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. 

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

Collecting an Army: how many units is enough? - Part 1

The wargamer needs something more detailed than long rectangles
though units are but rectangles from a plan view.

A challenge peculiar to historical wargaming is deciding on what units and how many one needs in order to play a particular army, battle or campaign.

Reconciling financial constraints with often vague historical details, as well as a practical size for a collection that can be painted and based in a reasonable amount of time, is quite a logistical and research challenge.

Perhaps this is why orders of battle appear so rarely in ancients wargaming, both in print and online, despite the fact that one can't run away from having some 'ORBAT' when one sits down for a game.

The kinds of rulesets one plays with and their representational conceits will also have a practical effects on how figures one needs to acquire and prep. In my case, I have to wrestle with the desire to proportionately represent the look and structure of the armies I collect versus pragmatics of getting a rules-conforming unit on the board.

For example, if each of 10 maniples of hastati was arrayed in a formation 20 files wide and 6 ranks deep, is it practical to use a 28mm scale battle line two models deep by 66 models wide to represent one of the acies of a legion (a 1:3 ratio)? For a typical four legion consular army with each model occupying a width of 20mm, this leads to a gaming table at least 17 feet wide, without factoring in space for the cavalry wings!

Clearly, we need a more practical scaling method for the ordinary game table that is at least six, and at most, eight feet wide.

Systems with a hard limit, such as points-based systems that cap at a certain number of points or have a 'sweet spot' point total, in some ways make things easier by forcing a limit to what you can fit into your budget. Examples would be Warhammer Ancient Battles and similar systems. You assemble your collection within a points total, perhaps allowing for some unit or option swaps.

This comes at a cost of presenting a 'balanced' game that may bear little resemblance to the asymmetries of historical battles.

Unless one is playing scenarios, the diktats of a 'balanced' game or the need to facilitate 'pick up and play' between acquaintances, makes building an army to a points budget a practical endeavour.

De Bellis Antiquitatis removes all this back and forth by removing the research process and capping the number of units at twelve. The army lists are set for you by the designer. They give a flavour of the troop types found in a given historical army, but they demand that one accepts that the tactical performance of all armies can be adequately represented by twelve units and that particular troop types have a scissors-paper-stone dynamic. Collecting DBA armies is, however, a doddle. Given the fixed parameters established by the designer it is a simple matter selecting the figures one likes the best.

I've never been able to warm to the system but I can see the appeal for those on a budget as well as those gadflies who have little attachment to any particular period and treat variety as the spice of life. I have a narrower interest in the historical battles of the Greek, Hellenistic and Punic Wars, with a remote dream of a Sassanian army some day (but with zero interest in the Byzantines that is some ways off), so DBA is far too diffuse to scratch my itch.

However, one can't dismiss the innovations DBA has delivered to historical wargaming. The army lists have proven very useful for giving a snapshot of what an historical army may have been comprised of. The decision taken by the Wargames Research Group to produce system agnostic reference works such as Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars really makes the derived material useful for any system.

Lost Battles on the surface has some similarities to DBA in that it aims for around 20 units per side. It is avowedly more simulationist and puts a lot of effort into representing actual troop numbers and quality based on the historical record or educated guesswork where the former is missing or lacking. It reconciles its rough unit cap with the representation of actual numbers by making each unit of whatever class - heavy/light veteran/levy infantry/cavalry/etc. - equal in fighting power but each unit type represents a different number of troops of a given morale level.

So in a particular battle a single levy light infantry unit may represent 6,000 troops whilst a single veteran heavy infantry unit may only represent 1,500 troops. This is another way of saying that the fighting power of 6,000 levy light infantry is equal to that of 1,500 veteran heavy infantry, with a number of modifiers weighing in to jazz up combat results.

This has the advantage of paring down components to a reasonable number (20) whilst allowing for greater tactical manoeuvre than DBA's twelve pieces. It does make light infantry much more visually thin than they would otherwise appear on the battlefield, but Lost Battles aims to simulate broadly historical battle outcomes rather than aesthetics.

While Lost Battles 'bakes in' troop numbers and quality into a fairly set number of pieces other systems employ some sort of ratio between the number of units and actual troop numbers and pair this with differential fighting power. This is a fairly intuitive approach but it is one which leaves the gamer-collector the challenge of establishing the appropriate ratio for a given battle (it is more challenging to establish one that works across a campaign), and to set out appropriate statistics and abilities for troops of different types and qualities.

Commands & Colors: Ancients takes a scenario approach. Like DBA, the research process is done for you. The number of units one needs to acquire in order to replicate a given army can be simply derived from the block lists in the rulebooks. All you have to do is decide how you want to represent the blocks that make up a unit.

Use removable stands or hit counters, or some other unique basing solution. You could even just use a figure per block (as is done in Samurai Battles). This was the route I initially took. One doesn't even need to get all the units listed as the block maximums factor in outlier scenarios such as the all cavalry battle between Carthaginians and the Romans at Ticinus. Cutting out such outliers pares the project of conversion from blocks to miniatures to a more reasonable level of hubris; one doesn't really need that many cavalry units.

C&C:A handles troop quality a number of ways. The main approach is to assign different numbers of battle dice to each troop type depending on whether they are light, medium, heavy or something in between. The next level is to open or close certain dice results for certain troops with light infantry having the fewest consequential results. Morale is decided by the dice throwing up a Flag result but modified by the presence of leaders or a supporting battle line. Overall army morale is governed by the Banner system. A most subtle system does it build around dice rolls.

Another subtlety is the use of the apparently amorphous 'Auxilia' troop type that hovers between light and medium infantry. It has some of the combat power of medium infantry (e.g. Republican Roman hastati/principes) but with mobility, morale and missile power of light units. This would seem to model something like a peltast or theurophoroi.

However, it appears puzzling when used on a Republican Roman consular army that only had three infantry types (velites (light infantry),  hastati/principes (medium), and triarii (heavy)). It is generally accepted that Italian allies in the consular armies were equipped and fought in a similar way to the Roman legions. So why have an Auxilia class in the game?

Auxilia in C&C:A becomes a useful way of varying troop quality between scenarios. In some scenarios the allies or even the Roman hastati may be of poorer quality or morale, so the Auxilia classification allows for some finer simulation of historical factors. Until one figures that out it does present a puzzle for a miniatures conversion project for C&C:A.

To the Strongest! caters for both scenario play as well as points so it is a mix of C&C:A and WAB from that perspective. It's grid movement owes a lot to the author's long engagement with C&C:A. Rick Priestley and John Lambshead have recently criticised such systems as being more boardgame than wargame, but I don't see grid movement as such a deal-breaker. What it sacrifices in terms of 'free form' movement it makes up for in terms of time saved, reduced ambiguity, and less fussing over geometry. As for figuring out an army for a scenario one is left to do one's research on the ORBAT. Arguably, research is one of the joys of the historical wargaming hobby. It's a thinkers game on multiple levels.

Hail Caesar is geared for big battle, multi-player scenario play. If you're not using one of the published campaigns you're pretty left with option of doing your research or playing to a points total for pick up games.

Hail Caesar is geared towards the fairly experienced ancient wargamer that knows their period and offers a broad toolbox for recreating historical scenarios. Both HC and TtS! lend themselves to some ratio of representation between historical troop numbers and what one can field on the tabletop. TtS! makes this quite explicit in its discussion of scale.

So if one is collecting an historical army using HC or TtS! there is the task of figuring out actual, or close to actual, troop numbers and breaking that down into units and figures. One can play around with the footprint of particular troop types. Light infantry are often discounted in terms of model numbers in order to reduce the area they cover, especially with figures spaced in open order, though this may come with a possible diminution of their already limited battlefield impact.

Perhaps the best approach to take is to look at the gaming space one has available and plump for a scale ratio that fills the tabletop battlefield nicely - allowing for cavalry manoeuvre on the wings - and match the combined frontage of one's battle line against that.

Two practical table sizes to consider are the six foot wide table and the eight foot wide one. Both HC and TtS! are 'big game' rules pitched at spectacle and multi-player participation, so eight feet wide seems a reasonable place to start. Depth shouldn't be more than six feet since an adult can usually only comfortably reach three feet from the table edge.

In the next post I will consider an ORBAT for Hannibal's army at the Battle of Trebbia, which represents the first pitched battle of his Italian campaign. This should give a nucleus of units around which to firm up a Hannibalic War project.

Republican Roman Army Roster

Detail from the Ahenobarbus relief showing (centre-right) two Roman foot-soldiers ca. 122 BC. Note the Montefortino-style helmets with horsehair plume, chain mail cuirasses with shoulder reinforcement, oval shields with calfskin covers, gladius and pilum.

Here's the roster for my planned Roman purchases. It represents a consular army under the control of a Roman consul, four legions in total comprised of two pairs of Roman and Allied legions. Any additional troops can be added to the ranks of the Allies. If there's need for it to represent a larger force, such as the four legions at Cannae, each unit can just stand in for double scale. One can't really go much smaller than this.

The force below can be built out of four or so boxes of Victrix legionnaires. I'd use one box of chainmail armoured legionnaires for the triarii, a box of pectoral armour soldiers for the Roman hastati and principes, and two boxes of the Allied Italian legionnaires.

The cavalry would be best supplied by Aventine Miniatures' Republican Roman range (with the Late Etruscan cavalry suitable as Allied horse) as they are designed to be cross-compatible. Aventine even resculpted their horses to suit Victrix. Nice of them.

Republican Romans (Unit size in brackets) [Points cost] #bases

8 figures per manipulus

LEGIO ROMANA I - 7 units [171 points]

2 x Velites (8) [26] 4

2 x Hastati (8) [46] 2

2 x Principes (8) [46] 2

1 x Triarii (8) [28] 2 x 80mmx25mm

1 x CONSUL (General) [25] c100

LEGIO ROMANA III - 7 units [146 points]

2 x Velites (8) [26] 4

2 x Hastati (8) [46] 2

2 x Principes (8) [46] 2

1 x Triarii (8) [28] 2 x 80mmx25mm

1 x Commander c80

ALA LATINA DEXTRA - 8 units + 1 skirmisher [178 points]

2 x Velites (8) [26] 4

2 x Hastati (8) [46] 2

2 x Principes (8) [46] 2

1 x Triarii (8) [28] 2 x 80mmx25mm

1 x Roman medium cavalry (6) [19] 1

1 x Cretan archer skirmishers [13] 2

1 x Commander c80

ALA LATINA SINISTRA - 10 units [203 points]

2 x Velites (8) [26]

2 x Hastati (8) [46]

2 x Principes (8) [46]

1 x Triarii (8) [28] 2 x 80mmx25mm

3 x Allied medium cavalry (6) [57] 3

1 x Commander c80

32 units + 1 skirmisher = 33 total + 4 leaders [698 points]

Reserves

2 x Tarentine light cavalry (6) [20] 4 

Various additional Italians - to be built out of the smart Aventine Late Etruscan and Italian Hill tribes ranges.

DELENDA EST... CARTHAGO!

Carthaginian Army Roster

One of Hannibal's nellies fails an Attrition roll
whilst crossing the Alps.

Here is the initial list of units I intend to assemble starting with the Carthaginian forces. The idea is to achieve an optimal blend of cost and flexibility to game a range of scenarios and systems.

I've listed them in hypothetical Hail Caesar divisions based on nationality.  A list for a given battle would look quite different. This one shows the maximum force deployment capability. I find there are too few army rosters on wargaming blogs. I hope to redress that.

Numbers in brackets indicate the models per unit. This doesn't necessarily conform rigidly to the HC rulebook. Given the rather dynamic poses of the Victrix models I'm using it isn't always possible to get a figure to fit neatly into a 20mm x 20mm box. The rule of thumb employed here is to standardise frontage on multiples of 80mm (a small unit) and fit in enough units with varying depth to offer a sense of solidity. A standard unit is on an 160mm frontage.

Warband infantry are less than 32 figures partly due to cost and time for assembly, and partly to give space for a dioramic setting of a horde charging out of formed lines towards the enemy. I find 17 to 20 figures in charging positions fits pleasingly within an 160mm frontage and depth of 100mm, which would normally hold 40 upright, well-behaved models on HC assumptions.

Points costs are marked in square brackets, just for force comparison purposes with the Romans (posted later). The number of bases are indicated to plan adequate base purchases. The funny codes after commander names are possible base circumferences for a command stand diorama.

It really does take an awful lot of advance planning if one is to order units efficiently.

The whole lot below are enough to fit in an 8' wide battle table in a pseudo-Cannae setup. So pretty much Hail Caesar ready.

Carthaginian Army (Unit size in brackets) [Points cost] #bases

African 1st Division - 5 units + 3 skirmishers [208]

3 x Libyan HI Veterans (16) [108] 6

2 x Liby-Phoenician Medium Cavalry, Guard (6) [42] 2

3 x Libyan Javelinmen skirmishers (8) [33] 6

1 x General - Hannibal [25] c100

African 2nd Division - 10 units + 3 skirmishers [265]

3 x Libyan HI Spearmen (16) [87] 6

4 x Numidian light cavalry (6) [76] + (Massinissa stand) 8

3 x Elephants [69] 3

3 x Numidian Skirmishers (8) [33] 6

1 x Commander - Maharbal 1 80mmx100mm + 1/2 c60mm

Iberian 3rd Division - 9 units + 3 skirmishers [207]

2 x Caetrati LI (8) [24] 4

4 x Scutarii MI (16) [92] 8

1 x Celtiberian Warband (20) [28] 2

2 x Slinger Skirmishers (8) [24] 4

1 x Balearic Slingers (8) [13] 2

2 x Iberian medium cavalry (12) [54] 4

1 x Commander - Mago c80

Italian and Gallic 4th Division - 7 units + 2 skirmishers [197]

3 x Samnite MI (16) [69] 6

1 x Oscan Allies MI (16) [23] 2

2 x Gallic MI Warband (17) [56] 2

1 x Gallic medium cavalry (10) [27] 2

2 x Oscan skirmishers (8) [22] 4

1 x Commander - Hasdrubal c80

31 units + 11 skirmishers = 41 total + 5 Leaders [877 points]

Top Up

2 x Italian Allies (16) [46] 4 - Brutii etc.

2 x Gallic MI warband (Victrix models) (17) [56] 4

2 x Tarentine light cavalry (6) [20]  4 - Need to research more on the links between Taras and Hannibal's War

Here's what I have currently or will do soon once the mail arrives:

Initial Order

African 1st Division - 6 units + 2 skirmishers [172]

2 x Libyan HI Veterans (16) [36]

3 x Libyan HI Spearmen (16) [87] 

1 x Elephant [23]

1 x Libyan Javelinmen skirmishers (8) [11]

1 x Balearic Slingers (8) [13]

1 x General [25]

African 2nd Division, Cavalry - 6 units + 2 skirmishers [140]

2 x Liby-Phoenician Medium Cavalry, Guard (6) [42]

4 x Numidian light cavalry (6) [76]

2 x Libyan Javelinmen skirmishers (8) [22]

1 x Mounted Commander

Iberian 3rd Division - 6 units + 2 skirmishers [121]

2 x Caetrati LI (8) [24]

2 x Scutarii MI (16) [46]

1 x Celtiberian warband (20) [28]

1 x Elephant [23]

1 x Javelin skirmishers (8) [11]

1 x Slinger Skirmishers (8) [12]

1 x Commander

Italian/Celtic 4th Division - 6 units + 2 skirmishers [124]

1 x Libyan HI Veterans (16) [36]

1 x Samnite MI (16) [23]

1 x Oscan Allies MI (16) [23]

2 x Oscan skirmishers (8) [22] - double as Velites

2 x Gallic MI Warband (17) 

1 x Gallic Cavalry (10)

1 x Commander

24 units + 8 skirmishers = 26 total [557 points]

Reserve

2 x Scutarii MI (16) [46]

1 x Ligurian LI (16) - use kitbashed Velites

DELENDA EST ROMA!