Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

For those who are members of the Society of Ancients, I apologies as you have all heard this from me on a number of occasions, both in articles in Slingshot (the Society Journal) and on the Society Forum and in presentations to the annual conference.

The v.4 Khmer list is incorrect historically on a number of accounts:

1) Light Chariots: there should be no ('0') Light Chariots. There is no historical evidence for the Khmer using chariots.
All the carved frieze depictions of chariots (both 2 horse and 4 horse chariots - and yes there are also 4 horse chariots depicted) are in the religious/mythological sections of the friezes at Angkor. There is a single depiction of a general/hero riding a chariot in a minor temple complex near the Thai border - however, this is much later than the pre 1100 date in the army list and the carving is badly damaged, so may actually be a 'demon/deity' rather than a human charioteer.
The many carvings of chariots/platforms - pulled by horses, goats, deer, rhino, lions, garuda, crocodiles etc. - are all clearly part of the mythological sections in the temples (rather than the historical sections) and were carved by imported Indian stonemasons, who were used to depicting them on their own temples back in Southern India.

2) MF swordsmen 2HCW: there are no depictions of two handed cutting weapons on any of the Khmer temples. What are depicted at Bayon (specifically) are groups of figures carrying the traditional S.E.Asian farming tool, called a p'tak. This tool is never shown being wielded in combat, especially in a two-handed manner. In fact, it is probable that the figures depicted at Bayon are actually peasants accompanying the army to dig fortified camps for the army or to cut tracks through the forest as it travelled or to undermine enemy fortifications.
The p'tak can be mistaken for the Thai 'Mak' which is a long handled bladed weapon like a halberd, often swung two-handed. But what is carved on the Khmer monuments is very clearly the p'tak.

3). Tribal Auxiliaries: what is missing from the list are Tribal Auxiliaries. These were levied from more Mountainous areas with the Khmer empire - especially those along the Cham border, and were used when fighting Cham incursions or accompanying Khmer forces into Cham territory. I would suggest that 0-6 MF swordsmen impetuous (maybe also 0-4 LF bow - in a similar manner to the Tribal allies for the Medieval Vietnamese list 224) should be available to Khmer armies (specifically). This troop type is clearly depicted on the Bayon temple in particular, as being distinctly different from the majority Khmer infantry, they are armed with small round bucklers (not the majority Khmer rectangular shields) - they fight in a highly animated and active manner (rather than the drilled ranks of the Khmer troops) - they are dressed in loin-cloths, bare-chested except for rolls of cloth/maybe rolled up clothing (rather than the long 't' shirts worn by the Khmer) tied in a cross across their chest & back. They are also armed with short spears and short swords and are depicted taking Cham heads as trophies (unlike the Khmer).

4). Not enough MF swordsmen: Whilst I thoroughly agree with the change in v.4 Khmer list that makes the basic & guard Khmer infantry MF swordsmen (which is a much more accurate depiction than MF spear), the numbers of MF swordsmen needs to be increased significantly. Even allowing for 0-6 MF Conscripts, just having 2-6 ordinary MF swordsmen available is not sufficient to give the army the alternative options necessary.
NB: generally - especially in the Angkor carvings - Khmer troops are depicted as 50/50 infantry armed with short spears or archers.

5). Cavalry: there is too much cavalry in the list. It is in fact debatable that the few cavalry figures show in the Khmer carvings are actual Cavalry - rather than a tiny number of mounted messengers or couriers. There are carvings of mounted cavalry v cavalry combat on the temple carvings - but again, these are all in the 'religious/mythological' sections.
At best 0-2 Medium Horsemen would be appropriate. NB: I'd suggest that the numbers of Thai/Siamese and Burmese cavalry in their lists are also too high and also too high quality.

6). Elite Elephants: what seems odd to me is that in an army where the Elephants were the primary military weapon (probably more so than almost any other S.E Asian force) and where we also have the clearest evidence that Elephants were supported by large numbers of infantry to protect them (as show in the Angkor & Bayon temple carvings) that Khmer (& Cham) Elephants are not allowed to be fielded as Elite.

7). In the Bayon temple carvings, alongside the Elephant mounted & wheeled ballista, we also see 2 wheeled 'wagon/cart' devices. These have large shielded fronts to the enemy with steps and a platform at the back, with spear armed crew riding them. These are at possible best depicted as War Wagon Blade (mediocre) as they are shown attacking enemy infantry. Or at the very least they could be depicted on the table top by giving a number (0-3) of the Warriors 'Pavice'.

8 ). LF Javelins or Javelinmen: there is evidence for LF Javelin in the army, as at Bayon we see lightly armed infantry running and throwing a short spear/javelin.

9). Later Khmer armies should also be allowed an allied Medieval Vietnamese contingent (list 224) post AD 939 (with no Heavy Artillery). Much as modern Cambodian historians will claim that one of the allied contingents depicted on the Bayon monument is actually Chinese - this reflects more on modern prejudices against the Vietnamese (a recent and painful enemy) than the 'truth' of the carvings, which show this contingent wearing distinctively Vietnamese head gear.

Many of the historical errors above have been perpetuated from many other army lists - most notably from the DBM lists.
They are at best 'wargames mythology' and at worst an attempt to upgrade the army unnecessarily or provide more diversity to what should be quite a vanilla list.

Many thanks
Mark

[KevinD]

Thanks for posting this, Mark.

A good point about distinguishing between mythological and historical carvings.

Should the tribal troops be an ally or were they led by Khmer generals or well-integrated into the Khmer state?

You’re probably right about the Khmer chariots, but they are colorful…I notice ADLG has removed the Javanese chariots.

[Mark G Fry]

Hi Kevin
There is no clear indication that the Tribal Warriors were deployed under their own commanders, unlike the Vietnamese, Siamese or Burmese.
So they should probably be just included in the main body of the list.

With the rather odd mobile wheeled fighting platforms/pavices - having had a think about it - I suspect that classifying them as War Wagon Blade (Mediocre) would give an inaccurate portrayal. Maybe allowing 0-3 Warriors to simply be upgraded to HF spear (mediocre) pavice might be more realistic?
We don't really know how these platforms were used in battle - but they are depicted in a battle scene fighting the Cham. So they are not siege specific weapons.
(NB: I'll try and upload a photo of them ... although all of my previous attempts to do so have not worked )

Thanks for taking an interest.
Mark

NB: the Ceylonese Elephants (or at least some of them) in the Tamil list (#120) should also be allowed to be upgraded to Elite. There is a specific Ceylonese king who was captured by his enemies (& subsequently castrated - as was the custom) when his elephant got mired in a marsh/bog and his bodyguard infantry all ran away. So clearly, even if only for Kings/commanders, the use of protective infantry with elephants was a custom that was carried over to Ceylon from Southern India.

[Jhykronos]

[Mark G Fry]

I would agree - especially with armies were Elephants are 'native' - e.g. Indian sub-continent and S.E.Asia / Indonesia.

Maybe less so in armies where elephants were 'exotic' weapons - such as Roman or Hellenistic or Phoenician (Carthaginian) or even some Chinese lists, where the numbers are low and Elephants were imported. The later Seleucids seem to have created special Elephant support units, specifically to protect their dwindling stocks of war Elephants in combat.

With the Khmer elephants you always see them brigaded (in the carvings) with supporting infantry (as well as a host of standards, flags and musicians).

[matthieu]

I wrote this post a few years ago. I think we have an analysis quite close to the Khmer army:
http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4001

[Mark G Fry]

[Zoltan]

I've used a Khmer army on and off over many years and rule sets. The best book I have found on the Khmer army and weapons is, Michel Jacq-Hergoualc'h, "The Armies of Angkor; Military Structure and Weaponry of the Khmers" (Orchid Press, Bangkok, 2007) translated by Michael Smithies. This is packed with analysis and heaps of detailed line drawings on almost every page. It's a "must have" source book for any Khmer army aficionado. A couple of relevant conclusions from it:

1. War Chariots (p.52)
"We cannot therefore say that there never was a single example of a chariot in Cambodia, but if there were any, they did not take part, in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, in armed conflict."

2. Phaka'k (p.24)
"This is not a weapon of the infantry."

3. Cavalry (p.53)
"It is almost entirely absent from the great battles of portrayed in the outer gallery of the Bayon, which emphasize above all the infantry and the elephants of the enemy's armies, and in both monuments few horses appear in the armies' movements."

"The relative and real importance of the cavalry which really existed in the Khmer army, unlike the chariots, will only be appreciated in relation to the elephants and the infantry, after we have examined these other two military corps in the same manner."

[matthieu]

Hi Mark
I did not have the opportunity to visit Angkor despite a one-month stay in Cambodia. I based myself on the same book than Zoltan. I found it in a bookstore in Phnom Penh. Your knowledge of the temples of Angkor is therefore very interesting.
This list of ADG deserves to be modified in a future 5th version. But there will always remain a major problem, there is no quality Khmer range among figurine manufacturers...

[Mark G Fry]

Hi Matthew

As far as I am aware there are just two 15mm Khmer ranges on the market.

1). The longstanding Irregular Mjniatures range, which must be c.30 years old now and is in need of a refresh. This is partly because the information used to sculpt the range was based on the original WRG Armies & Enemies book and the thinking around some of that material has changed a lot in that time. But also as sculpting & modelling has also improved over time.
Irregular do however produce the Thai/Siamese allies that are very accurately depicted.

2) Outpost Miniatures range. These are lovely sculpts, especially the Elephants, and the range includes the wheeled bolt throwers as well.. However, sadly it looks like Outpost are currently closed to business due to an ongoing health issue for the owner. Fingers crossed this can be resolved.

In 25mm/28mm there is only the Irregular Miniatures range, which mirrors some of the historic inaccuracies of the 15mm range. Such as foot & mounted 'Maiden Guard' and so-called 'Dragon horses' for the cavalry.

First Corp/Curtney Miniatures produce some very nice 28mm Siamese/Thai and Burmese figures, neither of which can really be used as Khmer substitutes. But logic states that they might be willing to add Khmer to their ranges, to compliment the other two, so maybe a bit of gentle lobbying would encourage them to add Khmer (& maybe Cham) to their ranges.

With such a wealth of amazing detail from the temple carvings at Angkor, Bayon & the other temples and ceremonial buildings in Cambodia, Southern Thailand & Lao, I am always amazed a high quality range of figures has not yet appeared on the market.
Khurisan Miniatures, who also do a really nice 15mm Siamese range might also be a logical manufacturer to approach about a new 15mm range.

We can only lobby & hope
Cheers
Mark

[Mark G Fry]

Below is my revised thinking on the Khmer & Cham v.4 list - drawing heavily on Matthew's existing posts as well as my own research:


#173 Khmer Empire and Cham (updated) 600 - 1500 AD

Terrain: Plains, Forest, add Mountains for Cham
Command: +3 or +4 for Khmer (between 802 & 1218)
Strategist: Jayavarman VII (r.1182-1218 AD) - Khmer only or Jaya Indravarman IV (r. 1167–1192) - Cham only
Camp: Standard @ 0pts

War Elephants*
Elephant @ 13pts 2-6
upgrade to elite (post 802AD) @ + 3pts

Horsemen
Medium Cavalry, mediocre @ 5pts 0-4
upgrade to Ordinary as Royal Guardsmen* @ +2pts 0-2 (Khmer only)
Light Cavalry, javelin @ 6pts

Royal Guardsmen (Khmer only 1113 to 1218 AD): 0-2 (see Notes)
Medium swordsmen, impact, elite @ 9pts
upgrade to swordsmen armoured (1113 to 1150AD only) @ 2pts
Royal Guard Archers (Khmer only 1113 to 1150 AD): 0-2 (see Notes)
Bowmen, Elite @ 9pts

Infantry Warriors 2 - 12
Medium swordsmen @ 6pts
downgrade to mediocre @ 2pts
add Pavice (Khmer only post 1182 AD) @ 1pt (up to 1/2 fielded)

Infantry Archers 0-6
Bowmen @ 7pts
downgrade to mediocre @ 2pts
add Pavice (Khmer only post 1182 AD) @ 1pt 0-3
Light Infantry bow @ 4pts

Replace some Infantry Warriors Medium swordsmen and Infantry Archers with Mixed Formations 0-2 (1182-1218 only)
1/2 Medium swordsmen - 1/2 Bowmen @ 9pts
add Pavice @ 1pt

Crossbow (post 1170) @ 7pts 0-2
Light Infantry crossbow (post 1170) @ 4pts

Light Artillery ballista (from 1170): @ 6pts 0-2
or
Replace war elephants with elephants equipped with ballista (from 1170) 0-2
Elephant artillery mediocre @ 13pts

Slaves 0-6
Levy @ 3pts

Khmer Empire of Angkor (802-1431)
Burmese Allies (list #168 Burmese)
Thai/Siamese Allies (list #278 Siamese) from 1300AD
Cham Allies (list#173) from 1170AD, no Heavy Artillery, or Medium Cavalry crossbow or LC bow
Vietnamese Allies (list #224 Medieval Vietnamese) from 1182AD no Heavy artillery

Hill or Lao Tribes: 2-6 (see Notes)
Medium swordsmen, impetuous @6pts
Light Infantry javelin @ 4pts (0-4 only)

Fighting Platforms: 0-2 (1182-1218 AD only) - (see Notes)
War wagons, javelin, mediocre @ 8pts

Cham Kingdom (800-1500AD)
Vietnamese Allies (list #169 Rebel Vietnamese) from 600-938 AD or (list #224 Medieval Vietnamese) from 1284-1287
Rebel Khmer Allies (list #173 Khmer Empire) from 1152 -1431 AD, no Royal Guardsmen, or Light Artillery or Elephant mounted Artillery, or Hill or Lao Tribes or Fighting Platforms

Replace some Horseman (from 1170): 0-2
Medium Cavalry, crossbow @ 9pts
Light Cavalry bow @ 6pts

Trubuchet (after 1280): 0-1
Heavy Artillery @ 10pts

Notes:
Khmer Horsemen must either be fielded as Medium Cavalry or Light Cavalry, not both
If Khmer Royal Guardsmen Archers are fielded they must be fielded on a 1:1 basis with Royal Guardsmen Medium swordsmen
Where troops can be downgraded to mediocre this represents disaffected or regional contingents
If any Hill or Lao Tribes are fielded at least 2 Medium swordsmen impetuous must be fielded
Some Elephants are equipped with ballista. They fight as Elephants mediocre and shoot as Light Artillery, ordinary
Representing the Fighting Platforms depicted on the Khmer Bayon monument, has proven challenging. However, WWg javelin mediocre seems to be the best option to adequately represent these man-powered defensive fighting platforms.
Whilst 2 horse chariots are depicted upon the Khmer temple monuments, these are representing religious or mythical scenes and the Khmer did not use chariots in battle.

[matthieu]

congratulations Mark that's a great job. I find this list very realistic.

[Mark G Fry]

[KevinD]

8 Lao elephants is super high. Do any lists allow more than 6 without allies? Most elephant heavy lists cap it at 4-6. See the Indonesian/ Malay list or maybe Thai
for a similar list.

[Mark G Fry]

A fair point Kevin.
It's an interesting challenge, as what (very) little we know about Lao armies in this period (from Chinese sources) they focus on the fact that the army was primarily fighting elephants.

But reducing them to 6 to fascilitate game/lust balance would be fine by me