The Achaeans ought to be modeled as swordsmen, which by WRG 7th standards means arming them with two-handed cutting weapons (2HCW). That is a stretch in the context of multiperiod tournament gaming, and would require the corresponding updating of several contemporary, related lists. Rather they are modeled in their several different aspects:

• All Achaean nobles are chariot mounted, and fight dismounted as HI as per standard WRG 7th, although one could make the case that since they were apparently dressed head to foot in metal, with substantial arm and leg armors, they ought to dismount as EHI; please experiment with this in friendly pick-up games.
• In general, rank and file Achaean warriors are treated much like Hellenistic peltasts or thorakitai (singly armed with JLS, however). They are loose order based, that they may either skirmish or melee. All can be upgraded to LHI, and half of those may be upgraded to regular B.
• Disciplined, close order infantry are part of the Iliadic tradi tion of the generalship of Nestor of Pylos. Thus, a substantial portion of the Achaean warriors, ie. 1/2 of the LHI, may be close order based as HI if placed under command of a Pylian Ally General.
• The northern Achaeans, the Myrmidones, are treated as if they were "barbarian trash", ie. Irregular LMI, especially hard hit ting in the "Irregular A, LHI" option, but fragile. They must win by delivering an overwhelming initial charge.
• The Danaans are treated as the early Mycenaeans of the original list 10.

The names indicated for the respective generals on the list are suggestive, and are not meant to be taken literally; they are therefore designated by quotes. I've taken the liberty of numbering the list 10B, assuming Tom's Trojans are 10A.

Finally, I would very much like to thank Tom McMillan for his very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, and especially for his invaluable advice on finalizing a table-ready army list. Though we continue to have our differences, the errors are exclusively my own.

NOTES TO LIST 10B

1. Following Tom McMillen's Trojan list, the Achaean CinC, and his Phthian Ally General, are allowed 4 horse light chariots, purely by reason of adding flavor.

2. "Achilles" is an Ally General, rather than a Sub General, for the obvious reason that the Iliadic tradition emphasizes the uncertain relationship of Mycenae and her northern allies. "Achilles" had not participated in the ritualistic oath taking over the union of "Menelaus" and "Helen", implying that Phthia stood outside of any prior formal arrangements.

3."Nestor" of Pylos exhibits a level of independence from Agamemnon equaled only by "Achilles". It is presumably "Nestor's" age and wisdom that allow his seemingly effortless cooperation with "Agamemnon". One can imagine, however, that things could have been worse had "Nestor" been a less steadfast ally. On a more tangible level, the excavation of Pylos has established the wealth and strength of this Achaean site, which is consistent with the deference shown "Nestor" by "Agamemnon"in the Iliad.

4. "Nestor", as per the Iliad III.292-309 for example, was the leading advocate of close order, massed tactics. Thus, Achaean warriors in a Pylian command, if upgraded to LHI, are assumed to fight in close order and must be further upgraded to HI. Please note that the 16 to 48 warriors that may be deployed as HI are charged against the 96 figure total allowed above; they are not in addition to that allotment.

5. The "Myrmidones" play so prominant a role in the Trojan Warr tradition that our list must have them. In sharp contrast to the generalship of "Nestor" of Pylos is the "heroic" leadership of "Achilles" of Phthia. Heroic leadership (following John Keegan's Mask of Command re: Alexander the Great) relies on the personal prowess of the leader to set an example to be emulated by his companions and their subordinates. If a single term can charac terize "Achilles'" personal style, it is "impetuous", ie. "irreg ular" in WRGese/ The potency of "Achilles"'s leadership allows the "Myrmidones" an upgrade to Irregular A. Please recall, in addition, that the "Myrmidones" were the tough, battle hardened Achaean veterans who guarded the northern marches of Greater Ahhiyawa in Greece.

6. These Thracians manifest the beginnings of the long term Greek practice of hiring Thracian mercenaries. In this instance, the northern Achaeans are assumed to have relieved some of the pressure on their holdings by taking some of these people into their service.

7. Finally, the Cretan (and Aegean) Danaans are assumed to be somewhat outmoded. They are allowed intrinsic MI archers in their units. The proper proportion of archers is 1 in 2, as represented in art and in the Iliad itself. Nick Sekunda terms this the "archer-pair" in his piece on the Persians in Hackett's Warfare in the Ancient World. Sekunda would make the case that the archer-pair was an historical "constant" in ancient Aegean-Levantine warfare.

TOM MCMILLEN'S LIST

Once again, it is freely admitted that we are on shaky ground to begin with here. While Paul has made clear that much of his list is based on educated deduction rather than verifiable fact, at least we know that his army actually existed! It is by no means clear than an army of Trojans, Lycians, Thracians, etc. ever took the field together. However, if in fact the war did occur, we will try to envision what that army would have looked like.

While the original WRG Army Lists have nothing appropriate for this confederation, two more recent List compilations, The Book of Hosts by Holland and Froud, and the new 1992 WRG List by Hutchby and Clark, each have a 'Western Anatolian' List which clearly has Troy in mind. While reasonable, both are offered largely without explanation, and do not seem to deal sufficiently with each of the major contingents in the alliance. These contin gents include: the Trojans and Dardanians, the Asiatic 'lowland ers' such as Carians, the Asiatic 'highlanders', the Thracians and their kin, and the Lycians.

The Trojans and Dardanians. This, 'by far the largest contingent', (Homer), was almost certainly very similar to the Myce naean system of weaponry and armour. Troy was an active, aggres sive city state contesting Aegean trade, and it is reasonable to assume that it had technology similar to that in use from Boetia to Crete. The Iliad does not suggest any major distinctions, except for the frequent Achaen epithet 'well greaved', sometimes rendered 'well armoured', suggesting a greater proportion of troops in metal armor. The fact that heroes tended to wear each other's captured armor suggests some uniformity.

As Paul has stated, this period was a transition between an early system of lightly armored, very close order spearmen with huge shields accompanied by sturdy fighting chariots, and a later system of heavier armor, lighter shields, throwing spears, and a more individualized, looser tactical system backed up by light chari ots. Excluding the chariots, the comparison to the transition in Italy from Hoplites to Legionnaires is inescapable. Whether, as generally thought, this was a successive development, or as Paul suggests, there was an armoured aristocracy ruling over 'Helot' spearmen, both systems are in use and competing. As The Iliad suggests that the Achaeans had a higher proportion of armor, I see the bulk of the Trojan spearmen as being the equivalent of Paul's Danaans, with a smaller proportion of upgrades to the later, armored type. It should also be noted that there is considerably more fighting from chariots described in The Iliad than one would think, given that they are generally described as little more than transport vehicles. At one point Hector has a lengthy running battle with Nestor and Diomedes, all in chariots. By unofficial count, Hector loses no less than four chariot drivers, pausing momentarily to grieve for each before snatching up another luckless volunteer.

Asiatic lowlanders. Troops such as the Carians from the pre sumably large and prosperous city of Miletus, also known to us as Millawanda from the Hittite records where it figures prominently and sends a contingent to Kadesh. Such troops were prosperous and civilized, but probably more 'Asiatic' in character than the Trojans. Homer specifically ridicules Nastes for his effeminacy - 'decked in gold like a girl, the fool!'. While this writer gener ally feels that it is incumbent upon List writers to make deci sions, rather than simply to allow all likely options, in the case we allow the choice of either low morale regulars or medio cre irregulars to demonstrate their inferiority to their more aggressive neighbors.

Asiatic Highlanders. Troops such as 'the wild Alyattes, from beyond the Halys River', these are rugged hillmen of somewhat higher, though still 'Asiatic', morale. Hutchby's 'Anatolian Hill Tribes' List, of a later period, calls them Irreg D, with up grades for most to C. In his Anatolian List, however, he does specify 'Kaska', up to 48 Irreg B Light medium infantry. Holland makes no mention of loose order Asiatics. While the Anatolian uplanders may have impressed their neighbors, they do not impress Homer and certainly held no terrors for later invasions by any military competent powers.

Thracians, Paeones, Cicones. Thracians is Thracians. This statement can be made with more justification than most ration ales used in such lists. Just as the Egyptians were less warlike than the Semites for the last 3,000 years, and the Indians were less martial than just about anybody, the Scots Highlanders have been fanatically militaristic since about forever so is there clearly a regional predilection for fierce Thracians from Herodu tus through the campaigns of Alexander to Trajan. Homer rein forces this by referring to the 'warlike Cicones', one of the trans-Bosporan contingents.

The most interesting and 'clearly the most important' (Reader's Guide) of the Allies. Sarpedon and Glaucus are the only allied leaders of any significance or nobility. Sarpedon, son of Zeus, exists primarily to give Patroclos someone of first rank status to kill, without affecting any of the central characters. Glaucus exchanges armor with Diomedes in a gesture of mutual respect, (which was pretty dumb, as Glaucus had gold armor to Diomedes' bronze). Sarpedon's threat to withdraw his troops if the Trojan leaders do not carry their share of the fighting is clearly stated as if it would be catastrophic to the Trojan cause. For the fanatically chauvinistic Greeks to accord such respect to 'barbarians' is remarkable.

This is not all we hear of the Lycians, or Lukka People. Notori ous pirates, they raid Cyprus, join the Hittites at Kadesh, and join the other Sea People in the joint invasion of Egypt. For all of these reasons, it is obvious that the Lycians require a large, powerful contingent. Checking our other Lists, Holland gives our friends short shrift indeed, allowing only 24 C class loose order foot. Hutchby, by contrast, allows up to 78 figures, with an armoured front rank and a good proportion of B Class - a formida ble mob indeed for this period! Even the Myrmidons will have trouble with this lot.

The remainder of the troops are fairly self-explanatory. Once again, morale is generally low to contrast to their European counterparts, missile troops being especially penalized as this was considered to be a cowardly weapon. While one may quibble with particulars, the overall look and feel of this army seems correct. We end up with a steady core of Trojan spearmen backed up by the hard-hitting barbarian punch of the Lycians, filled out with the typical Asiatic mob. Unlike the Classical Age, however, it should be pointed out that these cheap 'dregs' are not grossly inferior, and can be quite useful against most of the troops available to the opposition. Pairing this lot against Paul's Achaeans should produce very interesting games though it might not be difficult to see why Priam chose to withstand a ten year siege, rather than take the field when Achilles was present for duty.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Bernal, Martin, Black Athena, Rutgers University Press. Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (1987). Volume II: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (1991). This work has considerably more meat to it -- some perhaps unpalatable -- than implied above. Be forewarned, however, that it is in places a very difficult read.

Connelly, Peter, The Legend of Odysseus , Oxford U.P., 1986. Although basically a children's book, it features concise histor ical commentary, graphics and maps, and provides exciting renderings of Achaean and Trojan warriors in action.

Page, Denys, History and the Homeric Iliad , California U.P., 1959.The venerated, standard work on the subject, though perhaps somewhat dated now.

Fleischman, John "' I sing of gods and men' -- and the stones of fabled Troy" , Smithsonian magazine, January 1992. Intriguing look at the current digs at Hisarlik, Beautifully rendered reconstruction of the citadel of Troy.

Sandars, N.K., The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediter ranean Sea, Thames and Hudson , 1978. (Best overview of 13th century Aegean history).

Stillman, Nigel, and Nigel Tallis, Armies of the Ancient Near East 3000 B.C. to 539 B.C. , WRG, 1984. Excellent (though fanciful) as per WRG standards.

Wood, Michael, In Search of the Trojan War , Facts on File. Publications, 1985. Best single source for finding the historical Trojan war.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Much of the rationale for the above list is based on subjective impressions of snippets of information picked up here and there in a 20+ year interest in the subject. Some specific, mostly recent titles:

A Reader's Guide to the Iliad, Hogan, 1979.
Armies and Enemies of the Ancient Near East, Tallis and Stillman, WRG 1984.
In Search of the Trojan War, Wood, BBC 1985.

Lest I be accused of dealing in shallow media hype by using the last mentioned source, it tends to be far less speculative than the WRG publication. It is Armies and Enemies, for example that suggests relationships between the contingents listed by the Hittites at Kadesh and those in the Catalogue of Ships such as Pelasgians - Philistines, Teucri-Thracians, and Wilyusa - Ilium.

Finally I must strongly recommend the short works of fiction on the subject by Philip Parotti, The Greek Generals Speak, The Trojan Generals Speak, and Fires in the Sky. Mr. Parotti brilliantly evokes the spirit of the era while working in a great deal of historical material.

An earlier version of the Trojan portion of this article appeared in 'Spearpoint', the journal of the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers, in Oct, 1988. This was before the publication of Hutchby or Holland, before I had read Parotti, and before Paul's List was available as a frame of reference, so substantial revision has occurred.

More Armies of the Trojan War

Historical Background
WRG Specifics
WRG List 10A: Trojans
WRG List 10B: Achaeans