The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity

[Freddy]

Oh and 'Marius' Mules' are Roman legionaries, not actual mules - it was an ironic play on the amount of gear the legionary was expected to carry on those wooden yokes.

Sure, we all know that, but they were called mules because the mule was the standard pack animal.

[carlos marighela]

I thought it was cos they stuffed themselves with cocaine filled condoms?  The Romans did a lot of marching after all.

I see we have moved from ethnicity to the niceties of the equine arts. Horses for courses I spose.

[Freddy]

I see we have moved from ethnicity to the niceties of the equine arts. Horses for courses I spose.

Well, what can I say? " That guy's being awfully forward with that donkey" 


Also maintaining cavalry forces require a lot of effort from a society so it is closely related with how that society works.

[SteveBurt]

Parthian shot is basically volley fire; real target shooting the later horse archers also mastered is impossible without a stable position on the horse. Ok, maybe technically possible but it is like shooting a sniper rifle standing on one foot.

Stirrups have a drawback we shall also see: they need a matching saddle. Unstirruped saddle is a simple construction as it has only to care about the weight distribution of the human ass, but a stirruped one is designed with the stirrup connection points in mind, those are strong pushing points quickly damaging the horse if the weight distribution is not properly matched to them. So introducing stirrups also needs an improvement of the leathermaking industry.

Parthians did not use volley fire. That would be Sassanid ‘shower shooting’. The Parthians galloped up close and shot at close range; it is all about timing the shot to the motion of the horse, and people were doing it for about a thousand years before the stirrup was invented. In fact, they were doing it from chariots before there were horse archers.  Of course people used stirrups once they were available; they make riding more comfortable. But they don’t help in combat, nor for mounted archery.

[Rick]

The 'Parthian shot' is not volley fire - as SteveBurt has said, it's close range shooting. In actual fact, traditionally, the 'Parthian' or parting shot was fired at the enemy whilst twisted round in the saddle, firing backwardsas your horse galloped away from them.

Freddy, your argument that Marius' mules were only called that because all the beasts of burden the Romans had were mules is circular, illogical and just not supported by the evidence, sorry. It's a lovely idea but just plain wrong, I'm afraid - the Romans bred mules, as well as plough horses, chariot horses, cavalry horses, race horses and more besides.

[Freddy]

Freddy, your argument that Marius' mules were only called that because all the beasts of burden the Romans had were mules is circular, illogical and just not supported by the evidence, sorry. It's a lovely idea but just plain wrong, I'm afraid - the Romans bred mules, as well as plough horses, chariot horses, cavalry horses, race horses and more besides.

Then again, lets decide which time period we are talking about. Because the Imperial, especially late Imperial era was very different from the Republican era. And please do not tell me that the Romans did regularly use horses for tilling the fields while they were unable to field large cavalry formations, it simply does not make any sense.

The 'Parthian shot' is not volley fire - as SteveBurt has said, it's close range shooting. In actual fact, traditionally, the 'Parthian' or parting shot was fired at the enemy whilst twisted round in the saddle, firing backwardsas your horse galloped away from them.

So here where I live horse archery especially the twist-in-the saddle shot is kinda part of the national pride, a bit like the longbow for the English or hip shooting Colt Peacemakers for the USA. Because of this, a lot of researches went into the topic and a lot of knowledge accumulated, from bookworm historians through experimental archeologists up to reenactors organizing horse archer competitions with like-minded folks even from Central Asia. The current state of the art is that the turnaround shot was basically area fire, typically used after a feigned retreat to scatter the pursuing enemy, preparing them for the counterattack either by an ambush force or the shooters themselves quickly turning around. These quick turns of entire units are essential parts of horse archer warfare, as important as the archery itself. This high level of unit-level maneuvering requires professional horsemanship and also professional gear, the horse shall be under total control of the rider while he does not even touch the reins. Now this is practically impossible while you are fighting for balance as a sack of potato with your feet wobbling in the air.
What I wrote is about the horse archery around 1000AD, it is possible that back in the time of the Parthians there were other, more primitive forms, shooting a shambling infantry formation into hedgehogs required surely less skill than the same against an agile cavalry force, they might had managed it without using stirrups.

[jon_1066]

I think you underestimate how stable an ancient horned saddle was.  You basically stick you thighs under it and lock your self in with you legs.  On a cantering horse it would be no less secure than stirrups.  It’s not like they just had a modern western saddle with no stirrups.

[Freddy]

I think you underestimate how stable an ancient horned saddle was.  You basically stick you thighs under it and lock your self in with you legs.  On a cantering horse it would be no less secure than stirrups.  It’s not like they just had a modern western saddle with no stirrups.

I got that but while locking your thighs to the saddle might offer a stable sitting, it really limits the movement allowed in the saddle- which might or might not be enough for the military maneuvre to perform, but then again I do not deny the fact that people before the stirrup managed to stay and even fight on horseback, I just say that the stirrup was simply a superior solution allowing the riders to ride better ad easier than before.

[jon_1066]

Here’s a documentary on a reenactment of a Roman cavalry tournament



It suggest stirrups were more of a comfort thing rather than a fighting advantage.  If you watch it you can see the canter looks very similar (it’s also pretty interesting and worth a watch).  You can also see at a canter that the riders are stable and can shoot a bow and throw a javelin with proper aim.

[Pattus Magnus]

One thing to consider, and this loops back to the original post, is who the usual opponents were for a people (whether ethnic group, city state, regional empire, or whatever) at the time period the game depicts. The technology and fighting methods will be developed primarily in response to the enemies they usually fight. And that’s often other sub-groups of the same culture (rival bands, rival cities, civil wars), as well as their nearest geographic neighbors.

In the case of horse archers, their most frequent opponents would be each other (tenuous central authority and subsisting on herds that need finite grazing). They occasionally faced infantry based enemies (often when moving into territory the infantry using societies occupied), but their benchmark for military development was fighting other nomads. Shooting at each other from horseback, then closing with spear, sword, axe or mace to reach a decisive outcome was their thing.

For infantry based armies like the archaic and classical Greeks, it was obviously a completely different view on what ‘normal’ warfare was.

In both cases, advantages/disadvantages conferred in the game rules should reflect the status vs their usual opponents. So, Spartiate units in a Spartan army get a +1 in melee, and morale tests, but Spartan allies/ perioikoi units don’t (because they don’t train as continuously). Around 450 CE, horse archer armies that have adopted the stirrup get a +1 in shooting and close combat against stirrup-less horse archer armies (but maybe no additional advantage against infantry forces - infantry getting shot to heck without being able to reply is pretty much the same regardless of whether the cavalry have stirrups or not).

Some advantages shouldn’t be in stat lines, too, but reflected in core rules. A nomad horse archer army shouldn’t need a stat line advantage in a battle with heavy infantry (say, Skythians vs Greeks), as long as the core rules give them the ability to avoid contact. But the horse archers’ arrow supply should be limited, so they may have a hard time breaking the infantry before running low on arrows… (I’m not saying that matchup would be a fun game, some battles don’t translate well to a playable scenario.)

Some aspects need to be depicted through army list troop availability. Not every Spartan can be a Spartiate (unless you’re depicting a really small battle, or an odd situation like Thermopylae, and even then most of the hoplites were allies, not the famous 300).

Things seem to get weird mainly when wargames rules ignore context and try to cover too much or throw in rules for “flavour” that are a bit arbitrary or based on unusual historical situations.

[jon_1066]

I wonder as well how a more modern period can shed light on these ethnic descriptors.  If you take 18th century Hussars by the end of the Napoleonic wars most belligerents were fielding hussars but no one thinks they were all Hungarian.  Take it further forward to an absurd point and you have the 13/18 hussars fighting Tiger tanks in their Shermans. So the name lives on even though ethnicity was lost very early and even technology and role both changed as well.

If a few fragments of history survive 2000 years from now a historian might find a reference to Hussars - how can they know if it refers to a tank crew from London or a light cavalry man from the Hungarian frontier?

[Freddy]

Here’s a documentary on a reenactment of a Roman cavalry tournament
It suggest stirrups were more of a comfort thing rather than a fighting advantage.  If you watch it you can see the canter looks very similar (it’s also pretty interesting and worth a watch).  You can also see at a canter that the riders are stable and can shoot a bow and throw a javelin with proper aim.

Wow that was a really cool video! (They did not shoot a bow though. Also when talking about military equipment, comfort and advantage are closely connected).
Here is one about the ancient Hungarians. Worth to watch all of it but look at the guy from around 16:00, how he is using his thighs to compensate the up-and-down movement of the horse standing in the stirrup. This is not possible with a horned saddle, making arrow shooting maybe possible but surely less precise.

ne thing to consider, and this loops back to the original post, is who the usual opponents were for a people (whether ethnic group, city state, regional empire, or whatever) at the time period the game depicts.

Indeed, I also mentioned it in one of my comments: usual opponents shaped even the same troop type into different directions.

If a few fragments of history survive 2000 years from now a historian might find a reference to Hussars - how can they know if it refers to a tank crew from London or a light cavalry man from the Hungarian frontier?

Yeah, also imagine how they would depict the typical 20th century European warrior. A 15M Stahlhelm, an AK-47 assault rifle, woodland shirt, canvas backpack and breeches with leather boots. With a comment that NVG equipment appeared around the middle of the period but only became common around the end of it.

[Rick]

Freddy - my point about the Romans differs from yours in only one regard; you assert that they were unable to field large cavalry formations, I contend that they were able but chose not to. When you look at the development of the Roman Army, their enemies and the terrain they fought in, cavalry wasn't very useful in the early era - light infantry (velites) were more useful under those conditions so the Romans concentrated on the infantry legio as its primary arm with cavalry relegated to a secondary military role, messengers and longer range scouts. By the time that the Roman Army really moved into areas where cavalry would be useful they had a set organisation of their primary force so hired auxiliary cavalry rather than going to all the time and expense of fielding their own. Just a matter of choice rather than necessity as far as I can see.
As to the Parthian shot - this is what actually happened, we have primary and secondary historical sources that attest to it. Your modern interpretation of what you think may have occurred must take into account the sources that describe it happening, not the other way around. It was so well known that it entered our language as the parting shot - a cutting comment delivered as one is leaving - do look it up if you don't believe me.

[Freddy]

As to the Parthian shot - this is what actually happened, we have primary and secondary historical sources that attest to it. Your modern interpretation of what you think may have occurred must take into account the sources that describe it happening, not the other way around. It was so well known that it entered our language as the parting shot - a cutting comment delivered as one is leaving - do look it up if you don't believe me.

So again, i do not deny the ability of the Parthians to shoot Parthian shots, but
1.) they were the pinnacle of horse archery in their (stirrupless) time. None of the primary sorces say that wow these guys are so awesome that not even a new invention 500 years from now on could improve their performance
2.) shooting from the receiving side feels always more precise than it really is- the F-117 pilots over Baghdad felt like all tracer rounds coming right towards them while in reality Iraqi AA artillery shot blindly towards the sound
3.) Parthian shot being precision or area shot depends just on the distance- from 10m you shoot the guy, from 100m you shoot the unit. However, a feigned retreat is not about letting the enemy catch you, so riders kept a healthy distance from the pursuers. This could be less at Carrhae, just as I wrote, infantry formations are slower.

Freddy - my point about the Romans differs from yours in only one regard; you assert that they were unable to field large cavalry formations, I contend that they were able but chose not to. When you look at the development of the Roman Army, their enemies and the terrain they fought in, cavalry wasn't very useful in the early era - light infantry (velites) were more useful under those conditions so the Romans concentrated on the infantry legio as its primary arm with cavalry relegated to a secondary military role, messengers and longer range scouts.

That is just not how it works. The first time a sane person said "yeah we could have cavalry but better not to" was somewhere around 1940AD. Roman warfare is basically an improved version of hoplite-phalanx warfare and in that cavalry has an important role protecting the flanks and outflanking the enemy (Zama was practically won by the cavalry). Romans therefore tried to deploy cavalry, but horses were so rare thus so expensive that the ones actually able to field a warhorse were the richest citizens. Concetrating on infantry and becoming the master of it was simply the proverbial lemonade made from the lemons life offered.

[Rick]

Oh, you mean like the Roman equites, the entire flippin' equestrian class of Rome named after their fondness for mules, no doubt, and not for their capability of fielding cavalry? Italy, especially central Italy, is not a landscape suitable for sweeping cavalry manouevres, or for much cavalry in general. Most of Romes early wars were fought across mountainous landscape such as that where infantry were far more useful than cavalry, hence moving towards a primarily infantry force. It was a choice forced on them by the wars they fought, not because they couldn't afford the horses. Sorry Freddy but I think you might be on the wrong track with this idea.