forum.wgcwar.com

Gentlemen,

Was not sure where this open invitation should be announced, so I decided that this sub-forum would probably be the most appropriate.

Anyway, as a result of my "adventure" posted on 22 January with Seleucids vs Indians, I have cobbled together some thoughts about Classical Indian archery.

If interested, I encourage you to stop by. If more interested, I look forward to any comments and remarks that might be posted here or on the blog itself.

The link address is: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com ... %20Archery


Cheers,
Chris

Chris, I read through your treatise on gaming Classical Indian archery. I enjoyed gaming with both Classical Indians and Greco-Bactrian armies in my WRG days back in the 1980's and have recently discovered Triumph! and resurrected and downsized my Punic War era armies. I confess to having tried Tactica and Field of Glory rules, but never really switched over from WRG and DBM rules before ancients gave way to an American Civil war gaming addiction.

As to the Indian archers firing or not firing in Triumph!, I'm finding more success and more fun with the Greco-Bactrian army Mountain Indian Archers, who either massed or spread across the board, can disrupt and stall the enemy (or not, as Chris's article pointed out, due to the randomness of missile success), rather than with the Classical Indians bow levee who don't shoot, move slowly, and die easily. I'm no researcher, and am a big fan of Triumph!, but I do think I'll try a game or two amending the Meshwesh Classical Indian list to substitute shooting archers for non-shooting bow levee junk troops. I suspect that switching 3 elements of bow levee and a horde element for 2 elements of shooting archers would make the Classical Indians a smaller, but way better tabletop army. And I have no idea if the switch would be unhistorical.

Since this is my second-ever forum post, I'm attaching a photo of some of my Indian figures to see if I can figure out how to add a picture. Ten minutes later: Nope, not yet with the photo.

Cheers Phil -

Treatise?! Egad . . . Thanks for taking the time to read this particular post. (Shameless self-promotion: you might take a few more minutes and see if any other topic on the blog sparks your interest.) It's rather nice to see that the post can get a response (and reply!) just before hitting the 1,000 view mark. [Suspect that many of these are bots or some sort . . .]

Your brief bio deserves more explanation. I would be interested in reading more about your evolution and or starts and stops as a historical wargamer.

Looking forward to reading about your experiment(s) with the unit type substitutions. As for the picture attachment, well, technology can be interesting at times . . .

May your tenure on this forum be long and satisfying. I have heard rumors, however, of there being considerations of moving things to a different site or platform.

In my limited experience and somewhat subjective view, posts can go for a time without any kind of interaction from the reported membership.

Ces't la wargaming.

Thanks again Phil, for taking the time. Good health and good gaming.

Chris

Hi Chris and whoever else,

From my WRG big army days, I still had a surplus of Indian figures, so with a lot of remounting I just put together a Mountain Indian army with 6 stands of shooting archers. This morning I tossed them into the ring against Alexander's Macedonians in a 'let's see what happens' solo game. Pikes and raiders and cavalry against light spears and shooting archers and a couple of Indian jav cav stands. To my great surprise the Mountain Indians pulled out a 20-15 victory after losing 2 of their 5 stands of shooters in early melees. The shooters never destroyed a stand with arrow volleys but they did stall some Macedonian advances and disrupted things a bit. I split the shooters to both wings, which may not have been the best decision. And remembering my history, I kept Alexander way back out of arrow range so he can fight another day.

Indian archers were using longbows, drawing back to the ear and were a prestigious part of the army. They clearly should be Archer/Shooter.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 02, 2025 12:40 am

Indian archers were using longbows, drawing back to the ear and were a prestigious part of the army. They clearly should be Archer/Shooter.

Longbow, recurve, self bow, or whatever has nothing to do with it. What draw weight? What evidence for them firing massed volleys at great distance? What evidence for supply/logistics? English longbowmen not only had a sheaf (or three) of arrows, they had wagons full of spare arrows behind the lines, and boys running between the wagons and the fighting line, supplying the archers. Francs Bowmen in the French Ordonnance period used identical weapons to the English, and were renowned as being useless for anything more than shooting chickens. Which is why they are Bow Levy. Dismounted Timurid and Mongol bowmen used recurve bows, not longbows -- but they won several battles that way, so they are rated as Archers in Triumph.

You have a point about massed volleys. Archery was presitigious in India, but I am not seeing actual mentions of it having effect on the battlefield. The Arthashatra says that bows she be deployed to the rear (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book ... 66166.html) which implies arcing fire.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:30 pm

You have a point about massed volleys. Archery was presitigious in India, but I am not seeing actual mentions of it having effect on the battlefield.

Right, exactly. Heroes and gods are mentioned doing phenomenal archery (and phenomenal other things), but massed infantry are mostly spectators to actions by the heroes.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:30 pm

The Arthashatra says that bows she be deployed to the rear (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book ... 66166.html) which implies arcing fire.

Or that the bows be treated as a reserve of last resort. Or that the bows weren't effective, or weren't maneuverable, or whatever. The Teutonic Order had mounted crossbowmen who were usually deployed to the rear -- which is a major reason that they are rated as Bad Horse. Any time anyone writes "troops X should be deployed to the rear" what they are saying is that those troops are poor, ineffective, or unreliable.