Good response
Joe!
(I love discussions about ancient history...and I think this is just the sort of thing that
Jim wanted).
Of course I have counter arguments of my own...
You say that Ax in DBA 3.0 are better than in earlier versions because Ax now have a combat factor of 3 against mounted.
That is true, and is fine, good, marvellous...but it’s no help whatsoever when fighting heavy foot is it.
You also say that Phil Barker believes that the role of Ax was to counter enemy warbands.
That is also true, and is fine, good, marvellous...but it’s no good if your main enemy doesn’t have any warbands is it.
The Samnites had 3 hard fought wars against Rome before being finally subdued.
And they did so using these so called
‘anti-warband’ only 4Ax troops.
You’d have thought that these Samnites would at least be
equal if up a gentle hill...nope, they are inferior to the legionaries.
All right then, how about if the Samnites defend a river bank...nope, they are
still inferior to the legionaries.
Oh, they are superior when uphill on a difficult hill...but then the legionaries will refuse to go in and attack them.
Why did it take 3 wars? According to DBA it should have been a walkover, and be settled in just a single war.
And the same applies with the Spanish Iberians, using
‘anti-warband’ 4Ax, which took Rome a hundred years to finally subdue.
Defending a riverbank, up a gentle hill, in rough going, always inferior to the legionaries, only equal in bad going.
Now I’m not saying that 4Ax should beat Blades in good going...far from it...but there is a difference between being stubbornly
driven back before collapsing and them being massacred like helpless sheep.
Now lets look at the Macedonian Successor armies. Their main enemy were other Successor armies. No warbands there.
So why did they drag all those useless 4Ax troops along with them? What were they supposed to do with them?
Send them all off to hide in bad going?...but there was no bad going when Eumenes fought Antigonus at Paraitacene in 317 BC
and Gabiene in 316 BC, nor was there any bad going at Raphia in 217 BC, or at Magnesia in 190 BC, or at Pynda in 168 BC, and
many other battles.
You say that Duncan Head states that “good commanders didn’t use Ax to cover the flanks of their phalanx, cavalry was used
instead”. So where exactly were all the Ax in the above battles? In reserve just watching? Or were they left in the camp?
As for Cunaxia in 401 BC, according to the DBA army list I/60c Early Achaemenid Persians, there was only one element of 3Ax
facing the Greek mercenary Hoplites, and no 4Ax troops present at all, so that tells us nothing about the 4Ax capabilities.
And at Sellasia in 222 BC, it was the ‘light’ infantry on the allied right attacking the the Euas hill, with the aid of Philopoemen’s
cavalry, that drove the Spartan perioikoi Hoplites from the heights (with Illyrian 4Ax actually fighting uphill no less!).
(See “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, page 75 of the 1982 edition, battle of Sellasia)
The Crux of the MatterAll you say about Ax not being able to face up to heavy infantry is true...
for 3Ax.
But what about 4Ax...the same 4Ax that Polybius says grudgingly gave ground at Cannae without being broken or destroyed?
The same 4Ax that made up the Spanish Iberian and Samnite armies, that made them so hard for the Roman legionaries to beat.
The same 4Ax that
was used to extend a Successor battleline, and that made up half the foot in Imperial Roman civil wars.
Inferior to Bd/Sp/Pk it is true...but certainly not slaughtered like helpless sheep the way DBA portrays them.
And Speaking of Duncan Head:-Hmmm...there appears to be a bit of cherry picking here.
Doesn’t he also say that “The initial Spanish charge was often powerful enough to break through even a Roman line, but if it was
held, then Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them.” (page 56, 1982 edition).
And about the Illyrians: “The Dardanni in 200 BC are described as much steadier warriors - troops that do not leave their ranks
impulsively but keep close order both in combat and withdrawal.” He also goes on to say “The contrast between 5th-century
Illyrians fighting individually in no order
(3Ax?) and and their 3rd-century counterparts in formed speirai
(4Ax?) suggests a
marked improvement in battlefield organisation.” (page 52, 1982 edition).
As for the Samnites: “The Samnites had a very high military reputation, and seem to be the only Italian nation whose warlike qualities
the Romans feared: Livy calls them warlike, brave and stubborn, fighting with more courage than hope, even in dire adversity". He goes
on to say “The Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while they would run out of missiles and
their spirits would flag...Their infantry would usually charge fiercely and fight at close quarters rather than skirmish with their javelins;
the Romans seem to have a sleight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once.” (page 62, 1982 edition).
Hardly the capability of 3Ax with a combat factor of 3...
...but more like 4Ax with a combat factor of 4 wouldn't you say?
Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter