Initial Impressions - Commands & Colors: Medieval

CCM box contents, image from BGG

Commands & Colors: Medieval (CCM) arrived last week after a production delay of over a year. The timing, in terms of my wargaming interests, couldn't have been better.

I originally ordered CCM based on my love for its predecessor, Commands & Colors: Ancients (CCA) and an interest in Sassanian Persians. At the time I didn't care too much about their western rivals, the Byzantines, or the medieval period in general; I was an ancients gamer through and through. I loved the aesthetic of Aventine Miniatures' Sassanian line, but I didn't know enough about their history to embark on a clear wargaming project.

Fast forward to a year later, and I've taken the plunge into Dark Age wargaming, building a Late Roman army in 28mm and starting to familiarise myself with Procopius and the exploits of Belisarius, who led Byzantine emperor Justinian's reconquest of the West whilst fending off the Sassanians to the east.

The enlargement of the Roman Empire possessions between the rise to power of Justinian (red, 527) and his and Belisarius's death (orange, 565). Belisarius contributed immensely to the expansion of the empire. (Source: Wikipedia).

CCM focuses squarely on the exploits of Belisarius and the Eastern Roman Empire, but opens with a few choice battles involving Attila's Huns and the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Scenarios stretch from Utus River, 447 AD to Solachon, 586 AD, putting this squarely at the start of the medieval period of Western history (5th to 15th century).

This has been a cause for confusion amongst some reviewers, who assumed 'medieval' only applied to the post-1000 period of the High Middle Ages: crusaders, tin men on horseback, the Hundred Years War and the like. The artwork on the cards and board certainly suggests high medieval illuminations and one can only assume that the publisher intends to work their way gradually through the period. Designer Richard Borg has indicated on the forums that he has recently completed work on the viking period.

For marketing purposes it may have been clearer - and perhaps more cynical - to brand this as Commands & Colors: Dark Ages and ride on the broader enthusiasm for this period amongst wargamers, but more serious aficionados of history frown on the term 'dark ages', preferring 'early medieval', and GMT publishes for a serious crowd.

Differences between CCA and CCM

CCM has a Tan army representing the Sassanians, Huns or Vandals and a Purple army representing the Western Late Romans and Eastern Byzantines.

For those coming from the rest of the Commands & Colors system it's best to see CCM as an evolution of the Ancients game. Similar units and a similar card deck are here with some subtle tweaks and additional chrome.

The green Light Infantry class is entirely gone, as are slingers, leaving only Light Bow and a modified Auxilia for light infantry, Warriors and more mobile Medium Infantry for medium foot, and a much diminished presence of Heavy Infantry (who now attack with four dice, not five) as cavalry became ascendant with the advent of Late Antiquity. CCM Auxilia function like a hybrid of Light Infantry and Auxilia in CCA, and are overall weaker in combat and more mobile than their CCA counterpart.

If the ancients period and CCA were focused on the power of infantry, and in particular the heavy foot of the legion and phalanx, the transition to the medieval period is handled by CCM as shift in the balance of power to favour cavalry.

Approximately half the blocks for each of the two armies are cavalry. CCM cavalry now have four blocks instead of three. Heavy Cavalry now has a Super Heavy Cavalry category which enjoys better protection from sword hits. Rules for Superior Armor Class and Superior Stature allow higher class units to cancel sword hits from lower class units, and cavalry to cancel a sword hit from infantry units in close combat. A heavy cavalry unit could potentially cancel two swords from an inferior infantry unit, which pushes Auxilia down in power closer to the extinct Light Infantry of CCA.

Medium and Heavy Cavalry can be bow-armed reflecting the influence of Persian and steppe warfare. With two dice at a range of three hexes there is some limited potential for battles of attrition and evasion, but I do not foresee ranged combat being very decisive unless Darken the Sky is used. Likely, gameplay will reflect history and arrows will soften up troops until heavy cavalry can unleash a decisive charge.

The game board is also deeper at 13 hexes wide by 11 deep (versus 9 deep before) to allow for more cavalry action and it will also be more forgiving of cavalry retreats.

Evading units must now move two hexes back, no more no less. Subsumed under the Evade mechanic is a simple Parthian Shot rule that allows Light Bow Cavalry a two dice shot before evading. I'm looking forward to using bow-armed cavalry to draw out an opponent's troops and break up their battle line.

While cavalry are now stronger than infantry I wouldn't expect that battles can be entirely won by cavalry. The principles of CCA still apply and a combined arms approach should still find success. A contiguous battle line is rewarded with support against flag retreats and the use of the Line Command card.

Shock tactics with Warrior units are likely to become significant. With the right cards and timing Warriors can be the most heavy-hitting infantry unit, potentially hitting with five dice whilst charging two hexes.

CCM playtest with minis, pic from BGG

Some wargaming fans of the Sassanians may be disappointed to learn that there are no elephants present, though they were in use in this period but possibly more for sieges than battles.

Inspired Actions

A major new mechanic is the Inspired Action. In addition to their Command cards each side gets a number of Inspired Action tokens that can be used with a Leadership Command card to produce a number of special effects such as Mounted Charge, Foot Onslaught, Rally, Fire and Close, Darken the Sky, Move Fire Move, and Redeploy. Most of these replicate Tactic cards and help represent exceptional generalship responding to circumstances of battle. Each army in CCM will have its own selection of Inspired Actions. The Byzantines and Sassanians have the same options bar one. Some cards such as Scout will allow you to gain Inspired Action tokens.

If you wanted your C&C general to pull off tactical flourishes ala Hannibal or Caesar, this is a mechanic that allows a modicum of player choice amidst the fog of war imposed by random Command cards.

Scenarios

Particularly welcome in CCM are the numerous scenarios depicting Belisarius' campaigns against the Sassanians and Vandals. Published scenarios of this period are few and far between, and those I can think of, GMT's own Cataphract (under their Great Battles of History) and Simon MacDowall's Comitatus, only cover Dara and a few others. CCM has nineteen scenarios, albeit nearly half of them focus on several aspects of key large battles of the period. This is similar to the approach taken in Samurai Battles.

Personally, these will save me a lot of work figuring out scenarios when I eventually get around to gaming this period with miniatures and other rulesets. I've already got a sizeable Late Roman force building up and CCM provides a good framework to figure out what Sassanians to buy.

Even for those unfamiliar with the early medieval period there are some great military personalities featured in these scenarios. There is Attila the Hun versus Aetius at Catalaunian Plains 451 AD and there are the exploits of Byzantine general extraordinaire Belisarius, arguably the Hannibal of his age, who led the reconquest of the Western Roman Empire for Constantinople. Belisarius' Italian campaigns against the Ostrogoths are left out here, with the focus on retaking North Africa from the Vandals. This keeps the action cavalry heavy.

I suspect that Belisarius' Italian campaign and more will be covered in future expansions. As hinted in the rulebook there are many more battles against "Visigoths, Moors, Ostrogoths, Franks, Alemanni" that will likely see more Warrior-heavy armies in the future. We could also expect more battles from the Late Antique period if the Hunnic War scenarios are anything to go by. With its extra focus on cavalry CCM is better equipped as a ruleset to handle the warfare of the Late Roman Empire than CCA. It might be tempting to cook up some Arthurian scenarios under this ruleset, too.

NUTS! Border Skirmish - IJA-IJN Joint Scouting Mission

The foliage cover was so good that I lost track of the chap on the right for half the game.

Last weekend we tested another set of squad level rules, NUTS! by Two Hour Wargames (now rebranded as TWH). I don't have a set of the rules, they were explained to me verbally, so apologies for any errors below.

It has a somewhat similar feel to Five Men at Kursk though with the welcome additional of a fog of war device that lends tension to the opening turns. Before units are placed on the table each side instead moves around blips that Possible Enemy Forces (PEFs). The players mark which PEFs represent actual units, the others are bluffs. Do I engage one PEF only to be outflanked by another?

The PEF only spawns once its player decides to reveal it or it enters the line of sight of an enemy unit.

The IJN. There's a PEF chip in the background.

In our test game of Imperial Japanese Army/Imperial Japanese Navy v US Marine Corp on a recon mission I managed to use two PEFs to keep the Marines player guessing as to whether he was charging headlong into a combined bloc of two IJA and IJN squads, or a lone IJN squad with the IJA potentially flanking him (it was the latter).

Once a unit steps into the line of sight of an enemy an In Sight test is triggered to see who shoots first. Fire and counter-fire is resolved until someone is dropped or the exchange broken. Thus, there's quite a large role for 'interrupt' reactions before squad actions get resolved.

We also learned that we shouldn't let our NCOs or LMGs be the first to enter the enemy line of sight. Sometimes you can't avoid it as the NCO spawns on the PEF token when it is revealed.

My IJA squad spawns from its PEF as it enters the line of sight of some Marines. My NCO is promptly shot down by reaction fire...

Marines spawn from a revealed PEF

Firing ranges were very long on the 6' by 4' board and we really learned to fear the BAR.

Otherwise, the game was quite intuitive in the manner of Five Men with very simple definitions of obscurement and cover (soft and hard terrain basically).

Our mission objective was to have at least one man scout out the three sectors of the enemy table edge and make it back off a friendly edge.

"Where are we now, guys?" The spirit of Captain Sobel lives on.

Oh wait, that's a friendly up ahead.

With two squads per side our IJN squad was wiped out but for their sergeant. Luckily he used fast move to scout out the enemy sectors and managed to escape off the table with cover provided by the flanking IJA force.

Heading back to camp to put in a request for some aerial bombardment.

That's it for the NUTS! playtest. Next weekend: Disposable Heroes.

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.

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.