Photos of Miniatures and Giant Mat
almost 7 years ago – Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:02:22 AM

Hello Everyone,

Today we have received the printed miniatures form Hexy Studio. Here are some photos you have asked for. Enjoy!

Please notice, that the photos were made with a normal cell phone. And it is a cloudy day today. :)

Thanks to our partners, the Giant Mat add-on will be published in all languages. So there will be US, DE, FR and SP version!

Thank you for your support,

Michał & Phalanx

Armies of Hannibal’s era (part 2)
almost 7 years ago – Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:30:04 PM

by Dariusz “Berger” Góralski

The city of Carthage was destroyed, plowed over, and sown with salt. Although it was re-developed as Roman Carthage, the former Punic Republic had been left with no traces of the formations, tactics, and look of the Carthaginian army whatsoever. All that is known comes from the Roman sources.

The Carthaginian army from the Second Punic War resembled a Hellenistic army. It relied fully upon a commander, his experience, efficiency, and charisma. Hannibal’s strength lay in uniting military units, small numbers of militia, Libyan soldiers, and mercenaries of various origins. A Carthaginian army was only as strong as its leader.

When it comes to the Roman army, the situation was vastly different. Some might perversely say that the most important thing there was for a consul was not to be such an idiot as those who could be chosen to hold an office and lead an army. The Roman army was homogenous, its armament standardized according to the understanding of the world at that time and not until Scipio Africanus were Rome’s tactics known and predictable. To lead such a collective was barely a challenge.

Hellenistic armies, including the Carthaginian army, provided various possibilities. Many of them. The commander of such an army had at his disposal a number of units armed accordingly and trained properly to a given task. These units were perfectly prepared, although for one thing only – the one that made up their specialization. How they were to be used depended all on the creativity of the Hellenistic commander. It was a kind of variation on the rock-paper-scissors game. And for a long time the Romans knew only how to form a rock…

A great example of a Hellenistic army’s excellence in the hands of a capable commander was Alexander the Great battling the nomads. The great horse archers shot arrows at Macedonian units while being safe themselves, as they always escaped infantry or cavalry. By introducing archers to the formation (foot archers shoot further than horse archers), Alexander surprised the enemy and caused havoc among their soldiers. His cavalry struck the enemy and caused them to flee, which wouldn’t have happened otherwise (morale during battle).

Hannibal’s strength wasn’t attributed solely to the perfect use of his own units’ diversity and capabilities. According to scholars, he might have learned from Hispanic Celts how to prepare ambushes. Such an ambush could mean hiding units on the battlefield (i.e. Battle of Trebbia) or even an entire army (Battle of Lake Trasimene). Ambushes could also happen to be secret river crossings that were to surprise the enemy or distract their attention. Hannibal knew that consuls were often overconfident and that the Roman army had poor scouts (weak cavalry). It would have been a shame not to seize such an opportunity.

Hannibal was able to form an excellent army out of diverse units and lead it to victorious battles. And there were many of them. The Carthaginian army could have at its disposal, if need be, heavy infantry units and cavalry consisting of Carthaginian citizens. A unit consisting of 10,000 infantry was stationed in Carthage. The maximum number of the militia army is said to have reached 50,000 soldiers, although we need to remember that many of the citizens of Carthage served as the army and fleet commanders, regular sailors, etc. The use of an indigenous Carthaginian army was at the time possible only on the African shore.

The majority of scholars incline towards the idea that units consisting purely of Carthaginians were armed in the manner of late Hoplites, meaning Hellenic helmets, linothoraxes or leather armor, round or oval shields, swords, and spears (perhaps 3 meters long). Libyan units are similarly described. This sedentary, agricultural people (related to the Numidians and Moors) settled lands around Carthage. The Libyans displayed exceptional tenacity, resilience to hardship, and extraordinary fortitude. That’s why a Libyan infantry unit, of all Carthaginian ones, is displayed on the Carthaginian Combat Unit piece – in recognition of its achievements and the fact that it had always constituted the core of Carthaginian forces. According to Roman sources, many of the Libyan infantry soldiers (as a result of the first battles against Romans) armed themselves with Roman weapons. Scholars are sometimes doubtful of this, though, as the Roman armament was best suited for the manipular system, not dense hoplite phalanxes. Perhaps a considerable part of Libyan soldiers dressed as Romans in order to prepare an ambush at the Battle of Cannae. According to the respectable Ardant du Picq, the disguised Libyan units deceived the center of the Roman forces, flanked and struck them, thus intensifying havoc among the Sons of the She-Wolf.

Besides heavy infantry, the Libyans provided excellent spear-hurling light units called lonchophoroi. It is also worth noting that the Libyans furnished the Carthaginian cavalry with contingents of a long-spear cavalry. Such contingents were also furnished by Liby-Phoenicians – a people related to Carthaginians linguistically and religiously, although lacking Carthaginian civil rights. Their heavy cavalry used helmets, Hellenic armor, and long spears. The Libyan infantry constituted the core of the Carthaginian forces.. The rest of the Carthaginian infantry consisted of contingents of allies and mercenaries of all sorts. Modern-day Spain became the source of the most excellent allied armies and mercenaries after the First Punic War, and Northern Italy during further battles. The Iberians, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, as well as Celts inhabiting the banks of the Po river, provided throngs of warriors that after years of fighting in Italy became soldiers. Particular Celtic and Iberian combat teams were armed in a typical Celtic manner. Every warrior was equipped with a long, heavy, often oaken shield (up to a meter long and 10 kilos in weight) that displayed dreadful paintings and a long (up to 0.9 m), exquisite sword. Nobility possessed chain mail and ornamented helmets. Sometimes javelins were also used. Celtic cavalry were equipped likewise.

The Iberians differed slightly from the Celts. They wore white tunics with purple decorative embroidery, leather caps, or hoods ornamented with horsehair. Heavy infantry used big, elongated shields (resembling Celtic ones, with an elongated umbo), pectoral armor, short swords or single-edged, curved falcatas, and heavy javelins that resembled the Roman pila (i.e. soliferra, which were made entirely from iron). Of course, besides heavy infantry, the Iberians also provided light infantry armed with round shields and a few light javelins.

All this diversity of Carthaginian infantry, varied in terms of weaponry, fighting style, tactics, behavior, customs, resilience etc., was completed by contingents of excellent Balearic slingers, that trained from early childhood. They launched stones of various sizes with deadly effect. Balearic slingers used three different slings depending on the distance of the stones (up to half a kilo) that were to be used. The extraordinary accuracy of the Balearic people resulting from their training, along with the range of up to 200 metres, meant that Balearic slingers – much like tirailleurs during the Napoleonic era – could force enemy troops to withdraw or stop, as well as cause considerable losses among the enemy cadre that stood up in front of the phalanx formation.

In conclusion of the infantry review, there were also spearmen called lonchophoroi. They specialized in ambushes, special tasks, holding the crossings, etc. They were similar in this manner to the famous hypaspists of Alexander the Great. Perhaps they were equipped with light armament, javelins, and most certainly swords. They made up the ultimate units for varied tasks.

Each periphrasis of Hannibal’s battles (especially the Battle of Cannae) causes the reader to remember one thing – victorious Carthaginian cavalry. It constituted an important element of Hannibal’s war machine. It broke the enemy flanks – which wasn’t particularly difficult considering the standards of the Italian cavalry. What’s more important is that the Carthaginian cavalry – if it was properly trained and led – returned onto the battlefield to encircle the enemy infantry after the cavalry fled. This manoeuvre was repeated (successfully) by Masinissa at the Battle of Zama. In ancient times, almost every nation and every social structure had at their disposal heavy and light infantry as well as cavalry. However, geographical conditions, social relations, and class in antiquity caused many people to be distinguished by a specific kind of army, trained in a way unattainable by others. That was the case with Balearic slingers, Cretan archers, Macedonian phalanx, and Numidian cavalry.

Hannibal’s cavalry included contingents of heavy cavalry coming from Carthage itself, comprised of Libyans, Liby-Phoenicians, Iberians, and Celts. There was also light Hispanic cavalry, equipped with javelins. All these units made up shock troops that were to breach enemy defences and force the enemy cavalry to retreat. It’s worth noting that this particular combat technique is not entirely known. Perhaps stirrupless riders couldn’t charge as medieval cavalry. Du Picq suggests that perhaps warriors rode to battle and then dismounted and fought on foot.

However, there were no doubts about the fighting techniques of the Numidian light cavalry. They used small horses, did not possess protective armament besides a small round shield, and carried light javelins. They somewhat resembled Cossacks during Napoleonic era. Their tactics involved approaching the enemy (as the Romans did not have archers) and harassing them with impunity by lobbing their javelins and then escaping the Roman counterattack. They were elusive and troublesome.

Their best operation, however, included harassing attacks on enemy flanks. As they were fast and nimble, they encircled flanks of enemy cavalry, wreaking havoc, and causing the enemy to flee. Such a situation happened during the Battle of Ticinus. The Hannibal’s army entering Italy is said to have 6,000 cavalry, 4,000 of which were Numidians. This fact explains how important they were (and also perhaps how cheap). The ensuing war saw the rising importance of Celtic cavalry, which were excellently armed and valiant, and, first and foremost, easy to acquire in Italy.

Yes, I know. Everyone wants to read about the elephants. They were a part of the Carthaginian army. Small African forest elephants (as they reach 2.5 m, they rather didn’t have towers on their backs) replaced the former formidable Carthaginian advantage, the chariots. The elephants had one important quality – they scared horses. Moreover, people who hadn’t seen them before could suffer from panic attacks. That’s why they were perfectly fit for crushing or at least breaking apart enemy formations. Elephants were also great to safeguard the flanks (as done by Antiochus III the Great). As a result of encountering the elephants while encircling the flank, the enemy cavalry was losing its integrity and impact.

Elephants had also their weakness. They might have panicked and trampled enemies as well as allies. Although at the Battle of the Trebia the elephant panic resulted in a great number of Roman casualties, after the latter crossed the river. Berserk animals finished them off. It’s worth noting that after the first period of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps and battles of the Po river, Hannibal lost this advantage.

This short report of diverse Carthaginian troops – especially in comparison with the Roman army (comprising of velites, hastati, principes, triarii, equites and that’s about it) – raises a question. How one could lead such a bunch? We discussed it earlier. The chance of winning lay in the hands of the leader, his education, and experience. Hannibal learned a lot in Spain, and perfected many skills during the first period of the march by the Rhône and Po rivers. In time, his troops turned into something more than a mere conglomerate of contingents, allies, and mercenaries. They became a professional army. Hannibal’s army. And Carthage turned to such an army when it was endangered by Scipio Africanus. The Romans, however, already had a new weapon ready: Scipio himself, with his experience from Spain (coincidence?), with the exquisite New Carthage swords and Numidian light cavalry at his side.

In conclusion, going back to the beginning of this article about Punic Wars, there are some doubts about the symbol of the Carthaginian army. Should it be Numidian light cavalry? They hadn’t always participated in battles. Maybe Hispanic heavy cavalry then? There are also some doubts about them – what kind of an opponent was Roman cavalry, what could the cavalry itself do to the encircled enemy infantry, coulda quarter of an army represent it?

As for me, the underrated hero was a shield wall with a mass of spear points, supported by the mad Celts and gloomy Iberians. It was the Hellenistic phalanx that was the base of the formation, that might have not won by itself, but ensured overall victory. A coin representing infantry, Libyan infantry, or perhaps Carthaginian African infantry (accurate for the late phase of the Second Punic War) is the best representation of the Carthaginian army. As I’ve said earlier, the Carthaginian cavalry won battles, although it was the infantry resistance, along with its resilience to Roman attacks in the front, that was decisive.

Thanks for reading!

Dariusz

Armies of Hannibal’s era (part 1)
almost 7 years ago – Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:17:49 AM

Salve!

I’m giving today’s update to my longtime friend, game designer, and veteran wargamer, Dariusz Góralski, who will tell you a fascinating story about the armies of Hannibal’s era. I hope you will enjoy this article, which shows how board game design can interlace with military history.

Happy gaming,

Jaro

Armies of Hannibal’s era (part 1)

by Dariusz “Berger” Góralski

It fills one’s heart with such joy to play a game about the Punic Wars that is so concise in its form and yet so rich in its content as Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. If you have already played it then you know exactly what I mean, otherwise – be ashamed of yourself for not giving it a go.

The game rewards players who pay attention and punishes those that make even the slightest of mistakes, while at the same time allows players to try out a variety of different strategies and tactics. Hannibal was released in 1996 by the legendary Avalon Hill. It took exactly 11 years for another edition to show up on the market (this time the game was published by Valley Games, Inc).

And this is where the story begins. The new version brought innovation to all the elements of the game, including the playing pieces. They are some of the most essential elements of any board game in my opinion – and nowadays tokens are more and more often replaced with figures or meeples. A token however, whether square or round, lets the creator include vital information about the depicted character, unit, or weapon. A token, without you realizing it, can introduce the players to a world of imagination and manipulate their feelings and expectations. It also allows the players to quickly estimate the strength of their own army as well as that of their opponent. And I don’t mean the token’s size or how big their amount on the stack is or even what their particular values are. No! It’s about the icon, the picture printed on the token. A great number of players prefer those awful NATO signs for which the only explanation I can find is that they allow the combination of subdivisions with the equipment. This in turn makes it hard to depict one particular tank or any other type of gear. But let us be honest here – most of the junk there is supporting the one in charge. Depending on the time period it can be either the well-acclaimed T-34 or, nowadays, Abrams.

And so, this small picture depicted on the token may constitute a perfect element of propaganda. It may disturb one’s opponent who, before consulting charts, tables, or cards, would know whether he has a chance to win. Tokens can reveal weaknesses and strengths of a given unit, what resources would determine the success of one side. A skillfully designed symbol would include more information about a given army or a country’s or nation’s doctrine than lengthy volumes of literature.

In both the first and second edition of Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, the forces of both sides were represented by circular playing pieces with a depiction of infantryman (there were also elephants, depicting…well, elephants and siege machines). Carthaginian units were represented by tokens with a Carthaginian Libyan infantryman (which might have not been the main type of units of Hannibal’s army, but the most elementary part of Carthaginian forces nevertheless) and a display of the Carthaginian involvement in the Punic Wars. I cannot raise any objections here, as both soldiers and weaponry were depicted rather correctly. Only the shields may raise some doubts, as they look more Samnite than Punic.

The token for the Roman forces, however, is a crying shame. In the 1997 AH edition the creators generally stayed true to history, but the drawing was… preposterous! And the Roman soldier from the 2007 VG edition is simply unacceptable.

Interestingly enough, both editions tend to copy the well-established stereotypes. The powerful and affluent Rome dispatched its well-armored troops into various lands and conquered one region after another. Any possible failures or delays in further expansion were caused by the internal problems of the Roman Republic or conflicts between different factions. AH infantryman equipped with a chain mail (lorica hamata), shield (scutum), javelin (pilum), sword (gladius), and helmet (Gallic Montefortino) fits this fake picture perfectly. The VG infantryman emphasizes the strength and might of the Roman soldiers in an even more explicit way, so that the players wouldn’t have any doubts about Hannibal’s madness whatsoever. And he must have surely been mad, as he otherwise wouldn’t have dared to attack the well-armored Roman maniples with his bunch.

Let us have a look at the token – what can we see? A soldier in chain mail (lorica hamata) with a dagger (pugio) or a sword (gladius) at his side, wielding a javelin (pilum) and…a scutum dating to the late 1st Century BC. Such a shield would better fit the times of Julius Caesar or the early Roman Empire, not only because of its incrustation but also because of its more rectangular shape. The cherry on top is the helmet, with its golden color symbolizing the imperial splendor. The helmet seems to resemble Imperial Gallic helmets that fit into the Augustan Age.

Personally, I cannot accept any of this. In one way, it obscures the true strength of the Eternal City. The strength that is based on the inexhaustible human resources (rather well depicted in the game), as well as strategic thinking and the ability to fight on multiple front lines without putting Rome itself in danger. If those two elements were depicted on the tokens, they would highlight the true nature of the Roman army splendidly, which was a strength based on the citizens’ ability to equip themselves on their own account according to a given standard. Although, contrary to the tokens’ depictions included in both editions of the game, the standard during the Second Punic War surely differed. So what would be the true depiction of the Roman army from that time? To speak the truth, we can only guess about a lot of things. A great example of our lack of knowledge is the fact that the Roman soldiers depicted on the tokens in both the AH and VG editions of the game wear red tunics. The debate about whether the Roman soldiers actually wore red tunics is almost as heated among the experts, as the debate on the independence of Scotland. Nowadays, it is assumed that the regular Republican soldier wore a white tunic made of plain weave or broadcloth. I do not think it was caused by the cost of the white fabric (as they were affordable by almost everyone) but due to more pragmatic reasons – the fabric deteriorated fast in the heating sun and had to be replaced very frequently. That is why the colors of the Roman army were most probably grey and white.

It is common knowledge that legions were the most basic force of the Roman army. Two legions formed a consular army. Each year Rome would raise two such armies. Of course new legions were formed in times of need. During the Second Punic War, Rome raised 25 such legions! After the Camillan reforms, legions consisted of 10 maniples of hastati (young soldiers forming the front line), 10 maniples of principes (soldiers aged about 30), 10 maniples of triarii (the eldest soldiers equipped with spears), and 10 velites (light infantry). Additionally, there were 10 turmae of cavalry. In the end, it was the infantry that held the key role in the Roman tactics during battles.

The unit most numerously represented in the legions was the medium infantry equipped with shields (scutum), Gallic helmets, swords (Greek or Gallic, as the renowned Spanish swords came to use no sooner than after the conquering of New Carthage), two javelins (pilum eminus and pilum comminus), and armor (either the already mentioned lorica hamata, a Greek cuirass that was a different version of thorax or, most often, an Italian cardio-phylax). This is the manner in which maniples of hastati and principes were armed during those wars. That gives us a total of 2,400 soldiers in each legion consisting of 4,500 soldiers.

The quantity is not the only argument in favor of putting the hastati and principes on the tokens – as they most often determined the battles’ outcomes. 1,200 velites covered the legion’s formation from both the psychological and physical impact of enemy’s light forces. 600 triarii stood behind the two front lines, ready to support or protect them, so that they could regroup iftheir charge proved to be ineffective. Let us be merciful and noteven mention the cavalry. As you can see, AH and VG were right to put the Roman infantryman on the tokens. The problem is that the depiction of this infantryman is not quite right, not only for the aesthetic reasons. The player sitting beside the table would either see numerous, well-armored Roman units, and possibly assume that such a splendid army would crash the opponent mercilessly in the forthcoming game, or he would see simple Roman citizens who had to pay for their armament from their own means. It wouldn’t be a very comforting view. But maybe it would sharpen the senses of many players, save them from complacency, and lead them to victory.

So what kind of Roman infantryman would I like to see depicted on the game tokens? He should be a combination of a typical hastatus and princeps. It seems that those two didn’t differ much, apart from their age and battle experience. Although it was not clearly indicated in Polybius’ The Histories, that’s how it came to be interpreted.

To be more specific, the infantryman would be donned in a white tunic girded with a cingulum belt. He would have a Celtic Montefortino helmet decorated with a plume and some feathers. He would be equipped with a phylax armor, a sword (let it be a gladius), and two pilum javelins (as described by Polybius), but most importantly, he would be protected by a 1.2-meter long and 0.8-meter wide oval shield. This shield was the most vital part of the Roman infantryman equipment. It allowed the infantryman to stay safe in the army formation and, having thrown both pila, to attack foes from its cover with a sword.

We need to note that the average Italian citizen of that time was slightly over 1.6 meters (which is about the height of nowadays’ elderly residents of the Italian countryside). The scutum shield, with its iron shield boss (umbo) located in its center, practically covered the whole soldier while he was marching in a bent position. Only the plume, the feathers, and the cover on the left foot were visible. It must have been quite a view! But you know what? The more I look at this Carthaginian soldier, the more doubts I have. How about you?

To be continued…

Draft Scenario Book
almost 7 years ago – Sun, May 07, 2017 at 11:53:39 PM

One of the most important features of the 20th Anniversary Edition of the Hannibal & Hamilcar game is the Scenario Book, presenting 20 years of game development in a single box! That means 9 historical scenarios for Hannibal, each starting in a different stage of Hannibal's campaign against Rome:

• Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) is the classic Hannibal game, but it may be played using the Charles Variant (alternative setup focused on Publius Scipio waiting in Massilia and Gallic tribes waiting for Hannibal’s support).
• Hannibal enters Italy (217 – 201 B.C.) presents Hannibal already across the Alps, with Roman foothold in Iberia.
• Hannibal ad portas! (216 – 201 B.C.) starts just before the famous battle of Cannae. Can you change the course of history as the Romans and defend your homeland? Or will you bring Rome to its knees as Hannibal did?
• Post-Cannae (215 - 201 B.C.) is the peak of Carthaginian power during the war. A tough start for Romans!
• The Climax (213 – 201 B.C.) Rome has survived the hard times and still stands. The last chance for Hannibal to hit hard before Scipio Africanus arrives.
• Rome Strikes Back (211-201 B.C.) Scipio Africanus starts his famous campaign in Iberia. Can Hasdrubal stop him?
• Fall of Hannibal’s Alliance (209-201 B.C.) Having lost Capua and Syracuse to Rome, Carthaginian power starts to decline. Scipio Africanus is getting stronger and stronger in Iberia. Hasdrubal must make a choice: whether to fight against him or march to Italia with support for his famous brother.
• Seeking Peace (206-201 B.C.) Mago holds the last province in Iberia, while Hannibal holds the last province in Italia. Can the tides of war be changed despite Hasdrubal’s death?
• Bitter End (203-201 B.C.) Now it is certain that the war is lost for Carthage. Scipio Africanus is at the gates! Only this last battle may prevent unconditional surrender.

We have also included 3 smaller scenarios (called campaigns) to let you play a much shorter but still very tense game.

• Iberia (210-205 B.C.) This scenario tells the story of Scipio Africanus’ vendetta after the death of his father and uncle in Spain at the hands of Carthaginians. Revenge was indeed sweet for him and disastrous for Carthage.
• Italy (207-204 B.C.) This scenario is a nightmare for Rome. The city is now endangered by both brothers: Hannibal and Hasdrubal. Mago will join the party as well. Romans beware!
• Africa (204-201 B.C.) This scenario explains why the young Publius Scipio is now called Scipio Africanus. Yet, the Carthaginian player still has the chance to give him a nickname Scipio ‘the defeated’.

Each scenario and variant has its own reinforcement and setup rules, including a setup map to shorten the pre-game preparations.

Important notes:

• this file is a work in progress. We uploaded it to get your feedback before this goes to final editing.
• the file is still before the native proofreading.

Here is the file:

 

Hamilcar game - First Punic War 264-241 B.C. will be presented separately by Jaro in a short time.

And some side notes.

1. As promised, here is a picture of our early playtest map for Hannibal laid down side by side to the VG edition board. My table is 100cm x 160cm so I can fit the XXL mat onto it.

2. A new miniature sculpt render: Gracchus. Thank you for reaching this stretch goal and your input in creating this fantastic campaign!

 3. You have asked for the extra dice and card sleeves add-ons. Here they are!

Thank you for your support.

Waldek & PHALANX

Card Holders
almost 7 years ago – Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:08:07 PM

Hello Everyone,

As with the previously offered add-ons, this one is also inspired by your feedback. Please take a look at these Hannibal & Hamilcar card holders. They are custom made, designed just for our game.

We think that using ships was a natural design choice for the card holders as they offer enough width to keep all the cards concealed from the opponent.

To add this add-on, please increase your pledged amount by £14 by clicking on the Manage your pledge button. When the campaign is concluded, you will confirm your choice of add-on items in the Pledge Manager.

This add-on is language independent, requires a simple assembly and does not affect the shipping cost! You need to purchase at least one copy of the HANNIBAL & HAMILCAR game to be able to include this or any other add-on to your pledge.

Thank you for your support!

Michał & PHALANX