OH ME, OH MY! SO MANY ALEMANNI!

In the third paragraph of his excellent article on Agrentoratum, the late Patrick Waterson explained and concluded:

In AD 357, the Roman armies in Gaul were ordered to carry out a two-pronged    

        attack on a growing concentration of Alemanni under their charismatic chief 

        Chnodomar. The main prong, some 25,000-30,000 soldiers under Master of the 

        Infantry (magister militum) Barbatio, would approach from the south, while a 

        subsidiary force of 13,000 under the Caesar Julian would close from the west. 

        With approximately 40,000 Romans against an army of perhaps 60,000             

        Alemanni, the outcome would not be in doubt. [1]

In the next paragraph, Patrick described the apparent jealousy, mistrust, or simple lack of communication between the Roman commanders and then reported on the evident incompetency of or plain bad luck experienced by Barbatio, which resulted in a fairly severe reversal. This initial victory, engineered by the charismatic and either lucky or tactically skilled (or a bit of both) Chnodomar, gave me pause and made me wonder if the aforementioned outcome would have been, in fact, a given. Interested in finding out how this contest that never took place might have turned out, I decided to stage it—or my perceived version of it, in my usual non-traditional manner, on a tabletop. I surveyed my small library of rulebooks to see which one might best fit the project in development. After giving due consideration to several other sets, I chose L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG. 

Orders of Battle

In his article, Patrick provides a wargamer-friendly ‘force structure’ table for the small Roman force under the command of Julian. This army is broken down into a variety of cavalry formations, legionaries, auxiliary units and, intriguingly, a fairly large number of carroballistae. Using this table as a foundation, I tripled the number of Romans reportedly present on that fateful day in late summer of 357 AD and then referred to the Late Imperial Roman army list (Number 86), found on pages 127-128 in the ADLG rulebook. 

Using the suggested scale of one unit of heavy (or battle line) infantry represents 500 men, I needed to fabricate or prepare 24 units of auxiliary infantry to model the estimated 12,000 auxiliaries that would be present on my fictional battlefield. Four of these units would be archers (light-medium infantry or LMI per the troop type definitions provided on page 13). Six units would be classed as Auxilia Pseudocomitatenses, which are mediocre medium swordsmen. The remaining 14 units would be Auxilia Palatina. These bases or stands would be medium swordsmen with impact. Four of these formations would have missile support, meaning that they would have archers integrated into their rear ranks. In the historical battle of Argentoratum (also called Strasbourg), the Batavii and Reges auxiliary units consisted of hardened veterans, so these formations, these two units, were upgraded to elite. 

For this counterfactual engagement, I built 52 stands of legionaries. These units would represent around 26,000 heavy infantry. Checking this section of the army list on page 127, I decided to create 13 stands of heavy swordsmen, 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with impact, 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with impact and armour (or armor), and 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with missile support. Six stands of heavy swordsmen with impact would be classed as elite troops, while six stands of heavy swordsmen with impact and armour would also be rated as elite troops. 

To complete the infantry contingent of this estimated force, I prepared 9 stands of light infantry. These were evenly divided into skirmishers carrying slings, bows, or javelins. In a nod to Patrick’s argument or conclusion about the presence of Roman field artillery, I built 10 stands of light artillery and 10 more stands of medium artillery. 

The representative unit scale for cavalry formations is one-fourth the number established for foot. Starting with the lighter horse, I made 8 stands of Equites Illyricani (light cavalry with javelins) and then 12 stands of Equites Sagittarii (light cavalry with bows). Twelve units of Cataphract cavalry were fabricated; two of these units were upgraded to elite status. An impressive total of 19 units of Equites (heavy cavalry) were built. Nine more of this type were fashioned, but these were classed as heavy cavalry with impact. Three of these units were upgraded to elite troops. 

By my count, always subject to correction of course, there were a total of 153 units in this Roman army. These various formations added up to approximately 1,369 points. The infantry units accounted for 847 of these points, while the horse accounted for 522. A typical friendly or competitive game of ADLG features opposing armies valued at 200 points each and divided into three distinct commands or corps: a left “wing,” a center, and a right “wing.” The imagined Roman force for this fictional contest, then, was the equivalent of about seven traditional ADLG armies. Obviously, there would be more than just three Roman commands or corps on my table. Turning my attention to the other side of this pretend field of battle, I started by considering the cavalry contingent of the Alemanni host led by Chnodomar. 

Studying the Franks, Alemanni, Burgundi, Suevi army list (Number 96) on page 133 of the rulebook, and deciding to triple the barbarian mounted elements indicated by Patrick, I crafted 72 stands of cavalry for the planned engagement. Forty-eight of these stands or units were categorized as medium cavalry; the rest were classed as heavy cavalry. Eight units of the heavy cavalry were upgraded to elite. 

Feeling somewhat constrained by the provided army list, especially after reading Patrick’s article a number of times and consulting the narrative provided by Ammianus, I decided to add a couple of categories for the barbarian infantry. In addition to the impetuous heavy swordsmen, I would create an impetuous medium swordsmen as well as a medium swordsmen with impact and a mediocre swordsmen with impact categories. Satisfied with this adjustment, I proceeded to build 35 units of impetuous heavy swordsmen, 25 units of impetuous medium swordsmen, 15 units of medium swordsmen with impact, and 15 units of mediocre medium swordsmen with impact. To represent the elite warriors, the globus under the direct command, apparently, of Chnodomar, I prepared 12 units of elite impetuous heavy swordsmen. Two dozen stands of light infantry or skirmishers were prepared as well. One-third of these young men were carrying bows; the rest carried three or four javelins each.  

A few quick calculations informed that Chnodomar, along with his subordinate kings and chieftains, would lead very close to 200 units into battle against the “swarthy little men from the south.” [2] In terms of total points, the Alemanni would field 568 points of cavalry and 881 points of infantry or warriors. Added together, this gave the barbarians a slight numerical advantage of 80 points (1,449 versus 1,369) over Julian and his better trained as well as veteran force. 

Terrain

Drawing inspiration from a battle report found in an “ancient” (October of 1990) issue of Miniature Wargames (“A Return to Ancients,” by Chris Tofalos, saw 4,000 points worth of Galatians and Republican Romans have at it on a 7 feet by 3 feet tabletop using WRG 7th), I decorated my 10.5 feet by 3.75 feet playing surface with more than just several patches of woods. However, I did not go “terrain feature crazy” and place a variety of marshes, steep hills, plantations, villages or villas, gullies, as well as the odd lake or swiftly flowing river. In broad overview, the intent was to create something colorful, if not exactly aesthetically impressive or stunning like those miniature displays offered by Simon MacDowall, Simon Miller, James Roach, and Rick Priestley, just to name several personalities (or celebrities, or leaders) in the world of historical miniature wargaming. I also wanted to create something “clean” and fairly linear, replicating, to the extent that I could with the meager resources available, the open ground whereupon the opposing lines of heavy infantry and warriors would clash. After experimenting over the Memorial Day weekend with a few set ups, I decided that my field would include the following: a villa along with a couple of plantations; three gentle hills and one steep hill; three wooded areas; three patches of brush or scrub, and just for sake of additional color and interest, a small stream. (The incorporation of a villa, a built-up-area, was inspired by the “Barbarians at the Gates 500 AD” narrative provided in the Hail Caesar rules. I also recall seeing something similar in a post read on Dr. Paul Innes’ blog, caliban-somewhen.blogspot, but a 20 minute search early one morning in June turned up no exact match, unfortunately. If memory serves, this battle involved Romans and barbarians. Gauls, I think.) As I had made adjustments to the dimensions of the various units, it followed that I would tinker, just a little, with the stated limits for the sizes of terrain elements or features. Generally speaking, I decided that my functional terrain pieces would have to fit within a template measuring 8 inches by 12 inches. The finished table, while certainly not an award winner at any show (unless they give out prizes for the most basic and inexpensive terrain), looked pretty good. Of course, that assessment is subjective. This version of the battlefield certainly came together. It did not disappoint or frustrate. In the spirit of full disclosure, a small area of marsh was added to a corner of the tabletop. This feature seemed to pair naturally with the stream.  

Deployments

Rather than follow the procedure detailed in the “Sequence of deployment” section (page 71 of the ADLG rulebook) or draft some other process whereby die rolls determined what units and commands go where, I simply operated under the assumption that there would be a large cavalry battle on one flank of the field, and that an infantry contest would dominate the center. As for the other flank, well, that would be paid some attention, but it would not be the focus of either commander, really. 

With respect to the Roman arrangement, the Equites were massed on the right wing. These heavy horse were partially screened by some Sagittarii and Illyricani. The Cataphracts were positioned on the inside of this wing, next to the infantry center. These very heavy cavalry did not have the most open terrain to their front (to their left front, there was a villa and some planted fields; to their front there was a patch of woods), but they were deployed on a gentle hill and were under the watchful eye of Julian, the overall commander of the Roman army. The strength of the Roman position was its center. Here, there were three lines of legionaries. The first line was supported by 10 “batteries” of medium artillery. This first line was also screened by a smattering of skirmishers armed with bows, javelins, or slings. Auxiliary infantry, along with light artillery and some additional light cavalry was assigned to the left wing of the Roman position. Unlike the heavier legionaries, the auxiliary infantry was drawn up in two lines. (Note: Prior to making final decisions on the deployment of the Roman forces, I re-read the relevant pages (131-139) of The Roman Army at War 100 BC — AD 200, written by Professor Goldsworthy.)

Shifting perspectives so that I was looking from the other side of this fictional field of battle, there was an impressive and frightening mass of cavalry on the barbarian left. No fewer than four lines of cavalry, a mixture of medium, heavy, as well as some elite squadrons waited for orders to move forward and launch an all-out attack on the Roman troopers. Five large warbands occupied the center of the barbarian position. King Chnodomar was on a gentle hill behind this line, standing with his fierce, veteran, and elite globus of warriors. This collection of colorful and hairy warbands was screened by a number of skirmishers, most of whom carried three to four light javelins. A smaller number of warbands—and lighter in weight as well—were stationed on the right. These “lesser” warriors were also screened by skirmishers, though not as many as the central command. The right wing of the barbarian alliance was reinforced by a handful of medium and heavy cavalry, Chnodomar figuring that it might be wise to deploy at least a few mounted troops in this sector. 

How it Played

The first turn was all command rolls and movement, as the opposing lines had been deployed approximately three light cavalry moves apart. The barbarians had some excellent rolls, though, and both cavalry and foot were making a good pace towards the Romans. Bragging rights for drawing first blood went to the Roman light horse on their far left flank. As they were facing heavier enemy cavalry and had just annoyed them, the Sagittarii wheeled about and tried to put as much distance between the two lines as they could. The barbarian warbands made good progress in this sector, even if they had to negotiate a stream and gentle hill on the other side. However, they also had to contend with some auxiliary foot and neighboring archers. These Roman troops slowed their advance quite a little bit. The Roman light artillery was soon busy and seemed to be effective (or lucky) against the boiling mass of warriors. 

In the center of the field, things were relatively quiet (except for the breathing of the thousands of warriors as they slowly jogged forward) and rather impressive, as their lines rolled forward like a multicolored, variously armed, and perhaps irresistible wave. Waiting for them was a Roman wall, bristling with about 100 cart-mounted ballistae. 

The cavalry contest over on the Roman right flank developed rather quickly, as both sides were eager to come to grips. The Roman light horse dashed in and let loose a volley of arrows and javelins, but these missiles had no noticeable impact. Like their counterparts of the other flank, these troopers wheeled around and left the main affair to the heavier cavalry formations. While the Alemanni had the numbers, they did not, at least in this opening round, have the luck or the comparable weight. By the end of Game Turn 3, the barbarian cavalry was down 7 units versus the loss of just 1 unit of Equites for the Romans. The melee was a messy and costly contest, however. The Romans had 5 units near their breaking points. Both sides did have reserves waiting to get stuck in. The Alemanni hoped that their luck would change. 

By the end of Game Turn 6, the Romans had moved some of their cavalry reserve into the swirling melees taking place on their right wing. The supply of Alemanni horse seemed endless. The Roman Equites would engage them, whittle them down or in some cases defeat them quickly, but a new squadron would appear to take the place of the routed and ruined one. A brief survey and counting informed that the barbarian commander on this flank had around 20 fresh units of cavalry to contribute where they might be needed. Though an impressive and imposing number, this proven leader was finding it sometimes difficult to make his advantage in men and horses work to King Chnodomar’s benefit. The space for fighting the Romans was somewhat limited. That same space was becoming rather littered with the detritus of a chaotic battle between the opposing mounted units of each side. 

Sensing possible trouble, Julian ordered the commander of the Cataphracts to commit his men to the fight. Part of the “division” took on some barbarian cavalry; the other half of the very heavy horsemen moved forward to engage some impetuous (as well as foolhardy) warriors on foot. The cavalry melees were won by the Cataphracts, though at the cost of a squadron. The contest with the warbands was much easier; the Cataphracts literally ran over the hapless warriors. 

In the center of the field, the advancing line of warriors finally came within range of the carroballistae “batteries.” Unfortunately and to the concern of the waiting and somewhat nervous or tense legionaries, the crews of these large-missile-flinging machines did little to the advancing wall of warbands. 

The effectiveness of the scorpions over on the Roman left flank was better and so, appreciated by the accompanying auxiliary infantry formations. Severus, the commander in this sector, was being pressured at a few points, however. His cavalry contingent had given ground after loosing a few volleys of arrows that failed to find their targets. In fact, the Roman light cavalry were rapidly running out of room in which they could operate. A fair number of warbands had made contact with the line of auxiliaries and light artillery. The fighting had been savage, and there were losses on both sides. To the far right of where Severus was trying to set up a defensive position against an expected enemy cavalry attack, a group of warriors had found and exploited a weakness in the Roman line. There was a distinct possibility that Severus and his men would be cut off from the main Roman formation. Indeed, there was a chance that the Romans might find themselves in a three-sided box on this side of the field. 

A calculation of the casualties on both sides showed that the Romans were making the Alemanni pay, and rather dearly. Thus far, the Romans had lost 18 units and had 15 disordered. In pretty stark contrast, the barbarians had lost 38 units and currently had 20 more disordered on the blood-soaked field. 

As might be imagined, expected, or even wondered why it took so long, after three more turns of hard fighting, a general sense of exhaustion began to develop across the length and breadth of the field. Over on the Roman left wing, Severus was preparing for a last stand. The friendly light cavalry in this sector had decided that discretion was the better part of valor and had fled the field without loosing any more arrows or even hurling any javelins. (In fact, the Illyricani, after considering their options and chances, had simply followed the Sagittarii off the table.) In terms of numbers, Severus had 5 units of auxiliaries that he could cobble together, but they were outnumbered 2 to 1 by enemy warriors and a further 2 to 1 by enemy cavalry. The 

Roman left was being forced into a growing-smaller-by-the-minute three-sided box. Over on the opposite flank, it was a veritable slaughterhouse. Men, horses, and other items produced by dozens of swirling melees littered the field as far as one could see. While the Romans were not being boxed in, there were certainly being worn down. The barbarians had the numbers. The reserve of Alemanni horsemen was three-times the size of the Roman reserve. The fighting had been fierce as well as back and forth. A portion of the Cataphracts had done well, but it had cost them, especially against fresh units of the elite enemy noble heavy cavalry. It was only in the center of the field where the Romans could claim any kind of advantage or success. 

The various and numerous warbands of Alemanni had finally crashed into the waiting line of Roman heavy infantry. All the way in, the carroballistae had let fly with “spears as tall as a man.” While not devastating, the effects of the cart-mounted “batteries” did have an impact, did weaken certain warbands so that the legionaries simply had to clean up what was left. After a couple of rounds of melee, the first line of Chnodomar’s massed warbands looked rather ragged. There were gaps in the line and units were almost at their breaking point. In rather sharp contrast, the Roman line was in good condition. There were also plenty of reserves at hand; 24 fresh units of heavy infantry, some classed as elite troops, stood waiting for their turn to enter the fray. The only reserve Chnodomar could call on was his globus.  

After approximately 10 turns of play, a halt was called so that a survey of the general situation could be made, so that an accounting of the losses suffered by each side could be completed.

The Alemanni had 37 units in disorder. In addition, three of their subordinate leaders had been killed. They had lost 64 units in close combat or to the combined effects of missile fire and melee. Added together, these losses represented 84 percent of their established army breakpoint. If the destroyed or routed units were the only ones counted, then the barbarians were at 64 percent, well more than half way to their tipping point. Applying the same sums to the Roman side of the tabletop, their 43 destroyed or routed units represented 56 percent of their determined army breaking point. If the disordered units (of which there were 17), leaders killed or captured (four for a total value of six points), and units that fled the battle (all 12 troops of light cavalry on the Roman left) were added to this figure, then the Romans were at 79 percent. 

It appeared quite evident that an argument could be made for a bloody draw. According to one count, the Romans had an 8 point advantage. In another count, the Roman advantage narrowed to just 5 points. From the perspective of position or positions, the barbarians had essentially won on their right flank and were in the process of winning on their left. However, given that these local victories might take a few more turns, it seemed quite apparent that the Alemanni would be forced back if not annihilated in the center. Based on these calculations and looking over the current state of the field, a bloody draw was declared, with perhaps, a very slight edge to the Romans.

Evaluation

While this counterfactual was just one game staged by a solo wargamer with an interest in the ancient and medieval as well as early Renaissance periods of military history, it appears that the costly “victory” won by the Romans refutes or at least casts a rather large shadow of doubt on the late gentleman’s contention that the outcome of a meeting between 40,000 Romans and 60,000 barbarians would never be in doubt.  

To be certain, to reiterate, I owe a large debt of thanks to Patrick for providing the inspiration which turned into an idea, which developed into a project. This solo wargame was engaging and entertaining. However, I think that if I attempt something of this unusual size in the future, I will be sure to raise the height of the tabletop (all that leaning over resulted in a sore lower back!), and I might seriously consider enlisting some friends or colleagues, as moving and fighting with approximately 350 separate units presents an almost Herculean task for an individual historical wargamer. [3] 

As the “miniature” battle progressed, I found myself wondering (as I am sure the majority of wargamers do) about certain aspects of the rules as well as about my own bias. For example or for instance, the cavalry contest on the Roman right seemed to take a very long time. Granted, there were a large number of horses and riders present, but still. I often caught myself thinking about the fatigue markers and exhaustion rules that I made use of in Armati wargames. In a similar manner, I often thought about the rout path for broken units and how it is longer than the rout path defined in ADLG. A third issue or point which slightly diminished my level of satisfaction in the recently concluded contest was that of tied melees. In Armati games, drawn melees normally produce casualties (and fatigue) for both sides engaged. In ADLG, nothing happens but a continuation of the fighting in the next melee round. 

Upon reflection, it appears that I missed an excellent opportunity to address army morale before the first command rolls were made. I should have designated or determined a demoralization level for each sector on each side of the field. I refer again to the swirling cavalry contest. The Alemanni troopers suffered significantly, yet they kept on fighting, kept on moving into contact with the next group of Romans. Had I established distinct morale levels for the left, center, and right of each army, I think there might have been a clear winner, and I think it would have been the Alemanni. Why? Well, the same sector morale rules would apply to the Roman formations. While the barbarians did lose a lot of cavalry, the Romans also suffered significant casualties. In what turned out to be a battle of attrition, the Romans would have, I suggest, reached their breaking point on the right and left before the Alemanni reached theirs. 

Upon further reflection and review, there were most certainly mistakes made. These errors would have been both tactical faux pas as well as rule interpretation “oopsies.” As the barbarian commander, I was not subtle at all in my battle plans. I simply moved forward and charged the moment I could. I wanted to use my weight in numbers to push the Romans off the field. This turned out to be, as related above, an expensive idea. In the role of Julian, I suppose I could be faulted for my deployment. Perhaps I should have reinforced both wings with some legionaries? Perhaps I should have placed at least a small group of heavy cavalry on my left flank? As Julian, I can also be taken to task for almost always responding to moves and attacks made by the warriors of King Chnodomar. While these various mistakes did not turn the tide of the battle one way or another and did not detract from the overall experience, I am quite certain that I will be thinking about them for the next couple of weeks or even months. Reason enough to start drawing up plans for another big battle.

Notes

1. Please see “Argentoratum, AD 357,” on pages 27-36, in the November/December 2018 issue of Slingshot, The Journal for the Society of Ancients. Tragically, Patrick Waterson passed away in January of 2020. At the risk of embellishing or overstating, in my estimation, he was a pillar in The Society of Ancients. He was also an encyclopedic force to be reckoned with in its electronic forums as well as in the Guardroom pages of its signature and long-running publication. The Editorial of the March/April 2020 issue of Slingshot was, in essence, an obituary, though one formatted for members of The Society than for members of the larger wargaming community. In the July/August 2020 issue of Slingshot, Professor Phil Sabin offered a memorial to Patrick titled “Honour and Loss.”
2. In a narrative titled “The Battle of the Mandubian Hills,” an engaging report found in Wargames Tactics, Charles Grant (yes, that Charles Grant) employs this descriptive, and by today’s standards, impolitic and likely viewed as culturally insensitive, phrase. 
3. I wonder if this counterfactual might qualify as the largest game of ADLG played to date? Perhaps I should check with PHGamer? (He posts frequently to TMP about his adventures and exploits with ADLG.) I suppose I could also send an email to Tim over at Madaxeman.com. Update: Both gentlemen were kind enough to respond with remarks and thoughts. I am still on the trail of the elusive “big ADLG battle.” The maximum number on points cited by these two veterans was 400 points. On a related note, both were generally pleased with the changes made in Edition 4 of the rules. I strongly doubt, however, if I will spend the money to make the purchase of another new and shiny rulebook. Seems to me that a “rulebook mountain” can sometimes compete with the often mentioned “lead mountain.”