Post by dpd on Feb 25, 2023 10:18:24 GMT
I propose that some tweaking of the combat factors for scythed chariots, elephants and camels is needed to increase historical accuracy.
Currently these combat factors are:
v. Foot v. Mounted
Scythed Chariots 3 4
Elephants 5 4
Camels 3 3
However, scythed chariots were designed and intended for use against heavy infantry (Greek hoplite) formations not mounted troops. Their tactics (direct charge and sudden impact) can sometimes work against slow moving infantry but not against more mobile cavalry.
www.ancienthistorybulletin.org/subscribed-users-area/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Nefedkin.pdf
"Once More on the Origin of Scythed Chariot" by Alexander K. Nefedkin
"my three theses: that chariots with scythes appeared in the mid-fifth century B.C., that these chariots were intended for breaking up the formation of the Greek hoplites, and that mention by Ctesias of Assyrian chariots with scythes is unreliable...It seems to me that chariots appeared in the second quarter of the fifth century B.C. for the purpose of attacking the phalanx of the Greek hoplites. The most probable time of appearance of scythed chariots can be considered the period between 467 and 458 B.C., when the central government was occupied with preparation for battle against the Greeks."
So my first proposed change is to reverse the combat values of scythed chariots to show their greater strength against foot.
Conversely, ponderous elephants were far more effective against cavalry (due to their massive size, strange shape and alien smell - horses are easily frightened) then they were against infantry. Whether at Zama or Gaugamela, elephants facing infantry were easily dealt with by parting the ranks of the foot formations to allow the elephants to charge through and finishing them off with javelins and arrows.
web.archive.org/web/20080517060243/http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/army/m_elepha.html
"The main advantages of the elephants were their size and their terrifying sight. They were especially useful against cavalry as the horses who were not used to the sight and the sound of an elephant bolted most of the time. A row of elephants with 20 till 50 metres space between them was enough to stop a massive cavalry attack most of the times. However, there was one big disadvantage: elephants were very hard to kill, but many wounds or the loss of the driver was often enough to scare the elephant and then he also became a big danger to the friendly army. That is why they were normally escorted by a group of light infantry."
So my second proposed change is to reverse the combat values of elephants to show their greater strength against mounted.
Similarly, camels had the same effect on horses that elephants did and for the same reasons (size, shape and smell). The smell of the camel, according to Herodotus, alarmed and disoriented horses, making camels an effective anti-cavalry weapon when employed by the Achaemenid Persians in the Battle of Thymbra.
classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html
"The reason why Cyrus opposed his camels to the enemy's horse was because the horse has a natural dread of the camel, and cannot abide either the sight or the smell of that animal. By this stratagem he hoped to make Croesus's horse useless to him, the horse being what he chiefly depended on for victory. The two armies then joined battle, and immediately the Lydian war-horses, seeing and smelling the camels, turned round and galloped off; and so it came to pass that all Croesus' hopes withered away."
But camels were mostly used for by desert tribesmen for raiding instead of high intensity combat (which is why I personally think that the distinction between camelry and light camelry is artificial and unwarranted - you may as well distinguish between light and heavy elephants).
So my third proposed change is to alter the combat values of camelry to show their greater strength against mounted and their lighter combat capabilities - while keeping their current average combat value of 3.
My proposed changes are summarized below:
v. Foot v. Mounted
Scythed Chariots 4 3
Elephants 4 5
Camels 2 4
Thoughts or comments?
Currently these combat factors are:
v. Foot v. Mounted
Scythed Chariots 3 4
Elephants 5 4
Camels 3 3
However, scythed chariots were designed and intended for use against heavy infantry (Greek hoplite) formations not mounted troops. Their tactics (direct charge and sudden impact) can sometimes work against slow moving infantry but not against more mobile cavalry.
www.ancienthistorybulletin.org/subscribed-users-area/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Nefedkin.pdf
"Once More on the Origin of Scythed Chariot" by Alexander K. Nefedkin
"my three theses: that chariots with scythes appeared in the mid-fifth century B.C., that these chariots were intended for breaking up the formation of the Greek hoplites, and that mention by Ctesias of Assyrian chariots with scythes is unreliable...It seems to me that chariots appeared in the second quarter of the fifth century B.C. for the purpose of attacking the phalanx of the Greek hoplites. The most probable time of appearance of scythed chariots can be considered the period between 467 and 458 B.C., when the central government was occupied with preparation for battle against the Greeks."
So my first proposed change is to reverse the combat values of scythed chariots to show their greater strength against foot.
Conversely, ponderous elephants were far more effective against cavalry (due to their massive size, strange shape and alien smell - horses are easily frightened) then they were against infantry. Whether at Zama or Gaugamela, elephants facing infantry were easily dealt with by parting the ranks of the foot formations to allow the elephants to charge through and finishing them off with javelins and arrows.
web.archive.org/web/20080517060243/http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/army/m_elepha.html
"The main advantages of the elephants were their size and their terrifying sight. They were especially useful against cavalry as the horses who were not used to the sight and the sound of an elephant bolted most of the time. A row of elephants with 20 till 50 metres space between them was enough to stop a massive cavalry attack most of the times. However, there was one big disadvantage: elephants were very hard to kill, but many wounds or the loss of the driver was often enough to scare the elephant and then he also became a big danger to the friendly army. That is why they were normally escorted by a group of light infantry."
So my second proposed change is to reverse the combat values of elephants to show their greater strength against mounted.
Similarly, camels had the same effect on horses that elephants did and for the same reasons (size, shape and smell). The smell of the camel, according to Herodotus, alarmed and disoriented horses, making camels an effective anti-cavalry weapon when employed by the Achaemenid Persians in the Battle of Thymbra.
classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html
"The reason why Cyrus opposed his camels to the enemy's horse was because the horse has a natural dread of the camel, and cannot abide either the sight or the smell of that animal. By this stratagem he hoped to make Croesus's horse useless to him, the horse being what he chiefly depended on for victory. The two armies then joined battle, and immediately the Lydian war-horses, seeing and smelling the camels, turned round and galloped off; and so it came to pass that all Croesus' hopes withered away."
But camels were mostly used for by desert tribesmen for raiding instead of high intensity combat (which is why I personally think that the distinction between camelry and light camelry is artificial and unwarranted - you may as well distinguish between light and heavy elephants).
So my third proposed change is to alter the combat values of camelry to show their greater strength against mounted and their lighter combat capabilities - while keeping their current average combat value of 3.
My proposed changes are summarized below:
v. Foot v. Mounted
Scythed Chariots 4 3
Elephants 4 5
Camels 2 4
Thoughts or comments?