I have been gaming exclusively with my Greek army in AW for some time now, and whether on offense or on defense, one fact has always struck me. As a Heavy Infantry army, the hoplites will typically win convincingly on a Narrow frontage of about 18-24”, but “lose” on the rest of the table space. Hoplites, like all AW Heavy Infantry, are powerful tactically, but potentially fragile strategically. They also have excellent command and control, being trained.

Lately, however, the idea of playing with numerous crunchy units filled with screaming savages has intrigued me. While the HI Greeks and Romans can and do win on a unit per unit basis, the various barbarian armies look like an entirely different challenge. At the same time they give a much wider table set up, while costing less points per square foot of table. The extra points can be used to purchase a true horde, or else some interesting unit types, such as chariots. So, I took a look at the various Barbarians.

The 3 “G‘s” come immediately to mind; Germans, Gauls and Galatians. To my surprise, all three armies seemed to have a very unique flavor. The Gauls have a variety of tribes with slightly differing styles of fighting, plus the possibility of mass chariot use. The Germans have the best warbands, with the possibility of heavy armor, veteran infantry, close order, wedges, long spears (on a warband?? No wonder they gave the Romans a tough time), and even more. This army clearly says that the Aryan virility of the warbands is the way to win. Galatians also have their own flavor, fighting in close order and stiffened with chariots as well.

Dacians

Closer examination of the lists led me to another barbarian army though, the Dacians. My first thought was, how do these guys ever win in tournament play? Dacians are reportedly extraordinarily warlike, but unlike their German neighbors, no wedge, no close order, no weapon options. They are loose order, various armed, unarmored warbands, and that’s it. Certainly they will be heavily relying on the usual barbarian trickery—ambushes, flank marches, heavy terrain deployment, and the like, however, other lists have that too, and much stiffer troops holding the line, as well as the ever popular chariot. Even with all the fanatic/frenzy points added up, a basic warband unit really has miniscule chance against a well ordered Phalanx or Legion unit. Of course, they cost a lot less, but still, one hates to crash seven units into the Roman line only to suffer massive morale checks all across the board due to losing all seven fights.

Looking at the list however, a light bulb dawned on me. Dacians have not just one, but two very important troop options that sets them most dramatically apart from the other warband armies. Sarmatian cavalry (the Rhoxolani) can be purchased, and in numbers. Sarmatian Noble Cavalry is double-armed with lance and bow, irregular veteran status, and armored. You really don’t get much better in AW than this. In fact, they have the potential to punch straight through Romans if the dice are kind. That kind of hitting power is very rare, and very potent. Combining it with innate horse archery is just too good to pass up, and hard to overrate. The Sarmatian Heavy Cavalry is a much better buy for the points, being Lance and bow armed Heavy Cavalry, with a movement advantage but rather less hitting and staying power than the Nobles. Still, they are most formidable.

With a Rhoxolani General, these troops are ideal for many roles. They can act as the muscle in clear terrain anywhere on the board, shooting enemy infantry as they move to take position between gaps in terrain pieces. They can sweep a flank, supported by the warbands, and hopefully rolling up the enemy line. Sarmatian armored cavalry is also ideal for flank marches, potentially important if too much rough terrain has been placed for their effective use. The inclusion of the General on the march minimizes their chance of being lost plus ensures that multiple units of marchers can be immediately put into action.

Less obviously, Dacians have access to respectable numbers of archers. Although difficult to coordinate with the unruly warbands, they nevertheless give another of the all-important methods for disordering enemy heavy infantry. Being loose ordered they can move through terrain and retreat well, plus are absolutely dirt cheap.

Falxers are a real disappointment in AW. In MW, axes have been upgraded to fight at +3/+3 in the first round, plus they fight in a rank and a half. In AW weapons fight deeper in ranks than their MW equivalent (pikes in 4 ranks in AW, but only 3 in MW, for instance) Falxes are much less potent than the MW axe, in fact they have less combat factors than their Various. And this from a reportedly a dreaded weapon, actually forcing the Romans to issue additional vambraces and greaves, as well as reinforce helmets of their Legionaries. Still, the Falx is very flavorful, and is a good weapon in rough terrain (where only 1 rank can be brought to bear).

So, there are basically three possible Dacian variants. One is the “horde”. Eschewing any expensive units, this army can easily field upwards of 300 Dacians—not including Falxers, archers, cavalry, or skirmish troops. This alone is impressive and dangerous—the enemy cannot be strong everywhere! Tactics would involve maximum use of terrain and ambushes. Also, I can see a “horns of the bull” concept where the flanks are stacked in waves of warbands, and allowed to move forward well in advance of the center, in an attempt to turn a flank or at least pin the enemy somewhere on the board. Upgrading to Fanatics is an option for large parts of the horde.

The second option is an offensive/defensive army. Taking all 24 stands of Dacian archers, plus the various skirmish screen, plus the Dacian bolt throwers is a surprising amount of firepower from a warband based army. The combination of terrain plus missile power covering the gaps is an attractive feature in a warband army. The horde can be sent through the woods and marshes, while the missile power attempts to disorder any enemy attack (or defense) through the gaps. This is also a very interested scenario idea for anyone wanting to repeat Trajan’s Dacian Conquest.

The third option calls for use of large numbers of Rhoxolani, to be used in the manner previously described, basically providing the quality to complement the Dacians’ quantity.

Due to my generally slow painting times, I quickly opted for the third option. Working the points furiously, it became clear that up to 12 stands of Rhoxolani could be supported, along with the supply wagons necessary to support them and mandatory Rhoxolani general. Minimums of most other troops types would be taken, although the minimum number of Dacian warriors is actually quite impressive.

The style of play here strongly favors a flank attack. The warbands are numerous enough to pin down the entire enemy line, while one flank is hammered by horse archery and frenzied Sarmatian charges. The foot archers can be used to prevent the enemy from tempting out the warbands too soon, by shooting Skirmish Cavalry and Skirmish Infantry who venture too close, plus possibly ambushing to interrupt the enemy battle plan.

This army is very large, difficult to control, but possessing a tactical flexibility not easy to work into a hoplite army. I look forward to gaming it.

The Barbarian Horde Part I: Choosing and Designing and Army
The Barbarian Horde Part II: Who are the Dacians?
The Barbarian Horde Part III: Wargaming the Horde