Recently, I exchanged correspondence with the editor about army lists for his Medieval Warfare rules. I put forward some personal ideas about their composition and he responded by asking me to develop some lists for use with the rules. This got me to thinking about what to emphasize as essential in any army list.
This column has looked at the development of army lists before and considered some of my own preferences for essential factors.
Currently, I am examining all the lists that I have acquired over the years to compare concepts. Sources include commercially produced army lists such as those published by WRG and the Foundry, and those found in magazines and newsletters.
While reading through this material, I encountered a number of interesting concepts that I considered worthy of mention. What surprised me is that more effort had not been made to expand upon them and gain more support within the gaming community.
One idea in a copy of Spearpoint (newsletter of the North American Society of Ancients and Medieval Wargamers) was the creation of groups to develop army lists. This was discussed in the late 1980's and since it was never further discussed, I assume did not progress. Some of the information gleaned from the pilot project may have been used in the development of the NASAMW army lists. This is my own premise as there is nothing in later Spearpoints to indicate what was gained from the concept. (Over the years, several volunteers have been involved as list coordinators; however, they worked independent of recognized groups, although they did accept input from society members.)
The approach definitely has merit, as there is a lot of information possessed by the gaming community. There does not seem to be a suitable forum for discussing this knowledge so that army lists can be developed beyond the input of the rules writers. If there is a way to pool information, then it is certainly not receiving much publicity nor is it well advertised. One has only to read the pages of Slingshot, Spearpoint, Saga and other related publications to be aware of the scope of the debate over list composition.
The participants range from acknowledged and accredited experts, usually academics to well informed amateurs. Despite the differences in formal education, there is often little difference between the two extremes as both have read the available sources and explored the physical sites from which information can be gleaned. Our period of history is less than crystal clear and therefore subject to much conjecture so debate is to be expected. It is a pity that sometimes the academic belittles the non-academic and vice versa because of their conclusions. Often times, it is the obscure scrap of information that enlightens us all about an event, personality or activity.
Much of this knowledge is not made public at least not in a readily accessible format such as gaming publications. This is one point that could be debated as there are plenty of articles about army lists and many books such as those published by Osprey and Montvert. On closer examination, there are only a few people, who have been published, compared to the thousands who subscribe to magazines and buy the books. One only has to consider the club or local expert to realize this point. How many of them have contributed material based on their research. The answer is probably very few.
The lack of contributions is a recurring theme in the editor's column in this and other publications. Unfortunately, most gamers do not produce articles and this is another thing to ponder.
Another point raised in an old issue of Spearpoint was the lack of knowledge exhibited by some gamers with regard to their tabletop armies. Some players are motivated by the "killer army" and really do not know much about their troops. Jamie Fish has lamented this point in the past when approached by players wanting to buy figures according to specific rules troop types instead of by their historic designations. This is evident in many articles that refer to MI/HI, HTW and Sh or Bd (O) instead of Roman pedites/milites/legionnaires.
This is a common occurrence and indicates that there are many gamers, who are really not interested in delving deeper into history. Historical research is one of the many facets of this hobby and does not appeal to everyone. Apart from the actual gaming, researching, article writing and many other activities are part and parcel of this hobby. They can be very time consuming and thus compete with gaming for our leisure time. Personally, I am interested in the research but find it harder to devote much effort to painting my figures. I can not therefore criticize someone who does spend a lot of time painting and gaming, but does not know much about history. In turn, I do not expect to be ridiculed for spending time reading and writing instead of painting.
We all admire well painted figures and beautifully crafted terrain, which are the benefits provided by the artistic members and enjoy reading the output from those who like to write. In turn, the well-read members need to be prepared to share the knowledge gleaned from their research. There are many ways to communicate this knowledge without having to produce a properly formatted article with a bibliography of sources.
Recently, the editor has solicited ideas for his rules and has been provided with lots of material that could be used in army lists. The Internet has provided yet another method of communication for the gaming community. I have suggested that more gamers advertise what they know by exploiting the Internet as a means of communication. The editor has mentioned his various sites to encourage the exchange of information. Contributions can be passed along verbally during conventions or club meetings, or notes can be sent to the editor for inclusion in articles or as short entries in the letter section.
What to put in a list
In my opinion, one common problem in army lists is the lack of standardization. This is not always apparent because most appear to use the same format of two parts; the main portion being a tally of all the specific troop types, and a minor part of a brief description of the army. Apart from following this very general format, there seems to be little consistency in the contents.
In the first part, the reader is given information about troop types, unit names, weapons armour and numbers (expressed as minima and maxima normally). Much of this data is not supported in the second part. So the reader is left to ponder how this information was developed and why it was considered important to include.
Many of the lists require the gamer to have a certain number of compulsory troops, even though some of these may have only been part of a select few historical armies. The numbers vary widely and do not always appear related to the figure scale of the targeted rules. For example, many of the most successful commercial rules advocate fielding armies representing only a fraction of the numbers recorded in major battles. With a figure ratio between 1:50 and 1:100, the larger battles involving tens of thousands of troops would need to be recreated up to several thousand figures (the Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC reputed to be about 80,000 would number 800-1600 figures on the table). Most tabletop armies number in the hundreds regardless of scale, you can check your own armies to verify my statistics.
Basing the minima and maxima on recorded figures can only apply to a limited number of armies. Too many armies have very little information pertaining to troop strengths. Historians have recorded some fantastic and very doubtful totals such as several hundred thousand Huns at Chalons in 451 AD.
Personally, I think a more appropriate method is to base limits on the average number of figures that would be used. If the rules suggest that the tabletop army represents about 5000 troops and the figure scale is 1:20, then the army will be about 250 figures. The exact composition can be determined by a number of standard formats such as per centage of the total or as a ratio of core troops. Above average troops may be restricted to 25% of the total or up to one for every four core figures. These systems work best when the historical composition is uncertain. Armies such as the Roman, specific Greek and Hellenistic, some Chinese and Muslim had organizations, which can be used to determine a more exact composition.
For example, if one accepts the figures quoted for the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great, then it is possible to calculate how many figures to use for each unit or troop type based on the figure ratio of the rules.
Other armies are harder to categorize, although it is still possible to develop guidelines. Most irregular or barbarian armies would have a large component of followers with a smaller core of nobles and professional warriors.
Back to Saga #74 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Terry Gore
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com