Explanatory Note:
The following is an article that was submitted to Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients, an excellent and long-running publication, in March of 2018. Figuring that more than enough time has passed, I was curious to see if this kind of material would engage the casual wargamer as well as staunch enthusiast of “all things having to do with warfare in the Viking era.” Therefore, I thought I would add it to my blog. There are eight diagrams or maps of the four refights of Maldon. I sincerely hope that by this point, I have figured out how to attach these visual aids to my admittedly amateur blog efforts.
While the lengthy narrative 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.
MULTIPLE MODELS OF MALDON
Drawing inspiration from Mr. Rick Priestley’s colourful (there are 16 pictures of a spectacular-looking table covered with splendid-looking miniatures) and entertaining report in the October 2011 issue of WARGAMES illustrated® magazine, I hoped to shore up a faltering interest in wargaming by staging several refights of the 991 AD contest between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. (Sidebar added on 21 April 2021: An interview with Mr. Priestley appears in the latest issue, Number 335, of Slingshot.) In addition to addressing this current uncomfortable state and hopefully restoring it to its former glory or at least something approaching that subjective memory, I also hoped to examine as well as explore the ways that various rule sets approached, modeled, or represented the shieldwall. For this “Dark Ages” project, I would employ: Armati 2nd Edition, IMPETVS, L’Art de la Guerre (ADLG), and To the Strongest!
According to Mr. Priestley, “the sources do not give the number of Anglo-Saxons: some lead us to imagine the two forces were equally matched, others that the Vikings were by far the more numerous”. (10) In his detailed order of battle, the bespectacled gentleman and prolific author lists six units of Anglo-Saxons in just three divisions facing eight units of Vikings distributed across four divisions. Insofar as it was possible, I would follow this suggested composition for my planned contests. As for terrain, I copied the map provided (courtesy of The Battlefields Trust) at the top of page 11. This diagram shows the Vikings drawn up on a stretch of salt flats after crossing the causeway from Northey Island. Based on my measurement, the Viking battle line extended for about a third of a mile. The Saxons, deployed on an approximately equal frontage, stood about one-quarter of a mile distant. Their ground seemed rather more solid or at least, a little less damp and soggy. According to the map key, there was a river running down their right flank, and the landscape was a mix of alluvium and, for lack of a better phrase, “terra firma”. The finished table, commissioned by Gripping Beast for use at Salute 2011 and elsewhere, is a work of art. There is a portion of Maldon represented on the table; there is a farm or two outside of the defensive walls, and there is a stretch of coastline along with small island. The hundreds of 28 mm figures populating the various pictures are also works of art. As I would be playing the planned four games solo and was not planning on producing a photo-heavy report, I did not apply for a loan or take out a second (or third) mortgage to finance the construction of a similar table or spend months (probably years in my case) painting and preparing the opposing forces. [1]
In the centre column on page 12, Mr. Priestley explains: “the real battle probably took place on the large area of flat ground between the shore and the Saxon town”. I opted for this simple set up and landscape instead of the complicated and picturesque terrain featured on the Gripping Beast tabletop. According to Mr. Priestley, this battle included a preliminary engagement revolving around access to a causeway. In his Hail Caesar treatment, this pre-battle or “bragging rights brouhaha” was conducted by pitting five models from each side against each other. The winner of each contest would earn a dice re-roll for his side. I adopted this mechanism in full for my planned scenarios. Of course, for the To the Strongest! adaptation, it would be a new card draw or perhaps an extra hero as opposed to throwing another six-sided die.
The Armati Adaptation
After reviewing the respective army lists provided on Page V of the rule book as well as the lists found on the Warflute site, I decided to try the Saxon and Viking variations developed by Mr. Tony Hughes. [2] As for scale, I decided to employ 15 mm Epic Unit Sizes, so my heavy infantry formations would measure 80 mm by 45 mm. After considering my options and drafting a few rough orders of battle, I determined that Earl (or Eorl) Byrhtnoth’s Saxon muster would include the following: 2 units of Thegns, 9 units of Select Fyrd, and 8 units of Lesser Armed Fyrd. In addition, the elderly commander would have 2 units of skirmishing bowmen screening a part of his formation. The Vikings, under the overall command of the apparently infamous as well as fierce Olaf Tryggvason, had the following in their raiding force: 7 units of Jarl’s Hindmen, 6 units of Lesser Hindmen, and 8 units of Bondi. To add a little bit of colour to this group, I prepared a couple of units of Berserkers as well as 2 units of skirmishers armed with bows.
Deployment of the opposing armies was completed on the afternoon of the national holiday set aside for those men (some more accomplished, capable, worldly and worthy than others, obviously) who have occupied the Oval Office. Map 1 shows the Anglo-Saxons occupying the near long edge of the table. Eorl Byrhtnoth arranged his Thegns and Fyrd in one division. The battle line was not parade ground neat; the Thegns stood in the middle, the Select Fyrd were next, and the Lesser Fyrd guarded the flanks. Two groups of skirmishers armed with bows screened a small portion of the heavy infantry formation. Across the flat plain (at the top of the map), the Viking leader deployed his eager men. This battle line was not ramrod straight either, but it was a little more orderly than the one formed by the Saxon troops. Olaf placed his veterans in the centre of the long formation. Experienced troops were on the right and left. Less experienced fighters stood next to them. Two units of Berserkers were inserted into the line. Units of Bondi were assigned to the wings of the line, so in some respects, the Viking line resembled the Anglo-Saxon deployment. The preliminary challenges, insults, and actual fighting between “champions” on the causeway resulted in a slight advantage for the Saxons. Eorl Byrhtnoth would have the chance to re-roll poor melee or other dice three times; Olaf the Viking would have the opportunity to “change fate” just a couple of times. The larger question was when and where would these proven leaders of men use the re-rolls?
The first few turns were spent moving Olaf’s hairy Hindmen closer to the waiting Saxon shieldwall. As the distance lessened, the skirmishing bowmen of each side loosed ragged volleys.These shafts had little effect until the Vikings drew first blood in the fourth turn against an unlucky unit of Select Fyrd on the Anglo-Saxon right. (Curiously, being in shieldwall formation does not afford units any extra protection under the Armati rules. A review of the sections on Missile Fire and Shield Walls did not turn up anything to the contrary. I would have thought that being stationary and having large shields would have added at least a +1 to the targeted unit’s protection rating. I was mistaken.) In the following turn, the Saxon bowmen were able to find the range and inflicted a casualty against a Viking unit on the right of Olaf’s line. As the distance between the opposing and not-at-all-completely-straight lines closed, Eorl Byrhtnoth recalled his skirmishers. A few minutes later, the Vikings crashed into the Saxons, having pushed through their own skirmishing archers, scattering them to the winds.
Before resolving the numerous melees, the short-range javelin exchange between opposing units was resolved. (Instead of throwing these light or heavy javelins in the Missile Fire Phase of the game turn, I decided to test the impact of the volleys as the first part of a two-part melee process.) To the Eorl’s disappointment, the Saxons were plagued by terrible die rolls and so, casualty markers began to grow on the units of the shieldwall like so many spring flowers. The missiles hurled in reply seemed to bounce off the Viking shields. The first round of melees continued in a similar fashion; the pagan gods appeared to favour the invaders. Fortunately, the sections of the shieldwall attacked by Berserkers held, so there were no immediate holes punched in the larger formation. The skill (and luck, it has to be mentioned) of the Viking formations proved difficult to overcome. By the end of the seventh turn, a couple of units of Anglo-Saxons had been routed, and four more were teetering on the edge of destruction. The Eorl’s veteran Thegns were hard-pressed. Byrhtnoth joined the melee in an effort to swing the tide of fortune, at least in this local area of the line, back in his favour. On the Viking side of the struggle, a unit of Berserkers had been knocked out, and two units were very close to being routed due to accumulated losses. With the loss of a group of Berserkers and the advance of some Bondi units on the far left of his line, Olaf’s initiative score had been reduced to 1. This was still better than the Saxon’s score, however, as the loss of two units had erased Byrhtnoth’s ability to exercise effective command and control over his subordinates and men. Map 2 depicts the status of the field at this point in the battle. Though the Anglo-Saxons were able to wrestle the initiative from the invaders in the next turn, the dice continued to fall for the Vikings. Consequently, several more gaps appeared in the defending shieldwall. On the Saxon centre-right, an enemy unit was pushed to breaking point by a strong effort of two friendly units, but this momentary success was not enough to turn the tide of the battle. Eorl Byrhtnoth continued to fight alongside his Thegns until the unit next to his was routed and the Vikings doubled their effort against the stubborn enemy leader. His veterans fought well, but they could not match the enemy numbers or strength. In a flurry of blows, wherein spears, swords and axes rained down on shields as well as men, the centre of the Anglo-Saxon line collapsed. This development, along with the death of Byrhtnoth, initiated the rout of what remained of the army.
This adaptation, the first of a planned four wargames, was fairly true to history, I think. The Saxons put up a fight; the Vikings were rather bloodied. In the end, Olaf and his men prevailed. This solo wargame reconstruction of Maldon was not as dramatic as the poem, however. [3] I did not find the repetitive melee rolls to be boring or labor intensive. Perhaps that is because I am very familiar with the Armati rules. Of course, others may well disagree about the level of boredom and perhaps argue a larger point or points about shieldwall combat in general. They also might object to the marking of fatigue levels as well as casualties on the participating units as it can clutter the tabletop. Again, I am used to this. In fact, I find these markers helpful in tracking the viability of the involved formations. While there was no literal pushing and shoving or “to-ing and fro-ing” as might be expected in a contest between shieldwalls, I thought that the various markers did a sufficient job of representing this. I also think that winning the move option and thus, being able to determine the melee direction, is an attractive characteristic of the Armati rules. I also like the fact that tied melees result in losses and fatigue to both sides as opposed to there being no effect or impact at all as is the case in some rules. That said, I think that there is room for improvement or at least for tweaking the Armati rules with regard to their treatment of the shieldwall formation. For a start, I would allow for improved protection against missile fire. In melee situations, I would also allow for a positive modifier to the die roll, as long as the shieldwall was intact. Perhaps this modifier could be adjusted or removed based on the number of losses and or level of fatigue of the concerned unit?
The IMPETVS Incarnation
The base dimensions for 15 mm units are listed on page 7 of the spiral-bound IMPETVS rules. The standard frontage is 8 cm. The depth of heavy infantry formations can be 3 cm or 4 cm. Skirmishers have a depth of 2 cm or 3 cm per stand or unit. Fortunately, I did not have to create entirely new armies. I was able to recycle many of the units (i.e., counters) used in the Armati wargame. Having learned how big of a battle line my six by four-foot tabletop could effectively handle, for this interpretation of the historical battle, I decided to give the Vikings 18 units and the Saxons 14 units. This number did not include skirmishers.
The Anglo-Danish list on page 24 of Extra IMPETVS 2 covers approximately six decades and is, unfortunately, past the historical date of the battle. [4] That much acknowledged, I still drafted Byrhtnoth’s army from this section of the catalogue. The elderly Eorl was permitted a unit of Guard Huscarls, two units of Huscarls, four units of Select Fyrd, and seven units of Great Fyrd. In addition, there was a unit each of skirmishing archers, slingers, and youths carrying javelins. On page 25, I used the Norwegians and Danish (Vikings) list to prepare the army under Olaf Tryggvason. [5] After considering my options, I fabricated two units of Guard Huscarls, four units of Veteran Huscarls, six units of Huscarls, and an equal number of Hird. Olaf was assisted by two units of skirmishers armed with short bows. The deployment of the opposing armies is depicted in Map 3. In brief overview, the armies were arranged as they were for the Armati battle. The best troops or units were placed in the centre of the line, while comparatively weaker troops or units were stationed on the flanks. Unlike the Armati scenario, the opposing commanders (the Eorl was rated as Fair and Olaf was considered an Expert) were married to their bodyguards. Also, unlike the Armati contest, both sides were deployed closer to each other. The skirmishers were just outside of what is called “short” range, In the scale being used, this translated into approximately 17 centimetres. In terms of numbers, the Anglo-Saxon force amounted to 240 points and had a Total Demoralisation Value or VDT of 27. When half of this value had been lost, the Saxons would quit the field. In contrast, the Vikings had 330 points worth of troops on the tabletop. Their determined VDT was 38. The preliminary combats for the causeway slightly favoured the hard-bitten warriors serving under Olaf. The Vikings earned 3 rolls of destiny against the 2 rolls secured by the Anglo-Saxons. [6]
For the first five turns of this wargame reconstruction of Maldon, the Vikings did all the moving and most of the loosing of arrows. The advance of the Viking warriors was conducted at a measured pace, as Olaf wanted to make sure he brought as many men as he could against the waiting shieldwall of the Anglo-Saxons. Covering the slow walk of the Vikings was a small screen of archers. These young men loosed volley after volley, but their arrows did very little damage to the enemy screen of skirmishers. Finally, after the distance between the opposing units of light troops armed with javelins, bows, or slings closed to what is called “point blank” range, the javelins, arrows, and sling stones began to land with some effect. The skirmishing bowmen screening Byrhtnoth’s bodyguard were disordered and then lost a number of men. The skirmishers on the left of Byrhtnoth’s line were destroyed by accurate enemy volleys. (It was actually a very poor cohesion test, but then, skirmishers do not usually last very long in IMPETVS scenarios, at least in my limited experience.) With their dying breaths, the Saxon skirmishers were able to disorder the opposing Viking unit. Over on the Viking left, the Saxon slingers finally managed to find the range against the advancing warriors. The targeted unit became disordered as a result of the shower of sling stones. This resulted in units making up the Viking left becoming slightly separated, as disordered units cannot be a part of a group under the IMPETVS rules. The distance between the opposing lines of formed and heavy infantry closing rapidly, Olaf - having recently been confirmed in his status as an expert leader - ordered his skirmishing archers to withdraw. The Saxon light troops, those that were still alive anyhow, remained as a light screen for the established shieldwall. This light screen existed for just a few more minutes. With a bellowed command, Olaf urged his warriors forward. In a wave, the Vikings crashed into the sturdy shieldwall of their enemy.
The fighting raged back and forth. Great Fyrd battled Hird; Select Fyrd battled Huscarls; Huscarls battled Veteran Huscarls, and the two opposing leaders fought alongside their men. Disorder markers and then casualty markers sprouted like weeds up and down the ragged line. Some units in the Eorl’s shieldwall were pushed back, but due to the chaotic and crowded nature of the melee, there was neither coordinated nor effective pursuit. On the extreme ends of the Saxon line, however, a few Viking units were able to make progress, for they had no enemy to block their way. Whether these Vikings would be able to wheel and roll up the Saxon line remained an open question. On the Saxon left and right, the pressure proved too great for a couple of units of Great Fyrd, and these collapsed in rout. Again, given the nature of the overall struggle, these instances did not lead to the immediate defeat of Byrhtnoth and his men. Map 4 shows the state of the field at this stage of the contest.
After a brief intermission wherein I rested from rolling handfuls of dice, selecting the 6s or double 5s for hits, and then conducting cohesion tests, I completed a quick survey of the tabletop. The Vikings were rather bloodied and bruised. One unit had been destroyed and there were 25 casualty markers distributed across 11 units. Of their remaining 17 units, 11 were disordered. Olaf did have the advantage of numbers, however. Additionally, he had units on the outer edges of the Saxon line. It was simply a process of getting these units to wheel and push the enemy from a different and vulnerable direction. On the Saxon side of the struggle, Byrhtnoth had 12 units left. Of these, 10 units were disordered and 9 were wounded. After thinking about it for a while, I decided to end the scenario. Though it might be argued that the Vikings had the numbers, they had taken a bit of a bashing. To be sure, the Saxons were not in a great position either. I called it a draw and a bloody one at that.
The IMPETVS rules are certainly more complex than the Armati rules. Resolving missile fire and melees requires more dice as well as the consideration of various tables and modifiers. While this may improve realism or the perception of realism, I wondered about its impact on playability, at least for wargamers not very experienced with the rules. There seems to be a certain degree of luck factored into the rules. For example, there were many cases of Viking units scoring several hits against the Saxons, but the cohesion tests invariably showed that the Saxons did not suffer very much. (Perhaps the dice took into account the shieldwall formation? However, I could find no specific modifier for shieldwall in melee other than attacking units losing their impetus dice.) My initial deployment caused some problems as the battle progressed. Under the IMPETVS rules, disordered units are not allowed to be a part of a group. Well, once the melees started and the disorder markers started appearing, I spent more time than I would have liked to shifting units this way and that so that they would not be a part of a group. The alternative would have been to deploy units with sufficient space between, but then one runs the risk of deploying a line that is not solid. A shieldwall would, in a sense, become just a neat arrangement of unit “bricks”. Reading over the paragraphs covering the shieldwall formation on Page VIII of Advanced IMPETVS, I found it a bit unusual that disordered units could maintain a shieldwall. I also found it a bit unusual that units pushed back in a melee were able to maintain their shieldwall formation. In sum, an effort was made to model Maldon using IMPETVS. In some regards, the rules worked rather well. For instance, the bloody and sometimes indecisive nature of shieldwall combat was reflected fairly accurately on my tabletop. In other regards, well, it appears that there is still room for improvement and that I still have much learning to do when it comes to these particular rules.
The L’Art de la Guerre Game
After studying the Anglo-Saxon list (Number 147 on page 160) along with the Viking and Leidang list (Number 150 on pages 161-162), I decided to use the base dimensions given for 20-25 mm scale units instead of those provided for 28-32 mm scale units. Therefore, instead of a universal frontage of 80 mm per unit, the opposing formations would deploy units with frontages of 60 mm. The sabots or representative counters employed in the two previous contests were set aside for the time being and new, inexpensive armies were fabricated. (I was sure that I could recycle the Armati and IMPETVS units for the To the Strongest! scenario.)
Map 5 shows how my table looked once the armies had been prepared and placed in position. As with the previous engagements, the better troops occupied the centre, while the average or mediocre units stood on the flanks. The difference in this scenario, given the corps or command structure integral to ADLG, was that the individual formations were arranged with the better quality units in the centre of the line, and the units of lesser or lower quality were out on the flanks. In addition, there was some depth to the battle lines. Both commanders had a reserve on which they could draw. The Anglo-Saxon force, under the overall command of Eorl Byrhtnoth, included the following: 1 unit of elite heavy spearmen with armour and 3 units of elite heavy spearmen; 10 units of heavy spearmen; 13 units of mediocre heavy spearmen, and 4 units of skirmishers, armed with bows, slings, and javelins. These 31 units were divided into 3 commands or corps. The Eorl, rated as competent regarding his leadership, held the centre, while two anonymous and ordinary subordinates commanded the left and right. Turning to the Viking side of the field, Olaf commanded the following: 1 unit of elite heavy swordsmen 2HW with armour; 3 units of elite heavy swordsmen 2HW; 18 units of heavy swordsmen; 2 units of Berserkers; 8 units of impetuous medium swordsmen, and 3 units of skirmishers armed with bows or javelins. The 35 units making up Olaf’s army were also divided into 3 commands. The command structure for the Vikings was the same as for the Saxons. Regarding numbers, the Anglo-Saxons fielded about 210 points, while the Vikings mustered approximately 270 points. In the pre-battle rounds of challenges, insults, and personal combats between selected champions of each side, the Vikings came away with a distinct advantage, winning 4 of the 5 contests. Olaf, then, would have several chances to re-roll poor melee, “shooting”, or command dice when he was the phasing player.
Action was quickly joined and general in scope, as the Eorl did not have his men stand and wait for the Vikings to come to them. The skirmishers of each side discharged their respective missiles but without effect. The Viking bowmen nearly scored a hit against Byrhtnoth’s unit, but the Saxon commander used up his one re-roll to negate the abysmal defensive die. First blood of the day went to a unit of Select Fyrd in the Eorl’s line. A group of Berserkers threw themselves against the hedge of spear points. It took a couple of rounds, but the fanatic warriors were despatched without loss. This would definitely not be the case when Olaf’s line advanced and crashed into Byrhtnoth’s line. On the left and right, the opposing commands or corps had come to grips as well. Again, unfortunately, the dice gods did not favour the Anglo-Saxons. In a matter of minutes, the Eorl’s right wing was in tatters. Four units in the main line were run over by enemy medium swordsmen. Then, to make things worse, the leader of the “division” was killed in a melee. Further to the right, two units of Great Fyrd attempted to stop a flanking move by some more medium swordsmen and paid a steep price for it. One unit was decimated; another unit was destroyed. It appeared quite evident that the Vikings were not going to be stopped on this side of the battlefield. Over on the other flank, the Anglo-Saxons were holding, but had suffered more in the pushing, shoving, and stabbing match than their opponents. In the centre, the commands of Olaf and Byrhtnoth were locked in a desperate struggle. Here too, the dice gods seem to favour the invaders as more casualty markers were placed on the Saxon formations. Byrhtnoth fought alongside his men, urging them to hold and then urging them to attack. Even though they were elite troops and well protected, they found it difficult to resist the attention of the elite Vikings facing them, especially when the invaders were swinging two-handed axes. Losses forced a leadership check on the Anglo-Saxon bodyguard and to his men’s dismay, Byrhtnoth fell victim to one of those axes. Map 6 depicts the state of the field at the end of Turn 3. (The bold red Xs indicate a spot formerly occupied by a Saxon unit.) In the following turn, the dice suddenly turned cold for the Vikings and ranged from warm to hot for the Anglo-Saxons. Olaf’s men, especially those fighting on the left, had trouble routing the weakened enemy units on the recently deceased Eorl’s right. In the centre of the battle, two units in Olaf’s command were destroyed by units of stubborn Select Fyrd. Then, just as suddenly, the luck of the dice returned to the invaders. Wounded units of Saxons began to fall in succession, much like ripe fruit will fall from a tree limb. A final blow was dealt by the Vikings on the right, when they were able to strike down the anonymous commander of the Anglo-Saxon left wing in a chaotic melee. Per the rules, an accounting was made at the end of the turn. The English forces had lost 11 units and 9 were in a state of disorder. All of their leaders had been laid low on the field. Their demoralisation level had been reached and then exceeded. A tally for the Vikings revealed 3 units routed and 12 in a state of disarray, so Olaf had 18 points against his army’s demoralisation level.
Like the Armati scenario, this wargame was true to history. Byrhtnoth’s army was defeated, and the Eorl as well as his subordinate commanders lost their lives trying to resist the Vikings. This wargame was also the shortest of the three played so far. I attribute this to the general advance made by both sides and to the melee process of ADLG. Like the IMPETVS rules, units in ADLG can inflict more than one hit against an enemy during close combat. The process is not as dice heavy as IMPETVS or even Hail Caesar, but it is somewhat modifier heavy. One has to consult a table and then remember or refer to certain characteristics of the involved formations. I feel that I am getting more practised at adding and subtracting the modifiers and determining which side is at a plus and which is at a minus. The variety of troop types and their capabilities seems more like IMPETVS, too. In contrast to the “looser” or “natural” guidelines of both Armati and IMPETVS, however, melees in ADLG are strictly unit versus unit, and the stands have to be lined up against one another. There was some repetition in this wargame, but it did not become boring or burdensome, at least to me. In some respects, I thought the action was rather realistic. Units fought until they were routed and the enemy would advance into the resulting gap. The melees went back and forth. Sometimes, there were ties along the battle line, which, I think, represent the desperate pushing, shoving, and slashing that took place when opposing units met. With specific regard to the shieldwall or shieldwall formation, however, there is no special rule within the pages of L’Art de la Guerre. It appears that the armour bonus or quality addresses this additional protection sufficiently.
The To the Strongest! Scenario
Stipulating to a marked lack of experience with these fast-moving rules (I have played just a handful of test games; I do, however, follow Mr. Miller’s blog as well as enjoy reading the various educational and entertaining battle reports posted by generals from around the world on the To the Strongest! forum), I thought it would be sensible to draft my armies by using the sample order of battle provided on pages 64-65 as a kind of template. I started with the Viking force under the overall command of Olaf Tryggvason. (The Viking army list [793 - 1069 CE], along with many, many others, is available for free, as part of the Early Medieval catalogue.) Obviously, Olaf was an attached heroic general. He was also the senior “officer” in charge. His command consisted of a “bodyguard” of Huscarls (veteran shieldwall, deep) who were carrying two-handed cutting weapons, 2 additional units of Huscarls (veteran shieldwall, deep), and then 2 units of Hird (shieldwall, deep). A skirmisher screen was provided by a single unit of light infantry armed with bows. To Olaf’s right, there was another “division” under the command of an anonymous heroic general. This mighty warrior led 4 units of Hird (shieldwall, deep) and 1 unit of veterans. To Olaf’s left, there was a “division” of similar size. This formation included a small number of skirmishers armed with javelins. The army led by Eorl Byrhtnoth was selected from the English Kingdoms list [600 - 1072 CE]. In the centre, under the direct command of Byrhtnoth (also a heroic and senior attached general), were 3 units of Hird (shieldwall, veteran), and 2 units of Fyrd (shieldwall, veteran). The Eorl also had a unit of skirmishing archers screening his command. On each wing, there were 5 units of Fyrd (shieldwall), and a unit of skirmishers (slingers on the left and javelineers on the right). Each one of these “divisions” was led by an attached general. To determine the number of heroes in the ranks of the opposing armies, I rolled a d6 for the English (treating a result of 1-3 as 3 heroes) and a d8 for the Vikings (treating a result of 1-4 as 4 heroes). To these totals, I added the results of the preliminary challenges taking place on the causeway. Coincidentally, the dice determined that each side would have 7 heroes in attendance for the impending battle.
These heroes were distributed across the opposing lines of battle. In the ranks of the veteran units led by the two commanders, there was, of course, a hero or champion. Some of the “divisions” or commands were screened by a unit of skirmishers. The vast majority of the formations on the featureless field were shieldwall units. The opposing deployments are illustrated in Map 7. There were no camps. My model battlefield of Maldon measured approximately 57 inches by 28 inches. (My grid squares had sides 9 centimetres long, and my units - counters, actually - had uniform frontages of 8 centimetres.) Olaf’s army had 18 victory medals, while the outnumbered Anglo-Saxons under Byrhtnoth had just 13 victory medals.
The first couple of turns were spent getting reacquainted with how things happen when one side is active. Instead of drawing and playing regular-sized cards, I used homemade chits. These were placed face down on the edges of the flat field and “shuffled” after each side had completed its movement, missile fire, melee, or rallying. The skirmishers on each side had little time to fling or loose their various missiles, as the line units of each army were somewhat eager to get to grips with one another. The third turn witnessed the first casualties of the battle. An Anglo-Saxon unit had the distinction of “winning” this “award”. As the opposing lines closed, the chits were being drawn and placed at a fairly quick pace. The disappointment at failed activations and or the apparent inability to hit the broadside of a Dark Ages barn in the many melees was also fairly evident. More than several times, the heroes in each army were called upon to support the pushing and shoving between shieldwall units. On both sides, the heroes were subject to the luck of the draw, and they did not fare well. By the end of the fourth turn of this scenario, 6 Viking heroes were face down, their shields and weapons no longer of use, and 5 Saxon heroes would not see the sun set. Both armies had suffered some losses. The Saxons had 3 units in disorder, while twice as many Viking units were in the same state. The next turn saw the complete collapse of a unit on Byrhtnoth’s side of the field. In addition, his subordinate general on the right of the line met his violent end in a confused melee. By the finish of the sixth turn, all the heroes were dead, and the Anglo-Saxons had lost 6 victory medals. The Vikings had a couple of units on their last legs, but all of their commanders were still breathing, and all of their victory medals were still in their possession. Map 8 shows the status of the table top at this stage of the wargame. At the end of the seventh turn, however, the Vikings had lost 9 victory medals due to a run of bad luck. In their phase of the turn, a unit of Hird collapsed after being repulsed by the enemy. In the Saxon segment of the turn, two more units of Hird routed from the field, having taken quite a bit of punishment at the hands of the enemy formations. This sudden run of bad luck continued to plague the Northmen in the next turn, as a number of Aces were drawn. Then, just as suddenly, things shifted. Another Anglo-Saxon unit was destroyed and Byrhtnoth was wounded. In the Viking phase of Turn 9, Olaf urged his veterans forward, promising them great rewards if they used their battle-axes effectively. His men responded and cut a swathe through the enemy formation they were facing, destroying it and thus breaking the Saxon army.
Once again, history was repeated on my tabletop. To be certain, it was not an exact carbon copy of what happened, for Byrhtnoth did not die, but the process and overall result was, at least in my opinion, fairly historical. To be sure, this was an unusual game, as I kept reaching for dice and a ruler but always came up empty handed. I am quite certain, too, that there were some mistakes made. I believe these were minor errors, however, and so, did not significantly detract from the course of the battle. There was a slight sense of repetition, as the drawn chits would often indicate an inconclusive melee round. On immediate reflection, it occurs to me that I should have, perhaps, focused more on rallying units on both sides instead of on fighting the various melees. Then again, success in this endeavor might have prolonged the contest and resulted in a greater sense of repetition without any real resolution or progress. I was not hugely disappointed by the fact that the skirmishers did not participate very much in this contest. I was, however, a little disappointed by not being able to exploit gaps in either line of battle, by the fact that I was not able to turn the flank of a single enemy unit. When the time seemed right, it seemed as if my hand was drawn to the low numbered chits and so, I was not able to complete the difficult move of shifting a unit of Hird or Fyrd to gain this particular advantage. Overall though, I thought it was a fairly decent solo wargame. It did not take very long to play; I did not have to consult several tables of modifiers, and I did not have to roll or re-roll any dice. The last turns were quite dramatic, what with Byrhtnoth being wounded and Olaf leading his men to victory in a hard-fought melee.
Remarks & Reflection
I did not set out with the intention of refighting the Battle of Maldon several times. My original idea was to comment upon as well as offer an update to the article written by Mr. Martin Gibbins in the same issue of WARGAMES illustrated® magazine. In his informative article, “The Challenge of Dark Age Wargaming”, Mr. Gibbins considered “the nature of shieldwall combat, or at least out perception of it” and then attempted to establish a working definition of the term shieldwall. [7] From here, he moved to a consideration of modeling a shieldwall on the tabletop and then provided a brief review of how some game systems handle combat between shieldwall formations. Mr. Gibbins ended on a fairly positive note, remarking that, “the popular rules sets meet the challenge rather well”. While he gave them a decent score, the gentleman also admitted that these sets, “with a few tweaks here and there, could do a little better”.
Figuring that enough time had elapsed, I thought it might prove worthwhile to revisit the topics examined by Mr. Gibbins. My main focus would be on looking at more sets of rules and seeing how they modeled the contest or combat between opposing shieldwall formations. This amateur exploration was quite interesting, for some rules did not even mention the word shieldwall, while other sets identified shieldwall as a troop type rather than as a particular formation. [8] During my “research”, I had the good fortune of stumbling across a couple of additional rule sets that deserve closer reading and perhaps even a play test or two. [9] Somewhere in the middle of this enjoyable process, I was distracted by Mr. Priestley’s colourful report and decided to scrap the one project and start in on another. However, I did not stop thinking about shieldwalls. A search of keywords on the Society’s forums produced a number of results. The most interesting, promising, and recent discussion thread was the one started by Mr. Duncan Head on 31 August 2017. [10] About three-quarters done with my scenarios, I did a little more digging around and managed to unearth Professor Ryan Lavelle’s “Rethinking ‘Saxon’ Wargaming”. [11] This article was also quite interesting, as the gentleman offered food for thought about the classification(s) of the Saxon Fyrd as well as discussed the validity of source material with regard to “the use of the ‘shieldwall’”. I could not help but think about both the discussion thread and its various posts as well as Professor Lavelle’s submission when I reread the Maldon poem for the fifth or sixth time. I underlined, in a different colour ink, the relevant sections that had already been annotated. Near line 100, there was the description of a “battle-hedge being built with shields”. Near line 240, there was the description of the “folk being divided and the shield-defense being broken”. Finally, near line 285, there was the description of a “shield’s rim being burst”.
The staging a “miniature” refight of Maldon is not an original idea. As explained in the introduction, I drew inspiration from Mr. Priestley’s excellent effort. Regarding Maldon and its coverage in the pages of Slingshot, Mr. Ian Greenwood holds the honour of being the first to write about the contest. His report,”The Battle of Maldon”, appeared in Issue 123. About 10 years later, Professor Philip Sabin took pen to paper and submitted “Maldon AD 991: Read the Poem & Fight the Battle”. This academic analysis and adaptation appeared in Issue 181. Based on my scanning of the Slingshot Index (1964-2010), there has been nothing written and published about the historical engagement since. [12] As might be expected or imagined, a number of articles about Vikings and related topics have appeared in the pages of this august journal. It is not my intention to provide a complete accounting here, but I can report that Mr. Roy Goodwell-Boss started the ball rolling (or should I have typed “longship sailing”?) with his “Jomsvikings” piece, which appeared in Issue 31. An informal count, again, subject to correction, reveals that there have been approximately 20 articles published about Vikings in the pages of Slingshot. [13] Typing the keyword “shieldwall” into the search window of the Index document produced just over half-a-dozen results. These seemed to be split between convention or show reports and the examination of the Warhammer Ancient Battles supplement. [14]
In the first paragraph of this submission, I identified the two goals for this project. The first was to shore up a faltering interest in wargaming. To an extent, and admitting that the following assessment is entirely subjective (how could it not be?), I believe that I have managed to rekindle this fading interest. While it is certainly not as consuming as it once was, neither is it in a state of hibernation. It occurs to me, perhaps too late, that the editor as well as the readership might well be tired of reading about my wargaming adventures or misadventures. It also occurs to me that it might be more effective and efficient to post my exercises and experiments directly to the Battle Reports forum. I could also increase my reading audience, possibly, if I posted these exercises and experiments to the dedicated forum on TMP. Then again, I could also create a blog and see where that took me. Given my atypical approach, I doubt that I would accumulate a sufficient number of readers/followers. Setting aside these ideas and introspections, I thought it was interesting as well as enjoyable to refight Maldon several times in succession. (Well, okay, more like three times, as the IMPETVS version was not played all the way through.) To be certain, my model armies and terrain cannot begin to compare to the model armies and terrain employed by Mr. Priestley and his associates. In my defense, I was not trying to offer a more magnificent interpretation or representation of the historical action. I was simply interested in rekindling a fading interest in the hobby. I was also interested in examining and exploring how various rule sets modeled the shieldwall. While the wargames were enjoyable as well as educational, I think I was more successful in achieving the second goal, even though I am still not completely in one camp or the other concerning the nature of shieldwall combat, with how to best model these formations on a tabletop and so forth. Using four sets of rules only scratches the surface. There are, I would estimate, at least a dozen - if not significantly more than a dozen - sets of rules that could be investigated. In addition, there are many battles of this historical period that could be researched and staged on my tabletop. As usual, I am left with more questions than answers. Will 2018 be a year filled with solo scenarios that involve Vikings? Will I attempt a campaign wherein I raid and then conquer Northumbria? Will I convert, however tardily, to SAGA? Will my Dark Ages focus change once the decision for Battle Day 2019 is made, or will it change on its own? On the subject of Battle Day choices and selections, I wonder if a Dark Ages contest or a Vikings-were-present-and-involved engagement will even make the list? Perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, the campaign of Stamford Bridge and Hastings might be chosen for the Society’s annual event?
Notes
1. As I have often remarked in my submissions, I do not possess the talent or treasure required to produce such a massive collection or collections of miniature works of art. I have come to terms with these failings. Rest assured, I admire greatly and sometimes even envy those individuals who have or have developed these skills over the course of their involvement in the hobby.
2. Please see the Saxon 800-1016 and Viking 800-1016 list, both found at http://warflute.org/experimental_army_en.php.
3. After some digging, a translation of the poem was found here: https://lightspill.com/poetry/oe/maldon.html.
4.The years covered by this list are 1014 to 1075. The Battle of Maldon was fought in 991.
5. The dates are rather problematic here as well, since this list covers just five years, from 1066 to 1071.
6. A roll of destiny is an optional rule in IMPETVS. As explained on page 44, “the roll of destiny lets you repeat an unsatisfactory cohesion test”.
7. See pages 34 to 39. There are eight pictures and one illustration/painting included with this article. The pictures are of various models of 28 mm Dark Age figures or formations. If I could have any of these on my table, I would be a very satisfied solo wargamer. The caption of the illustration explains that it portrays “two shieldwalls clashing at The Battle of Brunanburh in 937”. Curiously, the same illustration appears on page 41 of “Wolves from the Sea”, The Dark Ages supplement book for the Field of Glory rules. Here, the work is described as being a portrayal of “The Battle of Hafrsfjord, in 972 AD”.
8. As already identified, Mr. Miller’s To the Strongest! rules lists “shieldwall” as a troop type, a particular unit. This was also the case in Dux Bellorum (Arthurian Wargaming Rules AD367-793), an Osprey set of rules authored by Mr. Daniel Mersey. In stark contrast, some rules, such as ADLG, as mentioned in the body of this article, and Dick Bryant’s Might Of Arms, do not contain the word “shieldwall”. A similar pattern was found when looking at how Berserkers were represented. Some rule sets referenced these warriors and modeled them with distinct units, while other sets, like the Field Of Glory supplement, acknowledged their existence, but did not include them in the provided order of battle.
9. See Mr. Simon MacDowall’s http://legio-wargames.com/shieldwall/4537030428, and the handwritten effort by Mr. Mike Garrett at https://mikegarrettwargamerules.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/scyldburgh-garrett-19871.pdf.
10. See ‘Vikings didn’t use shield-walls’. Mr. Head provided two links with his post. The first was: https://thornews.com/2017/08/30/research-vikings-did-not-hide-behind-shield-walls/. The second was: https://www.academia.edu/27661409/Round_Shields_and_Body_Techniques_Experimental_Archaeology_with_a_Viking_Age_Round_Shield_Reconstruction_draft_.
11. See pages 20 to 25 in Issue 282 of WARGAMES illustrated® magazine.
12. This statement is subject to correction, of course. My subscription started with Issue 287, in March/April of 2013, so I cannot account for the content of issues between 2010 and this date.
13. In determining this total, I did not count the submissions or articles found in the Index that included “Review” or “Review of” in the title.
14. See, for example, the review written by Mr. Simon Ellis in Issue 226, where he looks at Stephen Patten’s “Shieldwall Warfare in the Viking Age: A supplement for WAB”. See also Mr. Richard Young’s “A Shieldwall at Shieldwall - Anglo-Danish under DBM 3.1”, in Issue 248.
