Good Ancients Match-Ups

[steve_holmes_11]

Returning to my origional question, I've browsed outside the period of the western Roman empire and found an interestng looking cluster of forces.

Later Byzantine, Eastern Latins, Venice Abroad, Ottoman and Catalan Company.

A fair bit of variety, some interesting forces and potential for all to fight all.

[mmcv]

Definitely a very interesting period to play in

[FierceKitty]

Early medieval?

[hammurabi70]

Returning to my origional question, I've browsed outside the period of the western Roman empire and found an interestng looking cluster of forces.

Later Byzantine, Eastern Latins, Venice Abroad, Ottoman and Catalan Company.

A fair bit of variety, some interesting forces and potential for all to fight all.

Glad to see we are back to the OP topic.  A good range of armies there: the Crusades and the clash of cultural & military technology that resulted is the reason that this is the other Ancients period that interests me most. 

If you are changing period are you changing rules?  I do not know TTS but of the popular ones I have tried ADLG and MeG and prefer the latter.  Madaxeman has an analysis that is worth reading and TTS is clearly popular but it rather depends on what your local people want to play.  https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/04/who-was-playing-what-2019-20-ancient.html

[steve_holmes_11]

In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

I was reflecting (with #3 son who is reading Modern Studies at school) that Ancient History has more in common with Modern Studies than mainstream history.

Both Modern Studies and Ancent History have fast unknowns (Either classified information or lost in the sands of time).
They also suffer form the biased reportage far more than mainstream history.

I've heard it said that Ancients wargaming features the most speculation, extrapolation and gap-filling; except perhaps moderns.

[steve_holmes_11]

Glad to see we are back to the OP topic.  A good range of armies there: the Crusades and the clash of cultural & military technology that resulted is the reason that this is the other Ancients period that interests me most. 

If you are changing period are you changing rules?  I do not know TTS but of the popular ones I have tried ADLG and MeG and prefer the latter.  Madaxeman has an analysis that is worth reading and TTS is clearly popular but it rather depends on what your local people want to play.  https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/04/who-was-playing-what-2019-20-ancient.html

One of the really interesting aspects of that group, is that 4 of the lists stretch over at least 2 centuries (Not the Catalans).
Three of them see significant changes to their military systems, and borders during those times.
* Byzantines change their mercenaries, adopt Knightly cavalry and very late experiment with firearms.
* Ottomans go the whole switch from a Turcik Steppe force to a mixed army with reliable cavalry and regular foot and early adopters of firearms..
* The Venetians introduce the super-heavy knight fairly early in the period, and add a few firearms to their crossbows near to the end.

I like the way that each list has a relatively limited core of reliable troops, but is going to need some irregulars / levies to make up the army.
Not the masses of knights and spear-crossbow supporting foot of the traditional middle age army.
There are also allied contingents (Stradiot horse) that can crop up in more than one army.

[mmcv]

I was reflecting (with #3 son who is reading Modern Studies at school) that Ancient History has more in common with Modern Studies than mainstream history.

Both Modern Studies and Ancent History have fast unknowns (Either classified information or lost in the sands of time).
They also suffer form the biased reportage far more than mainstream history.

I've heard it said that Ancients wargaming features the most speculation, extrapolation and gap-filling; except perhaps moderns.

Yes for sure, that is one element I enjoy as gives you a lot more room for creativity. I enjoy the hobby as a creative outlet so having a bit of flexibility mixed in with the research to fill the gaps can be fun. That's partly why my first 20th century project is AVBCW as I enjoy the creative aspect of coming up with alternative history. In the likes of the 19th and 20th century there's such a huge amount of information available, there's a bit less room for creativity within the historical sphere. Still lots of interesting things to be done as evidenced by many on this forum, but you need a good understanding of the history to riff off it creatively.

[Waremblem]

When chosing a period in which to game I tend to also look at what could make an excellent campaign. Recreating Waterloo is splendid, but after you've done it a few times I find wargamers want to fight the campaign and actually move the armies around pre-battle. With this in mind, and returning to the topic of good Ancient match-ups - the first question that should be asked is would you rather paint Persians/Seleucids or Parthians - or do you want to paint maurading Barbarian types?

If Persians then you could go with Sparta, Athens, a Xenophon mercenary band, and two rival Persian brothers vying for the throne. This makes for an interesting campaign that goes beyond the hoplites vs Persians.

If Parthians then you could go with Parthians, Belisarius era Byzantines, Vandals, and Goths. A four army battle royale contesting the remains of the fallen Roman world.

If you're more Barbarian inclined you could go back to the time of Adrianople and have late Romans vs numerous Germanic contingents who are all mounted at this point and a tough nut for the legions to handle along with Parthians.

Or if you prefer your Byzantines to have the Varangian Guard (although we are getting more Medieval here), go with them, whichever Eastern Caliphates strike your fancy, Normans, and Franks. Could also throw Vikings into this mix although Normans pretty much functioned as maurauding jackels in the theater fulfilling the same role and you get to play around with proto-knights.

For campaigns - the Roman civil war is always fun. You could fudge history a bit and say Pompei Magnus attacks Caesar before the Gauls are defeated so you have the two Roman factions and the Gauls and Germanic tribes. Fast forwarding to Octavian vs Antony has already been mentioned and this too is fun, especially if you get creative with the forces Antony gets in Egypt. Another like army vs like army classic Ancient clash is the wars of the Diadochi which is oozing with amazing historical characters that are fantastic to sink your teeth into and represent on the battlefield. 

Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

The Mortiem et Gloriam team have put quite a bit of work in on these:
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/army-lists/historical-enemies/

[paulr]

The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go

[DaveH]

The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go

That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

[hammurabi70]

That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

Dated August 2010 with a page count of 157?  The indications are DBA3 and I am too lazy to go and consult it.

[paulr]

Yes, WRG came up with their first suggestions for DBA v1.0 a long time ago, can it really be 30 years ago
According to the Wikipedia page for DBA it really is 30 years ago this year

I linked to the most recent version I could find which was produced during the development of DBA 3.0

[Orcs]

I don't see the problem. As long as I can be the Romans.

Alternatively play Sunjester and his Magic Dice.

Yes 20 units of Early Imperial Romanvs  Vs Sunjester with 1 unit of warriors 2 units of horsa and a chariot plus his Magic Dice and you will see the Romans routing off the table after 3 moves

[hammurabi70]

Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

Really!!!     

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.