The Battle of Cannae project

[hellhammer09]

Hi guys,
     I start this new topics to discuss of my first project. In fact I want to recreate the battle of Cannae, one of the most famous battle of every time (and one of the biggest massacre also). But I need some of your advice.
     So I attach to the post the diagrams of the two army that I want to build. I tried to build two "historically correct" armies, respecting the proportion I found on varios sources on the internet and on some Osprey's books. In general I found:
- 6000 african cavalry
- 2000 spanish cavalry
- 4000 Numidian light cavalry
- 8000 african infantry
- 6000 spanish infantry
- 15000 celtic infantry
- 11000 light skirmisher

- 6000 roman cavalry
- 55000 roman heavy infantry (including allied)
- 15000 roman light infantry

Reading on these sources I noticed that the roman armies of these period were really standard, so velites were the light infantry (no archers, nothing else than velites), hastati/principes/triarii were the heavy infantry and roman cavalry was ... roman cavalry  nothing special...
But I found nothing about the italian allies. What type of troops were they? How were they equipped?? If you have some illustrations they are really appreciated.

Regarding Carthaginian, the composition of the army is, in reality, unknown. So I took the one that seems "more real". If you prefer different sources we can discuss about it. The only thing I want to ask you what type of carthaginian infantry using.

In the end I want to congratulate with Pendraken for the excellent sculpt of the new Republican Roman and Carthaginian. Good work guys!!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Allies by this time would have been basically equipped the same as the Romans.
As to Carthaginian forces, Rome wrote the history I'm afraid!  Majority of their force would be spear armed infantry, maybe some of Hannibal's veterans might be armed as the Romans, but not many made it back from Italy.

[hellhammer09]

So in painting terms, how can I distinguish italian allies from roman infantry??
Thank you for patience

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Blue & red shields appears fairly traditional!

[Luddite]

So in painting terms, how can I distinguish italian allies from roman infantry??
Thank you for patience

They would probably have been indistinguishable.  You could paint the shields different colours i suppose, but really the Italian allies will have been basically the same as the Romans.  

The Punic Wars followed on shortly after the wars of unification and during the middle Republican period, Rome the the newly subject Italian, Latin and Etruscan forces were basically identically armed (having by this period,  abandoned the hoplite system in favour of move flexible heavy infantry).

By Cannae, the Camillan organisation had been refined into the 4-line fighting system.  The skirmishers were likely still leves rather than the superior velites.  How the Roman legions were equipped is also open to interpretation.  Some sources say they were still armed with the light hasta spear, yet other sources say the gladius was used (generally thought to have been adopted around the time of Cannae) by the hastati and principes, the hasta being retained only by the triarii.

Roman or Italian, they'd basically look the same.  Probably.


You numbers for the battle are fair enough.  The historical sources agree on only one thing, that the Roman greatly outnumbered the Carthaginians.  The rest is open to interpretation.


By the way; what rules are you planning to use?

[Druzhina]

Armies of the Macedonian & Punic Wars has some Italian heavy infantry with a distinctive cuirass with 3 discs.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

[FierceKitty]

And remember the emergency levies with Celtic gear (I know, not at Cannae....)

[hellhammer09]

Thank you all guys!
So in the end your advice is to use the same models and paint them differently.

@Luddite: regarding the ruleset I like Hail Caesar very much. I don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!!
But I have some doubts. Bulding an army with the correct Hail Caesar front is too expansive so I thought to use a front of 8cm instead of 12cm. But I saw on your blog and on various other ones (e.g. hetairoi wargames) that you use one base, more scenic. I like them so much!
This thing, and the fact that probably, in the end, I will only collect the two army (I have no one who play miniatures wargames in my city), pushes me to use this basing method. But don't you lose some flexibility in the change of formation of a unit??

P.S.: I'm working on a fantasy project that I will post later (maybe some days, weeks, I don't know...) on this forum. In this project, with many other things, I want to create a really flexible and fast ruleset using only "big" bases. I saw on your blog that you are working on a similar rulset. Can I know how the test are going?

[fred.]

In HC being able to change formation into column is pretty rare. For the odd occasion you could put a big base sideways with a  marker. Big bases certainly allow more modelling opportunities. You could compromise with 40x40mm bases, gives you a bit more space, but still allows formation changes etc.

For skirmishers, is perhaps a bit more useful to have them on a few small bases, mainly so they can get in and around terrain better.

[Ithoriel]

I don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!!

Since the basic Warmaster unit is made up of three bases they would normally be two deep in line and six deep in column. The mass effect was part of what drew me to Warmaster in the first place. That and the emphasis on how well a general commands over minor differences in how the troops fight.

Also, since the number of figures is entirely irrelevant in terms of the mechanics of the game there is nothing stopping you using three ranks of figures, if they will physically fit on the base.

Warmaster is not a game that suits everyone but it would be a shame to see it dismissed, unfairly IMHO, on aesthetic grounds.

[toxicpixie]

You could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game. Yet to try the fantasy version though!

Warmaster plays well, but cavalry are perhaps too good. There's very simple changes to fix that though, if you do find it a problem! Plus two Warmaster bases wide makes a single impetus or BP unit (with more deep depending on look and feel, and wallet).

[Luddite]

Thank you all guys!
So in the end your advice is to use the same models and paint them differently.

That's how i'd do it.  

@Luddite: regarding the ruleset I like Hail Caesar very much.

I agree.  HC is a good game.  I think the main flaw with it is that fresh units can be destroyed immediately from a bad morale roll.  I'm actually playing a huge 2-week game at the moment, and we had a fresh large unit of cataphracts fired on my a small skirmishing horse unit.  They rolled double 1 on the morale after a single-6 hit and headed off the table into the box....uh....

I don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!!

My problem with WM was always the confusion that could reign in complex melee engagements.  Also, the tendency of units to fight in 'attack column' rather than the more realistic line formation.

But I have some doubts. Bulding an army with the correct Hail Caesar front is too expansive so I thought to use a front of 8cm instead of 12cm. But I saw on your blog and on various other ones (e.g. hetairoi wargames) that you use one base, more scenic. I like them so much!

I agree.  Especially in 10mm, the change to model a little vignette of a unit is well worth the effort.  'Big bases' allow you to do this.

As you say, something like this... http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/something-lot-more-orc.html

This thing, and the fact that probably, in the end, I will only collect the two army (I have no one who play miniatures wargames in my city), pushes me to use this basing method.

Good call!  

But don't you lose some flexibility in the change of formation of a unit??

Yes, but then i suppose it depends on what the game scale represents.  And frankly, in most games you play, don'y you form the unit and pretty much keep it in 'fighting order'?  I can't really remember changing unit formations much in any game - it's usually a recipe for disaster!  

The rules i'm developing for example, take the following approach:

Tactical formations
This is a tactical wargame and therefore the strategic, logistical, and preliminary phases of the battle are assumed to have taken place.  Units have already marched in column to the point of the fight and deployed in 'battle array'.  These troops are therefore not going to substantially change their formation and so you won't find 'line', 'double line', 'column' formations etc. utilised here.  We assume the troops are ready for the battle and will stay in fighting order throughout the game.
 

I saw on your blog that you are working on a similar rulset. Can I know how the test are going?

Very well.  

I'm not sure how much more i can or should say    , other than i'm very excited about recent developments towards the release date.  

You could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game.

I'd heard very good things about Impetus too.  Played a few games recently and...well...meh.  Far too fiddly, and apparently wildly unbalanced game play.  One of the games we played was a Wars of the Roses battle.  Two basically identical armies with the same troops and tactics.  One side was utterly destroyed without causing a single loss to the enemy, with no evident reason why.  Overall, we were left with the feeling that it was a lot of effort to achieve results that can be gained more simply with other rules.

[FierceKitty]

I find changing formations essential. March in column, fight in line, fall back in square, send halberdiers through the musketeers to engage, form wedge to charge, lock shields...I can't see how being able to do this is a "recipe for disaster", and I'm not quite blind yet.

[toxicpixie]

Posted by: Luddite

"Quote from: toxicpixie
You could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game."

I'd heard very good things about Impetus too.  Played a few games recently and...well...meh.  Far too fiddly, and apparently wildly unbalanced game play.  One of the games we played was a Wars of the Roses battle.  Two basically identical armies with the same troops and tactics.  One side was utterly destroyed without causing a single loss to the enemy, with no evident reason why.  Overall, we were left with the feeling that it was a lot of effort to achieve results that can be gained more simply with other rules.

That's... unusual, I think - very poor dice rolls from one side so very few VBU losses? Then good morale dice from the other so they didn't take any further hits? Still, I guess it replicates Towton quite nicely Conversely we've found it excellent - games where you really need to work your armies strengths against the oppositions weaknesses, be careful AND decisive on manoeuvre and come to a close finish. Although it has been a "nearly won everywhere, but not quite, so what looked like a gruelling barely a win for the opposition is actually a decisive result in the end" sort of thing...

[Luddite]

I find changing formations essential. March in column, fight in line, fall back in square, send halberdiers through the musketeers to engage, form wedge to charge, lock shields...I can't see how being able to do this is a "recipe for disaster", and I'm not quite blind yet.

Agreed, but in reality, I don't recall ever doing this much during actual gameplay for a wide variety of rules.  The only ruleset where formation changes have ever played a part of is Fire and Fury during scenario-play, and thats uusually getting the units that 'arrive in column'  to change to double line asap!  Can't the other formations be 'represented' just as well through combat factors and outcomes?