"Sumerian Warfare c.2400BC? " Topic

Gentlemen,

There are a number of figure excellent ranges now covering Sumerian Warfare c2400BC+/-.

A number of interpretations exist of how warfare was conducted of which no one is truly sure.

How do people interpret and model Sumerian warfare in their game systems? Any info or sources supporting your thoughts might be useful to the wider group.

Cheers

HappyW

The representation of Sumerians in the DBx system is as deep formations of poor quality pikemen which has the effect of making them some of the best infantry of their era.

Field of Glory instead treats them as poorly equipped spearmen which ends up with them among the worst infantry of the biblical era.

I have a large DBM Akkadian army and it has never even seen the field in FoG. In DBM it had the capability to win tournaents, in FoG I need to radically change its composition and add large numbers of household troops who are classed as medium foot rather than rely on the militia spears. I have yet to buy the extra figures to allow me to use the army in FoG.

yes, but which is more accurate?

Neither?

Just a thought …

Who knows? None of us were there to understand how they actually fought, we go by what few clues we have. My two cents was that the mere fact that they were organized made them effective compared to many of thier rivals. I like Neil Thomas Ancient & Medieval Warfare rules. He gives them an armor bonus when they are stationary, representing that they can use the large shields to form a "shield wall" of sorts, once they move and lose cohesion, that bonus is gone. This encourages the Sumerian leader to keep the infantry back, and allow the onager-chariots to soften up the enemy while using skirmishers to anchor flanks.

I have to agree with Prince Alberts Revenge.

Who knows….

There are some carvings of close formed spearmen with large shields each with 9 bosses. Most ranges of Sumerian figures have those 9 bosses but I have heard that there is a theory among academics that the 9 bosses are actually representational of a formation 9 ranks deep.

I would say that the DBM inferior pike version of the Sumerians is probably wrong simlpy because if they did fight in really deep formations and with really long spears then why did that actually rather effective fighting style vanish before being reinvented by the Macedonians.

Not particularly well equipped spearmen seems to be a better bet but it may well be just as wrong as the pike interpretation.

In Hail Caesar, Sumerian spearmen would be represented as medium infantry armed with long spears. You also would probably want some units of light infantry archers and/or skirmishers with javelins or slings, and some onager-drawn 'chariots' with javelin-armed crews.

Cheers,
Scott

then why did that actually rather effective fighting style vanish before being reinvented by the Macedonians

I'm not sure I quite buy that argument, as it seems to me that any number of different fighting styles have gone in and out of fashion (and supremacy) for any number of reasons over several thousands years.

Doug

Fighting style is driven technology, terrain, demographics, and culture. A sumerian city state defending its territory could muster the militia – give them spears and shields and tell them to hold fast against the aggressor.

Fielding/not fielding armies under different rules exposes the weakness of the point system.
I'd love to field a Sumerian army, I'd max out the points on the donkey chariots.

Gents,

Thanks very much for your insights.

One of the interesting things about the Sumerian period from a gaming perspective is there is just enough information to create quite plausible and valid models of warfare, but enough latitude due to our limit of absolute knowledge, which leaves the whole period somewhat open to interpretation to the imaginative gamer. This I think is its strength.

We know there were constant city state wars and advanced civilisations to go with them. In many ways Sumerian inter-state rivalry reflects very much the same wars of Greek city states in the 5th century. The struggle for resources, hegemony and expansion provides much fodder for the inventive gamer to create hypothetical battles and campaigns that in all reality probably are closer to the truth than we'd expect as the motivations are similar as we are made well aware of form the cuneiform tablets passed down to us. Greed, power, wealth…well and truly alive in Ancient Sumer.

To my eye, tactically the main bodies of troops reflect similar methods to classical Greek warfare ie solid formations of infantry with a shield to the front and spear in support advancing on their enemy with the clash of infantry being the deciding element. The use of light troops would be that of support just as it was in Ancient Greece…then of course there are the war donkeys!

The use of the contentious battle carts is where most opinion is sharply divided. Given the investment required in production of these machines, their association with the society, and hence godly elite, and in the numbers that were produced, I think a mass of these vehicles would have a terrifying effect on your average foot slogger much as heavy knight cavalry in medieval times had on lowly foot of that time. I think the difference however is in the reality and the battle carts would probably be quite brittle in combat should an enemy so charged have the vigour to stand their ground.

With armies made up of solid ranks of spearmen in armoured cloaks, pavise style shields, battle carts and numerous potential allies of wild Guti or Elamite tribesmen along with other allies and enemies battling along the Euphrates or Tigris, the period really does have alot of charisma.
Cheers

HappyW

spearmen in armoured cloaks

The spotted cloaks of Sumerians have been interpreted as metal armour. I don't think this is a logical way to provide armour.

Druzhina
The Ancient World

Happy Wanderer, the studs from a cloak have been in a grave from the time. This was discussed in an article in Slingshot some time go. I think it is perfectly feasible as the cloak acts as a sort of shield to dampen blows or even arrows, before the large shields were used. A similar cloak was used by Libyan tribemen of the Egyptian New Kingdom period. Incidentally, the shields of the Sumerians were hung over the shoulder and enabled the spear to still be used in the front rank. This is similar to the Mycenaeans who also had a large body shield and spear held in two hands.

Each City State had a king which makes it a great period for multi command figures/kings in a single army-nice eye candy.
Due to high level of "civilisation" I imagine the armies to be well equiped and trained and even small amounts of soldiers in standing armies. Then larger standing army into Akkadian Empire period.
Warfare seemed to part of everyday life leading to experienced soldiers. Large shields suggest need for protection against missile weapons which have caused concern to need such protection.
The chariots/carts were not super fast but faster than normally expected. The high front suggests frontal assault firing javelin on the charge.
Spear blocks should hold against a chariot attack but levy with few shields would be easier to ride down if they stood of course.

Pete, Colin,

Thanks for that info. Useful.

The impressions you lay out Colin seem to fall into line with how I see things as well. These were very ordered societies with systemic patterns of warfare as each city state vide for supremacy. The stakes were very high so I would think that this would've put warfare and its emerging methods and trends front and centre in the minds of the ruling elite.

HappyW

Comparing Bronze age, emerging soldier class armies to later iron age armies is ridiculous. Sumerians vs. Spartans is probably as hopeless as Romans vs. the Army of the Potomac. People are too caught up in ridiculous ahistorical matches because somebody on dope believed that the "age of muscle" means the same pointy stick is exactly the same from 3000 BCE to 1600 CE… the Sumerians are a powerful army… powerful in that they were a radical new thing, an actual army facing irregular nomads and hillmen, and each other in city state warfare. Any other context is bogus.

Hi JJArtist,
 
" Comparing Bronze age, emerging soldier class armies to later iron age armies is ridiculous."
 
I think you mean I was comparing Sumerians to Spartans…nope, certainly not….never entered my mind.

I was referring to the similarity of a society based on localised city state interests and the Agrarian nature of both societies, several trying to establish hegemony over others much as Sparta and Athens is to Lagash and Umma. 

Unhistorical matchups to me are pointless, but I appreciate other people use them in game systems and competitions – I don't. 

I agree with you that theSumerians were tough in THEIR TIME. That is the only basis of comparison. That said, the combat emphasis is similar to Classical Greece in that the emphasis is on solid ranks of spear armed infantry, seemingly with shields supported by light troops.

Hope you enjoyed the pics.

Cheers

HappYW

I think the Sumerian city-states were definitely the military powerhouses of their time, however they fought.

I have difficulty accepting the battle cars as "chariots". Both because of the unlikelyhood of fully domesticated and trained onagers, and because of their two rigid axle construction. They were certainly not the fast and maneuverable chariots of almost every chariot army after them. Still the carts had some importance as hey were produced in quantity and depicted as important.

I do think that a Sumerian battle car bearing down on me pulled by four half-wild onagers with a noble in h eback with a long spear or lance would cause me to consider important duties on the far side of the battle field.

As for armored cloaks, a heavy felt, thick weave wool, or leather cloak reinforced with metal discs would probably pretty effective at turning the worst of Sumerian weapons.

I believe that the Battle Carts were game changers in Sumerian warfare. They may not have been able to turn on a dime nor could they crash through infantry offering stiff resistance…but how many shock troops really could thoughout the ages? I believe that the Sumerian shield/spearmen were trained to some degree (since they had uniform weapons and equipment it seems), however that training is relative. Also, in a "heroic" period, you would probably be intimidated by the onagers, the cart and the high-level noble riding it and hurling javelins at you. The tower shields and felt cloaks with metal disks would protect the spearmen from the arrows, darts and sling bullets of the irregulars but they would keep the terror away when a battle cart is hurtling towards them.

If we look at
Old into Middle kingdom Egypt they still used flint arrows because that was more than enough to deal with the enemies of the time.
The Sumerian chariots were high at the front and onagers had frontal protection and attached to the battle car is case full of javelins.
To me that means very much a combat role. They were the knights of their day. And probably like the longbow in the Middle ages, the trained spearmen did cause them serious worry. As for levy I imagine the noise and dust would enough to weaken the ranks before the first javelin struck.

I agree with historical match ups. Other wise it is Fantasy(which I like too. Imagine Wargods of Sumeria). I would do Old Kingdom Egyptian though as they could have met battle geography allowing etc.
Finally I agree that viewing the Sumerians and Akkadians in their time and not in classical Greece for example puts them in prespective.

Sorry these cross period geo-political references tend to set me off as they more often than not create a slippery slope argument for phalanxes, battle tanks, and other manufactured reasoning for gamers to create phony level playing fields. I do like your miniatures.

Some good books on this period are Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC by William J Hamblin published by Routledge, Armies of the Ancient Near East 3000 BC to 539 BC by Nigel Stillman and Nigel Tallis WRG and an oldie but a goodie, The Art of Warfare In Biblical Lands by Yigel Yadin. It's a real pity biblical gaming isn't more popular as there are some great ranges around.