"Numidian cavalry - more than just skirmishers/recon?" Topic

With Victrix's new release, this is probably a good time to ask others about these Numidian cav for clarity. I fully understand the skirmishing and recon roles of Numidian cav – that's a given. But sometimes they're described not only as those roles but also key in ambushing and almost as if they fought like regular cav in particular battles. Has anybody else gotten this feeling from their readings? Do these guys defy the normal gamer categories of skirmisher cav vs. regular fighting cav? Seems like they did fight in mass at Zama. Historical examples of any such instances would be most welcome. Thanks!

There was a similar discussion about the multiple roles of mounted archers in the run up to the Society of Ancients Battle Day for Catalaunian Fields (Chalons) on the Society forum, if I remember correctly. One possibility mooted, I think by Roy Boss, was that the Huns in particular were capable of 'dispersing' into skirmish clouds and then re-forming into what we usually think of as coherent 'massed' units. In other words, the wargames distinction between light and other cavalry formations could be incorrect, in at least some cases. Perhaps the Numidians would be another case in point?

The problem, of course is how to represent these different possibilities. Maybe base them as massed cavalry, but use wider sabots when they are skirmishing? At least this way you wouldn't need two sets of figures…

I had the Numidians in TtS as single hit units.

Recently I have started running them in my own games as two hit units which gives them a lot more resilience should they choose to stand rather than evade, very much as Paul describes above. They are rather less effective in melee than formed cavalry however, so evading is usually a better option than standing.

I'm currently working on a large Numidian army with over 100 light horse and 200 light infantry (as well as HI and elephants) so I should have plenty of opportunity to test the new rules.

One of my most favorite features of the Impetus Rules is that Light Cavalry are just that. Assumed to be skirmishing or formed as needed -- this is the unit commander's job to worry about. Always able to evade.

Always the same discusion : how to base ! That is wat it ultimately comes down to. My answer is always the same : ALLWAY base your cavalry i 2's with a few singulars and us MOVEMENT TRAYS. You can even make them easy enough yourselves. Cheap and not time consuming. And afterwards you can use whichever rules you want. Yes, in ANY scale.
All the above can be acomplished that way, and tommorrow , another "this is the game" rules come along (they allways do)and you do not have any problems of basing ,except maybe having to make new movement trays….

A bit like Greek Thessalian cavalry. Open/loose order for skirmishing, but close/compact order for fisticuffs.
Similarly Roman Auxillia, loose order when terrain demanded, but having the same training as legionaries, capable of close order in the battle line, if circumstances required it

"The problem, of course is how to represent these different possibilities."

I agree with the views above and James Roach in his Hell Broke Loose rules came up with an excellent mechanism that he called 'close skirmish' although written for the Italian Wars it would be good for Numidians too in my view.

The distinction between light cavalry and other horse is, to some extent, an artificial wargames thing. However Caesar observed that during one skirmish in North Africa that less than 30 Gallic cavalry drove off over 2000 Moorish light cavalry, so lights weren't always confident enough to resist heavier horse, even when in considerable numbers.

I like how Impetus represents Numidian and like cavalry. Flexible and nimble but tough enough that formed cavalry can't expect to simply roll over them. Makes for a nice cat and mouse game between them.

The Numidians did fight in mass at Zama?

Wasn`t that at the end; in the last stand of Hannibal`s infantry, or was it against other light horse?

There were loads of Numidians on each side at Zama- more on the Roman side as Masinissa had defected to them. They mostly fought each other but the "Roman" Numidians decisively hit the Carthaginian rear late in the battle.

M. Collins,
Admittedly Zama wasn;t the best example, but it was one that came to mind. I couldn't put my finger on an example where they stood their ground to fight as more concentrated cavalry against a foreign group. Numidians fighting other Numidians doesn't illustrate as well as some some other examples people cited above. I tend to think that Big Red Bat's analysis and example jives with what I was wondering about. My game systems have treated them as skirmish cav who run like whipped dogs at even the hint of a formed cav unit, and I thought "it shouldn't be like that all of the time or what use would they have been?" I like the suggestions above.

Look at Cannae, right wing Numidians broke and drove off opposition cavalry, before returning to attack Roman left wing/rear.
Opposition might have been less well armoured Italian Allies, but the effect was the same.
They were also used in the 'attack' from ambush at Trebbia, definitely not a skirmish role.

At Cannae, I think the Numidians held and harassed Varro`s cavalry (which in spite of its numbers, was used only to support the infantry) until Hasdrubal`s cavalry swung around to defeat the Roman left wing. It`s difficult to think of Numidian horsemen mixing it up-close with any formed infantry or cavalry except when they are already beaten and unable to stand, or fight back.