Why are hordes so invincible?

Part of your answer can be found on page 14, Historical Refights.
These represent 1,000 + which is double the size of other infantry and four times the number of mounted.

I would not describe them as being superhuman, as these cost an extra pip to move every turn.
True they will not recoil unless shot at, so destroying them on a combat outcome of ‘twice as many’ score is your only option.

However, they pursue everyone (1BW), including psiloi and cavalry.
Cavalry are useful as even losing on a ‘twice as many’ score they flee (4BW) with the horde in hot pursuit.


I would suggest have fun with enemy horde.
Manoeuvre them out of position and let them block you opponent’s advance or retreat.

They are this way because they produce historical results. Try them.

Joe Collins

Hordes rule!

Oh yes they can! (tizz the pantomime season after all... )

I do sometimes get annoyed when modern historians go on about rear ranks ‘pushing’.
Even Donald Kagan in his “Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece” talks about
‘rear ranks in a column pushing their friends in front of them’, with no mention of fatigue.
(See books.google.co.uk/books?id=xx6orLkVV4YC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false )

Many modern scholars assume that the best troops at the front did all the fighting, and an ancient
melee was like some sort of rugby scrum, with the rear ranks merely pushing the front ranks forward.
This is rubbish.
The truth is when rear ranks push people at the front are crushed to death! Especially if both sides are doing it.
The front ranks certainly couldn’t raise their arms to use their weapons effectively.
No, the real reason they fought in multiple ranks was because of fatigue.

Troops don’t stand in the front rank until they are killed.
They stay in the front rank until they feel tired or fatigued, then step back to let a fresh man step forward.
And in DBA if an element represents about 8 ranks deep, and a Horde is 16 or more ranks, then even though
the 8 ranks are successful their entire formation will still become fatigued more quickly.
(Technically the Horde should ‘recoil’ a bit to show this ‘stepping back’, but under DBA’s Grand Tactical Scale
falling back a single pace or two is far too small a distance to be represented)

Now some of the Horde attributes are a little bit artificial and made-up in order to fit them into the DBA
combat system and make them more useful. But as Joe Collins has already said, their overall effect
does seem to simulate their real life behaviour on our wargames table.

Having said that, don’t expect your Hordes to win a battle for you.
I find their best use is to distract and delay the enemy, keeping one wing busy while you concentrate
your better troops on the other wing to achieve victory (especially as their loss doesn’t count).

Oh yes they can! ( )
Here is a visual, if admittedly modern, example of line relief:-
playtube.pk/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0

Stepping back to reveal a fresh fighter was probably a common tactic...
...unless fighting continuously for two or three hours doesn’t cause tiredness.
Even modern boxers, wearing little more than shorts, are knackered after just
12 three minute rounds.
Imagine how knackered they’d be if they were wearing armour, carrying large shields,
had heavy bronze helmets, and had advanced long distances over the countryside.

Anyway, why bother giving the rear ranks armour, shields, helmets, and weapons
if their only function was to ‘push’ the Hollywood style front rank fighters?

Choppin your way through several ranks of peasant hordes is hard work and will
tire you out...even if your fresh mates step forward to take up the fight.
And if the peasant hordes have more ranks than you have, then ALL your mates
will be knackered and exhausted before you get to the last rank of peasants.

That is a rather nice video link Chaotic. 👍
Thanks for that.

Mind you, getting back to DBA Hordes, It does strike me as a bit odd that other
columns and double-bases (such as 6Bd, 8Sp, and the like) will all recoil from a
losing fight, while those untrained, poorly armed, and unenthusiastic peasant
Hordes in a similar formation simply stoically and heroically hold their ground.

I don’t think that historical Hordes were noted for their staying ability.

Still, in DBA all elements are considered to be (potentially) equal, with different
abilities giving them various advantages and disadvantages, and having a troop
type that doesn’t recoil does mean they must be treated differently from other
normal troops, both by their commanding general and by their opponents.

Oh no they ca-hah-hah-hah-haaaan't!

(this is all moot since if hordes work in a wargaming context who cares about their historical niceties?)

Modern attempts to recreate in-formation line relief all forget that when you have lethal weapons and your opponents also have lethal weapons and fully intend to kill you, everything changes. You cannot be distracted for an instant and you need to maintain your full fighting capability, which includes the necessary fighting space, at all times. Front rank squeezing back through the second rank would I think seriously compromise all this.

Again, infantry combat wasn't a hammer and tongs affair. Infantrymen didn't fight like boxers. See Vegetius' description of legionary combat training. Troops who did go hammer and tongs - like Gauls - did indeed tire and became helpless against the more longwinded Romans.

There also wasn't much actual killing in an infantry vs infantry fight until one side routed - about 5% or less than half the front rank of a typical 8-rank formation. It was only when one side broke and ran that the casualties mounted. BTW that's one reason all ranks were armed.