On The Bookshelf, I: The Armies And Enemies of Imperial Rome, by Phil Barker

(Being an occasional review of the books found in my wargaming library. Part of the long delayed series of reviews I keep promising.)

The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, by Phil Barker
4th Edition, Sussex: WRG, 1981 (148pp w/B&W Illustrations)

The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome is one of those books that has become a permanent fixture in the wargames libraries of many historical miniatures gamers. The book was designed as a layman's guide to the basic military operations and equipment of Imperial Rome, from the Late Republic through the Early Byzantine Periods, approximately 88 B.C.-553 A.D., a considerable period for a booklet of only 148 pages.

AEIR, as it is commonly known in wargames circles, was something of a revelation when the first editions appeared in the mid 1970s. Prior to that time, much of the known information regarding the operations and opponents of the Imperial Roman Army was spread through several, rather dense volumes, usually in scattered snippets or academic journals generally unavailable to the wargaming public. Barker boasted that he was doing the wargames community a great service, and in this regard, he was probably correct. Without giving the man more praise than is necessary, the book has literally been a godsend to generations of wargamers attempting to build the armies contained therein, particularly to newcomers and enthusiasts who lack a firm grounding in the subject matter.

AEIR covers, as I have already intimated, a fairly broad range of material. The author concerns himself with strategy and tactics of the Late Republican and Imperial Armies, then discusses the organization of these forces before launching into a discussion of the organization and tactics of several enemy forces: Gauls, Britons, Scots-Irish, Germans, Dacians, Sarmatians, Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Pontics, Parthians, Armenians, Palmyrans, Sassanids, and Blemmeye, as well as some of the lesser powers whose methodology could be compared to these major opponents before discussing what he considers to be the most important battles of the period. Notably absent from the list of opponents are the forces of Later Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seleucids, and the secessionist Empires in Britain, Gaul, and North Africa, among others. Some , but not all, of these are covered in the excellent Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head.

The main body of the work is not concerned with tactics, strategy, or organization (though elements to pop up from time to time), so much as the appearance of the Roman soldier and his enemies throughout the broad slice of history covered. Ian Heath's line drawings provide a good view of many obscure Roman and enemy forces, which might otherwise be a complete mystery to the average wargamer. The impact of these illustrations is quite plain to see: look at any major Ancients range, particularly older ranges produced after the publication of the first edition AEIR, and you're very likely to see miniatures that bear a striking resemblance to the Heath illustrations.

AEIR also dedicates a significant amount of space to sections of the nearly inaccesible Notitia Dignatum, the only period reference to Roman shield patterns and colors currently known to be in existence. Heath has faithfully reproduced over one hundred shield patterns, and Barker has carefully provided the variable color keys provided by the two extant copies of the long lost originals.

Finally, Barker also provides some interesting arguments regarding the colors of Roman equipment, including everything from helmet plumes to shield designs, and speculates upon the viability and possible interpretation of earlier shield patterns not found in the Notitia; much of this is also produced, albeit in B&W, by Heath's hand.

With such a comprehensive coverage of material, it is little wonder that many wargamers consider AEIR to be a indespensible classic. That said, AEIR has never been without its detractors. Many of Barker's theories are based largely upon his own speculations and his notoriously pro-Roman view of Ancient History. In some instances, he incorrectly repeats ancient battle accounts, or adds his own embellishment to certain details without adequately explaining the reasons for this. In other instances, he relies upon poor or inadequate translations, or dismisses archaeological evidence because he finds it to be "extremely unlikely".

One example of this relates to the interpretation of shield colors as known from the very few archaeological fragments currently in existence. Barker incorrectly describes the finds at Dura Europos (he describes one painted scutum, seen here on the Blog, while there were actually two), while he neglects to provide an illustration of this saidsame shield, indicating that it is "far too complicated" to inflict upon the illustrator. Barker goes on to claim that the general type had been abandoned one century before (it hadn't), and that he thinks it highly likely to have been a specially decorated antique used for parades on special occasions - there is absolutely no evidence for this, beyond the author's own imagination.

There are also some fairly significant claims regarding the colors of Roman uniform tunics and helmet plumes. Much of the theory presented here is based, once again, upon the opinion of the author rather than any of the ample archaeological evidence for Roman military clothing unearthed even at the time that fourth edition had been printed.

There is, of course, a great deal more. But the examples I have provided are illustrative of the greater problem. In summation, much of the information presented by the author of AEIR regarding the Romans themselves has since been called into question, either because it is based purely upon speculation or because the evidence cited has been incorrectly interpreted or altered by more recent archaeological finds. Unfortunately, WRG has shown no signs of reprinting the text, which might correct these problems.

On the other hand, the amount of evidence unearthed since 1981 has not been complete enough to totally overturn Barker's work, nor is the absence of evidence evidence of absence, so to speak. So, the book must remain "questionable" for now, though it does retain some utility in the absence of recent work on the same subject.

That said, the material presented regarding the enemies of Rome is probably the best reason to pick up AEIR. Much of the information can be found only in Barker, and because his chief interest is in the Romans, and not their enemies, the information given for, say, the Palmyrans, can be said to be based more upon fact than speculation. At any rate, Barker's work in this area is far more complete, and far more useful to the wargamer, than the recent Ospreys on many of the same subjects, despite the fact that the book lacks color illustration. The information regarding these topics is generally well respected, such that AEIR continues to get the occasional node in Academic bibliographies (including my own).

AEIR is certainly worthy of a place on your bookshelf. The author clearly loves the subject matter, and the text is blessedly free of the textbook like jargon which makes WRG rulesets almost unreadable. The information provided will be an excellent first step for many wargamers new to the Imperial Roman period, and despite the flaws herein, is still more than useful for basic wargaming purposes. In addition, because Barker has pursued research in a subject that is largely "politically incorrect" (military history has been in trouble since long before Phil began writing his guidebooks), this is more than likely to be one of the very few such works generally accessible to the public for the forseeable future.

Rating: B (Worth Acquiring, But Flawed)

Some Useful Information: Meso-American Warfare

Recently, as a result of discussions regarding the methodology of Aztec warfare, Ralph Krebs of the WAB list very kindly provided the following list of reading materials to yours truly. I thought I'd share the reading list, as recommended by Ralph, for those of you who find the subject interesting. At any rate, I occasionally get emails asking about this sort of thing, and I can find no better way to help out than to share this list of reading. The comments are Ralph's, not my own, but I find no reason at present to dispute them.

Original Sources:

Codex Mendoza "I bought Berdan and Anawalts, Univ of California 1997 version. I bought mine for about $25 used on the internet. Its beautiful!"

Codex Florentino "I don't have it as it is extremely expensive. I bought one book for $40 (out of the 13 books that make up the Codex). There are only 3 books that have military matters in them. Unfortunately the info in them is essential. See the Chronofus internet address below."

The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Diaz de Castillo. "The best of the Conquistador writers. Get the Maudsley translation from DaCapo, NOT the Penguin Classic which is abridged without them saying so. Light on military details."

Ralph also adds,
"Remember, the Conquistadors were dumbstruck and totally ignorant of the Aztec means of doing things and these books show it."

The Letters from Mexico by Hernan Cortes. "Hard to tell when this guy is telling the truth. His version of the massacre at Cholula is totally at odds with native versions and modern archaeology. But also light on military detail. "

Native sources (besides the Codices):

Cronica Mexicana by Alvarado Tezozomoc.

Obras Historicas by Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl.

Ralph says, in regards to both:

"These generally show a heavy anti-Aztec bias."

Modern Sources:

"If you can only get three books get these,"

Armies of the 16th Century: Armies of the Aztec and Incas and other native peoples of the Americas by Ian Heath, Foundry Books 1998. "It's expensive and hard to find but get it! Some minor errors and omissions but indispensible."

The Daily Life Of the Aztecs by Jacques Soustelle, Stanford Univ.Press. "Great read by the great French scholar."

Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control by Ross Hassig, Univ. of Oklahoma Press 1995. "This is my favourite of theonly two scholars who write about Mesoamerican Warfare for the public. A wealth of military and historical information."

"Also consider,"

Aztecs and Conquistadors by John Pohl, Osprey Publishing 2005. "An amalgamation of Pohl's previous 3 Osprey books into a single hardcover book. Easy to read but not the information or detail as found in the Hassig book. Excellent illustrations as usual for Osprey."

The Conquest Of Mexico by Hugh Thomas, Random House 1993. "My favourite of the 'General History' type book. More detailed than Hassigs Mexico and the Spanish Conquest and also a good read."

Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare edited by Brown and Stanton, Altamira Press 2003. "Essays by 20 or so scholars, all of which write in that dense, opaque style beloved by those in the ivory towers. If you want to get info on Mesoamerican warfare by analyzing the changes in lacquers from different pot shards at various Mixtec sites then this is the book for you."

Internet:

"Try chronofus's website. He has a great collection of codices andall things Aztec at www.chronofus.net/accessories/aztec.html; feel free to ask him any questions. He is a wargamer too!"

Hope you find this list as useful as I have.

Note: I have found that Chronofus is in the process of re-writing his Aztec information. What can currently be found may be located in the index at:
http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/index.htm

-A.

Errata Schmeratta

Lately, I've been playing a lot of 'Warhammer Ancient Battles'. I enjoy the system very much, and have even gone so far as to propose my own supplement. I'd had the book, and most of the supplements, for years. It was only recently, however, that I actually started to play the thing regularly with opponents.

It's a strange thing, adapting to a new system. I had thought that I understood the basics of WAB, and I believe that I still do, but I had no idea that the fascinating world of supplement based gaming was going to rush back into my life in such a profound way. Talk about errata!
Or lack thereof, as the case may be.

One of the strong suits of WAB is that GW got smart with this one and literally opened the floodgates by allowing, encouraging, and even inviting players to write official supplements for the system. As you can imagine, this has created a very openminded community of gamers, who are willing to share their love of history and openly debate their ideas in public forums (such as mailing lists). These folks aren't afraid to speculate and theorize, and that makes WAB a far more enriching learning experience than your typical wargame, doubly so when contrasted with most of the other Ancients games I've played over the years.

Of course, this attitude of openness and different ideas has also had its weaknesses. One of them is that, because there is no central authority in creating these WAB Supplements (every one of them was written by a player or players), you tend to get a lot of conflict in terms of the interpretation of certain unusual rules or game circumstances. The traditional means with which to solve this problem is with the creation of "Errata", a list of solutions and official clarifications regarding certain issues found "in-game". However, because each supplement is written by a different author, each author has taken his own approach to the issue of releasing errata.

This has led to some very.. amusing.. circumstances. In some cases, authors will be extraordinarily proactive, using their websites, blogs, or simply presence on the major WAB mailing list(s) to disseminate this information and dole out advice to the audience of WAB gamers. In other cases, authors will generally spend most of their time as "lurkers" on the major mailing lists. They'll occasionally speak up when a major issue is raised, but prefer to remain silent, feeling that "less is more" and that, "the chaps will figure out how to work this out amongst themselves". Some of this last group may actually prefer to share their insight in person, occasionally showing up at wargames conventions or local club games, where they're more than willing to answer questions or, at the very least, to clarify a few bits and pieces. Both are perfectly valid, and hardly anybody has a problem with these attitudes.

Then, there is the third area. That group of writers which feels that it has nothing to say which has not already been perfectly well said by the supplement itself. This is certainly an understandable approach. Having written a few articles for gaming in other genres, having self-published a few rulesets, and of course having my own "unique" academic writing experiences, I can appreciate that sometimes attempting to clarify your point can be FAR more trouble than its worth. One answer to a simple question can literally generate pages of wasted email, hours of wasted conversations, and dozens of beleaguered writers. You'd be absolutely stunned and amazed, I think, at the utter rubbish that a simple page of Errata can generate from the self-proclaimed "experts" in our hobby.

However, saying nothing is sometimes worse than saying something. There are certain WAB supplements which are notorious in the community for their lack of Errata or clarification. In the vast majority of cases, this isn't because the supplements are poorly written (in fact, much to the credit of the authors, I can't think of any that are), nor is it because there are enormous loopholes in the rules. Instead, these supplements are notorious because of the the little things left unexplained or unclarified in the light of new rules changes which could potentially have far-reaching effects. The authors have their reasons, of course; wargamers can be your best buddies or your best enemies depending upon what day of the week it is and which way the wind is blowing. "That arrogant jerk doesn't have time for us," they'll say, or "Well, I know him personally, and THIS was what he was getting at with that section of the book...", which is even worse. I know of at least one author who refuses to comment on his writing in virtually any public forum because his words have been twisted, repeated, and reinterpreted by the masses more times than he would like to think.

(I suppose that example above is yet another example of someone speaking for him, but I think it's safe to say that he's pretty clear in his intent.)

Anyway, this has left some unresolved issues with WAB, and it begs the question - as a WAB supplement writer, how would I handle errata? I've been giving this a lot of thought lately as, coincidentally enough, I've been building armies from one of those supplements fpr which there is no errata, official or otherwise. I can understand the motivation for not releasing it, certainly, but it's also terribly frustrating. Having just recently "figured out" how to interpret a rule unique to this particular supplement, I have already discovered that, while some share my view, majority opinion leans otherwise. A word from the author would probably solve the issue straight away. But no such word has come in the time since this particular supplement came off the presses, and no such word is likely to come in the near future. This has engendered a large number of very interesting approaches to the vagueries of the supplement in question, many of which seem to be geared toward tournament play... and this doesn't always lend itself to the most realistic, fair, or historical solutions, so much as it lends itself to keeping everything "balanced" in terms of tournaments.

(And, if anybody takes his tournaments seriously, it is your average Ancients gamer.)

As I've just said, one can create a barrel of trouble for oneself by "being a nice guy" and answering every question that comes along. The old maxim of "write it clearly enough that you'll have no need for Errata" simply does not work - most gamers will ask questions anyway, usually about the issues that you thought were eloquently articulated. On the other hand, being a firm practicionery of isolationism can also be troublesome. Warhammer Historical is, understandably, not too keen on rattling the saber and forcing these guys to release Errata (too much Errata can very literally kill a game), so that isn't a practical option, either. There simply has to be a middle way to deal with a situation like this, a way to publish changes to your "work in progress" without opening yourself to the very real vulnerabilities of such an unenviable task.


One of my favorite approaches has been to explain the authorial intent, and to leave the actual interpretation beyond that to the whims of the masses. You say something along the lines of, "I had intended that the following rule be used to reflect ABC, but only in circumstance DEF." You follow this with something clever like, "..of course, this is only unofficial. Your groups are free to differ in their interpretations if they feel more comfortable with them." In that way, you clearly articulate what it is you want to say, without completely shutting the door on the "experts" who really believe that the Blemmeye rode giant turtles into battle, rather than camels. They can prove it, they've got loads of documentation, and they'll let everybody know about it. So why not let them, and maintain your own, quiet sort of defiance?

I can't take credit for the above approach, but I like it.

But how about the know-it-alls and experts who'll challenge every one of your assertions, concepts, and rulings?

My favorite approach toward these types is taken from another Ancient ruleset - one you've probably never heard of - called Clash. Clash was one of those games filled with exceptional ideas, but hamstrung by a few kinks that might have been worked out if it had been more widely distributed. I really believe that, had the authors been interested in pursuing it further, they might have produced what would now be a standard amongst wargamers. I even attempted, with a friend, to buy the rights for the engine and develop it further myself, to no avail. It was that good. Anyway, the most brilliant thing about Clash was a line printed on the inside cover of the first (and as far as I know, only) edition. It may well be repeated in print, assuming that WAB picks up my supplement proposal.

"The authors welcome correspondence in regards to the game. However, we refuse to discuss the accuracy or historical validity of our approach with anyone who does not have direct experience of Ancient military service."

Website Errata 1.0

HELLO, to all.

Jennifer and I have survived the move, as have our companions Claudius and Yoshi. We have survived mountains. We have survived heat. Most importantly, we have survived Texas.

Before I go on, let me tell you how grateful I am for the well wishers who said such kind things before our move to California. It was very kind of you, particularly for two people you've probably never met, in person. The same goes for the very kind words after my father's recent heart attack. I'm constantly amazed, particularly in the current world we live in, that normal people can show such kindness to complete strangers. Really, thank you all. I mean it. And don't feel bad if you didn't know - this isn't a ploy for sympathy - just a genuine thanks to those of you who sent emails. Not something I would've done for a stranger. Very cool of you.

At any rate, as you have probably noticed, this will be the new home for the Honved.com blog.

I am trying to transition all of the contents of Honved.com away from Yahoo geocities, and this is the first step. My reasons for this are, essentially, as follows.

1. Yahoo is repeatedly changing the software for web hosting and mailing lists.
2. These changes have played havoc with my format.
3. This havoc makes me look like an idiot.
4. Only Mrs. Bagosy is permitted to make me look like an idiot.

Make sense?

I also wanted to take the time to point out an error in interpretation on my part. A friend has asked me to clarify some information in Avanti regarding the use of captured M11/39 tanks in Burma. Upon a second glance at my (admittedly halfphazard notes), I regret to to say that I cannot confirm the existence of these vehicles any longer. I can confirm them in British/Commonwealth service, I just can't do it much farther east than Syria. As such, consider what I have posted about M11/39s serving against the Japanese to be very fanciful indeed. At least one source claims that the Chinese had M11/39s (I doubt this very much) or even other Italian vehicles (doubt slightly less, but still not likely). I can, however, confirm, that Chinese CV33/35s did indeed engage Japanese armor. So, you can still have that "Battle of the Cardboard Titans" if you insist upon it.

Also, pretty excited to mention to those of you who care that my Thesis has finally been assigned an ISBN number and can be found on the shelf at GMU library. The title was changed twice before it finally reached the library stage, but IT IS on the shelf now, and I DID manage to get myself a copy (by having a copy printed for myself, and for my parents). That means that there are four copies in existence. So get your collector's edition while it's err... red hot.

The full, official title is, The Origins of Mithraism in the Roman World; it was not my first choice, but it does work. You can find a link to the information, call number, etc. under my name "Bagosy, Alex T." at the following library website. http://library.gmu.edu/

It is available through interlibrary loan, though I doubt it'll be a Bantam paperback or blockbuster movie in the near future.

(I've started the research on my PHD, but haven't picked a program yet. Will let you all know when I do!)

I have a great deal more to say, and will soon say it, in a slightly less rushed manner. If you wish to contact me, please do NOT use the email addresses listed on Honved.com; they WILL NOT work. Instead, you can reach me here. I will continue to clean up the information on Honved.com as much as I can prior to a move to a better server, but I can't promise much, except that it will annoy the living hell out of me to do so.

Will write again soon,

- A.