Everyone knows the carvings showing the Assyrians mixing it with hapless Arab camel-riders. These latter, it will not have escaped a wargamer's eye, carry a bow and no other armament. If my rules do not normally allow troops without melee equipment to seek hand-to-hand, should I insert an exception in such a case? I'm thinking of the height advantage; the riders would probably have been able to shoot down at troops below them, especially infantry, even if these were trying to hamstring their mounts or jab spears into their ankles.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 13 March 2026, 03:25:39 PMEveryone knows the carvings showing the Assyrians mixing it with hapless Arab camel-riders. These latter, it will not have escaped a wargamer's eye, carry a bow and no other armament. If my rules do not normally allow troops without melee equipment to seek hand-to-hand, should I insert an exception in such a case? I'm thinking of the height advantage; the riders would probably have been able to shoot down at troops below them, especially infantry, even if these were trying to hamstring their mounts or jab spears into their ankles.
I suspect a lot of "hand to hand" contact in the ancient world was more tentative than people might think. Probably including missile fire, harsh language, intimidatory body language, and rude gestures- so I would say yes.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 13 March 2026, 03:25:39 PMIf my rules do not normally allow troops without melee equipment to seek hand-to-hand
They might not seek hand-to-hand combat, but they might be the victim of hand-to-hand combat, ie charged by melee troops. So if they are stuck in a place where they cannot evade as skirmishers, or are caught by faster troops, then fight hand-to-hand they must, at whatever disadvantage. So no need to alter the rules as such, just allow for the fact that some troop types might be really bad at it.
The other way round, the camel archers wouldn't instigate a charge by doctrine, but they might run through a routing infantry unit on the way to somewhere they have been ordered to go to. Or they see baggage undefended.
Note though there is a grey area between short-range shooting and melee, as Flamingpig denotes. Is shooting someone who happens to be 10' away a melee or a missile attack? Melee is more a series of short range insults, jeers, shield clattering, individuals inviting one-to-one combat, rock throwing, blaring of trumpets, banging of drums, snatching at unwary individuals that tripped up between the two lines or fell off his horse, and so on. Until the posh git in charge actually orders a charge....
In my own rules for 19th century combat I've now made a distinction between an advance to contact (which can occur in a movement phase) and an actual ordered charge. Ancient rules writers might think about that.
The Assyrian reliefs of said 'Midianites' show the rear rider as a bowman (with no apparent side-arm) and the front rider just carrying a short stick (a goad or prod probably to direct his camel).
There is much academic debate as to whether this dual rider thing was a standard practice or whether in this carving what we are seeing is a camel rider offering a 'lift' to a foot bowman as both of them flee advancing victorious Assyrian cavalry.
In the 'Commander' series of rules we have the concept of 'Support' troops/units - which can shoot at an enemy, or support a friendly assault, and will defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, if attacked, but they cannot initiate an assault. That might work in this case.
Or you could adjust that by stating they can only attack an enemy that is already disordered/disadvantaged by shooting or from a previous combat or by moving in terrain that disadvantages them.
So units such as Greek peltasts would fit into this category very well, alongside your Midiantite camels and also most ancient Bowmen, not also carrying significant melee weapons.
Just a thought
Mark