Pict Army Lists?

[Anton]

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. 

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[Imperial Dave]

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'

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

According to this page 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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

Best sketch of Meigle chariot I can find.



This would seem to be a chariot in the sense of a light covered cart.

[Duncan Head]

This would seem to be a chariot in the sense of a light covered cart.

One suggestion is that it's a Roman carpentum.

[Anton]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Anton]

No trouble at all.  I've made my javelin throw measuring stick.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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.

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.

[Duncan Head]

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, who looks to have been the source for the square-shielded Pictish spearman in AEIR.