A 14^TH CENTURY PHARSALUS

After 16 attempts at drafting a “paper” about refighting Second Mantinea (362 BC) [1] as a solo wargame—some more lengthy than others, obviously [2]—and after completing five turns of a Tactica II refight of this historical engagement that was ultimately discontinued and dismantled due to a rather disconcerting growing lack of interest [3], it occurred to me that I was not going to succeed at staging a solo refight nor have a successful return visit to Second Mantinea. [4] The evident and prudent course of action then, was to leave Second Mantinea in the more capable hands of others [5] and draw up plans to “attack” in a different direction. As the title of this post informs, I decided to transplant a well known battle from the First Century BC [6] to the late Middle Ages. [7] Instead of Romans commanded by Caesar facing off against more Romans as well as allies led by Pompey, there would be an army of Early Medieval French troops taking the field against assembled formations representing a number of Medieval German City States. As for the rules, well, I would be playing this solo wargame using GRAND TRIUMPH!

Orders of Battle

Using the “allowance” of 144 points, I reviewed the ‘Troop Options’ for ‘3 Main Army Commands’ for the Early Medieval French and drafted the following force: 15 units or stands of Knights (Chevaliers); 8 units of Bow Levy (Bowmen and Crossbowmen); 5 units of Archers (Genoese Crossbowmen); 2 units of Skirmishers (Spanish Crossbowmen); 12 units of Heavy Foot (Communal Militia or Brigands armed with mixed Pole-arms), and 2 units or stands of Light Foot (Bidets or Bretons). With the same amount of “money,” I purchased the following troops from the Medieval German City States list: 3 units or stands of Knights (City men-at-arms and Mounted Burghers); 3 units of Elite Foot (City Guard Halberdiers or Axemen); 3 units of Bad Horse (Mounted Armored Crossbowmen); 8 units of Bow Levy (City Militia Crossbow-men); 2 units of Archers (City Militia Crossbowmen); 12 units or stands of Heavy Foot (City Militia Spearmen); 4 units of Skirmishers (City Militia skirmishing bowmen); 6 units of Bow Levy (Heerban armed with crossbows or bows), and 8 units of Heavy Foot (Mercenary Axemen, Swordsmen, and Halberdiers). 

Adding the variety of troop types together, the French would field 44 units or stands, while their German opponents would muster 49 units or stands. In order to fit these large armies on my comparatively small table, I used the smallest dimensions provided in the rules: each unit or stand would have a frontage of 40 mm and its depth would vary depending on type. 

Terrain

To the extent that I was able to do so, I recreated the landscape diagrammed on page 171 of Warfare in the Classical World. I did not bother keeping or even changing the names of the identified terrain features, and I did not bother with representing the camp of Pompey’s legions,  or the line of fortifications extending from that evidently massive camp to the river. The terrain on my tabletop was functional and simple, even primitive in comparison to more traditional setups. [8] This fact stipulated, my “terrain” would still serve its purpose. While preparing this quasi-historical battlefield, it occurred to me that there was some similarity to the location of Second Mantinea. From what I have read, it appears that while there certainly were terrain features present on that fateful day when Epaminondas expired, terrain did not play a significant role in the actual battle. 

Deployments

The Early Medieval French assumed the role of Pompey’s ancient army and so, were positioned with their right flank close to the unnamed river. The Medieval Germans, from a number of City States, represented Caesar’s troops. Their left flank was nearest to the river, while their right flank was in the neighborhood of the slopes and rough terrain of the anonymous ridge line and mountain. 

In greater detail, the French right wing was where the majority of their Knights were lined up. There were two “commands” here. The Knights, all nice and neat, and then on their right, a unit of Bow Levy and two units of Light Foot. As the counters employed were very simple (some might judge them as crude or even beneath usage for this kind of hobby [9]), I have decided not to include photos of the set up or game in progress but do want to experiment with “diagrams.” 

Using abbreviations, the French right looked like this:

Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn    BL LF LF  >marshy ground and river<

                               Kn*

Where Kn represents a stand of Knights; BL represents a stand of Bow Levy, and LF represents a stand of Light Foot. The Kn with an asterisk represents the sub-general’s stand on this flank. 

Looking over the left and center of the French position, this is how their troops were arranged:

Sk Sk

BL BL BL BL BL HF HF HF HF Ar Ar    BL HF HF Ar HF HF Ar HF HF Ar HF HF BL

            Kn Kn* Kn Kn Kn$

Where Sk represents Skirmishers; HF represents Heavy Foot, and Ar represents Archers. The Kn followed by the $, means that this is the stand of the army general. 

A unit of French Knights would have to trot or gallop just over three moves to reach the German City State troops. The overall commander of the German alliance arranged his contingent closest to the river. His troops would bear the brunt of the attack by the mass of French Knights. Starting on the far left of the German line and continuing to the right end of the central “command,” this was how the City State formations were deployed:

BH BH BH

  HF HF HF HF HF HF Kn Kn   Ar Ar BL BL HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF BL BL BL BL

Sk BL     Kn$ ElF*

Where BH represents Bad Horse and ElF represents Elite Foot. Again, the German City States had their general on the left wing, while two subordinates led the center and the right. There were three groups making up the German left; there was only one group in the center of the field. 

The German right wing consisted of the following troop types (from left to right):

BL BL HF BL BL BL HF BL BL    Sk Sk Sk  >ridge line<

                HF HF HF ElF* HF HF

The rationale behind this deployment was that the Bow Levy units (BL) would weaken the enemy or absorb the first round or two of close fighting, which would leave the reserve line of Heavy Foot (HF) to restore the line or rout a damaged and disorganized enemy. This “plan” did not work all that well, unfortunately. 

How It Played

After opposing plans were finalized and couriers sent this way and that, drums sounded, standards fluttered, and thousands of feet and hundreds of hooves began to advance. The movement of each army was somewhat hampered by low command pip scores and the inherent slow rate of march of Bow Levy units. On the German left, near the river and its muddy bank, the first combat of the day took place. Here, a unit of Bad Horse bravely charged into a unit of French Knights and succeeded in forcing them back. Evidently, the bolts from the mounted crossbowmen irritated the Chevaliers. This initial victory was quickly reversed when two-thirds of the German Bad Horse were routed while fighting more Knights and some Bow Levy. The advantage stayed with the French in this sector, even though the first charge of their Knights was held by the German infantry. A second and then third charge did great damage to this stubborn line of troops, tearing gaps in the formation, sending neighboring units of German Knights fleeing in rout, as well as catching the German commander of this wing (and of the entire army) flat-footed. He and his retinue were cut down in a desperate melee. Significant losses resulted in the surviving German troops becoming demoralized. In the span of a few minutes, the remaining troops were running away from the disorganized French.

In the center of the field, the contest was much more even, more of a back-and-forth affair as one side was forced to yield ground, would recover, and then push the other side back 20 or 30 yards. Various units of Archers loosed a number of volleys. Some of these arrows landed well and forced a targeted unit to retire briefly, while other arrows had little effect. Oddly enough, though the fighting in this sector was intense, the casualties inflicted on this part of the field were minor in comparison to what took place near the river. 

Over on the French left wing, their initial efforts were challenged by a few units of German skirmishers. A unit of Knights was ordered to deal with these annoying crossbowmen, but soon found itself involved in a protracted struggle against the dextrous enemy foot. The main bodies were slow to make contact as again, poor command rolls prevented coordinated movement. The French Heavy Foot scored a local success against the German left, destroying two units of exposed Bow Levy. The aforementioned unit of French Knights was finally able to catch the skirmishers while they were reloading their crossbows, evidently, and kill, trample, or otherwise scatter them. The contest on this flank continued to go against the German effort. They had to divide their reserve line of Heavy Foot to counter threats that were developing on the left and right flanks of their position. Another turn of melees saw another unit of Bow Levy collapse. This brought the German losses on this wing to 14 points (out of a possible 16). The commander of the German center, learning that his leader had been lost on the left and that the right wing was about to collapse, decided to save those units in the center of the field he could and ordered his men to withdraw. 

Comments

Due to circumstances and their associated stressors, it has been more than several weeks since I have been able to approach this hobby and consider a project or two with anything like my usual level of motivation. According to my records, it has been several months since I used the TRIUMPH! rules on my tabletop. In the interest of transparency, and at the acknowledged risk of sounding like a “crabby-appleton” or one of the Seven Dwarves (his name rhymes with ‘lumpy’), I can report that the circumstances and related stressors have not markedly improved, unfortunately. (In fact, the future looks rather uncertain, which is disquieting to say the least.) As a result, the consequences of this on-going situation cannot help but have an impact on my approach to the hobby as well as on any writing that might be produced. That much aside, I should like to divide this section into two parts. First, I think it might be interesting to compare and contrast, briefly, this fictional wargame to the historical battle of Pharsalus. In the second part, I will attempt to offer some thoughts on the rules and how the game played with them. 

As previously related, the German City State formations represented Caesar’s forces on my tabletop. Unlike the historical battle, it was the German left (closest to the river) and not the right wing that was attacked and then broken by a large number of French Knights. The center of the field came closer to mirroring the historical engagement in that both sides struggled to overcome the other; the center of the field saw a back-and-forth clash between heavy infantry that was punctuated at times by archers and other troop types. The French left was successful, but only after a protracted contest against German skirmishers and a first line of troops that consisted primarily of Bow Levy. In summary, the terrain of my tabletop was modeled after the historical battle and there were a few points of similarity between my fictional contest and the actual battle. However, the largest difference, aside from forces involved and the time period, was that the French army, in the role of Pompey’s legions and allied troops, emerged victorious. 

As a transition between these two sub-sections or topics, the preceding “experiment” certainly qualifies as a wargame or a “battlegame”—if I may use a term employed by Henry Hyde. [10] The tabletop action also qualifies as historical, since the opposing armies were from the same era and geographical region. However, as there were no painted and based figures present, this “experiment” cannot be called a historical miniatures wargame. That obvious distinction accepted or restated, I should like to move on to a consideration of how the rules worked. 

Initially, I was concerned about the various movement rates and the ability of the various units with the scale I was using. Bow Levy, for whatever reason(s), are very slow moving troops. As many of these stands were present (on both sides), the opposing lines took some time make contact. (I understand that March Moves are allowed, but the command rolls on both sides limited this opportunity.) In other respects, I found movement of individual stands or units to be more flexible or liberal than other rulesets, like Tactica II, for example. Resolving combat, whether missile fire like arrow volleys or close-action between units armed with spears and swords or billhooks and pikes, was also quite different. Instead of handfuls of dice and a number of rolls being made, each unit was given a single d6 and a basic modifier. The score decided the result of the local contest. While necessarily abstract and “black and white” versus “shades of gray” (that is to explain a unit won or lost or remained in melee, it did not lose casualties or strength points and it did not become tired after a certain number of turns), I thought it more realistic to see this unit or that one forced to fall back or in some cases, panic. 

I think having certain units pursue, depending on the situation, was also realistic. Turning to morale, it appears that this “slippery slope” is also treated abstractly, at least on the individual unit level. If a unit is defeated in combat (that is pushed back), its morale does not go down. It can return to the fight immediately, providing it has the command points to do so. Broadly speaking, an army or a portion of an army is demoralized when a third of its strength is destroyed/routed. I wondered about this rule. I wondered if an army’s breakpoint could be adjusted based on its condition. In other words, would a well supplied and veteran army run away when it lost a third of its strength? Or, would losing half of its number be more realistic? 

In the fictional contest recently completed or called as the Germans were on the brink of having both flanks routed, I wondered about the impact of losing skirmishers and Bow Levy units. In other rule sets, these formations would not be classed as important or “key,” and as such, their loss would not affect the army’s overall morale. On a related note or point, the loss of commanders does not appear to have any impact. Of course, I could be mistaken. As I stated earlier, I am not very experienced with these rules. That is why I am staging wargames like this. 

I note too, that commanders seem to be equal with respect to their ability. I suppose it would be an easy fix to draft scenario rules wherein a general or sub-general does not confer a +1 modifier to the troops he/she is fighting with. It would also be possible to give really talented and or charismatic commanders a modifier of +2. 

The sequence of each turn flowed smoothly enough, in my estimation. The contest lasted six turns, which were played over the course of several days. I am not sure how long (in real time) the fictional battle lasted then. My guess would be two or three hours. I am also not sure of sizes of the opposing armies as there is no set unit or figure scale provided in the TRIUMPH! rules. These two items are minor points, however. While I am not completely excited about these rules, I am neither completely confused nor greatly disappointed with them. I think they merit further play. To be certain, I will be re-watching certain videos posted on YouTube about certain aspects of and how to play TRIUMPH! At some point in the future, I might want to explore employing these rules in an actual historical refight or two as well.

Notes

1. There is a wealth of wargamer-friendly information found at the top of page 65 in Warfare in the Classical World. However, the relevant question is, “Is this information historically accurate and valid?” A translation of the brief narrative account provided by Xenophon can be read, studied, and annotated here:  http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0206%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D18. The narrative supplied by Diodorus, please see Chapters 84 to 88 here: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/15E*.html, can be compared and contrasted with the former author. For the analytical as well as critical  summary, I would recommend pages 121-124 in Professor Philip Sabin’s excellent and thought-provoking LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing The Great Clashes Of The Ancient World. A search of the Internet will turn up additional information and sources, obviously. If I may suggest the following sites for perusal and or study: https://wargamerabbit.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/battle-of-mantineia-362-b-c/; http://lukeuedasarson.com/Mantinea.html, and finally, http://wringher.blogspot.com/2016/04/battle-of-mantinea-362-bce-part-3.html.
2. The titles varied but tended toward the alliterative, such as “Mulling Over Mantinea,” “Managing Mantinea,” “Models of Mantinea,” “Much Ado About Mantinea,” or even “The End of Epaminondas?” The lengths varied as well. Some were as short as 200 words (and correspondingly awful), while other efforts approached 5,000 words (so a longer form of torture if I may be so self-deprecating). There were several canceled drafts that fell between this wide range. 
3. In an early iteration, the plan was to stage three refights of the historical battle using three different sets of rules: Tactica II, To The Strongest! and TRIUMPH! This ambitious goal soon collapsed under its own weight. Initially, the revised plan (wherein I would just refight the battle with Tactica II) went well, and I thought playing a turn a day and making notes about said turn would be a manageable schedule, but as the battle progressed and handfuls of dice needed to thrown and casualties recorded, I found myself questioning the effort; I found myself remembering why I did not like the chosen rules all that much. (I am not sure whether it counts as irony, but I have enjoyed reading the battle reports written by Simon Watson in previous issues of Slingshot as well as those picturesque accounts posted to the dedicated section of The Society of Ancients Forum. Readers might also be interested in checking out the Tactica II Forum.) Additionally, real life was interfering for lack of a better description and well . . . I would remark that we have all experienced this at one time or another. 
4. Technically, my first visit occurred in February of 2014. I reported, briefly, on my experiment in a post to the Battle Reports section of The Society of Ancients Forum. For those readers who may be interested, “A Makeshift Model of Mantinea” was posted on February 19, 2014, at 10:11 PM. The more traditional and perhaps more widely read or at least noticed visit occurred when Dr. Paul Innes published “Mantinea on my Mind” in the January-February 2016 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients. In his editorial, he described my submission as “effectively a mini-Battle Day using three different sets of rulesets, and moves us through various permutations of the battle that saw the end of Epaminondas.” The three rulesets employed were: Armati 2nd Edition, Hail Caesar, and IMPETVS. 
5. On March 22 of 2022, the esteemed Richard Lockwood announced the selection for Battle Day 2023. The historical engagement to be refought on a number of tabletops using a variety of rulesets would be Second Mantinea (362 BC). This was Richard’s next to last selection, as he has “captained” Battle Day since its debut in 2004 and is retiring from this “job” or responsibility. [For a history of Battle Day, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.] A gentleman by the name of Jeremy Giles has been promoted to this annual command. May his tenure be as successful and as long-running as that of his predecessor. The announcement inspired the popular and prolific Aaron Bell to get started on preparations for his involvement. [Please see  https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2022/04/working-through-prep-for-2nd-mantinea.html.] I have no doubt that many hoplite-loving enthusiasts will participate on the scheduled day and roll dice or flip cards until they “come home carrying their shield or on it.” Although I am no longer an active or contributing member to The Society, I hope that Battle Day Second Mantinea is as well attended and chronicled as Battle Day Chalons, when 14 games were staged and numerous reports were published. (Based on my “research,” this has been the only Battle Day to receive “cross-coverage,” as several articles appeared in the August 2013 issue of Wargames illustrated®, in addition to the narratives written by those in attendance which were published in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot.) My more reasonable estimation is that Battle Day 2023 will likely mirror Battle Day 2022, where 8 games of Adrianople (378 AD) were staged, 42 player-generals were in attendance, and a single brief report was produced. (This information was retrieved from a brief summary written by Richard Lockwood and posted late in the afternoon of March 22.)
6. A few suggested references regarding Pharsalus . . . One could look over the wargamer-friendly information found on the bottom of page 171 of Warfare in the Classical World. There is a fairly detailed diagram, orders of battle, and a brief synopsis of the engagement. One could also study pages 215-219 of LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing The Great Clashes Of The Ancient World, by Professor Philip Sabin. Pages 422-431 in CAESAR - Life Of A Colossus, by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy, are also worth the investment. Of course, one could also type in “Pharsalus,” “Battle of Pharsalus,” or even “wargaming Pharsalus” into a search engine and then proceed to separate the wheat from the chaff. 
7. According to Wikipedia, the “accepted” time span for this period of history is 1250-1500. According to another site, the label covers 200 years, from 1300-1500. Please see https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/late-middle-ages-0. Pressed to choose a year for my fictional contest, I would say early summer of 1339. 
8. For just one stunning example, please see the December 31, 2014, post titled “Solo Zorndorf Turn 3” at: http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2014/. 
9. One would not be incorrect to return to the post listed in the previous note to take a long second look at the miniature units on display. That visual splendor aside, on page 6 of Version 1.1 of his very popular To The Strongest! rules, the respected and well known blogger, wargamer and writer of rules Simon Miller opines that miniatures are not absolutely necessary for playing at war on a tabletop. He remarks that, “Games played with unpainted plastic minis stuck on colored sabot bases proved to be just as much fun as those played with 500 professionally painted miniatures!”  The gentleman also notes, “Whilst it is great to play a game with beautifully painted miniatures, please don’t let the lack of such an army stop you (from) having fun!”
10. Please see https://battlegames.co.uk/ and “The Masters Interviews: Henry Hyde - Part 1,” which was posted to YouTube on September 20, 2020.