Wargames in The Bronze Age and Holocene Era.

Preamble

This is a totally new period of study for me -one that has got my brain fizzing with ideas and thoughts. This first post sets out some of those thoughts, what I hope to achieve and to impart some sort of sense of the strangeness of the World back then. What I would like to do is present enough good information for gamers to feel "safe" setting games and campaigns in such a strangely different World. This is not about "fantasy" games, simply ones in a fresh setting that require a degree of imagination and freedom to create possible encounters, though with the addition of all those culture-specific gods and creatures it is well suited to a form of "historic" fantasy. Please feel free to comment or discuss the subject, such can only improve my ideas! This post tends to ramble a bit but bear with it -it holds some interesting (and often weird) facts and information.

Cheers,

Mal

Men from Punt bearing Gifts

Warfare in the Early Bronze Age and Holocene Era. 

Introduction 

Having developed an interest in the Bronze Age, -probably the field of warfare we know the least about, I started on a fresh mapping project -one of my great loves. I've always loved maps and, despite it not being part of my degree, sat in on the Cartography lectures and seminars (with permission from the lecturers) purely out of interest and because otherwise I would have had a 60-mile round trip for a single one-hour seminar. I practically learned to read on such books as “Tales of the Norse Gods and Heroes” and the Greek Myths and cut my teeth on books on ancient history, so it is something of which I have always been aware. 

 

Most of my previous experiments with Ancients were conducted using the venerable WRG Ancients rules, of course, including one memorable game at The Triples in Sheffield, in which our Glorious Leader started our chariot force beyond a wadi that cut it off from the rest of the table, leaving them sat there for the full game, drinking wine from Bekkaa or somewhere, unable to do a thing to support the poor “men with sticks,” as I classified them (The humblest troops in any list), against the Alexandrian meat-grinder. (Surprisingly, they did rather well. Some lucky dice rolling allowed them to see off the Companion Cavalry, so my knowledge of the games was fairly basic, though my “library” holds a lot of quality books on the period. 

 

We seem to assume that the Ancient World was pretty much the same as ours, and yet myths, legends, holy books and even scientific data/research show a very different World indeed. Of course, the “Bronze Age” covers a long period and the same peoples weren't present (At least not in the same locations) throughout, though some were. Then. there is the problem of whom had access to whom and where. 

 

Some of the best sources, naturally are the bible in its various forms, and the works of the Greek, Egyptian and Roman historians, the Sitwell book, “The World the Roman's Knew,” and a modern documentary series, “Alexander's Lost Worlds” about the voyages of Jason and the Argo and, later by ships sent out by Alexander, along the vast network of waterways that linked the Oxus and Jaxartes, Aral Sea and Caspian to the Black Sea. This gives comparatively easy access to the “worlds” of Central and East Asia, widening the scope of games (reasonably) possible.  

 

The most recent source, and one that has completely intrigued me, is a documentary on Amazon called, “The Atlantis Puzzle.” about the research of George Sarantitis. I think one of things that impressed me about George Sarantitis are his skill set, his areas of expertise: -Ancient Greek Language and Literature, climate change across the eras, and an intimate knowledge of sailing and the sea that fit him perhaps uniquely for such research. This isn't the usual kind of nonsense about Aliens and hyper-advanced civilisations, but a rather scholarly piece of puzzle solving that goes right back to translations (or mistranslations) of Plato's original Greek. Anyway, I decided to include the ideas on “Atlantis” the “Pillars (or Stelae) of Heracles” and such. Not that we know anything much about the appearances of all these strange “new peoples, states and nations, but we do know that the gear of the early Achaeans, Minoans, Egyptians etc. was all pretty similar, broadly speaking, and that the Bronze Age, although beginning at different times across the “old” World, ended almost synchronously as though one key component in a vast machine either broke down or was destroyed. The ending, whether through “Sea Peoples,” the aftermath of the Trojan Wars, disease, climate change or whatever is relatively immaterial. What matters is that vast, interlinked trade network that possibly linked Britain, with its tin to the far reaches of the East. It is fairly easy to envisage the same kind of kit being adapted from Palaeolithic technology with bronze simply replacing the earlier, less durable (in terms of breakage) raw materials of the stone age. In fact, throughout the Bronze Age, items such as arrow heads and tools such as axes continued to be made from stone. It is also fairly easy to see the expansion of bronze-tech being spread by travelling merchants, smiths and simple adventurers turning the Caucasus (more or less) into the “Silicon Valley” of its day. 

 

Once I'd got the worm in my head, I needed to find more information on climate, vegetation and such. Fortunately, I was able to find maps showing the earth ate different periods -including a couple for the Bronze Age and for the different patterns of climate conditions at that time, including the vast network of waterways across the grasslands and savannahs of what is now desert, and where they linked to the Mediterranean through the pillars or stelae of Heracles in the Gulf of Gabes in Tunisia. 

 

Of course, most of these changes are due to climate change after the Younger Dryas, previous to which we know nothing about the steps towards civilisation, though there are rock paintings in Africa depicting lines of spearmen and archers in what appear to be battles that pre-date this period. We know that during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, to as recent as Alexander's conquests in the 330s BCE, water levels across West and Central Asia were something like 200 feet higher than today, probably due to higher water tables in the Himalayas due to melting ice.  

 

It doesn't really make any difference what caused the Younger Dryas. It is enough that it happened and had drastic effects on geography, climate and upon human activity, not just during it, but before and after too. We know from Göbekli Tepe and similar places that humanity, -at least in that region, was on the cusp of becoming a fully-fledged civilisation. How long had it taken them to reach the capability of building Göbekli Tepe, with its intricately detailed stone carving and astronomical precision, we will never know, but it certainly wasn't a case, as with us, of knowing “everything” before we start. These people were at the cutting edge, literally, of technology, mathematics, astronomy, science (and, shortly, lifestyle choices.) These were a people possibly at the same stage of development as the Natufian Culture in the Levant, -a semi-sedentary population that can be dated back to between 15 and 11,000 years ago (13-9,000 BCE) smack bang in the Younger Dryas, marking the half-way stage between a hunter-gatherer and an agricultural society.  

 

Göbekli Tepe in Turkey

What strikes me about this semi-sedentary culture is that it gives the tribe or clan or whatever not just the time to embellish possessions, work on ideas or skills, or even dream, it gives somewhere for them to do it. For perhaps the first time, these people had somewhere to do it! Not the vast range of the hunter-gatherer, but “territory.” Something to be defended. Something that could turn tribes into peoples or nations. 

 

This development of “territory”, perhaps with a newly found sense of propriety came at a time when the climate had undergone the Younger Dryas and one of those cyclic shifts in the Monsoon systems that probably caused the high-water tables in Asia too. These must have sparked off wave after wave of human migrations as some lands deteriorated whilst others improved. This period lasted from around 9,000BCE to 3,000BCE –the Holocene era to the start of the Bronze Age and marks just about the limit of how far back we can hope to find evidence of, if not “civilisation,” or even urban living, then of more or less sedentary populations –sort of proto-societies or civilisations.  

These migrations perhaps inevitably run into the sedentary peoples fairly well settled into their more static lifestyle, so they resent being expected to move off their own turf. It causes conflict and that causes war. We see it throughout known history and on every continent, the Sumerians, Sea Peoples, Israelites, Huns and Mongols, so I don’t suppose pre- history would have been any different beyond, possibly, weapons and numbers. 

I can almost see some tribal elder warrior or priest, sat in the place of honour at the fire, the rest of the tribe watching in silent awe as he touches the object across his knees. “THIS!” He cries, raising it above his head, “Is the ULTIMATE WEAPON. It will revolutionise warfare from this day on. I call it 'The Composite Bow!'” Sadly, the idea is not mine, but of the great Sci-Fi author, Harry Harrison in one of his wonderful short stories, but it doesn't stop me imagining the scene. 

History or Fantasy 

Anyway. This thought brings on the next. Would pre-historic games be classed as ‘historic’ or as ‘fantasy’ as they cannot be real? Can they? Why not? They are about as real as any form of game that isn't a direct simulation of an actual battle, and, because we have so little in the way of materials to begin with in terms of available weaponry, clothing (if any) armour and materials – wood, bone, stone/ obsidian, leather/hide, resins and greases, copper, bronze and eventually iron, the armaments available  to the total population of the Holocene are very limited. It's all they had, but it is wrong for us to look at the period as being homogenous, with the lumps of technology evenly distributed throughout like fruit in a steamed pudding (unless it's one of mine.) Again, probably inevitably, some of those early tribes, clans, call them what you will – most likely among the more static ones, though not necessarily- started exploring the possibilities of copper, silver, tin, gold first as decorative items, then as copper or brass for tools and even later still, iron-again as jewellery first. By this time, mankind really knew their resources and stone tool making was pretty much perfected, the burnt stick was passé -long since but the spear would still be, as it was far, far later, the main weapon for serious in-fighting, with the bow or sling used for ranged fire.  

We need to note here that whilst in our historic games, all our ancient armies appear to fight at pretty much the optimum level, whether they be Egyptian, Sumerian, Minoan, Greek. Regardless of whether two armies were ever within a couple of hundred years of each other may often be doubtful, but hey, that's history! What I'm getting at is that Stone, Copper, Bronze and Iron ages aren't separate periods. They overlap and interweave. You could say that the Stone Age is still going on when you look at the San and some South American peoples and even until well into the Middle Ages, in Europe, flint arrow heads were still being used at times because they were so much easier to replace than iron.   

Because the Bronze Age didn't start everywhere at once, but crawled from Mesopotamia or Armenia around the Old World, “technology” varied widely, depending perhaps on trade or availability of ores and wood, it was quite likely that one side in a conflict would seriously out "gun" the other in some respects, yet things like copper or bronze spearheads would still be attached to shafts as if they were of stone or bone.

We need to remember that urban -well, village- society was in its infancy and that whilst humanity had learned an awful lot down the ages, advancement had been, and still was, painfully slow. Still, these people were the giants upon which our World was built. They were every bit as intelligent as we modern people, it was information they lacked, and knowledge. Because of this slow but steady rise, we know that the sedentary tribes would have changed very little over long periods of time in terms of appearance, though perhaps philosophies and language changed faster as would language, culture and even genetic make-up in cases involving the displaced or naturally nomadic hunter-gatherers.  

This slow development would lead to say, a Minoan warrior from the Stone Age appearing essentially the same as one from that of Bronze, perhaps with the boar tusk helmet being replaced by a bronze one in similar style or a bronze axe instead of flint or obsidian, but still the same leather or fur “kilt" and ubiquitous “stick" the spear. The rule is fairly simple, - the further back from the image in rock or wall art or urns a warrior belongs, the simpler and to some extent individual their gear and dress would be.  That isn't necessarily the case with warriors from different cultures who may possibly have been at opposite ends of the Bronze Age.   We need only look as far as Egyptian art to see how long a society could exist with only very little change to physical appearances. 

So, were Stone Age cities and nations – Civilisations- possible? We've only to look at Egypt, Sumeria, the builders of the megalithic temples or tombs in Malta, or Skara-Brae or the marvels of Mesoamerica to understand that it is entirely possible, but can we say the same of a culture that never built in stone, who built in wood, mud- brick or wattle and daub, or, heaven forbid, were nomadic? I suppose the answer to that is more philosophical and dependent on any idea you hold on Capitalised “Civilisation” than anything else. Is Civilisation just fancy buildings and art or are the buildings unimportant?  

Personally, I think the outward trappings of “Civilisation” were more of a way to express the mental growth experienced by so many isolated cultures. They were aids to science, maths and astronomy, perhaps in the guise of religion or myth that allowed “tech” to flourish. Culture is, I feel, a more apt word for those people who developed or continued in more mobile societies. We tend to frown upon these societies, regarding them as “primitive,” particularly those that never developed some form of writing –though our understanding of what may be considered as such is currently changing, with discoveries at Golbeki-Tepe and similar sites pushing our view of early writing systems further and further back into the past. If we look at the Australian Aborigine, the European or African cave painters, they left plenty of pictorial records –but not in a form that we can call “words.”  

We tend to under-rate “oral” culture even more –after all, they are just “stories” aren’t they. In some respects, an oral culture is superior to a literate one. Memories tend to be better to start with. Oral records can also be better than those written down for one prime reason –they have to be. Stories that have been handed down through countless generations in oral cultures do NOT change. They are handed down from one storyteller, shaman, priest or elder to the next generation EXACTLY. There can BE no change, often not even changes to intonation, because that alters meaning and understanding. The tales are learned verbatim. We are just now beginning to understand the importance of these “myths” or “stories” as they are a vehicle to transport us right back to the beginnings of society.  

In a literate culture, the “story” is a completely different beast. Because it need not be passed down verbatim, it is possible to have more than one version of the story on the go simultaneously, each person is capable of “putting their own spin” on events and it is in this that danger lies –purely because a story has been written down, completely against academic thinking, it becomes less reliable. It no longer relies on memory but on the teller, what they WANT to put across, not what they NEED to. There becomes a distinction between” truth” or “History” and fiction and often it is intentionally made practically impossible to tell which is which. The huge disadvantage of oral cultures though, is their fragility, the ease with which they can be disrupted or destroyed, either by accident or intent. There must be some sort of meaning loss over millennia in an oral culture purely through those changes in language inevitable over time (OMG!!), but it is when one culture takes over another and the whole language changes that these cultures and their heroes become lost. This is true to such an extent that language has been and still is, used as a weapon, forcing one culture to conform to that of another by banning native speech, native style clothing and such.  

An example of this everyone knows of is King Arthur. He was (perhaps?) a British (not “Welsh”) war leader. The locals, however, had an oral/bardic culture and any written references to him were in either Greek or Latin. Once the Anglo-Saxons arrive, the main cultural aim switches from Celtic/British to Germanic/Englisc/Latin. There is no desire or interest in this no longer relevant war leader, so he is forgotten (or forbidden) and his deeds fade into myth. In a way, the worst part of it is that an academic will most likely say that he was never real or there would be more records. (LOL) It has often been said that the main reason why archaeologists or historians have never found this, that or the other is that they have never bothered to look! 

Greek Colonies to 500BCE. click on image to open.