Return to the Punic Wars

It's back to ancients, my first love in historical gaming.

After a hiatus of nearly one and a half years due to work, life and the distractions of World War II gaming I am back to working on the Punic Wars (after a brief spell of GADD over mythology and vintage Citadel minis).

Settling on an optimum base size and an initial ruleset has provided a much needed spur to reduce my pile of plastic and lead of Punic Wars miniatures.

The petite army lists in Basic Impetus 2.0, of around 10 to 11 units, provided a manageable starting point to focus painting and production. So far, I have nearly finished painting four units: spearmen of the Sacred Band, Balearic slingers, Iberian scutarii and Iberian caetrati. Next up are Libyan skirmishers and Numidian light horse.

I think the toughest decision to make in ancients wargaming is neither scale nor ruleset, but rather what basing convention and approach to take.

Basing and rulesets are reflexive choices, each influencing the other. I finally decided on using Impetus basing for a number of reasons. The primary reason is aesthetic, besides the tactics and history, this hobby is about aesthetics or else wooden blocks serve just as well.

If this time-consuming hobby is about great looking miniatures then dioramas seem the way to go as opposed to single-figure basing focused on serried ranks and files of troops, or an equivalent approach via multi-basing.

Impetus basing - on 12cm wide bases in 28mm scale - lets the figures breathe and allows for greater aesthetic flexibility, especially in composition. 

It also translates well to both the gaming table and the other ancients rulesets I am interested in playing. The latter all happen to be 'element' based and include Hail Caesar and To The Strongest!

12cm fits nicely in a 6' to 8'-wide table allowing a battle line of about 15 units wide, which nicely accords with my desired sweet spot of big games of 20 or so units per side (the rest being in reserves).

Once I took the leap to arranging my troops on their bases in diorama rather than in just dense ranks, there was an immediate shift in my cognitive process. I began to consider how each individual figure related to others in the group, what story they told together rather than how best to face them forward and rank them nicely.

Frankly, it became much more intellectually engaging and pleasing. It became more fun.

Casualty figures become very useful for adding character and story to a base. Here I have a draft composition of a Celtic warband. I love the way the female warrior relates to the Roman she has downed.

I've decided not to pack too many figures on my bases. Partly to save production time, partly because they actually look a bit better with some irregular space between them, and partly to ensure a bit more protective base space when clumsy fingers descend from the heavens - I've already broken one javelin multiple times.

Starting with Basic Impetus 2.0 has already paid off since I have nearly finished painting four units in just over a month. That's more than I've been able to do since acquiring this horde of lead and plastic two years ago. The size of a project for Hail Caesar or To The Strongest! was paralytically large. Too large to get off the ground.

Now that things are moving along faster than ever, being realistic, I should be able to start work on the Romans by the end of the year. 

Lake Trasimene - Order of Battle

The battle of Lake Trasimene 217 B.C. was Hannibal's second major battle in Italy but took the form of an ambush rather than a pitched battle. The army of Flaminius was ambushed on the shores of Lake Trasimene. The Romans were caught in march order and slaughter ensued with many thousands being driven to their doom in the lake. Following this, Hannibal's African troops were able to upgrade their arms to the best of the Roman ones.


CARTHAGINIANS

Hannibal's army strength is unknown but it would not be much less than the 40,000 he had at Trebia where he had few casualties and those mostly from the Celts. I assume he was able to resupply from the Celts after such a handsome victory against their Roman oppressors.

We can re-use the Carthaginian order of battle from Trebia minus the elephants. What attrition amongst the men that may have occurred during the winter can be considered inconsequential for our units which are only approximations.

The troop ratio here is 150. While a ratio of 1:75 would work for the Romans and provide an army big enough for an 8 foot-wide table, this would be far too large for the Carthaginian forces to scale up to a 16 foot deployment.

Heavy Infantry - 9 units
4 standard African units (64)
2 standard Celt warbands (40)
3 standard Iberian units (48)

Light Infantry - 6 units
1 standard Ligurian unit (16)
2 African small units, skirmishers (16)
1 Moorish small unit, skirmishers (8)
1 Iberian small unit (8)
1 Balearic small unit, skirmishers (8)

Cavalry - 9 units
3 standard Celt units (36)
4 small Numidian units (24)
2 standard Iberian units (24)

24 units - 565 points


ROMANS

Lazenby argues that Flaminius would have found it hard to fit more than 25,000 men in the confines of the terrain at Trasimene. He assumes that there was a normal consular army of two legions plus allies.

The paper strength of a Republican legion was 4,200.

Total army strength was around 25,000 (Fabius Pictor):

Roman Legion I    4,200
Roman Legion III 4,200
Cavalry                 not fewer than 4,000 (Polybius)
Allies                    ~ 6,300 per wing

Employing a ratio of 1:150 to get us to one small unit of 8 models as the minimum infantry unit size means that :

Roman Legion I & III - 7 units
2 velites (16)
2 hastati (16)
2 principes (16)
1 triarii (8)

Ala Dextra & Ala Sinistra - 11 units
2 velites
6 hastati
2 principes
1 triarii

Cavalry - 4 units
1 Roman equites
3 Allied equites

22 units - 442 points

Since most of the Roman units are small this makes for a tough fight where they are vastly outnumbered, but due to the non-linear scaling of points to unit size in Hail Caesar the Roman force is only 78% of the points of the Carthaginians, provided the units are fielded with the typical stats rather than with the reduced stats suggested for Trebia on account of army fatigue and lack of brekkie.

This may make for a more competitive game rather than a simple exercise in sweeping Roman units into a watery end in Trasimene's waters.

Antiquity's Next Top Hannibal: Who's gonna lead my army?

Welcome to the pilot episode of 'Antiquity's Next Top Hannibal' where we scour the 28mm landscape to find a general worthy of crushing Rome, or at least make a good show of it.

Hannibal

We are looking for an iconic presence on the battlefield and one with a passable resemblance to the original general from Carthage.

For a younger Hannibal a clean-shaven look is preferable, unless recently down from the Alps or after a long time living rough in Magna Graecia.

He must be at ease with his staff and capable of banishing any doubt that this is the commander-in-chief.

Sartorial leanings must be Hellenistic, though some nod to the Old Land further East is most welcome.

Our contestants hail from Armorum & Aquila, Crusader, Relic, Foundry and are joined by a surprise entry from Aventine.

The first event is the infantry lineup, followed by a joint cavalry and foot lineup, then the contestants must mingle with the men and win their respect.


THE INFANTRY LINEUP

Aaaaand.... here they are!

From left to right: Hannibal (Crusader); Hannibal/General (A&A); Hannibal/General (A&A); Hannibal (Relic); Hannibal's lieutenant (Relic - get him off stage!); Greek Mercenary General (Foundry); Carthaginian Officer in Samnite cuirass (A&A - what's he doing there? This stage is Hannibals only); Spartan Command (Foundry - Hey, the auditions from Sosylus are next week).


THE CAVALRY LINEUP

Now we have the staff out of the way let's have a look at the real contenders.

From left to right: Hannibal (Crusader); Hannibal/General (A&A); Hannibal/General (A&A); Hannibal (Relic); >gasp< a Roman Officer (Aventine); Greek Mercenary General (Foundry).

The last contestant from Foundry doesn't have a matching mounted figure and we were unable to find one. If any of the audience has a good suggestion to match this Steve Saleh sculpt the producers would be pleased to hear it.

Using the Roman from Aventine as Hannibal is a little scandalous, but I love their sculpts and they match very well with the look of Victrix. This one is fairly Hellenistic, but has a crested Montefortino helmet with scalloped cheekpieces.

We don't normally see this on Carthaginians in the wargaming world, but the archaeological evidence from the wrecked ships at the Battle of Egadi suggests that Carthaginians did use Montefortino helmets, and we also know from archaeological studies by Fernando Quesada-Sanz and others that the popularisation of the Montefortino amongst Iberians matches the Barcid conquest of Iberia.

All those actually named Hannibal were gathered for a special equestrian selection from the judges:

From left to right: Crusader, A&A, A&A, Relic

I've commented on the first three on the left from Crusader and A&A in the previous post, but they are all by the same sculptor. The Relic sculpt stands out from the others because it is sculpted in what Relic calls "True 28mm". This means the eyeline is the same as the other models, but its proportions are more naturalistic, eschewing the thick limbs and wide bodies and heads that Games Workshop helped popularise.

This makes the Relic figure an uneasy match with the rest of my troops (drawn from chunky 28mm), though it is a very detailed sculpt, easily the closest in resemblance to the historical evidence and comes with a personalised mount. He just looks rather slight compared to the competition.

Now, skinny models tend to win on the life-size catwalk, but not necessarily here in 28mm land.

The standing Relic Hannibal does look rather leaner since the mounted version has the bulk of his horse to make him more imposing. There really is some fine detail on Hannibal's horse. Some review spoke of the need for jeweller's glasses. I can see why.

Since we're talking about standing, let's move to the last trial: mingling with the men.


MINGLING WITH THE MEN

The staff officers that our Hannibal's need to pass muster with include the A&A Carthaginian in the Ksour Essef cuirass, he's perhaps a veteran officer who will fight all the way from the Alps to Magna Graecia and back to Africa. A recent Osprey renders someone like him as a shield-bearer.

The second officer in the back represents the Spartan Sosylus, Hannibal's tutor in Greek and his historian. A civilian would probably do better, but I don't have one and nothing says Spartan like this getup.

The third chap is a Relic senior officer from their Hannibal on an Elephant (that will be considered in a separate post on elephants). His animal skin gives him a rather Roman look, which could make him another veteran of the Italian Campaign. Like the Relic Hannibal he is rather slender of build though we must allow thin people their moment on the field of glory.

They will be mounted on a circular command base at least 60mm wide.

1) Crusader's Hannibal

This Hannibal looks fairly grizzled and hunched (though this is the typical Crusader pose adapted from a Macedonian pikeman maquette). The beard sets him apart from the younger Hannibal of 218 B.C. I've thought about using him as Hamilcar Barca for the First Punic and Truceless Wars.

2) A&A Hannibal 1

This one from A&A looks fairly young, round-faced, perhaps too young and fresh for a Hannibal. He may be a good candidate for one of his brothers, Mago or Hasdrubal since he comes mounted.

3) A&A Hannibal 2

A&A's other offering as a possible Hannibal. Good detail on the cuirass, a nice crested helmet, not much can be seen of his face. His pose makes him to mind more of a sub-commander, delivering the general's orders rather than the great man himself. Once again, a good candidate for one of the Barca brothers.

4) Foundry Greek Mercenary General

This is a nice figure, but I'll admit I'm partial to Steve Saleh's work. This is substantively similar to the Philip II offered by Foundry except this one has a sword instead of a pike. He's imposing, Hellenistic, sharply attired and carries himself like a battle boss. But he does look a bit old for Hannibal during the Italian Campaign. He may make a good general for Zama. He also lacks a mounted counterpart unlike the other contestants.

5) Aventine Roman Hannibal

Like almost anything Aventine this chap looks good. He also comes with a mounted analogue, with different armour and leg gear but with the same helmet. His main drawback is that he's facing 100º from where he's pointing and his weapon hand is optimised for a spear (or is he crushing Roman will?).

6) Relic Hannibal

He doesn't look too skinny and definitely looks like a cerebral general. He brandishes no weapon because it's his double envelopment tactics that will slaughter Romans by the thousands. He's just watching it all unfold.

Placing Sosylus to his rear helps offset the relatively huge size of the Spartan. One could argue that he is a lean, parsimonious man driven by the iron will to break Rome. Thus he stands out from his well fed troops. Putting the Relic officer next to him also helps soften the scale clash.

7) Relic Hannibal Mounted

Here's the other approach I took to blend Relic's True 28mm with chunky 28mm. I put Hannibal on his horse so that he would loom over his attendants on foot. I have to say that this does look alright.


...AND NOW FOR THE WINNER

I really do want the Relic Hannibal to work. Besides the fact that I coughed up for both the general set and the Hannibal on elephant, it really is nice to have a figure modelled on the historical representations of Hannibal (however accurate they may or may not be).

At the same time, some of the other contenders are strong and most will definitely serve as sub-commanders, perhaps with small retinues of their own.

What do you think? Who should win 'Antiquity's Next Top Hannibal?'

Carthaginians Compared - A&A, Crusader, Victrix

I posted a review of Victrix's Warriors of Carthage plastic set a while back and shared it on TMP. User McWong73 from TMP expressed interest in seeing some comparison shots with Carthaginian models from Crusader Miniatures and Armorum & Aquila (A&A).

I purchased these 28mm metal figures to act as command units, generals and cavalry for plastic Libyans from Victrix.

Here they are.

Infantry Command

The Carthaginian ranges from A&A and Crusader are both by the same sculptor, Marc Sims, so the similarities aren't surprising. However, there are a number of differences.

Let's cover the similarities first. The overall look of the models are similar, crisp and well-sculpted, and the equipment follows a Hellenistic theme. The latter influence also seems to stem from the sculptor's reuse of the maquette developed for A&A's Macedonian phalangite range.

The models all have a forward lean that only seems to make sense with the posture of advancing pike (Crusader's Macedonians stand upright).

A&A's advancing pike Macedonians

My suspicions appear to be confirmed by the presence of a telamon (shield strap) on all the Carthaginian infantry despite them being equipped with a hoplite shield. The telamon was used on the smaller Macedonian phalangite's pelte shield to leave the left hand free to support the weight of the long pike. This wasn't needed in the hoplite's armament because the combination of the bowl-shaped shield resting on the shoulder and the counter-weighted long spear allowed single-handed thrusts.

In any case, the presence of a telamon on infantry carrying a big hoplite aspis isn't a deal breaker. The shield will cover most of the torso. Plus, we have no exact idea of how Carthaginian infantry looked in full battle dress, though I think it most likely that the telamon wouldn't be present as evidence such as the Chemtou memorial points towards the use of aspides or scuta.

Differences

Similarities aside, the A&A figures are 1-2mm shorter than the Crusader ones. Their forward leaning posture also makes them shorter than the Victrix figures, though they are close in length when compared heel to crown. The first picture above shows a Victrix Iberian standard bearer for comparison on the far right since he has a similar gradient of forward lean as the Sims models. He's still a touch taller.

The A&A and Crusader command do look a little short next to the Victrix Libyan spearmen, but the Carthaginians - who formed the officer class in the army - were reputedly short of stature, though I don't know if this was true in relation to their Libyan subjects.

In any case, a different look for the officers and spearmen is fine, especially if one wants to play up ethnic differences in the Carthaginian army.

There are also differences in the casting quality and metal of A&A compared to Crusader. Crusader has fairly sturdy metal, enough to withstand casual pressure but softer than that used by Aventine or Foundry.

The metal used for A&A is pretty soft. The weapons and helmet feathers (on their Samnite range, for example) tend to bend easily, if not break off altogether. This is exacerbated by A&A's choice to ship their miniatures with as many product codes as possible mixed and stuffed into a ziplock bag and mailed in a soft envelope or lumpy card parcel. Crusader figures come packed by product code in foam and clamshells.

Compared to what I've read from other customers I've been fairly fortunate, but I still received my A&A Carthaginian cavalry command with the fragile left feet missing from three models and hanging by a thread on a fourth.

I know the Carthaginians practiced cruxifixction, but amputation?

More careful packaging would help resolve this, as would better quality control on the metal which was quite porous and brittle for my first batch from A&A, with some holes in some models and a fair bit of rough venting, suggesting a torn mould.

That said, A&A are friendly and are more than willing to send replacements if there's a complaint. It's just that they would save themselves some money and their customers some grief by getting it right in the first place.

I received replacements from A&A for the damaged cavalry as well as for a leader figure that had its nose blunted off. They also forgot to put in the transfers I ordered. However, when the replacements arrived in the second order there were further mess ups in the shields and corresponding transfers. Following another complaint this was redressed but that left A&A more out of pocket and myself less enthusiastic about a repeat purchase.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the excellent, meticulous and thoughtful service from A&A's Belfast neighbour Aventine Miniatures, but when we place an order we should expect to receive the goods as specified and in good condition.


Carthaginian Liby-Phoenecian Cavalry

I mentioned above the fragility of the A&A horsemen's feet. The replacements I received seemed somewhat studier, perhaps a better mix of metal was used, but I'm not chancing a test. One peculiarity of the A&A Carthaginian horsemen sculpts is that the right leg is longer than the left, as can be seen in the photo above. It's not just that the right foot is angled down while the left foot is level, the bottom of the leg greave is uneven.

This asymmetry has been fixed in the Crusader sculpts on the right. But as you can see from the unit shot below it isn't really noticeable once the figures are mounted up. As with the infantry, the Crusader cavalry are a shade taller. The Crusader horse is also larger and leaner bodied. I believe both are ebob sculpts.

I'm not a fan of the A&A horses. At least two of the sculpts either have a problem with the mould or the metal is not settling properly. The shot above shows the problem.

The rear left leg is hollowed out and the nether regions look like they've been kissed by Nurgle. There's a fair bit of awkward filing and greenstuffing to be done here.

The regular A&A horsemen are uncloaked whilst the commands of both lines and the regular horsemen of the Crusader range all have cloaks. This can be helpful if you want to designate one unit as guard cavalry.

The Crusader command has all the usual accoutrements we've come to expect in wargaming: leader with sword, musician and standard bearer. The A&A command has an Officer with his hand raised like the English Queen (front left), a leader with a brandished sword, and another command with a hand positioned to hold a vertical standard (left of centre). So, if you want a banner for the A&A cavalry you'll have to supply your own. The Victrix Numidian Cavalry set comes with a streaming Punic-style banner on every sprue, so I expect I will cannibalise one of those should I need it.


Generals

Here the tables are turned somewhat. A&A offers a mounted and standing 'Hannibal and General' set. It's not clear which one is Hannibal but both are very nicely sculpted with good armour details. Their horses are no different to the Liby-Phoenician cavalry.

I did have some of the aforementioned problems with porous metal, rough mould tears and a damaged nose on the central general, but A&A kindly sent a replacement. The standing centre general is resting a hand on his shield. This hoplite shield is slightly oval rather than round and you will probably need to freehand any decoration on it.

Crusader's Hannibal is rather plain by comparison. He's in an unadorned linen corselet, bearded and unhelmeted. The helmet is a combed Attic helmet that is fairly ubiquitous for model Carthaginians.

The plainness of his supplied mount was too much for me (it's the same as the regular cavalry above) so I asked Aventine to sell me one of the mounts from their 'Pyrrhus and General' set. Reminiscent of Alexander's Bucephalous, it's set to rear with a Hellenistic-style animal pelt for its rider. Keith from Aventine was very happy to oblige.

Given the bullion wealth of the Barcids I rather thought Hannibal would be better kitted out despite his reputation for sleeping rough along with his men. So I may well end up using this model for an earlier Hamilcar Barca should I do the First Punic War or the Truceless War. The beard is a better match to numismatic representations of Hamilcar than Hannibal (who appeared unshaven on Iberian coins, but who knows what a winter trip through the Alps will do to one's grooming?).

My thoughts for the youthful looking A&A generals is to use them as Hasdrubal and Mago Barca. As for Hannibal himself, to my eye the handsomest model on the 28mm market is Relic's and that should be on its way to me.

There's a fancier Mercenary General model from Foundry that could fit with the A&A sculpts. Bearded with plenty of bling, he looks more like a Philip II of Macedon, but he could easily be a later Hamilcar or a later Hannibal at Zama. Foundry and the A&A sculpts appear very compatible.

On the far right of the photo I've thrown in a figure from A&A's Samnite Command set. This is a really lovely figure that would look great on a command stand with Hannibal. With his pteruges, beard and crested Attic helm he's clearly not meant to be a Samnite. Instead, his triple disc cuirass is a pretty good match for the owner of the Ksour Essef cuirass, an Oscan armour found buried near Carthage.

It's a handsome handsome artifact, so tied into the history that connects Southern Italy to North Africa via Hannibal, and it's lovely to see it represented for the tabletop.


Conclusions

There are pluses and minuses to both A&A and Crusader, though Crusader wins out in terms of figure packaging and metal quality. A&A's post arrived pretty quick and they were open to address specific complaints, although I found myself having to file a complaint with every order. Not fun. I didn't deal with Crusader directly. I got their figures via Caliver Books, which was a tortuous and disheartening process where they forgot to mail the order after a month and it arrived incomplete, and remains so. Next time, I'm going via Northstar.

Aventine and Foundry offer hassle-free service, with Aventine really taking the prize for going the extra mile, no mistakes and being a friendly face. The other companies I've dealt with have a fair way to go. Aventine's horses fit the A&A and Crusader range very well if you care to get replacements or upgrades for leaders.

A&A has some really stand out sculpts, especially the generals and the Ksour Essef warrior. Their other figures blend well with Crusader and offer a wide variety for Carthaginian collectors. You effectively get a double-sized range with more varied sculpts than one normally finds in metal.

While their line infantry are unlikely to mix well in the same unit with Victrix plastics due to height, using their command figures - which is what I've done - works well due to comparable chunkiness. A&A and Crusader also supply one of the few options for Carthaginian cavalry that match Victrix.

Besides the Carthaginians, I also acquired the Celts from A&A and the Celtiberians from Crusader, but I'll compare them in separate posts with other Celt and Iberian ranges.

Collecting an Army: how many units is enough? - Part 2

It's not strictly necessary to calculate troop to figure ratios in order to have a good game. But, for a scenario to broadly conform to historical conditions, for opposing armies to be appropriately scaled to each other, and for that scale to fit to your playing area, it helps to work out troop ratios based on historical accounts.

Working troop ratios and dimensions is also helpful for planning your purchases. In my case, a lack of clear planning of unit dimensions led me to collect too many figures. Luckily with a Carthaginian army the component nationalities are readily used for other army projects.

Below is an example based from the Second Punic War.

CARTHAGINIANS

The battle of the Trebia, 218 B.C. offers a good starting point for building a Hannibalic Army for the Second Punic War. It also offers roughly equal sizes for the Carthaginian and Roman forces, around 40,000 troops each.

Following the all cavalry clash of the Ticinus, the engagement at Trebia was the first pitched battle between the Carthaginians and Romans after Hannibal crossed the Alps.

After the arduous Alps crossing, Polybius (III.56) says that Hannibal's army contained 12,000 African and 8,000 Iberian infantry, with not more than 6,000 cavalry. After the victory at the Ticinus, the Celts joined in large numbers.

By the time of Trebia Hannibal's troops numbered 20,000 heavy infantry (Africans, Iberians, and Celts), 8,000 light infantry (mostly African and Iberian, including Balearic slingers) and over 10,000 cavalry. In addition, his brother Mago commanded an ambush force of 1,000 Numidian cavalry and 1,000 picked infantry.

The additional 9,000 infantry at Trebia beyond the 20,000 combined heavy and lights just after the Alps must be credited to the Celts, as must 5,000 horse. It is likely that the Celts had few skirmishers.

This gives a total at Trebia of 29,000 foot and over 11,000 horse.

Borrowing from the analysis of Trebia in Lost Battles, with some modifications to reconcile the totals listed after the Alps and at Trebia, this breaks down into:

21,000 Heavy Infantry
9,000 African
6,000 Celts
6,000 Iberian

8,000 Light Infantry
3,000 Celts (including Ligurians)
2,000 African (Libyan)
1,000 Moors
1,250 Iberian
750 Balearic

11,000 Cavalry
5,000 Celt
3,000 Numidian (light)
3,000 Iberian

~30 Elephants

In order to translate this to the tabletop for practical play we apply a scaling factor to the above numbers to get a reasonable headcount for the number of figures needed for an eight foot-wide game.

Following Hail Caesar's recommended unit sizes I am using 16 man standard units, 8 man small units (typically skirmishers and lights) and 12 man standard cavalry and 6 man small cavalry. Celt warbands and the like are 20 men strong.

Employing a ratio of 1 figure to 150 historical troops, with some rounding off involved, breaks the above numbers down into (number of models in brackets):

Heavy Infantry - 9 units
4 standard African units (64)
2 standard Celt warbands (40)
3 standard Iberian units (48)

Light Infantry - 6 units
1 standard Ligurian unit (16)
2 African small units, skirmishers (16)
1 Moorish small unit, skirmishers (8)
1 Iberian small unit (8)
1 Balearic small unit, skirmishers (8)

Cavalry - 9 units
3 standard Celt units (36)
4 small Numidian units (24)
2 standard Iberian units (24)

2 Elephants

26 units = 42.3% infantry, 15.4% skirmishers, 34.6% cavalry, 7.7% elephants

611 points (with a Ld 9 General)

Elephant numbers were determined by allowing one for every ten units in the army.

This produces a battle line of 9 heavy infantry with 3 cavalry wide on each flank. (Skirmishers and lights are arrayed in front of the heavy infantry line). A total of 15 base widths (160mm each), or 2400mm, just short of 8 feet.

A 6 foot-wide game could be accommodated by trimming the cavalry down to 1 base width per flank, to fit within 11 base widths.

I initially planned for a ratio of 1:80 but this produced a battle line that was too big, around 10' 6" wide, which would be okay for a very wide game, but would require a special gaming venue.

This actually makes my initial project much more manageable. I bought too many figures!

A quick comparison between the list derived above from a single historical battle and the generic Carthaginian 3rd Century B.C. list in Hail Caesar Army Lists: Biblical & Classical shows quite different troop ratios.

The HC army list recommends that 66+% of an army's units should be infantry, excluding skirmishers (which can be up to 50% of the units), up to 25% cavalry, and up to 10% elephants.

Hannibal's actual army at Trebia was more cavalry-heavy, which is what allowed them to sweep away the Roman cavalry from the flanks in this and future battles. Even from the raw troop numbers cavalry amounted to 27.5% of the army, meaning that the Carthaginian army list in HC needs some revision for more historical play. I have one in the works and I'll get round to posting it later.

While an army list can be helpful for a generic game or figuring what types of units are in an army, as well as their game abilities, the army list cannot adequately replace an order of battle (ORBAT) derived from an actual historical encounter.


ROMANS

Polybius (III.72) claimed Sempronius's forces comprised:

16,000 Romans
20,000 Allies
4,000 Cavalry

Using a 1:150 ratio, the standard proportions of the manipular legion's components (a 1,200:1,200:1,200:600 ratio for velites:hastati:principes:triarii), and assigning the surplus numbers amongst the Allies to the hastati and principes, we get:

Roman Legions - 14 units
4 small velites (32)
4 small hastati (32)
4 small principes (32)
2 small triarii (16)

Italian Allies - 16 units
4 small velites (32)
5 small hastati (40)
5 small principes (40)
2 small triarii (16)

Cavalry - 4 units
3 small Allied cavalry (18)
1 small Roman cavalry (6)

34 units = 88.2% infantry, 11.8% cavalry

707 points (Ld 8 general)

If deployed in a checkerboard triplex acies this works out to an infantry battle line of 9 standard base widths plus cavalry wings 2 base widths wide. A total of 11 base widths.

Sabin has voiced some skepticism about Livy's claim that the Cenomani Gauls served as Roman allies, but they can be accommodated by broadening the battle line to 12 base widths, still shorter than the Carthaginian one.

A note for Hail Caesar: there's been lots of debate about whether small unit Republican Romans are overpowered compared to standard units. This is apparent from the points value (HC assigns one point per stat value; higher points, higher stats). The ORBAT above can always be modified to feature standard infantry units.

Roman Legions - 9 units
4 small velites (32)
2 standard hastati (32)
2 standard principes (32)
1 standard triarii (16)

Italian Allies - 10 units
4 small velites (32)
3 standard hastati (48)
2 standard principes (32)
1 standard triarii (16)

Cavalry - 4 units
3 small Allied cavalry (18)
1 small Roman cavalry (6)

23 units

552 points (Ld 8 general)
(versus 611 points for the Carthaginian list above)

If you want to retain small unit manoeuvrability then a more elegant solution that Rick Priestley once recommended to me is to tweak the stats. The points difference between the small unit and standard unit Romans above are due to the fact that while unit frontage halves the unit stats decrease by only 18% (including the scaled cost for pila and Drilled).

In that case, downgrading the stats of the Republican Roman small units from heavy to medium infantry, from light infantry velites to skirmishers, as per the manipular legion under the Camillan Roman list from the Army book, produces an army of 637 points to the Carthaginian's 611.

For Trebia and most of the Italian Campaign the Roman troops arguably should not be more powerful than the Carthaginians. They could on occasion be penalised with a Ld 7 Consul. For a Trebia scenario one could consider further downgrades or penalties - such as a 1 point reduction to stamina - to represent the weaker morale of the Romans who failed to eat the most important meal of the day: breakfast.

Roman Legions - 14 units
4 small velites skirmishers (32)
4 small hastati medium infantry (32)
4 small principes medium infantry (32)
2 small triarii heavy infantry (16)

Italian Allies - 16 units
4 small velites skirmishers (32)
5 small hastati medium infantry (40)
5 small principes medium infantry (40)
2 small triarii heavy infantry (16)

Cavalry - 4 units
3 small Allied cavalry (18)
1 small Roman cavalry (6)

Stats based on the Camillan Roman list in the Biblical & Classical Armies book. All units have a -1 to stamina to reflect their fatigue from crossing the icy Trebia river and skipping breakfast.

603 points

Review: Victrix Numidian Cavalry

These are the best ancient Moorish/Mauretanian cavalry out there.

The figures are dynamic, conveying the impression of fast light cavalry dashing forward to hurl their javelins. The sculpting detail is crisp and there are a good variety of realistic javelin poses (at least based on my dim memories of high school athletics).

With the exception of their horses, which really should be stouter ponies, they are a very faithful depiction of the Moors on Trajan's Column:

You get 12 cavalry in each pack. Each sprue has three different horses, three different rider bodies, three shields, three javelin arms and a generous selection of six heads. Since their Greek sets - which started with a ratio of one head per body - Victrix now provides more heads than bodies in their newest sets. This is a good thing as kitbashing is one of the key appeals of 28mm plastic miniatures. 

As you can see from the assembled figures and the section of Trajan's Column above, the heads in the kit are a close match to the style displayed by the Moors, which is something of a corkscrew locks bob.

In order to better represent riders carrying multiple javelins there are two left hands bearing extra missiles. These require you to do a bit of amputation and grafting in order to replace the existing empty left hands sculpted on the rider bodies. This is easily achieved with a scalpel and plastic cement.

Each of the four sprues comes with command options: a Punic-themed standard with a crescent, a horn, an officer's sword arm, and a lovely cloak which is presumably for an 'officer'. These are fairly standard wargame convention. 

To my mind they are probably speculative for irregular light cavalry. They could be good fodder for a command stand and the leader bits could make a decent Prince or King, especially with that dashing cloak. That cloak, by the way, fits on a number of other Victrix kits. I dry-fitted one on an Iberian warrior's body and it fit fine.

The detail is so crisp that it is tough to find a metal personality figure that would match as a king. All the alternatives I've looked at are sculpted in a far coarser style.

So, if you are looking for ancient Moorish or Mauretanian cavalry, look no further. This is an affordable and exciting set.


...But are they Numidian?

This set from Victrix is marketed as "Numidian cavalry" and in appearance they fit with a fairly established wargaming convention of what Hannibal's famed Numidian light cavalry look like.

The corkscrew locks hairstyle, reminiscent of cornrows, and the name have often led to sculptors and painters depicting the Numidian cavalry as sub-Saharan Nubian cavalry rather than North African Numidians.

Here's an example of that tendency:

The Numidians, along with the Moors and Gaetulians, were the ancient ancestors of the Berber people, whose name derives from the Latin barbarus, after the Greek for barbarian.

Nowadays, their descendants may style themselves as Amazighe and can, in my personal experience, have blond hair and blue eyes, or look like footballer Zinedine Zidane, who is of Berber descent.

I bet he would have made a cracking cavalryman.

Skin tones are more a matter for the painter than the sculptor, though the manufacturer in this case seems to favour a look slightly south of the Sahara, complete with zebra skins.

From the Victrix Facebook page

In contrast to the Warlord "Numidians" the sculpt of the Victrix faces fits a North African rather than a Nubian look.

So what about the hairdos?

Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars (AMPW) is an influential source of information on the look of Numidian cavalry. The first edition of AMPW has a joint listing for the "Numidian or Moorish Cavalryman" which references the depiction of Moors on Trajan's Column and leaves that as a the main clue to what ancient Berber horsemen may have looked like.

In a foreward to the recent republication of AMPW, Head notes that the depiction would be better served by reference to visual evidence provided by vases from Canosa, as discussed in a 1946 article, 'Numidian Horsemen on Canosa Vases' by M. Rostovtzeff in the American Journal of Archaeology (Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1946), pp. 263-267; you can view this for free here by registering with JSTOR).

Peter Connolly was aware of the Canosa Vase depictions, and even features a photograph of one in his Greece and Rome at War, but, in comparison to Head, Connolly goes on to make a less cautious extrapolation from the Moors on Trajan's Column to the Numidians of Hannibal.

Numidian horseman, from a Canosa Vase terracotta, 3rd Century BC, the Louvre.

Rostovtzeff bases his claim on comparing the similarities between the Canosa Vases and the images of Numidian kings on coins. Allen Curtis took a similar approach in several discussions on TMP, though he did not cite Rostovtzeff's article and may have been unaware of it.

Rostovtzeff goes through three different (North) African styles of hair and beard: the Numidian, the Libyan and the Mauretanian ala Trajan's Column. He also cites literary evidence from Strabo and Livy to back this up.

Here are some kings of Numidia:

Massinissa

Massinissa is the most relevant king for our period (ruled 206 BC - 148 BC). Note the hair is curled, but not in corkscrew locks.

Micipsa, son of Massinissa

Adherbal, son of Micipsa

Jugurtha

Here is the head of the Canosa Vase Numidian rotated 90º.

It doesn't display any sculptor's marks suggestive of corkscrew lock hair let alone cornrows. The beard and hair are overall comparable to those of the kings above. I would say they are of a broadly Hellenic style. Rostovtzeff points out a sharply pointed beard as well.

The only Numidian king who resembles the wargamer's Moorish Numidian is Juba I, who ruled at a much later period, 60-46 BC. Juba II was later king of both Numidia and Mauretania.

Juba

We don't appear to have any reference to what Numidian cavalry of Juba's period may have looked like. It may be the Numidians of Juba's time shared the same hairstyle as the Moors (Mauri), we don't know. The Canosa Vases are from the 3rd Century BC, contemporary with the Second and First Punic Wars. The Trajan's Column Moors date to AD 113.

It surprises me to say this, but the heads from the Wargames Factory Numidian Cavalry are a better historical match. Wargames Factory got a fair bit of flack for ahistorical depictions with some of their models, but their Numidian hairstyles are a fairly close match to the available historical evidence. Unfortunately, their line is currently unavailable since their acquisition by Warlord. With Warlord's existing Nubian cavalry it's not clear if the plastic Numidians will survive.

Sample Wargames Factory Numidian from An Hour of Wolves site.

One could probably rummage around the bits box for suitable heads, especially from the broadly similar Greeks, though at this point I don't recall any ones with suitable beards. If I do find something that matches I may post up some photos of the kitbash.

Victrix is also producing a set of Numidian infantry with the same hairdos. The Carthaginians may have used some Moorish infantry. AMPW mentions this, though I'm not sure what the original source is. Anyone know?


The Horses

The Numidian pony was a stouter breed than the horses that come with the Victrix kit. AMPW has a good write up on the specifics.

I suspect the reason for the different look is economic. 

Victrix is in the process of rolling out several plastic horse kits, which include Iberians and Macedonians/Greeks. The horses for all sets are quite obviously based on the same model skeleton and have exactly the same poses (the same goes for some of the riders). The horses differ in terms of tack and bridling. The 'Numidian' horses come with the historically attested rope around the neck, used to choke the windpipe while the rider steered with a stick.

However, the poses are dynamic and exciting, so this is not a big loss. I can't begrudge the manufacturer some limited sculpts if it translates to lower prices. I suspect the cost is tied more to design costs rather than tooling and casting.

I do have to add that two out of the three horse bodies are rather prone to breakage in shipping due to very narrow joints and the lack of box packaging (they come in a ziplock bag). Several of my horses were received had the hooves snapped from their bases, though Caliver Books were kind enough to throw in a free miniature pack in my next order.

If the manufacturer or any retailers read this, I highly recommend some bubble wrap around these packs.

Arrows show points of breakage

Hits

• Dynamic poses
• Ample choice of heads
• Lots of command bits that can be used for other models; the standard may look better on some Carthaginian citizen cavalry
• Minimal mould lines
• Crisp detail

Misses

• The hairstyles are actually Moorish/Mauretanian, possibly of a later period than the Punic Wars.
• The steeds aren't Numidian ponies, but some larger breed of horse

Looks aside, they will kill Romans just the same on the tabletop and hairdos aren't that striking from 'tabletop distance'. More will rest on the paint job which should include light skin tones, and some red on their goatskin tunics (see the new edition of AMPW for more).

DELENDA EST ROMA!

POSTSCRIPT - Relating to some comments on TMP about whether the Moors' tunics may have been Romanised, here are some shots of the terracotta sculptures mentioned above from Rostovtzeff's article. The first figure is the one from Connolly. You can see a short-sleeved, ungirded tunic with fringing. What may be a baldric crosses the torso. Duncan Head says there were traces of red found on it.

Presumably they may look similar to common depictions of Libyan skirmishers. A cloak is visible on the second figure from the Victoria & Albert Museum, as well as on some coins of Syphax, Massinissa's rival.

Review: Victrix Carthaginian Warriors

I'm assembling my Carthaginian army on a 'single nation, three unit' basis. Starting with the Africans I build up a standard unit, a small unit, and a small unit of skirmishers. Then I move to Iberians, Italians, then Celts before I rinse and repeat. I may intersperse cycles of assembly with painting once I get some practice in on some lumpy Warlord/Immortal Greek slingers. It's been a long time since I've wielded my brush.

There's nothing like actual assembly to learn the strengths and weaknesses of a given kit. Here's my take on the first of several Punic releases by Victrix: their Carthaginian Warrior multi-set in 28mm.


Victrix Warriors of Carthage

The great Carthaginian general Hannibal led a multi-ethnic army primarily comprised of subject nations and mercenaries. Carthage was a trading empire, they favoured buying soldiers rather than waging war themselves. Hannibal and his family were atypical members of Carthage's small military class. Atypical in their ability to wage war for so long without being crucified (a traditional punishment for failed generals) and atypical in their talent for waging war (and thus avoiding the former fate).

The core of a Carthaginian army would be drawn from the subject Libyan or admixed Liby-Phonecian population surrounding Carthage. These would serve a role comparable to citizens of Greek or Italian city-states: forming a spear-armed phalanx and cavalry corps. The bulk of the army would be drawn from Numidian, Iberian, Gallic, Greek, and/or Italiote mercenaries. Rather than get them to conform to Carthage's pseudo-Hellenic methods, the foreign mercenaries were employed in their customary ways of war. In Hannibal's case, as a student of Alexander and Pyrrhus, the overall approach to war was a Hellenic combined arms one, as argued by J.E. Lendon in Soldiers and Ghosts.

'Warriors of Carthage' is very much a starter set for building core units in an army of the Second Punic War. It comes with 24 Libyan spearmen equipped in the hoplite style, with somewhat shorter spears than their Greek counterparts. There are another 24 spearmen equipped as Hannibalic veterans, armoured in Roman or Celtic chainmail, presumably stripped from the dead at Trebbia and after.

If you wanted one or the other, well too bad, you're getting both. You're also getting 14 Libyan javelinmen whether you want them or not. At a price point of around 50p per figure that's pretty good, so not an awful lot to complain about. However, the mandatory inclusion of Libyan skirmishers may dampen the demand for the soon-to-be-released Numidian infantry.

There's enough figures here for building one to two units per type, depending on your system. I got away with two boxes for my army. I am unlikely to ever get more than one additional box.

If you've read Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars (AMPW) you will find much that is familiar here and in Victrix's Punic Wars range overall, with some minor deviations. The sculptor(s) for the Victrix range clearly drew heavily, and in many cases, directly from AMPW's descriptions and illustrations. This may be for better or for worse, depending on how you view AMPW's accuracy.

Readers familiar with discussions on TMP, The Miniatures Page, in particular the perspective of the late Allen Curtis, who authored Warhammer Ancient Battles' Hannibal and the Punic Wars supplement, would know that a number of AMPW's interpretation of Carthaginian arms and armour have some question marks above them.

The figure numbers listed above include two sprues of three command figures: a unit leader, a standard bearer and a musician. The musician is garbed in a knee-length tunic and is unarmored. The leader and standard bearer are interchangeably in metal cuirass and scale armour. One wishes for more scale armour figures.

Command sprue. Unit leader, standard bearer and musician.

The detail on the command set is great. So great as to raise worries of them overshadowing the personality figures that are, as of now, only available in metal from other manufacturers. Relic's Hannibal looks like it can hold its own against these sculpts.


Carthaginian Spearmen

Warriors sprue. Three regular Libyan spearmen, three veterans, two Libyan javelinmen.

Multiple head options are included that range from pointy capped Punic helms to plundered Roman Montefortino headgear. Arms are spear only, apart from command who get the obligatory sword. As per AMPW, the Carthaginians here employ a spear that is shorter than the doru of the Greek hoplite.

Libyan Spearman shields are modified versions of those found in Victrix's Greek range, with the only difference being a thicker vertical cross bar on the reverse.

Head talks of recessed shields used by Carthaginians, so I find it odd that in an otherwise faithful rendition, Victrix recycles their convex Greek hoplite shields here. To my knowledge, only 1st Corps has gone down the route of recessed Carthaginian shields as per AMPW. Is it too cynical to speculate that recessed shields would create problems for applying shield transfers?

Nonetheless, given the wide adoption of Greek arms and armour by the Carthaginians, the typical hoplite aspis is plausible.

Though it won't be much noticeable on the final painted figure the sculpting issues with the shield-bearing left hand of Victrix's Greek hoplites has been resolved here. The left hand is better proportioned and is no longer a squarish block.

Punic citizen spearmen at ease, and only at ease.
No wonder the Sacred Band got wiped out at Krimisos.

The veteran spearmen only have scuta as a shield option. Some additional aspides would have leant themselves to the hybrid scavenged look of the veterans. As it is there are only enough aspides to shield the three regular Libyan spearmen. However, six scuta are provided. I would have thought the aspis to be commonplace and the scutum to be an ad hoc or late adoption for Libyans in Carthaginian service. Victrix appears to think otherwise; their Carthaginian citizen spearmen also come with scuta only.

(EDIT: There's some speculation by Duncan Head in Slingshot 272 that just prior to the Second Punic War the Carthaginians employed the theuros and may have introduced it into southern and eastern Iberia during their conquests. If this is the case and the aspis had been replaced by the theuros then the extra scuta provided could be suitable if the upper and lower rims were trimmed to make them less Roman.)

It is notable that the regular spearmen and veteran spearmen have mutually exclusive spear positions. The regular spearmen only hold their spears at the ready. The veterans all have theirs in an attack position. This is an odd decision. It could have been otherwise. Their Greek hoplites offer considerable flexibility in arm positions. Customisability is the niche strength of plastic kits.

A thrusty veteran I knocked together just for this review.
I've made him with comparable kit to a number of metal designs
so you can see the differences.

As it is, each of the three regular spearman bodies has a single spear pose, bar one body which has two. With four variant poses with no effective degrees of angling the spear, one is facing a diversity of poses comparable to metal figures where four variant poses is common. This leaves price and the sculpt quality as the only strengths for the Victrix Libyan spearman to rest upon. Thankfully, it's cheap and the detail is crisp. But I am still left unsatisfied with the range of possible poses.

The spears and javelins in this and subsequent set are much more slender than the 'tree trunk' shafts found in the later Greek sets. They are more fragile as a result, but look more realistic. I may try the strengthening trick of applying thinned down white glue on them after painting.


Libyan Javelinmen

A stronger example of customisation and realisation of AMPW are the 14 Libyan javelinmen that are included in the kit. 14 is an odd number by today's wargaming standards. Not many games recommend units in sizes divisible by seven. 16 would have been a better number.

Anyway, on to the good news. The head varieties for the Libyans cover exactly the tribal varieties listed by Duncan Head in AMPW. Front shaved, side shaved, mohawked and so on are available so that you could have levies from a single tribe or several mixed together. This is a nice touch.

Also good news is that in comparison to some of Victrix's other bareheaded offerings (Greek peltasts and Iberian warriors) the Libyans don't appear to have overly big heads. Though this probably has more to do with the partial absence of hair on much of the skull. The Libyan heads appear well-proportioned.

Conclusion

The Victrix Carthaginians have only one direct competitor in 28mm plastic kits, Agema Miniatures, who only make slim plastic Hannibalic veterans with metal heads. Sadly for Agema, few slender miniature lines of other nationalities are available. The Victrix figures fare well in terms of sculpt quality and build. In terms of chunkiness, they are of above average 'chunk' and should blend nicely with models from Crusader and A&A. I'll post up some comparisons once my command figures from those ranges arrive.

The options in this kit should allow you to play battles from the First Punic War until the Third Punic War. There was talk somewhere of Carthage having vast stores of chainmail when the Romans plundered it, so the Hannibalic Veterans could be used for the last stand.

For historical sticklers (and such is this hobby) the spearmen probably aren't suitable for the earlier wars with the Sicilian Greeks. Those would be Punic citizens rather than Libyan subjects (though there's little physical difference for the miniature hobbyist) armoured with metal cuirass and can be had from manufacturers such as Crusader. Victrix makes unarmoured Citizen Spearmen with Roman-style scuta, but they're probably not much use beyond the second line at Zama or possibly some battles in Iberia.

Hits

• Well sculpted figures overall.
• Libyan javelinmen have very dynamic poses and hairstyles reflective of the literature.
• Libyan javelinmen have well-proportioned heads compared to previous Victrix ancient releases.
• Good mix of helmets on the spearmen. There's a few extra for head swaps on other kits, the forthcoming Greek Cavalry kit comes to mind.
• Price point: around 48p per figure, less if you shop around. Contrast to £1.12 to £1.50 for metal from various manufacturers.

Misses

Three rows of bellybuttoned linothorax.
There's a similar hole in the javelinman on the right, but less noticeable due to the folds.

• Some of the figures weren't cast with sufficient plastic. There were 'belly button' holes in some of the Libyan spearmen, with similar, but less noticeable, holes in the folds of some of the Libyan javelinmen. EDIT: I should add that I only had this problem on one out of my two boxes, and even then only on three out of seven sprues.
• Poses for the spearmen are restricted by troop type. Standing spears only for the citizen spearmen, thrusting spears for the veterans. Not as much variety as one might expect for plastic unless you starting sawing and greenstuffing. Surely mutually interchangeable arms for both types could have been designed?
• Missed opportunity for a convex shield for the spearmen. Not a big loss, but if you're going the route of AMPW, why not go all the way?

EDIT: GurKhan of TMP kindly informed me that the AMPW interpretation of a "recessed" shield as concave was a mistake, based on a misperception or poor description of the shields at the altar in Chemtou/Chimtou, which can be seen here. One example is this:

The central portion is clearly recessed but it is far from concave and the pronounced curvature after the rim and before the centre clearly makes it a derivative of the Greek aspis employed by hoplites.

More examples of such shields can be found on scarabs found at Carthage:

Coin #635

Source: http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/gems/scarab/scarab28.htm

Some interesting discussion on Carthaginian arms and armour is here.

EDIT2: Turns out GurKhan is none other than Mr Duncan Head himself! :)