Re: Hannibal's Gauls

[SteveO]

Having listened to the latest MeG podcast I note the proposal to make the Gauls in the Carthaginian armies shoot and charge, SSp and not give them the choice of being DC. I agree with the intent but wonder if the resulting troop type will just be 'filler' rather than 'blocking' troops. Having a Viking army I know how hopeless SSp-only armed troops are.😊 The proposed change would allow the Romans to go through Hannibal's Gauls like a hot knife through butter.

How would melee expert vice shoot and charge go instead?

Melee expert would make the Gauls more resilient without making them overpowered. They should still be ground down by the Romans but not in a rush. Furthermore, shoot and charge might give them some unjustified benefits against skirmishers/cavalry.

My first thought is that this change would better represent Hannibal's Gallic mercenaries but perhaps it might have wider utility. This leads me to my second thought - would it be better not to address the 'barbarian' issue on a one-size-fits-all basis?

Anyway, I'd be interested to see what people think.


*** Moderator comment - split into separate topic to keep focus ***

[accard]

I think if you made all the mercenary gallic troops ME they might be to powerful as then equal to normal legionary troops in melee. But perhaps an option of up to 1/2 ME might work.
Some greater resilience but unlikely to beat Romans 1 to 1.

[martymagnificent]

I think the SSP Charge only Javelin option is significantly better. The shooting will be pretty close to making up for the lower factor and lack of shock against foot like Romans and it is better against mounted.

I'm surprised some players consider it a downgrade. I've never found DC foot all that impressive.

Martin

[accard]

I think the SSp and shooting option is much better vs shooty mounted armies and probably some other opponents.

But to reflect increased durability vs Romans, their historical opponents, I think some ME would be more useful.

[Jilu]

It is mainly the Romans being to powerful with the amount of superiors allowed.

They already have impact weapon, are flexible, have melee expert and shieldcover.
There are better at everything compared to all their oponents, certainly foot oponents.

[SteveO]

Perhaps the 50% option is a way forward(?)

As Marty said, DC alone can be unimpressive against Romans but so is SSp and S & C. Similarly, neither option has any staying power in the melee phase.

[nikgaukroger]

In Hannibal's army these are the troops who, along with the Spanish, were to lose slowly against the legions at Cannae - does the classification work for that? And post-Cannae what do we know about their performance until Hannibal went back to Africa?

[LawrenceG]

AFAIK the Romans considered the Gauls potentially dangerous in the charge, but not able to sustain a long melee.

My understanding is the proposed change is not to make them last longer, but to make it easier for them to hold off without charging, on the basis that informed opinion now thinks they were not as impetuous (i.e. prone to charge when it's a bad idea) as their wargame stereotype.

Charge-only jav, SSp does not make that much difference to behaviour, it just changes the range at which they are forced to charge  from 3 BW to 1 BW. It makes them a bit less resilient in charge combat as an opponent with only a +1 will now be on a green instead of white.

An alternative could be unskilled jav, DC with no shoot and charge. That would leave their combat performance unchanged including their inability to put slows on skirmishers when they charge them. It also makes them no longer subject to forced charges at all.

Giving them ME puts them on a par with average legionaries (or better if the legionaries don't take the option for ME), which IMO should be the benchmark (wargamers of course upgrade as many of them as they can, bit that's probably not what happened historically). I think that makes them too good. Note, however, that it does not increase their resilience against an average legionary - they are still on a green dice - it just makes the legionaries less resilient against them.

If you want to increase their resilience, you need to deploy them deep, and/or put generals with them that have a good chance of getting yellow and red cards.

Another possibility would be unskilled jav, SSp, DC so they are not forced to charge, but when they do, it drops the legionaries by 1 dice colour so they have more "catching up" to do during the melee (so greater overall resilience, but in the long run they will still lose). (Perhaps reserve this one for Hannibal in Italy)

This may indicate that MeG is lacking a special characteristic to generally improve resilience when you are the weaker unit without improving lethality when you are the stronger. Sheildwall does this, but only against opponents with shove/shatter. The only way to do it is adding more bases to a unit until it is a multiple of 4 and deploying 4 deep (possibly make the 4th rank combat shy so they can't be used to increase frontage when you have the advantage).

[nikgaukroger]

AFAIK the Romans considered the Gauls potentially dangerous in the charge, but not able to sustain a long melee.

The Graeco-Roman world view was based on the "fact" that barbarians are tall, wild and fierce  - the further you get away from the Mediterranean (which is the ideal place for a civilised society) the wilder and fiercer they get. They are also present in vast numbers and pose a threat to civilisation. The facts may not align with this 

I've seen it said that by having barbarians as fierce charging in wargames that we are wargaming the literary trope of the Graeco-Roman world rather than the actual history 

I'd also note that if we are talking about the Gauls in Hannibal's army in Italy from 216 BCE, do they show any indication of fierce charging?

[badhabum]

I think the SSp and shooting option is much better vs shooty mounted armies and probably some other opponents.

But to reflect

increased durability vs Romans, their historical opponents, I think some ME would be more useful.

I agree 200%

the winner writes history in his favour  so what do we really know about how it happened

[badhabum]

Not so many Gauls did join Hannibal. Many were still mercenaries or at Zama many might even have been veterans from Italy but are reported as mercenaries.

As I often received as response : in MEG it's the feeling that's important here is my comment !

Gauls have been DC since 2016 . It gives a "good" feeling even if now at impact they are inferior to the massed SUP romans . ( Not a good feeling ) .

Yes the gauls main advantage was cavalry but that cavalry is also inferior to the melee expert cavalry of the romans ( bad feeling ) but at least is more numerous.

Gallic mercenaries are found in nearly all nations and I must say I wonder why as they do not seem very efficient on the table but as DC they are at least fun.

Now if because we say it's history and a new point of view they should be SSP, perhaps shoot and charge why not .But then you might consider the fact that in gaming terms they will be markedly inferior to SUP roman legions and I will wonder why the romans did fear those guys . Also I will keep in mind that romans were the victors and wrote what they wanted .

Gallic already had to count on mass and good white dice, now they will be costlier so less numerous and IMO less efficient ...OK another army on the shelves ?

My main message : it's a game ...do not kill the FUN 

[LawrenceG]

I'd also note that if we are talking about the Gauls in Hannibal's army in Italy from 216 BCE, do they show any indication of fierce charging?

In the well-known battles, they are more noted for going backwards than forwards, while the Romans were very keen to advance against them.

So Skirmishers, superior, protected, impact weapon, melee expert. 


TBH it is looking more like they should be missile focused to stop them going forwards and give the Romans a reason to attack them. Then deploy them 4 deep so they last long enough for the rest of the army to cave in the Roman flanks. Maybe in 12s so they don't count so much towards army break when they go. Perhaps only half the bases with exp-Javelin so you are not wasting points on the back 2 non-shooting ranks. That might be over-engineering Hannibal's tactical decisions, though.

It seems to me that:

Early Romans up to Marius were pretty frightened by Gauls fighting on their own account and often defeated by them. When the Romans won it was by concentrating a massive army or combining 2 armies. In these cases the Romans are levies or recently recruited professionals.

Gauls in Hannibal's army were not expected to win, but were expected to last long enough for the rest of the army to win. But this is mostly against Punic Wars veterans.

In Caesar's detailed accounts of Gauls fighting they are generally cautious and defensive and small numbers of (civil war veteran) legionaries defeat huge numbers of Gauls with ease, unless they are taken by surprise.

[nikgaukroger]

Gauls in Hannibal's army were not expected to win, but were expected to last long enough for the rest of the army to win. But this is mostly against Punic Wars veterans.

I am wondering if for Hannibal's armies from 216 BCE we realistically have any other data points with any useful detail other than Cannae?* There, resilience seems to be the order of the day for the Gauls (and Spanish) against pretty new legions (though maybe no "raw" by the time they fought at Cannae).


* it always comes back to bloody Cannae doesn't it   

[LawrenceG]

The battle before Cannae (Trebbia) Hannibal used the same tactics, but the Gauls routed. Wikipeadia says they were deployed in less depth than normal, though.

[LawrenceG]

Ticinus no heavy foot involved.

Trasimene was an ambush.

Cannae we have covered.

After that the Romans avoided battle.