SOMEWHERE IN GAUL, 231 BC

An idea for a massive if also fictional contest involving Successor armies and the Tactica II rules sputtered to a halt after two weeks of “work.” A solo campaign, using the recently purchased TRIUMPH! rules and projected to take six months or more of real time, started out well enough with two victories for my side (I was commanding Sassanid Persians against Romans), but then interest fizzled as issues with the rules bubbled to the surface and other items (some related to wargaming, some not) vied for more and more of my attention. Given these developments, the prudent course of action would have been to take a break from the hobby for a month or two or even three. I could spend the additional spare time on reading more or on taking up running again, perhaps even expand my social circle or improve my professional network. After this mini-sabbatical, I could set my sights on starting 2022 with a clean slate, rested and recuperated from “waging war” and writing about same. Instead, and perhaps if not probably to my detriment, I decided that it might prove engaging and entertaining to distract myself from what was fast becoming something of a wreck of a wargaming calendar by spending some time in ancient Gaul.

The Scenario

In Chapter 6 of his 1979 book Wargame Tactics, (a requirement for any historical wargamer, in my admittedly amateur and completely unsolicited opinion) the Charles Grant writes briefly but with some authority on “The Emergence of Rome.” In Chapter 7, the reader is treated to an engaging and exciting (again, in my opinion) account of “The Battle of the Mandubian Hills.” This “very speculative battle involving a Roman column and a large German raiding party” formed the basis for this present adaptation. Instead of Marian or Caesarean Romans, I would be commanding Polybian Romans. Instead of Germanic tribal warriors, I would be commanding Gallic infantry, cavalry, and a handful of chariots. Instead of an early version of the WRG rules or perhaps a set developed by the well-known author and figure in the hobby, I would be using Version 1.1 of Simon Miller’s To the Strongest! rules, as well as the amendments/corrections provided in Even Stronger V6 (revised June 19, 2018). 

The 63 square-feet playing surface used by Mr. Grant (apologies to some readers, I mean no disrespect by using the formal title; I simply do not feel comfortable referring to one of the “fathers” of the hobby by his first name) and his associates was fairly sparse. There was a smallish central wood and a series of hills or ridges placed on each long side of the table. There was also a small isolated hill located on the right-front of the Roman deployment. There did not appear to be much in the way of terrain features. Then again, I cannot be certain as there were no photographs of the wargame included with the narrative.

Some 40 years after this traditional wargame was played, I decorated a table having a total area of 24.375 square-feet with functional and inexpensive terrain features. In addition to marking the 4-inch squares with green spots, I arranged two woods, two patches of scrub or heavier vegetation, and a small ravine in a section of Gaul. The opposing ridge lines were also present. The isolated hill was made a little bit larger and was moved over to the left side of the Roman deployment zone. Admittedly, my finished battlefield paled (significantly) in comparison to the vast majority of tabletops prepared by more accomplished wargamers and more proficient terrain makers. For the limited purposes of engaging and entertaining a solo gamer in search of a distraction, this particular fictional ancient battlefield would serve. 

As for the orders of battle, well, I referred to Simon’s informative brief on The Polybian Roman Army (please see https://aventineminiatures.co.uk//wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Polybian-Romans.pdf), and fabricated a poor man’s version of the formation. I debated adding some auxiliary units, but decided to stick with the nucleus of four legions (two Roman and two Allied) and their cavalry supports. In broad summary, each legion contained two units of Velites, two units of Hastati, two units of Principes, a single unit of Triarii, a couple of heroes, and was commanded by a Legate. As each troop type or stand was a small unit, each legion was worth nine victory medals. (This total included the two medals for the legion commander.) In terms of cost or points, each legion was valued at around 41 points. Turning to the cavalry component of this force, there were two units of Roman Equites and four units of Latin cavalry. Each wing was led by a Tribune; each wing was assisted by a hero. Adding up the victory medals and cost in points, the Consul’s cavalry arm was worth 28 medals and 66 points. All together then, including the Consul himself (three victory medals and seven points), the Roman force added up to 237 points, approximately, and was worth 64 victory medals. Taking a third of the victory medals then, a breaking point of 21 lost victory medals was determined for the consular army.

Across my “model” battlefield, the Gallic chieftain who had been elected king (after a rather contentious and raucous council, it must be noted), arranged the assembled tribal warbands. Coincidentally, each of the four subordinate leaders mustered four deep warbands, a unit of light infantry skirmishers, as well as a handful of heroes. Each group of warbands was valued at around 15 victory medals and approximately 52 points. There was another collection of warriors, veterans this time, who mustered three additional deep warbands as well as a unit of Solduri (fanatics). This group was accompanied by some skirmishers and the requisite handful of strong-willed not to mention fierce heroes. The victory medal total for this formation was the same, 15, but its cost or point value was estimated to be around 62. For the mounted arm, the barbarians brought three units of light chariots and four units of cavalry to the field. These were divided into two “divisions,” each commanded by a mounted chieftain and each accompanied by a number of heroes. Based on my calculations, the Gallic chariots and cavalry were worth about 80 points and added 15 victory medals to their overall count. Taken all together, the Gauls mustered approximately 350 points of troops and held 90 victory medals, which meant that the alliance of tribes would run away when 30 victory medals had been won by the Romans. 

In brief overview, deployment of the opposing forces was fairly traditional or historical. Taking a cue or cues from the diagram provided in Simon’s brief, I arranged the Romans legions in the center and placed the Allied legions on the left and right. The three ranks of heavy infantry, screened by an additional rank of velites, occupied a rectangle measuring 8 squares or boxes across by two squares or boxes deep. The Roman equites were positioned on the right, each unit having its own square. The Allied cavalry was on the left wing, and these formations occupied four squares or boxes. The 7 “divisions” or commands of Gauls looked rather intimidating, even though they were depicted by or modeled with colored counters instead of animated metal/plastic sculptures. The right of the barbarian host was held by 4 units of Gallic horse. These would counter or engage their Latin foes. A veritable wall of warbands stretched from the left of these cavalry to a few squadrons of light chariots drawn up on the left wing. The assembled warriors were formed deeper than the Romans, even though these fierce-looking fighters occupied the same depth of squares or boxes. Over on the left-front of this impressive looking line of battle, the chosen king had ordered a warband to sneak forward and take possession of the wooded ground between the two armies. 

Taken from behind and above the Roman battle line. The four legions are deployed in the usual fashion with Velites forward and the supporting ranks of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii ready to bear the brunt of the fighting. I readily stipulate that these legions look nothing like those other historical wargamers have posted to their blogs. However, the type of unit is readily identifiable; the presence of a hero and the location of a commander are also visible. The purple dots marking ammunition blend rather well with the form and function of the color counter units.

Another view of the legions, but one that also allows a glimpse of the Gallic deployment. Here, one can see warbands in a wooded area, with more warriors on the elevation to the right and left. 

A Short Summary of the Action

Early on in the battle, a unit of Gallic skirmishers dared to dart from the relative safety of the woods and expose themselves to the attention of numerous units of Velites. Volleys of light javelins were immediately thrown by both Roman and Allied troops, but not a single missile struck home. Thoroughly annoyed by the apparent invulnerability of these enemy skirmishers, a unit of Velites declared a charge, made contact, and was subsequently repulsed. It took another try, after two more volleys of missiles landed well short of their target, before the Gallic light troops were broken. This episode seemed to foreshadow the course of events for the Consul and his army. 

The evolving action on the Roman right wing, where the Gallic light chariots caused no little havoc among the Roman equites. The yellow dice mark disordered units; the red die indicates a wounded leader. (I guess I could not quite give up using dice in some form!)

The Gallic horse and light chariots, operating on their respective wings, were the first main formations to make contact with their Roman or Allied counterparts. They were also the first troops to start ripping holes in the Roman and Allied formations. In what seemed to be a matter of minutes, the flanks of the consular army were in dire straights. Indeed, on the Roman right, a group of Gallic light chariots had worked its way into the Roman rear. The Tribune leading the cavalry in this sector of the field had been wounded in a chaotic melee. 

This shows a couple of Gallic warbands after they have charged and flattened two units of Hastati in the Allied legion on the right of the Roman line. From the start of the engagement, it appeared that the Romans were always dancing to the tune being played by the Gallic warriors. 

To extend the Roman line, to shore up a faltering right wing, the Allied legion on this side of the field moved its Principes and Triarii to the right. This defensive ploy left the Hastati and Velites rather exposed. A wave of warbands advanced from the left of the wooded area, and more warbands appeared from the trees and undergrowth. These eager and fierce-looking warriors hit the thin Roman line with the weight and effect of a large hammer - swung several times in succession. In a matter of minutes, the Hastati were lying in bloody heaps. The Roman legion next in line was trying to decide if it should continue moving forward or halt and wheel to protect its now vulnerable right flank. 

Late in the brief battle . . . This shows a couple of legions foolishly attempting to engage the much more numerous enemy who have just come down off the ridge. This combat was not completely resolved as the Roman flanks were in ruins (or very near it) by this time. 

While all this was transpiring, the two legions on the left of the larger formation continued their steady and intimidating march toward the mass of warbands standing on the far ridge. As these heavy infantry made their way forward, the Allied cavalry on the left continued to be pummeled and broken by charges made by several units of Gallic horsemen. By the time the legions made it to the base of the shallow ridge and were readying their pila for the anticipated charge of hundreds if not thousands of barbarians, the Roman left was well and truly broken. 

A look from the Gallic left, looking toward the center of the field. The Roman right is in a state of disarray. Even though a warband is in disorder (yellow die) and its chieftain has been wounded (red die), the Gauls have the advantage in this sector of the field. 

At this point, with just 6 victory medals remaining, I, in the role of the Consul, conceded the battle to the Gallic king, who was also played by me. I was surprised at the rapid nature of Rome’s terrible defeat as well as by the quick and substantial victory scored by the assembled Gallic tribes.

The Roman victory medals left when the Consul (“Maximus Moronicus”?) waved the white flag.

The victory medals held by the Gallic king (“Vituperatix”?) when the Roman commander conceded. 

Questions & Answers

Was I engaged and entertained? 

Yes, albeit for just four turns of play. It was rather refreshing to be able to command and fight with two armies without having to bother with dice, rulers, and the geometric intricacies of wheeling a unit or units, etc. 

Was it realistic?

Well, I think one needs to define the word or at least establish some boundaries. The historical record abounds with losses suffered by Rome/Romans at the hands of barbarian armies. I do not think this terrible performance on a fictional field in ancient Gaul is an exception. The cards, or in my case, lightweight wooden circles with numbers drawn on them, were just not there for the Romans and their Allies. On further reflection, I suppose I will be taken to task for letting the Gauls field light chariots in addition to cavalry. So be it. 

Was it played without error?

No, I am afraid that, as per usual, I muffed the rout rules by completely forgetting about them in the heat of the first three turns of battle when "all hell" was breaking loose on the Roman wings. Aside from this error and the larger tactical one committed as the Roman Consul in charge of not letting the barbarians come to me while my legionary infantry waited on slightly higher ground, the game flowed quite smoothly.  Upon further reflection, it appears that I also mistakenly allowed the Gallic light chariots to have 2 unit break points instead of just a single unit break point. This error may have swayed things a little more on the Roman right. However, the advance of a large number of warbands against this point of the Roman line would have, I think, prove unstoppable. 

Was I tempted to tinker with the rules?

I confess that I thought about combining the newer rout rules with the older demoralization rules. Aside from this fleeting idea, the wargame was played with the rules as written and revised. 

Would Mr. Grant have approved?

Obviously, I cannot answer this question as I cannot speak for someone else. I can only make an “educated” guess or guesses. I like to think that he would have been a little pleased that I adapted or was inspired by his original scenario. I also like to think that he would have smiled and nodded at the awful day experienced by the Roman army. However, based on his “old school” appreciation of the visual spectacle of this hobby, it appears that the gentleman would not have approved of my methodology. In fact, I am quite certain that he would have questioned it; would have argued for the better representation of painted and based figures over any other way of “playing at war.” 

Is there another TtS! Game in my future?

I certainly hope so. I do not know if I will be able to manage another before 2021 draws to a close, but I have been thinking about seeing how my Polybian Romans would do against a Seleucid army. It would also be interesting to try and stage a historical battle using these rules.

HANNIBAL VS SCIPIO

Refighting Zama with Tactica II

The figurative dust generated by a recent focused consideration of the 202 BC battle had barely settled when I decided to return to the flat and evidently featureless plain. [1] This time, I would attempt to reconstruct the entire engagement. For this interpretation, I would employ the Tactica II rules. 

I started on the Roman left wing, with the cavalry formations under the command of Laelius. Using the orders of battle found on page 121 of Warfare in the Classical World and dividing the provided as well as estimated numbers by 60 (the larger figure given in the approximated scale discussed on page 1 of the spiral-bound rules), there were just over 33 “figures” of Roman horse on the left of the line. I established two units of Roman and Allied HC then, one of 14 “models” and another of 18 “models.” For the four legions that were reportedly present on the field, I studied the diagrams and text on pages 61-64, and decided to employ the combined Hastati-Principes formation, supported by a single line of Triarii. [2] A dozen Velites were prepared for each legion, which gave me 48 skirmishers in total. The Numidian foot, under the overall command of Masinissa, were represented with 4 units of light infantry. Three of the formations contained 27 “figures,” arranged in 3 rows of 9. There was also a small unit of 18 “figures,” deployed in 3 rows of 6. The Numidian horse, also under Masinissa’s direction, were depicted with 6 units of light cavalry, drawn up in half a dozen units of 12 “figures” each. The Roman army was fabricated using the 15mm figure basing dimensions listed on page 1. I was able to fit all of Scipio’s formations on my main wargames table, which measures 6.5 feet by 3.75 feet.

Shifting to the drafting and deployment of Hannibal’s army, I started with the first of the three lines described by the ancient sources. After considering a number of options, I decided upon and prepared 3 units of Ligurians (light infantry in units of 16 “figures” each), 4 units of Celts (warband units with 24 “figures” each, organized in 2 rows of 12), and 4 groups of 8 skirmishers, split evenly between slingers and archers. After noting the frontage of the Roman line and then re-reading the section about elephant screens in the rulebook, I built 3 screens of Carthaginian pachyderms. One screen had 3 animals; there were 4 of the lumbering and smelly beasts in each of the other screens, for a total of 11 elephant “models” or stands. Turning to the second line of Hannibal’s deployment, I made 8 units of Carthaginian citizen infantry. Each fo these formations was 24 “figures” strong and was arranged in 3 ranks of 8. All were classed as MG or Militia Grade troops. The third and final line of Hannibal’s army contained 10 units of 24 “figures.” Five of these formations were Bruttian veterans; 4 were African veterans, and one unit contained Spanish veterans. For the cavalry on the right, two units were fabricated. These were essentially identical to their Roman counterparts. However, they were a grade less in quality. The loyal Numidian light cavalry on the left of Hannibal’s position were represented by 50 “figures” organized into 5 units. 

Deployment

Initially, I distributed skirmishers (slingers and archers) between the elephant “models” comprising the three screens set in front of the Celts and Ligurians. Due to space constraints, however, this arrangement left me with a full unit of skirmishers that were positioned in front of two of the animals on the far left of the extended or stretched line. Upon review, reflection, and a little more reading, I changed this initial deployment so that it was more “wargame” than an attempt to replicate an interpretation of the historical record. The skirmishers were collected and positioned as a screen of light troops in front of the African animals. Additionally, the elephants on the left and right of the line were pivoted (as per the rules for screens) around 30-35 degrees to their left and right, respectively. The pachyderms in the center remained facing directly forward. 

Taken from behind the Roman line, showing most of the Roman and Allied cavalry as well as three of the four legions. The Velites are out front, screening the heavy infantry of the Hastati and Principes. The Triarii are held in reserve. Scipio’s position is plainly visible.

As for the infantry and cavalry of the Carthaginian army, the general deployment was fairly historical. The Celts and Ligurians were stationed in the first line. These troops were “bookended” by cavalry formations. The Punic horse was on the right and the loyal Numidian horse were on the left. The second line consisted of Citizen spearmen, and the third line contained the veteran units of Hannibal’s Italian army. 

Taken above the Carthaginian right-center. The three lines of foot are clearly evident. The elephant screen, partially covered by skirmishers is also evident. 

The Numidian sector of the tabletop battlefield. Masinissa’s cavalry and infantry are on the left; the Numidians loyal to Hannibal are on the. right. 

Over on the other side of the “field,” by arranging the Roman and Allied heavy cavalry very near the left short edge of my table, it was possible to fit Scipio’s army on the bare playing surface. The Velites of the four legions were deployed in a double line. These light troops were the first line of the Roman infantry position. There were no ‘elephant lanes’ as there were no maniples on the tabletop. There were, however, 8 units or colored counters representing the Hastati, Principes, and Triarii of the legions. 

A Summary of the Reconstruction

The contest between the large bodies of Numidian cavalry on the Roman right flank or wing was bloody as well as indecisive. This result did not favor Scipio’s cause. The light cavalry loyal to Hannibal put up a rather hard fight even though they were outnumbered. Masinissa’s cavalry experienced some command and control issues in addition to some rather awful dice rolling. When the refight was halted, the Numidians allied with Rome had just been give another bloody nose in this sector. One of the few remaining units of light cavalry was severely mauled by its counterpart. This left just two units with which Masinissa could try to envelop the Carthaginian second or third line. Given that a unit of Spanish veteran foot had been sent out from the reserve to prevent just this kind of envelopment rather foiled Masinissa’s plans. 

Early in the refight - one of the elephant screens has pivoted and the leading stand is taking javelins from the left-most unit of Numidian light horse. Some sling stones and arrows have been launched against the Numidian light infantry. 

On the other side of the field, things started off well enough for the Roman and Allied cavalry. In short order, half of the Punic horse had been put to flight. This advantage was followed up, but the second unit of Carthaginian cavalry proved stubborn. Equally stubborn was an elephant from one of the screens. This animal had been pivoted before moving and had managed to clip the Roman cavalry on its right-front. A protracted melee resulted. Victory eventually went to the Roman horse, but by this time, the battle had been decided. 

Over on the Roman left wing, the Carthaginian cavalry has been engaged. Another screen of elephants have advanced to take on the Roman horse as well as quite a few Velites. The Celts and other cavalry are waiting their turn. 

In the center of the table, the Velites and the Numidian light foot caused no end of trouble for the numerous elephants deployed by Hannibal. The same could be said of the pachyderms. Though they were slow to start and suffered quite a bit from the attention of light javelins and then pila volleys when the Hastati and Principes joined in the chaotic struggle, these wrinkled and smelly beasts caused a few problems for Scipio’s men. It was not until the eighth game turn that the last elephant (stand) was destroyed. While sections of the line were engaged by the elephants, the Celts and legionaries were able to get to grips. These various contests did not go at all well for the barbarians. In fact, the combination of routing pachyderms and solid formations of Hastati produced many killed “figures” which resulted in many broken units. The Roman heavy infantry paid a price for this progress, however. They would find themselves in a certain amount of debt when the Citizen infantry advanced into contact with both the Roman and Allied formations. The right of the legionary line had suffered the most during the early fighting. The additional casualties caused by this second round of fighting resulted in the Hastati and Principes of the right-most legion quitting the field. The Hastati and Principes of the legion next in line (a true Roman legion) were not very far from reaching that same dangerous point. 

Another view of this sector and the chaotic action between the pachyderms and Velites.  Having won the contest against one half of the enemy horse, the Allied cavalry have moved on to melee the rest of the Punic cavalry. 

The clash between opposing light cavalry formations on the Roman right. Casualties on both sides mounted fairly quickly; the Numidians employed by Hannibal were the first to reach a breaking point, however. 

The elephant melees continue on the Roman near left while half of the assembled legions advance to attack the Celts. The barbarians have a rather large hole in their line, and one of their units has been disordered by a panicked group of elephants. 

The legions on the right of the Roman line have moved up into contact with the barbarians of Hannibal’s first line. The Celts are in trouble as both formations are disordered and so, will only half of their allotted dice. The combined Hastati and Principes units will each get to roll 12 dice against the Celts. 

Late in the action . . . This snapshot shows the hurt and tired legionaries advancing into another round of melees with the Citizen spearmen. The dice did not favor the Romans or their allies. 

At the conclusion of Turn 8, a halt was called in order to assess the status of the field and the state of both armies. While the Romans had stripped Hannibal of cavalry on his right, the equites were in no condition to continue let alone pose a threat to the Citizen spearmen in the second line or Bruttian veterans in the third line. The legions had seen some hard fighting. While the elephants, skirmishers, Celts, and for the most part, Ligurians had been sent packing, there remained a large contingent of Citizen infantry as well as the fresh and veteran troops of the Carthaginian third line. What was left of Masinissa’s contingent on the Roman right was also in no condition to really affect the outcome of the engagement. A victory, albeit a fairly expensive one, had to awarded to the man who had crossed the Alps with elephants so many years before. 

Commentary

The initial stages of my refight featured no trumpet blasts or shouts from hundreds of Roman throats echoing around my tabletop. There were no elephant lanes either. Even without these devices and tactics, the Roman light troops, legionaries, and their allies were able to handle the enemy pachyderms without suffering too much damage. In fact, if memory serves, all of the routing animals turned and stampeded into friendly lines. This caused a number of problems for the Celts. 

There was no clear cut and quick victory by either Roman cavalry wing. The troopers on the left flank became embroiled in a long struggle against a stubborn unit of pachyderms, while their comrades were weakened by a number of melees with enemy horsemen. The Numidian horse on the right wing was damaged in a hard-fought contest. Furthermore, they suffered command and control problems which prevented the survivors from organizing any real threat against Hannibal’s left flank or his rear. 

The infantry struggle was, perhaps, closer to the historical record in that the Romans were able to overcome the first line. However, this local victory did not translate into a win when engaged by the Citizen spearmen of the second line. 

Overall, a successful battle of attrition had been waged by the veteran Carthaginian commander. He had quite a few more troops that could be sacrificed on the legionary altar or against the more numerous cavalry. Scipio could not spend his men’s lives as freely. Shortly after attacking the second line of Hannibal’s deployed formations, the Romans realized that they would not be able to carry on the fight. A win, albeit an expensive one, was awarded to Hannibal. A win meant that history had been reversed on my plain-looking tabletop in early October of 2021. 

As with previous projects, reflection and critical review produced a subjective list of pluses and minuses. In the positive column, and in no particular order, there was the fact that I had managed to recreate the 2020 BC battle of Zama on a fairly small tabletop. This had been achieved with a minimum of expense. The specific and various formations could be readily identified; the deployment and sections of the opposing lines could also be easily identified as well as manipulated. Even though there were no special or scenario rules developed to address the historical behavior of Hannibal’s elephants, the rules (as written) handled the herd of pachyderms rather well, in my opinion. In summary, an engaging and educational experience was had. 

In the negative column, well, I stipulate to the lack of visual appeal. This interpretation of Zama looked nothing like what Simon Miller, James Roach, Rick Priestley, or Ron Ringrose would probably produce for an adoring public or group of wargaming colleagues. As to the mechanics of the game, the “flow” of a turn, it was noted that the initiative was evenly split between each side. Hannibal won the initial move option, then the initiative went over to Scipio. On the third turn, Hannibal regained the initiative. I guess that this is realistic in some respects. It seems to me, however, that one side might hold the initiative a little longer. Were I to refight the contest again, I would probably substitute the move option procedure detailed in Armati, another set of ancient wargaming rules written by Arty Conliffe. Related to this “problem area” was a concern about command and control. This was most evident on the Roman right when a Numidian unit was prohibited from making any further progress into Hannibal’s left rear as they were out of the command radius of Masinissa. In other sets of rules, movement of “out of command” units is not halted but it is penalized. As I have mentioned or remarked in previous articles and posts, missile and melee resolution in Tactica II can be a little dice heavy. It can also require a shift in one’s thinking about how combat happened on the ancient battlefield. For example, when the Hastati and Principes stands of the Roman and Allied legions on the right made contact with the boiling warbands of Celts, barely a third of the heavy infantry bases were in actual physical contact with the barbarians. Even so, the Roman and Allied troops were allowed to roll their full allotment of dice, which resulted in the Celts being extinguished. Another perceived negative or at least concern involved the numbers and scale of the reconstructed engagement. By my calculations, the Romans had 395 “figures” on the table, 343 of which counted as massed units, so Scipio’s breaking point was 172 “figures.” Hannibal’s army contained an impressive 734 “figures.” After subtracting the skirmishing archers and slingers, this total was 702, so more than double the number of “figures” in the invading Roman army. Using the approximate unit scales provided in Paragraph or Section 1.1 of the rules, there were either 15,800 or 23,700 Romans and Numidians in Scipio’s assembled army. They faced an ad-hoc Carthaginian army numbering between 29,360 and 44,040 foot and horse. Based on my reading of the ancient sources, employment of the larger figure scale provides for a better representation of the armies actually involved on the day. This much admitted, an asterisk was placed over each cavalry wing. In the recently completed refight, the Roman and Allied cavalry were significantly weakened and so, were not able to envelop the Carthaginian right and rear. In a similar fashion, the Numidians on the Roman right were given a bloody nose by their counterparts and played no further part, really, in the tabletop scenario. A partial sum of the points deployed by Scipio came to 1,392. An incomplete sum was obtained from the Carthaginian order of battle. It is estimated that Hannibal had over 3,900 points at his disposal. 

A rough calculation of losses was made at the end of Turn 8. Scipio’s army had lost around 75 “massed unit figures,” or approximately 23 percent of their determined break point. Hannibal’s army suffered about 225 casualties in “massed unit figures,” or approximately 64 percent of their determined breakpoint. At the point the reconstruction was halted, the Carthaginians had two lines of infantry that were essentially untouched. The veteran formations in the third line constituted the biggest threat to Scipio’s plans. To be certain, Hannibal’s cavalry had been defeated, but the Roman and Numidian horse had been severely weakened. It was very doubtful that they would have been able to coordinate any kind of serious attack on the second or third line of Hannibal’s army. The Roman and Allied legions were damaged and tired, it could be remarked, from their efforts against the Celts and their initial contacts with the Citizen spearmen. It appeared that the Hastati and Principes would have been decimated if not broken by continuing the struggle against the Citizen formations. This would have left only the Triarii of the four legions to face the overwhelming numbers of African and Bruttian infantry. In terms of numbers, this melee would have seen four thin formations of good Roman troops facing ten units of as good or better Carthaginian troops. Forty-eight Roman heavy infantry would have to engage with or endure against 240 enemy heavy infantry. 

Even though history was rewritten on my tabletop, even though the Romans were defeated and Scipio’s reputation was undeniably tarnished, I was entertained, engaged, and learned more about Zama during the preparation and play of this most recent project. 

Notes

1. “Manipulating Zama” was posted to my blog, https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/, on 30 September 2021. The opening sentence of this report was typed very early on the morning of 04 October.
2. At the referenced figure scale of 1:60, the admittedly abstract depiction of a Tactica II legion represents just 2,880 men. There are exactly 720 Hastati, 720 Principes, 720 Triarii, and 720 Velites. Unfortunately, this model does not match the information provided on pages 110-112 of Warfare. I considered doubling the permitted number of Hastati, Principes, and Velites, as this would produce a legion strength of 5,040, which appears a more historically accurate figure. However, I wanted to play the rules as they were written and so, used one of the options provided. 

Explanatory Note: 

The following was prepared, revised, formatted and submitted to Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients, in late May/early June of 2020. Unfortunately, and I readily admit to my slight disappointment as well as greater confusion, it was not accepted for publication. Evidently and without knowing, I had committed the tactical error or perhaps it was a strategic blunder of writing too many articles/reports for a publication that depends on contributions from its members for material. This curious situational irony aside, the rejected piece has been posted to my blog in the hopes that at least a few dozen ancient wargamers will read it and perhaps a fraction of those hearty individuals will offer comments on it. In a departure from previous entries, I have decided to keep the punctuation and spelling of this “paper” as British English instead of correcting/revising it to American English. 

PORTRAYING THE POENI

What might a Tactica II Early Carthaginian army list look like? Would there be points of similarity between it and the Carthaginian (2nd Punic War) list which is found on page L13 of the spiral-bound rulebook? My guess is that there would some commonalities and or shared unit types. Readily stipulating to the fact that I have absolutely no experience when it comes to creating army lists and embarrassingly little experience with playing at war using Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II rules, especially when compared to veterans like Mark Grindlay, Dr. Paul Innes, and Simon Watson [1] (perhaps Silver Shields would be a more appropriate title for this trio of accomplished gentlemen?), I still wanted to give it a try. The following tables, for better or worse, and for the constructive criticism and remarks or blanket disinterest they might generate, are the product of this admittedly and completely amateur, average student-of-ancient-military-history effort. Without further ado then, let me begin - or attempt to begin - with a consideration of the mounted arm. 

Troop Type	Size	FV	Sk-FV	Quality	Weapons
Medium Cavalry [a] (Carthaginian)	8-18 [b]	3-6; 4-6 [c]	n/a [d]	MG, T, V [e]	Various [f]
Medium Cavalry (Greek)	8-18	4-6	n/a	T, V	Various
Medium Cavalry (Etruscan)	8-18	4-6	n/a	T, V	Various
Medium Cavalry (Campanian)	8-18	4-6	n/a	T, V	Various
Light Cavalry (Numidian)	8-12	3-6	5-6	MG,T, V, E	Javelins
Heavy Chariots [g](Carthaginian or Libyan)	3-4 [h]	4-6	n/a	T, V, E	Various
Light Chariots (Carthaginian or Libyan)	3-4	4-6	n/a	T, V, E	Various

 

Notes:

a. The “new” category of medium cavalry was borrowed from the Early Carthaginian army list provided on pages 32-33 of the Biblical & Classical Supplement for Hail Caesar. The identification of the cavalry as Carthaginian (or Punic), Greek, Etruscan, and or Campanian was also borrowed from this list. While cavalry units were found in other Early Carthaginian army lists, these were only identified as Heavy, Medium, or Light. See, for example, the Early Carthaginian list on page 4 of Advanced Armati, or page 16 of Version 1.1 of De Bellis Antiquitatis, or page 75 of Might of Arms. 

b. The table on page 3 of the Tactica II rules lists the minimum frontage of a unit of heavy cavalry as 6 figures. The maximum frontage for a unit of heavy cavalry is 9 figures. As heavy cavalry is considered a “massed unit”, it must have a second rank of figures, so the smallest number of figures that can be in a unit of heavy cavalry is 12 figures. In the ‘Thinking about Tinkering’ section of “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering”, an article submitted to the editor in late May of 2019 for review, I considered playing with the stated unit sizes. (Note: This article was another check-mark in the “declined column.” It was posted to this blog on June 19.) In this present effort, I revisit that idea and put it into effect. A unit of Carthaginian medium cavalry could have as few as 8 figures, arranged in 2 ranks of 4. Cavalry units could also be as large as 18 figures, arranged in 3 ranks of 6, or in 2 ranks of 9. 

c. FV is an abbreviation for Fighting Value. As described on page 28 of the Tactica II rulebook, this value or number range is the score on a six-sided die that an enemy formation must roll in order to “kill” a figure in the attacked unit. So, if I have a unit of Carthaginian medium cavalry with a FV of 3-6 that is engaged in melee by 16 enemy cavalry (8 figures in 2 ranks), then, all things being equal, the enemy unit will throw 8 six-sided dice. If any of those dice come up as 3, 4, 5, or 6, then I will lose a figure of my cavalry unit as a casualty. The Carthaginian cavalry were given two different FVs, as in his notes for the Hail Caesar list, the well known in the wargaming world Rick Priestley explains: “Carthaginian cavalry are given reduced attacks on the basis they were poorer even than Greeks”. 

d. Sk-FV is a variation of the FV described above. This Fighting Value pertains to skirmishers or units that have adopted skirmish order. Typically, the Sk-FV is higher than a formed unit FV. Many units do not or will not have a separate Sk-FV. 

e. Section 2.8 on page 3 of the Tactica II rules defines the four levels of unit quality. In ascending order, these unit qualities are: Militia Grade (MG), Veterans (V), Elite (EL), and Legendary (L). In “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering”, I expanded these four grades or ratings to seven. The amended order of quality, from worst to best, is as follows: Levy (Ly), Militia Grade (MG), Trained (T), Veterans (V), Elite (EL), Guard (G), and Legendary (L). 

f. This is a category or label borrowed from the Armati 2nd Edition rules. On page 33 of the also written by Arty Conliffe and spiral-bound rules, various is defined as: “Light Cavalry and Light Chariot units so armed are assumed to have Javelins for the purpose of Missile Fire. But other units so armed may not perform Missile Fire unless a ranged weapon is also specified e.g., Various/Bows”. In sum, “Various” means various weapons. There will be some missile weapons, but not enough to merit the ability to engage the enemy from a distance. Generally speaking, “Various” means a collection of swords, spears, long spears, daggers, shields, etc. 

g. Early Carthaginian chariots might be worthy of a separate article, written by someone with a level of expertise on the subject matter. That aside, I found the variety of chariots on the several Early Carthaginian army lists that were studied quite interesting. Here is where I missed having a DBM (De Bellis Multitudinis) packed-with-information paragraph at the bottom of the army list. See, for example, the extensive notes for the Polybian Roman list, on page 31 of Book 2 of the D.B.M. Army Lists. Unfortunately, while there was a Later Carthaginian list in this slim volume, there was no Early Carthaginian list. Anyway. Deferring to the knowledgeable Rick Priestley, in his notes he writes: “I have chosen to represent chariots as light chariots, making them mobile fighting platforms rather than lumbering wagons, albeit pulled by four horses. This is, of course, arguable, and those wishing to employ heavy chariots are welcome to make the change”.

Evidence for that argument was found in the ‘Chariots’ section of https://www.ancient.eu/Carthaginian_Army/, where Mark Cartwright explained:

The Carthaginians employed war chariots up to the 3rd century BCE. These 

        were constructed from wooded frames covered with panels of woven willow 

branches. They were single-axle chariots and could carry two men: a driver and 

an archer. Sometimes a third man, a hoplite, would join them. The wheels could 

be fitted with blades, and the team of two or four horses was protected with 

metal breastplates and ox-hide side covers. Like cavalry, they were used to break 

up the enemy infantry lines. Needing flat terrain to operate effectively they were 

largely restricted to use in North Africa and southern Spain and went 

        completely out of use from the 3rd century BCE.

h. In Tactica II, chariots and elephants are represented by models, but these models are the equivalent, I gather, of heavy infantry figures. In the case of heavy chariots, each chariot model is equal to 6 infantry figures. With regard to light chariots, each model is the equivalent of 4 infantry figures. So, when the unit size for a chariot formation is listed as 3-4, that translates into 18-24 figures. 

Experienced Tactica II players and those who have read and studied the rules will note that I have not included unit type percentages or point values for the various troop types. This was a conscious decision on my part as well as a casualty of my tinkering with the unit quality levels. It occurred to me that it might be problematic as well as take up quite a bit of space if I were to calculate and list the point values for all of the various troop types and their quality levels. Rather than obsess or worry about points, I thought I might focus on actual or approximate numbers. To this desired end, I established a working figure scale of 1:50, which put me right in the middle of the approximate figure scale described on page 1 of the rules. That decision explained, I should like to move on to a consideration of the infantry component of an Early Carthaginian army. 

Troop Type	Size	FV	Sk-FV	Quality	Weapons
Phalanx (Sacred Band) [i]	48 [j]	5-6	n/a	EL	Spears
Phalanx (Citizens) [k]	24-36	4-6; 5-6	n/a	MG, T, V	Spears
Phalanx (African Foot) [l]	24-40	4-6	n/a	T, V	Spears
Phalanx (Greek Mercenary Hoplites) [m]	24-48	4-6; 5-6	n/a	MG, T, V	Spears
Phalanx (Campanian Hoplites)	24-36	4-6	n/a	T, V	Spears
Warband (Gallic Warriors) [n]	36-48	4-6	n/a	MG, T, V	Various
Warband (Libyan Warriors /Light Infantry) [o]	18-36	3-6	n/a	MG, T, V	Various/Javelins
Foot (Spanish Scutarii) [p]	24-36	4-6	n/a	T, V, E	“Pila”/Swords [q]
Light Infantry (Corsican, Ligurian, or Sardinian) [r]	12-27	3-6	5-6	T, V	Javelins/Various
Skirmishers (Numidian, Libyan, Moorish, Spanish) [s]	6-12	n/a	5-6	T, V	Javelins
Skirmishers (Balearic Slingers)	6-10	n/a	4-6	T, V, EL	Slings
Skirmishers (Sardinian Archers)	6-10	n/a	4-6	T, V	Bows

Notes:

i. Wargamer-friendly information about the Punic Sacred Band was found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage and https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/punic-sacred-band-clearing-up-confusion/.

j. Unlike other unit types, the number of figures in the Sacred Band is set at 48. This formation will be a 4-rank phalanx, with each rank having 12 figures. This representative strength was based on the  information found in the sources referenced in the previous note. After experimenting with a few options, the modeling of this specific unit determined the working figure or unit scale that would be used for this experiment, for these experiments. 

k. The varying ability of these citizen spearmen was decided after reviewing the information provided in the wikipedia entry (again, please see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage), wherein the citizen infantry is described as “conscripted”. The adjective suggests, at least to me, troops that may not be all that excited about serving in the army and fighting on campaign. 

l. The first entry in the Hail Caesar army list is ‘African medium infantry’. African spearmen (either medium or heavy) are also found on the ADLG list. Surprisingly, this troop type was not included in either Armati list. Perhaps they are lumped in the category of Citizens or even Mercenaries, as Rick Priestley explains in his notes about the composition of an Early Carthaginian army/force: “It is a multi-ethnic army that contains various mercenaries as well as local North African troops”. 

m. Greek mercenary hoplites are found in the ADLG list as well as in the revised DBA lists. (Please see https://balagan.info/dba-i-61-early-carthaginian-550-275bc.) Relying once again on the notes provided by the accomplished author and wargamer, Rick Priestley informs: “Greek mercenary hoplites were also employed, specifically after the Carthaginians’ poor showing at the Battle of the Krimisos in 341 BC [2], and could be included in an army of this period (see the Hoplite Greek list for stats)”. 

n. These “barbarians” are identified as Celts/Celtiberians in the two Armati lists. They are referred to as Gauls in the ADLG, Hail Caesar, and DBA lists. Whatever name is used, I think it is fair to say that these troops are impetuous and so, deliver a fierce first charge or attack. They are not, however, what could be called “regulars” or very disciplined troops. 

o. This second warband or troop type is borrowed directly from the Hail Caesar army list. Having Libyan troops in an Early Carthaginian army seems completely appropriate and natural, like having biscuits with tea or fries with ketchup (catsup). They do appear to have been lighter in their “fighting weight” or impact than their northern cousins. 

p. Spanish foot or scutarii are a consistent presence in the several lists reviewed and studied. They are categorised as Foot in the Armati lists; have a pretty good frontal fighting value, and carry Various weapons. In the DBA lists, they are classed as Auxilia (Aux or Ax), so they have a level of melee ability but are flexible as well. In the ADLG list, they are rated as impetuous medium swordsmen. 

q. In the Hail Caesar list, Spanish Scutarii are light infantry armed with the Roman pila. This is also how they are described or defined in the Carthaginian (2nd Punic War) list in the Tactica II rulebook. According to the notes at the bottom of page L13, “The pila bonus represents their use of the soliferrum, which was a throwing weapon similar to the pila. Further, they and the Caetrati were excellent swordsmen, typically using the high-quality falcata sword”. 

r. The various places of origin for these light troops, not necessarily peltasts, but close enough to the category, are taken from the Hail Caesar list, which is reinforced by descriptions found in other lists. 

s. As with the light infantry, the “national” identities of the “clouds” or screens of skirmishers are taken from the Hail Caesar list. Similar entries are found in the ADLG list and the DBA lists. The Armati lists do not specifically identify the SI (skirmish infantry) units however. They are simply generic skirmishers with the primary task of annoying and harassing the enemy line while protecting their own.

Having completed a Tactica II army list, albeit a work-in-progress one, for Early Carthaginians, the next logical steps were to build a force, deploy it on the tabletop, and see how it fared.  

Playing the Poeni

Influenced by a crash-course study of the battles of Crimissus [3] and White Tunis [4], I knew that I wanted to have a nice mix of units on my tabletop. I definitely want to have the Scared Band present. Being an enthusiast of large actions, I had to remind myself to reign it in a bit, as I did not want to crowd my small tabletop with a plethora of troop types. After thinking about it for a few days, and sketching some ideas and notes, I decided to divide my table into six equal sectors. To maximize the available playing space, I reduced the footprint of 15 mm Tactica II units by 50 percent. My model Sacred Band, then, would have a frontage of 6 cm and a depth of 3 cm. At the risk of getting ahead of myself a bit here, to be consistent, command radii, missile ranges, and movement rates were also reduced by 50 percent. A few more days were spent on drafting and revising possible orders of battle for my planned engagement featuring Early Carthaginians. Having six sectors, I assembled an army containing six divisions. One of these formations was a mix of cavalry and chariots, the other five were foot formations. I drafted Africans, Gauls (or Celts), Spanish, light infantry, and a solid corps of Citizen infantry along with Greek mercenary hoplites. This last group contained my functional and very inexpensive model unit of the Sacred Band. 

The search for a suitable opponent also took a few days. To generate some ideas, I started by reviewing the campaign lists provided on page 35 of the Advanced Armati rules. The “Alexander - 4th Century BC” campaign included the following participants: Macedonia, Late Achaemenid Persia, Early Carthage, India, and Sparta. Even though these were all from the Antiquity section of the army list catalogue, the mixture did not seem quite right to me, and so, did not appeal. Waging war against Sparta was a possibility, but I worried about a certain level of “blandness” in any contest that was staged. Turning next to my “ancient” copy of DBA (Version 1.1, March 1995), I found two possible candidates in the “Six Nation Historical Campaigns” directory. In the “Great Persian War - 480 BC”, my Early Carthaginians could do battle with the following: Early Hoplite Greeks, Early North Greeks, Early Achaemenid Persians, Early Spartans, or Syracusans. In the “Pyrrhic - 280 BC” campaign, my options included: Campanians or Apulians, the army of Pyrrhus, Syracusans - again, Camillan Romans, or Samnites or Umbrians. After weighing the pros and cons of these options, I narrowed my choice down to the Syracusans (figuring that I could work with and adapt the Greek City-States list offered on page L4 of the Tactica II rules) or the Early Persian list (offered on page L6). A coin toss decided the question. My two-dimensional Early Carthaginians would have their first test against an army of Early Achaemenid Persians. 

The Battle of Behistun [5]

Map 1 shows the initial deployment of the opposing armies as well as illustrates the nature of the landscape for this fictional meeting between two forces, each representing the interests of an established and expanding empire. The Persians were arranged on the north side of the chosen field; the Carthaginians stood on the southern side of the plain. 

The respective disposition of formations was as follows. The Carthaginian commander, making note of the flat and open terrain near the shallow and slow river (it was completely fordable, only coming up to the knee of any foot soldier), placed his 1,800 cavalry troopers and chariots (an estimated 180, though this figure was probably inflated) on the right of his line, just in front of small patch of woods. A fairly strong Gallic contingent, numbering 7,200 warriors, was on the right of the infantry line. Next to these fierce fighters were, from right to left, the civilized Greek hoplite mercenaries (7,400), the Sacred Band, and 4,650 Citizen infantry. The left of the Carthaginian line was tasked to the African foot, of which there were 6,000, and the Spanish, who had 5,550 on their unit rolls. The 5,250 light infantry of the army was arranged in front of the Spanish contingent, the plan being that these troops would do better as the first wave of infantry to tackle the tongue of hills that nature and time had formed. Five units of skirmishers (some 2,000 men) were scattered in front of the main line, screening the hoplites all the way left to the Ligurian light infantry. 

Approximately 45 scale inches across the tabletop, the Early Achaemenid Persians prepared for the coming battle. On their left, almost next to the banks of the river, the commanding general placed two formations of cavalry. The left-most division contained heavy cavalry armed with melee and missile weapons (bows). The division to its immediate right was also heavy cavalry but did not have any missile weapons. The infantry of the centre was a veritable goulash of contingents. There were Ionian and Lydian hoplites, Persian levy, Assyrians, and even some Egyptians. These various units were screened by a number of skirmishers. The right wing of the Persian host was guarded by numerous units of light horse. There was a mix here, as well, as Scythian horse archers rode with Bedouins on camels. There was also a small squadron of light chariots in attendance. Following this mounted wing, there was a corps of light infantry. These formations were from various places in the empire. These formations were supported by a couple of units of foot archers all the way from India. Behind the stew of units comprising the centre, there was a second line consisting of Persian foot. A group of Immortals bolstered this line; all the formations were armed with shields, spears, swords, and bows. The Persian army  completely outnumbered the Carthaginians in cavalry, having some 10,000 horsemen on the field. The numbers of infantry were about equal, but it could be argued that the Carthaginians had the better quality foot. When all the math was done, the Persians had a superiority of around 8,000 or 9,000 men. 

A Patchwork of Rules

The attempt to create a serviceable army list for Early Carthaginians was modeled on the more than several examples and general format found within the pages of Tactica II. My proposed list is a work in progress; it is certainly not a definitive list. To be certain, the prudent course of action would have been to employ or play the rules as written, goodness knows I need the practice. However, as I had already done some tinkering with the rules, I figured that this present project provided an excellent opportunity to “push the envelope” a little further. In broad overview then, what I wanted to do, or wanted to try and do, was take the parts of established rules I liked and cobble them together into something resembling a coherent whole. [6] I started with the game move sequence. This sequence of steps or sub phases was borrowed from the Armati 2nd Edition rules. For command and control, and I suppose I would have to include movement rates and missile ranges in here as well, I adopted the issuing orders and rolling dice process that is the signature of Rick Priestley’s Hail Caesar rules. With regard to missile fire, the conduct of melees, and the impact of these related actions on unit or formation morale, I stayed with the sometimes dice-heavy Tactica II rules. For details not covered by these broad brush strokes, well, I figured that I would address them when they cropped up, or I would ignore them if they were deemed non-issues with respect to the course of the planned wargame. 

A Visual Summary of the Action 

Map 2 shows the status of the table at the end of four turns of play. 

On the Persian right wing, their light cavalry has been moving slowly up through the less-than-ideal-for-horses terrain, while the supporting formation of light infantry has been following. The Carthaginians have pushed their own light infantry forward in this sector, but there has been no exchange of missiles (at least not yet), and there has been no close combat. The Spanish contingent has been following in the wake of the light troops. Moving into the centre of the fictional field, though the Carthaginians were able to seize and hold the initiative for these first turns, the Persians had the better command dice. Consequently, their first line of foot was able to make better progress than the Carthaginian divisions. There were some preliminary exchanges of arrows, javelins, and sling stones between the opposing screens of skirmishers wherein the Persians appeared to have a slight advantage. As the distance closed, however, these screens were withdrawn so that the various bodies of infantry could come to grips. As illustrated, this happened on the fourth turn and once again, the dice seemed to favour the Persian cause. First of all, the African infantry failed their command roll and so, were not able to join in the scrum. The Carthaginians did not roll good melee dice; even their vaunted Sacred Band under performed in this first round of close combat. Injury and insult was added to injury when an available unit of Persian cavalry was able to fall on the exposed flank of a Greek mercenary hoplite unit at the far right end of the Carthaginian line. Although disordered and damage by the combined flank and frontal attacks, the stubborn mercenaries stood their ground. Shifting to the right wing of the Carthaginian line, their cavalry and chariots did not last very long, unfortunately. The plan or hope was that this mixed force would slow down the superior number of Persian horse. The plan did not work and almost all hope was lost in rapid succession. The Numidian light cavalry unit was the first to collapse. This was followed by the rout of the light chariot squadron. The heavy chariots were the next victims, as their comparatively slow speed allowed some Persian cavalry to work around their vulnerable left flank. From that point, it was just one bad roll after another. The small unit of Punic cavalry made a good showing, however. But then they were quickly overwhelmed as more Persians joined the swirling fight. The Campanians were nearly wiped out. The few survivors, knowing all was lost, rolled a 12 for their Fates Test and gamely fought on. They were joined by the cavalry commander, who had been wounded when the Punic squadron was destroyed. It appeared quite evident that the lack of any action on the part of the Gauls caused this disaster. Initially, the barbarians thought it best to say put, as their right flank was protected by the woods. Then, as things started to unfold, attempts to move forward and draw some attention away from the dying cavalry or the exposed mercenary hoplites were thwarted by poor command rolls. 

The state of the fictional battlefield - the status of my tabletop - at the end of eight turns of play is shown in Map 3. 

The right flank of the Early Carthaginian army has effectively been turned. While the Gauls did severely maul one formation of Persian horse, the second group managed to gallop around the barbarians’ backsides. In addition, one unit of the cavalry “division” had mounted a successful flank attack and thereby routed a large warband. Worried about a developing attack from the rear, the surviving chieftains turned their warriors around. This was possible as there was no real threat, save for an odd skirmisher or two to their front. This move also resulted in a temporary state of disorder, which was made more uncomfortable by the collapse of warband on the right of the line. In the centre of the field, a similar situation was unfolding, as another unit of Persian horse had gained the flank of the Greek mercenary hoplites and was causing no little trouble here, even if the hoplites proved slightly harder to kill than the tattooed barbarians. The general melee between the opposing lines here saw units from both sides crumble and then flee after a few rounds of close combat. It could be said that more units survived on the Carthaginian side, but these formations were quite bloodied and tired. The prospect of facing a fresh command of Persians was not at all appealing or realistic, especially when it was noted that these Persians were armed with bows. In fact, though successful in its melees, the Sacred Band had been subjected to a few volleys from these fresh regiments. These volleys eventually found the range and in a single turn, no fewer than seven figures fell from the ranks of the Sacred Band. To their immediate left, the Africans struggled against a rather stubborn unit of Egyptian foot. Both sides bled each other, but the Persian-employed formation was able to hang on (barely), while the Africans deteriorated. Over on the right wing of the Persian position, a kind of stalemate existed. Even though a portion of the African contingent had advanced and engaged the Indian archers, and even though light infantry were still contesting possession of the ruins, things were comparatively quiet in this sector. The Spanish infantry were fresh and capable, but the Carthaginian commander was hesitant to commit them given the condition of the rest of his army. It appeared that the Persians held the advantage across all sectors of the table. After listening to reports from various messengers sent from various commands, and after surveying the status of the formations within his limited field of vision, the Carthaginian general decided to disengage and withdraw, to attempt to save what was left of his force. The Achaemenids had secured a victory then, but it had been a fairly bloody one. One might even remark that it was pyrrhic in nature. 

A Critique of the Contest

On immediate reflection (conducted within 24 hours of the wargame being called and taken down), it appears that I was somewhat unfair to the Early Carthaginian cause. This imbalance was most obvious when reviewing the numbers involved. As mentioned previously, the Persians outnumbered the Carthaginians by approximately 9,000 men. This numerical superiority was most apparent when comparing the cavalry forces of the opposing armies. However, as just narrated, the contest proved to be a “near run thing”, with the Carthaginians yielding only after exacting quite a toll on the Achaemenids. Apparently, outnumbering an enemy by almost 10:1 in the cavalry arm is no guarantee a quick and decisive victory. On further reflection, it seems that, as the satrap in overall command of this large force, I did not make proper use of my cavalry. The light horse, camels, and light chariots should have been placed on the river side of the field and used as a screen to one of the heavy cavalry formations. The second heavy cavalry command should have been deployed in a column, far to the left, so that it could skirt the enemy flank and work its way around the Carthaginian right. In the actual battle, I managed this, but only in the final stages, and after two of my cavalry formations were wrecked and routed. Looking at the performance of the Persian foot, well, I was quite pleased with how the first line - which included some Levy formations - stood up to the weight of the Carthaginians and their hired mercenaries. Reviewing the wargame, I am not sure if my light infantry would have stood against both the enemy light foot and the supporting Spanish, so perhaps it was fortunate that I did use the light cavalry to screen my right. In some ways, the action in this sector resembled a chess match, as both sides appeared to have sacrificed pieces (formations) in an attempt to win the larger game (battle). 

Adjusting my “critical cap” slightly and looking at things from the Carthaginian side of the field, it is tempting to remark that the dice were just not with me as the battle developed. It did seem, however, that no matter how many handfuls of dice I rolled, I could not manage to get the needed results. The Persians on the other hand (curse them!), appeared to have no trouble rolling 5s and 6s, or 4s, 5s, and 6s. As to deployment, well, given the severe disadvantage in cavalry, perhaps I should have held this formation in reserve instead of placing it on my right? However, this kind of deployment did not strike me as very historical. I do suppose that I could have switched my cavalry and chariots over to the other flank. These squadrons could have operated in support of my light troops, catching and destroying any enemy formations that may have broken through and threatened my left or rear. As long as I am second-guessing, I also suppose that I would have done better had I shifted my hoplites and citizen infantry more to the right. I could have screened these heavy foot with the Spanish troops. This combination would have given the numerous Persian cavalry pause. I could have moved the Gauls to the centre and let them charge into and hack away at the Persian line while the issue was pressed on the flanks. 

Stepping back even further and taking a look at how the assembled rules worked, overall, I think that the game flowed smoothly. The game move sequence was familiar, as in my career as a wargamer and more recently as primarily a wargamer of the ancient period(s), I have the most experience using the Armati stables of rules (original Armati through Armati 2nd Edition). To me, it just makes sense to have missile fire occur prior to movement. Then again, I do think arguments could be made for missile exchanges taking place throughout the course of a turn. However, I think this kind of process would tend to complicate things. I found the command and control procedures familiar as well. On reflection, I suppose I could have incorporate some aspect of Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules to reduce the number of die rolls. Then again, there are no “slap to the forehead” blunders in To The Strongest! The combat process was also rather dice heavy, but I knew that going into the experiment. I am still in a discovery phrase with respect to finding the best way to track casualties when playing Tactica II or a form of it. I understand that some enthusiasts use pipe cleaners, some use mini-dice or other markers placed behind the units. As I use colour counters, sometimes the design is more visually appealing than other forms of these counters, I attached the roster to the unit and then mark losses with a sharpie. This method adds a little time to the melee resolution phase, as one might imagine. Even so, like the pipe cleaner method, there is a readily understood visual record of the current state of each unit. In summary, and to reiterate, I think the adapted rules worked fairly well. The fictional battle was fairly straightforward and traditional. Both sides lines up their troops; both sides advanced, and both sides fought to overthrow the other. There were lots of dice thrown. At times, I confess I was still “thrown” or given pause by counting all the “figures” in the front rank of a unit that had contact an enemy formation with just a sliver of its frontage. I was also frustrated, though perhaps that is too strong a word, by the apparent lack of impact the Persian cavalry had when they were finally able to get around the flank and into the rear of the Gallic warriors. 

Remarks

In a post to the ‘Slingshot submissions’ thread, dated September 16, 2018, the current editor suggested six provisional categories into which material from contributors was sorted. These categories are: Battle Reports, Wargaming in General, Guardroom, History, Reviews, and Other. I would imagine that these are not absolute categories, since he might receive an article that contains, for example, a battle report attached to an attempt to build an army list. How would that submission be classified? Under which category would it be filed? It seems to me that my attempt to develop an Early Carthaginian army list for use with Tactica II could fit under the History category, as I looked back through previous iterations of this specific army list. As I included a battle report (how can one draft an army list and not build an army and test it on the tabletop?), this submission fits neatly under that topic umbrella, but again, how is army list development and thinking categorised? Would that go under ‘Wargaming in General’ or ‘Other’? 

As I recall, “work” on this project began in mid or late March of 2020. Unfortunately, due to a number of variables, the article was suspended in mid April. Sufficient to say, I was more than a little annoyed and frustrated by this development. Fortunately, I did not delete the electronic draft. It was simply moved to that folder fairly bulging with half-formed ideas and dozens of unfinished drafts on a variety of topics. In early June, as I was putting the finishing touches on “Timoleon Brings The Thunder”, I thought I would take another swipe at finishing this project. This would be a first for me, returning to a suspended project. Fortunately, those aforementioned variables had either resolved or transformed to the point where they were not a distraction to the writing and or wargaming process. 

The experience of developing an Early Carthaginian army list, despite the noted interruption(s), was educational and engaging. Experimenting with a version of that army on my tabletop also proved educational and engaging. I might be tempted to explore this topic again. I do not know if I would start from scratch, as it were, or if I would tinker with an established army list or lists, such as those found on the Warflute site. 

Notes

1. These three individuals (familiar names, I should think, to readers of Slingshot and frequenters of the Society Forum) are listed in the Credits & Acknowledgements of the rules, under the Glasgow section. Simon Watson and Dr. Paul Innes are mentioned again, in a flattering manner, in the Introduction.

2. A search of the Internet for more information about this specific battle revealed, to no great surprise, different spellings of its name as well as a different year for its date. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crimissus#mw-head. 

3. Again, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crimissus#mw-head. 

4. For White Tunis, an interesting engagement in its own right, please see http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20A*.html, especially Chapters 10-13 of Book XX. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_White_Tunis, as well as https://www.commandsandcolors.net/ancients/maps/42-sicilian-wars-600-265-bc/440-jd09-white-tunis-310-bc.html, and http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2019/01/battle-of-white-tunis-310bc-using.html. 

5. The name of my scenario was adopted from Chapter 9 of Wargame Tactics, an excellent book (and one of my favourite wargaming texts, actually) written by the Charles Grant. The terrain for my scenario was adapted from this engaging and entertaining report. 

6. The softer context of “patchwork” - as in “patchwork quilt” - was chosen over pretending to be a kind of Dr. Frankenstein, where I would attempt to assemble a “monster” from the salvaged bits of pieces of various rulebooks.