"Ghazis for TSATF" Topic

While reading again for the second time one my favourite NWF Colonial boos (Late Colonial in fact) that is "The Frontier Scouts" by Charles Chevenix Trench, i discovered that the author recalls some instances in which few or single fanatic tribesmen or holy warriors made some sorts of suicidal or extremely temerarous actions like introducing themselves, into forts during the night in British officer rooms with knives and no friendly intentions..or chargthe Indian soldier's pickets with hand weapons regardless of fire barrage..
in practice a NWF version of the Moro/Filipinos "Juramentados" that attacked Spanish and then US troops .
So ..did somebody used those ghazis with special rules for TSATF?
thanks

Since the first publication of TSATF way back in 1979, following through to 30+ years later when I ran "Maiwand Day" at the first all-Sword-And-The-Flame Colonial Barracks convention in 2011, I've used slight variations on the following simple "Ghazi"/fanatic rule…

Any time a Ghazi figure is WOUNDED -- either by receiving a non-heart casualty card when they are targeted during the Fire Phase, or by losing a hand-to-hand roll-off with 2 or 3 pips on their die -- ANOTHER die roll is made with a D6: ODD NUMBER result = they stay wounded, EVEN NUMBER = they shake off the wound and KEEP FIGHTING, without any negative effect.

This makes Ghazi units more dangerous, but only for use in melee attacks, since ALL OF MY GHAZI UNITS contain only sword-&-shield armed troops, no troops with firearms of any kind, and they must always use MASS FORMATION.

We always had them in small units (3-6 figures or thereabouts) that would charge directly into melee, took no morale tests and fought until eliminated. They received no plusses in combat and were generally wiped out quickly, but hot dice rolls could sometimes make them a real menace. Worked pretty well, we thought!

Thanks Mad Guru and Lord Arundel for your ideas..
I understand that you use full units of Ghazis (of course only with mélée wps)but , maybe i'm wrong, but my feeling was that those ghazis, like today's terrorists, where lonely warriors devoted to death…waht do you think of that?..is it true?..and playable with TSATF….?..as regards to the similar (same faith) Moros Juramentados, i read they acted individually..

Having whole units of them does sound a little implausible to me, though I'm not an expert on the period. Maybe they did exist.

If you combine the small group--just a few figures--with Guru's ignoring of wounds idea (which now that I think of it, we may have done also), I think it could work well. As far as I know, they were never huge factors in battle; they caused terror and perhaps accounted for a few casualties, and then promptly died. Would this give the flavour you are looking for?

I agree that to field whole units of Ghazis seems to be a stretch.

Have a look at this:

The North-West Frontier in general (roughly 1837-1949) and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880) in particular are actually my primary area of interest in the hobby, and have been for decades, so while I'm certainly no historian or true expert, I feel I have some familiarity with the subject.

Italwars, you are right in a way regarding a similarity between "death-seeking" warriors in 19th Century Afghanistan and its environs, and modern-day Islamic extremist fighters and/or terrorists, but I think the similarities are much more ideological than tactical. Speaking specifically about the Second Afghan War, I would say that large numbers of Ghazis -- numbering in the thousands at each engagement in question -- played a significant role in at least half the major battles of the war. The one which first leaps to mind is Maiwand, where repeated charges by swarms of Ghazis from the Eastern-most nullah (dry creek-bed) and the North end of the plain, wore down the infantry fighting line to the point where -- when combined with ongoing casualties from Afghan regular artillery and regular infantry fire -- the Anglo-Indian line broke and ran.

The only mention of Ghazis operating in very small "squad" or "section" size groups that I can recall is when the British had taken and occupied big cities like Kabul, when individual British or Indian soldiers were occassionally targeted for a surprise "suicide" attack in the streets and alleyways of the city, "suicide" only because if the attacker was spotted by other British or Indian troops they'd be instantly shot, though occassionally they were captured and then executed. I do see that using a smaller handful of Ghazis, as suggested by Lord Arundel, could work well in smaller, more straight-up "skirmish" feel scenarios.

Restricting Ghazi units to close combat weapons is simultaneously historically-accurate and an unhistorical stylization. Ghazis themselves were fervent believers in Islam, hatred of foreign -- and largely infidel -- invaders, and the opportunity to pillage and plunder a relatively wealthy enemy. On an individual basis they were not very different from their more mundane "Tribesmen" colleagues. Some Ghazis definitely brought firearms along to the show, but it's my understanding that the masses of Ghazis present at major battles like Maiwand and Baba-Wali (aka: Kandahar), and the like, were informal formations, formed "on the march" so to speak, as the "Faithful" responded in ones and twos and slightly larger groups, to either a formal call for Holy War by a religious or political leader -- such as was issued in Afghanistan in the Summer of 1880 by Ayub Khan, and from time to time elsewhere on the Frontier -- and/or knowledge that an Anglo-Indian army was moving through, or encamped at, a certain spot. So once they arrived and amassed, they were not disposed to perform subtle or complex battlefield maneuvers, since they had heretofore spent no time together in the field. They were disposed to charge and close with the enemy. The only command and control aspect I can remember British officers noting in connection to masses of Ghazis in the field, was their leaders struggling to restrain them from charging prematurely, and later in battle struggling to convince them to maintain their advance and close with the Anglo-Indians after having suffered heavy casualties.

My point is that even though individual members of Ghazi "units"/swarms would have had their personal firearms with them and employed them to whatever effect they could during the battle, the group/unit they were part of would not be primarily focused on inflicting casualties from a distance, so for game purposes, I think it works well to treat them as straight-up hand-to-hand fighters. Again, this is in context of larger fights, not true skirmish level games.

EDIT:

Great pic, bbtoys33! You posted it after I started my post but before I finished it, since I was interrupted by work (I need to get my priorities straight and stop that from happening!).

If you read the accompanying text, you'll see the Ghazi in question who is about to be executed was -- in the manner I mention above -- captured in the Jelalabad Bazaar, after attacking 2 soldiers of the Guides Regiment. I would venture to guess that if the same attacker had faced off against the Guides at one of the 7 or 8 pitched battles fought during the war, it would have been as one of dozens, if not hundreds or even a thousand, of his fellow fanatics, who had recently joined together for that express purpose.

Here's another nice pic of a similar subject, though not quite as powerfully dramatic as the one you posted…

Just remembered another pic showing Ghazis in the midst of a charge, during the 1897 Frontier campaign…

Just remembered one other thing about our TSATF "Ghazi" rules: we have them test morale like Zulus, rather than Pathans, so they're a bit more likely to "Close Into Combat" and "Stand And Fight".

Have to say, the idea of employing "squads" of Ghazis -- smaller units than the standard TSATF 20-figure "platoon" -- is an interesting one, almost like "Heroes" in an Ancient or Medieval game, to slightly stiffen the fighting power of the run-of-the-mill tribesmen, and perhaps if they manage to win a melee and destroy or route a British or Indian unit, inspire them with a morale bonus of some kind. The "Camerone" rule for Legionnaires in the "Sword In North Africa" is a little bit like that.

Seems to me it would work well in smaller games. For larger battles, with multiple 61-figure "Tribes" of Pathans, some mounted tribesmen, and Afghan regular infantry, artillery and cavalry, a few 20-figure units of Ghazi fanatics will not unbalance the game, but can add a variation on the standard fifty-percent sword-&-shield/fifty-percent rifle Pathan TO&E.

As always, excellent explanation Mad Guru…everything is clear to me know…Your last post picture about Landakai is also selfexplanatory…thanks also very much to other menber's partition of game experiences/suggestions…
in small games, the few miniatures "promotion" to Ghazis and, obviously, hand weapons only armed (swords/knife in fact i never alow NWF tribesmen with spears as suggested in the original rules)could also be experimented, maybe with figures elected, at the last minute, by simple dice trow.

Very useful information, MadGuru – and allow me to take the occasion to say that your blog has been a great inspiration.

I have not seen the Landaki print before – very nice. I see that there are 6 Ghazis depicted and at TSATF's ratio of 1:10 it will mean one figure (and only if rounding up) on the tabletop. I also wonder if such a small number can really inflict enough damage in TSATF terms. The impact would rather be on cohesion and morale (so cause morale check?) and unit movement (so unit has the chance of missing the next turn?). In short the Ghazis should almost be factored in as an event card than as a deployable unit on the tabletop but admittedly this is much less appealing than fielding actual figures.

Overall I agree that it might be fun and practicable to field mini-units of Ghazi if only for the sake of variety… But if too many such charging melee troops are fielded, the game might play more like a Sudan battle than a NWF one.

Italwars – please show us your figures and setup when you have them ready. Am looking forward to it.

BBtoys…i should be able to understand how to post a pict in a forum to show my figures…which is very far from what i'm able to understand with a PC