THE TERRIBLE TERCIOS OF TILLY

REFIGHTING BREITENFELD WITH ADVANCED ARMATI

Stretching across the lower portion of pages 52 and 53 in the June 2011 issue of Wargames Illustrated is a rather gorgeous photograph of a Thirty Years wargame in progress. (I think most observers would agree that the picture is exemplary and eye-catching, even if the period is not their main area of interest.) The visual feast certainly provides a colorful complement to an engaging and entertaining article, “The Lion Strikes - The First Battle of Breitenfeld, 17 September 1631,” authored by the international team of Neil Smith (US) & Jim Graham (UK). The caption to the lovely photo reads: “Our Breitenfeld refight. We took quite a few liberties with the make up of the forces involved - but at least the table looked nice!” 

Based on a close reading and study of the article, it appears that the introductory and all together excellent picture is not a photo of the actual refight staged by Mssrs Smith and Graham. Their scenario took place on a 6-foot by 4-foot table and involved or required a total of 10 units (7 on the Swedish side and 3 on the Imperialist side), along with 12 heavy guns or the models representing an Imperial “battery.” The rules they employed were the 30 Years Supplement to Field of Glory. (I am familiar with the Field of Glory ancient rules, but have no experience with and have not looked at this particular supplement.) Their scenario depicted just a portion of the larger engagement, not that there is anything wrong with that. There is nothing wrong, either, with the choice made by the editorial and production staff of the monthly magazine regarding their set up of the historical battle. They admit to their “adjustments” and are quite forthcoming with regard to their preferences. 

Some ten years later, this atypical historical wargamer found himself suddenly interested in staging a refight of the contest between Gustavus Adolphus and Count Tilly. Relatively long story condensed for the sake of space and time, I thought it might prove refreshing as well as relaxing to take a brief break from dealing with cataphracts, elephants, hoplites, horse archers, legionaries, and warbands—to name just half a dozen unit types—and venture outside of the 4,500 year “box” of the ancient and medieval eras (understanding that these eras and millennia can be divided into a large number of sub-periods). Initially, I toyed with the “pasta-bilities” - that is to say possibilities of staging something set during the Italian Wars, say around 1497 or 1498. This fictional battle, perhaps a disagreement between two city-states and probably a large engagement using the 3rd Edition of L’Art de la Guerre rules, would give me a chance (or excuse) to hear and smell the report of primitive cannon and small arms, such as the arquebus, as they belched their deadly fire across my tabletop. Then, courtesy of an “old school” Advanced Armati YouTube video report [please see/search “Armati - Vlad the Impaler,” for a narrative (running approximately 25 minutes) posted in September of 2016], I found myself drawn into a Moldavians versus Ottoman Turks scenario. After drawing up a few plans for an even larger battle which featured these two armies, fighting as allies versus a sizable sixteenth century Austrian force across a landscape that looked fairly similar to the 1704 field of Blenheim (Blindheim), I found myself drawn to the Thirty Years War. After a bit of looking around, I thought it might be fun to try to stage a refight of Breitenfeld. 

In stark contrast to the choices made by the gentlemen involved in the Wargames Illustrated project, I wanted to follow as well as model the historical orders of battle closely, or as well as I could follow them. The visual appeal of the table and the miniature units was not my main concern. In point of fact, no miniatures of any scale would be used at all for this staging. So, while my finished tabletop might be called colorful (a generous and kind description to be sure), this particular effort would not “look nice,” at least in the accepted and traditional sense.

Inspired by the coverage provided in the June 2011 issue of Wargames Illustrated, I searched my small library for additional resources. I read the account on pages 88-90 of the Dictionary of Battles: The World’s Key Battles from 405 BC to Today, edited by David Chandler, and I studied the narrative provided on pages 77-79 of The Cavalry, edited by James Lawford. This traditional route was followed by a few searches of the Internet for additional information. While the general narrative of the historical battle remained essentially the same, the numbers involved and the dispositions of various formations tended to change depending on the source I was reading and studying. In the course of looking around online, I stumbled upon a very informative post regarding the opposing orders of battle. [Please see the contribution made by Dan S. On 27 October 2009 at 3:42 PST at http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=182746.] While these details, notes, and numbers were greatly appreciated, it was not my intention to prepare and play a highly accurate wargame reconstruction. As stated above, I was interested in taking a break from a variety of ancient “concerns.” I was not at all interested in adding a bunch of Thirty Years War “worries” to this figurative pile. If I managed to stage an acceptable and entertaining refight of Breitenfeld on my tabletop, that would be just fine. [With regard to previous efforts at Breitenfeld and some general background, readers might find the following sites interesting and worthy of their time: http://www.hestonandealingwargamers.org.uk/?q=node/161, https://www.carryingsonupthedale.com/2013/12/thirty-years-war-battle-of-breitenfeld.html, and http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_of_Breitenfeld_(1631)#encyclopedia.]

At the acknowledged risk of distracting myself further from the intended project as well as distracting or discouraging the reader, with the detailed information about the orders of battle in hand, I could not help by daydream about embarking upon a 6 mm project, wherein I would use a figure scale of 1:10 for foot and horse, and 1:3 for cannons. I have not found anything yet (mid June of 2021), but I would be very surprised to find that Breitenfeld or Lutzen had not been staged, in suitably spectacular fashion, at a previous “Joy of Six” convention or show. [Please see https://www.baccus6mm.com/forum/General/General/1083-1-TheJoyofSix2019/ and https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/the-joy-of-six-2019/.] At comparatively little cost then, I could depict the Swedish artillery present at Breitenfeld with a single stand representing the 24-pound demi-cannons, 3 stands representing the 12-pound pieces, and 14 brigade guns (2 stands each for the 7 brigades on the field). The first line of the Right Wing would require the preparation and painting of the following: 40 cavalry for Stalhandske’s squadron; 30 cavalry for Wunsch’s squadron; 80 cavalry (in two groups of 40) for Tott’s regiment; 40 cavalry for Soop’s regiment; 40 cavalry for Brahe’s regiment, and 15 cavalry for Sperreuter’s squadron. In addition to the 245 cavalry figures, I would need 86 musketeers to model the four ‘commanded shot’ detachments of Baner’s German regiment. 

However, as I have stated many times before (indeed, it runs the risk of becoming cliche if it is not already), I do not possess the talent and treasure required to pursue a traditional approach to this wonderful hobby. Instead, I play miniature wargames using colored counters designed and prepared to take the place of actual figures. [Regarding this “approach”: In the first paragraph of Appendix 2 in the Hail Caesar rules, Rick Priestley remarks: “it would be possible to play with card counters or wooden blocks were one so minded.” In the last two paragraphs on page 6 of Version 1.1 of his popular To The Strongest! rules, Simon Miller echoes and extends the point. He finishes by stating: “Whilst it is great to play a game with beautifully painted miniatures, please don’t let the lack of such an army stop you [from] having fun!”] I use traditional rules, but my battles and scenarios are probably better described as map exercises or even a variation of the original Kriegspiel. [Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel.] Anyway, as indicated by the title of this post or “paper,” at almost the same time I decided to stage a refight of Breitenfeld on my tabletop, I decided to use the Advanced Armati rules. Using the wealth of information found in the previously referenced TMP post, I started building the opposing armies. 

Orders of Battle: A Breakdown

I started on the Swedish right, with the command of General Johan Baner. To represent the Finnish cavalry, I fabricated 2 units of LC (light cavalry), drawing these troopers from the Swedish 30 YW list found on page 25 of the rulebook. Very generally speaking, each unit represented about 350 actual troopers on horseback. Four units of HC (heavy cavalry) were built to model the cavalry of Tott’s formation and the rest of the Swedes. Here, the approximate scale was one unit equaled around 400 men and horses. For the detachments of ‘commanded shot,’ I borrowed the FT (foot or heavy infantry) 3 [0] 0 from the Later Parliamentarian list on page 24. Two units of these musketeers, each representing about 430 men with matchlock muskets, were prepared. Figuring that these troops had a lower unit breakpoint than a unit comprised of pikes and muskets, I indicated a [3 bp] on the unit ID tag to remind me during the “heat of the tabletop action.” The regiments of the second line were depicted with 2 units of heavy cavalry and 1 unit of Cuirassiers. For these formations, my approximate unit scale increased so that one unit represented roughly 500 men. General Baner was designated as the leader of both of these forces. He was in charge of the right wing, but he was a subordinate to King Gustav II Adolf or Gustavus Adolphus. 

Based on my amateur research, it appears that the Swedish center was made up of four lines. There was a front line of several brigades. This command had its own reserve. There was a second (technically, third) line of three brigades. This formation had a reserve as well. It looks as if each brigade consisted of 3 or 4 regiments, and that each brigade, ideally or on paper anyway, had a strength of 216 officers, 488-498 pikemen, 576 musketeers, and 288 ‘commanded shot.’ (Once again, my mind wandered or daydreamed about how this might look if/when modeled with 6 mm figures at a scale of 1:10. One would need roughly 158 figures to model a single brigade, and 1,106 figures for the 7 present on the field that day in 1631. Sufficed to say, in 25/28 mm scale, such a collection of figures would be beyond impressive as well as beyond the ability of most wargamers. The depiction of these 7 Swedish brigades would be possible in 15 mm and would, I suggest, look just as impressive. However, my guess is that such a project would still reside safely beyond the resources of most historical miniature wargamers. With 6 mm figures, such a force might take a few months of preparation for the experienced 6 mm enthusiast and probably twice as long for an amateur. It goes without saying that storing this tiny force would not take up very much space. It also goes without saying that when deployed on the table, these 6 mm armies would probably if not certainly earn a chorus of admiration.) The Swedish 30 YW list divides the FT units into three categories. The Swedish infantry are the best, with a FFV (Frontal Fighting Value) of 6, while the Allied regiments or units have FFVs of 5 and 4, respectively. Instead of getting bogged down in numbers and modifiers, I decided to depict each brigade with 3 units of FT. All of the brigades in the first line would be Swedish troops. The Yellow Brigade would be classed as veterans, and so, have an additional unit breakpoint. For the reserve of this first line, I prepared a single unit of Cuirassiers and 2 units of Musketeers or ‘commanded shot.’ Maximilian Teuffel was the general, or “king’s major-general” responsible for this “division” of troops. The second, or again, third, line contained 3 brigades of what appear to be German infantry. Accordingly, 9 units of Allied FT were fabricated to represent these formations. The reserve of this line consisted of a single unit of German horse or HC.

Moving to the left wing, or the first left wing under the command of Field Marshal Horn, to be specific, I constructed 3 more units of German HC. For the ‘commanded musketeers,’ I prepared 2 units of Swedish FT and 1 of Germans. All 3 units had a frontal fighting value of 4 and a unit break point of 3. For the second line of this command, I prepared 2 more units of German horse. 

The second left wing of the Swedish army was composed of a large Saxon contingent. After reviewing the available information, I decided to create 3 units of HC (Allied) to represent the cavalry on the right wing of this contingent. These men were placed under the command of Field Marshal von Arnim. For the Saxon infantry, I prepared 1 unit of veterans to depict the Guards or “Life Regiment of Foot,” and then 15 units of lower quality Allied FT. The 3 Free Companies were modeled with 3 units of Musketeers, each having a FFV of 3 and a breakpoint of 3. The literal left wing of the Swedish-Saxon line of battle was represented with 7 units of HC.  All the regiments had a frontal fighting value of 4, and were armed with swords and pistols. 

Having dispensed with the cavalry and infantry concerns, I could now turn to the issue or question of representing the artillery on the model battlefield. While the Armati rules do provide for three types or weights of artillery, there is, unfortunately but understandably, no corresponding model-to-gun scale given. Initially, upon reading the brief narrative summary in The Dictionary of Battles, I thought I would give the Imperialists 3 “batteries,” one of each type or weight, and give the Swedes and Saxons twice that number. However, when I read and studied the detailed order of battle found on TMP, that thinking changed. If I accept the larger number suggested for the Saxon pieces on the field, then it appears that both armies were fairly evenly matched in terms of cannon present. In fact, it seems that the Imperialists had an advantage with respect to the 24-pound and 16-pound classes. While possessing greater numbers does not necessarily translate into better quality, it was still somewhat difficult to reconcile the one source which told of the Swedish doing better in a two-hour cannonade prior to the actual fighting beginning. While I mulled that over, I started thinking about how I might represent and model the impact of the 6 regimental cannon attached to each Swedish brigade. The numbers of these pieces alone surpassed the number of guns on the Imperialist side of the field, but how can a 3-pound cannon compare let alone compete with a cannon that fires an iron sphere weighing 16 or 24 pounds?

After thinking it over some more, I drafted the following “plan” (subject to revision, of course): The Swedish field artillery would be depicted with 2 “batteries” of medium guns. The Saxon field artillery would be depicted with 3 “batteries” of medium guns. For the attached or integral Brigade artillery, every Swedish Brigade would have its own light “battery.” The Imperialists/Catholic League would have 3 “batteries” of heavy guns, 1 “battery” of medium guns, and 1 “battery” of light guns. Having answered, temporarily, the artillery question and addressed these concerns, I turned my attention to the preparation of Tilly’s numerous Tercios and supporting cavalry.

According to the international team that wrote the now decade-old Wargames Illustrated article, von Furstenberg commanded on the Imperialist right wing. His force consisted of 3,100 heavy cavalry accompanied by 900 Croats. In the detailed order of battle, upon which I am relying quite a bit, there are five named regiments of Cuirassiers, so I made 5 units of HC (Cuirassiers) from the Imperialist 30 YW list on page 25 of the rulebook. There is no mention of Croats being present with this wing, but I added 3 units of LC (Croats) all the same. The detailed order of battle listed a regiment of foot numbering some 1,200 men as well, so I prepared 2 units of FT to support the horsemen. These were not Tercios, but pike and musket formations with a pretty good frontal fighting value of 5. 

Reports of the strength of the Catholic League center range from 12 to 14 to 17 blocks of pike supported by musketeers and other troops. [Curiously, there was no entry or listing for Tercio found in the Thirty Years War Imperial Army list provided in Steve Morgan’s 2012 Pike & Shotte rules. A check of the basic army lists contained within the original IMPETVS rules (2008 edition), informs that a “Colunela” - acknowledging that this particular formation was used about 100 years before Breitenfeld - included elements of pikemen, harquebusiers (both formed and skirmishing) as well as sword and buckler troops. Regarding the “Colunela,” readers might want to review the following sites: https://balagan.info/italian-wars-how-did-the-spanish-colunela-deploy-in-battle, http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-second-italian-wars-battle-using-pike.html, and http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/search?q=colunela&updated-max=2018-10-17T07:09:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=1&by-date=true.] For the sake of consistency and simplicity, I decided to stay with the detailed orders of battle found on TMP. Accordingly, 12 Tercios were prepared for the planned “miniature” battle. For the cavalry reserve posted behind the Tercios, I built 3 units of HC (Cuirassiers) and, from the Sixteenth Century Austrian list on page 21, 3 units of LC (light cavalry) armed with the arquebus. 

Moving on, finally, to the left wing under Pappenheim, I fabricated 2 units of FT (infantry), just like the regiments working with von Furstenberg, 6 units of HC (Cuirassiers), and 1 unit of LC carrying arquebuses. 

Reviewing my “work” at this point, or the numbers required, some quick addition and checking of sums informed that the Swedes would have 13 units of horse, 30 units of foot, and 9 “batteries” of guns (the majority being light pieces) present for the engagement. Their Saxon allies would muster 10 units of cavalry, 19 units of infantry, and 3 “batteries” of medium cannon. The outnumbered Imperialist army would have 20 units of horse, 12 Tercios along with 4 additional units of foot, and 5 “batteries” of artillery.  

The Landscape: An Overview

Fortunately, there was no shortage of wargamer-friendly maps found in the various sources consulted. Equally fortunate, there was little disagreement in these diagrams as to the nature of the battlefield or the deployments of the opposing forces. The Swedes and Saxons were deployed forward of the village of Podelwitz, which built-up area had been evidently put to the torch by withdrawing Catholic League forces. The Leipzig-Duben Road formed a kind of dividing line or boundary between the Swedish formations and the Saxon contingent. Perhaps the most detailed description of the ground was provided on page 77 of The Cavalry. The brief statement reads: 

. . . Tilly took up a position some five miles north of the city on a slight rise     

        facing towards the village of Podelwitz and close to Breitenfeld itself. A low hill 

        towards the right gave his guns a commanding position and away to the rear on 

        the left was a sizeable wood. Otherwise the ground is best described as a treeless 

        and slightly undulating plain . . .

At the risk of having to issue a retraction at some point in the future (late July, August, or even September), it appeared that crafting a functional model of this simple landscape on my tabletop would not pose any problem at all. 

Scenario Rules: Testing and Tinkering

1. Though I do not play with/use actual miniatures, I typically employ the 15 mm Epic Unit Sizes when I wargame with the Armati stable of rules. Given that space is somewhat limited and given that I prefer larger battles, I usually reduce or shrink the footprint of infantry, cavalry, and artillery units by 50 percent. Normally, a heavy infantry unit - or in this case, a pike and musket unit - will have a frontage of 8 cm and a depth of 4.5 cm. On my tabletop, the frontage for this type of unit was 4 cm and its depth was just 2.25 cm. A similar process was followed for cavalry, both heavy and light, as well as for the various categories of artillery.
2. It would follow that, if unit dimensions are reduced by half, movement rates and missile ranges be reduced by equal measure. I would only need to make 6 or 7 copies, at half-size, of the Optimal/Epic 15 mm scale ruler (provided on page 43 of the original Armati rules). After some experiments and experiences with this much reduced ruler, I decided to try using the 25 mm Intro Scheme ONLY ruler. For sake of comparison, adhering to the 50 percent reduction “rule,” heavy infantry would move approximately 2 inches per turn. Using the other ruler, these units can move 3 inches per turn. If we look at artillery fire, medium guns would reach out to approximately 10 inches when using the revised ranges. Employing the 25 mm Intro Scheme ruler, however, gives these same cannon a range of approximately 15 inches.
3. The source material studied indicated that there was a two-hour artillery duel before the Imperialist left wing launched an attack on the Swedish right. Under the approximate scales provided in the Armati rules, this two-hour gun battle would take 6 game turns. Under the current rules, the artillery on both sides would only be able to fire every other turn. For example, if Swedish and Catholic League “batteries” fired on Turn 1, they would not be able to fire again until Turn 3, and then again on Turn 5. Understanding that these rules governing the effect of artillery are abstracted, I still thought I might revise the procedures or restrictions so that light and medium “batteries” could fire every turn instead of every other turn. It occurs to me that it would or should take rather less time to load and prepare a 3-pound piece than it does to load and prepare a 24-pound cannon. The source material also pointed to the Swedish guns being “better served,” so it does not seem unreasonable to make the Swedish crews faster if also not more professional. To reiterate: Light and Medium “batteries” can engage enemy targets every turn; Heavy “batteries” will still fire every other turn. 
4. Building off of the previous amendment, the Swedish light artillery can move with their parent infantry formations. They can also fire AND move in the same turn. Medium guns can be man-handled 3 inches, just like in the rules as written. These cannon can also be harnessed and when pulled by horses, these pieces have a move rate of 6 inches. Heavy guns can be “pivoted,” that is have their facing changed, but they cannot be pushed or pulled, unless it is by a team of horses or other draft animals. In these cases, heavy guns can move 4 inches when they are “limbered.” 
5. The LC armed with arquebuses (from the Austrian list) are not key units and have a comparatively poor FFV of 1 [0] 0. They also have a protection factor of +1. For this refight, the Imperialist LC were upgraded to a FV of 2 [0] 0, but had the protection factor removed. The range of their firearms was increased to 8 inches from the usual 6 inches. Furthermore, these troopers could move after firing, but only up to 1/2 of their normal rate, just like the restriction placed on foot units that issue a volley from arquebuses or muskets. 
6. In the process of preparing the armies for the coming battle, I started wondering about making or having the Tercios be of equal size, meaning physical representation, as one of the Swedish or Saxon foot regiments. If one accepts 21,000 as the strength of the infantry component of the Imperialist army, and one accepts 12 as the number of Tercios present, then, generally speaking, each Tercio would have around 1,750 men. Based on this approximate math, it could be said that one Catholic Tercio is “equal” to one Swedish brigade. If there are three units in a Swedish brigade, then the total number of unit break points is 12. The special rules governing Tercios in Armati (Section 13.4.2 on page 24) state: “Tercios have a Unit Breakpoint of 6.” In the attempt to make things a little more even, understanding that the Imperialists were outnumbered in the historical battle, I decided to make Tercios double the usual size. Furthermore, I decided to add a fourth rank of heavy infantry to make the formation a little more square. My revised Tercios, then, had a frontage of 8 cm and a depth of 3 cm. They could deliver fire all around, provided the formation remained in place. Two volleys could be issued from the long sides; one volley form each short side. I decided to keep the FV (fighting value) the same, that is 6 [4] 0, but I increased the unit breakpoint to 8. For the 12 formations that would be present on my tabletop, the combined unit breakpoint was 96. The combined unit breakpoint of the Swedish and Saxon foot regiments, according to my basic sums, was 148. Gustavus Adolphus would have a point advantage of 52, at least in the infantry arm. 
7. In a typical or “normal” game of Armati, each army has a number of control points used for deploying their various formations. Each army also has a breakpoint as well as an initiative rating. Since this was not a typical game of Armati, I wondered about the effectiveness of the command and control rules, as written, as well as the effectiveness of drafting special scenario rules for this project. Historically, it appears that Pappenheim started the battle when he attacked on the left without express orders to do so. I was not certain that I wanted to recreate this exact moment in my refight. At the risk of having the effort “blow up,” I decided to set aside heavy and light division control points and related concerns. With regard to initiative, I think I would just let a competitive and non-modified die roll make this decision. As for army breakpoint, well, I think I would just see how the wargame progressed. If the situation arose, then I could draft and put into effect a rule or rules governing the morale of each force. 

Final Preparations

After studying three comparatively wargamer-friendly maps of the battle and after reviewing the orders of battles (which involved a few last-minute adjustments), in the last third of June, I set up my table for the intended refight. The terrain was painfully simple. There was a low hill on the Imperialist side of the model field, but forward of their main line of battle. There was also a road, or my impression of a road (the Leipzig-Duben route), running across the table. Adding several to half-a-dozen fields, so as to break up the broad swathes of dark green cloth, was considered and then rejected. 

With regard to deployments, I followed the diagram found on page 79 of The Cavalry. I also referred to the detailed orders of battle and notes found in that TMP post. The right wing of the Catholic League was held by Furstenberg. He had 5 units of horse and 3 more of Croat light cavalry. Two units of Wangler’s Foot were positioned as support. An impressive array of 12 Tercios were deployed, stretching from Furstenberg’s left all the way over to Pappenheim’s wing. There were 3 heavy “batteries” stationed on the gentle hill in front of the Imperialist line; the other 2 “batteries” were placed well in front of Tercio 8 and Tercio 10, respectively. Five more units of heavy cavalry along with a unit of mounted arquebusiers comprised the left wing. These horse regiments were reinforced by Holstein’s Regiment of Foot. 

Across the “miniature” field from Pappenheim, the command of General Baner was deployed. The Finnish light cavalry were arranged on the extreme right; the ‘commanded shot’ units were integrated with the front line cavalry formations. The small reserve on this flank was led by Ludwig. Brigades of Swedish Foot, 4 in the first line and 3 in the second line, were next. The supporting light artillery of each formation was deployed on a flank or embedded with the pike and shot of the various regiments. The reserves for each main line were deployed behind the approximate center of each larger formation. General Teuffel and his staff rode behind the first line of brigades; Gustavus Adolphus stationed himself at the hinge of right wing and the center. 

The Swedish left wing and the Saxon right wing faced the low hill bristling with Catholic League cannons. The Swedish medium guns were held in reserve to the right rear of their left wing horse. The Saxon infantry were arranged in two strong lines of 8 regiments each. The Free Companies were placed in reserve. Three artillery “batteries” were set in front of the first formation of foot soldiers. The Saxon left was tasked to 7 regiments of heavy cavalry led by General Bindauf.

Breitenfeld 2021

Instead of offering a turn-by-turn account supported by stunning photos of well-painted miniatures being moved here and there or a summary of the state of the table every third or fourth turn, I thought I would attempt to compare my wargame with the narrative found in The Cavalry text. This would not be a point by point comparison and contrast, but a general examination.

[The following picture shows the gentle hill forward of the Imperialist line of battle. The heavy artillery “batteries” are evident. Some of the Tercios can be seen in the foreground; a part of the Swedish line can be seen at the top.]

Evidently, the historical action started with two hours of cannonading, wherein the Swedish held the advantage. Not very interested in engaging in what might be called a “counter-battery” exchange for 5 or 6 turns, I fired the Catholic League heavy guns a couple of times while moving the Tercios as well as the cavalry wings forward. I replied in kind with the Swedish units and their Saxon allies. The Imperialist cannons did score a couple of hits on General Horn’s cavalry and I believe a unit of ‘commanded shot,’ but neither the Swedish nor Saxon artillery played a part in this early phase of my battle. 

According to the selected (preferred?) narrative, Pappenheim’s cavalry attacked the Swedish right some seven times and was repulsed by coordinated countercharges and the effective volleys of the integrated musketeers. The weakened Imperialists were eventually driven from the field by Baner’s horsemen. The action on my tabletop was nowhere near as dramatic. The cavalry wing of Pappenheim did engage the enemy, but found itself quickly disorganized by the ensuing melees and then picked apart. This is not to say it was completely one-sided. One unit of Imperialist cavalry did rout its counterpart and pursued the survivors. Before galloping off the opposite long edge of the tabletop, it was rallied and then forgotten, unfortunately, as the “heat of battle” demanded attention and focus elsewhere. When the contest was called, the commander on the Imperialist left found himself trying to organize a last stand with the men of Holstein’s regiment of Foot. The situation did not look good: Part of the Yellow Brigade was moving in, and various units of Baner’s and Ludwig’s cavalry commands were moving around the regiment’s left flank and rear. 

[This picture shows a large portion of the Swedish line. The brigades and light artillery are visible, as are the reserves of each line. Gustavus Adolphus is in the right foreground.]

According to the story provided in The Cavalry, Furstenberg had great success on the right wing. His horsemen, supported by an unknown number of Tercios, engaged the Saxon contingent and swept them from the field rather quickly. This local success left the Catholic League formations somewhat disordered and exposed to a bold countermove by General Horn, who commanded on the Swedish left. Again, and somewhat disappointingly, nothing as dramatic happened on my tabletop. Furstenberg did engage the Saxons, but these allied troops proved quite stubborn as well as capable. In fact, the large Saxon cavalry formation on the far left of the allied line was able to contain, challenge, and eventually break the infantry of Wangler, while another group was able to threaten the heavy artillery on the gentle hill. The Imperialist foot and horse did not work as a team in this part of the field. As the fighting developed, a couple of Tercios did have to be assigned to shore up this flank. They were soon engaged, and hotly, by 3 regiments of Saxon Foot. They were also threatened by Saxon cavalry that had managed to get around the right-rear of the Catholic line. It was not all dark clouds for Furstenberg, however. The silver lining over on this flank was when his cavalry managed to overrun two “batteries” of Saxon guns. The horsemen had to relinquish their hard won prizes though, as a large number of Saxon infantry took exception to this act. 

[The picture below is a close-up of the action on the Catholic League right. The Croat LC are being roughly handled by the larger Saxon formation.]

[The following picture is a close-up of the action on the left, where Pappenheim’s cavalry found themselves very hard pressed by the enemy.]

[This next picture shows that state of the center of the table as the opposing main lines approached each other.]

Since the Saxons did not flee for their collective lives, General Horn did not have to pivot to face a probable flank attack, and he did not have to call upon reserves. In my reconstruction, General Horn and his men were stymied by the heavy guns and then the large blocks of Imperialist infantry which advanced over the gentle hill. After carefully considering his odds, General Horn spent most of the engagement withdrawing his cavalry units out of musket range. He left the Tercios and enemy guns to the ‘commanded shot’ and those Saxon formations that were able to advance and offer assistance. 

A great struggle took place in the center of the tabletop between the first line of the Swedish army and approximately 8 of the Imperialist Tercios. The Swedish tried to use their brigade guns, but for some reason (poor dice rolling!), their crews could not land effective shot in the deep enemy ranks. Both sides spent a few turns volleying back and forth and taking losses, but these casualties were not significant. Indeed, it seemed more smoke and noise than lead shot landing on target. Eventually, both sides came to grips. The pikemen did what they do, and the musketeers joined in using their heavy pieces as clubs, or they drew swords and prepared pistols for the close combats. These chaotic melees went back and forth as well; first one side seemed to have the upper hand and then the other side would gain the advantage. Fatigue and losses started to build for both Swedish and Imperialist formations. The Tercios started to push back and in some places rout the enemy units. 

[The picture below shows the battle between the Swedish Brigades and the Tercios is full swing. The red markers indicate losses of unit breakpoints; the purple markers indicate fatigue.]

[Another photo of the center, after a number of Swedish regiments have been broken by the prolonged melee with the Tercios. The abundance of markers informs how costly and tiring this contest was for both sides.]

This was a costly process, however. Several of the Tercios were skeletons of their original strength. Two of the large formations did finally reach their break point. One Tercio, fighting out in front of the heavy cannons, was broken after taking on three units of Saxon infantry. Another Tercio succumbed to a cavalry charge by a unit of Cuirassiers. The Catholic troops were greatly reduced and stood no chance, really, against a fresh and fast-moving unit of enemy horse. 

At the end of nine turns of play, a halt was called to assess the state of the field (table) as well as the status of the opposing armies. 

[The following picture, poorly focused unfortunately, shows the Catholic League heavy cannons under threat from Bindauf and his cavalry coming from behind. The black dice next to the artillery are reminders of what turn the guns may fire next.]

[This final picture shows the desperate straits Pappenheim faced on the Imperialist left. Holstein’s regiment is outnumbered and under pressure from a few directions.]

It appeared, despite the relatively slow movement of a heavy cavalry reserve over to the Imperialist left flank, that the Swedish had the upper hand on their right. The combined regiments of Baner and Ludwig were in control. Holstein’s regiment of Foot was in serious trouble and consequently, so was the left flank and rear of the line of Tercios. It also appeared evident that the Saxons had the upper hand over on the left flank of the field. Bindauf’s cavalry was threatening the Catholic heavy artillery on the gentle hill, and large numbers of Saxon infantry were pressuring what remained of Furstenberg’s horse. While there were a few Tercios in front of and to the right of their artillery, these blocks of pikemen and supporting troops were being squeezed as well. In the center of the field or table, the contest had been more even and more damaging to both sides. The Swedish had lost several regiments as well as two “batteries” of light artillery, but reserves were close at hand and supporting heavy cavalry kept the Catholic League foot in check. The Imperialist Tercios had been severely weakened by the exchange of volleys and the subsequent melees when the opposing lines had charged. In their present condition, there was no chance that these formations could have stood up to a second line of fresh Swedish regiments. 

Based on this objective as well as subjective review of the three sectors, a costly victory was awarded to Gustavus Adolphus and his Saxon allies. The tally of casualties at the end of Turn 9 informed the following: The Imperialists had lost 2 Tercios and had 4 other Tercios on the verge of collapse. Tilly’s force had lost 12 other key units, most of these being cavalry units from the flank commands. On the Swedish side, Gustavus had lost 12 key units as well. The majority of these casualties were suffered by the infantry of his army. The Swedes and Saxons also lost a total of 4 “batteries” of artillery, though some of these guns were recovered since the field remained in their possession. The Saxons suffered the loss of 5 key units. The vast majority of these losses were cavalry. 

Comments & Evaluation

This was a pleasant and engaging diversion from ancient “concerns” and considerations. While the general record of history was repeated on my tabletop, the specific course of the battle was not replicated. My Breitenfeld, as just related, was a Pyrrhic Swedish victory. Based on this “interruption” of my usual routine or pursuit, I am thinking that I might take another trip into the Thirty Years War or to a similar time frame. For example, Lutzen might be interesting to research and stage. Then again, I might be tempted to try Pavia or even Rocroi. While the Advanced Armati rules worked well enough, if I do proceed with another early seventeenth or sixteenth century adventure, I think I will look for a more period-centric set of rules. (Note: I do have Steve Morgan’s Pike & Shotte, produced by Warlord Games, but, like a few others, have some reservations about employing this particular set.) As I’ve opened up the “Pandora’s Box” of rulebook choice, this seems like an excellent point to assess the scenario specific rules drafted for this recent experiment. 

Broadly speaking, I think the amendments and revisions worked rather well. The reduction in each unit’s footprint did not impede function and did not result in a crowded tabletop. The slight exception here was the Saxon contingent, which felt or looked a little cramped when it was deployed to the left of the Leipzig-Duben Road. The adjustment to movement rates and missile ranges was fine, I thought. I also thought the tinkering with the artillery rates of fire worked well. Ironically, even though the Swedish Brigade guns could fire every turn and keep up with their parent infantry formations, their overall effectiveness was not that good. It appears that I have some work to do with regard to the proper use of mounted arquebusiers and light cavalry in general. Too often, it was the case where these units would get “sucked into” a general melee or caught flat-footed by heavier enemy regiments. Perhaps I need to look at Dragoons? Another reason, I suppose, to explore different sets of rules for this particular period. Establishing the larger Tercios formations worked rather well too, in my estimation. To be certain, this is a work in progress, but I think, through their resiliency and general performance, they showed both the Swedish and Saxons that they are units to be reckoned with as well as respected. I do not believe that their larger unit breakpoint tilted the balance too far in the Imperialists’ favor. Again, as related in the previous section, 2 Tercios were routed and 4 more were on the brink of breaking when the solo wargame was halted. I concede that eliminating the command and control guidelines of Armati might have been an extreme decision, but I do not think it had a negative impact on the proceedings. As the wargame progressed, I did not see the “firework effect” that is sometimes described when using other sets of rules. To be sure, there were confused melees on both flanks or wings, and there were instances of smaller formations getting deep into the enemy lines, but again, I do not think these occasions upset the course of the “miniature” wargame. Setting these “constraints” aside permitted me to make more of an assessment as the battle progressed, rather than simply play for the advantage of initiative and breaking that one key unit that would send the other side running from the tabletop in a state of defeat and panic. 

At the bottom of page 10 in his 1974 book Battle Notes for Wargamers, Donald Featherstone, a well known, if not revered name in the worldwide hobby, explained: “To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces.” With respect to the first point, while I may have been off in terms of scale and readily admit to the lack of any great aesthetic value to the appearance of my tabletop, I would maintain that my tabletop was still a functional model of Breitenfeld. The research that I have done informs that terrain did not play a great role in the course of the historical battle. As for the second point, well, again, my model units are certainly not traditional. Additionally, I used a sliding scale of unit representation and in some cases, folded in the smaller units to larger formations. I also established a working scale for the representation of artillery. By and large, however, I think my armies were a fairly accurate representation of the forces that were actually or reportedly present on that September day in 1631. 

In conclusion, I consider my refight of Breitenfeld a success. It allowed me to take a break from the endlessly interesting (and sometimes frustrating) worlds of ancient and medieval military history and wargaming; it resulted in a Swedish win, if not an exact repeat of history, and it was, generally speaking and referring to the Featherstone parameters, a “realistic” experiment.