My interest in Pict armies has been rekindled by mention of Comitatus, Dark Age Infantry Slog (DIAS) and its offspring White Steeds and Seax in the current rules thread. I have a Pict army based for Pulse of Battle but it would work with Comitatus and White Steeds too.
I'm not looking for the definitive Pict Army list because I think we just don't know. Rather I'm interested in how folks rate the Picts on the tabletop for whatever rules they prefer. Any replies gratefully received.
blimey....great question. I am also building up some Pictish figures as Pendraken helpfully (lol) do a very nice range in 10mm and will supplement my Saxon and British forces currently under way. Early period chariots, some cavalry, warbands and light support troops with perhaps a few more missile troops than say their enemies. Later period, more cavalry some 'heavy' although mounted on ponies, more shieldwall/close order infantry but still some warbands and light support troops. Conjectural I know. 'Southern Picts' would be closer to Saxon/North British composition. Northern Picts more closely aligned to Irish composition. Bit of guesswork really!
PS.
From memory I think there were a couple of what I would call reasonable army lists in ADLG and The WRG 6th/7th non official army list in the 3rd 'Book Of Hosts'
Ah, "Early" and "Late". Where to put the line, or when did the picts start wearing clothes?
As we are speculating wildly, I think early (up to 4th century) were like British/Caledonian, complete with light cavalry and chariots. Later they were very similar to Welsh - Noble cavalry, spearmen, some archers. Naval capability similar - small vessels, though not necessarily skin boats.
Spearmen may have varied in "cohesiveness" depending on where they fought (like the Welsh).
As I say, speculation.
yes, big caveat with all proposals as noted. I am not going for any chariot based stuff so will be concentrating on more conventional arms though I may be at odds with archaeological evidence :)
According to this page (https://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/pictish-chariot.html) the last literary mention of chariots in Scottish warfare is from AD 563 (and they were used by Dalriadans, not Picts).
It also talks about a possible depiction of a Pictish chariot on the (now lost) Meigle #10 stone, but the description doesn't sound like a combat vehicle, and accd WP the stone probably dates from the ninth or tenth century, so perhaps "Scots" rather than "Pictish".
So if you're looking at say the seventh or eight centuries, including chariots may well be more suspect than leaving them out.
Returning to army lists, the DBMM one allows chariots up to AD 500, after which you're instead allowed to upgrade some of the cavalry to heavier types. The bulk of the foot are "Pikes Fast", which essentially means spearmen with long spears and small if any shields. They're more suited to rough terrain than most heavy infantry types.
and what do we class as Picts anyway as a general query....non Romanised Northern British or even more culturally distinctive and 'further north' than the Firth
Best sketch of Meigle chariot I can find.
(https://i.rcahms.gov.uk/canmore/d/SC00391002.jpg)
This would seem to be a chariot in the sense of a light covered cart.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2020, 01:08:07 PMThis would seem to be a chariot in the sense of a light covered cart.
One suggestion (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AcDmHwcv4jMC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=meigle+stone+vehicle+carpentum&source=bl&ots=43suoK74Q2&sig=ACfU3U3ISNEGdc95bslrRdIFIZnS8Wz-8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqm_Wix_7oAhWjunEKHdLnD0IQ6AEwDnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=meigle%20stone%20vehicle%20carpentum&f=false)is that it's a Roman
carpentum.
Great responses, thanks all. I'm attempting to put an army list together for Comitatus. I've already got the army painted and the dining table has been commandeered for the next three days.
I'm thinking along the following lines.
Good morale light javelin cavalry. I think of the Picts as having quite a broad aristocracy and this would be them
One high morale light cavalry as the comitatus as it were. Or maybe some chariots earlier on. Or a unit of mailed cavalry.
Archers who either skirmish or support the spears. Average morale.
I'm stuck with the spear men. Should they be hard hitting warband or stubborn spear men. While I like the differentiation of Picts being long spear/fast pike the evidence escapes me. Average warrior morale I think.
Currently I think of the Picts as non Romanised north Britons. Although presumably here was some non military interaction with the Empire. Charles-Edwards thinks the boundary was on the Firth of Forth.
pretty much in line with my thinking. Would you be so good as to let me know how you get on with Comitatus after you have gamed with it?
No trouble at all. I've made my javelin throw measuring stick.
Quote from: Anton on April 23, 2020, 01:51:41 PM
I'm stuck with the spear men. Should they be hard hitting warband or stubborn spear men. While I like the differentiation of Picts being long spear/fast pike the evidence escapes me.
The Aberlemno stone shows a spearman thrusting two-handed, which is surely
some evidence that spears were quite substantial, and shieldwall tactics not emphasized.
But it's more on the excuse-to-class-them-differently level than anything definite. DBX tends to err on the side of differentiation, which makes for more interesting games than if everyone were Heavy Infantry (Hairy), but isn't necessarily the most historically plausible.
Quote
Currently I think of the Picts as non Romanised north Britons.
After Christianization, I imagine they were little if any less "Roman" than their fellow Britons. The distinction was, I'd think, chiefly linguistic and political.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 23, 2020, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Anton on April 23, 2020, 01:51:41 PM
I'm stuck with the spear men. Should they be hard hitting warband or stubborn spear men. While I like the differentiation of Picts being long spear/fast pike the evidence escapes me.
The Aberlemno stone shows a spearman thrusting two-handed, which is surely some evidence that spears were quite substantial, and shieldwall tactics not emphasized.
But it's more on the excuse-to-class-them-differently level than anything definite. DBX tends to err on the side of differentiation, which makes for more interesting games than if everyone were Heavy Infantry (Hairy), but isn't necessarily the most historically plausible.
Quote
Currently I think of the Picts as non Romanised north Britons.
much more political than linguistic as they had the same basic language as the North Britons but perhaps less loan words from Latin
After Christianization, I imagine they were little if any less "Roman" than their fellow Britons. The distinction was, I'd think, chiefly linguistic and political.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 23, 2020, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Anton on April 23, 2020, 01:51:41 PM
I'm stuck with the spear men. Should they be hard hitting warband or stubborn spear men. While I like the differentiation of Picts being long spear/fast pike the evidence escapes me.
The Aberlemno stone shows a spearman thrusting two-handed, which is surely some evidence that spears were quite substantial, and shieldwall tactics not emphasized.
There's also that some of the shields illustrated are a bit small, and to be "spearmen" in DB* you need to have a wall of substantial shields. I'm particularly thinking of the warrior on the Eassie stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eassie_Stone#/media/File:Eassie_Sculptured_Stone_20090616_cross.jpg), who looks to have been the source for the square-shielded Pictish spearman in
AEIR.
QuoteThere's also that some of the shields illustrated are a bit small, and to be "spearmen" in DB* you need to have a wall of substantial shields.
Though you always have to take care with the artistic conventions present, I'd say those infantry shields are intended to be about 3ft across. Same size as Viking shields. That poor spearman has probably dominated wargames armies of Picts forever. Some think he represents some proto-schiltron, and Picts taught this formation to the Scots, however one might interpret this. I would suggest, though, we are looking at an infantry force which has closed up to see off some cavalry. Where that leaves discussions about normal Pictish infantry behaviour, I don't know.
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2020, 02:58:51 PM
much more political than linguistic as they had the same basic language as the North Britons but perhaps less loan words from Latin
In Bede's view, the Strathclyders spoke the same "British" language as the Welsh, while the Picts had their own language, so I'd think the latter was fairly distinct.
That said, language borders themselves are often a question politics more than linguistics, and one could easily image what was spoken in Dumbarton was half-way between the vernaculars of Wales and Fortriu, but "British" rather than Pictish on grounds of ethno-political self-identification.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2020, 03:22:21 PM
Though you always have to take care with the artistic conventions present, I'd say those infantry shields are intended to be about 3ft across. Same size as Viking shields.
Vikings are not, however, "spearmen" in DBX.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2020, 03:22:21 PM
QuoteThere's also that some of the shields illustrated are a bit small, and to be "spearmen" in DB* you need to have a wall of substantial shields.
Though you always have to take care with the artistic conventions present, I'd say those infantry shields are intended to be about 3ft across. Same size as Viking shields. That poor spearman has probably dominated wargames armies of Picts forever. Some think he represents some proto-schiltron...
Hang on, which poor spearman? Are you talking about the Aberlemno anti-cavalry scene? That front-ranker's shield might be close to Viking size, but I don't think you can say the same about the Eassie cross spearman, whom I was talking about.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2020, 12:00:45 PM
Ah, "Early" and "Late". Where to put the line, or when did the picts start wearing clothes?
I don't know about clothes, but: The article on "doorknob" spearbutts (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/warrior-ideologies-in-firstmillennium-ad-europe-new-light-on-monumental-warrior-stelae-from-scotland/858D1BAD86C69B0A3490ECE55A8721DD)which we discussed recently (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4280.0) suggests that those items were used from the third century to the sixth or fifth. And Cassius Dio says that they were used on
short spears, and shaken to terrify the enemy. Does their going out of use indicate a change in weaponry somewhen either side of AD500? And if so, then tactics too? From short spears and warbandy intimidation to, perhaps, longer spears and - what? Aberlemno shield-walls?
It had just diverged Andreas, they both started off speaking 'P' Celtic. If I remember right David Dumville thought it happened in the 4th or 5th century.
On the infantry closing up to hold off cavalry. Maybe that was their tactical function? They were often facing horsey foes from the Old North and other Picts. They also seem to have made more use of the bow than their neighbours. Their cavalry would then have a safe rallying point. I'm guessing of course.
my take on it too re the Brythonic divergence
Quote from: Anton on April 23, 2020, 03:45:56 PMThey also seem to have made more use of the bow than their neighbours.
Actually, how much evidence is there for archery? There are the crossbows on the Drosten Stone and a couple of others, but what else?
QuoteHang on, which poor spearman? Are you talking about the Aberlemno anti-cavalry scene? That front-ranker's shield might be close to Viking size, but I don't think you can say the same about the Eassie cross spearman, whom I was talking about.
Apologies for the confusion - I was indeed still referring to the Aberlemno chap. It may, or may not, be significant that the Eassie spearman is in a hunting scene. This might not affect the shield carried but is more likely to affect the preferred spear.
QuoteVikings are not, however, "spearmen" in DBX.
It's a whole different world :) Fortunately, Stephen is using Comitatus.
I think that's it Duncan.
I'm starting to mess with the Comitatus stat's now. It won't end well.
what are you pitting them against?
The Picts are not known in any systematic manner, so youbare bound to end up wit elements in the list based on very little evidence. May I cite Gallic light and skirmishing infantry, for example? They don't get mentioned in jany accounts of Gauls fighting, the Galatians lose because they do not have an evfective arm. Yet on occasion they get mentioned. at the Sambre think. Aren't tge Eburones said to practice a light infantry tactic , skirmishing in woods daily? Vercingetorix establishes a register of archers and recruits 10,000 in Gaul ( hope the number is right) . One might conclude that this is extraordinary and normally they do not fight, but doesn't Caesar recruit a number from Gaul as mercenaries to fight in Spain. I don)t recall, though that Gallic archers cone up much in the archaeological record. I am willing to bet that light troops are often invisible to contemporary commentators. Sane with the early Germans . The Picts are one of thipise armies that it difficult to be hard-nosed about , but one suspects they had a fair number of troops able to form as lights.
I like the idea of Picts being able to run across the hills in loose order, clumping together to resist cavalry, full marks to the originator. That would ge the sane as the Welsh, at home in a forest but handy outside Hereford in a wide falley facing amateur Saxon cavalry.
Roy
thanks Roy, good points to make re the lights. Absence of mention does not necessarily mean absence of presence...! The idea of predominantly (long) spear armed soldiery that move easily across bad going and then form close knit groups for resisting cavalry also appeals to me
QuoteThe idea of predominantly (long) spear armed soldiery that move easily across bad going and then form close knit groups for resisting cavalry also appeals to me
Having touched on the intricacies of wargames terms, what shall we call them. Light Medium Infantry, perhaps :)
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2020, 05:39:25 PM
QuoteThe idea of predominantly (long) spear armed soldiery that move easily across bad going and then form close knit groups for resisting cavalry also appeals to me
Having touched on the intricacies of wargames terms, what shall we call them. Light Medium Infantry, perhaps :)
Lol.....fast pikes maybe? ;D
Try facing them in SAGA, a game I love, they are brutal.
Fast - can avoid some terrain
Tricksey - can run away from a scrap
Shoot- access to bow and x bow
Fight- some combos they can get great combat skills
Dont get me started on their boss in a go cart with in effect a 2L command range
sounds punchy lol
By way of opposition for my Picts I have British, Angles and Romans. Mostly painted aeons ago.
Roy's points are worth teasing out a bit more. The Gauls did have archers and the Romans did form a unit or maybe two of them later. I was reading recently that for the great assembly at Alesia most of the tribes sent a contingent of around 3,000 warriors. If there were 10,000 archers from all Gaul it would suggest that each tribe had some.
It might be that the light javelin troops were young lads who had just reached the start of official manhood which I think was either at 12 or 14. They would even at that stage have had years of military training but could not yet stand in line of battle. They could throw javelins and run fast. I'd imagine the Picts had some lads like that too.
Back to the spear men this light medium infantry concept could catch on.
Did a 25mm Pictish army for SAGA which was delight to build, but in 15mm my experience has been with Dux Bellorum , which is a favourite with me, and "later" Picts. Dux allows your infantry to be Shieldwall (solid household troops), Warriors (troops who just can't hold their line together) or skirmishers. I reckon this pretty much covers all options. Shieldwall and Warriors can be Superior (rare) or Ordinary (most) but there is also an option for Levies who are those who reluctantly turn up largely armed with pitchforks and pointy sticks and led by the Village Idiot.
I seem to recall contributing an article and book review on Dunnichen some years back.
how did you find DB play Steve especially for dark age 'flavour'?
I think Dux Bellorum is one of the best rule sets I have ever played. Its "secret" is that it sticks to what it wants to represent (its focus) and I feel it has real period flavour. Done a lot of games from Late Romans to Anglo-Saxons and even done Goths etc and it works well. I did a few articles for Slingshot on it previously so have a re-read.
I was a fan of Daniel Mersey's "Glutter of Ravens" that evolved into Dux Bellorum which I felt was an improvement. The decision making for the players is an aspect I really like as they decide what is important and how they direct their resources (their commander's ability to influence).
I have rebased all my later Romans and Goths from DB elements to 80x60mm bases but this does not detract from using them for Dux Bellorum where the unit is the basis of the army.
Still, for me, the best rule set in the Osprey collection and streets ahead of both DBM and FOG for this period. Works fine for solo play as well.
Crossing streams again but "Glutter of Ravens" was influenced by DAIS and in turn influenced DB. I've never read or seen play of GoR but I do wonder whether it also influenced "Battle Ravens"?
I also am a fan of DB - it forms the basis of my home medieval rules at present (in a modified form). The bit, however, I don't like is Steve's favourite the leadership system, for similar reasons I don't like the DAIS one.
Interesting chatting about rules systems outside the big ones .
I've got DB and it's another one of those sets I've meant to get to grips with it have failed. Rereading it now
DB is fun but the Shieldwall can unbalance games. It does take a bit of getting used to. I like it a lot and Picts would fit in superbly.
well I am painting a whole trenchant of the relevant figures so would seem churlish not to give them a whizz. I may have to order more Pictish figures though....I feel like I may be a bit light in that department.... :P
I have DB too, must have a re read of it.
I've got my solution to using Pict spear men with Comitatus. I took the Javelin Men category which covers fast moving fairly hard hitting warband types and reversed the attack and defence stats. It may even work.
dammit....more Picts ordered!
I just cant help myself....so shield patterns for 10mm!
Those 10mm Picts are pretty fine Dave.
In case anyone else is thinking of using Comitatus here are the stat's I've come up with for Pict spears. As javelinmen they move fast. They are better defending than attacking. They can be made a bigger unit and form up in depth that brings a combat plus. They are of average morale. Archers can support in a rear rank.
I'll have four blocks of spears with the light cavalry operating around them. The archers will be skirmishing or in the back line of the spears.
The Troop type is Javelinmen/ Attack A2/ Defence D3 / Training and Experience Grade C/ Morale Average 0
I think it might work well enough.
thanks Stephen, much obliged for the info. I am furiously trying to paint up my DA armies in 10mm now for a variety of rulesets I want to try out
You're welcome.
I got on a roll and wrote lists for the Britons of the West, the Old North and the lost lands. Then I got my Picts out and decided that each of the spear bases could benefit from an extra figure. The question was canabalise or buy more. As you'd expect I'm buying more. Then I thought two archers to a base looked a pit puny. The net result is I'm buying more Picts. It's the way we are I suppose.
Now I need chariot stats.
sorry, daft question....15mm?
Oh yes 15mm. Almost all of mine are the old and excellent Steve Shaw sculpts that QRF bought and subsequently sold on to an outfit in the USA. QRF then made another Pict range of their own. That's what I'll be getting. The foot will be a good fit size wise not so the cavalry.
just checking :)
I have committed to 10mm for mine and cant/wont be persuaded to go for 15mm (just yet)
If I hadn't already got loads of 15mm Pendraken would be seeing some of my money.
there is time yet my Padawan friend......
Quote from: Anton on April 26, 2020, 11:32:57 AM
Oh yes 15mm. Almost all of mine are the old and excellent Steve Shaw sculpts that QRF bought and subsequently sold on to an outfit in the USA. QRF then made another Pict range of their own. That's what I'll be getting. The foot will be a good fit size wise not so the cavalry.
I shall pass that comment on to Steve when we get together, hopefully, lockdown permitting, the end of June. I wonder if I can persuade him to start sculpting again?
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2020, 12:56:16 PM
and what do we class as Picts anyway as a general query....non Romanised Northern British or even more culturally distinctive and 'further north' than the Firth
Which Firth? There are three on the East coast... And very much culturally distinctive. Something of a pet subject as I live in what would be considered Pictish heartlands. Meigle etc are all less than 15 minutes away. One of the great things is that stones continue to be found, or in some cases rediscovered, so we can always hope for new information or clues.
sorry Doug, meant Firth of Forth
Please do so Doug. I always thought very highly of Steve's work. I have his Sikh War figures, loads of Irish, Scots and Welsh and the Flodden range too. His work was very much ahead of its time in my opinion and it would be great if he ever decided to take it up again.