AN ARRANGEMENT OF ARGENTORATUM

If, at some point in the future, let us say within the next decade, the historical battle of Argentoratum (also called Strasbourg, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg) happened to be selected for The Society of Ancients Battle Day, I wonder if it would be as well attended and covered as was Hydaspes, the selection for Battle Day 2015? (For those readers not familiar with Battle Day, I strongly recommend that you spend a few minutes, if not more, browsing this site:  https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.) To be certain, this is a hypothetical as well as rather specific question, but one that eventually bubbled to the surface of the cauldron that is sometimes my solo wargaming mind as I continued to draw inspiration from Patrick Waterson’s excellent article about the 357 AD engagement between Julian and Chnodomar, which appeared in the November/December 2018 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. 

According to the colorful and comprehensive coverage, (there was an article in the July 2015 issue of Wargame Illustrated and a total of 11 narrative reports offered in three successive issues of Slingshot [please see the July/August through November/December 2015 issues]) for Hydaspes, there were 17 reconstructions and 15 different sets of rules used. If Argentoratum was in fact chosen, I wonder if there would be as many reconstructions and as many sets of rules employed in deciding the miniature contest. I also wonder what would be the predominant figure scale for the refights. Would there be any 6 mm wargames? What about even smaller scales, like 2 mm? Would there be a majority consensus on the numbers involved and on the deployment of the opposing formations? Would a majority of attendees follow the diagrams and notes provided by Simon MacDowall? (Please see http://legio-wargames.com/strasbourg/4542978511.) Would others follow the guidelines established by James Manto in Slingshot 216? Given that his article is the most recent (at least to my knowledge), would there be a substantial group that modeled their refights on the information provided by Patrick Waterson? Would there be a “troublesome group” that decided to dismount all of the Alemanni cavalry? Would some tables feature a gentle ridge on the Roman side of the miniature field, while some tables placed the feature on the barbarian side? Would some tables forgo terrain features all together, since an argument or arguments could be made that terrain did not really have any impact or influence on the actual battle? Would a few tables be in contention for “best terrain” prize, as these playing surfaces provided, to borrow a line from Libanius (cited in Patrick’s analysis), “an elevated water-course, overgrown with reeds” that were spectacular in both scale and appearance? On the subject of prizes, who would win the “best” Julian and Chnodomar? What would be the criteria for these “awards”? How would participants, presuming a decent percentage of them referenced Patrick’s work, depict the reported presence of around 80 carroballistae? I know that the Armati 2nd Edition rules contain no section(s) on ancient field artillery. The Tactica II rules do not provide for these missile-launching engines either. A quick check of my “library” informs that Hail Caesar, IMPETVS, and L’Art de la Guerre include rules for various types of ancient artillery. Based on my study of past Battle Day events, the Armati rules, in one form or another, have been a fairly regular presence. I have yet to read about Tactica II being used at Battle Day. The general point that I am trying to make is this: If many sets of wargame rules for the ancient period do not include paragraphs and or tables on field artillery, then how will this “issue” be resolved if or when Argentoratum is selected as the historical engagement for Battle Day 2029? 

As interesting as these questions are (understanding full well that the word “interesting” brings into play all sorts of subjectivity), I shifted my attention and focus from ruminating about these ideas and issues to thinking about how I might use Simon Miller’s colorful, dice-less, and free of measuring devices rules to refight the battle of Argentoratum on my tabletop.  

Chnodomar vs Julian: Who is the Strongest?

Preparing the Armies - 

Unfortunately, I was not able to find a matching army list from which I could draft my Roman formations. The closest army was the Middle Imperial Romans (193 CE - 312 CE). This army list was found in the completely free to download Rome’s Empire “catalog.” Having Patrick’s article to my immediate left and the army list on my computer screen, I proceeded to build the Roman formations required for the planned refight. 

Severus was a detached and mounted general, and tasked with commanding the auxiliaries on the far left of the line of battle. There were four units of these troops. There was one hero assigned to the larger formation. I did not include a camp with this small command worth 10 victory medals and costing 39 points.  The legions that formed the main line of battle were depicted with nine units of Legionarii. Each legion of three units was assigned a “battery” of carroballistae. Each legion was also given a hero and had a detached, mounted commander. After going back and forth about it, I decided to upgrade the center legion, the Primani, to veterans. If my sums are correct, each legion was worth 10 victory medals and cost in the range of 44-45 points. The identified or named auxiliary units on the Roman right were organized into a single command, led by another detached and mounted general. The Batavii and Reges formations were classed as veterans and each unit was given a hero. This force cost approximately 42 points and was worth 10 victory medals. For the cavalry on the right wing, I fabricated two units of Equites Clibanarii, one unit of Equites Alares, and one unit of Equites Sagittarii. One hero was embedded with the cataphracts. The small command was led by yet another detached and mounted general. The point value for this cavalry wing was about 44 points; its victory medal count was 10. The reserve legion on this same flank was a copy of the Primani formation. These heavy infantry and supporting carroballistae were commanded by Julian, who was attached, mounted, and senior. Julian was attached to a small unit of veteran Equites Alares. This smallest command was worth 11 victory medals and cost approximately 62 points. 

Reviewing my “work” so far, it was determined that the Roman line, that is the front line, would contain 17 units. My wargames table measures 6.5 feet or 78 inches long. Simple division informed that I could fill the table with Roman auxiliaries, legionaries, and cavalry, if I defined my squares or boxes to be around 4.5 inches per side. To allow for some additional room, I established a box size of 3.5 inches per side. This would give me a battlefield 22 boxes wide and 12 boxes deep. My units, more functional and two-dimensional than visually stunning and possessing a certain heft, it has to be stated, would have, therefore, a universal frontage of 2.75 inches. 

Shifting my focus to the other side of the work-in-progress battlefield, I started building the Alemanni warbands. For this process, I still had Patrick’s article to my immediate left, but I had opened up the free army list for the Germans (115 BCE to 600 CE) from the Rise of Rome “catalog.” Wanting to match the frontage of the Roman legions, I prepared three units of warriors. Then, in an attempt to represent the depth of these massed fighters, I prepared another three units. Each large warband, then, contained six units of warriors. The three units in the front rank were each given a hero. The leader was an attached general who got about on foot. Matching Patrick’s estimated order of battle, I built five of these large warbands. Each warband had a victory medal count of 20 and was worth around 67 points. The globus of Chnodomar was represented with four units of veteran warriors; each unit having a hero. Chnodomar was in charge, obviously. He was attached, mounted, senior, and of course, heroic. This elite formation was worth 14 victory medals. Moving over to the barbarian cavalry wing, I made four units of cavalry along with three units of skirmishers armed with javelins. The leader of this formation was attached and mounted. There were two heroes riding with the group, which was worth 13 victory medals and approximately 45 points. 

Setting the Stage - 

As per usual, I produced the color counter equivalents of actual stands or units of miniatures, printed them on card stock and then cut them out. Using various colors of thread, I prepared the gridded battlefield. The model armies were then deployed, starting with the Romans under Julian. To the extent that I was able, I copied the arrangement shown on the color map provided on page 29 in the oft cited issue of Slingshot. I borrowed the fatigue markers from my Armati stores and employed these as the missile supply markers for the carroballistae and Sagittarii. Double-checking, I placed markers on the Equites and Cataphracts as well. Disordered markers were positioned well behind the Roman formations. Instead of actual victory medals or coins, I used a handful of blue six-sided dice. The outnumbered army of Julian deployed, I turned my attention to the barbarians. 

Even though the Alemanni were just a collection of colored counters, looking at their massed warbands from the Roman side of the table caused me to gulp slightly and break into a bit of a sweat. Due to their numbers, they overlapped the Roman line by a square or box on each flank. Their depth looked rather intimidating as well. The Alemanni cavalry and supporting light troops were given their missile markers. To the left and right of Chnodomar’s globus, disordered markers were piled. White six-sided dice were used for the barbarian victory medals, and boy, there were quite a lot of them! [The first picture shows the initial deployment of the opposing armies.]

How It Played - 

The tabletop battle was over rather quickly, actually, and in plain terms, history was reversed. (Interestingly and coincidentally enough, in two previous refights, using two different sets of rules, the Romans were also swept from the field in short order.) While the Roman cavalry wing was able to hold its own versus the enemy troopers on the right wing, the left wing and the center bore the brunt of the barbarian pressure and, after some hard fighting, cracks and then gaping holes began to appear in the Roman line. 

With the exception of the opposing cavalry wings, the tabletop engagement was slow in starting.  [The second picture shows the stalemate or back and forth of the action between the two cavalry wings.] 

Chnodomar and his subordinate chieftains used group moves to get their massed warbands shuffling across the table. The Romans waited for the onslaught; the carroballistae crews readying their missile launchers. As it turned out, unfortunately, the carroballistae were spectacularly ineffective: the large missiles landed everywhere except where they would have done the most damage. On the right of the Roman line, one of the legions was in seriously trouble right away, as the tide of fierce warriors crashed into it like a 15-foot wave of weapon-wielding fanatics. Along other parts of the line, the Romans dealt out measures of punishment, but the warriors kept coming. Severus, leading the left wing, tried to stem the tide of enemy here as well, but did not fare so well. In fact, one of the units he was directing was swamped and broken. Severus narrowly escaped being captured and or hacked down where he sat on his horse. Chnodomar urged his warriors on—from safely behind the fighting it must be noted—pushing his subordinates to force more warriors into the attack, into the series of melees. Scores if not hundreds were slain by the trained legionaries, but numbers eventually told and a third of the legion on the far left of the Roman line was routed, followed by a third of the Primani legion. In the confused fighting, Severus lost another unit of auxiliaries. [The third and fourth pictures show the initial “crunch” between warbands and legionaries, as well as the rather large hole that was punched in the Roman line.]

While all this was transpiring, the action on the cavalry wing was essentially a stalemate. The Roman Cataphracts were able to inflict some losses on the enemy units, but they were not able to make any kind of breakthrough. Surprisingly, after depleting their arrow supply, the Sagittarii proved rather effective and even though at half-strength, they were able to get the better of a combined barbarian cavalry and light infantry unit. To be certain, they did have a little assist from Julian, who led his small bodyguard into a flanking position. While a decent tactical move, this advance and involvement in a melee removed Julian from the larger picture of the developing battle, which, as related above, was not going in the Romans’ favor at all. 

Although Julian and what was left of his army still had 5 victory medals, the writing seemed very much on the wall. Or, to use language more appropriate for the To The Strongest! rules, it appeared quite evident that Chnodomar and his Alemanni held all the cards. [The fifth and final picture shows the very much depleted account of Julian’s victory medals.]

Comments and Evaluation

As stated above, history was reversed on my functional/primitive tabletop in mid-June of 2021. In his engaging article, Patrick notes that, “historically, the battle was a Roman walkover with a few exciting moments.” This most recent refight could readily be called a walkover, but this time, it was the Alemanni warbands who were wearing the “workboots.” 

Even though I do not possess a great deal of experience with these popular and innovative rules, I was engaged and entertained during the solo wargame. It was fun figuring out how I might model Patrick’s version of history on my tabletop using To The Strongest! It was fun playing the game (a turn here, two turns there) despite using fiddly cards, despite the frustrating performance of the carroballistae, and despite the creeping sense of boredom over on the cavalry flank, where, turn after turn, not a whole lot happened. 

Upon reflection, though perhaps I should allow more time, I did not run into any serious problem areas or confusion with the rules as written and revised with the group move and rout amendments, etc. The complete lack of aesthetic appeal or value has already been addressed. However, even as a two-dimensional wargame, it was still entertaining and helped me appreciate Patrick’s thinking and work even more. 

Having opened with a Battle Day hypothetical, I should like to close this post with a return to that consideration. Rome versus barbarians has featured in two previous Battle Day selections. The first was in 2005, when Caesar’s near defeat at The Sambre was played on a number of tables. The second was in 2019, when the “sandwich” engagement of Telamon was fought on a few more tabletops. I think Argentoratum (or Strasbourg) merits serious consideration as a potential third candidate for a future Battle Day. Romans versus those “significantly” less “civilized” always seems to draw a good crowd. There are a wide variety of scales to choose from, and there are sufficient sources to allow varying interpretations of the historical engagement. While I have not exhausted my interest in this battle, for the sake of other ideas and pursuits, I am going to put it away for a little while. When I return to it, I think I might try to stage something similar to what Simon MacDowall has played a number of times. It will be interesting to see if the Romans can do better with a different set up and with a different set or sets of rules. Already, I am thinking of how I might employ L’Art de la Guerre (still 3rd Edition) and perhaps even Tactica II.