Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Reading, Research, and Rumination





I am not a subscriber to The New York Times. However, on occasion, I will pick up a copy after completing my early morning perambulation. This infrequent purchase depends on what draws my eye as I peruse the sections of the paper while standing in front of the display rack. As luck would have it, the October 31 edition contained, among dozens of other articles on a wide variety of events (obviously), two pieces that applied to my fairly long-standing interest in matters pertaining to ancient history. The lead story, under the ‘International’ label, was titled “Virulent Plague Might Have Obliterated Stone-Age Scandinavia.” This piece was based on an article that appeared in the July issue of the journal Nature. I do not subscribe to this publication either. Having recently been through a pandemic, like billions of others, and as I am currently living with the short, medium, as well as long-term effects and impacts of that crisis - again, like billions of others - this was a difficult but interesting as well as relatable read. I went online to search for more information and discovered, unsurprisingly, that similar scientific evidence and papers about this topic have been published before. Beneath this summary report about the “Neolithic decline,” a second article attracted more of my attention. Being a student of ancient military history as well as an ancients wargamer with around 12 years or so of cumulative experience, the piece titled “Shred of Tunic at Greek Tomb In Dispute: Was It Alexander’s?,” was more interesting and more applicable or relevant to my range of interests in this broad period of history. (The generally accepted range is 3000 BC to 1500 AD, though there are different camps or schools of thought on this topic.) It was also, thankfully, not at all a triggering read. Even though I have been comparatively quiet on the Society of Ancients forums for some time, I thought I might copy and paste the links to these news items into a brief message and post it to the discussion board dedicated to ‘Ancient and Medieval History.’ A quick search of the recent activity on this sub-forum suggested that neither of these topics had been shared. Unfortunately, my impromptu plan was foiled by a “subscribe now” window, which sprang into place and prevented interested parties from reading the complete online version of the information discovered by happy accident yesterday morning. Weighing this loss against the wealth of material already posted to this particular discussion board and figuring that one or more of the accomplished, active as well as erudite members of this long-running and august society would likely find and post one or both items in full, I accepted this minor defeat, and proceeded to trim the torn out page of newsprint, cut the two articles apart, fold each neatly, and then put them in a reference folder which was, in turn, placed in a storage bin. Whether or not these articles and their information will be of future use remains an open question. 

_____________________________


Memory is an interesting thing. Suffering cats, my former high school English teacher would probably roll her experienced eyes at that kind of sentence. Some readers may puzzle over the choice of interjection as well. Let me start again. Memory is an amazing and interesting faculty. There, that’s a little better, even if I do say so myself. I have not read very much about the neuroscience of it, but the few articles and books I have managed to wade through have left me mentally breathless as well as more appreciative about how the human mind - and especially memory - works. For example, one day last week, I suddenly recalled that there was a wargaming scene in the movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Or at least I was convinced that there was. It turns out that I, or my memory, was correct. There is a You Tube clip, approximately a minute in length, which shows two minor characters in this 1968 film playing at war with what I am guessing are some version of the well known Britains. The models or miniatures deployed on the floor of the quaint English house appear to be made of wood, not metal. They are painted; they are flats (designed to show the left and right sides of the figure as opposed to the front and back), and appear to be somewhere around 30 centimeters/12 inches in height. This very short sequence of two adult men (actors) playing at war with toy soldiers reminded me of the photograph found at the top of page 55 in Henry Hyde’s THE WARGAMING COMPENDIUM. The historical picture was taken from the January 1913 issue of the London Illustrated Gazette. Anyway, this sudden and random memory got me to thinking. I wondered if this scene might be the first example or evidence of wargaming in modern cinema? To be certain, I am using or proposing a very broad definition of wargaming, but even so, I did wonder. In the very short scene from the film, the two gentlemen, sorry, actors (they were pretending to be veterans of a shared military service), do not use any obvious or familiar rules. Instead, they engage in verbal exchanges of what’s happening on their terrain-free “battlefield,” with the occasional book - wait, what?! - or similar household item thrown to inflict damage. Anyway. This line of thinking led me to recall the earlier film “Cleopatra,” featuring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Although I would argue that it cannot really be called wargaming, I believe there may be something relatable or relevant in the scene where Cleopatra, along with Roman and allied generals as well as servants, are standing around a large table that is populated by miniature models of ships. As the Hollywood interpretation of this battle unfolds, the condition of the opposing navies are updated on this model tabletop. (Just imagine a modern wargaming show or convention where a group put on a demonstration of an ancient naval battle and during the course of talking with interested bystanders, set fire to their model ships!) 


To be certain, wondering about the coverage or representation of the hobby through the medium of film or television is not original. A brief look at TMP informed that this question had been asked and answered on two previous occasions. The first exchange was initiated in May of 2010. (For those readers who may be interested, please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=198693.) The second exchange or update on this particular topic took place in March of 2019. (Please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=503804.) On a related note, I seem to recall that there was a dedicated program (produced by the BBC, naturally) which covered or promoted the hobby of historical miniature wargaming. The program name and when it was broadcast escapes me. My guess is at some point during the 1970s. However, I do believe that Peter Gilder was one of the principals behind or involved in the limited project. Further rummaging around in the massive “junk drawer” of the internet turned up more than several results regarding the 2020 film, “Miniature Wargaming: The Movie.” I discovered this ‘passion project’ through one of the gentleman from Little Wars TV. His review of the effort, if I recall correctly, was lukewarm. He seemed more disappointed at a missed opportunity than anything else. It might be suggested that the niche market movie earned two or two-and-a-half stars out of a possible four.  


Personally, I find human memory to be a very interesting and complex topic. I really should read more about it. The goal would not only be to expand my basic knowledge of how it works and perhaps even improve my own memory, but also find out, perhaps, why it is that I can suddenly recall the wargaming scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” - a film I have neither watched nor thought about in decades - but why I am not able to, even if offered a thousand dollars or threatened with a mild electrical shock, name and or describe what I had for dinner last Thursday evening. 

_____________________________


The accomplished, prolific, and respected academic Adrian Goldsworthy provides the ancients wargamer interested in refighting the 57 BC contest of The Sambre with a wealth of information (including a couple of maps) on pages 244-250 of his well-reviewed 2006 book, CAESAR - Life of a Colossus. As is often the unintentional case, after randomly rereading these pages, I began considering ways in which I could approach this subject as a possible wargaming or just as a writing project. To be sure, this source was reinforced by a number of others. Anyway, for some reason(s), I found myself drawn to and then rather occupied with the idea of a Battle Day Anniversary. 


In 2005, for the second Battle Day gathering hosted by The Society of Ancients, Caesar’s near catastrophe against a confederacy of Belgic Gauls was selected for reconstruction on a number of tabletops and with a number of rulesets. According to the coverage provided in successive issues of Slingshot (241, 242 and 243), this sequel to the premiere Battle Day was deemed a success. Evidently, there were nearly 60 people present, and nine rulebooks were employed to stage, by my count, 13 refights of the historical engagement. Mid April of next year will mark the 20th anniversary of this particular Battle Day. My guess is that it will not be marked on anyone’s calendar or calendar app. My amateur actuarial estimation is that a small percentage of the almost 60 attendees are, unfortunately, no longer with us. Then again, perhaps a handful of those who were there will take a few moments and reminisce about their participation. Given the passage of time, and given the production of new sets of rules as well as new scales and types of wargaming figures, I think there should be some serious consideration given to establishing a 20th or 25th anniversary of either all of the previous or just a select few Battle Day events. 


Looking over the rules poll/survey posted by ‘Imperial Dave’ (aka Dave Hollin, aka his Editorship, and soon to be honored (deified?) as a modern day Roman proconsul or Eastern Potentate as a result of his dedication to The Society and Slingshot), I cannot help but wonder what The Sambre would look like and how it would play if the following sets of rules were used: To The Strongest!, Comitatus, Commands and Colors, FoG (Field of Glory), Hail Caesar, Impetus, Tactica II, Morten et Gloriam, Scutarii, Sword and Spear, SPQR, and Strength and Honour. By my count, this informal list adds up to an even dozen rulebooks. If a third of these permitted two games to be staged on the hypothetical day and there were five or six participants for each refight, then the success achieved by the original 2005 Battle Day could be easily matched if not easily surpassed. Finding this idea rather appealing, I seriously considered preparing and playing to completion a mini-Battle Day of The Sambre. As to the number of games and sets of rules, there would be three. First, I would try Simon Miller’s no need for dice or rulers To The Strongest! The second reconstruction would see Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II rules being used. The ‘match game’ would be played with Triumph! That’s another rulebook that can be added to the above list. To reiterate, and understanding that I represent a completely minority if not fringe opinion, I think a 20th or 25th anniversary of Battle Day Sambre would be educational, entertaining, and an excellent experience overall.  


Coincidentally, as I day dreamt about the possibility of arranging a 20th or 25th anniversary of a particular Battle Day, I took the time to “attend” Big Lee’s talk about Gatekeepers. (Please see his video post of 20 October: Gatekeepers can grow the hobby.)

I found myself both distracted by as well as interested in this 10-minute presentation. As of the early morning of 02 November, I have watched it three times. On the second and third viewings, notes were typed, which sometimes required me to pause Big Lee, so that I could finish either a basic transcription or record my own comments and thoughts about what was being said. Anyway, while I maintain that a Battle Day Anniversary is a good idea, it seems that the Veteran and or Purist Gatekeepers, as defined by Big Lee, might block this suggestion. As I understood the informal lecture, Veteran Gatekeepers are usually resistant to new developments (i.e., ideas) and or change, while Purist Gatekeepers are adherents to certain ways of doing things. It seems a fine distinction to make, but I guess I can see their respective points. I do not dispute that The Sambre has already been selected as the historical battle for The Society’s signature annual event. I would simply offer that if it worked so well in 2005, I should think that it would work even better in 2025 or 2030. To adopt one of the other points made by Big Lee in his presentation, a Battle Day Anniversary would be an opportunity to invite newcomers to this kind of gathering. It would also serve as a second chance for further study and would allow those who were too young or otherwise occupied to assume the roles of either Caesar, Labienus, a legate/tribune, Boduognatus, or one of his allied kings/chieftains. 

_____________________________


After an embarrassing as well as frustrating number of attempts to get something decent down on electronic paper - which is apparently part of my “process” - I managed to produce some 5,000 words for a post tentatively titled: “Embedded with the Eighth and Eleventh: Tinkering with Tactica II, Refighting a Sector of the Sambre.” Unfortunately, and to my further consternation, the “writing wheels came off” as I struggled with the ‘Comments & Critique’ section. Rather than consign this attempt (draft number 15, I think) to the scrap heap, I decided to salvage what I could in the hopes of providing at least a summary of this thwarted effort. The new plan was to limit the narrative or report to less than 1,000 words.


As indicated by the partially alliterative and perhaps overly long title, I was using modified Tactica II rules to refight just a third of the Sambre. In brief, the tinkering was focused on reducing the figure base dimensions provided as well as how the cohorts of a Marian legion were modeled. On this specific point, I referenced and relied quite a bit on the information found in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, also written by Adrian Goldsworthy. In terms of numbers, the Roman legions contained 240 and 249 figures respectively. This strength represented 7,824 heavy infantry according to my “established” or “work in progress” scale, and added up to a value of 3,912 points under the rules. The Viromandui or Veromandui were depicted with 14 warbands, organized into 3 divisional commands, which were led by an anonymous king. These warbands contained 580 figures, so there were 9,280 Viromandui present for battle. In terms of points, this contingent was valued at 3,802.


As this project was really more of an experiment than a wargame, the terrain and the troops were simple, functional, and inexpensive. As a result of this non-traditional approach, they were less than visually appealing. (For context, consideration, and comparison, I have included a couple of pictures and captions at the end of this section. Referencing Big Lee’s short video post about Gatekeepers, it seems fairly safe to remark that the several identified types of these self-appointed individuals would likely find a lot of negative things to say about my treatment of Caesar’s center at the Sambre. Then again, perhaps they would voice their opinions by not making any comments.) As part of the experiment, I did spend some time estimating what the cost might be for a Marian legion modeled with traditional 28mm miniatures, for a legion depicted with 28mm or 18mm figurines secured from WoFun, and then with 6mm figures purchased from Baccus. The final price tag will vary of course, depending on one’s preference, talent, and amount of discretionary income available. Obviously, refighting the whole of the Sambre is going to be more expensive than fighting just a fraction of it. My approximate estimate for eight Tactica II Roman Marian legions in 25/28mm scale, painted and based to acceptable wargaming standards, was 4,000 dollars US. This projected cost does not include estimates for any auxiliary troops, terrain materials, or the miniatures required to represent the three tribes of Belgic Gauls.


With regard to special rules for this scenario or again, experiment, there were just two. First, each Roman cohort had to pass a Control Test in order to reorganize and reform itself. (Studying the chapters of Caesar’s narrative account in addition to the analysis of modern scholars, it seemed reasonable to categorize the Romans as unprepared for action, at least at the start of the historical contest.) Second, all melees would see the Romans benefit from an uphill or upslope advantage. 


The resulting “wargame” was a simple, straightforward, and rather bloody affair. A vast majority of the Roman cohorts were able to reform and prepare for action before the wave of barbarian warriors surged against their segmented line. The initial volleys of pila did not do much damage, but the short swords and shields certainly did. The additional weight of second line cohorts joining the general melee helped the Roman cause while hurting that of the Viromandui. Given the number and depth of the warbands, and given the confines of the “model” battlefield, the Viromandui were not able to gain a flank or use their greater numbers to effect. Like most Tactica II melees between powerful opposing units, the close combat raged for a number of turns and saw lots of six-sided dice being thrown. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, the power of the Viromandui attack was held, cut into smaller pieces, and then thrown back towards the river. Of the 14 warbands present, eight had been destroyed as fighting units and two of the surviving group were disordered. The Romans, as might be expected, had been bloodied. They had lost one cohort from the Eleventh. Four other cohorts, two from each legion, were dangerously close to being broken. Light to moderate casualties were inflicted on several other cohorts. 


Reviewing the findings of this experiment, it seems safe to remark that it was a qualified success. Despite the complete lack of traditional terrain and figures, a historical result was achieved, though not exactly as described by Caesar. The rule adjustments seemed to work quite well, but this is an admittedly subjective assessment. Further experiments and study is needed before a well-supported conclusion can be reached and these findings put into a possible future article or post and shared with the larger wargaming community. 



From the Viromandui right/Roman left, looking across the simple battlefield. Constrained by the hedges, the barbarians are only able to position roughly half of their strength in the fight. Initially, the Roman cohorts are outnumbered, but pila volleys, training, and the arrival of other cohorts helped contain and control the situation. Again, the functional nature of the tabletop or laboratory work surface is very much in evidence, as are the assorted play aids, including the open rulebook in the upper left. 




From just behind and above the approximate Roman center, where two cohorts have formed up just in time to receive the powerful charge of the bodyguard unit of the Viromandui leader. The design and information of the involved units can be easily seen; the additional stands denoting various leader types are evident, and there is an “Impetus” marker visible as well. This melee advantage has not helped all that much as evidenced by the red marks: each cohort has taken a single loss, while the veteran warriors have lost 10 “figures” so far. 

_____________________________


The value and necessity of diversity was mentioned a number of times during the Gatekeepers video blog posted on October 20. I do not disagree with the well known, prolific, and respected gentleman’s viewpoint. In fact, this particular video post has, unexpectedly but also appreciatively, given me quite a few things to think about as I complete the switch-out of seasonal wardrobe, turn back the clocks, and start making lists and checking them twice for the too rapidly approaching season. (I understand that holiday music will be playing on certain radio stations soon. Some may have already started. On an early morning walk, I was not all that surprised but admit to being a little disappointed when I saw that one house in the neighborhood had set up quite a few Christmas decorations. This walk took place on Saturday, 02 November. Anyway.)  


In the course of reading and researching for one of my failed-to-get-anywhere drafts, I noted an observation made by one of the luminaries who had been present at the 2005 Battle Day event. This gentleman reported that he “looked at all the other wargamers as they arrived.” He did not catalog them exactly, but did observe that there were: “Short ones, tall ones, young and old, bald or hairy, one or two unhealthy looking specimens to be sure, but mostly just normal looking blokes. With one exception to prove the rule, we are all male. To outsiders we are all anoraks, but who cares?” Given the passage of time and the accuracy of actuarial tables, it seems logical if a bit cold but also unfortunate to conclude that some of the old ones as well as the unhealthy looking specimens are likely no longer with us. It also seems that this hobby may have more than its fair share of unhealthy specimens, given its essentially sedentary nature: hours of sitting, priming, painting, and basing, or in front of a monitor while fingers “fly” across the keyboard producing the latest blog post or writing an article for this or that publication. 


I was not at Battle Day 2024 (Ilipa, 206 BC), and will not be at Battle Day 2025 (Maldon, 991 AD). I suppose I could dream about attending Battle Day 2026 (as yet to be determined and announced), but that notion seems unrealistic. My guess is that the observation regarding the diversity of the attendees in 2005 could be applied directly to those fortunate enough to have participated in 2024, and to those few, those lucky few, who will be in attendance next April or May. As impromptu reinforcement of this assertion regarding an observation, I took a look at the Partizan pictures included in the July 2023 issue of WARGAMES illustrated®. To be sure, there were many spectacular photographs of the wide variety of games on display. The six snapshots which showed attendees seemed to offer visual confirmation of the above description. From this year-old publication, I moved on to watch a more recent video report of a refight of Acre (1189 AD) by the popular and prolific lads at Little Wars TV, courtesy of a link provided in a Society of Ancients sub-forum. Striving to be curious as opposed to judgmental - a problem that Gatekeepers do not appear to worry about very often if at all - I wondered or worried about the accuracy or accepted definition of “a broad and diverse collective” when it came to describing the wargaming community. Returning to the internet for more information and possibly some answers, I found several links that may or may not be useful when readers and other interested individuals consider the intertwined issues of Gatekeepers and diversity. Please see: https://wavellroom.com/2021/01/15/wargaming-has-a-diversity-problem/; https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/the-wargamer-diversity-in-wargaming/; https://nerdist.com/article/how-and-why-miniature-wargame-companies-are-choosing-to-embrace-diversity/, and https://25.wargaming.com/come-as-you-are-celebrating-diversity-and-unity-in-the-world-of-wargaming/.


There can be no debate: I am neither as connected nor as dedicated as Big Lee. I did not attend Partizan 2024; I did not read that issue of WSS wherein the op/ed piece about “the cult of negativity” was published, and I do not belong to a club. (Full disclosure: I never have belonged to a wargaming club or group.) I am quite sure that our introduction to and development within the hobby are fairly or significantly different. That much admitted, we can still call ourselves wargamers. We can still call ourselves students of military history. We are, then, members of the same, large community. The comparison of the hobby to a city was well done. The natural division of “tribes” of wargamers with specific or varied but related interests into neighborhoods was also rather neatly explained. However, I confess that I struggled a bit with the surrounding wall and the numerous gates interrupting that figurative and presumably defensive or protective barrier. If the overall goals of this hobby community are invitation, inclusion, growth, and building on or from the natural tension resulting from the “conflict” or competing values of different tribes/neighborhoods, then why have a wall and a fair number of gates in the first place? Walls and gates, or Gatekeepers, seem the direct opposite of invitation and inclusion. (To continue the community as city analogy, I picture the neighborhood where solo wargamers live as being one with a lot of tall but well kept fences enclosing nicely manicured yards. I think their houses would be of moderate size and made mostly of brick. This particular neighborhood would probably be voted the quietest in the city for 20 or 30 years running. Then again, solo wargamers might prefer to be removed of the hustle and bustle of the city, perhaps living on 50-100 acre plots of rural land. In addition to a simple brick ranch style house, there might be a bunker or shelter of some sort, a fresh water well, perhaps a generator, and a perimeter fence - most likely constructed with barbwire.) 


Returning to the current or apparently ongoing issue of Gatekeepers, I wonder, given their self-appointed status, if it would be possible to just ignore them? Also, I wonder if it might be feasible to eliminate the gates - however those are ultimately defined and or accepted. What about forming an army of advisors, coaches, mentors or something similar to “combat” Gatekeepers? These certified or maybe even notarized individuals, hopefully a truly diverse collection of individuals and representative of the larger population, would be responsible for encouraging newcomers instead of controlling their exploration or worse, excluding them because they did not meet “standards” A, B, C, D or however many there are depending on the period, scale, type of Gatekeeper and other variables. 

_____________________________


Hoping to rid myself of a bothersome set-the-clocks-back “hangover,” I went on a brisk early morning walk. (The weather was crisp and fairly clear; the pace of the walk was not what could rightly be called brisk, but was sufficient enough to fall under the category of “moderate cardio.”) Unfortunately, the dull pain and slight pounding in my head had barely been wiped away by the slight autumn breeze before it was replaced by a random collection of ideas, tangents, and partially formed paragraphs having to do with how to draw this post to a close. This cacophony of jumbled thoughts was not helped by the audio coming from the front pocket of my hooded sweatshirt. In the interest of being more transparent, but not at all interested in turning this section into a forum for the debate and discussion of current affairs and politics - especially politics, the readers should know that I was listening to the 30 October episode of Pod Save The World. 


Throughout the rest of the morning and into the afternoon, I continued to struggle with crafting a good or at least acceptable conclusion to this post. My memory came to the rescue again, as it directed me to the blog of the respected and well known New Zealand (formerly of Japan) gentleman-wargamer Aaron Bell. I copied and pasted his entry dated July 4, 2023, thinking that this would be an excellent template, thinking that I might draft my own version of the “state of my wargaming nation.” Attractive as this option was, I decided not to risk sullying his well earned reputation or perhaps unintentionally damaging my own (seems a tad presumptuous on my part . . .) by offering some imitation of his excellent work. After mulling it over for another hour or so, the decision was made to simply recap/review what had been typed so far. In this process, I would try to be careful and limit any additional remarks, as I did not want to start a new line of discussion or thought.


The news items about the or a Stone-Age plague and the possibility of finding a piece of Alexander the Great’s tunic remain safely in their new storage place. The mention of dashing young general has not inspired any ideas for fielding a Macedonian army on my tabletop. The earlier scenarios covering Gaugamela have satisfied this particular appetite. For the foreseeable future, it appears that any further “discovery” of relevant or interesting ancient history material in the pages of The New York Times will also be the product of happenstance. 


Within this opening section, I made a brief mention about being “comparatively quiet” on the various sub-forums of The Society of Ancients. In his July 2023 post, the honorable gentleman admitted to “falling out of love” with this long-standing organization. I confess that I am not quite sure how I would describe the current state of my “relationship” with The Society. Based on my limited level of experience, at least when compared to some of the Silver Shields out there, and based on what I have read on a number of blogs, it seems fairly common for wargamers to go through “peaks and valleys” of engagement with and interest in the hobby. I have not dedicated a lot of resources trying to figure out exactly why my activity and productivity have decreased. (My last post was published on July 28. My last wargaming report post was made earlier in that month.) It may be a product of the complications, the various daily stresses, and the fewer in number small victories of Life, or it may be as simple as the change of seasons. In this part of the world, at this time of year, the fields are bare, the leaves will soon be completely off most trees, temperatures will continue to drop, and an amount of snow will eventually cover the ground. I have not read any accounts describing or reporting on the hibernation habits of historical wargamers, but it does appear that my level of engagement is currently dormant. (Coincidentally, recent check up reported that I had a resting heart rate of 50 beats per minute. However, I have not being eating a lot of salmon lately!)


Acknowledging the previous discussions on TMP, it might be interesting to attempt to find and catalog the instances when wargaming, and the members of its extended family, appeared in movies and on television. These examples would have to be classed as “general public” for lack of a better term, as contrasted to the purposeful instances such as the BBC program or the 2020 film about the hobby. I wonder, has there been a more recent project completed and offered for mass or niche market consumption? I also wonder if any demonstration or participation game has even been staged at a convention or show that featured those wooden soldiers or similar models featured in that short scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Given the advances in technology and the presumed reduction in cost, I wonder if, one day, we might see a reconstruction of the Sambre wherein quite large, but flat as well as painted models were used. Perhaps the Roman commander(s) might throw small models of pila, fabricated out of some soft material, so that errant volleys would not result in injury and subsequent litigation. 


Rereading Adrian Goldsworthy’s summary of the battle between the legions of Caesar and the massed warriors of Boduognatus was, as I believe I related above, unintentional.  Given my resulting and passing preoccupation with some kind of Battle Day Anniversary treatment of this engagement, I cannot help but wonder if I would have developed the same opinion for one of the other earlier Battle Day events. As I have recently looked at Gaugamela, this better known contest did not spark any similar impulse or interest. However, as it was the debut Battle Day hosted by The Society, perhaps it should be given due consideration? Then again, it seems that a sufficient chunk of time has passed for other historical battles to be reconsidered and refought. I think it would be interesting and worthwhile to see how the current crop of rulesets and the current generation of ancient wargamers handled Dorylaeum (1097 AD), Cynoscephalae (197 BC), Poitiers (1356 AD), Callinicum (531 AD), and Zama (202 BC). 


Thinking more about what Big Lee said in his video post of October 20, from what I can recall (there’s that memory question again), it seems that I have read more about Gatekeepers than I have had actual experience with these “self-appointed guardians.” Coincidentally, both occasions were the result of interactions with editors of publications catering to the hobby. In the first case, I would have to do more research to get all the details, but it concerned the submission of a wargame report to a well regarded magazine. In a message from the editor, I was told that he had decided to “punt” and publish my article. The problem - depending on one’s viewpoint or to which tribe one belonged - with my report was that it was about wargaming without traditional miniatures. Evidently and not surprisingly, the vast majority of the readership of this publication were traditional historical miniature wargamers. I have not been able to secure a full record of the reception or “fall out” of this editorial decision or more accurately, of my approach to wargaming, but I believe that I have what could be called a supportive comment or reaction somewhere. In this response there was evidence as well as apparent acceptance of the division between at least two tribes of wargamers. In the second case, a different editor informed me that I wrote too much, that I submitted too many articles. He was afraid of or concerned about the possibility that my material could possibly “dominate” the pages of the bimonthly journal under his current stewardship. This struck me as rather odd, as the publication depended on the efforts on unpaid contributors. To be completely honest, this action negatively impacted my relationship with the magazine. This ironic rejection no longer stings (time heals and all that), but it did leave me scratching my head for a while. From the perspective of a number of years, I suppose this run-in with a Gatekeeper could be viewed as a kind of blessing in disguise, as this unexpected development eventually led me to starting a blog, where I could be my own Gatekeeper. Looking back on both of these episodes, it seems reasonable if not necessary to categorize them as “very minor incidents” in the long sweep of the history of wargaming. There is evidence out there, somewhere, of the “punted” article, and the confusing rejection did not adversely impact the viability of the other publication. 


Returning to the start of this paragraph and expanding more on having read about instances of this kind of activity, on various discussion boards and across a wide variety of blogs, I have seen opinions stated and defended, I have seen discussions devolve into debate and then, on occasion, become contests of vituperation. The inability to hear the tone employed and interpret body language often makes it difficult to determine how what is being said is being communicated and so, engage civilly. The most recent example that comes to mind was when someone made a comment about the appearance of an individual sitting at a tabletop. The apparent attempt at humor was not received well by another person who was actually present at that same tabletop, who knew the details of the situation. Sufficed to say, there was an exchange. Things seem to have been  sorted, but one does wonder about the impression or impressions that were made. I relate this event as Big Lee mentioned both the positive and negative impacts of Social Media as well as the importance of the following the “golden rule” when it comes to commenting. Anyway, I continue to mull over whether or not I want to “jump through a certain number of hoops” so that I can read the original article that inspired Big Lee’s post. I should hope that I have gleaned enough information from repeated viewings and from taking more notes or correcting those previously typed that I can offer fairly informed remarks. Anyway, here is an update as of the afternoon of November 03: According to the most recent data, his October 20 video post has been viewed 638 times and has earned 94 thumbs up or likes. Thirty-five comments have been left, some of which were replied to, while others were left alone. The well known and prolific gentleman has posted two new videos since. If the reader is not aware of Big Lee, his site is definitely worth the investment of your valuable time.


What’s next? That was the big question or at least sub-heading which ended my June 13 post. (Please see “Miscellaneous Musings . . .” if interested.) I suppose I could ask the same question here. Perhaps, just to change things up very slightly, I should phrase it as, “Okay, what now?” 


I did not have an answer then, and I feel that I should apologize to the 24 followers (23 really, as one name is listed twice) because I don’t have one now. I certainly don’t have anything that would resemble an agenda of games to play or other projects to get done and posted before the end of the year. Excepting the recent and again, accidental interest in experimenting with and interpreting a section of the Sambre, my wargaming activity and engagement remains fallow instead fertile. If there is any change to this status, those much appreciated and mostly passive followers will be the second, third, fourth, and fifth, etc. to know.  

Sunday, July 28, 2024

A Cut Above and Below

Notes regarding Scythed Chariots





A little over three decades ago, in an article titled “The Scythed Chariot Under The Microscope,” a gentleman by the name of Darrell Smith offered readers a compilation of “descriptions from the best known conflicts in which scythed chariots were used and their performance was documented.” His research was published in Issue 163 of Slingshot. The comparatively short list contained eight entries, starting with Cunaxa (401 BC) and ending with Chaeronea (86 BC). 


Drawing inspiration from this educational and engaging September 1992 piece and finding myself rather preoccupied with scythed chariots as a result of recent experiments and experiences with refighting Gaugamela on a non-traditional tabletop, I thought I would revisit Darrell’s interesting work. Rather than focus on “the best known conflicts,” I thought I would open up the category to the less-than-well-known battles. I would include contests where scythed chariots were present, but were not otherwise mentioned in the contemporary or later ancient narratives. Additionally, I would format my “history” by starting with the most recent engagement or example. Instead of simply transcribing Darrell’s summary descriptions, I would try to limit myself to the provision of a link or links, so that readers interested in a particular battle or battles could launch their own investigation(s), if they were so inclined. For this first half of a two-part project (I imagine that there will be a third part, but I have no idea as of this typing, what I will do for the conclusion), some additional comments, remarks, or questions would be made or posed as I drafted this work-in-progress or rewritable reverse chronology. Thinking it would be appropriate, if perhaps bordering on the subjective, to provide a statement about the overall effectiveness of and or role played by these vehicles in the selected battle, I decided to include a “final word” as well.  


Towards a More Complete Record 

> Zela - 47 BC

Typing “scythed chariot wargames” or “wargaming with scythed chariots” into a commonly used search engine did not return a lot of useful results. This was a little disappointing but not completely unexpected. However, I did find this site: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.html. The collection of material was very interesting as well as useful. For ease of reference, I am transcribing the relevant sentences here: “They were also used by Mithridates’ son Pharances II at the Battle of Zela in 47 BC. Disconcerted at first, Caesar’s legionaries soon halted the attack with a barrage of missiles in what is the last reliable account of the scythed chariot in battle.” The source for this was Aulus Hirtius, On the Alexandrian War, LXXV.2. Zela was also mentioned in a discussion thread in a sub-forum on The Society of Ancients website. On 17 June of 2019, the late great Patrick Waterson opined that at Zela, “the scythed chariots were used as an anti-infantry weapon, but also enjoyed the support of considerable numbers of friendly cavalry.” Please also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zela_(47_BC).

Assessment: Scythed chariots were present and featured, but I am not sure if their role was a prominent one. They did not secure a victory; they did not greatly assist their side in this engagement. 


> Orchomenus - 85 BC

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orchomenus. This contest was one of the three cited by Patrick Waterson in the aforementioned discussion thread. As at Zela, the Roman forces were outnumbered with respect to the cavalry arm. The ancient narrative can be found in Plutarch’s Sulla, 26.

Assessment: Evidently, the scythed chariots were defeated by improvised field works and pila volleys. The surviving horse teams and vehicles wrought havoc on the supporting phalanx. This strikes me as strange, as I would have thought that an army containing a contingent of scythed chariots would have at least some training in how to deal with the vehicles if or when the battle plan “went sideways.” 


> Chaeronea - 86 BC

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(86_BC). While not usually regarded as a definitive source, the Wikipedia summary for this battle and the one taking place a year later, appear very similar - to me anyway. I imagine that a careful reading of the relevant sections of Sulla would address this concern and confusion. 

Assessment: Again, the scythed chariots (60 in number, according to Darrell’s list) are wrecked by concealed field fortifications or barriers, and apparently, the enemy phalanx is not so much disordered by the rampaging scythed chariots as it is dismembered in intense hand-to-hand fighting.


> Amnias - 89 BC

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Amnias#:~:text=The%20Battle%20of%20the%20River,Pontus%20was%20victorious. For a more engaging and wargamer-friendly treatment of this historical battle, see the excellent report by Richard Andrews in the May/June 2017 issue of Slingshot (Number 312). If I read this educational and entertaining material correctly, then it appears that the scythed chariots were not deployed in the front line, but were positioned as a kind of central reserve. 

Assessment: They were used effectively in the engagement, which helped to secure a win for the Pontic army. Interestingly, as mentioned above, it appears that these vehicles were used in a support role as opposed to a screening “initial wave” or “disordering attack” role. Graphic, if not nightmare-inducing evidence of their effectiveness was found in a 27 August of 2013 discussion thread contribution by Patrick Waterson, who provided an excerpt from Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 18. 


> Magnesia - 190 BC

I would think that this battle should be familiar - if only in name - to the vast majority of wargamers with an interest in the ancient period(s). Instead of suggesting a link to Wikipedia or other sites (do feel free to do your own search for “Magnesia wargame” or “battle of Magnesia” however), I will simply and strongly recommend Professor Philip Sabin’s LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. The accomplished academic provides his analysis of the existing ancient narratives and additional comments about this well known contest on pages 197-200. 

Assessment: The Seleucid scythed chariots were positioned on the left wing of the army of Antiochus, and were effectively as well as rather quickly countered and defeated by the cavalry and light troops under Eumenes, an ally of Rome. The subsequent rout of the scythed chariots essentially eliminated the entire Seleucid left wing and in so doing, exposed the center.  


> Apollonia - 220 BC

This is the name of the battle recorded on Darrell’s foundational list. Mention was made of a 220 BC engagement involving the “rebel satrap Molon” by Dr. Silvannen Gerrard in Episode 109 of THE ANCIENTS Podcast - Scythed Chariots, which aired on 14 July of 2021. (Dr. Gerrard was a professor at the University of Manchester at that time, and she holding forth with Tristan Hughes, the host of this excellent podcast.) According to Darrell, “the scythed chariots impact proved ineffective against the phalanx.” Unfortunately, Dr. Gerrard did not provide any additional details aside from mentioning an apparently important figure by the name of Molon. An internet search resulted in this find: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_apollonia.html#google_vignette. It appears that while the scythed chariots were indeed present, they did not feature strongly in a battle that was decided in a particular sector of the battlefield. 

Assessment: There is conflicting information, so I think I will have to categorize this battle as TBD, meaning “to be determined.” At the risk of “ruining the story” for the reader, based on what I have read, it seems fairly certain that the scythed chariots employed by Molon were not “battle deciders” on this occasion. 


> Elephant Victory - 273 BC

For this single example, I have elected to transcribe the summary provided by Darrell Smith. The gentleman wrote: “A Galatian army including eighty scythed chariots faced a Seleucid army with elephants. The Galatian chariots and cavalry were routed by light troops and elephants. The rest of the Galatian army was carried away when the fleeing troops and chariots broke through their ranks.” Acknowledging that I have opted to organize my “history” from most recent to earliest instead of in the usual progressive timeline manner, I still think it is interesting to note that Galatians are not included in Professor Sabin’s sentence at the top of page 26 of his excellent and thought-provoking book. The gentleman scholar explained: “However, we should certainly have a special subtype for the infamous scythed chariot, which was used sporadically by Persian, Seleucid and Pontic forces, with hardly any success.” A brief survey of my small collection of rulebooks informed that scythed chariot units could be a part of Late Achaemenid, Later Seleucid, Pontic, and Galatian armies. So, why were the Galatians left out of the mix? How did they come to have scythed chariots anyway? Did they win them in battle or steal them from an enemy depot under the noses of some sleepy guards? Were there any differences between the scythed chariots in the Galatian army of 273 BC and the ones deployed at Zela in 47 BC? What about when compared to earlier or original models? 

Assessment: At the risk of being called indecisive or noncommittal, this particular engagement is a bit challenging to categorize. It appears that the scythed chariots did not really have a chance to be deployed or launched against the enemy. It appears to be more of a case of horses being panicked by elephants (which is another topic entirely, and a worthy one at that), or maybe more of a case of troop types not being at all used to seeing elephants, of having to face elephants in a battle setting. I respectfully defer to others with more expertise and knowledge regarding this particular engagement. 


> Name to be Confirmed - 285 BC

During the engaging conversation between Tristan and Dr. Gerrard, the good professor mentioned something about a “run-up to Sehestica in 285 BC.” [The spelling provided in the automated transcript is very probably incorrect.] This engagement involved Demetrius, so I conducted a brief search for a translation of Plutarch. In The Life of Demetrius, 28.3, I believe that I found the relevant passage. One of the deployed armies contained 70,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry, and 75 elephants, while the other had a strength of 64,000 infantry, 10,500 horse, 400 elephants, and 120 chariots. Chapters 29 and 30 provide some details regarding the battle and its outcome, but there is nothing mentioned about scythed chariots. This is a bit frustrating, for as I explained at the beginning of this “essay,” I find myself rather preoccupied by these ancient contraptions of late. Anyway, please see Chapters 28-30 at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Demetrius*.html#48. 

Assessment: Given that there is no description of the participation of the scythed chariots in this to-be-identified battle, it seems justifiable to place it in the “they did not feature prominently in the engagement” column. The figurative file on this contest will remain open. I hope to find the time to do more digging; I hope that I will be able to recover better information. 


> Ipsus - 301 BC

It seems that a bit of an intermission might be in order here, so I will recommend to the reader (those hardy souls who have persevered to this point anyway) the following two links or sites. First, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ipsus. Second, and much more colorful as well as inspirational, there is https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Ipsus.

Assessment: Another source of frustration, unfortunately. Dr. Silvannen Gerrard comments, according to the transcript of the podcast, “We have no idea what they (the scythed chariots) were doing at the battle, whether they were even used, because our battle description isn’t very good.” She continues, “It’s only in Plutarch, and there are problems with it. And our traditional reconstructions of that battle don’t include scythed chariots.” In the introduction to this present project, I set out that I wanted to include battles at which scythed chariots were present, even if it appears that they did not play a very important role in the battle. The ancient source material does have scythed chariots present at Ipsus, so the battle is being included. As with other engagements, however, the lack of evidence and details suggest that these psychological weapons of war were not employed to great or any real effect. Again, I defer to those who might have more information.


> Gaugamela - 331 BC

It is my guess that this battle should be familiar to most every ancients wargamer. If not, then at the risk of self-promotion or of attempting to generate more traffic for my rather anemic solo wargaming blog, might I recommend taking a look at the numerous sources provided in Chapter 5 of the recent post titled Three Tours of “the Camel’s House”? If the invitation is declined, then might I recommend the following site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela. The material provided in https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.html is also quite good. 

Assessment: While the 2004 movie treatment of the life Alexander certainly paints a spectacular picture of what the field of Gaugamela might have looked like on that fateful day, and the potential of the scythed chariots is certainly driven home (no “clever” word play intended), the historical record is quite clear and does not favor King Darius III. His reported 200 scythed chariots were not effective in this contest of tactical acumen, wills, or of military styles. 


> Dascyleum - 399 BC

At the risk of stating the obvious, the farther back in history one goes, the more opportunity there is for a difference of opinion or for various interpretations to be made. For example, Darrell provided this Greek name and definitive date. His summary explains that a “foraging group of hoplite infantry was surprised by a small force of scythed chariots and Persian cavalry.” The battle did not go well for the heavy infantry. In his excellent 2009 Slingshot article, “Xenophon’s Chariot,” Jim Webster devoted a few paragraphs to this ancient contest of arms. The learned gentleman cited a passage from Hellenica iv 1.17, explaining that the isolated action took place within the campaign years of 396 and 394 BC. He further identified one Pharnabazus as the Persian satrap who knew what he was doing when it came to employing scythed chariots correctly on the battlefield. This action was also mentioned in the podcast featuring Dr. Gerrard. The professor dated the battle or encounter to 395 BC. 

Assessment: To quote Jim: “This is one of the few occasions where scythed chariots seem to have succeeded.” The respected member of The Society and prolific contributor to Slingshot continued, questioning the quality of this success. In the event, the defending infantry were not in a proper formation. Further, there is some doubt that the foraging troops were, in fact, hoplites. They may have been peltasts and consequently, not as resilient or solid when forming up into line. If I may add a remark or two as well. This situation seems like an outlier in the broader but still limited history of scythed chariots in battle. According to the ancient source material, there were only two of the vehicles present. Typically, battles would feature 60 or more of the vehicles. Reportedly, in some contests, both armies had scythed chariots. Anyway, as I read and reread the source material describing this battle, I could not help but think that it would probably make an excellent skirmish-level wargame. The chariots could be represented on a 1:1 basis, and the cavalry and infantry could be modeled on a 1:10 or even a 1:5 ratio. If the right rules could be found or developed by an individual or club, I think this would make an excellent and perhaps even award-winning participation game at a convention or show. 


> Cunaxa - 401 BC

Please see https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Cunaxa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa. Professor Philip Sabin also dissects this battle on pages 107-110 of his very-much-worth-your-while book. 

Assessment: According to Darrell’s summary description, “During the charge, most of the chariot drivers bailed out early, which resulted in their chariots careening all over the battlefield.” Professor Sabin remarks, and succinctly, “the scythed chariots proved typically ineffectual.” So, taking Magnesia, Gaugamela and this battle into account, it appears that large numbers of scythed chariots do not automatically lead to success. Admittedly, a simplification of the subject, but a point to be considered, I think. 


> Pteria - 547 BC

For whatever reason or reasons, this engagement was not included on Darrell’s original list. This is the name and date provided in an article written by Richard Lloyd (“The Dreaded Scythed Thing!” - September 1982 Slingshot) as well as in the compilation found on the internet. Again, please see https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.html. According to Richard, the scythed chariots “demolished the Lydian Cavalry left, and Egyptian Infantry centre, in an orgy of bloodshed, thus winning themselves a place in the Persian arsenal for ever after . . .” This interpretation is not reinforced by the online material, however. It appears that camels may have had more to do with the disordering and destruction of the Lydian cavalry. In the conversation between Tristan Hughes and Dr. Silvannen Gerrard, the professor gives a calendar date of 547 or 546 BC, but of more interest to me, she referred to the battle as Sardis, not Pteria. A third option with regard to a name or title was provided by Patrick Waterson. In a lively Society of Ancients sub-forum discussion between this gentleman (no longer with us, unfortunately) and Jim Webster, which took place in late February of 2017, Patrick referenced the battle of Thymbra. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thymbra.) While we can debate and discuss the name and year, I think we can, perhaps, all agree on the impact that the scythed chariots had when employed on this particular battlefield. 

Assessment: Turning again to the excellent article written by Richard Lloyd for assistance here, the gentleman stated: “In fact in five hundred years of use the only significant success of the weapon was when it was employed for the first time, by Cyrus against the Lydians at Pteria in 547 BC.” Including the word “significant” is key to this “argument.” What about the occasion when that pair of scythed chariots caught those foraging Greek infantry? What about the engagement at Amnias in 89BC? Should not these be categorized as successes as well? Adopting a different approach, looking at this from another perspective, is it reasonable to suggest that the Elephant Battle in 273 BC and Magnesia in 190 BC are also examples of what scythed chariots could do? 


Comments

Reviewing the entries in this work-in-progress and again, rewritable chronology, I counted 13 - a baker’s dozen. It appears quite clear that in 3 of these contests, scythed chariots played a pivotal role. These sums could be adjusted to 12 and 2, if the action involving Pharnabazus is judged to be an outlier due to the very small number of scythed chariots present and involved. If the original numbers are accepted, then simple division informs that scythed chariots were successful (I want to try and refrain from qualifying that word) about 23 percent of the time. If the second set of numbers are used, then that same application of basic math translates into a 16 percent rate of success. Very approximately then, it could be suggested that, when deployed on the tabletop, the side having miniature models of scythed chariots in their order of battle should be victorious in 1 out of every 5 attempts, in 1 out of every 5 wargames. 


Looking over the lists in my small collection of rulebooks, I noted again that there are just a handful of armies that I can arrange on a tabletop that could have scythed chariots in their ranks. Accepting that these several forces can engage in historical battle with a variety of opponents, would I be all that interested in spending the points on these vehicles or taking the time to build these models/units knowing that these scary-looking contraptions would likely cause me more problems than not, that this army was more likely to be defeated than emerge victorious in whatever the scenario it was that was being played?   

________________________________________



A General Assessment using the “Edwards Rubric”

In the September 1993 issue (Number 169) of Slingshot, in a short piece titled “Chaos out of Order: Scythed chariots and elephants in wargames,” a gentleman by the name of Stephen Edwards explained or proposed (argued seems too strong a term) the following: “on the ancient battlefield, scythed chariots had seven essential characteristics.” He lamented, based on his experience and observations however, that, “wargame rules generally fail to reproduce any of these.” Accepting that the following “essential characteristics” are approximately 30 years old, I still thought it might be interesting to see how my small collection of rulebooks scored in this narrow assessment. Following, please see the transcription of the original text. I have not made any grammar or spelling corrections from British English to American English. Instead of a proper formatting of footnotes, I have included Stephen’s additional material in brackets after the relevant characteristic. 


  1. They were always placed ahead of the main battleline to begin the engagement.
  2. They were always deployed at wide intervals, rather than in compact masses.
  3. Their purpose was not to destroy enemy units, but to break up their formation so that they became vulnerable to other troops behind the chariots.
  4. They could only launch one charge. [Footnote 1 - There is not a single historical instance of scythed chariots launching a second charge. Furthermore, no-one seems to have expected them to; at Magnesia (190 BC) “Antiochus placed scythed-bearing chariots in the space between the armies to begin the battle with orders to retire after the first onset” (Appian Syrian War VI 32)]
  5. There were ineffective unless charging at full speed. [Footnote 2 - “These chariots are most effective after they have been driven for some distance and have got up the impetus to break through a line; a short start makes them feeble and ineffectual” (Plutarch Sulla 18).]
  6. They could do little damage to light troops, but were very vulnerable to light troops themselves.
  7. If driven back they “considerably impair the order of the rest of the army, who are afraid of the scythes of their own side”. [Footnote 3 - Appian Syrian War VI 33.]



The rulebooks chosen for this examination were: Armati - 2nd Edition, Art de la Guerre (ADLG) - 3rd Edition, Hail Caesar, IMPETVS (2008 Edition), Tactica II, To The Strongest! (Version 1.1 and updates), and TRIUMPH!


A variety of different approaches to this survey and related assessment were attempted in a number of previous drafts. As per usual or because this is a part of my writing “process” apparently, none of them proved satisfactory. Taking a couple of days to rethink how this second part of the current project might be accomplished without boring the reader, overwhelming the reader, or inflicting undue levels of frustration, stress and worry on my aging person, I decided on a general rather than a very specific and “fine details” approach. I hope this “looser” or “more relaxed format” will become evident as the reader proceeds. I also hope that this choice will encourage if not generate other assessments, as I only have experience with around a quarter of the 28 sets of rules listed in a poll launched by Imperial Dave (aka Dave Hollin - now the sitting and very capable as well as competent Editor of Slingshot) on a Society of Ancients sub-forum in late December of 2019. As it has been five years, nearly six now, this catalog is very probably larger. 


Let me begin this subjective evaluation by suggesting a combination of the first two “essential characteristics” listed by Stephen. It seems reasonable that deployment and depiction should go together. That premise accepted, I could find no express rule in any of the books surveyed wherein the prospective player-general was instructed that he had to position any and all of his scythed chariot models, stands, or units forward of his main line of battle. Adhering to the second characteristic was also a bit challenging, as most of the rules considered did not have an approximate unit scale for scythed chariots. It seems that this issue or potential problem area (i.e., matching representative unit with ground scale) was addressed in the abstract. For example, in the Armati - 2nd Edition rules, Section 4.1.6 explained that, “Scythed Chariots were independent units; could move without assigning control points to them, and again, must operate separated from other units; i.e., there must be at least a fraction of an inch between its base and any friendly unit bases.” This “battlefield isolation” was repeated in both ADLG and IMPETVS, where scythed chariots were prohibited from forming groups with any other troop types. In other rulesets, it appeared that scythed chariots could be assigned to divisions or commands. If I understand the TRIUMPH! rules on this particular point, there is no need for a physical model of scythed chariots on the tabletop. The owning player-general simply has to “indicate or mark one or two stands of close order enemy foot” as targets/targeted formations. 


In the course of researching this idea (always enjoyable), I stumbled across an article by the Charles Grant. “The Chariot In The Wargame” appeared in the 1980 Memorial Issue of Slingshot (Number 92). [The piece was originally published in the November 1978 issue of Military Modeling.] In the section of this engaging article labeled “Representation and base size,” Mr. Grant did some math (or maths) with a set of current or popular rules in which 1 chariot model represented 8 actual vehicles and the ground scale was 1 inch to 10 paces, with a pace being the rough equivalent of 30 actual inches. Without transcribing most of the paragraph and incorporating the two explanatory diagrams, the suggestion of this well known and well regarded figure in the hobby was perhaps a closer approximation of the footprint occupied by a line of chariots, be they light, heavy, or scythed. This more realistic ground and model scale effect or impression would be achieved by increasing the width of the base or tray on which the model was mounted. In the example this well remembered gentleman provided, a chariot model on a 40mm wide stand was positioned on a base that had a tabletop frontage of 8 inches. This led me to wonder if a similar application or adjustment might be used with other sets of rules. For example, in the Armati - 2nd Edition rules, depending on the figure scale and Unit Size Scheme selected, chariot stands can have a frontage of: 40mm, 80mm, 60mm, or 120mm. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest or at least experiment with the idea of adjusting these frontages to the following measurements: 120mm, 240mm, 180mm, or 360mm. On a somewhat related note, recent email exchanges with the resident Tactica II advocate and expert Simon Watson have informed that there is a draft rule under consideration for deploying scythed chariot screens in the same way that elephant screens are deployed and used in these rules. This modification would certainly meet the “wide intervals” requirement spelled out in the Second Essential Characteristic. 


Given the historical accounts that we ancient wargamers have, and given the classification of scythed chariots (they are usually impetuous, expendable, or something similar), it seems unnecessary to remind player-generals that these contraptions should be positioned forward of cavalry and infantry in the main line. However, there is that notable exception of Amnias (89 BC) and the questions surrounding Ipsus (301 BC), so it would not be without historical precedent if some daring Pontic player-general opted to deploy his model scythed chariots in the second line or even as an army reserve. 


In stark contrast to the complete lack of direction about where to place scythed chariots on the tabletop, all of the rulebooks I looked at were in agreement about the purpose and use of scythed chariots. To conserve space and save me a little of the wear and tear associated with typing (that is another interesting albeit unrelated topic, the design and layout of the keyboard and how impractical it is), I will cite evidence from just 4 of the 7 rulesets under review.

 

Armati - 2nd Edition) From Section 4.1.6: “Scythed chariots were used to disrupt an opponent’s line prior to the melee contact of the opposing lines.” 


Hail Caesar) From the top of page 97: “These are the values used for the rather unusual Persian and later [sic] Seleucid scythed chariots driven directly at the enemy in the hope of scattering his ranks and sowing disorder.” 


Tactica II) From page 46, Section 10.6.3: “These were the ancient battlefield version of guided missiles, or perhaps, “fire and forget” missiles. Their purpose was to instill terror and wreck enemy formations.”


To The Strongest!) From page 23 of Version 1.1: “Scythed chariots were sturdily constructed terror weapons, festooned with blades and scythes.” 


Just as I combined Characteristics 1 and 2, it seems to me that one could justifiably combine Characteristics 4 and 5. Before I lose myself in the subjectivity of this part of my survey/assessment, however, I want to raise a possible flag regarding the “one charge limit.” Returning to the descriptions and interpretations of Pteria (Sardis or Thymbra) in 547/546 BC, it seems that scythed chariots attacked the wing of Lydian cavalry and then attacked the center of Egyptian infantry. If this was one fluid motion or connected action, then fine. But it appears to me that there might have been a progression or sequence to it. So there seems to have been another example of historical precedence at this inaugural appearance of the scythed chariot. Although the skirmish involving Pharnabazus could be or should be marked with an asterisk, it seems to me that the pair of scythed chariots on this small field probably executed a number of attacks/charges, as their enemy was foraging and then tried to reform. Anyway. 


In the seven rulebooks consulted, scythed chariots had varying degrees of potential to inflict damage on targeted enemy formations, but the one thing they all had in common was their vulnerability. In Armati, ADLG, and To The Strongest Rules!, scythed chariots have a single unit breakpoint or cohesion point. In the Hail Caesar and TRIUMPH! rules, they are removed after a single turn of melee. The Tactica II rules offer a variation on this theme. In the right column of page 46, under ‘Broken Scythed Chariots,’ it reads:

Because Scythed charioteers may have bailed out prior to contact (or perhaps 

contained few, if any, fighting crew) a Scythed Chariot unit is removed 

automatically at the conclusion of its first Massed unit Melee; this may take 

several turns. Thus, even if a Scythed Chariot unit wins its Melee and Breaks its 

opponent, it is removed immediately when that Melee is concluded. 


The relevant paragraph or sub-section in the IMPETVS rules was also interesting and curious. At the top of page 11, bullet point little C explained: “They are never Disordered and preserve their impetus bonus (7.4) even if they take losses . . . They are automatically destroyed immediately after the first turn of the melee if they do not eliminate the enemy.” Given the historical record, it seems unusual that scythed chariots would never become disordered, and if their target is eliminated, it appears that the victorious scythed chariots can carry on, are free to engage another enemy unit. 


With regard to the “ineffective unless charging at full speed” Characteristic, the scythed chariots in the TRIUMPH! rules can be ignored, as they are not modeled as a physical part of the deployed miniature army. (For additional information on how this troop type is treated in these rules, please see the appropriate entry or listing at https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/battleCard/summary.) In most of the other sets, a movement rate is given in either centimeters, inches, or boxes, and often these vehicles are compared to heavy cavalry in terms of wheeling ability and movement allowance. In my opinion, Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules earn top marks on this specific point, as on page 24, the description of the troop type contains the following: 


To charge successfully, scythed chariots needed to build up momentum. When 

charging two boxes, they may play a bonus to-hit card, as described under 

multiple to-hits, and thus may be able to require their target to make two saves. 

When they are charging only into an adjacent box, or striking back in response to 

a charge against them, they play only a single to-hit card. 


Using this procedure as a basis, it seems simple enough to craft a house rule for the other sets. Essentially, in order to secure impetus or the possibility of gaining impetus, a unit of scythed chariots would have to move half or more of its movement allowance. If it moves less than half or is charged by the enemy, then it loses any claim to impetus in the subsequent melee round. 


Based on my reading and review of the TRIUMPH! Battle Card, a player-general with scythed chariots does not have to worry at all about the attention or interference of enemy light troops. As reported above, the only enemy units that can be targeted or “marked” are close order infantry. (The evidence of Pteria and Magnesia excepted, perhaps.) Looking over the other rulebooks, I noted in To The Strongest! that, “They could be countered buy missile-armed light infantry, or by the target unit opening ranks to let them pass harmlessly through.” This second countermeasure is found in the information provided on page 104 of the Hail Caesar rules. Drilled infantry can open ranks on a roll of 4-6 with a d6. The scythed chariots are removed if this happens. Interestingly, Hail Caesar allows scythed chariots to attack phalanxes frontally, albeit without the usual charge bonus. Other rules, such as Armati - 2nd Edition, do not allow this to happen. In Section 7.5.1a of the Armati rules, “Scythed Chariots fight only with their Special FV (fighting value) against Skirmishers, Light Infantry, and Light-Heavy Infantry.” Furthermore, “Scythed Chariots lose their Charge Impetus against all opponents when also in Melee against enemy Light Troops.” Back over on the top of page 11 of the IMPETVS rules, it was found that, “They do not get their impetus bonus against Light Infantry. If they contact enemy Skirmishers they do not disperse them but pass through them, receive fire from Short range, and Disorder the Skirmishers.” Page 15 of the ADLG rules informs, “Unlike other units which have a melee factor of 0 in the first round against scythed chariots, LI (light infantry), LH (light horse), LMI (light-medium infantry), WWg (war wagons) and elephants retain their basic factor and their abilities against scythed chariots.”  


The historical examples of Thymbra (547 BC), of Magnesia (190 BC), and of those poor Galatian warriors in 273 BC graphically if not horrifically illustrate what can happen, what does happen when scythed chariots are routed, when their frightened teams of horses - one or two of the animals wounded perhaps - are turned around and gallop out of control into friendly ranks.


Armati and its cousin Tactica II, ADLG, Hail Caesar, in addition to IMPETVS, have fairly straight forward and universal rules for units that are broken and rout. There is no differentiation provided for scythed chariots. I think that Simon Miller is on to something very good (or very bad, if you happen to be the one commanding the scythed chariots) with the ‘Rampages’ procedure and associated paths provided on page 52 of his innovative and popular rules. Returning to ADLG and IMPETVS, I think it makes more sense or would be closer to historical accuracy, if the scythed chariots in these rules were treated to an adaption of the rules provided for ‘Elephant Rampage’ in the former book, and ‘Panicked Elephants after receiving fire’ in the latter set. Modifications to scythed chariots in IMPETVS would likely require an adjustment to parts of bullet point little C at the top of page 11 as well. Perhaps disordered scythed chariots could receive a partial impetus advantage or bonus? Based on what I have read, it seems that a disordered or frightened scythed chariot unit is more dangerous than one that is neither disordered nor frightened. Taking another look at Armati, Tactica II and Hail Caesar, increasing the rout path or “radius of potential damage” might be worth an experiment or two.  

________________________________________



Progress, Not Perfection . . . And Possibilities

Various pieces of what might be called ‘the scythed chariot historical puzzle’ were found in the earlier and excellent work done by a number of contributors to Slingshot. Additional pieces were discovered while searching the internet or listening to a podcast from July of 2021. A few more pieces were recovered in a key word/phrase search of The Society of Ancients discussion forums. I acknowledge and greatly appreciate the efforts of this collection of knowledgeable and experienced individuals: the authors, the wargamers, and the scholars. I believe I have made a fairly decent attempt at putting together this puzzle, or - if I may change the analogy - in building something from the materials that they so generously if unwittingly provided. However, I do not think the puzzle or structure is quite finished yet. As the label of this section suggests, there is more progress to be made. Perfection is not the goal. And, as I indicated in the text body of this “preoccupation” post, I invite - indeed I welcome - corrections and clarifications.  


As my survey of rulesets was limited to those I had in my collection, I would hope that this post generates additional reviews of how other rulebooks depict and handle scythed chariots on the tabletop. Here again, I invite and would very much welcome seeing additional amendments or modifications. Ideally, I would like to work toward some kind of scythed chariot consensus. 


Reviewing the historical record, there were a small number of engagements where scythed chariots were present. To the extent that it is possible for an individual or a group to refight these historical battles, how should the presence and or participation of those scythed chariots be handled? A demonstration would simply show interested onlookers and passersby what happened; the staging would mirror the available historical account(s). To be certain, this approach is educational and can also look very pretty, but it cannot be all that engaging or enjoyable, especially if you happen to be commanding the Galatians in 273 BC. If the refight is played as a wargame, then how is the balance between history, fun, and playability achieved as well as maintained? A similar set of questions could be asked it is just a friendly game on a club night or Saturday afternoon, and features 15mm or 28mm Late Achaemenids, Later Seleucids, Pontics, or Galatians on one side of the 4 by 6-foot or larger playing surface. The question or questions become a little more challenging to answer if ahistorical encounters are considered. I recall reading a line from a reply made by Patrick Waterson in a discussion thread, wherein the encyclopedic and prone to debate gentleman commented about the morale issue, about the difference between troops being trained to deal with scythed chariots and those who had not been so trained. To a certain extent, this binary can be seen in the historical record. However, let us say that the friendly game, employing whatever set of rules the two friends decide upon, features Later Seleucids and Carolingian Franks, or maybe Late Achaemenid Persians and Vikings. What would be the most agreeable and balanced way to depict and handle scythed chariots in these counterfactual examples?