Help support TMP

"Early Franks and Alammani" Topic

6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest


778 hits since 11 Feb 2017
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Marcus Brutus11 Feb 2017 4:37 p.m. PST

In Impetus, which I play, there is no specific list for Early Franks. I am trying to find the nearest equivalent. I am wondering if there is any practical difference in fighting tactics and organization of the Alammani of the 4th century and the Franks of the 5th century? In DBM they use the same list. Assistance most appreciated.

Snowcat11 Feb 2017 5:27 p.m. PST

The Franks didn't have the bowmen, just a few skirmishing archers and javelinmen. The Franks relied almost solely on big deep wedge formations of warriors with nasty throwing weapons and even nastier haircuts.

Alamanni also had access to allies with lots of cavalry, e.g. Goths & Alans. The Franks did not.

In DBM they use the same list, but with the above exceptions/differences.


Snowcat12 Feb 2017 4:33 p.m. PST

Commanding the Early Franks is not for the fainthearted. They were a one-trick pony who relied on their enemy accepting a massed frontal assault and without a corresponding turning of their flanks.

They were still relying on this tactic in the 6thC at Volturnus against Narses:


It didn't end well.

How do you keep your flanks secure with an army of Early Franks, considering 90% of them are raving nutters on foot who only want to charge straight ahead at the enemy…? (At least the Alamanni could use their bowmen creatively somehow.)

On the bright side, they do look awesome.

Good luck!


Marcus Brutus13 Feb 2017 8:19 a.m. PST

They do look awesome I agree! Not the most subtle army for sure. Thanks for your advice and assistance Snowcat.

Snowcat13 Feb 2017 3:30 p.m. PST

I posed the question on the AdG forum, and received a very good reply. Take out the AdG-specific stuff and you should still have a useful strategy to use in other systems…
"So having run Gauls and other mostly HI impetuous armies. It is not as completely forlorn.

Madaxemen posted this versus a German foe

The German list he opposed is pretty close to a Frankish in options.

The issue of "getting to the flanks" really requires a high speed army doing it on turn 1. The HI will be moving as rapidly as possibly into contact. And it is not easy to punch through these HI. In one game I was going to throw 7 Knights at them. Well the enemy wheeled. So I only got 5 KN in cleanly. Essentially the KN are up 1 in the first round and have Armor. So where the KN win they start to grind through. But once the KN lose on a bad die roll, they likely are ground down. So the question is, do the KN get through fast enough, with enough.

The Franks will presumably have tried for a coastal zone to secure one flank and some other terrain too if possible. They will know that most foes will swing to their flank and deploy assuming that. That is what their CV does, delay and evade until the HI can wheel in.

Coastal zone 4 UD + you don't have to deploy next to coast, say 3 more UD + 11 HI, you are now 18 UD covered on a 30 UD board. Of those remaining 12 UD you have 3 MC and LI that mean no one is double moving. That is if there is no other terrain of significance. The big HI command can be deployed at an angle as the 3rd Corps. So it is part way into its wheel with a secure flank. Sooner or later the enemy will meet some portion of the HI head on and have to try to bust through. Without KN or EL that is an even proposition at best.

Personally I like Gauls more than Franks. But what is great about ADLG, is these armies actually are viable enough to be worth playing."

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2017 6:49 a.m. PST


I still don't get French fashion.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.