Bibracte “Brainstorms”
Referring to the diagram of a Marian Legion in acies triplex [sic] on page 67 of the spiral-bound Tactica II rulebook as well as Section 1.2 (Figure Basing) on page 1, I built a simple model of this well known fighting formation. It was a 15mm scale mock-up, and the component cohorts were drawn up in two ranks or ‘deep,’ so that the tabletop footprint of this functional depiction that was completely lacking in any aesthetic value or tactile heft measured 28 centimeters (a little more than 11 inches) by approximately 27 centimeters (around 10.5 inches). The diagram recommended a distance of at least 4 inches or more (measured with the specific 15mm scale ruler) between the three lines of this proven in dozens of ancient battles formation. For this representation or abstraction of a deployed legion, I opted for 5 inches of space. This model legion did not have a double-strength “Eagle” cohort, so its total tabletop strength was 80 figurative miniatures. Looking over the ‘approximated scales’ in Section 1.1, it could be suggested (emphasis on the could), that this very simple model represented 4,800 men in 10 cohorts arranged in triplex acies, and had a rules frontage and depth of something like 165 yards by roughly 157 yards.
Setting aside the always challenging if not problematic or irreconcilable issues over ground scale and figure scale on the wargames tabletop (regardless of period), I turned to the Roman (Marian) army list on page L14, and decided that this legion would contain nothing but veterans carrying the usual combination of pila and swords. As such, the value of this formation added up to 640 points.
The army list for the opposition was found on the neighboring page. Employing (option B) for the basing of 15mm Warbands, it was noted that a unit with 48 figures arranged in four ranks of 12 would have a frontage of 12 centimeters and a depth of 6 centimeters. Three such Warbands were quickly fabricated and deployed in a line 12 inches away (using the modified ruler) from the frontline cohorts. The barbarian formation overlapped the Roman position by a few centimeters, but its depth was less than a quarter of that occupied by the legion.
Viewing this mass of imaginary Gallic warriors through the same set of lenses used when inspecting the Romans, it was determined that the combined Warbands had a footprint of 210 by 37 yards, and a combined strength of approximately 8,640, thus outnumbering the legionaries by 3,840. The weapons carried by these irregular troops varied, but they were classed as veteran fighters, just like the well trained and subject to severe discipline Roman soldiers. The combined point value of these warriors was 936, so almost 1.5 times the legionaries’ value. As a potential counterweight to the pila volley of the cohorts, the Warbands had the ‘impetus ability,’ which allowed them to deliver a pretty powerful punch in the first and maybe even second or third rounds of a melee phase. Per the rules, they also had a ‘depth advantage’ of a d6 for each rank more than the Romans, so two more six-sided dice per Warband in the eventual melee rounds of the planned ‘controlled experiment.’
To provide a little more context, the model Roman legion occupying only a small portion of my standard tabletop represented the Ninth which Caesar deployed on a hillside in triplex acies against the Helvetii at the battle of Bibracte in 58 BC/BCE. (Please see Book I, Chapter 24 here: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Gallic_War/home.html. Also, please see page 219 of CAESAR: LIFE OF A COLOSSUS, by Adrian Goldsworthy.) To provide a little more historical food for thought, especially with regard to the deployment and footprint of Roman cohorts, the wealth of information provided at the bottom of page 138 in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, also written by Adrian Goldsworthy, suggested that “a cohort of 480 men arranged in six ranks would have covered an area 73 by 12.8 m. (80 by 14 yards).” Given the lack of additional details (i.e., accepted ancient source materials), one can only estimate the frontage and overall footprint of a legion with 10 cohorts at full strength. The four cohorts in the first line might (emphasis on the might) have a frontage of 560 yards, and the depth of the formation in triplex acies might be around 50 to 60 yards. Rereading the analysis of Bibracte in Professor Philip Sabin’s engaging and excellent book, LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, the bottom of page 211 informed that “scholars estimate a Roman frontage of around 1.5 km, but our model suggests that 2 km is a better fit for the more open Roman formations.” Converting and then dividing these proposed distances by four yields about 410 or 546 yards, respectively. This last estimation is not too far from the previous calculation of 560 yards. Anyway, back to the improvised, albeit ‘controlled experiment.’
As this was not an actual wargame but more of a ‘trial balloon,’ I simply moved the three Warbands forward 8 inches, which is the movement rate of heavy infantry in the Tactica II rules. I suppose the interested or even casual reader could remark that I was trying to recreate the interpretation provided by Adrian Goldsworthy on page 221 of CAESAR, when the accomplished author and noted academic wrote: “They advanced up the slope, in good order, keeping a close formation.” For the figurative miniature Romans, they behaved much like the legionaries reportedly did on that fateful day: “the experienced soldiers waited in silence, hoping that their apparent calmness might intimidate the enemy.” The next modified turn saw the Warbands close the distance. If I understand the rules correctly, the pila volleys by four cohorts will be resolved before any impetus advantage is rolled for and any melee dice are thrown.
Caesar would most definitely not be pleased. Of 16 six-sided dice thrown to simulate the pila volleys of several cohorts, only one of the heavy javelins struck home. Adding insult to injury, each Warband rolled very well and secured the ‘impetus advantage’ even though this would be reduced by 25 percent due to the nature of the terrain. (The Warbands were attacking upslope versus the Romans.)
The first round of close combat produced even greater disappointment as well as a level of anger in Caesar, who was nearby and on foot (though not physically represented in the same inexpensive and simplistic manner), having dismounted in order to encourage his men and share in their risk. The legionaries were not doing at all well. They only managed to inflict 7 kills (including the aforementioned pila casualty) in this turn of melee. In stark contrast, the Helvetii Warbands, rolling 19 dice for each involved unit, ran up a score of 20 dead or wounded legionaries out of a combined starting strength of 32! (Two cohorts were less than 50 percent effective and one cohort was down to a single surviving legionary.)
In the next round, three fresh cohorts were ordered into the fray. These units advanced into the gaps of the front line. Their pila volleys were marginally better, with 2 of the 12 d6 rolled indicating a kill. Fortunately for the Romans, the uphill advance appeared to finally catch up with the barbarians, as only one Warband was able to achieve the ‘impetus inroad’ for this second turn of melee. When the dust cleared after these ‘melee areas’ were processed, two cohorts were no more, and four of the five still fighting were rather damaged. One of these was a mere skeleton of itself. With regard to the casualties suffered by the Helvetii, two Warbands had lost six warriors each. The third unit had lost nine warriors against the swords and shields of the hard pressed legionaries.
Two more cohorts fell victim in the next melee round. The three that remained were badly hurt, but still fighting. More casualties were inflicted on the wall of warriors, but it seemed as if the stabbing and hacking with the gladius and or shoving with the large shield was not having much effect. No additional rounds were resolved as it appeared fairly obvious which way the winds of Fortuna were blowing in this simulated battle within a ‘laboratory vacuum.’
Refighting Bibracte with Tactica II: Speculation
Approximately 13 years ago, at the end of May 2012 to be exact, a fellow using the pseudonym of ‘Aligern’ but signing with the initials RGB (so my guess is that his identity is Roy Boss - one of the many inestimable members of The Society of Ancients), posted a note about the Battle of Bibracte to a sub-forum of that informative and well-used by ancients enthusiasts around the world website. The veteran ARMATI wargamer and author of numerous wargaming articles was of the opinion that: “To reconstruct this battle it would be necessary to allow the Gauls to be driven back a long way by the Romans and to have the flank attack come in as a surprise.” If one accepts this as a working description of the phases of the historical engagement, then one might reasonably ask what qualifies as a “long way” on the tabletop, and how or what would be the best way to simulate the “surprise of the flank attack”? At the risk of further delaying the intended speculation, I would strongly recommend to the reader Caesar’s third-person narrative of the contest. (Would it not be so much better if there were three or four additional eyewitness accounts of this battle? Just imagine how interesting and possibly contentious it would be to read the perspective of a centurion, or legionary, or one of the tribal warriors, or even of a Gallic chieftain?) Anyhow and in my opinion, reading all of Chapter X in CAESAR: LIFE OF A COLOSSUS is well worth the time. As previously mentioned, Professor Sabin’s succinct analysis is also a wealth of wargamer-friendly information.
With regard to the preparation of the opposing forces and the terrain over which they would fight, I think the Tactica II rules would serve very well for a refight of Bibracte. Based on my initial if also admittedly rough calculations, it appears that a 6 by 4-foot table would be sufficient if 15mm miniatures were being used. The several legions would be deployed along one long-edge, standing on the first or second tier of some hill model. The Warbands of the Helvetii would line up on the opposite long-edge and advance to engage the Romans. I suppose that one could upgrade the Roman infantry to elite status, which would give the legions a little more stamina or staying power. However, based on the result of the ‘controlled experiment’ and understanding that it is a logical fallacy to apply characteristics of the part to the whole, I still wonder if Caesar’s Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth could stand against the wave of warriors rolling their way. Given the attritional nature of unit and army combat in these rules, I wonder if it would be possible or even realistic to see the “Gauls driven back a long way,” as Roy opined. This concern is compounded by the comparatively slow movement rates for heavy infantry troop types in these rules. The arrival of the 15,000 Boii and Tulingi could easily be depicted, I think. This would require approximately 240 additional warriors, so six Warbands of 40 figures arranged in four ranks of 10. Performing wheels and other complex maneuvers is also challenging when utilizing these rules, so it would be very difficult to reconstruct or simulate the second phase of this historical battle. On reflection, perhaps a better or less problematic approach would be to stage two refights of the apparent two halves of Bibracte. The first refight would recreate the Helvetian advance, attack, and possible repulse by the Romans. The second refight would pick up the action on the other side of the field. Here, the weakened cohorts of the first two lines would be advancing against the reforming as well as wounded Warbands of the Helvetii, while the fresh and full-strength cohorts of the third line would already be shifted or wheeled into a line in order to deal with the arrival of the Boii and Tulingi.
At the bottom of page 10 in his wonderful 1974 text, Battle Notes for Wargamers, the venerable Donald Featherstone provided the following common sense guidelines: “To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces.” As related above, these guidelines are fairly easy to adhere to if the Tactica II rules are used for staging Bibracte in miniature. To be certain, building an accurate model of the historical terrain is impossible, as both cited academics attest. (Please see the top of page 220 in CAESAR, and the top of page 210 in LOST BATTLES.) Turning to the “accurate representation of the original forces,” well . . . this is also rather problematic. However, building four legions of 10 cohorts each by following the diagram on page 67 of Tactica II does allow the interested individual or group to deploy at least some kind of representational model on the tabletop. Ideally, each legion would have a strength of 4,800, divided into smaller units of 480. Unfortunately (or perhaps not so unfortunately) we cannot know the actual strengths of each legion or of each cohort within that legion. Such a depiction might make for a more realistic wargame or at least more accurate portrayal of the Roman legionaries actually present on the day in 58 BC/BCE, but would the ensuing tabletop contest be measurably more engaging, enjoyable, and or exciting as a result?
This seems like as good a place as any to provide the reader with links to a couple of blog posts that deal directly with the subjective issues of aesthetics, abstraction, playability, simulation, and more. If you have not run across these thought-provoking op/ed pieces during your Internet ‘travels’ already, please see: https://balagan.info/three-dimensions-of-game-design-simulation-playability-abstraction, and https://amsterdamwar.game.blog/2022/04/01/tactical-concepts-to-include-in-ancients-wargaming/.
Refighting Bibracte with Other Rules: More Speculation
At the admitted risk of denying myself additional engagement and enjoyment, it was decided that the concentration of effort would be placed on the Helvetian advance and attack against the Roman line of four legions deployed in triplex acies. This course was chosen as it seemed to me that moving a lot of Gauls and pursuing legionaries across a certain amount of tabletop in order to simulate the ‘intermission’ between the barbarian charge and the Roman advance or ‘counter punch’ - to employ a boxing analogy - would take up a fair amount of time and therefore, might be found uninteresting or even worse. In previous drafts of this ‘article,’ I considered dividing Bibracte into two smaller wargames. The first action would seek to replicate the attack against the Roman line of legions; the second scenario would see weakened tribal units as well as damaged cohorts fighting for possession of a different hillside and improvised wagon lagger. This contest would see the barbarian reinforcements arrive, and witness the flexibility of the third line of cohorts as well as apparent competency and courage of Roman leadership.
With regard to format, and admitting that this method might lead to redundancy or repetition in places, I think it will prove simplest to consider each rulebook separately. For this admittedly improvised, somewhat rushed-to-production and rather informal ‘survey,’ six titles were selected for review. As is often the case in my writings, they are arranged in alphabetical order. Further, instead of wordy paragraphs, I thought I would try and limit myself to more concise bullet points or at least objectively shorter sentences. (In this particular effort, I may or may not succeed.)
________________________
ARMATI 2nd Edition
> Each legion will consist of 10 COH units, arranged in three lines of 4, 3, and 3.
> With 15mm figures and the Optimal Unit Size, this arrangement (without intervals between the cohort stands) will result in a legion frontage of 32 centimeters or approximately 13 inches.
> To reflect the experienced or veteran quality of these legionaries, each COH unit will have a breakpoint of 5 instead of the usual 4.
> To simulate the effect of the initial pila volley (COH are armed with pila but cannot or do not throw them; their impact is apparently factored into their comparatively high Frontal Fighting Value of 7), in the initial melee phase, a Roman COH unit will roll 2d6 and use the highest value to determine its overall melee score.
> The Romans will need to set up command and control for two pairs of legions. There will be a legate or tribune in charge of the legions on the left, and another in charge of the legions on the right.
> Caesar will be depicted as an army general, conferring a +1 modifier for melee and morale situations. He will also be on foot and accompanied by staff and a bodyguard, so will have a movement rate equal to that of Light Infantry.
> Helvetii units (WB) will be deployed deep, move 6 inches, and have a breakpoint of 4.
> Due to the nature of the terrain, Helvetii WB will not be able to claim impetus against the Roman COH.
HAIL CAESAR (2011 edition)
> To depict each legion, I think it would be appropriate to model the first line with two standard units of legionary heavy infantry (drawn from the Marian Roman list in the Biblical & Classical Supplement), and the second and third lines with a large unit of legionaries. This would maintain an approximate 4:3:3 ratio. Then again, it might be better as well as possible for some wargamers to deploy two large units (Stamina 8 each) as the first line of four cohorts, and then two standard units (Stamina 6 each) in the second and third lines.
> To reflect or simulate the reported experience level of these legionaries, the following ‘characteristics’ from the “Useful Rules” section [pages 98-108] are suggested: Drilled; Elite; Pilum, and Stubborn.
> With regard to the unlimited supply of pila rationalized on the top left corner of page 104 of this rulebook, the Cohorts in the scenario refight should have just a single volley of pila available to them during this refight. (On this point, please see page 199 of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR.)
> Each legion will have a commander with a rating of 8.
> Caesar will be the army general and have a rating of 8 as well, to reflect his comparative lack of experience as well as the early stages of his relationship with his soldiers and their level of trust in him.
> The Helvetii can be drafted from the Gauls army list provided on page 42 of the aforementioned supplement. I suggest a mix of large and standard units, with divisions containing five or six formations. Attached small units of skirmishers are optional.
> Barbarian commanders or chieftains should have a leadership rating of 7.
> Based on the original narrative account and the subsequent scholarly work, it seems appropriate to give each Gallic formation the ‘characteristics’ of Wild Fighters and Stubborn.
> Along that same line, I suppose that a single Helvetian unit could be designated at the main commander’s guard and so, earn the Tough Fighters and or Valiant labels as well.
IMPETVS (2008 edition)
> Rather than wrestle with the “indicative representative scales” listed on page 8 of the spiral-bound rulebook, I suppose one might model a Roman legion from this time period with 10 stands or units of ‘FP Legionarii.’ These would be arranged in the 4, 3, 3 deployment as referenced above.
> Working from the Early Imperial Roman list found on page 9 of Extra IMPETVS 2, and citing those previous sources, it seems correct to classify the “cohorts” as Veteran Legionaries. They will have a movement rate of 5, a VBU (i.e., fighting value or number of d6 to roll in combat) of 6, an Impetus of 3, a discipline of A, and a demoralization value of 3. Each stand will have a point value of 34, and of course, these veterans will carry the pilum. Forty cohorts making up four legions then, will add up to 1,360 points.
> Each legion should be its own command, and it seems reasonable to rate their legates as Poor, per the table found on page 15 of the rules.
> Caesar, again and always on foot for this version of Bibracte, should, I think, have a rating of Fair.
> The Command Structure for the Romans should be Good. The Helvetii will have an Average Command Structure, though a solid case could be made for degrading it to Poor.
> Each Roman cohort has the pilum, as referenced above. The rules (Section 6.6 on page 36) allow each stand a number of d6 depending on their current status. There is also a “Pilum Tutorial” on page 21 of the referenced supplement.
> As with the HAIL CAESAR rules, this weapon should be a one-time use/volley, so some kind of marker will need to be employed to indicate which cohorts have thrown their pila.
> As for the Helvetii tribal warriors, the Gauls army list on page 38 of Extra IMPETVS 4 serves very well, I think. Plenty of deep units should be drafted or formed, and the frontage of this army should be similar to the frontage of the Roman legionary line.
L’Art de la Guerre (2014 edition)
> Referencing army list 82 - Triumvirate Roman (105 - 25 BC) on page 125 of this thick and colorful rulebook, it seems appropriate if not historically accurate to categorize Caesar’s legionaries as ‘elite heavy swordsmen armour impact.’ This classification costs 13 points per base or stand, so 40 bases to represent the 40 cohorts would be worth 520 points, which is 320 points more than the typical army size used in a friendly ADLG game. (As an aside, a suggestion is given on how to model a Republican Roman legion in the army list notes on page 108, whereas there is no comparable advice given for modeling a Triumvirate legion.)
> Checking the unit-to-actual-men representation discussed on page 1, it appears that each one of the 40 bases or stands can depict approximately 500 real legionaries without having to make any adjustments. (This suggested number is slightly more than the 480 full-strength roster cited earlier.)
> The ‘impact’ ability or descriptor applies to or simulates the pila volley that can be used by the Roman legionaries. The full explanation is provided on page 17 of the rules. As with previous sets, it is recommended that this capability be limited to the first melee of the battle/wargame so as to avoid the potential problem of “regenerating pila.”
> Command and control could present a challenge, given that the number of orders (i.e., command points) a leader can communicate or assign is determined by his rating and the result of a d6 divided by two and rounded up. If a 10-unit legion is arranged in three separate lines, then that requires a minimum of three command points (one of these being provided by the legion commander) to move all those cohorts.
> Caesar, again, should be depicted by as a general on foot as opposed to mounted. A rating of ‘competent’ for this particular scenario seems appropriate.
> The Helvetii should be drafted from army list 88 - Gallic (400 - 50 BC) on page 129.
> A minimum of four commands of plenty of ‘medium swordsmen impetuous’ valued at 7 points per unit would be sufficient. One could always tinker with this arrangement. If there are 40 representative cohorts deployed for Caesar’s legions, then I would suggest a minimum of 60 bases or stands of tribal warriors, which could be divided evenly between several commands. This tenuous alliance of tribes would have a total point value of 420, so exactly 100 less than the value calculated for the four legions deployed against them.
TO THE STRONGEST! (Version 1.1 as well as a number of ‘Even Stronger’ updates)
> Reviewing the Marian Roman list on pages 31-33 of TO THE STRONGEST! Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020), Caesar should be a ‘senior general, on foot and detached.’ I suppose that he could also be labeled as ‘heroic,’ so his base or stand will cost 7 points.
> This list limits the number of units of legionaries that can be classed as veterans, so this restriction will have to be waived for a refight employing these rules.
> As discussed much earlier in this ‘article,’ while a 10 unit representation of each legion would be ideal and lean much more toward the historically accurate side of the spectrum, such a depiction presents command and control challenges.
> As a work-around, perhaps generals can be assigned to each line of a legion.
> Even though the quincunx rules on page 28 are for Polybian Romans, I wondered if this idea might be adopted and adapted for use with Marian Romans. Perhaps it would be possible to model the four legions with eight or even 12 quincunx units.
> The usage and possible effect of the Roman pila is covered by the ‘Shock missiles’ paragraphs on pages 57-58 of my PDF copy of Version 1.1 of these rules.
> The Helvetii units can be drafted from the Gallic army list found on page 20 of the previously named supplement.
> It would not be unreasonable to adjust the numerous formation of “Warriors, deep” to “Warriors, extra-deep” - so capable of being disordered a few times and worth 4 victory medals instead of 3 - in order to reflect the reported stubbornness of these barbarians.
> With regard to the Helvetii, their army should match (or maybe overlap just a little) the frontage of the deployed Roman legions.
TRIUMPH!
> Looking over the respective army lists available for free at http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com, refighting Bibracte with this set of rules will be a simple and straightforward contest between Warriors and Elite Foot.
> Similar to the ARMATI rules, Elite Foot (i.e., Legionaries) are not able to throw their pila during the missile exchange phase of the game turn. Presumably, the pila volley impact is factored into the comparatively high ‘vs Foot’ melee factor of +5.
> Similar to the ARMATI thinking, it might be best to model each Roman legion with 10 units of Elite Foot. These could be arranged in a 4, 3, 3 formation, with the legate or tribune embedded with the second line.
> Caesar could serve as a replacement for one of these legates, I suppose, but that would limit his freedom to move around and assist or encourage the men, even though he was dismounted. Perhaps a ‘Caesar scenario special rule’ could be drafted and tested for this refight.
> The ability of the Warriors to ‘shatter’ Elite Foot with a higher melee score is lessened by the initial terrain advantage of the legionaries, but the risk is still there. Perhaps allowing the Elite Foot stands to roll 2d6 and take the better result would further reduce this risk without producing too much of an imbalance between the opposing forces.
> However it is decided to portray the four Roman legions, the Helvetii units should, again, match their frontage. To reflect the reported numbers involved, it would not be unreasonable to prepare a second line of Warriors, so that ‘rear support’ may be gained. Then again, perhaps the Helvetii should not be allowed to claim this tactical advantage.
> Along this same line of thinking, perhaps the ‘shatter’ result should not be applied when fighting against legionaries who have the advantage of higher ground.
________________________
A Work in Progress “History” of Bibracte Refights
Searching TMP for matches to ‘Bibracte’ and ‘Bibracte wargame,’ I found or was returned just a handful of results. The earliest post about refighting Bibracte on the tabletop was made 30 November 2012 by a fellow named Javier. He employed the Rally Round the King rules. (Please see https://javieratwar.blogspot.com/2012/11/bibracte.html.) There was a small cluster of posts published between January 2015 and December 2017. I saw evidence of TO THE STRONGEST! (YouTube video) and Polemos SPQR being used to stage this early engagement in Caesar’s Gallic campaigns. (Please see https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2014/12/battle-of-bibracte-58-bc-deployment.html and https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/polemos-spqr-battle-of-bibracte-i.html.) There was also a 2020 post directing TMP members and visitors to a diorama of the historic battle. (Please see https://wargame.hu/a-bibractei-csata-dioramaja/.) Shifting from TMP to the wider world of wargaming blogs, I very much enjoyed reading about how Aaron Bell staged his refight. (Please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2013/12/caesars-battles-bibracte.html.) After some more searching, I stumbled across a Field of Glory 2 computer simulation of the battle, as well as a video of Bibracte being played as a boardgame with Commands & Colors Ancients. In this educational and entertaining presentation, Caesar dared all and (spoiler alert!) lost all, unfortunately. Readers are invited to check out the following two links as well, if they have not already discovered them, enjoyed them, and left a comment or two: https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/wargaming-introduction-battle-of.html and https://bucellarii.blogspot.com/2022/05/bibracte-58-bc-strength-and-honour-game.html.
Having contributed a fair number of articles to Slingshot over the years, and having participated in a number of discussions on the forums of The Society, I confess that I was rather surprised as well as a little disappointed to find nothing about Bibracte when I searched the Index of 333 issues of this august and long-running publication. (My search terms were: “Bibracte,” “Helvetii,” and “Caesar.”) A check of the physical copies (Numbers 334-347) also resulted in zero matches. As far as I have been able to determine, material about Bibracte has not appeared in any issue since Number 347. Acknowledging that the span of time covered by The Society of Ancients is vast and so the potential topics for research, preparation and inclusion in each issue is at least as tremendous, it still strikes me as rather unusual that not even a one-page wargame report has been submitted for consideration, approved, and then published in the “bimonthly” pages of this journal. Of course, it is entirely possible that I am mistaken, that my search of the voluminous content produced since September 1965 has not been carried out with sufficient attention to detail. On further reflection, I suppose the late May 2012 post by ‘Aligern’ (aka Roy Boss) should count for something. Searching for related matches within the myriad discussion threads resulted in some tangential references to the battle and the participants, but nothing more solid, unfortunately. Although I have not found anything (yet) prior to 2012, it seems rather unlikely that Bibracte - in one form or another - has not been wargamed on a tabletop somewhere by someone or a small group of like-minded individuals between the years of - let us say - 1985 and 2010.
A Small Scale Spectacle
Out of curiosity, I wondered how much, approximately, it would cost to model a cohort of 480 men in 6mm using a one miniature for one legionary representative scale. Checking the Baccus website and catalog (please see https://www.baccus6mm.com/catalogue/theromans/EarlyImperialRome/), it was noted that as of the early evening of 01 March, a pack of Roman Legionaries [AIR01], containing 96 figures, retailed for 10.20 in US dollars at the current exchange rate. Not having any experience with preparing and painting 6mm figures (please see https://www.baccus6mm.com/PaintingGuides/ and https://www.blmablog.com/2025/02/how-do-you-paint-something-so-small-6mm.html), I estimated that damage or mistakes would leave approximately 80 useable miniatures - the equivalent of a full-strength century - from each pack. The basic cost then, of a full-strength cohort would be approximately 61.20 US dollars for six packs of legionaries. Factoring in the estimated cost of basing materials, painting supplies, the various tools and other items necessary to paint, base, flock, and protect these tiny works of art, perhaps a final price tag of 70 US dollars per cohort would not be an unreasonable estimate.
On page 138 of his excellent 1996 book, THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, Adrian Goldsworthy (then a Research Fellow at the University of Wales Cardiff) informed the reader: “A cohort of 480 men would have covered an area of 146 by 6.4 m. (160 by 7 yards), if deployed in three ranks.” For my hypothetical 6mm cohort, I think a depth of six ranks would look better, so the frontage of this model formation would be 80 miniatures. (The actual cohort then, would have a frontage of 80 yards and a depth of approximately 14 yards.) In one version, I pictured eight bases or stands containing three ranks of 20 miniatures. In another version, I think a century-oriented model might be even better or more realistic (i.e., potentially historically accurate). This version would see six bases or stands, with each having eight ranks of 10 miniatures.
Referencing a second book written by the well regarded and respected historian, on page 219 of his well received and reviewed book CAESAR: LIFE OF A COLOSSUS, he offers the following interpretation of the Roman deployment at the 58 BC/BCE battle of Bibracte:
Occupying a nearby hill, he placed the experienced Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and
Tenth legions in the main line. If he followed his later practice, then the Tenth
was probably in the place of honour on the right of the line. Each legion was
deployed in the normal formation, the triple line (triplex acies) with four cohorts
in the front line, and three each in the second and third.
Returning to page 138 of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR, Adrian Goldsworthy admitted: “It is however, difficult to calculate the area occupied by a legion, even assuming it was at full strength, because we have no information on how large the intervals between the cohorts were.” Reiterating my complete lack of experience when it comes to preparing 6mm models, I confess to being quite uncertain as to the tabletop footprint of a 6mm cohort, whether it has eight bases of miniatures arranged in three ranks of 20, or six bases of miniatures arranged in eight ranks of 10. Obviously, the frontage of this tiny representative cohort would be significantly less than one using 15mm or 25/28mm figures on that same representative scale. Estimating that the dimension of the interval between the front line cohorts might be the equivalent of the model frontage of a cohort, then a legion in 6mm scale would have an approximate total frontage of seven times X, where X represents that unknown frontage of a 6mm cohort. Using the same simple math, the tabletop footprint of those four Roman legions would be four times the frontage of a single legion drawn up in triplex acies.
With regard to the final estimated cost of what could rightly be called a Herculean project, I figured that with the current exchange rate, an individual or group would have to spend the equivalent of around 2,800 US dollars. This price tag does not include the costs of terrain fabrication, preparing the other two Roman legions and auxiliary troops, or painting, basing and organizing any of the Helvetii tribal warriors present on the fateful day in 58 BC/BCE. Would it be unrealistic to suggest 6,000 US dollars (plus/minus 500) as the final budget cost for building a 1:1 scale model of Bibracte in 6mm?
Setting aside the estimated expense of such a project and the equally impressive spectacle such a display would provide (likely award winning at most shows and definitely a crowd please at the annual Joy of Six - please see https://www.joysofsix.co.uk/), I wonder what set of rules would be best suited for wargaming the battle of Bibracte at this kind of scale? Answering my own question, I thought that Simon Miller’s TO THE STRONGEST! rules might have a decent chance. The participating player-generals would not have to worry about using dice or measuring devices, the tabletop contest would be comparatively quick (perhaps in the neighborhood of three hours or less) and there is quite a lot of evidence demonstrating that these rules can handle large, visually impressive, as well as arguably spectacular games. (Please see https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2019/04/mancetter-to-salute-part-i.html, https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Ipsus, https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-shots-of-zama.html, and https://shedwars.blogspot.com/2025/02/battle-of-mantinea-to-strongest-in-28mm.html.) Based on my limited but enjoyable experience with these innovative rules, I do wonder as well as worry if command and control would present a challenge for the Roman legates and tribunes. As I recall, a general in these rules has a command radius of two boxes. My figurative model of a 6mm Roman legion with 10 cohorts in triplex acies would have a frontage of seven boxes and a depth of three boxes.
“Final” Remarks
Struggling to craft a satisfactory conclusion to this present effort, I figured I would resort to the ‘gimmick’ of sharing the working titles of the multiple previous drafts. In no particular order, these are or were: Handling the Helvetii; Bibracte by the Rulebooks; Bibracte: Behind the Scenes, Bibracte: Variations on a Theme, and Brainstorming Bibracte. This last alliterative title led to the revised alliterative title used for this present draft. The quotation marks around the word brainstorms are rather appropriate I think, in that these were not literal storms but completely figurative and perhaps even fragmentary, more like a light but steady drizzle accompanied by overcast skies. The act of brainstorming is also, if I remember correctly, more of a collaborative process rather than an individual effort. To be sure, I relied quite a bit of those who were interested in Bibracte before me, either on a purely academic level or from a wargamer/student of history perspective. At the risk of overanalyzing my choice of title, it seems that the alliteration is also quite appropriate as the random ‘lightning bolts’ of these figurative storms helped to create the “Frankenstein’s monster” of this current draft. I have no doubt that careful readers took note of the lack of smooth transitions, the apparent randomness of the various sections, the lack of consistency between those sections, and again, my tendency, at least with this particular subject matter or approach, to repeat myself at various points. (A small percentage of readers will also probably take issue with my tendency to type sentences that are objectively too long and or employ too many commas.)
Another way I thought I might begin the final section of this post was to offer just the summary findings of another ‘controlled experiment’ using the Tactica II rules. For this test or trial, I would use simple models of the Seventh and Eighth legions, and see how these formations fared against an approximately equal size force of Helvetii tribal warriors. Pressed for time, I was not able to carry out this second ‘experiment.’ My hunch (or perhaps bias) was that it would have probably produced fairly similar results to the original ‘experiment.’
Before struggling to craft a decent conclusion, I spent a couple of frustrating hours working on a section wherein I tried to imagine what Bibracte as a Battle Day selection might entail and or offer. Ideally, I should like to think that it would be similar to the success of Battle Day 2019, when Telamon (225 BC/BCE) resulted in quite a good day consisting of an informational lecture, good attendance numbers, conviviality, and plenty of gaming.) I envisioned this annual gathering of player-general participants taking place in the year 2045, and then sidetracked myself by wondering if The Society of Ancients would still be in existence, and if it was, would Battle Day still be its signature annual event. Along those same lines, I wondered if I would still be around, as the arrival of 2045 would mark the start of my 80th year. Switching to topics less concerned with morbidity, mortality, and actuarial tables, the selection of Bibracte as a Battle Day offering in the next 20 years seems rather remote. Since the inaugural Battle Day in 2004, Romans - in one iteration or another - have been featured eight times, and Caesar has been present on the various tabletops on two occasions. In 2005, attendees recreated his near disaster in 57 BC/BCE at The Sambre. Then, in 2016, participants were able to refight the decisive civil war contest of Pharsalus. (For more information about Battle Day, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.)
In an attempt to find counter arguments for my initial conclusions about Bibracte, I took a closer look at a handful of the interpretations staged by wargamers with more knowledge, talent, and traditional collections of miniature ancient armies and terrain. At the risk of lumping the five rough draft reviews into a single generalization, it appears that the two or three recognized stages of this historical battle were not realized on these various tabletops. Some refights did not have the Helvetii attack the legions on the hillside. Some refights had the late-arriving Boii and Tulingi present from the start or arriving on the opposite flank of the Romans and earlier as well. Interestingly if also a bit of a disappointment, none of these interpretations depicted the legions that were present on the hillside in ancient Gaul in triplex acies. On further reflection, I find myself more convinced that Bibracte would be a very challenging battle to refight satisfactorily on the tabletop, and so, would probably not be an ideal or even a very good candidate for Battle Day consideration. However, this assessment does not mean that I will never make an attempt or attempts at staging a version of this comparatively neglected battle.
As of this typing (still early March 2025), I have yet to refight Bibracte on my tabletop. Even though I feel I have a much better understanding of the historical contest and have some thoughts about which set of rules would provide for an enjoyable game that was not too taxing with respect to numbers of dice rolled and charts of modifiers to be consulted but still provided that important yet subjective ‘historical feel’ element, I find myself hesitating or perhaps procrastinating is the better word here. What would a report from my decidedly atypical tabletop add to relatively small amount of respectable work that has already been done?
As with many if not most of my writings, this was not a carefully planned or even scheduled project. In fact, it would be fair to remark that I did not really know what I was doing or wanted to do until about four or five days had been spent “working” on it. As for a starting point, well, I think those few pages about Bibracte in Adrian Goldsworthy’s excellent CAESAR: LIFE OF A COLOSSUS, have to shoulder the blame, if it can be said to be fair to place blame on an excellent biography. With regard to the approach or approaches, as I more often stage a solo wargame and then report on it instead of trying something outside of my comfort zone, well . . . to conclude with another phrase that is probably used too often: sometimes, change can be a good thing.
