mentioned.  Extra range, penetration.

Flanders and Armenian crossbowmen were unique.  Armenia was especially interested in the Crusades on account of being the first Christian country.  Wouldn't have learned that if I hadn't looked into this unique unit and wondered what's different about them.  My doctor is Armenian and my girlfriend when I was 10 is Armenian, too.

Polish Winged Hussars were unique to Poland, had a 300+ year undefeated streak (I think), and saved Europe from the Muslim expansion (I think all three battles of Vienna but I'm not sure).  Amazing morale, flexibility, and look. 

They had lances, heavy armor (for the time), guns, swords, etc.  Not all cavalry had these options on the same guys.

Today's Polish GROM still has that spirit and is one of the world's best SOF units.  Also famous for out drinking the American SOF units and even the British ones.

I believe that the ancient Thracians were these unruly mountain people, different from the other Greeks.  That could be modeled as different morale, special movement over rough terrain, etc.

Swiss, Austrian, and N. Italian (who are really Austrian...) mountain people could have a bonus moving over rough terrain, as well.

Never would have looked into all these cultures, their special attributes, their political affiliations, or any of that, without a focus on the ethnicities and unique attributes of these units.

[Rick]

Heh, the first time I heard the 'stirrup' argument was in a BBC documentary about Hastings where they, in complete seriousness, asserted that Norman knights fought from horseback because they had stirrups and Anglo-Saxons fought on foot because they didn't. This was, of course, flying in the face of extensive archaeological and historical evidence of Anglo-Saxon stirrups!
Speaking of flying in the face of archaeological and historical evidence, I suggest you might want to reconsider your assumption that Romans only really had mules in light of the extensive evidence of Roman horse breeding, variety of breeds they produced and the extensive horse breeding farms in ancient Italy. The Romans loved their horses and used them in a lot of areas, they weren't just for the rich.
Also, lets be clear on your dates - English knights started dismounting and fighting on foot in 1138 at Northallerton, Bannockburn was over 150 years later in 1314 and Azincourt was 100 years after that in 1415 - I kinda have to question your argument on the dates alone, I'm afraid!

[Moriarty]

Frederick II of Prussia was of the opinion that, were you to give a soldier a ‘Grenadier’s moustache’, he would then fight as well as any Grenadier. Sometimes the cachet of being an ‘elite’ is enough to make a difference in performance.

[carlos marighela]

3. Balearic Slingers
Very specialized, unique, and famous unit.  There was nobody quite like them except... some very curious evidence in South America, such as light skinned tribesmen in the jungle, use of exactly the same type of sling, and even carrying it wrapped around the head (like a sweatband) in the same way.  This suggests that people from Roman times sailed to S. America, way back when.

I have no idea if the theories are true or not but it's a fascinating thing to look into.  Never would have noticed these documentaries if I had not started learning about the Balearic slingers.

Well that would explain why there are so many Latinos in South America and why they are so many Italians in Buenos Aires and São Paulo.

Seriously though, there's considerable diversity amonst indigenous peoples across the continent including skin tone. Why there should be any surprise to this on a land mass that is twice the size of the entirety of Europe is beyond me. The state of Bahia in Brazil alone is larger than France.

A sling is not a complicated item. The human body has finite capacity for storing items unclothed and the fact that someone chooses to wrap a thong around their head in one part of the world doesn't suggest causality for something similar taking place elsewhere. It merely suggests that two groups of people have reached the same, practical, solution.  Penis sheaths, feature in the tribal cultures of Papua New Guinea and Colombia. Elaborate feather cloaks are symbolic of the Tupinambá people in Brazil. Similar items are totemic in Hawaiian culture and even feature in German and Norse mythology. You might as well suggest that Vikings or itinerant ancient Germans brought them to Brazil. It would certainly explain why there are so many Germans in Blumeneau and Joinville.* 

The danger of such quaint theories is that they imply that only one culture is capable of invention and it's invariably the culture from which the theoriser springs.

* Not a notable population of Vikings in Santa Catarina or Paraná to the best of my knowledge although quite a few Ukrainians in Curitiba last time I was there, so maybe the Vikings travelled there via the Volga basin?

[ErikB]

Hey Carlos, the theory is not that others cannot invent the same thing, just that, out of the many ways to make and use one, those slings are exactly the same as off the Spanish coast and used by predominantly white people with light eyes.  Interesting coincidence.

There is also other evidence, though not enough to be compelling, that a big group of Roman-ish people landed in S. America 1,500-2,500 years ago.  Lots of legends, too, which are fun to read about, though not to be taken too seriously.

Anyway, my point was that, in respone to the orginal question about why ethnicity is so interesting to wargamers, is that being specific about certain detatchments can lead to a ton of fascinating reading about history, whcih is a lot of fun!  :-)  (At least according to yours truely who studied history in college... money not well spent....)

[carlos marighela]

Hey Carlos, the theory is not that others cannot invent the same thing, just that, out of the many ways to make and use one, those slings are exactly the same as off the Spanish coast and used by predominantly white people with light eyes.  Interesting coincidence.

There is also other evidence, though not enough to be compelling, that a big group of Roman-ish people landed in S. America 1,500-2,500 years ago.  Lots of legends, too, which are fun to read about, though not to be taken too seriously.

Anyway, my point was that, in respone to the orginal question about why ethnicity is so interesting to wargamers, is that being specific about certain detatchments can lead to a ton of fascinating reading about history, whcih is a lot of fun!  :-)  (At least according to yours truely who studied history in college... money not well spent....)

Of course, as long as you have invested in a large container of salt, these weird, fringe theories can be fun and are potential sources for fantasy gaming scenarios. As long as you possess the wherewithal to discern the wheat from the chaff and don't take them seriously.  A lot of people came to historical gaming through fantasy gaming after all.

By the by I didn't mean you were the purveyor of ethnocentrism rather that the originators of these theories typically have an unconscious or sometimes quite conscious cultural bias. Humans are inclined to look for the familiar after all.

Now you have me curious about this Roman invasion of South America and its supposed evidence. You don't mean that wanker from Florida who claimed to have found a Roman ship in Guanabara Bay back in the 1980s by any chance? That's one of the more amusing stories. That one keeps cropping up every few years with the lunatic fringe and on-line click bait providers. It's based on the actual discovery of barnacle encrusted amphorae off Rio back in the late 1970s by a local fisherman. The Floridian flim-flam man who pushed the story as his 'discovery' a few years later was given the location of these 'ancient wonders' by that fisherman. Various claims of governmental cover-ups followed in classic tin-foil fashion.

Sadly for the off-brand von Dänikens of this world, it has a rather prosaic explanation.  A local businessman commissioned a couple of dozen of amphorae from a factory in Portugal to brighten up home and garden after seeing examples in Sicily. He wanted them to have an aged look so he dumped them in Guanabara Bay. Sadly for him he only was able to recover four of the lot that he dumped, allowing the rest to be 'discovered' a decade or so later.  So yes, kinda 'Roman' amphorae, by way of Portugal but very much of the late 20th C. 

The doubty Floridian explorer who gave us this comedy, one Robert Marx, had his own little axe to sharpen. He had been charged with the looting of actual cultural heritage off the Brazilian coast and this became grist to his mill.

As an aside, anyone who has dived in Guanabara Bay deserves some sort of compensation, even back in the 1980s. The water is so polluted, I'm surprised that anyone who immerses themselves doesn't hallucinate. Toe dipping aside, it's generally not advised. ;-)

[ErikB]

Hey Carlos, no worries on my part, I didn't think you were pointing at me. :-)

I have no idea what the shows were that I watched about Romans or Carthagians coming to S. America a long, long time ago.  I just remember the idea, a few images in my mind's eye, and that it was really cool.

I _think_ (now that I think about it) that it was actually a group of Carthagians and their allies fleeing by sea.  That would put this around the ending of one of the Punic Wars.

I don't remember if it had anything to do with Florida.

Lots of fun to learn, wonder, and speculate about, and great for wargaming.