1172 BC
Hittites vs New Kingdom Egyptians
Initially, I entertained the idea of revisiting the previous Carthage versus Rome contest. For the second staging of this scenario, a different set of rules would be employed. After rummaging around in my storage bins of familiar as well as purchased and read once or twice but never really utilized rulesets and reviewing that small number of options, some serious consideration was given to Simon Miller’s popular, dice-less and sans rulers or tape measures To The Strongest! [1] To be sure, a comparison/contrast theme had a certain level of appeal, but I wondered and worried about maintaining my own interest in an “immediate” rerun as well as drawing the attention of others who may or may not be willing to invest the required time to read or just peruse another one of my wargame reports masquerading as a blog post.
Oddly enough, while reading and then studying a recent Tactica II brief provided by the inestimable Simon Watson, wherein a combined 6,000 points (approximately) of Ptolemaics and Seleucids did battle [2], my focus suddenly and strangely shifted to a substantially more ancient period of military history. Instead of worrying about Republican legions, the process of line relief, and how best to represent a suitable enemy for those vaunted heavy infantry armed with pilum, sword and distinctive shield, I would try my hand at what might be called chariot warfare, or an amateur’s interpretation and representation of chariot warfare. Coincidentally and fortunately, I would rely again on the cumulative and excellent body of work provided by Simon, as the gentleman supplied detailed army lists on pages L3 and L4 of the spiral-bound Tactica II rulebook. [3]
Format
It is often said that imitation is one of the sincerest forms of flattery. [4] It also seems reasonable to suggest that imitation represents a certain degree of laziness, as no original thought or work is being done. Finding the presentation or structure of Simon’s recent Ptolemaics vs Seleucids report appealing, I thought I might try to find or explore a middle ground between these two points on a spectrum by adapting it for this present project. Instead of simply copying the gentleman’s organization, I moved some things around. I also changed some of the wording in the section or sub-section titles. In a brief exchange of emails, Simon pointed out to me the importance of photos, as historical wargamers tend to be more visually oriented. [5] The veteran Tactica II enthusiast is not the first to remark upon this tradition, expectation or norm. Neither is he among the first to gently or subtly imply that my efforts in historical miniature wargaming are lacking because - for quite a long time now - I have “marched to a different drumbeat.” Rather than recycle the “evidence” found in the writings of Simon Miller, Rick Priestley, as well as those fragments discovered in the work of other less well known examples and personalities comprising this world-wide hobby, I will simply point to my 1979 copy of Wargame Tactics by Charles Grant. It would be an interesting experiment, I think, to take this small but excellent - in my opinion - volume to a wargaming show or convention and ask a number of participants (ideally, at least 100) to read a chapter and then offer their comments, either verbally or in writing. I wonder what percentage of those volunteers/subjects would give low marks to the narratives and simple diagrams contained within each chapter of this “ancient” book? Anyway, as I have tried to explain, I am going to borrow the format of Simon’s recent work as a kind of foundation or framework for this current effort wherein I attempt to command an army of Hittites while simultaneously leading an army of New Kingdom Egyptians. (The aforementioned and figurative “drum” is a solo instrument. I have not had the pleasure or privilege of being a part of a wargaming band comprised of accomplished and veteran player-generals.)
Terrain & Deployments
Borrowing from the terrain types listed in my ADLG (3rd Edition) rulebook as well as from my PDF copy of Triumph!, I opted to set up a few gentle hills or elevations, a couple of sand dunes, a patch of brush, a slight as well as small gully, and then an equally small oasis on my smaller tabletop. For additional description, page 64 of ADLG explains that “brush” is: “flat land covered with rocks, shrubs or small trees - and is classed as rough terrain.” Page 65 informs the interested reader/wargamer that a “gully” is: “a depression below the level of the surrounding terrain. It is also classed as rough terrain, and offers a close combat advantage to troops defending the edge of this particular terrain type.” After some searching, I was not able to find anything similar in the Triumph! rules regarding the component parts, look, or nature of an oasis. I did note that it could be small or large. I also noted that it appeared to fall under the umbrella of what is called “difficult ground.”
Anyway, Map A should provide the reader with sufficient orientation to the general appearance of this fictional battlefield. The diagram should also offer a general description of how the opposing armies were arranged for the invented engagement.
Plans
Standing behind the Hittite host, I began to wonder about the placement of the elite chariot squadrons. (I also wondered about their numbers, especially in regard to the percentage and number of models per unit provided in the aforementioned army list.) Should these units act as a spearhead instead of a general reserve, aimed to pierce and then further damage the enemy line? Worried about the possible impact and effect of so many enemy arrows, I decided to focus my attention and effort on the Egyptian right. The major effort then, would be made with the units on my center-left and left. To be certain, I would occupy the attention of the Egyptian left as well. The large numbers of militia foot could, I suppose, be sacrificed, but I wanted to limit the amount of time these poor quality troops spent under an expected rain of enemy arrows. Yes, the battle would have to be won on the flanks . . . The left, particularly, and this effort supported by the center-left.
Donning the colorful and impressive but awkward regalia of the Egyptian pharaoh, I weighed my options for the coming battle. The terrain was not ideal, and my numerous infantry formations were comparatively slow, but I figured that these various units would act as a largish broom and sweep away the enemy center. This effort would be assisted by frequent volleys of arrows from my trained archers. As for the flanks, well, I would try to use my more mobile chariot squadrons to delay and frustrate the enemy in these sectors. The reserve division troops would be held until needed.
How it Played
In the interest of brevity, Map B should bring the much appreciated reader up to speed with regard to the progress of the contest through seven turns. Generally speaking, it appeared that the Hittites were better able to follow their battle plan than the Egyptians were able to carry out theirs.
In the interest of transparency, there was some consideration of the Pharaoh conceding at this stage of the contest; the casualty-point differential at the conclusion of Turn 7 was rather significant. However, in the interest of playing until an actual conclusion had been reached, three more turns were completed. In these handful of turns, the Hittite losses grew at a fairly alarming rate, as their chariots on the left wing suffered when they engaged the elite squadron commanded by the Pharaoh, which unit smote the attackers rather hard. The Hittite light infantry archers and supporting formations in the center of the line were punished by a couple of stubborn units of Egyptian foot. (I thought it would have been nice or even historically arguable to be able to withdraw the light infantry archers behind the “sturdier” supporting light infantry formations.) Over on the Egyptian left, the warbands finally found their purpose and were able to do some additional damage, finally managing to rout some enemy militia. An accounting at the end of Turn 9 showed that the Egyptians were at 304 out of a limit of 355, while the Hittite dead, wounded, and routed had increased to 236 out of a possible 384. The next turn witnessed the rout of two more units of Egyptian foot, which pushed Pharaoh’s army well past its determined breaking point. A fairly hard won victory for the Hittites, then. On initial review, it seemed that this success was due more to the bad dice luck experienced by the various Egyptian division commanders.
Evaluation
Where to begin? Well, I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense to follow the format as I attempt to offer subjective commentary and criticism. As I proceed through these various sections, I am going to try and put myself in the shoes of the interested reader and anticipate what they might think or say about the recently completed chariot contest.
The terrain was functional instead of visually appealing. With the exception of the oasis, which frustrated a handful of units from getting to grips (neither side was especially interested in becoming disordered by this combination of palm trees, undergrowth and a small spring - and therefore being at risk in any melee), the various terrain features played no significant part in this fictional scenario. However, the simple terrain did breakup the playing area and thereby added some color to an otherwise flat and featureless tabletop.
My guess is that more than a few readers will have thoughts about how each army deployed. Based on evidence and experience, my hunch is that very few (if any) of these valued readers will take the time to share those thoughts. C’est la blogee . . . Anyway, as I suggested above, I am no expert in chariot warfare. I have read some material about it, but my resume on this particular subject is admittedly poor. [6] That lack of qualification aside, it seemed to make a certain amount of sense to position the chariots of each army on the wings. I also thought it prudent to have some chariots in reserve.
On further reflection and review, the deployments made were based on the size of the forces drafted and the dimensions of the tabletop used. The somewhat crowded nature of the deployments could have been addressed by setting up a larger playing surface. Another option would have required the fabrication of smaller forces. Even though the paragraph on the bottom-right of page 55 in the rules states that “any size game may be played,” the recommended strength of model armies is listed as between 2,000 and 2,500 points. Looking back over the recent Ptolemaics vs Seleucids contest enjoyed by Simon and his colleagues, I see that a little more than 6,000 points were placed on their familiar tabletop. To an extent, comparisons can be made between my effort and their more traditional wargame. Here, I am thinking about the nature of the terrain as well as the arguably “wall to wall” or “edge to edge” arrangement of the various formations and units. By shrinking the base sizes provided for 25mm figures and therefore units, I was able to fit a little more than 8,000 points of Hittites and New Kingdom Egyptians on my smaller tabletop. Without question, a larger table would have given me more room to maneuver. A larger table would have also tempted me to prepare and position even more troops. It occurs to me that 10 or even 12,000 combined points of chariots and their supporting units would have been possible. Related to the decision about sizes of the opposing armies was the decision to forego traditional miniatures.
Referencing the excellent brushwork displayed by Mr. Krause’s collections (please see Note 5), I readily stipulate that if this scenario had been able to employ those 15mm figures, it would have been much more visually appealing. (I would have had to find suitable terrain to complement such miniature works of art.) I wonder though, would the experience, the playing of the game have been significantly different? Would my tactical “prowess” and dice rolling have been influenced by concerns over mishandling the carefully prepared and comparatively expensive units on the tabletop? Opinions will vary, of course, as much as talent levels and the discretionary resources one has available to support their involvement in the hobby will vary. I recall reading quite a bit about Command & Colors Ancients. Evidently, one can refight a good number of historical battles with this boxed game. From what I have been able to learn, colored wooden blocks with troop type stickers are used instead of miniatures. Cards and special dice are used as well. Further to the left on this approach or method spectrum is one explained by Professor Philip Sabin on page 247 of LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. The accomplished and respected academic wrote: “All you really need to refight any of the battles in Part II is a pencil, some paper, an eraser and two dice.” Shifting from one subjective area to another, I should like to review the plans made by each commander.
As related above, and after reviewing the notes taken as each turn was played, it appears that the Hittites adhered to their battle plan more so than the Egyptians. The Hittite militia played more of an active role than was expected, however. Fortunately, they were able to do well enough, especially for comparatively low-quality troops. On the other side of the table, the Egyptians had trouble sticking to their plan. To the extent that their chariot squadrons were able to do so, they annoyed the enemy squadrons until they ran out of space. This confinement might have been addressed by developing some scenario rules for interpenetration with respect to chariot units. Again, setting up the larger playing surface might have helped resolve this problem or traffic jam. The advance of the Egyptian foot and archers was interrupted by the oasis on the center-left and by the hard-fighting Achaean troops on the center-right. Furthermore, terrible shooting by the interspersed archer units did little damage against the enemy units facing this main line of battle. In fact, for several turns, the Egyptian archers were out volleyed by the Hittite light infantry bowmen.
More experienced Tactica II players will likely find fault with the lack of any chariot-runners or skirmishers in either army. More experienced ancient wargamers will also, I imagine, wonder about the complete lack of skirmishers in this fictional contest. While their representation is not overly problematic with the adjusted basing system and the corresponding revisions to movement rates and missile ranges do not impact the playing process, the decision was made - early on - to not prepare any of this troop type for use on my tabletop. On review, it appears that skirmishers would have been useful in and around the oasis. It also appears that chariot-runners might have helped out one or both sides in the costly chariot battles that raged on both wings. I am left to wonder though, if the presence of skirmishers would have changed the generally poor luck experienced by the Egyptians, or if their presence would have altered the course of the battle. Obviously, the only way to answer or get some data on this question, is to refight the engagement with 200 or so points worth of skirmishers added to each army. On a related note, I wonder how the game would have played and what the result would have been had a different set of rules been used. At various points during the recently completed contest, I would take a few minutes or more and consider the army lists for Hittites and New Kingdom Egyptians provided with other rules. The three possible options I considered were: Hail Caesar, To The Strongest!, and Triumph! [7]
In a previous draft of this final section, I tried to incorporate some assessment ideas taken from watching a number of episodes of “The Great British Baking Show.” For those readers not familiar with this UK phenomenon, each week a certain kind of baked good is chosen, and the hopeful participants are tasked with a signature or familiar item challenge, a technical challenge, and then a culminating and related showstopper. Paul and Pru then judge these various efforts. Their compliments and criticisms are reinforced or softened by the presence of two other celebrities. At the end of each episode, one contestant is designated “star baker,” while another - not having fared well in the rounds - is sent home (usually).
To be sure, I have no illusions that I will ever be a “star wargamer.” I have not made any concrete plans to achieve this subjective status. Indeed, I readily stipulate that I lack the artistry, certain skill sets, and the discretionary resources. [8] I should like to think that were there ever a comparable wargaming program developed and then televised, and I happened to be selected from the legions of applicants, that I would not be sent home - at least not after the first episode. I think I have or have developed a certain technical ability, a few skill sets, and have a pretty good imagination. My wargaming efforts, to continue this unusual analogy, have a certain taste, texture, and flavor. In many respects, my wargaming efforts have often been based in experimentation. Of course and understandably, this particular combination or these combinations will not appeal to everyone.
Stepping away from the oven, mixing bowls, and out of the kitchen, it seems easier to simply grade this latest effort using a rubric based on a 1-10 scale. A score of 1 would mean “very poor indeed” or even “failure,” while a mark of 10 would mean “superlative.” (In this unexpected case, I would be the recipient of a handshake from a noted wargaming celebrity.) After a short period of reflection, I think a grade of 6.5 or perhaps even 7 would be appropriate. Not the best by any means, but not a complete catastrophe, either. This subjective score indicates below-average to average work with room for improvement. I would venture that I am in good company then. I would remark that I am in a tent of some kind, which stands somewhere in the vast and colorful camp of the wargaming community.
_____________________________
Notes
- As mentioned in the previous post, Simon has produced an excellent supplement about how to represent and employ a Polybian Roman army on the tabletop with his rules. From what I have read, it seems that it would be fairly easy to prepare a consular army supported by a number of auxiliary units. In fact, it occurred to me that it would be possible to replicate the largish force that I built for my Tactica II scenario. In a nod to the further development and flexibility of Simon’s rules, I noted that the updated army list (30/6/2020) provides for Roman or Latin quincunx units. At one of the suggested scales or representations, it appears that it might be possible to set up a very large scenario wherein 10, 12, or even more legions were present. This merits further exploration. possibly. On a related note or point, the much debated subject of Roman line relief or the mechanism(s) for this process was introduced to a Society of Ancients sub-forum in December of 2012. I scanned (very briefly) the approximately 20 pages of remote conversation this topic generated. From what I was able to discover, the discussion died down in mid August of 2014 and had apparently involved the consideration of several different tangents which were, not surprisingly, rather unrelated to the specific topic of the mechanism(s) of Roman line relief. One wonders what findings or progress has been made in the decade since this particular discussion fizzled out. Anyway.
- Here, I am referring to and referencing (as I downloaded it and printed it out for annotation), the brief or report Simon dated 03/12/24. This engaging and explanatory narrative can be found in the dedicated Society of Ancients sub-forum (‘Games last played’). It can also be read on the Tactica II website.
- In addition to drawing from these army lists, I went back to the Tactica II website to copy and paste a couple of examples/scenarios/reports featuring these armies. In this calendar year, the prolific veteran of dozens if not more Tactica II wargames provided two chariot battle summaries. The first was posted in mid March, and the second account was posted in late August. His descriptions were brief but engaging. These “narratives” were supported by a handful of photographs documenting the tabletop action.
- On this point, please see https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/558084-imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery-that-mediocrity-can.
- Anticipating the needs and preferences of this long-standing majority, might I recommend visiting the admirable brush work and other qualities of one Mr. Kevin Krause? Within a vast catalog of YouTube videos (see https://www.youtube.com/@thekrausecollection15mmmin53/videos), he has two wherein his New Kingdom Egyptian and Hittite 15mm armies are presented. Readers will have to scroll down for a bit to find the videos. The review of pharaoh’s army is about 13 minutes in length. The Hittite host is displayed in a clip lasting around 7 minutes. I believe that both presentations will earn high marks if not a few “ooohs” and “ahhhs” from those who invest the time.
- A very brief search of bins and bookcases was conducted. In the Hail Caesar rulebook, I found the “Battle of Kadesh 1274 BC” report on pages 112-119 to be familiar and helpful. The September 2000 issue of Wargames Illustrated has a cover photo showing a set up of Sea Peoples. These 28mm figures were by Foundry and from the collection of Simon Chick. The two-wheeled and high-walled carts drawn by oxen were mounted on irregular bases. The surrounding terrain for the picture was rather attractive as well. More substantial material was found in the October 2010 (Issue 276) of WARGAMES illustrated. The theme was “The Chariot Wars - Wargaming at the Dawn of History.” A cornucopia of five articles included a sidebar on page 15, which offered tips on ‘wargaming with chariots’ as well as a quote attributed to Graeme “Henry” Henderson, Dumfries c1980. “The Battle of Megiddo, 1457 BC” on pages 44-51 was especially colorful and interesting. After some further rooting around, I reread pages 155-168 in A History of Warfare, by John Keegan.
- It was interesting to note the similarities and differences between the several army lists. One list would contain a certain troop type or types, while another list would not include this formation. It might be an interesting project to attempt to refight this fictional Tactica II battle with the three different sets of rules and see how it turns out, see how it plays. It seems that adjustments and compromises would have to made in order to field comparably sized armies with either Hail Caesar, To The Strongest!, or Triumph!
- I recently happened across a wargaming blog wherein the hobbyist remarked upon the “wallet damage” suffered when a new project was embarked upon. This is an interesting perspective . . . to comment (or was it complain?) about being able to afford 25/28mm figures and the related materials and supplies needed to prepare, paint, and base them for what I imagine will be years of wargaming.
___________________________________
%20-%20Carthage%20vs%20Rome.png)
%20-%20Carthage%20vs%20Rome.png)
%20-%20Carthage%20vs%20Rome.png)