Elite Numidian Light Horse

[Yozhik]

An ancient author writes that there were some Numidian horsemen, in at least one battle, who rode into battle leading a second horse, who could, if the first horse tired, leap from one to the other, as "circus" riders did and continue fighting.

If this were translated into a variant rule, perhaps for a campaign, what would be most appropriate in your opinion: bonuses to combat factors, adjustments to combat results, or something else? Or, do you think that there should be no adjustment made?

[David Kuijt]

An ancient author writes that there were some Numidian horsemen, in at least one battle, who rode into battle leading a second horse, who could, if the first horse tired, leap from one to the other, as "circus" riders did and continue fighting.

If this were translated into a variant rule, perhaps for a campaign, what would be most appropriate in your opinion: bonuses to combat factors, adjustments to combat results, or something else? Or, do you think that there should be no adjustment made?

All the Steppe tribes who practiced light-horse warfare had multiple horses per rider. So that is nothing new. Mostly they kept their remounts away from direct attack range -- but frankly, I'm sure the Numidians did also. People who fought from horseback were already multi-tasking their hands -- the idea that they made things even more difficult during the moments of real combat by having the reins to a second horse in one hand is difficult to give credence.

And all of this is detail that is irrelevant to DBA. The top-down view of DBA assumes that each fighter is doing the things that make him most effective -- we don't need to track rules for francisca or pilum use, or for ammo replenishment, or for remounts. Those things are often too detailed to be very interesting at any level above a skirmish game (1 fig = 1 fighter).

[Yozhik]

Thank you for the information.

The battle to which I am referring is one in which a distinction is made among the Numidians regarding training and skill. Certain were placed on the right flank, those with such training and skill, the others on the left. The writer adds that they would switch horses "often in the heat of engagement."

I do not believe that the second horse impeded their ability to fight in any way. If it had, I believe they would have not lead them into battle.

I agree with your general assessment of DBA. Maybe this is too small of a detail for the mechanics ot the game. And, the question may be more appropriate in the Campaigns section.

If tried, I'm leaning towards a combat factor bonus: +3 versus any for a single element of a army where two or more Numidian Light Horse are present. I think those interested could give it a try.

[Bob. (and his dog)]

How about we allow Light Horse to take extra, that is to say, subsequent moves during a bound to take into account for the sustainability of their movement with extra horses. Does the extra horse make the elements more powerful or able to travel longer distances.

[Pavane]

You are starting to look into the grading of troops, which DBM has aplenty. Perhaps you should look there. Numidian LH is graded Ordinary there, while Parthians are graded Fast.

[Bill Sumruld]

I second Kujit's views on this. And add the following: If the extra horse would make any difference in actual battle it would likely take place in a pursuit or a manuever. Many casualties in ancient battle took place after one side had broken and begun to try and get away. One of the main jobs of the mounted arm was to inflict as many casualties on a routed enemy as possible and to keep him from reforming. This would be the area to investigate, if any, not giving a combat bonus.

[philistinejim]

You are starting to look into the grading of troops, which DBM has aplenty. Perhaps you should look there. Numidian LH is graded Ordinary there, while Parthians are graded Fast.


Some years ago, while the last version of DBM was being reviewed I made a suggestion that troops like Numidians should fall into a new classificaton called Cavalry (F) for fast. IMHO rating the Numidians the same as say Greek LH (O) was a bit off. Cavalry only had 3 classes (S) for Superior, armored cav or with very high morale such as Nobles and most Lt Chariots. (O) for the ordinary cavalry types and (I) for inferior types such as Persian colonial cavalry or recently mounted foot types.

Bottom line is that the (F) class of Cavalry would give Numidians the little extra hit of Cavalry (a 3 factor instead of 2) and keep the movement of light horse as Fast troops move an extra 50 paces than the normal troop type. SO in 15mm they would move 5 inches as oposed to 4 for Cav (O). They would thus have a slight advantage over say Roman Cavalry who would have a bit less movement. They would not have the staying power of (O) cavalry in that FAST troops take an extra minus in the opponent bound if they loose the combat ( so pretty much (I) troops in the opponenets bound. They would also loose the skirmisher benifits such as multiple march moves and free facing changes of 180 degrees.

Unfortunately for DBA I would think that the transposition (if this Cav(F) would ever have been adopted) would have been that Cav(F) troops in DBM would have been to LH in DBA.

[Yozhik]

As I understand the source on it, it seems to have been mostly a matter of resistance to fatigue. I'm not aware of a DBA game mechanism that highlights the effects of fatigue. Maybe the Light Horse category in DBA is wide enough such that a distinction is not able to be made, and another rule system, such as DBM is the more appropriate if the distinction is made.

I've recently read some of the DBM rulebok and I'm torn. I like the ambush rule, but I prefer the simplicity of DBA. I suppose that some battles may just be better represented by one set of rules, while other battles, by another set.

Thanks for the ideas on the subject.

[David Brown]

Hi there

I like the response that Duncan Head gives from time to time for people advocating elite / superior Numidian Light Horse.

That when they met other light horse (plausibly LH), Spanish, they were trashed, so you could make a better case for Numidians being levy / inferior.

regards

DB

[Chris Brantley]

The battle to which I am referring is one in which a distinction is made among the Numidians regarding training and skill. Certain were placed on the right flank, those with such training and skill, the others on the left. The writer adds that they would switch horses "often in the heat of engagement."

I like to accommodate this type of historical information (e.g. about troop quality) as special rules specific to battle scenarios. In this prospective scenario, for example, I might have a special rule letting the Numidian player designate one or more LH as elite (+1 to combat) or as equivalent of Cv(F) (i.e. +3 like cav but with LH movement).