"What do we actually know about warbands?" Topic

As the title asks, what do we actually know about warbands?
Were they as universal as most wargames make them out to be? How did they function? how were they actually divided up?
The way Caesar describes the Britons, it seems that they didn't really form up into units at all, and instead just formed a line, and charged…

Maybe I'm reading Caesar wrong.

What other sources do we have about warbands? Who else wrote about them?

Also, the way that I understand warbands (a bunch of individuals fighting as individuals in a large group) how did they ever beat early imperial legions? It seems that the Romans could form massive shield walls, and attack as a unit, how was it that these types of troops were occasionally able to defeat the Romans?

Let me know, I would love to hear your input.

Thanks
Austin

I think warband covers a wide variety. Warbands existed throughout history – undisciplined masses charging wildly. Scottish Highlanders would be classed as warband – and they were very effective against raw and untrained troops. Against formed up disciplined veterans they would rarely stand much chance.

Of course, Caesar did quite well against them – but their reputation still caused fear amongst his forces – remember the story of the standard bearer leaping into the sea from his ship to encourage the Romans to follow.

So basically – if your men held their nerve stood firm, they would probably win, if they didn't…

Incidentally, undisciplined doesn't mean untrained. Some of the warbands in history would have consisted of experienced warriors – it was, for them, a style of individual fighting as opposed to fighting as part of a disciplined and coordinated unit.

I doubt that warbands were really as disorganized as you present them, "a bunch of individuals fighting as individuals in a large group".

I've been reading up on 'primitive warfare', i.e., war as conducted by non-state societies. Village warriors drill.

Boys are taught individual martial arts by older relatives and friends, and boys practice hunting skills and compete among themselves to throw missiles and use melee weapons.

But also, from time to time the leading warriors of the village assemble all the young men and teach them basic drills and tactics: form a line, form a shield-wall, all charge together, you engage your foe from the front while I stab him from behind, everybody run away, cover the women and children. Basic stuff.

How often this happens depends on how warlike the local culture is, how often the village gets raided or goes raiding, whether or not the village bigman is psychotically aggressive. It varies.

But this basic behavior has been seen in New Guinea, among American Indians, is mentioned in the Bible for Iron I Israel…it's a requirement for survival in a tough world. You gotta drill. You gotta work out tactics and practice them.

So I presume a Gallic or Germanic or Iroquois warband wasn't nearly as anarchic as a bunch of individuals each doing what he pleased. I'm sure they had drills for volley fire from ambush, then shield-rush in unison, run away for a mile and rally where we left the canoes…basic stuff.

Of course a real army like the Romans drilled a lot more and was probably better at their drills, most of the time, than a bunch of farmers defending their crops.

Case in point – the Highland clan doing the Highland charge. They had a routine for forming up – the well-armed men in the front rank with musket, pistol, targ and broadsword, the po' boys with nothing but an axe or a club in the back. And they had a set routine for delivering the change. Everybody whoop and holler and make as much noise as possible, trot up to musket range (c. 50 feet), fire all available muskets in a volley, drop the muskets, trot up to pistol range, fire all pistols in a volley, drop the pistols, charge in with the broadswords leading the pointy sticks.

It was the only tactic they had, and if it didn't work they were screwed because they had no other recourse. No doubt they practiced it a couple times a year, and several times when a clan army formed up.

There are sections in both Elton and Goldsworthy's books on the roman army on how their enemies fought if you're interested in reading further on it.

Warband is a wargames catch all. As others have said warriors drilled and were taught weapons handling from an early age. Different tactics could be employed for differing situations.

Its a great question all the same what do we know about warbands from the descriptions that we have.

Further to Zippy's point the front men covered those in the back ranks, only one guy per file was available as a target and he was the guy with the shield. Not their only tactic though they stopped a cavalry charge with firepower.

What is a warband, anyway? In DBX Iberian scutati are classed as auxilia, but in FoG they're given the same characteristics as Celts.

I always thought Warbands were a contrivance to rationalize rules using small figure counts…. just as the term "army" can now describe just a handful of figures. I also thought the term widely used in fantasy and sci-fi games had little relevance in any historical game. Is there any documented use of the term by any ancient historians? I confess ignorance if there is.

Warband is an artificial "wargamer" term. I've always used it the way that JSchutt says, to delineate a small group of warriors bound to a single leader.

They were loud, and smelled awful.

It was mostly coined by the DBx folks. It's not a term that a Roman would have used but he would probably understand the concept.

I would add that war bands a groups of fierce, but impetitous and poorly disciplined, warriors on foot armed with spear and sword who seek to overwhelm their foes with the shock of their charge.

Were the Romans at Telemon not "terrified at the order of the Gallic host"?

As above, Warband is a pretty specific troop type defined primarily by DBx. It is supposed to define a particular fighting style, not a unit organisation.

Far preferable to just defining them as 'heavy infantry' as boring old Lost Battles does:)

I always thought of warbands as units of trained infantry that rely mainly in elan and shock to win fights. For me more regular infantry means primarily relying on formations, staying power, and the long haul.

Untrained groups trying to win by elan are hordes.

Obviously a over-simplyfication, but an unrealistic one?

I always thought of warbands as units of trained infantry that rely mainly in elan and shock to win fights. For me more regular infantry means primarily relying on formations, staying power, and the long haul.

Untrained groups trying to win by elan are hordes.

Obviously a over-simplyfication, but an unrealistic one?

"Warband" has at least two meanings; either it refers to irregular infantry relying on a precipitate charge, or it refers to "unit" consisting of the retinue of a chieftain. The former may but need not be made up the latter. The former is AFAIK confined to wargamer speech.

So in wargame (dbx in particular) terms do we do the Gauls a disservice in classifying them as Warband. I am thinking of Cannae primarily. Is there perhaps occasions where (dbx again) they should be Blade?
I can't see the majority view of Warband fighting a holding action as at Cannae.

Yeah I often muse on that. The Gaul is supposed to run up throw his javelin and then whack the Roman on the head or shoulder with a big heavy sword. Not really holding operation stuff.

Maybe it was a series of controlled charges and maybe Hanibal was open handed with the mail shirts.

Also would you choose guys who lack stamina for a holding operation?

KT is on to something with the shock and elan I think.

"Also would you choose guys who lack stamina for a holding operation?"

In the specific case of Cannae, that is exactly why Hannibal put his worst infantry in the centre and his best on the flanks – so the centre would fall back and he could push forward on the flanks and envelop the Romans.

Well, that is how it worked out anyway. Perhaps he hadn't read the DBA rules properly.

Yeah I know the story Martin. The thing is the Gauls and Spanish seem to have had to hold out for quite some time before the rest of the plan came together. Hannibal had to be confident the Romans would not just burst through the middle before the plan could work.

There's a view among some historians that by the time of Cannae Hannibal's 'irregulars' had been drilled to the point of becoming regular; poor quality regular perhaps, but now with much more collective battlefield stamina than they would have had if relying solely on tribal tactics.