Early Franks Again

In an earlier topic I had suggested that depicting Early Franks I could use the Alammani list and give the warbands the Francisca for more flavour. A friend suggested that the Beta list below might be a good list for Early Franks 5th/6th century. I don't know enough about the Franks to say for sure. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

OLD SAXONS AND BAVARIANS (VII-VIII Cent. AD) - last review: 11 February 2013
(VOLUME 14)
CS: Poor (0 pts)
Nr Type M VBU I D VD Pts Notes
2-10 FP- Nobles (*) 5 6 4 C 3 25 Impetuous - Francisca
8-30 FP - Followers (*) 5 5 4 C 2/3 16(12) Impetuous
0-4 S - Archers 8 2 0 C 1 7 Short bow B
0-2 S - Javelinmen 8 2 0 C 1 7 Javelin
NOTES AND OPTIONS. Followers can form large Units.
Francisca was a throwing axe. Use the same rules as for pilum.
Nobles cannot form Large Units.
Nobles can be provided with mounts at an additional cost of 1 pts per Unit.
Mounts allow these troops to move 10U (per phase) in their first activation.

The Nobles are ridiculously overpowered if I'm reading them correctly. Is there any reason to make them better than other similar warband - ie 5-4 or even 6-3 Viking elites. Potting that into perspective, are these troops REALLY better than Veteran Roman Legions? Similarly why are the followers 5-4 rather than the usual 4-4?

Sorry to be so critical but they do seem to be far better than other similar troops - VBU 6 is very good, even without large units.

Francisca - the general trend is towards 2-2 rather than 3-1

And that is why you steer clear of the horror that is the beta list collection

Zippee wrote:And that is why you steer clear of the horror that is the beta list collection

Agreed Zippie

We had one beta at our recent competition (Sargonid Assyrian). I don't blame Tony for bringing it as I happen to know it is one of his favourite \ pet armies and he's been wanting to use it for years, but looking at the stat lines did cause me some disquiet - who knew they were the best Chariotry in the Ancient World (6-5 Various) but also the best Medium Cavalry (6-3 with comp when as a comparison Persian Guard are only 6-2) but also the best shooting foot - front rank are FP with Pavaise and VBU 5 with a VBU4 rear rank so in an exchange of shooting they count as FP and get an additional minus on the shooting dice for the Pavaise. That's just the "Elite" foot - the Guard pay for a back rank of B class S troops but they count as A class for free!??

No wonder they were good in sieges because if that's right there is no way anyone would fight them in the open

Yeah, my Assyrians still sit on their DBM bases waiting for some kind of list that is a bit more credible

The beta lists are a nightmare they should be expunged at the earliest opportunity, in fact we probably need a Sargon to ensure they are thoroughly eliminated never to rise again!

The problem with the Beta lists falls at Lorenzo's feet. Nothing personal but I think with Impetus being out as long as it has been all the lists should be complete.The high production value in the EIs is great but it seems to have come at the cost of slowing down getting all the lists out. I compare this with ADLG where the lists are complete.

As an aside, I had major problems when the Sargonid Assyrian list was being discussed on the Forum. It seemed way over done to me as well. On the other hand, I have really enjoyed playing with my Middle Assyrians and find the Beta list does a good and reasonable job at representing them (probably because I didn't make it!)

Back to the Franks, I have no agenda on this army except I'd like to build it and there is no list. I don't claim to know a lot about this army. The one impression I get is that the Early Franks are probably the hardest hitting of the warband armies and have the least tactical options. So any list needs to represent both realities.

Putting that aside for the moment, I see the Noble FP as a powerful but fragile unit. Certainly the high VBU/impetus makes them very tough. Being a single stand C impetuous unit makes them quite fragile. With one hit they go from being super tough to average or worse. So much of their potential depends whether they can get into melee without suffering a loss. Not any easy thing to do for slow moving FP with a list that has limited S ability.

I agree that the regular warbands having a back stand of VBU 5 is too high. I also agree on the HTW being a +2/+2 rather than +1/+3.

Overall the Old Saxon beta list is a one trick pony and captures the kind of feel that I think the Early Franks should have even if the ratings may be a bit suspect. I am going to put a proposed Early Frank list out and would really appreciate yours and Zippee's input.

Gaius Cassius wrote:Back to the Franks, I have no agenda on this army except I'd like to build it and there is no list. I don't claim to know a lot about this army. The one impression I get is that the Early Franks are probably the hardest hitting of the warband armies

Where do you get that impression from?

I just wish when writing lists everyone would take a step back and ask "are they really as good as...." We have some pretty good examples now of what the norm and the top end of most troop types are, but there just seems to be a constant creep, and it is upwards. The other issue is making the lists a little more "gamer proof".

Look at this entry

2-10 FP- Nobles (*) 5 6 4 C 3 25 Impetuous - Francisca
8-30 FP - Followers (*) 5 5 4 C 2/3 16(12) Impetuous

There are 2 issues I think here. Why are the Nobles separate at all? Did the followers hang around on their own? This looks like an excuse to get some stupidly high factors in and justify them as being balanced by their not fighting deep. Not an expert on Frankish warbands but wouldn't the usual process be for the nobles to lead the warbands not fight on their own in a totally different fashion??

The second point is of course "gamer proofing" - that 2-10 and 8-30 may as well read 10 nobles and 4 deep follower units. The large theoretical numbers of the Followers is irrelevant as they will never be selected. In a hierarchical or tribal organisation such as the Franks had, surely the number of Nobles would be in relation to the number of Followers??

Sorry - I feel I am hijacking this thread to vent-

Cyrus, I appreciate your comments so no worry about venting. I agree with your basic point.

As far as the Old Saxon list specifically, the commentary from the DBM list says the following:

"Noble warriors thought themselves much superior to their followers, initially used a proportion of heavy throwing weapons, and were increasingly likely as time went on to have helmets and mail."

With respect to the Early Franks being the hardest hitting of the warband tribes that is my impression of the evidence. No more, no less. The Franks also come with many limitations (no missile fire, no cavalry of any significance, probably limited skirmishing ability.)

If we agree that having 6/4 Nobles is not the best way to represent the Franks in Impetus then returning to the 5/4 warband standard is the way to go. Offering them HTW +2/+2 could give them that extra little punch but how would you recommend doing that with a Large Unit if that were the case? Also perhaps giving them 2 Noble 6/4 upgrades like the Gauls have could give them a little extra punch. No cavalry and limited S and I think we might have Frankish list.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

As far as the Old Saxon list specifically, the commentary from the DBM list says the following:

"Noble warriors thought themselves much superior to their followers, initially used a proportion of heavy throwing weapons, and were increasingly likely as time went on to have helmets and mail."

With respect to the Early Franks being the hardest hitting of the warband tribes that is my impression of the evidence. No more, no less. The Franks also come with many limitations (no missile fire, no cavalry of any significance, probably limited skirmishing ability.)

Please understand I must precede any comment here with a disclaimer that I know little about Franks in particular, but I have to ask, is a DBM list the best source of info available, and secondly, what do you base your "hardest hitting" impression on?

I appreciate I often seem brusque but that's not intentional - well usually, it's more an over economic prose style. What I am trying to say is that just translating DBM lists and their often patchy prose isn't always helpful with Impetus because the two systems have radically different mechanics. A reasonable historical result is achieved in DBM by a combination of dice, factors and troop types. Impetus uses similar elements but the weightings are very different, so transposing x Noble Warriors WB(S) to Impetus as 6-4 FL Impetuous may have very different effects.

Do we know how these Nobles fought? Most Warrior and Tribal societies the nobility fight with the lower classes, usually leading them by example. Impetus does well with this by allowing upgrades to front ranks, usually limited in number. Creating a unit of Frankish Nobles therefore to me seems a misstep. The other problem with individual units of Nobles is they will only form a very small percentage of the overall number of warriors - so spreading them thinly across the warrior units by allowing a front rank upgrade - usually to a third of the available total, is not unreasonable, but agglomerating them into single units would really mean they would probably form only one such unit. Again this is already represented in some Impetus lists by allowing some units including Generals to be upgraded further than normally would be the case - Thracians and some Greeks for instance.

Between them the DBM, DBMM and FOG lists do represent one of the best and most scholarly informed set of informational lists available to us.

They are secondary sources for sure but they have seen input from a range of respected and informed 'professionals' - they aren't just one wargamer's re-iteration of old wargamer tropes.

Doesn't make them perfect but it does make them a solid starting point. Of course the issue then is hoe to translate from one wargame system and terminology to another, which presents its own problems.

I'd agree to a point Zippee. The original source material is so scarce and the research often arcane. How much is simply regurgitated from one rules set to another, particularly in the modern age where games designers often stress one element to give a particular faction flavour ?

btw I was editing the post as you posted so not sure if you got the second bit?

Agreed. And as such I think wargame list writers are better placed using informed and solid secondary sources that have already interpreted the arcane than trying to do it from first principles. There are wargamers that are first rate ancient scholars but not many and most of those that exist put their input into DBM and through the Anc-Med forum back in the day.

As for "warband" armies I think we're in murky waters. We're dealing with societies through the prejudiced eyes of Roman and post Roman religious bigots.

that said I believe we have a small warrior "elite" and a larger "tribal" muster. This seems true from pre-Hellenistic Greece to Anglo-Saxon England.

How that warrior "elite" would form I believe depends on the size and nature of the warfare. For raiding and 'inter-tribal' warfare then probably only the elite fight maybe supported by lesser as much in a servant role as a fighting one.

When it comes to wars of conquest or defence against Rome or migration or other 'full musters' then I'm confident those elites would form the front lines and the others fill in behind.

Even among the 'elite' that would be the case, the better armed, most warlike, most experienced - the "killers of men" would always be pushed / push themselves to the front - it's social expectation, pride and arrogance.

I cannot see anytime (outside of small scale raids or possibly small hearthgards) where these elites would form anything like separate units at an Impetus battle scale. Perhaps in an allied contingent or foederati you might have a higher percentage of 'elites'.

After that the only notable difference I can see with the Franks is the connection with the francescca - how unique this sort of weaponry was is unknowable but for flavour on the table I'm happy to distinguish Frankis armies form Thuringian, Swabian or whatever by allowing them a heavy throwing weapon, it's not going to break the game.

Other than that I think on the evidence we have all these migration era foot armies could essentially be served by a single list. And the mounted ones by another. However flavour is nice in wargaming so offering limited distinctions has its merits.

Thanks Cyrus and Zippee for the input. It helps. The idea of the upgraded unit with attached leaders comes from evidence for the comitatus found in barbarian tribes during the Migration period. If you take a look at the commentary in Osprey's Germanic Warrior AD 236-568 plate B on pp.33-34 you will see that it was a common feature in for warlord's to have a large retinue of noble followers. There is even a high probability that these retinues were dressed in uniforms. I think having the upgrade is justified in these cases and shows the evolution of German warrior societies over the 300 years contact with the Roman empire. I also note that this isn't unheard of in Impetus either. Take a look at the Celtiberians and Gaul lists in EI4 with the option of the Scutarii Elite/Elite Soldurii with a 6/4  rating forming the front rank of a large warband unit.

I field a Frankish allied contingent with my late Romans sometimes. They go down on the table as 4/4 with half a possible upgrade to 5/4 always thought that would be a good starting point for a Frankish army....that's if ever I was going to get around to painting enough to go the 'whole hog' with Franks.