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.