Battle Of Palm Hill - Turn One

Looking from behind Pharoah's Egyptian army - Pharoah is with the royal-blue chariot squadron, second from the right

I win the dice-off (5-1) to go first this turn.

The only order I make is to send the Gadite javelinmen on my left towards the palm grove. They cannot quite reach it in one turn, but since open-order infantry suffer no penalty for turning, they are able to move 12cm and finish still facing the enemy.

Pharoah sends his right-flank chariots towards the Gadites, their full move taking them within bow range, but their shooting is off-target (Pharoah rolls three 4s and a 2, and under my modifications to the rules, 5+ is needed - see Speeding The Game for details).

Next, Pharoah's own royal squadron rushes towards the Gadites, and prove extra keen, covering 30cm, instead of the usual 24cm, under the Move Variation modification. They also shoot at the Gadites, scoring a hit. My saving roll fails to negate the hit, so I roll to see the effect of the hit (also covered in Speeding The Game), the unit losing a base. That means a compulsory morale test, but they pass it as I roll a 5 (average units need 4+ not to lose a further base).

All the Egyptian foot units are ordered to advance 8cm, including the Sherden, who, being auxiliary infantry, have a maximum move of 12cm. Thanks to Move Variation, one unit of spears lags a little behind, while the left-flank archers edge ahead.

Finally the left-flank chariots advance 24cm, bringing them just in bowshot of my Benjaminite slingers on the hill. The charioteers shooting registers one hit, but since the target is in rocky ground, that becomes half a hit, which has to be diced for, with a 50:50 chance of becoming a hit, However, Pharoah rolls a 1, meaning no hit.

The Egyptian chariots have advanced ahead of the infantry, which have a somewhat ragged line

Setup

I AM testing my modifications to Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming by taking on my regular wargaming opponent ('Reg' - he does not want his real name used) in a battle between Early Hebrews and Egyptians.

The last time we fought with these two armies, Reg chose to command the Hebrews, but this time will be sinking his persona in that of Pharoah.

As we are adopting the suggested army compositions and deployments in Thomas's books, we already know who will have what.

Egyptians

3 x chariots (light chariots, bow-armed, elite)

1 x spears (biblical infantry, light armour, average)

1 x spears (biblical infantry, medium armour, average)*

2 x bows (close-order archers, light armour, average)

1 x Sherden (auxiliary infantry, medium armour, elite)

The Egyptian army, with Pharoah's personal squadron of royal-blue chariots to the fore

*These are marines, who have been designated as the one unit the Egyptians are allowed to upgrade to medium armour (in addition to the Sherden, who have medium armour to start with).

Hebrews

2 x Simeonites & Ephraimites (auxiliary infantry, light armour, elite)

2 x Gadites & Issacharites (open-order javelinmen, light armour, average)

2 x Benjaminites (open-order slingers, light armour, average)

2 x other tribes (auxiliary infantry, light armour, average)

I am taking on the mantle of Joshua, an Ephraimite who succeeded Moses as commander of the Israelites, leading the tribes across the Jordan (the unit of Ephraimite auxiliary infantry is in the foreground)

First we will use my Middle East random terrain generator to form the battlefield.

The result is a hill and palm grove on the north side of the battlefield, and an unfortified large village (or small town) in the southwest corner

There could have been a piece of terrain on the immediate west-side of the hill, but the dice fell as "Player A's choice."

Pharoah had been designated as Player A, and he chose to leave the sector as open ground, not wanting to impede his chariots, or help my units of open-order and auxiliary infantry, who would have welcomed more terrain.

We diced for choice of table edge (south or north), and I won 6-4, choosing to take the north side.

Looking from the hill to the Egyptians on the south side of the battlefield - left to right: chariots, Pharoah's personal squadron, archers, spearmen, Sherden, marine spearmen, marine archers (no enhanced armour or fighting qualities), archers, chariots

The Hebrew deployment is not so straightforward, nor so linear, in that the pre-Solomon Hebrew armies have a special guerrilla-warfare rule that allows two piece of rocky terrain to be placed anywhere on the battlefield.

Looking from the Egyptian lines to the Hebrews straddling the hill on the north side of the battlefield - left to right: Issacharite javelinmen, Benjaminite slingers and Ephraimite auxiliary infantry in rocky ground, two ordinary bands of auxiliary infantry in the centre rear, more Benjaminite slingers and Simeonite auxiliary infantry in the second patch of rocky ground, Gadite javelinmen

As usual I will write up the battle as we go along.

I have added tufts of desert-growth to add to the visual appeal, but they will have no effect on the battle

So it is time for the Battle of Palm Hill to get underway.

To be continued

Latest Assyrians Painted

10mm figures from Newline Designs

Summary

HERE is a summary of rule changes (to Neil Thomas's biblical rules) that may prove particularly relevant for the upcoming Egyptians v Hebrews battle.

Move Variation

Roll a die when a unit uses 75% or more of its movement allowance. 6: add 25% to the distance covered; 1: subtract 25% from the distance covered.

Slings' Range

Same range as for bows on foot, ie 24cm.

Who Moves First?

Dice each turn to decide. Great general: +1; poor general: -1.

Terminology

'Heavy' and 'light' refer to degrees of armour, while 'close order' and 'open order' refer to formations.

Speeding The Game

Hits are scored on 5+, not 4+.

If a hit still stands after a saving throw, dice to determine its effect.

Unit Quality....Lose a base....Fall back 3cm

Elite                      1-2                   3-6

Average               1-3                   4-6

Poor                     1-4                   5-6

A victor in a melee that has not lost a base may follow up a loser that has fallen back 3cm, thus immediately forcing another round of hand-to-hand fighting.

Generals

One elite unit is designated as the general's, receiving a +1 modifier when testing morale. If the unit is destroyed, all friends in line-of-sight immediately test their morale, and all other friendly units test their morale at the start of the next turn.

Victory

An army losing more than half its units has lost the battle.

Move & Fire

A unit moves and shoots before before another unit moves and shoots, etc.

How Long?

A battle will usually last no more than 12 turns before night falls and combat ends.

Melees In Rocky Ground Etc

Use the same combat table as for fighting in woods.

Cover

Troops behind cover get an extra die per base in the first round of hand-to-hand fighting.

Shooting When Charged

Troops armed with javelins can hurl these immediately before contact, provided the chargers started more than 8cm away.

Professional Job

THERE are five categories of infantry in the biblical rules in Neil Thomas's Ancient & Medieval Wargaming: heavy infantry, biblical infantry, auxiliary infantry, light infantry and heavy archers.

I have already explained I prefer close-order and open-order, rather than heavy and light, when referring to formations, and I reserve the terms heavy and light for degrees of protection, ie body armour and shields.

It is easiest to think of auxiliary infantry as what are often termed warband.

Indeed Thomas states that auxiliary infantry is simply a different name for what in his first book, Wargaming: An Introduction, was called warband.

However the difference between his categories of heavy infantry and biblical infantry needs more detail.

His heavy infantry are "well-drilled, often quite heavily armoured, and extremely formidable in hand-to-hand combat," whereas biblical infantry are "essentially a much less effective variety of heavy infantry."

I like the term biblical infantry, but I think Thomas's heavy infantry are better labelled professional infantry.

Since my ancient armies are composed of 10mm figures on 40x20mm bases, intended for figures up to twice as tall, I have different numbers from the 'official' ones on each base.

So a base of professional and biblical infantry has six figures in two rows of three (as do close-order archers), rather than the recommended four figures.

Similarly a base of auxiliary infantry has four figures rather than three, and a base of open-order infantry has three figures rather than two.

Shooting When Being Charged

UNDER Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming each half-turn starts with charges being declared.

There is no bonus for charging, but charges have to be worked out before all other actions.

This means 1) declaring each charge, ie each move intended to bring about hand-to-hand combat, 2) allowing defensive fire from javelin-armed troops who were more than 8cm away at the start of the half-turn, 3) fighting the melee.

Once all charges are carried out, the half-turn continues with phases for normal movement, shooting, meleeing and morale testing.

Since I am replacing these phases with each unit completing its movement, firing, meleeing, etc before the next unit does likewise (the player choosing the order in which units do this), Thomas's charge phase is redundant.

But the ability to hurl javelins immediately before contact remains.

Cover

ALMOST no mention is made in Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming of any combat bonuses for troops behind cover, whether the fighting be hand-to-hand or by missiles.

The exception is that "units in woods only suffer half the number of hits registered" by missiles.

It is a simple matter to extend this to troops in rocky ground, built-up areas and the like.

However there is a complication in that the illustrative battle for the biblical section, Kadesh, features a "well-defended" Egyptian camp.

This is reflected by allowing Egyptian troops defending the camp one extra die per base in hand-to-hand combat.

A further rule makes the Hittite units spend a complete turn crossing the walls of the camp before they can "assault the defenders behind them."

These two rules make the camp a formidable fortification, although it is implied that the defenders' extra die per base does not apply against Hittites that have succeeded in entering.

I think that in general troops behind cover should receive an extra die per base in the first round of hand-to-hand fighting, but this might be extended to subsequent rounds if the cover is deemed above the ordinary, in which case it might also be appropriate to make attackers spend a turn crossing the cover before being able to inflict casualties.

Fighting In Rocky Ground

MELEES in the biblical rules in Neil Thomas's Ancient & Medieval Wargaming are decided by rolling a set number of dice per base.

Usually this means one die per base, but it can rise to two, three or even four dice per base, eg heavy chariots roll three dice per base in hand-to-hand fighting with light infantry.

The number of dice can also be increased because of the situation of the combatants, so troops on higher ground roll an extra die per base in the first round of a melee, as do troops defending a riverbank if their opponents are in the water.

All these numbers apply when fighting takes place in "open terrain."

However, melees in woods use a completely different combat table, one in which most troops get one die per base, but auxiliary infantry get two dice if fighting troops other than auxiliary infantry.

Nothing is mentioned about combat in other non-standard terrain, such as rocky ground.

I think it right that the same combat table as for woods should be used, and it might be easiest to call this the table for difficult terrain (as opposed to the one for open terrain).

Armour Classes

TROOPS in Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming are considered to have light, medium or heavy armour.

By light he means "breastplate or shield," and by medium he means "breastplate and a shield."

Thomas adds: "These ratings can be augmented if the man has extra armour, horse armour, or an unusually large shield."

Such soldiers, although it is not explicitly stated, count as having heavy armour.

A hit can be negated by a saving roll, using a normal six-sided die: 6 is required for light armour, 5+ for medium and 4+ for heavy.

But should there by an extra class, or sub-class, for troops without any protection?

Completely unarmoured men were certainly not unknown, especially among nomads skirmishing in open order, and they could be represented by not being allowed a saving throw.

For now I do not intend amending the rules in such a way, but I might if a specifically compelling scenario arises.

More On Slings

FURTHER to my post on the relative ranges of slings and bows, I came across this reference in William Hamblin's Warfare In The Ancient Near East To 1600 BC - Holy Warriors At The Dawn Of History.

"The sling made its first appearance as a significant weapon among the Egyptians in the martial murals from the tombs of Beni Hasan [a cemetery near Memphis].

"It is perhaps not coincidental that the weapon is associated with Canaanite mercenaries, since the weapon is a favourite of nomads.

"While several Canaanite mercenaries are shown with slings, only one native Egyptian is shown using the weapon.

"In the siege scene at Beni Hasan slingers are shown standing behind the archers, possibly indicating that their effective range was greater than that of the Egyptian bow."

All in all I feel I am right in amending the ranges in Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming so slingers have the same range as archers on foot, ie 24cm, rather than the 16cm of mounted archers.

Chariot Classes

MY understanding is that chariots in biblical times were generally divided into two classes: light and heavy.

Light chariots were mobile shooting platforms, fast-moving and manned by warriors armed with bows and/or javelins.

Heavy chariots were sturdier vehicles, designed to intimidate by bulk, and manned by warriors armed with spears and, usually, javelins.

The former were popular with Egyptian armies and their imitators, especially in the Levant, while heavy chariots were a feature of the Hittites.

Neil Thomas in his biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming sticks to these two categories.

But there is an argument for introducing a third category of ultra-light chariots that sacrifice protection for more speed.

Egyptian chariots would probably fall into this category as their light chariots had very low walls.

But in drawing up wargaming rules it is all too easy to get bogged down into making fine distinctions that were perhaps not all that significant in practice.

Accordingly I will stick with Thomas's two chariot categories.

How Elite Were The Elite?

OR, to put it another way, what proportion of an ancient army should be regarded as above average?

In Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, armies have eight units, each classed as elite, average or poor.

The number of elite units can vary a lot.

An army from the pre-Solomon Hebrew list, for example, will have one or two elite units, both being bands of auxiliary infantry.

But an Egyptian army can have four elite units, namely three squadrons of chariots and a band of Sherden.

That means half the army can be elite, which to me is way too high a proportion.

It gets even worse with Thomas's Assyrian army, which can have six elite units, ie 75% of the army.

I mean to modify army lists for future conflicts, but I will stick with the ones in the book for the upcoming battle in which we will use the book's suggested army compositions and deployments for Hebrews versus Egyptians.

How Many Turns?

WARFARE in ancient times tended to have a campaign season running from spring to autumn, which in the northern hemisphere means roughly March to October.

Daylight hours varied by month, although in those lands covered in the Bible the variation is not as much as further north.

Roughly speaking there are 13 hours of daylight per day from May to July, dropping to below 12 in March and October.

A fairly common convention in old-school wargaming rules is to let a turn represent the action that takes place in an hour.

Unless a battle is taking place very early or very late in the campaigning season, it is probably best, or at least convenient, to allow it to last 12 turns.

An equally valid argument could be made for 13 turns, but unless there is strong reason for deciding otherwise, I will go with the former for battles using Neil Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming.

Important 10mm News

MAGISTER Militum, which announced its closure last year, has at last revealed to whom its 10mm ranges of historical figures, including extensive ancients, have been sold.

The new owner is Baccus 6mm, who, as the name suggests, is famous for its 1:285-scale figures.

The company has set up a new website to sell the Magister Militum ranges under the name Tenth Legion. 

Move & Fire

ONE of the interesting mechanisms in Bob Cordery's ancient rules in Developing The Portable Wargame is the resolution of moving and firing.

In most sets of rules, including those in Neil Thomas's Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, there are separate moving and shooting phases.

But in Cordery's rules each unit completes its moving and firing, then another unit follows, and so on.

This worked well in my On The Table battle, and I think it is worth testing with Thomas's rules. 

Victory

VICTORY in Neil Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming goes to the player who reduces the enemy army to a quarter of its starting strength, ie two two units (armies in A&MW always begin with eight units).

I intend modifying this to makjng the aim being to reduce the enemy to below 50%, which I think is more realistic. In other words, an army is defeated once it has lost five of its eight units.

Number Of Units

ANYONE who widely reads accounts of ancient battles will, sooner or later, be struck by the realisation that the smaller army nearly always wins.

So frequently does this happen that one wonders why generals of the time did not do their best to shed as many of their men pre-battle as possible.

However, a not unconnected fact is that contemporary, or relatively near-contemporary, accounts of ancient battles are nearly always written by, or based on the sources of, the victors.

Since numbers given in such accounts are so unreliable, I have much sympathy with Neil Thomas's approach in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming of having all armies consist of eight units.

I will generally try to follow this, except where to do so would be bordering on the absurd, a possible example being one of the earliest battles in the Bible, namely Abraham's night ambush of the Elamite alliance following the Battle of Siddim.

I write "possible" because I am still pondering the best way of refighting the ambush, and anyway I have not yet decided for certain to use Thomas's rules in my biblical project.

Generals

ARMY commanders played a hugely important role in ancient battles, especially in biblical times when a general was often also a king.

Neil Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming do not reflect this.

One way of doing it would be to add a general (and bodyguard) as a separate unit.

But with armies consisting of eight units, I believe that would be disproportionate.

My plan is to instead rule that one of an army's elite units should be declared as having the general with it.

In the unlikely event that an army only has average and poor units, the general should be appointed to one of the average units, which will then count as elite.

The presence of the general means the unit gets a +1 modifier when testing morale.

The downside for an army is that if the general's unit is eliminated, every friendly unit within line-of-sight must immediately test its morale, and every other friendly unit must test its morale at the start of the next turn.

Speeding The Game

IN my biblical dry-run battle we, ie I and my regular wargaming opponent, felt the melees dragged on too long.

And generally speaking I think it would be good to resolve all combat quicker.

Under Neil Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming a unit loses a base after suffering four hits, which means 16 hits are needed to destroy a unit (all units start with four bases).

My plan is to speed this by removing a base after a single hit.

This will also do away with unsightly markers used to record how many hits a unit has suffered.

However I will water this change down by ruling that a die score of 5+ is required, rather than Thomas's 4+.

And I will further mitigate the effects by adapting an idea from Bob Cordery's Developing The Portable Wargame.

When a unit has suffered a hit (assuming it remains a hit after a saving roll), throw a die to determine the effect of the hit.

Unit Quality....Lose a base....Fall back 3cm*

Elite                      1-2                   3-6

Average               1-3                   4-6

Poor                     1-4                   5-6

*A unit that cannot fall back 3cm, eg if it has impassable terrain behind it, is surrounded by enemy troops, or has friendly troops not in open-order directly behind it and preventing even retreat diagonally, loses a base. 

When an enemy unit falls back in a melee, the victor, if it has not lost a base in the same turn, may choose to follow up by advancing 3cm and immediately instigating another round of hand-to-hand fighting.

These are quite radical changes to the rules. Only testing in a battle will determine whether they are for good or bad.

Terminology

NEIL Thomas in his biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming uses the terms Heavy and Light in a rather confusing way.

You might think Heavy Infantry, Heavy Cavalry and Heavy Archers would, by definition, have substantial protection in the form of body armour and/or shields.

Similarly you might think Light Infantry and Light Cavalry would necessarily have little or no protection.

However he is using Heavy and Light in cases where the terms close order and open order are more appropriate.

An example is the New Kingdom Egyptian army, which is allowed up to two units of archers.

These are defined as "Heavy Archers, Light armour, Average."

The last classification refers to their quality, which can be elite, average or poor, but by Heavy he means close-order.

Accordingly I will use the terms close order and open order when referring to formations, and heavy, medium and light when referring to body armour and shields.

Command & Control

ONE thing notably absent from Neil Thomas's rules, in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming and other books, is restrictions on how many units a player may move in a turn.

He argues that players make enough mistakes on their own without the need for extra uncertainty.

I am not sure about this, and for my mid-18th century rules, which owed a lot to Thomas's ideas on horse-and-musket wargaming, I eventually adopted the pip system pioneered by the Wargames Research Group.

Armies of the period were generally divided into two wings and a centre, and by allocating different dice - a 10-sided one for the centre, six-sided dice for the flanks - I restricted the number of actions, including moving and firing, that could take place in a single turn.

However my armies for refighting the War of the Austrian Succession contained many more units than are allowed in Thomas's rules.

In Ancient & Medieval Wargaming armies consist of eight units, and, as I have mentioned before, I think this works well for battles where numbers are a matter of much speculation.

My move-variation rule already adds some uncertainty to a battle, and I propose to add more by adapting an idea from Bob Cordery's ancient rules in Developing The Portable Wargame.

He has players rolling dice at the start of each turn, higher thrower moving first.

This means that, not infrequently, an army will get to have two turns, or two half-turns to be more precise, in a row.

I will slightly modify this by awarding a great general a +1 modifier, and a poor general a -1 modifier.

With any luck these additions to Thomas's rules will do away with the need for command & control, but, to borrow a common expression from chess when discussing new moves in an opening, tests are needed.

Sling v Bow

THERE are four types of hand-held missiles in the biblical rules in Neil Thomas's Ancient & Medieval Wargaming - javelins, slings, bows on foot and bows on horseback.

Their ranges are, respectively, 8cm, 16cm, 24cm and 16cm, which, presumably, are effective ranges rather than maximums.

The difference between bows on foot and on horseback is easily explained: "A mobile horse is inevitably not as stable a firing platform as the earth on which the footman stood."

Unfortunately Thomas does not specifically mention whether the range of bow-armed charioteers should be 16cm or 24cm.

On the one hand charioteers are standing upright, rather than on horseback, but cannot be regarded as "on foot" in the normal sense of the phrase as a chariot floor is not stable.

I think the shooting range of bow-armed charioteers should be the same as for horse archers, namely 16cm.

So far, so simple, and in accordance with the spirit of the rules, I believe.

But the question of the range of slings is another matter.

It might be thought obvious that a bow is more powerful and so will have a longer range.

But my reading of authorities on the subject suggests that the ranges of bows and slings were compatible, especially when it came to effective range, ie the range at which weapons were typically used.

Some bows had longer ranges than other bows, but the same was true for slings, whose ranges were strongly influenced by the size of shot.

There were times when slings considerably outranged bows.

The following speech from Xenophon's Anabasis is informative: "The enemy can shoot arrows and sling stones so far that neither our Cretan bowmen nor our javelinmen can reach them in reply.

"We need slingers ourselves at once, [and] I am told there are Rhodians in our army, that most of them understand the use of the sling, and that their missiles carry no less than twice as far as those from the Persian slings.
"The latter have only a short range, because the stones used in them are as large as the hand can hold. The Rhodians, however, are versed also in the art of slinging leaden bullets."

It might be wondered, if slingers were as good as good as archers, and at times better, why they were by medieval times more-or-less completely replaced by bowmen.

This was partly due to slingers requiring many years of habitual use and practice to become proficient, which was why slingers from certain areas, for example the Balearic islands, were especially sought after. Archery also required dedicated practice, but to a lesser extent.

Also, more widespread use of armour made archery less effective - so much so that in most of Europe traditional archery died out, with the crossbow replacing ordinary bows, until both were superseded by gunpowder weapons.

A further complication is that the sling was a concussion weapon, while the arrow was a piercing weapon, which again made their effectiveness vary.

However, the main point is that slingers should, in my opinion, have the same range as bows on foot, ie 24cm.

Move Variation

IN wargaming it is regarded as normal to use dice to help determine such major things as shooting, hand-to-hand fighting and morale.

Dice, or perhaps drawing cards, are also often used for the weather and special events.

But everyone seems happy with troops moving at a strictly regimented pace, which means that if, for example, two units from rival armies are heading for a particular feature, perhaps a hill top, it is easy to see which should get there first.

I like to shake this up in my rules by introducing what I call the move variation.

This has it that if a unit is ordered to advance at least 75% of its permissible move distance that turn, roll a six-sided die.

If the die lands 2-5, all proceeds normally, but a 6 means 25% is added to the distance to be covered, while a 1 means 25% is deducted from the wished-for distance.

This represents the unexpected effects of terrain and other possible factors that may catch a unit by surprise.

The rule should not be enforced too zealously. For example a regiment sent to guard the bank of a river should not have to enter the river thanks to the move-variation rule.

Next Up

I PLAN in my next tabletop battle to use Neil Thomas's biblical rules from Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, pitting Egyptians against Hebrews.

As a twist, I think it will be fun to set up the two armies using the suggested deployments in the book.

That means the Egyptians will consist of three elite chariot squadrons, two units of spearmen (one upgraded to medium armour), two units of close-order archers and a unit of elite Sherden.

The suggested deployment for a pre-Solomon Hebrew army involves two elite units of Simeonite and Ephraimite auxiliary infantry, two units of javelinmen (Gadites and Issacharites), two units of Benjaminite slingers and two units of ordinary auxiliary infantry.

The two armies - Egyptians on the right

However, before proceeding further there are some adjustments I want to make to the rules that will in my opinion improve the game.

Full Hebrew Army

UNDER Neil Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, an army always starts with eight units, each consisting of four bases.

I think this system works well for ancient battles, particularly for biblical-era ones where army strengths are usually a matter of speculation.

Having completed painting my latest batch of chariots from Old Glory, I now have enough troops to field the options from Thomas's Israelite Army (1220-940 BC) list.

For Post-Solomonic armies (740-587 BC) he suggests using his Canaanite/Philistine list as "later [Israelite] armies seem to have lost their cutting edge."

Thomas adds: "This can be accounted for by allowing for the increased prominence of the chariot arm, and decline in the quality of foot soldiers."

Note that there is a 200-year between the main list and the start of Post-Solomonic armies.

It is hard to tell whether this is a typo, or perhaps deliberate, allowing the player to gradually move from early Hebrew to later monarchy.*

Anyway, so far I have troops to cover the Hebrew invasion of the Promised Land and the start of the united monarchy, before the split under Solomon's son Rehoboam into the twin monarchies of Israel, aka Samaria, and Judah (the reason I prefer to use Hebrew over Israelite is that it avoids confusion as to what exactly is meant).

My Hebrew forces

Left to right are two units of Simeonites and Ephraimites (auxiliary infantry, light armour, elite), two units of Gadites and Issacharites (javelin-armed open-order infantry, light armour, average), two units of Benjaminites (sling-armed open-order infantry, light armour, average), four units of Other Seven Tribes (auxiliary infantry, light armour, average) and three squadrons of Light Chariots (bow-armed, elite).

The pre-Solomon list reads:

Simeonites & Ephraimites 1-2 units

Gadites & Issacharites 1-2 units

Benjaminites 1-2 units

Other Seven Tribes 2-4 units

This army has the Guerrilla Warfare rule, which allows the Hebrew general to place extra rocky terrain and set an ambush.

That rule is lost for King Solomon's army, but the general instead gets to choose from 1-3 chariot squadrons.

*A typo seems more likely, especially as on the previous page Issachar is spelt Issacher.

Chariotry

Have painted 10 10mm chariots from Old Glory

They are specifically designed for a Solomonic Hebrew army under Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, but will be usable by other nations.

Prince Bruncvik

NEAR the south end of the Charles Bridge, ie on the Lesser Town side, is a statue erected in 1884.

It depicts the legendary Prince Bruncvik, who is famed for setting off on an adventure with a magical sword

At one point, so the story goes, he helped a lion defeat a dragon, resulting in the former becoming the prince's faithful companion.

The lion can be seen at the statue's feet

The interesting thing to me is the prince's armour, which seems a mix of medieval and renaissance, but that may say more about the state of my knowledge than about the accuracy of the depiction.

Powder Power

WORK on Prague's imposing Powder Gate began in 1475, and was intended as a grand entrance to the Old Town rather than a practical defensive structure.

Gunpowder made tall fortifications largely redundant, but they still looked good

Originally called New Tower, it was modelled after the 14th century Old Town Bridge Tower.

The building was used to store gunpower in the 1600s, hence its modern name of Powder Gate or Powder Tower.

It was badly damaged in 1757, during Frederick the Great's attempt to capture Prague after conquering Saxony to open the Seven Years War, but was quickly repaired, and received its most recent major restoration last year.

Signing Off

A FINAL set of shouse signs from Prague Old Town.

This stone carving of an elephant dates back to the 1300s, and was placed on an inn - now a hotel - as a symbol of wealth and prestige

The House At The Black Bear - now the Beer Restaurant - was built in 1428 in a merchants' courtyard that had its own high walls and moat to separate it from the rest of the old town

Peacocks are another symbol of wealth, although the building on which this iron peacock spreads its feathers has seen better times, and is now partly a Duck Boutique - a shop selling rubber ducks in various colours and sizes

Hotel Metamorphis was converted from a historic building known as The Blue House, and the sign above the entrance may have had a special religious meaning for a previous owner as the image and wording refer to the seven golden lampstands of Revelation, which symbolised seven early Christian churches, and the woman is probably the Wife of the Lamb, ie the church symbolised as Jesus's bride

Signing On

 MORE signs from Prague Old Town, and the stories behind them.

These bears were originally gilded, and may have referred to the building's use as a tannery (Czech leather makers often used bear skins rather cattle hide), although it was later occupied by an alchemist with connections to Habsburg royalty (bears were an early symbol of alchemy)

No one seems to know the significance of the blue horse - it may have just been a way of identifying the building in days before house numbers became common

The Golden Jug underground hostelry dates back to medieval times, but the name of the next-door Golden Kettle Irish bar is presumably more modern 

These three ducks may indicate the building was also used as a restaurant, but probably was just a house sign symbolising family and nurturing

Signs Of The Times

WALKING around Prague Old Town I have had a lot of fun looking at the district's many house signs from the days of mass illiteracy, and trying to guess what they signify.

This looks as if it should be on a winebar or tavern, but was placed on a housefront in the late 1700s by owners who wanted to highlight the biblical story of Joshua and Caleb bringing a huge bunch of grapes from the Promised Land 

I guessed this golden animal represented a lion, and indeed the house - now a pub-restaurant - previously had a lion as its emblem, but this was changed in 1713 to what is apparently a tiger

Snakes and their venom were associated with Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine, and this one indicates the building was once a pharmacy

This mermaid is a long way from the sea, but has had plenty of time to contemplate her fate, having been installed in 1439 for reasons no longer known

Lesser Prague

OPPOSITE Prague Old Town on the opposite bank of the Vltava is the Lesser Town, which in modern times has become the embassy district.

Access to the Charles Bridge is through an arched gateway guarded by the Lesser Town Bridge Tower, built in the second half of the 15th century and modelled on the Old Town Bridge Tower.

The Lesser Town Bridge Tower was built partly in response to the district being the site of fierce fighting between Hussites and the castle garrison in 1419

Towering Defence

ACCESS to Prague Old Town from the Charles Bridge is protected by the Old Town Bridge Tower, sometimes called the Charles Tower in reference to Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (1316-78).

It became customary for kings of Bohemia to pass through the tower's arch as part of their coronation procession.

Old Town Bridge Tower ... still impressive

The tower's role in repulsing Swedish attacks in 1648 is commemorated in a Latin inscription: SISTE VIATOR, SED LUBENS, AC VOLENS UBI SISTERE DEBUIT, SED COACTUS GOTHORUM, AC VANDALORUM FUROR

Roughly translated: "Stop, traveller, willingly; here unwillingly were stopped the Goths and their vandalistic fury."

Impressive Bridge

AM visiting Prague for 11 nights, during which time I have walked to and crossed the famous Charles Bridge every possible day.

The bridge is packed with tourists most of the day, so it pays to get there early if you want to study its features undisturbed.

Charles Bridge ... beautiful in early morning sunshine

Construction began in 1357 to replace the 12th century Judith Bridge damaged by a major flood in 1342.

It took almost 50 years to fully complete the project, and almost another 300 years were to pass before the bridge's iconic statues were added.

What many visitors do not realise is that all the statues now on the bridge are copies, the originals having been moved under cover in the Czech National Museum and nearby Vyšehrad fort.

Nevertheless most of the replicas on the bridge are very darkened with age, although they clean up nicely, as can be seen with the statue nearest the camera in the above photo.

The bridge was the scene of desperate fighting in 1648 when Swedish troops tried to capture Prague Old Town in one of the last actions of the 30 Years War.

Those could almost be Swedes looming out of the fog - photo taken from where the Czech defenders made their successful last stand

Charles Bridge kept its unique military and economic importance until 1841, when Prague gained its second bridge across the Vltava.

Pro Bows

I have painted these 10mm Assyrian archers from Newline Designs as professional bowmen with mail tops and iron helmets

More Camelry

I have painted Black-robed Midianite camelry - 10mm figures from Newline Designs - to supplement my white-robed Midianite raiders

On The Table - Concluded

REG conceded before we started the sixth turn, which brought up an interesting point.

His Egyptians counted as exhausted under the rules, meaning they could take no offensive action.

But my Assyrians were very close to becoming exhausted, and might well have been before turn six was completed.

The rules in the Portable Wargame state that a battle ends when both sides are exhausted, but the rules do not state how the winner is then decided.

Should it be the army that has lost fewer strength points? Or should it be the army that has more strength points remaining? Or should the winner be decided in some other way?

Reg said that, whatever the rules stated, he felt I had scored a moral victory, and I was happy to accept that!

More importantly, neither of us was satisfied with the experience.

The rules seemed bland, with little or no difference between the various units, whatever their weapons, whatever their formation, etc.

We were also unhappy with some of the basic rules, eg archers have a shooting range of three hexes, only one hex more than troops armed with javelins.

And surely there should be a difference between mounted bowmen and those on foot?

Actually  there is a solution to this, which starts in the same way as my adjustments for portable Franco-Prussian wargame rules.

The first step is to take away the ability of units to melee when in adjacent hexes. Instead a melee should occur when a unit attempts to enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit.

The throwing range of javelins can then be reduced to one hex, and that of mounted archers, whether on horseback or in a chariot, to two hexes.

There are other adjustments I plan to make before playing a similar game again, mainly by borrowing fairly heavily from Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming.

I should stress we were far from being completely unhappy with the Portable Wargame rules.

We felt they helped make a fine spectacle on the tabletop, and played quickly, with fighting not dragging on far too long, as it can in A&MW.

And we particularly liked having to dice at the start of each turn to see who moved first, which added to a battle's tension and uncertainty. 

The bottom line is we enjoyed ourselves - but not as much as usual when wargaming.

*One thing we got wrong: units that move and shoot in the same turn suffer a movement penalty (in addition to not shooting as well as stationary units, which gain a +1 modifier).

On The Table - Turn Five

Situation at the end of turn four

Pharoah wins the dice-off 6-2 to decide who moves first.

He starts on the Egyptian right by advancing the one-base chariot squadron, which then shoots at my Assyrian cavalry. A hit is scored, but I am able to resolve it by falling back a hex rather than losing a strength point.

The other right-flank chariots shoot at the slingers at the rear of the town, but with no effect.

The blue-shield Egyptian infantry advance a hex and attack the other slingers in the town. In the melee that follows, both sides score a hit. I take the option of letting my men retreat onto the hill behind the town, but the Egyptians have no such choice and so lose 1SP.

That reduces Pharoah's army to 26 strength points, which means it is exhausted and can no longer take offensive action - in other words "it will continue to fight to defend its existing position, but will not continue any movement towards the enemy."

Pharoah switches attention to the Egyptian left, where the three-base archers shoot at the camelry directly ahead., but with no effect.

The forward chariots on the hill shoot at the same target, but also miss.

The continuing melee in the centre of the battlefield sees both sides score a hit. The Egyptians are able to fall back a hex, but my men have to lose 1SP.

Thanks to the melee having ended, the marine archers are able to fire at my same infantry. Thanks to a +1 modifier for having not moved, a hit is scored, but I am able to choose the option of falling back a hex.

The Egyptians are officially exhausted, but still form a sizeable army

My slingers in the town shoot at the one-base chariots to their left, scoring a hit that finishes off the enemy unit.

My cavalry advance three hexes and attack the remaining right-flank Egyptian chariot squadron, but fail to score a hit, while suffering one, which proves to be a compulsory strength-point loss.

The other Assyrian slingers enter the town, which puts them adjacent to the Egyptian blue-shield heavy infantry. But are they allowed to shoot, or do they have to engage in close combat? The rules are not clear, but Reg and I agreed the former makes more sense. However the point became somewhat academic when I roll a 2, meaning a miss.

I switch to the Assyrian right, where the far-right Bedouin camelry mount the hill and attack the forward Egyptian chariots, choosing to shoot rather than melee, but without effect.

The other camelry shoot at the marine spearmen directly ahead, scoring a hit that causes the loss of 1SP.

My armoured archers shoot at the same target, scoring a hit that removes the final base of the marine spears.

My elite chariots, who have the general with them, shoot at the red-shield infantry, scoring a hit that is resolved by withdrawing the infantry.

My chariots next to the town shoot at the one-base Egyptian infantry, but without effect.

My third chariot squadron shoots at the same target, but again without effect.

Finally my one-base heavy infantry drop back a hex to get out of range of the Egyptian archers.

It is definitely 'Advantage Assyria'

On The Table - Turn Four

Situation at the start of turn four

I win the dice-off, to see who moves first, 5-1.

My cavalry charge the Egyptian one-base chariots directly ahead of them, but the combat is indecisive.

My slingers in the hex that contains the town's main building cannot shoot at the same target as there is an ongoing melee, so instead they fire at the other Egyptian right-flank chariots, but the shooting has no effect.

The other Assyrian slingers shoot at the yellow-shield Egyptian infantry, scoring a hit, which has to be resolved as a loss of a strength point as the close-order infantry cannot fall back into the rough ground.

My chariots next to the town shoot at the same target, missing; the squadron next to them petforms likewise.

But my elite chariots have more luck, and the die thrown to resolve the hit shows 1SP must be lost.

My blue-shield heavy infantry continue their melee against the marine spearmen, but no hits are scored.

My close-order archers fire at the nearest chariots on the hill, but the shooting has no effect.

The further-back Bedouin camelry mount the hill and attack the Egyptian one-base left-flank chariots, but there are no hits.

The other camelry advance diagonally left and shoot at the other chariot squadron on the hill, scoring a hit that is resolved as the compulsory loss of a base.

The Egyptians are down to 29 strength points - if three more go, the army will be exhausted and unable to undertake offensive action

Close-up of the isolated Egyptian Yellow Shields, confronted by three Assyrian chariot squadrons and a unit of slingers 

On the Egyptian right, Pharoah orders the one-base chariots to break off from their melee (there seems to be no rule to prevent this), fall back a hex, turn and shoot, but they fire wildly wide (a 2 was rolled).

The other right-flank chariots shoot at the same target, scoring a hit which I am able to choose to resolve by ordering the cavalry to drop back a hex.

The blue-shield Egyptian infantry, who were nearly forced off the battlefield, advance two hexes towards the town.

Pharoah next chooses to fight the melee between his marine spears and my heavy infantry. Both units roll a 4, and both scores become a hit thanks to a +1 modifier for being heavy infantry. The resolution dice mean both units lose a strength point.

The marine archers fire at my elite chariots, but with no effect.

The other Egyptian close-order archers shoot at the further-back camelry, but also with no effect.

The Egyptian red-shield infantry, who have Pharoah's chariot with them, advance two hexes.

The extreme-left chariots fall back a hex, turn and shoot at the camelry they had been meleeing, scoring a hit that I am able to choose to resolve by having the unit retreat off the hill.

The other left-flank chariots shoot at the other Bedouin camelry, but miss.

The Egyptian army has 27SP left, two fewer than my Assyrians

Close-up of the action on the Egyptian left