Explanatory Note:

I have had the pleasure and privilege of being a contributor to Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients, for a number of years. According to my records, between Issue 371 (July/August 2014) and Issue 332 (September/October 2020), my material, be it wargame report, “research paper,” book review, Guardroom letter/response, or other item, has appeared 32 times. (This number does not include the imaginative Armati report that appeared in the January 2010 issue. This figure represents roughly a quarter of the total number of articles and reports I have submitted to other magazines such as MWAN, Lone Warrior, Miniature Wargames, and Wargames Illustrated, to name several.) 

In June of 2020, I was informed by the editor of this august publication that “I was the one contributor who supplies more material than could be incorporated into the journal. There needed to be a spread of contributors to avoid the perception of any single one becoming too dominant.” Confusingly as well as ironically, in the course of this email exchange, I was asked to write more articles like the one I submitted about war wagons. Coincidentally and tragically, during that same month, our family experienced a terrible if inevitable loss. In a state of grief, which, admittedly, is not the ideal state of mind to draft and send emails, I responded in the following manner: “Publish, don’t publish, create PDFs, don’t create PDFs. All due respect to your office, your talent and responsibilities as editor of Slingshot, I find it very difficult to muster a sufficient and suitable level of concern.” 

It is now late March of 2021. Ever so slowly, my interest in ancient wargaming and writing about ancient wargaming has returned. In addition to several new ideas or projects, I have a few file folders full of articles that were submitted to Slingshot but declined for the reason(s) explained above. 

The following is an article that was submitted to that excellent and long-running publication in February of 2018. Figuring that more than enough time has passed, and curious to see if this kind of material is of interest to the casual wargamer as well as staunch enthusiast of “all things having to do with warfare in the ancient era,” I thought I would make it the third official post on my blog. 

While it was proofread again before posting, I did not bother to change some of the spelling from British-English back to American-English. I also did not bother to adjust the punctuation from English rules to American format and guidelines. 

ZAMA EXHUMED, 

RE-EXAMINED, AND RE-IMAGINED

It would, I think, be fair to remark that the 202 BC contest between Hannibal and Scipio has received a decent amount of coverage in the pages of Slingshot. The venerable CS Grant initiated the reporting with his simply titled “Zama” in Issue 35. Over 16 years would pass before the next  article about the engagement appeared. In Issue 142, Paul McDonnell Staff analyzed the “Generalship at the Battle of Zama”. The first wargame reconstruction of the historic battle was published in Issue 145, when Richard Thomas and Andy Grainger provided their narrative account in “Zama Refought [with WRG 7th]”. The very next installment of Slingshot saw “Frightful Execution [Game of Elephants at Zama]”, offered by the younger and developing-as-a-professor Duncan Head. Following the example set by Mssrs. Thomas and Grainger, Justin Taylor, Thane Maxwell, and Mervyn Cartwright submitted narratives of their experiences with or at Zama. [1] Approximately 45 issues after Mr. Cartwright’s brief, Steven James returned, in Issue 241, to historical analysis with “Zama: The Infantry Battle Revisited”. Russ King followed right away in Issue 242 with “Hannibal in Zamaset - Clevedon Spring 2005”. The well-read-especially-with-respect-to-the-ancient-sources Patrick Waterson left his mark in Issue 262 with the palindrome-as-title “Amazed am I ere I made Zama”. Four months (or two issues) later, Mark Watson reviewed Brian Todd Carey’s book, Hannibal’s Last Battle: Zama & The Fall of Carthage. The contest between Hannibal and Scipio had the distinct honour of being selected as the engagement to be played on many tabletops with many sets of rules for Battle Day 2010. Narrative accounts of the success of this event, the seventh annual gathering at Sycamore Hall, were published in Issues 268, 271, 272, and 273. [2] 

Though the pages of this august publication have been silent with respect to Zama and Zama related material for a span of approximately seven years, the various and interesting discussion threads on the Society’s multiple forums have not been quiet. Oddly enough, while lamenting as well as wondering about an evident and disconcertingly sudden lack of interest in “miniature” wargaming, in early February of 2018, I found myself suddenly interested in revisiting and refighting the battle of Zama. [3] On reviewing the previously mentioned Battle Day 2010 accounts, it was noted, obviously, that L’Art de la Guerre (often called ADLG) had not been one of the rule sets used. The idea of trying to rekindle my interest in ancient wargaming appealed, and greatly. The thought of producing another battle report also held a certain attraction. Even though Zama had already been selected as a Battle Day engagement, I figured that enough time had passed. While reacquainting myself with the academic analyses of Lazenby and Carey, and refreshing my memory by rereading the narrative of Polybius [4], I happened across a few posts while scanning the Forum discussion threads that drove me in a new direction. Instead of producing yet another battle report of yet another historical action fought (wargamed) using ADLG, I would attempt something different. 

The Roy Boss Revision

In a June 21, 2013 post to the ‘Reserves and End Game Conditions’ discussion thread, Society member and former President Roy Boss wondered “why didn’t Hannibal use his elephants, or at least some of them on the flanks?” [5] In the first half of February 2018, in an attempt to answer this question, I set up an ADLG scenario. Map 1 depicts the look of my model battlefield prior to the first roll of command dice. Over the course of a few days, five complete turns were played. In the middle of the sixth turn, just before the Romans became the active or phasing side, I paused to take stock of the field and general situation. 

On the Roman right, Tychaeus had met his end while fighting against Numidian infantry. His cavalry contingent had been overwhelmed by the superior numbers under the overall command of Masinissa. A little more than half of Masinissa’s squadrons were riding free on Hannibal’s left. They had not yet concentrated, so they posed no immediate threat to the invader of Italy’s second or third line. The rest of Masinissa’s horsemen were “playing tag” with a smaller number of pachyderms. (Several volleys of javelins had landed with effect as the Numidian cavalry dashed to and fro, avoiding the tusks and weight of the gray-skinned and smelly animals.) In the center of the flat and featureless plain, after a few turns of missile exchanges between the opposing lines of skirmishers (Mago’s Balearic slingers and Moorish archers did better, having the range  on as well as better dice than the Velites), the Celts and Ligurians engaged the Hastati of both the Roman and Allied legions. To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare, the attack by the Celts and Ligurians was full of sound and fury but in the end, did essentially nothing to the orderly line of heavy infantry. The sole exception was the success of a single unit of Celts against some Hastati of the Allied legion posted on the left. A very small hole was punched in the Roman line, but there were no troops available to exploit the breech. For all intents and purposes, Mago only had his skirmishers left with which to annoy the enemy line. On the Roman left, things were not going at all well for Scipio and his subordinates. Dacamas and his small contingent of Numidians refused to face the heavier enemy horse as well as the much heavier enemy elephants. The squadrons of Italian cavalry under Laelius tried to hold the line but were not successful. At one point, Laelius abandoned his men to their fate, but he was soon caught up in the fight and met his end in a swirling contest of snorting horses, thrusting spears, and slashing swords. Shortly after this event, Dacamas recovered his courage and attacked a formation of Punic cavalry. His men did well at first, but the weight and numbers of the Carthaginian horsemen eventually told. Dacamas joined Laelius as one of the hundreds if not thousands of men sprawled face down in the dirt. Though the Punic cavalry were now rather less in number, they were beginning to threaten the Allied legion on this side of the field. Of more concern was the line of approximately 40 elephants lumbering towards that same formation. A mix of cavalry and elephants attacking an exposed flank did not bode well for Scipio’s heavy infantry, especially if they were engaged from the front by numerous ranks of Carthaginian and Libyan levy. Taking a break from thinking about how the rest of the scenario might go, how it might play out, I counted up the losses. In Hannibal’s army, 17 units were disordered, 38 units had been destroyed, and 2 leaders had been lost. This added up to approximately 93 demoralisation points. The army morale limit was calculated to be 116. On the Roman side of the plain, 16 units were disordered, 32 had been routed, and 3 leaders were no longer living. This added up to roughly 80 demoralisation points out of a determined total of 124. On further examination, it was found that a third of the routed Roman units had been light infantry formations - either Velites or Numidians. In contrast, the Carthaginians had lost about 90 percent of their first line. In addition, they had lost quite a few units of Numidian light cavalry as well as more than several units of Punic horse.  

Though Masinissa’s squadrons had won their local battle, it was not very likely that they would  be able to deliver a coup de grace against Hannibal’s left flank. Light cavalry versus a portion of the veteran infantry of the third line did not bode well for the squadrons of light cavalry. On the Roman left, the pachyderms were going to be a problem. The question was: Could they reach the flank and or rear of the heavy infantry before adjustments had been made or before a fresh assault had been launched on the mustered levy of Carthaginian and Libyan troops? Given the number of units that were currently disordered in Hannibal’s army, given the probability that mediocre levy units would not fare well against better trained Hastati and Principes, and given that Hannibal’s army was much closer to breaking than Scipio’s army was, it was decided to award the contest to the Romans. In this truncated exercise then, history had been repeated if not exactly replicated. 

On further reflection, I wondered about the placement of the elephants. As indicated on Map 1, the commands or corps of elephants were deployed between cavalry contingents on each wing. The animals were not spread out as a screen across the entire frontage of these respective formations. They were not parceled into “penny packets” between units of cavalry. [6] Against the squadrons of Masinissa, the pachyderms did not do so well. They were peppered with javelins and goaded into following the scampering squadrons of light cavalry until they were essentially taken out of the fight. A portion of this elephant troop was engaged by light-medium infantry under Masinissa. If the elephants would have halted and wheeled to threaten the flank of the Roman heavy infantry, then they would have exposed themselves to flank and rear attacks conducted by the Numidian light cavalry. On the other flank, the elephants, by their very presence, seemed to have more of an impact. The men under Dacamas evaded, leaving the Italians to bear the brunt of the fighting. Though no elephants were engaged or directly involved in the fighting, it does appear that they did influence the process and the outcome. The combat power of this corps of elephants proved difficult to effectively employ, however, which gave time for the Roman infantry to do their work against Mago’s men and very probably, against the levy units of the second line. So, at the accepted risk of being attacked and or corrected in a Guardroom letter or post to a discussion thread, or worse, ignored, and acknowledging that the following is based on just one wargame (an admittedly incomplete tabletop contest at that), it appears that had Hannibal deployed his elephants equally on his flanks, this would have affected the cavalry battles, but would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the engagement. The legions would have cut down and or cut their way through the first two lines of Hannibal’s formation. The Triarii and the surviving Velites could have handled the presence of any pachyderms lumbering around the flanks or rear of the Roman battle line. 

The Waterson Wrinkle

In a detailed post dated September 05, 2016 to the ‘DBx and Horses fear of Elephants’ discussion thread, Mr. Patrick Waterson ended his input with a parenthetical what if. He suggested the following: “Mago commanding at Zama and putting the elephants in reserve”. [7] This idea sparked my interest almost as much as the original question posed by Mr. Boss. Given that I would already have the functional armies and simple terrain, I decided that it would be worthwhile to wargame this scenario as well. The plan was not carried out, however, as my sparked interest soon sputtered after playing almost six turns of the previously described solo wargame. Even though I would not be setting up and playing what I labeled the “Waterson Wrinkle”, I could think it through; I could conduct a mental map exercise of how the “miniature” engagement might develop. 

As there were no elephants to contend with, at least at the start of the engagement, Scipio would not have arranged his ranks to address or channel the threat posed by the enemy pachyderms. The Velites would have contended with the enemy light troops, and the Hastati and Principes would have dealt with the Celts and Ligurians in the first line and most likely, the units of levy in the second line. Given that Hannibal’s (sorry, Mago’s) cavalry were outnumbered, it could be assumed that a wargame reconstruction would produce fairly historical results on the flanks. To be certain, however, there is always the slight chance that the melee dice could go completely against the Italian cavalry and their more numerous Numidian allies. This improbable but possible turn of events would be a definite cause of concern for Scipio and his focused legionaries. The elephants in the fourth line, presumably less than 185 metres from the veteran formations of the third line, would have to divide their attention to the left and right flanks. Their role would be essentially defensive, in that they would prevent the enemy horse from attacking the flanks of each deployed line. As a result, they would not be able to contribute to the infantry struggle. Again, the assumption is (even if the men comprising the Allied legions are classed as mediocre or given a lower morale rating) that the Roman and Allied heavy infantry would be able to defeat the enemy foot. Granted, this would be an expensive and prolonged contest, but in the end, the bloodied Romans would almost certainly win. It seems that if Mago had been in command and if he decided to deploy the elephants in reserve, he would have taken the pachyderms out of the battle equation. It appears that the elephants would not be a significant factor in the fight. 

The Vermina Variation

Initially, I thought I would wargame just one variation of Zama. The elephant deployment suggested by Mr. Waterson changed my schedule to two variations of Zama. While preparing to answer the query posed by Mr. Boss, I happened upon a second post written by Mr. Waterson. In the previously mentioned ‘Reserves and End Game Conditions’ discussion thread, Mr. Waterson, a seemingly ubiquitous presence in the Society forums, pondered Hannibal’s apparent failure to wait for the substantial Numidian reinforcements led by one Vermina, a son of Syphax. [8] Intrigued by this possibility, I decided to stage a third production of Zama. The production of Vermina’s combined force would not take a lot of time, and it would not require a substantial investment. I even had a working title for the brief narrative. I would call this scenario the “Vermina Variation”. However, as previously noted, my initial zeal for refighting Zama, or at least this imagined version of it, was suddenly subverted by a level of disinterest after only five and one-half turns of playing at ancient war on my smallish table. That particular problem set to the side (though I do wonder and worry if 2018 will prove a difficult year with respect to “traditional” wargaming activities and efforts), I thought about what might have happened. If Hannibal had managed to avoid a confrontation until the arrival of Vermina, it seems that an argument could be made for history being reversed, for the Second Punic War being extended and perhaps even won by Carthage. A counter argument could be advanced which holds that Scipio was not or would not be foolish enough to accept battle on these disadvantageous terms. He might have fortified his position and dared Hannibal to attack. I doubt, strongly, that Numidian light cavalry could do very much against a well-built Roman camp. Then again, Scipio might have delayed until additional reinforcements had arrived so that a staged struggle could have been fought. However, had Roman pride prevented him from being cautious as well as careful, it seems that Hannibal could have posted Vermina on one flank and then deployed the combined the troopers under Tychaeus along with the Punic horse on the other flank. It follows then, that Masinissa would have been outnumbered in both cavalry and infantry. The Italian cavalry most certainly would have been outnumbered. Though I have not wargamed this particular ahistorical adventure of Zama, I do imagine that Scipio’s legions would have been surrounded and slaughtered, or perhaps forced to surrender. I also imagine that the cost to Hannibal’s infantry would have been steep, just as it was in the historical engagement. The first two lines would have been bloodied if not defeated. The veterans in the third line would have been tasked with holding the Romans in place while thousands of Numidian and Punic cavalry swooped in for the kill. 

Reflection

Ideally, I would have liked - very much it should go without saying, really - to complete the three planned wargames. If I would have managed one scenario a month, I could have occupied myself  with wargaming and writing until the announcement for Battle Day 2019 was made. Perhaps this early April communication will truly inspire me to get back into the “solo wargaming saddle”? Time will tell, as they say. To be certain, I was rather disappointed by the way things turned out. On the one hand, I suppose I could draw some kind of comparison or attempt to manufacture some kind of rationalisation between this latest unsuccessful effort and the “mountains of lead” owned by some members of this wonderful and worldwide hobby. Like these aspiring or accomplished miniature modelers and artists, I find myself interested in or drawn to a particular battle or war and then collect an amount of information and then spend an amount of time making the necessary preparations. However, once the “pretend shooting starts” . . . The level of interest, at least lately, decreases to the point where I find it difficult to remain interested or worse, find that I am no longer interested in the particular battle or war. I have read many anecdotes from wargamers lamenting the size of their “lead mountain”. Some wargamers even remark (usually with a self-deprecating sense of humour) about their habit or practice of adding to their “pewter or plastic peak” instead of trying to reducing its height and mass. Anyway. 

I wonder what three battle reports about ahistorical Zama scenarios would have added to the pages of Slingshot, presuming of course, that the finished narrative had been accepted by the esteemed editor. As related in the opening paragraphs, Zama has received a fair amount of coverage in this journal. Would three fictional accounts have added anything substantial to this body of work? Would three fictional accounts have appealed to the general readership? It seems quite easy to answer the first question with “probably not”. As for the second query, the shorter response of “maybe” seems to suffice, even if it does straddle the line of a firm answer. What about the mental exercises described in this submission? Will they add anything? Will they appeal? At the risk of appearing desperate to engage the readership for a response or to initiate a possible discussion thread, I will leave these questions unanswered. I find it somewhat curious. Though my wargaming activity has experienced something like a severe stock market “correction”, this development has not resulted, at least so far, thankfully, in a reduction of my ability to produce material for consideration and review by the aforementioned admired and appreciated editor.

Even though I did not complete the planned wargame, at least according to the victory conditions defined in the chosen set of rules, I was able to develop a plausible answer to the original question asked by Mr. Boss. Based on my experience and assessment, elephants on the flanks at Zama would not have secured a win for Hannibal. Even though I did not set up the “Waterson Wrinkle”, it seems to me that Mago would not have won at Zama had he deployed his elephants in reserve. Certainly, his pachyderms would have given the squadrons of Numidian and Italian horse fits, but the field would still have been won by Scipio. And even though I did not set up the “Vermina Variation”, it seems reasonable to conclude that if Scipio had engaged the enemy when so outnumbered in the cavalry arm, he and his men would have met their bloody end somewhere on a scrub-decorated plain within a day’s ride of Carthage. 

It would be foolish of me, as well as counter-productive, to dwell on the negative(s). Yes, it appears that I am currently in something of a solo-wargaming “slump”. While disappointing and frustrating, the present inability to command troops and roll dice, at least until a clear victory has been achieved, has not impacted my writing. In exhuming, re-examining, and re-imagining Zama, I had a chance to revisit some of my earlier work. I also had a chance to reacquaint myself with the work of Professor Lazenby and others. I had the opportunity to search the Internet to see how other wargamers approached the battle. [10] As related above, I also had a chance to do some thinking. At some point, probably not this year and probably not next year, I would like to refight Zama. Perhaps, instead of focusing on just the fictional versions suggested by Mssrs. Boss and Waterson, I could stage several scenarios? I could refight the original engagement, perhaps using a new set of rules that is taking the ancient wargaming community by storm, and then wargame the variations. The resulting narrative would be a simple if also rather lengthy essay wherein I compared and contrasted the various versions as well as commented on the rules. Again, as they say, time will tell. 

Notes

1. In Issue 176, Justin Taylor authored “Zama Refought with ‘Alea Iacta Est’”. In Issue 177, Thane Maxwell wrote “Refighting Zama [with DBM]. And in Issue 195, Mervyn Cartwright gave readers “Zama Refought at Pontlliw”. 

2. A partial list of attendants providing reports of the day would include: Richard Lockwood, Mark Fry, Toby Partridge, David Mather, Adam Hayes, and John Hills. Additional information about the various approaches can be found at http://balagan.info/wargaming-the-battle-of-zama.

3. During the summer of 2009, having stumbled across the news of Battle Day 2010 while perusing items in the Armati Yahoo! Forum, I decided to stage a solo version of the engagement. The finished battle report was published in two parts and appeared in the February and March 2010 issues of Miniature Wargames magazine. 

4. See pages 216-227 of Hannibal’s War: A Military History of the Second Punic War, written by J. F. Lazenby. See pages 115-125 of Hannibal’s Last Battle: Zama & The Fall of Carthage, written by Brian Todd Carey. Page 121 of Warfare in the Classical World offers two diagrams, a wargamer-friendly order of battle, and a brief summary of the major events in the battle. Online translations of the account written by Polybius were found here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/15*.html and here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D12. I found that I preferred the former interpretation or link. 

5. See Reply #28. 

6. Like many other rule sets for ancient wargaming, L’Art de la Guerre does not permit players to group elephants with cavalry. 

7. See Reply #11.

8. See Reply #34. 

9. Readers are invited to check out the following links: https://www.vislardica.com/vb-sc-zama/, http://legio-wargames.com/zama-battle-report/4540338491, and http://lonelygamers.blogspot.com/2008/03/wab-battle-of-zama.html. Of course, readers are also invited to conduct their own searches of the Internet using the key words ‘Zama wargame’, ‘wargaming Zama’, or ‘Zama in miniature’.