Kadesh - The Hittites

A LOT of ink has been spilt debating the subject of Hittite chariots.

It is generally agreed Hittites liked to use their chariots close up, in hand-to-hand fighting, rather than shooting arrows from afar, as the Egyptians preferred.

That is why the latter's chariots were designed to be as lightweight as possible, emphasising speed and manoeuvrability. Under Thomas's rules, light chariots have a 24cm move, and may turn without penalty.

It is often pointed out that the axle of an Egyptian chariot was set at the rear of the carriage, which, among other things, helped stability, making for a better firing platform.

By contrast, a Hittite chariot had the axle set further forward, which made the carriage more robust and able to carry a heavier load.

Under Thomas's rules, such heavy chariots have a 20cm move, but lose half their movement allowance if turning more than 30°.

It seems both sorts of chariots carried a bow, spear(s) and javelins, whatever the crew were personally armed with, but the Egyptians emphasised shooting arrows, the Hittites getting stuck in.

The big question is: how many men made up the crew of a Hittite chariot (everyone agrees an Egyptian chariot had a crew of two)?

I have seen the following confidently asserted:

1. Hittite chariots carried a crew of three - warrior, driver and shield-bearer.

2. Hittite chariots normally had a crew of two, but a man equipped with a shield was added for Kadesh to counter (how?) the Egyptian chariots' greater speed and manoeuvrability.

3. The Hittites had moved to a three-man chariot some time before Kadesh, but the Egyptians, although once picturing such chariots on a monumental relief, had forgotten this fact, and were caught by surprise when enemy chariots at Kadesh had three men per car.

4. Hittite chariots had normal two-men crews, but 'chariot runners' were added to chariot squadrons, and these warriors would sometimes be helped to get to the front by being given a ride.

A sizeable part of the Hittite army consisted of chariots supplied by vassals and allied kings, and it is said that at Kadesh the Hittite king, Muwatalli II, gave each of these chariots a third man, just like his own chariots had.

Many of these allied chariots were light ones, emphasising archery on the Egyptian model, rather than being heavy melee vehicles.

A third man in such a car would have brought new meaning to the future proverb: two's company, three's a crowd.

He certainly would not have helped stability, and would hardly have been needed, especially in a chariot designed for long-range shooting as chariot crews were usually the best armoured men on the battlefield.

All in all, I incline to option 4 above, but the point is to a large extent moot as it does not affect how heavy chariots operate under Thomas's rules.

Six squadrons of heavy chariots

Two squadrons of light chariots

Naturally, light chariots are capable of hand-to-hand fighting, and, under Thomas's rules, roll an extra die per base in the first round of a melee, just like heavy chariots.

However, heavy chariots perform much better than light chariots in hand-to-hand fighting against open-order infantry, open-order cavalry and light chariots, rolling three dice per base, while light chariots in such melees get one die per base (both heavy and light chariots also get their first-round bonus).

Against close-order archers, one die per base is rolled by light chariots, but heavy chariots receive two dice per base.

As for saving throws, light chariots count as having medium protection, while heavy chariots have heavy protection.

Now we come to the issue of quality. 

As I stated in yesterday's post, Egyptian close-order spearmen and open-order archers have average morale, while the javelinmen count as levy, and the Royal Chariot Squadron should obviously be elite.

The situation with the Hittites is not so simple.

Under Thomas's rules, Hittite heavy chariots are elite, while allied Syrian light chariots have average morale.

Clearly, in my refight, the Hittites' two squadrons of light chariots are supplied by allies, and should have average morale.

That leaves six squadrons of heavy chariots, two of which could be classified as Allied, and therefore have average morale.

Should the remaining four squadrons - the 'real' Hittite squadrons - be regarded as elite?

On the whole, I think that is too many, and I have decided only two should have such status, the others being average.

Kadesh - Converting The Armies From WRG To A&MW

CHARLES Grant's Battle of Kadesh was fought with 20/25mm figures under the rules of the Wargames Research Group.

I will be refighting the battle with 10mm figures, using my modified version of Neil Thomas's biblical rules from Ancient & Medieval Wargaming.

The three Egyptian units of infantry armed with spear and shield become three units of spear-armed biblical infantry, with average morale.

However, whereas Thomas classifies such troops as having light protection, I think medium is more appropriate.

Thomas has three classifications of protection for deciding saving throws: light, medium and heavy, which are allocated according to the following "rough criteria."

If a soldier is equipped with breastplate or a shield, he counts as having light armour; if he has a breastplate and a shield, he has medium armour. These ratings can be augmented if the man has extra armour, horse armour, or an unusually large shield. 

Egyptian close-order infantry of this period did carry extra-large shields, and probably had some sort of reinforced linen corselet, so I am classifying them as having medium protection (I probably should have also made this adjustment for my Aprocryphal Well refight).

Egyptian spearmen

Under Thomas's army list the New Kingdom Egyptian army can have two units of archers, but they must be in close order.

Grant's three units of archers - named Ka, Koth and Kush - are definitely in open order, and that is how they will appear in my refight.

Egyptian bowmen - light protection, average morale

One unit of javelinmen - open-order, light protection, levy

Pharoah's Royal Chariot Squadron - why it is with Re rather than with Ramesses and the Amun corps, we are not told

Rather conveniently, the Egyptian army has eight units, which is the standard size for an army under Thomas's rules.

Apocryphal Well - Converting The Armies From WRG To A&MW

FOR refighting the Battle of the Apocryphal Well, I will use my modified version of Neil Thomas's biblical rules from his book, Ancient & Medieval Wargaming.

That means I need to convert Charles Grant's units, designed for the Wargames Research Group's ancient rules (probably the third edition), into A&MW units.

Under Thomas's rules, an army always consists of eight units, each usually made up of four bases.

At the Apocryphal Well, the Egyptians had eight units, and the Assyrians seven, so that is as near as darn it.

Grant's units, leaving aside the chariot squadron, varied in size from 18 figures for a unit of Egyptian javelinmen to 45 figures for a unit of Egyptian close-order spearmen.

The Assyrian units were more equal in size, varying from 20-man cavalry squadrons to a regiment of close-order archers numbering 31 figures.

In A&MW the number of figures on a base does not represent a certain number of soldiers. Rather, the figures tell more about the kinds of troops being represented.

There are five types of foot soldier: heavy infantry, biblical infantry, auxiliary infantry, heavy archers and light infantry.

Thomas's "heavy infantry" are effectively full-time soldiers who fight in close-order.

Generally, I have replaced the terms heavy and light with close-order and open-order, since heavy archers, for example, could easily have no armour or shield, relying on mass close-order shooting to make themselves effective.

Thomas's rules are designed primarily with 15mm figures in mind, using 40x20mm bases.

I have kept the base-size, but am using 10mm figures, so close-order infantry, including biblical infantry and close-order archers, are represented by six figures in two rows of three.

A base of auxiliaries - "disciplined troops who adopt a looser formation" - has four figures, approximately in two rows of two, and a base of open-order infantry has three figures, spaced relatively widely apart.

Mounted troops in A&MW have four categories: heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy chariots and light chariots.

I keep the terms heavy and light for the chariots, but usually call cavalry either close-order or open-order.

Taking the Assyrians at the Apocryphal Well first, there were two units of cavalry - one in close-order, carrying long spears and shields, as well as wearing body armour, and the other in open-order, carrying short spears and shields.

These are easily translated into an A&MW unit of close-order cavalry with medium armour (medium, rather than heavy, as the horses are unprotected) and a unit of open-order cavalry with light armour.

Leading the dismounted troops was a unit of infantry, armed with bows and spears, while wearing full mail, as well as carrying shields.

These troops translate into a "mixed unit" under A&MW special rules for the Assyrians. Such a unit, as well as fully functioning as spearmen, can shoot with half its bases each turn, even if moving.

Clearly, the men have heavy armour, and would almost certainly be rated as elite - a designation I think is also suitable for the close-order cavalry.

A second unit of close-order infantry has spears, shields and "half-armour," and are probably best rated in A&MW terms as having medium protection.

Two units of close-order archers are described as having neither shield nor armour. It could be argued that in A&MW they should not get a saving throw, but under Thomas's rules the lowest category of protection is "light armour," and, on balance, I think the Assyrians should receive this level of protection, rather than being denied a saving throw.

This can be rationalised as saying the archers had long robes, under which they would probably have worn a linen or woollen corselet.

Finally, a unit of open-order javelinmen has shields, and so under A&MW count as having light armour, and should probably be classed as levy, rather than "average."

The Egyptians at the Apocryphal Well are, if anything, easier to categorise.

"Pharoah's Chariot Squadron" becomes a unit of elite light chariots, which under A&MW rules have medium armour.

Three units of of close-order infantry, with spears and shields, become biblical infantry, "a much less effective variety of heavy infantry." Thomas classifies ordinary Egyptian spearmen as having light armour, rather than medium, despite their large shields.

The unit of open-order javelinmen, with shields, should be treated the same as its Assyrian counterpart, ie light armour, and levy rather than average.

Finally, there is the question of the three units of Egyptian open-order archers.

The only archers available in Thomas's Egyptian list are close-order bowmen with light armour.

However, Grant's three Egyptian archery units were definitely in open order, and that is what I will go with in A&MW.

The men have no protection from shield or body covering, but their open order probably entitles them to being classed under A&MW as having light armour.

Battle Of The Apocryphal Well

ANYONE active in wargaming in the 1970s will remember it as a time of great popularity for ancients, particularly in 20/25mm scale.

This popularity was largely due to the success of the Wargames Research Group's innovative rules for the ancient period, helped by the increasing availability of cheap plastic figures from Airfix.

But while many players yearned to refight the great battles of history, one of the best-known ancient battles at that time was a fictional one, the Battle of the Apocryphal Well.

It owed its fame to being the first battle in Charles Grant's 1974 book, The Ancient War Game.

I got this copy secondhand for £16.95 - considerably more than it would have cost 51 years ago when published by Adam & Charles Black

The book is billed as an introduction to wargaming in the ancient period, but is really more of an introduction to the WRG's rules.

In the early chapters Grant bases his discussions of movement, combat and morale on how they are handled by the group's rules, which by 1974 were in their fourth edition.

I no longer have the fourth edition, but it is available in PDF format as a link at a website dedicated to the history of the WRG.

The next two chapters of Grant's book give short potted histories of the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, before getting on to the meat of the matter - miniatures clashing on the tabletop.

As an aside, it is interesting that Grant chose a completely fictional battle to illustrate the clash of Egyptian and Assyrian arms, while in later chapters, featuring Greeks and Persians, Romans and Macedonians, and Romans and Celts, he refought real battles.

The reason, presumably, was that details of actual conflicts from millennia ago were particularly hard to come by in the pre-internet age.

Whatever the reason, Grant matched advance guards from Egyptian and Assyrian armies, clashing over a well lying in the centre of a desert known as the Waste of Garan.

As luck would have it, the two advance guards arrive within equal striking distance of the well, late on the same day, lay down their arms and await the dawn to commence the inevitable battle.