AN ORCHESTRATION OF OTTOMANS

Having “fallen off my horse” trying to lead an Ottoman army as well as a Medieval Polish one while using a set of rules that is often referred to by its four-letter acronym, I voiced some complaints and concerns (that is to say, expressed my disappointment and frustration) but fortunately, did not break any bones or suffer a any kind of concussion. About a week later, I got “back in the saddle,” (if I may continue the equestrian metaphor) and built another Ottoman army to command on a model battlefield. While the terrain selected for this fictional engagement was similar (the tabletop bore a passing resemblance to Pharsalus, 48 BC), instead of Europeans, the opposition was Mamluk Egyptians. The rules were different, too. I thought I would give TRIUMPH! another trial run in this scenario. If things went well, then I hoped to employ these DBA-like rules for a long-delayed campaign game that would engage and entertain me (at least I hoped that it would) until September or October and perhaps even generate a handful of reports that I could post to this blog. That long-term possibility acknowledged, let me get right into the orders of battle for this revised solo wargame effort. 

The Mamluks, taking the place of Caesar’s forces in the historical battle, were drafted from the Mamluk Egyptian list (1250 AD to 1517 AD), available for free at MeshWesh, (Please see http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home.) Nine stands of Elite Cavalry (Royal Mamluks) were deployed on the right wing of the line of battle. All of these units had the ‘Shower Shooting’ ability or battle card. (An explanation of this capability is also available on the MeshWesh link.) This contingent added up to 45 points. The center command included 14 units of infantry and 3 of cavalry. The foot elements were a mix of Warband (Ghazis), Horde (City Rabble), Bow Levy (Ashir Bowmen) and others. The horse were divided evenly between an Elite Cavalry unit (Mamluks), a Horse Bow (Turkoman horse archers) and Javelin Cavalry (Kurdish). This command added up to 46 points. On the left, there were 3 units of Javelin Cavalry (Bedouin), 8 units of Horse Bow (Turkoman horse archers), and one unit of Elite Cavalry (Mamluks). The left wing formation added up to 48 points, which gave the Egyptians a total strength of 139 out of a possible 144 points. 

The Ottomans were selected from the Ottoman Empire (1362 AD to 1520 AD) list. Their left wing consisted of 5 units of Elite Cavalry (Qapukulu). These formations had the ‘Shower Shooting’ ability as well. They were assisted by 5 units of Horse Bow (Akinjis). This command was valued at 45 points. The Ottoman center was a mixed formation of foot, much like their enemy. This command included Archers (Janissary Bowmen), Warband (Iayalar), Elite Foot (Voynuks), along with other types as well as a “battery” of Artillery (Bombards and other guns). Adding up the numbers, this formation was worth 47 points. The right wing of the Ottoman army, which assumed the historical position of Pompey and his colleagues, was composed of 12 units of Horse Bow (Akinjis). These horsemen were fairly close to the river and marshy ground, and were worth 48 points. The Ottomans had 140 points overall, just one more than the Egyptians. The Egyptians had 38 units compared to 36 units fielded by the Ottomans. 

How It Played

Having a movement rate three or four times faster than the combined formations of foot, the wings of opposing horse were the first units to make contact and see action on this improvised and aesthetically unimpressive battlefield. Over on the Egyptian left flank, Turkomans and Akinjis engaged in a chaotic and swirling melee. Oddly or interestingly, each side gained a local advantage against the enemy left. The result was not a revolving door-like shift of the sector’s battle line orientation, but more of a breaking apart into smaller contests. Both sides suffered losses in the back and forth melees. The Egyptian contingent was the first to become demoralized, followed in the next turn by the Ottoman right wing. Even in this “broken morale” state, both sides continued to hammer away at each other while other portions of their respective lines turned tail and galloped away. The command dice favored the Ottomans and so, more Egyptian formations were forced to break off the action and seek the temporary safety afforded by distance. To be certain, little remained of what once were rather robust forces of light cavalry on both sides in this sector. 

On the Egyptian right wing, the Mamluks had some assistance from light cavalry attached to the infantry center. Facing a handful of enemy elite cavalry and the same number of horse bow, the Mamluks believed they had the advantage. Two turns of ineffective “shower shooting” were followed by charges into contact. Unfortunately, the Mamluks suffered from abysmal dice rolling and were soon reeling from a few lost melees. The only successes scored in this sector were by the reinforcing light cavalry from the Egyptian center. While they were able to attack the flank of some occupied Ottoman units, they were not able to turn the tide of this local battle. Their better dice could not reverse the impact of the bad dice visited upon the Mamluk formations. In due course, the Mamluks were demoralized and their dice troubles continued, which resulted in more units fleeing the field of battle. 

The opposing infantry centers had advanced into artillery range (the Ottomans had some bombards and other pieces), but were still too far apart for the various archer units to retrieve, knock and loose volleys of arrows. After the Egyptian segment of Game Turn 7 was finished, an accounting was made of lost and routing units. While the Ottomans had been bloodied, especially their Akinjis on the right wing, the Egyptians had been pushed past their determined breaking point, with 75 points of an original 139 lost. 

The fictional battle was concluded without completing the Ottoman phase of the seventh turn. The infantry lines would never meet and there would be no pursuit of the Egyptian foot by the surviving—and it has to remarked, bloodied and tired—Ottoman cavalry. 

Remarks

This was not a typical or traditional TRIUMPH! wargame. There were no 15 mm or 28 mm scale miniature armies employed; there was only one player instead of two; there were no dice rolls made to determine the topography, tactical advantage, or number of terrain pieces and placement of same, and there were no camps constructed and placed. (As this was a GRAND TRIUMPH! scenario, using armies three-times the normal size, it is my understanding that there would have been a total of six camps, three on each side.) Furthermore, the deployment rules were not strictly adhered to. The primary example of this was the arrangement of the Egyptians Mamluks (Elite Cavalry) on their right wing instead of in the center. 

In terms of appearance, this “refresher course” or “tutorial” in the mechanics of TRIUMPH! looked more like a simple boardgame than a traditional or typical historical miniatures engagement. The various troop types or units were depicted with cardboard counters with identifying tags attached so that Horse Bow could be differentiated from Warband, and Warband could be differentiated from Elite Foot. In order to fit the comparatively large forces on the 6 by 3.75 feet playing surface, the dimensions for units with a 60 mm base width listed in Appendix A were reduced by 50 percent. A base or stand of Elite Foot (the Ottoman Voynuks) had a frontage of 3 cm and a depth of just 1 cm. During the course of the tabletop battle, it was found that this modified size of units was a bit “fiddly.” If the decision is made to conduct further tests or to pursue a solo campaign using this set of rules, then the 40 mm base width units will be employed, or perhaps an adjustment will be made so that 50 mm base width formations can be prepared and deployed for action. If this decision is made, I will also make my units “prettier” (albeit still non-traditional) and will experiment with identifying the troop type on the actual base or stand instead of attaching an additional tag to the unit. 

Shifting to a brief analysis or critique of the recently completed wargame, well, it goes without saying that it was much more successful than the previous encounter. To revisit the equestrian comparison made in the first paragraph, I might remark that this solo experiment was a rather enjoyable trot through the countryside. Even though the infantry centers of the abstract armies never came to grips, I had a chance to try out ‘Shower Shooting’ (it did not have that much of an impact on the course of the battle), as well as see how good of a cavalry commander I was on the wings. On the Ottoman side of the field, I did fairly well. In fact, I was surprised that my outnumbered elite horse and their lighter neighbors were able to deliver a very bloody nose to the Mamluk cavalry arranged against me. Looking briefly at the other wing, I thought the swirling combat between the opposing lines of Horse Bow and or Javelin Cavalry was fairly realistic. Then again, going back to the Egyptian right, I did find it curious that Horse Bow would have the same combat modifier as Elite Cavalry. I also found it somewhat curious that flank attacks would be seconded to frontal combats. This “confusion” is a result of playing a number of wargames with different sets of rules. (I recall that Tactica II places a great emphasis on flank attacks. These combats or melees are resolved first during the melee phase of a game turn.) Given that I lack a depth of experience with TRIUMPH!, I was more than a little rusty when it came to working out the demoralization rules. Here again, I was reminded of other rules, for example, Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! To be certain, however, this aspect of the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules does prevent those strange situations where a flank, wing, or contingent fights to the last unit without any apparent penalty. Questions to the rules forum about melee procedures and demoralization were quickly and expertly answered, which was greatly appreciated. It appears that demoralized units “disappear” or are removed after the first turn of “routing” if they do not receive orders to hold in place or to continue fighting, which they can do, but with an appropriate negative modifier. 

In conclusion, if I may switch from an equestrian to academic theme, I would give this second effort involving Ottomans a grade of B-minus. It was definitely better than the previous disappointment. (I almost typed “disaster” but figured that that word choice might be a little too dramatic.) With regard to the alliterative title, I drew inspiration from the catchy and clever titles used by PHGamer. (Please see https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2021/08/ for quite a few battle reports, each one containing quite a few photographs.) With regard to the general impression or format, I tried to base this “quick and dirty” narrative on the excellent and original work done by the Charles Grant in WARGAME TACTICS. My apologies for not including any pictures of this simple solo wargame. As I stated, the representation of units and formations was very basic; some might even call the depiction or “modeling” crude. The general purpose of the fictional scenario was to reacquaint myself with the selected rules and see if I might want to take the chance of using them in a campaign game. Ideally, I would have liked to include a couple of maps, but I have yet to figure out how to incorporate diagrams into these blog posts. Perhaps I should inquire on the TMP boards? Surely somebody over there will have a suggestion or two about free wargame mapping programs that work with Apple computers and the BigSur OS.