Sheikh Yer'dice
(or Using Dynastic Bedouin in a DBM competition)
When the Slingshot editor emails you to say "I heard you did quite well at Epsom using the Dynastic Bedouins, 34th if I'm not mistaken. Would you care to write me an article on using this army and its performance for Slingshot? It's an unusual army and one not often heard about", you can hardly refuse. Flattery is a great persuader. So without further ado, here we go.
Army Choice
So why the Dynastic Bedouin army?
To be honest it was a search for a competitive army to take to the 2000 IWF World Championships that led me to the Dynastic Bedouin list in the DBM Book 3 army lists. This was reinforced by Alan Patrick's accounts of using this army on his web site (which can be found at http://www.btinternet.com/~a.patrick/sheikh.htm "Sheikh Yerbodhi Raids Again"; in fact I can recommend his whole site as very useful - http://www.btinternet.com/~a.patrick/wargames.htm). However, I didn't choose the Bedouin for the 2000 competition Instead I took the Ottoman Turks with it's alluring combination of Cv(S)/(O), LH(F), Bw(S) and Serbian Kn(S). Interestingly, during the competition I played, and lost to, Ethan Zorick who used a Dynastic Bedouin, making me wonder if I had made the correct decision. For the rest of 2000 the Bedouin remained an idea rather than a used army, but with the arrival of DBM v3.0, and with thoughts of the 2001 IWF, I decided to look at the list again.
For those that aren't aware the IWF World Championships differ from the usual UK competitions in that you draw up 2 army lists instead of the normal 1, although you are restricted to the same army, year, sub-list, etc. Before each game, but after finding out what you are playing against, you choose which of your 2 lists you will use in that game. This allows you to have lists to deal with different styles of opponents and/or threats, and, in my opinion, allows a wider variety of armies to be viable in an open competition. My main criteria when deciding which army I was going to take were:
Other criteria were:
Some of the armies I looked and rejected were: Northern Dynasties Chinese, Hsiung-nu, Medieval Portuguese, Later Hungarian, Sicilian, Komnenan Byzantine, Abbasid Arab and Patrician Roman. It is interesting to note how many of those rejected are based on a Kn strike force, which, conventional wisdom suggested that under DBM v3.0 were now the mounted troops of choice rather than Cv(S). The reason is that I've not really managed to come to terms with Kn due to their compulsory follow up, which seems to lead me to my doom each time, so have tended to stick with Cv(S) instead. More practice with Kn required I think.
For me the Dynastic Bedouin met all the main criteria I had set.
The lesser criteria were easily met as I had the majority of the figures I would need for the army and those I needed (a few LH, Bw and the Bd) would be easy to paint and are, mostly, reusable in other armies.
Army Lists for the IWF World Championships 2001
So having decided on the army I had to choose the army lists. The Dynastic Bedouin army list contains a number of options depending on which state and/or dynasty you choose. Available major dynasties are the Hamdanids of Aleppo and Mosul, Uqaylids and Mirdassids, as well as the option to choose a minor dynasty/tribe. All are based on a large number of Bedouin LH(O), as the only compulsory troop type, with Bedouin swordsmen, Bd(I), and archers, Ps(O)/Bw(I)/Bw(O), to back them up. There are also some useful Hd(O) to act as "filler" to bulk out commands and also some LH(I), camel mounted scouts, if you wish, however, I didn't bother with the latter. The named dynasties all have additional troops available to raise them above the norm.
The choice of which dynasty was fairly easy. The Hamdanids of Aleppo, from within the period 945AD to 965AD have the widest range of additional options available to them; namely, Cv(S), Ax(S) and the Bw(X)/(O) 'Abid. Now came a difficult choice. The Hamdanids of Aleppo have the option of Regular generals and 3-7 Ghulam Cv(S) troops from 945AD to 957AD or you stay with the Irregular generals and have 0-15 Khurasani volunteers, who may be Cv(S) or LH(F) in any mix, from 964AD to 965AD. I decided that the 3 Regular general option made the army too small, and that 7 other Cv(S) was not quite a credible enough force without having to risk the generals to combat, something which I'm extremely reluctant to do. The 4 Irregular general, all of whom can be LH(O) apart from the C-in-C who is Cv(O), and larger army size, was more attractive. Also, as noted above, few troops in the army need additional PIPs to manoeuvre so reducing the need for Regular generals. An additional benefit of the 4 commands for an army with low aggression is that by placing a small command as the second command on table you give yourself a better chance of getting good match-ups with your remaining 2 commands.
The following are the 2 lists I came up with for the competition.
List 1
C-in-C Irr Cv(O)
3 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
5 Khurasani volunteers Irr Cv(S)
2 Khurasani volunteers Irr LH(F)
4 'Abid front rank Reg Bw(X)
4 'Abid rear rank Reg Bw(O)
2 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
1 Ahdath town militia Irr Hd(O)
21.5 element equivalents, break on 7.5 losses.
Sub-general Irr LH(O)
6 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
5 Khurasani volunteers Irr Cv(S)
2 Khurasani volunteers Irr LH(F)
3 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
6 Ahdath town militia Irr Hd(O)
8 Baggage
18.5 element equivalents, break on 6.5 losses.
Sub-general Irr LH(O)
4 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
6 Bedouin swordsmen Irr mtd Bd(I)
10 Bedouin archers Irr Bw(O)
1 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
21.5 element equivalents, break on 7.5 losses.
Bedouin ally-general Irr LH(O)
7 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
3 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
9.5 element equivalents, break on 3.5 losses.
The army totals 71 element equivalents, breaking on 35.5 losses.
This list is designed to be used against armies whose main threat is in their mounted, hence the number of bows. The large(ish) ally command is a bit of a risk as if it is unreliable I've got 1/3 of my LH(O) unable to do much. However, the reason it's like that is that I found that having more LH in any of the other commands didn't add to their effectiveness, and in fact detracted from it as they had too many LH to use effectively. Additionally, as this is really my anti-Kn list it is likely that the LH will do a lot of the fighting and so the ability of the ally to absorb a few losses was important. Note that the Bedouin swordsmen are mounted infantry on horses, which greatly increases their mobility and manoeuvrability, so removing one of their big handicaps and also allowing them to redeploy quickly if needed. I also considered mounting the 10 Bedouin archers, however, decided on balance that they were fine unmounted.
List 2
C-in-C Irr Cv(O)
6 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
5 Khurasani volunteers Irr Cv(S)
4 'Abid front rank Reg Bw(X)
4 'Abid rear rank Reg Bw(O)
2 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
1 Ahdath town militia Irr Hd(O)
21.5 element equivalents, break on 7.5 losses.
Sub-general Irr LH(O)
4 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
1 Khurasani volunteers Irr LH(F)
12 Dailami infantry Reg Ax(S)
6 Dailami archers Reg Ps(O) [support Dailami infantry]
1 Ahdath town militia Irr Hd(O)
21.5 element equivalents, break on 7.5 losses.
Sub-general Irr LH(O)
5 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
5 Khurasani volunteers Irr Cv(S)
1 Khurasani volunteers Irr LH(F)
4 Bedouin swordsmen Irr mtd Bd(I)
5 Ahdath town militia Irr Hd(O)
8 Baggage
18.5 element equivalents, break on 6.5 losses.
Bedouin ally-general Irr LH(O)
5 Bedouin cavalry Irr LH(O)
1 Bedouin archers Irr Ps(O)
6.5 element equivalents, break on 2.5 losses
The army totals 68 element equivalents, breaking on 34 losses.
This version is aimed at enemies who are more infantry based or where I expect to have to push an attack through bad terrain; so the Dailami infantry are used and slightly less LH. It is also somewhat of a safe all-round army if I'm not too sure what to use or do. The Bw(X)/(O) remain as a useful force for fighting Kn, counting (S) against mounted and so having the "quick kill" makes them very tough in this role. The supporting Ps(O) for the Dailami Ax(S) gives that command more options reinforcing the all-round approach to this list.
Some people may wonder why in an army with so much LH(O) I have chosen some LH(F) in both of the above lists. The reason is that I have always found that having a few LH that move the extra 50 paces can frequently make all the difference when moving onto an enemy flank or covering a gap, and so I always have a few just for this if possible in any army.
Tactics and Terrain
Historically the tactics of the army were based around the skirmishing of the massed LH backed by heavier troops being used at the appropriate point, and it is the same under DBM. In general with an aggression of 1 I could expect to be defending a lot of the time. In these games I planned to deploy the LH as far forward as possible in open spaces to delay the enemy advance. The rest of the army would then be deployed quite a long way back from the LH, often in columns to facilitate rapid redeployment, to be moved to where they would be most useful. In general the archers (if that list was used) and 'Abid would deploy where I most expected the enemy's main mounted attack to be, with the swordsmen in support of the archers in case enemy heavy infantry could threaten them. The Khurasani Cv(S) would be used to support all the other troops where needed. When the second list was used the Dailami infantry would be expected to utilise any bad going as the route for their attack. Overall the doctrine of the army is to delay and see where the threats are, deploying the heavier troops to meet these and encouraging the enemy to advance into situations where favourable combats can be obtained, usually involving overlaps or flank attacks in combat. If invading the plan would often be broadly similar although it would be possible to deploy the heavy troops further forward as my LH would move first and so gain manoeuvre space quickly.
The terrain choice for the army is also quite important. Obviously with so many mounted troops it requires a good deal of open space in which to operate, and the tactical approach reinforces this. However, in general the infantry are not able to stand up to a lot of troops in the open. For example most heavy infantry are a threat to the army but are disadvantaged in bad going where even the archers will have a good chance against them. In DBM available terrain choices depend on whether you are the invader or defender, so some thought had to be given to both of these situations. I decided that if invading I would choose no terrain to begin with, but have the option of a piece after the defender had placed theirs, if I thought it would be useful - the invader being able to place a hill, gully or boggy area depending on climate and preference. If defending I would place a mixture of scrub (rough going) and dunes (difficult going), mainly small pieces of which I could have 6 in total, to break up my opponents advance (very important against heavy infantry based armies) and give me areas to operate from. This hopefully would give me more chances to generate favourable combat situations and provide a number of possible ambush sites as well. The use of dunes is also a bit of "kidology". As soon as some players hear that they are playing some sort of Arab type army, and see dunes on the table they think that camels are being fielded even when they are not even available in the army.
Games Using the Dynastic Bedouins
The following selection of 5 games hopefully illustrate the operation of this army in action against a range of army types. All are from the IWF championship weekend; some were practice games and not competition, although all were played competitively as valuable experience for both players.
Vs Early Samurai played by Dave Madigan.
This is, obviously, a powerful Bw(S) based army mainly of infantry but with limited mounted troops and is Irregular, so is not too manoeuvrable. I chose my second list as I didn't want to get into a Bw vs Bw shooting match where my Bw are inferior to his, also this list has the foot troops to take him on in hand to hand. I invaded and so put down no terrain to maximise my manoeuvre possibilities. He place a couple of hills only one of which, a steep hill on his right, has any effect on the game. Dave flank marched one command on his right which meant that the centre of his line was held by the Emishi ally LH(S). I deployed with LH to the front across most of the table but with the Dailami infantry on the left as far forward as they could be. I attacked with the left wing infantry whilst skirmishing his right out of the game with my LH. Additionally I pushed at his weak centre with Cv(S) and the 'Abid to make him spend PIPs to cover this, whilst holding LH back in case his flank march came on. The Dailami attacked the end of his Bw line and managed to get at some vulnerable Ax(I) followers who were protecting his flank on the hill. This allowed me to attack the end of his line, using the superior mobility and move distance of the Dailami over his Samurai Bw, and break the command. The flank march never arrived and the game finished 7-3 to me. Interestingly in the first round of the main competition I met another mass Bw based army, a Palmyran played by South African Colin Webster. In this game I used the same basic tactics, however, the Palmyran shooting was phenomenal and so broke up my attack that I couldn't make any headway and I lost 0-10. One difference in this game, however, was that Colin's army was so wide that I wasn't able to use my manoeuvrability to the effect I did against Dave.
Vs Seljuk Turk played by Rob Brennan
The Seljuk army is a mostly mounted army made up of massed LH(S) backed by Cv(O) and a few Irregular Kn(F). Much of his army, the LH, is qualitatively better than my equivalent, however, mine is much larger and so I can win an attrition battle if necessary. As his army is mounted I took my first list with all the Bw. For terrain I chose 3 pieces of scrub and 3 pieces of dunes most of which landed on the right hand side of the battlefield with the rest being open apart from one piece of scrub on my left. Rob deployed 20+ LH(S) up front backed by 2 groups of Cv(O) and one of Kn(F). I also deployed my LH out front with the rest towards the rear; archers on the left, 'Abid central with the 2 Cv(S) blocks centre and right. I immediately realised that I had been far too cautious with the Bw(O) as they should be as far forward as possible as there was nothing in the Seljuk army that really had a chance of hurting them. The battle started with me correcting this initial mistake by withdrawing the left wing LH and advancing the Bw, all of which took time. Across the board the LH faced off against each other whilst we both manoeuvred heavier troops to where the action would be and there was some light skirmishing on my right which came to nothing. As my Bw advanced they pushed back the opposing LH which started to create a gap in Rob's line which he has to bring some Cv to cover, whilst opposite his Kn I create a "killing zone" between the 'Abid and some of the Cv(S) into which his Kn will have to advance. The fact that the 'Abid are regular was invaluable here as they had to do quite a bit of manoeuvring to get where they were needed. Being with the C-in-C helped as well as they could benefit from his extra PIP. They would never have managed it if they were Irregular as Irregular double based Bw(X)/(O) manoeuvre like pregnant cows. Although we didn't manage to complete the game (much to my surprise I was asked to play in the UK Test Team against the USA) it was clearly going my way with my troop combination causing difficulty for Rob and creating favourable combat situations for me.
Vs Maccabean Jewish played by Benjamin Shulman (SA)
The Maccabean army is a middle weight infantry force based on Ax(S) thureophoroi and Bw(I) archers, with some Kn(F) xystophoroi lancers and LH(S) in support. As my mounted can deal with his I didn't feel the need for the archers and so went for the second list. Benjamin invaded and put down a river parallel to the side of the table about 1/3 of the way in. As I didn't need much terrain, and want as much room to manoeuvre as possible, I chose 2 medium sized pieces of scrub which ended up playing no part in the game. Somewhat to my surprise Benjamin deployed 1/3 of his army, including his few Kn, on the short side of the table across the river and then 2 large commands of Ax(S), Bw(I) and LH(S) on the larger side angled back to rest their right flank on the rear of the table. I deployed to attack his right flank with the swordsmen and Dailami on my left and the right covered mainly by LH backed with the 'Abid and some of the Cv(S). I placed 2 LH across the river to hold up his troops there. In this game the 4th command was useful for deployment as, although I deployed the first command, by having a small command as my second to deploy I kept back over half my army until I'd seen 2/3 of his on table and so could discern his plan. The game itself went to plan. My 2 LH held back his whole command, even killing 2 of his Kn(F), and generally were a great nuisance. In the main arena my far more numerous LH chased his back behind his infantry, and then pinned the foot where I wanted them. The swordsmen and Dailami attacked Benjamin's right wing with LH threatening his flank thus further restricting his options. The combination of Bd(I) and Ax(S) was too much for Bw(I) and Ax(S) and in about 3 bounds I had annihilated the command, destroying all it's elements or having them flee off table demoralised. This exposed the next command and the baggage to attack and I broke is army on total losses a few bounds later. A 10-0 win.
Vs Patrician Roman played by Rees Taylor
I've included this game as an illustration of how I tried to combat a "corner sitting" army. Rees must have felt that he could not cope with my army in the open (why I don't know, as the Patrician is an excellent army and indeed was the winning army) and so wedged his army into a defensive position in one corner of the table. Unfortunately the terrain fell such that a flank march to open up the position on my part would have almost certainly just led to a lost command for no gain, so it was plan B time. I massed all the archers and the swordsmen (I'd taken list 1 as the best to face a Patrician with) against the left wing of his position, swordsmen on the right of the line, which was mostly on flat ground. However, the dice gods were not with me and the shooting had next to no effect, few recoils let alone kills, and the swordsmen and 'Abid (counting as Sp(I) in combat) managed to bounce off the single ranked Ax(S). I felt that the tactic was fine and I should have managed to turn his flank and roll up his army, however, it was not to be. A disappointing draw, 5-5.
Vs Fanatic Berber played by Mike Goss (or "Il Gibonne" as he was calling himself)
This is the classic matchup of a heavy infantry army against a mobile opponent. I went with the second list as the bowmen will be useless here, and ended up defending (not surprising as the Berbers are aggression 4). I chose scrub and dunes hoping to break up his army and give me flanks to attack. The terrain lands nicely scattered on my right and in the centre so that there are lanes for me to attack through. Mike deployed with his spearmen, supported by Ps(O) archers, between the terrain, with the terrain held as best he can with Ps(O) skirmishers, Bw(I) archers and Ax(I) poor quality javelinmen. He also sends an Andalusian ally on a flank march on his left. I had the Dailami positioned to attack on my right through the scrub aimed at a small spear block and some Bw(I) covering their flank. The rest of the army deployed with LH forward to advance and pin him, and the ally is sent off on a flank march the same side as Mike's as there is nothing much for them to do on table. Again I was pleased as the plan worked. The Dailami attack cleared the poor quality archers and skirmishers away from the spear block whose flank was then open to attack from the scrub. This command soon broke exposing the left of Mike's main spear line, commanded by his C-in-C, to attack. I marched some of the Khurasani Cv(S) to the area and started to turn the end of the spear line causing casualties as I went. In the end Mike was forced to try and cover the end of his line with his C-in-C. He was duly mugged by 3 Cv(S) to his front, flank and rear and died. This broke the command and the army. 10-0 to me for only 3 elements lost.
Reflections on the Army
OK so what do I think of the army now I've used it in friendly, practice and competition games? Well I'm still pretty happy with it and will definitely use it again. However, as my future use will almost certainly be in "UK norm" 1 list competitions I'll need to make some choices on what makes a good list. My initial thoughts are that it will be based on the list 1 from the IWF. This may seem strange as I designed the second list as the all-round list, however, I've found that the first list is pretty good as an all-rounder too (I found this out by deliberately taking the "wrong" list when playing some practice games for the IWF). I will probably drop a couple of the Cv(S) and maybe a couple of the LH(F) and increase the swordsmen to the maximum 8 and mount the archers on horses as mounted infantry as well. The ally command will probably be reduced to 6.5 element equivalents in order to keep the 3 main commands as large as possible. The perceptive will now be asking why drop some Cv(S) when you felt that 7 wouldn't be enough? The truth is that I didn't need all 10 I had at the IWF, and overall feel that I should be able to get away with 8. However, there is no chance of me using the Regular version of the army as in this case size does matter.
So what weaknesses have I discovered with the army? The major weakness is when a whole flank of the battlefield can be closed off with terrain, and the rest is fairly open, and the enemy can push forward with heavy troops, especially a combined force of Spears and Kn/Cv. In this situation the Bedouin have little to be able to combat anything better than Sp(I) with and these can create overlaps for their heavy mounted to exploit. The Bedouin is not designed for such frontal slogs and is always in danger of being pushed off the table in these cases. The other major problem is if for whatever reason, you cannot get a good number of bounds played in the game. As the army relies on manoeuvre rather than frontal power to win, it risks being "timed out" before your attacks can properly develop. So you have to be decisive and quick in play. Other than that I still feel that the army has a good chance against most opponents.
Some Historical Notes
As with other armies I have, although I knew little about them when I decided to play them, using them created interest in the history and background of the army. Unfortunately I've not really had much time to track down many sources on the Hamdanids (if anyone can help me I'd be grateful) but have found a few things out. I'll start with the following shamelessly copied from Alan Patrick's web site:
"A Very Short History of the Hamdanids and Uqaylids
By 892, with the collapse of the Abbasid Khalifate as a real power after Khalif Mutamid's death, the Hamdanids took over Mosul. In 996, the Mosul Hamdanid dynasty was replaced by Ibn Muqallad of the Beni Uqail (Uqaillids)
In 945 one Saif Al Dowla ibn Hamdan became Amir of Aleppo, and was the only Arab leader fearless enough to face the resurgent Byzantines. He maintained a small but brilliant court. In 967 he died, and real resistance to the Byzantines ended in 969, the Hamdanids paying tribute to John Tzimisces and Basil Bulgar-Basher thereafter. The Hamdanid dynasty ended in 1008, when it was replaced by Ibn Mirdas and the Mirdassid Dynasty began
As Glubb Pasha describes it, "These Arab princes should not be thought of as ignorant tribal chiefs. (They were) prepared to offer battle to the Byzantine emperor…Most of these princes were cultured, built up extensive libraries and patronised poetry and literature in the traditional Arab style". A brave and cultured nation then, the epitome of my Arab imaginings."
Essentially the Hamdanids, like all the Bedouin states of the time, were Abbasid successors. However, they relied upon the Bedouin tribes of north Syria (the Jazirah) for the basis of their military power as none were wealthy enough to maintain armies on the scale of the Abbasid Khalifate. Interestingly many, if not a majority, of the Arab tribes of the area were still Christian according to David Nicolle. The Hamdanids themselves were a clan of the Banu Taghlib tribe which was one of the original tribes of the conquest.
Finally, another piece ripped from Alan's web site:
"The Arab poet Mutannabbi put it at the time:
" I am known to the horse troop, the night and the desert's expanse;
Not more to the paper and pen, than to the sword and the lance".
How could one not build such an army after that?"
Some Final Notes on the IWF World Championships
As this article originated from the 2001 IWF competition it seems only right to comment on it based on attendance at the last 2 years events. The championship is intended as a real World title and is open to competitors from anywhere in the world. At present competitions in DBM and DBR are run. It is also intended that the location of the championships move around the world. The last 2 years have been in England at Epsom College, and have been hosted by the BHGS. 2002 is in Durban, South Africa, with New Orleans, USA, planned for 2003 and Australia in 2004 has been mooted.
The format for the last 2 years has been an "open" competition with any armies allowed from any of the DBM army lists books, with 2 lists for each army as described above. There have been 5 games in the competition, 3 on the Saturday and 2 on the Sunday. The BHGS as always have run everything with exceptional efficiency. Additionally the venue has been open for the few days prior to the competition to allow for practice and friendly games, which has proved very popular. In 2000 123 players competed in the DBM section with 142 in 2001.
In addition to the main competition there have been Test Matches arranged between those countries who have a number of attendees, with 4 players making a team (or occasionally 5). This year test teams were fielded by the UK, USA, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Italy with games played on the Thursday and Friday before the championships proper.
My experiences from the past 2 years have all been very positive and, importantly, very enjoyable. I'll certainly be going to Durban for the 2002 championships and I'd recommend it to anyone willing/able to afford the trip.
Finally, for the record, I finished 34th in 2001, which was OK (I was 53rd in 2000) but I felt that I should have done better.