AETIUS vs ATTILA: PART 1
According to the narrative account provided by Jordanes—an oft cited but somewhat suspect source, at least in some scholarly circles—the fighting on that fateful day in 451 AD was “fierce, confused, monstrous, and unrelenting.” (History of the Goths, Chapter 38. Please see https://pages.uoregon.edu/klio/tx/source3/chalons.htm and/or https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/451jordanes38.asp.) Evidently, there had been nothing like it before in recorded history. Apparently, the fighting was so intense that the bloodshed had an immediate and local environmental impact, as Jordanes explains: “For if we may believe our elders a brook flowing between low banks through the plain was greatly increased by blood from the wounds of the slain.” The grisly description continues when he informs, “At dawn on the next day the Romans saw that the fields were piled high with corpses . . .” Reportedly, the casualty rolls were more than significant for each alliance or army, as Jordanes informs the interested reader of the ‘butcher’s bill’ total: “160,000 men are said to have been slain on both sides.”
Similar, but less embellished and not at all graphically violent remarks might be advanced about the volume of ink (traditional as well as electronic) produced by wargamers writing about their analysis of the contest or attempt to refight the battle in miniature or perhaps even as a boardgame or computer simulation. According to my “research,” what may be the first published article concerning Châlons (i.e., The Catalaunian Fields, The Battle of Campus Maurica, Battle of Troyes, or however you think it should be called — please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains) appeared in Issue 11 [April 1984] of Miniature Wargames magazine. [Sidebar: Unfortunately, while I have some early copies of this well received and long-running magazine, I do not have Issue 11 in my collection. A few clicks of the keyboard showed that it could be purchased, but I hesitated to make the “investment.” Fortunately, I did find a reference to the article in the following blog post: http://hereticalgaming.blogspot.com/2017/05/dba-refight-battle-of-chalons-451ad-re.html. The author of this early and possibly first report analyzing or about wargaming Châlons suggested the impressive as well as highly doubtful number of 750,000 men present, with Attila having a 2:1 advantage.] Some 27 years later, Andrew Hubback, then the editor of that publication, was kind enough to publish my attempt to refight the historical battle of Châlons using the Armati rules in the April 2011 issue [Number 336] of this worldwide monthly. If memory serves, “THE FIGHT OF THE 5TH CENTURY: Flavius Aetius vs. ‘The Scourge of God’” was my first successful foray into the “big leagues,” but as far as I am aware, the article did not generate even a ripple of reader response. Reversing the calendar just a bit, a search of the Slingshot Index (Slingshot is the “bi-monthly” Journal of The Society of Ancients) informed that Simon MacDowall submitted “The Battle of Châlons” for consideration by the editor, and had his excellent article printed in the September 2010 issue [Number 272] of that long-standing publication. [Note: Evidently, the article was first printed in a Spanish magazine, Desperata Ferro, and the editors granted permission for the material to be used in Slingshot.] Moving forward a few years but staying with Slingshot, Châlons was the engagement selected for Battle Day 2013, and nearly a dozen reports appeared in the July-August 2013 issue of the journal. One of these reports was penned by Simon MacDowall. He was rather busy that day, for in addition to giving the pre-gaming “lecture,” he also ran one of the refights using his Comitatus rules. Fittingly, his reconstruction was awarded the ‘Best Overall Game’ prize. At approximately the same time, Attila and his Huns were chosen as the theme for the August 2013 issue of WARGAMES illustrated®. This joint-effort with The Society of Ancients produced a handful of additional articles for those with an “affinity” toward Attila to digest and enjoy, or even comment upon. [1] The prolific Simon MacDowall was a part of this effort as well, though curiously, “The Battle of Châlons 451 AD” found in the pages of WARGAMES illustrated® seemed, in large part, to be a reprint of his previous article.
Turning to the sometimes treacherous “mines” or electronic “stacks” of the Internet, typing variations of “Battle of Châlons” and “wargaming Châlons” into a search engine yields tens of thousands of results in a sliver of a second. To be certain, it takes quite a bit longer to separate the good entries from the bad, the useable information from the useless. Refining the parameters to “Books about the Battle of Châlons,” I was not terribly surprised to find the Osprey Campaign paperback “Catalaunian Fields AD 451: Rome’s last great battle,” written by who else but Simon MacDowall. However, this 2015 publication was not secured from a local library (inter-loan service) or purchased from Amazon of other purveyors for the purposes of this present project.
In the fall of 2022, I decided to make a return visit to Châlons. My intent was two-fold. First, I wanted to see if I could adapt the engaging and excellent narrative written by Mark Fry and published in the referenced issue of Slingshot. Second, I wanted to see if I could engineer a solo refight of this historical battle using GRAND TRIUMPH!
Two-Thirds of Châlons
In the second paragraph of his short summary of how the Armati games played at that nearly decade-old Battle Day, Mark Fry explained that he and his colleagues “had 548 cavalry & 308 infantry 15mm figure [sic] in the Hun alliance versus 232 cavalry and 620 infantry figures in the Roman force. That’s a lot of figures!” (According to my calculations, this adds up to 780 miniature horses and riders along with 928 miniature foot soldiers, so just a pinch over 1,700 painted and based figures. That is quite a lot indeed!) In the second paragraph of his introduction to the two brief but entertaining as well as educational battle reports, Mark admitted that initially, he and his associates “feared that our challenge was not having enough 15mm figures to depict the battle.” As it turned out, those fears and concerns were unwarranted, as Mark explained: “in the final count, we could have easily doubled the entire set-up with all our combined troops between us!” To be certain, I do not have the financial resources, time, talent or space that would be required to produce miniature armies totaling approximately 3,400 figures, but I was curious to see if I could adopt and expand Mark’s orders of battle as well as borrow and tinker with the provided Scenario Specific Rule Changes. The basic idea was this: I would double the number of units listed in the Hun and Gepid sections of Attila’s order of battle, and double the number of units listed in the Western Roman Warlord and Alanii (+Bretons) sections of Aetius’ order of battle. Once I had an estimate of the number of units I would be dealing with, I could scale down the size of the color counters that I would employ on my extended tabletop. It seemed to me, at first glance anyway, that since I was doubling the number of units from the original lists, I would simply have to double the divisional control ratings in addition to doubling the defined breakpoints for each contingent.
I started with the Attila and his Huns.
Orders of Battle
HUNS -
06 x HC (Huns) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Various / Bow
04 x LC (Huns) [key] 2 [0] 0 +1 Various / Bow
02 x LC (Allies) [key] 1 [0] 0 +1 Bow
02 x HC (Bodyguard) [key] 5 [1] 0 +2 Various / Bow
02 x HC (Nobles) [key] 4 [1] 0 +1 Various / Bow
08 x HC (Huns) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Various / Bow
04 x LC (Huns) [key] 2 [0] 0 +1 Various / Bow
04 x SI (Youths) 2 [1] 1 +2 Bow
Then, I moved on to the Gepid contingent.
GEPIDS -
06 x HC (Gepid Nobles) [key] 5 [0] 0 +1 Lance
08 x HC (Gepid Retainers) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Various
06 x HC (Scirii & Gepid Retainers) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Lance
02 x HC (Huns) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Various / Bow
08 x WB (Gepids, Burgundians & etc.) [key] 5 [1] 2 +1 Various
04 x SI (Youth) 2 [1] 1 +2 Bow
The “bad guys” being taken care of, at least in terms of revising the original orders of battle, I shifted my focus to the other side of the historical field and considered the Romans and one of their main if also, as I understand it, somewhat reluctant allies.
WESTERN ROMANS -
02 x HC [d!] (Equites Patrician) [key] 4 [0] 0 +1 Various
02 x HC (Bucellarii) [key] 5 [1] 0 +2 Lance
04 x LC (Palatina Illyricani) [key] 2 [0] 0 +1 Javelin
04 x LHI (Auxilia Palatina) [key] 4 [1] 2 +1 Spear/Javelin
02 x LI (Limitanii) 3 [1] 2 +1 Javelin
02 x SI (Auxilia) 2 [1] 1 +2 Bow
06 x FT (Pedes) [key] 6 [1] 1 +1 Spears, etc.
02 HC (Visigoths) [key] 5 [1] 0 +1 Lance
06 x SI (Auxilia) 2 [1] 1 +2 Bow
06 x WB (Franks) [key] 5 [1] 2 +1 Various
04 x SI (Franks) 2 [1] 1 +2 Bow
02 x HC [d] (Frankish Nobles) [key] 5 [0] 0 +1 Various
04 x WB (Saxons) [key] 5 [1] 2 +1 Various
02 x SI (Saxons) 3 [1] 2 +2 Javelin
Finally, I arrived at the fourth and last contingent to prepare, the Alans under King Sangiban.
ALANS -
02 x HC (Household) [key] 5 [1] 0 +2 Lance
04 x HC (Nobles) [key] 4 [1] 0 +2 Lance
04 x LC (Retainers) [key] 2 [0] 0 +1 Various/Bow
04 x SI (Bretons) 3 [1] 2 +2 Javelin
08 x HC (Nobles) [key] 4 [1] 0 +2 Lance
04 x LC (Retainers) [key] 2 [0] 0 +1 Various/Bow
04 x LHI (Bretons) [key] 4 [1] 2 +1 Javelin
Notes:
- In the fourth full paragraph on page 34 of the Armati 2nd Edition rules, under Section 14.1 - Core and Bonus Units, it reads: If larger games are desired, players should double the Core and Bonus Unit availabilities, and also double the Control Ratings and Core Army Breakpoint. A larger table would also be advisable.” Tackling the size of the playing surface first, I set up my full table so that I would be staging a solo refight across a 10.5 feet by 3.75 feet model battlefield. (For sake of comparison, Mark Fry and his fellow player-generals were able to employ a table measuring 12 feet by 6 feet.) Moving on to the Control Ratings advice, I found that I could not use this rule for the planned contest. The increased Hun force contained 18 heavy units and 14 light units. In the provided orders of battle, Mark listed the Control Ratings as “H:4 and L:3,” meaning that the original Hun force could have 4 heavy divisions and 3 light divisions. [Interestingly, in the Hun army list on page O of the rulebook, the Huns have 2 heavy division control rating points and 6 light division control rating points.] Doubling these ratings would give me H:8 and L:6 for deploying 18 heavy units and 14 light units. It occurred to me that if these doubled Control Ratings were used, then the Huns would hardly have to worry about division splits and the corresponding loss of command and control (i.e., the reduction of an army’s Initiative Rating). After thinking it over for a while, I decided to reduce the Heavy Control Rating to 6 from 8, but I decided to leave the Light Control Rating as is, figuring that light cavalry and skirmishers had greater flexibility and that if they were separated as a result of combat, the consequences would not be significant. With respect to the modified Hun army breakpoint, this was determined to be 12 (i.e., the loss of 12 key units), and the army Initiative Rating remained at 6, the highest of the several contingents involved.
- A similar “process” was completed with the Gepids, the Romans, and the Alans. For the Gepids, they had H:6, L:3, an army Breakpoint of 12, and an Initiative Rating of 4. The Roman formations had H:8, L:8, a Breakpoint of 14, and their Initiative Rating was 5. For the contingent of Alans, they had H:5, L:5, a Breakpoint of 12, and an Initiative Rating of 4.
- On page 34, Section 14,1, under the sub-heading Veteran Units, the rules state: “At the player’s option he may nominate any one unit in his army (2 units in a double-size game) to be a Veteran unit.” Veteran units cost slightly more than non-veteran units but have the ability or advantage of a higher unit breakpoint. Veteran units can absorb more punishment before routing. For this planned historical refight, I gave the Huns 3 Veteran units (only 1 Veteran allowed per troop type), and I gave the Gepids the usual allotment of 2 Veteran units. On the “civilized” side of the table, the Romans were able to designate 2 units as Veterans while the Alans were only permitted to nominate 1 unit as Veterans.
- Starting on page 3 of the rules, in Section 2.3.1 - Abilities of the General - the abilities of the miniature army commanders are spelled out. Generally speaking (no pun intended), leaders provide a +1 modifier in melee and are worth 1 key unit when captured or killed. In the third full paragraph on page 4, the last sentence reads: “For scenario play, a General’s abilities may vary.” Thinking that it only made sense that the four main commanders on that fateful day were different from each other, I decided to tinker with their leadership capabilities. (Note: I borrowed additional names from the Battle Reports written by Toby Partridge and Simon MacDowall. Interestingly, there seemed to be two accepted spellings of “Adaric,” the King of the Gepids.) Attila was valued at 3 key units and his melee modifier would be +2. His subordinate, one Ellac, would be worth 1 key unit and have a melee modifier of +1. For the Gepids, King Ardaric would have a value of 2 key units and a melee modifier of +1. Sigurd was the Gepid sub-general, and worth 1 key unit while adding +1 to melee scores. For the Romans, Aetius was also valued at 3 key units, but his melee modifier was just +1. Assisting Aetius, there was, evidently, a general of the Roman and Allied infantry, a fellow by the name of Avitus (1 key unit; melee modifier +1). Then there was Merovech, the King of the Franks (1 key unit; melee modifier +1). For the Alans, King Sangiban was valued at 2 key units. His melee modifier was +1. An anonymous prince was the subordinate for King Sangiban. His value was 1 key unit, and his melee modifier was the same as his superior.
The respective orders of battles and their notes being finished (though admittedly, still something of a work-in-progress), I turned my attention to the notes on unit formations/scales and the Scenario Specific Rules/Changes produced by the Armati veteran, Mark Fry.
Scenario Notes
Following in the expert and giant footsteps of Mark Fry and his friends, I would be employing the Armati 2nd Edition rules but would use colored counters as representations of 15mm scale units. All of the Foot (FT) and Warband (WB) formations would be depicted as having 4 ranks of depth instead of the usual 3. These units would have a frontage of 2 bases or stands. My Light Infantry as well as Light-Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry would also mirror those used by Mark and his colleagues. Where I departed from this standard was with respect to Skirmishers. For my solo project, Skirmishers would also be 2 bases or stands wide and 2 ranks deep. The representation of Light Cavalry formations/units does not differ between Optimal and Epic Scale, so there was no need to change this depiction.
Crunching the numbers, I noted that the Huns and Gepids would bring a total of 66 units to the tabletop, while the Romans and Alans would field 78 units. Counting the Skirmisher stands or units in the Roman/Alan force, it was determined that there were 18 stands of this troop type. Subtracting 18 stands from 78 gave me a total of 60, which I divided into the extended length of my table. This calculation produced a figure or frontage of approximately 5.3 centimeters, which I reduced to a standard 4.5 centimeters. This number was roughly 56 percent of the original width for 15mm scale Epic Units, so all the troop types, and both their frontage and depth were multiplied by this percentage. For the sake of consistency, I applied the same approximate percentage to movement rates and missile ranges.
As for the Scenario Specific Rules established by Mark Fry and his group of accomplished and traditional historical miniature wargamers, I adopted the first 5 amendments, opting to leave 6-11 (most of these concerned camps) and the Victory Conditions out of my smaller refight. In summary, Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry would have a “working relationship.” Light Cavalry could interpenetrate Heavy Cavalry and vice versa. All Heavy Infantry formations/units were considered deployed in depth, so they would not be broken when outscored by a charging unit of cavalry with impetus. [Sidebar: Borrowing a couple of ideas from the old Armati Yahoo Forum (circa 2010?), Warbands were given 2d6 on the initial contact melee roll. (These units would be permitted to choose the better die roll on the first round of close combat.) Additionally, if a unit with impetus outscored a unit deployed in depth on that first round of melee, then the beaten unit would lose 2 unit breakpoints and be marked disordered until it was able to rally and reorganize.] Units of Light Infantry and Light-Heavy Infantry had the same frontage as Heavy Infantry and Cavalry formations, so they could not “gang up” on the enemy. Finally, Light Cavalry was permitted to deploy deep or wide.
Terrain Brief
Referencing the narrative summary provided by Jordanes, it was noted that: “The armies met in the Catalaunian Plains. The battlefield was a plain rising by a sharp slope to a ridge which both armies sought to gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left . . .” (Again, please see https://pages.uoregon.edu/klio/tx/source3/chalons.htm and or https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/451jordanes38.asp.) After several readings, I confess to be confused or at least uncertain about the exact nature of the battlefield. The opposing armies met on a plain or series of plains, however, this plain rose with some severity to a ridge which elements from both armies tried to secure. The Huns moved to capture the right of this feature while the Romans and their friends wanted to secure the left. Based on my reading and understanding of the deployment of the various contingents, this suggests that the “sharp slope” and “ridge” were somewhere around the center-left of the Huns and Ostrogoths, and so, near the center-right of the Alans and Visigoths. Reviewing the narratives written by Mark Fry, I noted that his group “chose a slightly contentious deployment, with Aetius plus the Romans & allies on the Roman right, opposite the hill and facing the Gepids.” Looking back at the September 2010 Slingshot article penned by the prolific Simon MacDowall, it was noted that the hill was to the left of the Huns and their allies. One might even suggest that this feature guarded their left flank. There is no other terrain feature indicated on the simple map provided in this excellent analysis. After some additional review and study, I thought I would try to recreate the look of the tabletop used in the Field Of Glory reconstruction found on page 33 of the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot. This landscape had gentle and steep hills, patches of brush or scrub, a road, a small segment of stream, and a few fields. While my model would not be as aesthetically pleasing as I imagine this actual tabletop was, it would be functional and it would be more “colorful” than a simple and flat green cloth with a hill or ridge positioned in a corner.
How It Played
Photos 1 through 6 present a visual overview of how both sides deployed for battle. Taking my cues from the accepted historical record, the Romans and their friends were on the left, while the Alans under King Sangiban were on the right. The Gepids faced the Romans. This would be, it seemed, an interesting contest, as the Gepids had a lot more cavalry than the Romans and Franks. Furthermore, the infantry formations of the Romans and their friends had a slight uphill advantage, so why would they forfeit that benefit? The Alans faced Attila and his more numerous Huns. This would also be an interesting contest. Would the Huns stand off and let fly with hundreds if not thousands of arrows, or would they charge in and hope that their ferocity and reputation carried the sector as well as the day?
An overview of the Roman line, showing the concentration of infantry formations. The Saxons are on the left; the legions are in the center, and the Franks, under King Merovech, hold the right. The majority of the deployed units have an uphill advantage, if they stay in place. Light troops screen their respective heavier brothers in arms. The Romans have the additional protection of light infantry and light-heavy infantry. The Gepid warbands certainly have their work cut out for them!
This shows a portion of Attila’s deployment. He is riding with a HC Bodyguard unit. The black die showing a 6 is an indicator/reminder of the Initiative Rating for the Huns. (Combined with the Gepids 4, Attila has a 1 point advantage over Aetius and his troops.) The Huns are divided into formations of heavy cavalry. These groups are screened by light cavalry and skirmishers.
Deployed opposite Attila and numerous units of Huns is King Sangiban and his Alans. The royal person has attached himself to a unit of veteran Household heavy cavalry. The purple die shows an Initiative Rating of 4. Though outnumbered, there are more than several units of Breton skirmishers and light-heavy infantry who may be able to disrupt Attila’s plans. These troops carry javelins, so they will have to endure some arrow volleys in order to get close enough to throw their missiles at the Hun horsemen.
This photo was taken from above the Gepid formation of warbands. Sigurd is responsible for these men. King Ardaric (there was a spelling error made when the units were produced; there were two spellings of his name found in the series of battle reports) is stationed behind the line, observing the opening moves. The red die shows the Initiative Rating for the Gepids.
A view of the tabletop from the Gepid right flank. Broadly speaking, the Gepids have cavalry, infantry, and then more cavalry. The Huns, at the top of the frame, are all cavalry save for a handful of skirmishers. Approximately 3 cavalry moves from the Gepids, the strength of the Roman line can be seen. Aetius has positioned light and heavy cavalry on his flanks, but he has nothing like the numbers of horse commanded by King Ardaric. The Alans can be seen at the top right of the frame.
This shows the other end of the tabletop/field. The Alans and Huns are separated by at least 3 cavalry moves. The organization of the opposing contingents is plainly visible. The Hun line extends farther than the Alans, so the possibility of a flanking move is there.
Movement and really awful shooting dominated the first few turns of this two-dimensional reconstruction. Even though Aetius managed to secure the Move Option for two of the three turns, the Gepids and Huns were much more active. The Gepids pushed forward all along their sector. They laughed at the attempt of the Roman skirmishing bowmen to impede their advance. In fact, some Roman light cavalry on the right of the Gepid advance evaded after hurling some very ineffective javelins, and then ran into some friendly heavy horse. The result was disorder for the intermingled troopers. The Gepids could not take immediate advantage, however, as the nature of the ground and their rate of movement prevented this. Over on the right end of the Roman position, small groups of Visigoth cavalry and then of Frankish Nobles decided not to wait for the veritable wave of Gepid cavalry. These several units galloped out to meet the enemy. The Visigoths did quite well; the Nobles found themselves in a fight. Most of the unengaged Gepid Retainers continued to move forward, forcing two units of Roman light horse to retreat. This split resulted in a lower command and control factor for the Gepids, but was judged worth it as the enemy line was very weak at this particular point.
The accuracy of exchanged arrow volleys and other missiles was not as terrible between the Alans and the Huns, but it was still surprising to see so many missiles miss their marks. The Breton light-heavy infantry and skirmishers proved effective, forcing some Hun light cavalry to fall back. In the hustle and bustle of these opening rounds of missile fire in this sector, Ellac nearly found himself taken prisoner by a daring unit of enemy light-heavy infantry. Fortunately, a group of Hun heavy cavalry came up and charged into the threatening Bretons. Two units of enemy skirmishers evaporated on contact. However, the melee between the cavalry and foot soldiers was a harder fight. In fact, the Hun cavalry received a slight bloody nose against the one formation of light-heavy infantry.
Showing the advance of the Gepids versus the defensive line of the Saxons, Romans, and Franks, et al. The Romans have pushed their skirmishing bowmen forward with the hopes of harassing the Gepids. The solid formations of Roman and allied foot remain on the hills, waiting for the action to develop.
The first melee of the battle, which took place between Scirii & Gepid Retainers and some Visigoths. It was a bold or foolish move by the Visigoths to advance without support and attack the larger line of Gepid cavalry. The dice gods were with these troopers however, as they won the first round of combat by a wide margin.
Taken from above Attila’s left wing, showing the Alans and Huns jockeying for position before the arrows and javelins start flying between the lines.
The first melee between the Alans and Huns is a draw. The Breton light-heavy infantry is putting up a stubborn fight against the Hun heavy cavalry.
The battle was just getting started. Neither side had lost a key unit, but casualties had been inflicted and losses had been taken. Attila certainly had the numbers in his sector. From the looks of it, the Gepids were in for a serious fight against the Romans and their allies.
By the conclusion of Game Turn 6, both sides had lost more key units than each cared to count.
The fighting between the Huns and Alans was savage, as might be expected or imagined. The Alans, due to some good dice and a bit of caution by Attila, had routed 5 key units of Attila’s force or wing. King Sangiban’s troops had suffered significant casualties however, losing 6 key units (evenly divided between Nobles, Retainers, and light-heavy infantry). In terms of command and control as well as position, the advantage lay with Attila. He had 4 initiative points left, while King Sangiban had none. Attila also had a handful of units working their way around the Alan right flank and into their rear. The commander himself had a reserve of four units of quality heavy cavalry. There was also a group of three more units on the right side of this chaotic struggle. Interestingly enough, these horsemen rode past a similar sized group of Alan heavy cavalry. In contrast, King Sangiban only had 7 fresh units of Nobles at his disposal. Fortunately, these formations were operating in close proximity to each other.
The Frankish Nobles trot out and then charge into the advancing Gepids. One unit of Nobles receives quite a shock; the other unit scores a local victory. In the second round of the Gepids vs Visigoth contest, the Scirii and Gepid Retainers are beaten again, and as a result, are on the verge of being broken.
The photo shows the status of the fight between Attila’s Huns and King Sangiban’s Alans. The first line of the Hun cavalry has had a difficult time of it against the Breton light-heavy infantry as well as versus some units of Alan Nobles. Attila still has the numbers and is slowly working units around the Alan right flank. The “Scourge of God” still has a fairly powerful reserve, but avenues of advance are proving problematic. Attila has managed to save some of his Initiative while Sangiban has used all of his to plug gaps and to take advantage of local successes.
Two units of Roman light cavalry have essentially acted as bait for several units of Scirii and Gepid Retainers. It has been a merry chase . . . but the Illyricani have run out of room. The Gepid horsemen have taken minor losses from javelins hurled in desperation and from arrows loosed by Alan Retainers (upper right corner of frame). These friendly cavalry noticed the fast-moving bodies of cavalry passing through the approximate center of the field and wheeled around to see if they could do anything about it. It appears definite that the Roman light cavalry will be lost. The Gepids will have to reform however, and while reordering their ranks, they will certainly be the target of more arrow volleys.
This picture, taken from slightly behind the Gepid right flank, shows the developing action against the Roman line of battle. On the right (at the bottom) of the frame, Gepid cavalry, now exhausted, has managed to rout one of the Saxon formations. Part of this same formation could not wait for the Gepids to finish their advance and so, two units of Saxons moved down the slope to attack. As indicated by the red markers, they were met and rebuffed. Further along the Gepid line of warbands, the remnants of the Roman light-heavy infantry continues to stem the tide of warriors. Meanwhile, the skirmishing archers have withdrawn to the safety of the Roman legions. At the top of the frame, in the distance, a desperate melee between some Gepid Nobles and some Frankish foot can be seen. It has been a rather bloody affair. The Gepid horse, now fatigued, find themselves in trouble.
The Visigoths are recuperating from their victory. (The purple fatigue markers have been moved to the table instead of remaining in place on the actual units.) These cavalry will be ready to re-engage next turn. Nearby, The Gepid Retainers and Frankish Nobles have been fighting and taking losses. The surviving units are weak (2 losses each) as well as tired (3 fatigue markers each).
Over on the other half of the battlefield, the fight between the Romans and Gepids continued to develop. Isolated groups of Gepid cavalry had reached the defensive line of the Saxons and the Franks. These charging horsemen had done some damage but had taken more in return. Repeated attacks left these depleted squadrons fatigued and vulnerable. The Gepid warriors had finally persuaded the Roman skirmishers to withdraw, but were soon faced with a short but stubborn line of Auxilia Palatina. These light-heavy infantry were not intimated by the deep ranks of Gepid fighters. The Roman legionaries stood quietly on the slope, watching the melees swing back and forth. The Roman skirmishers deployed just in front of their heavy infantry brothers, hoping to get one or two more volleys into the enemy formation before push came to shove or hack came to stab, literally.
In the relatively open ground between the Gepids and the Huns, the Gepids had the numbers, but their formations were separated. Several units of Gepid Retainers were pursuing some enemy light horse, while three more units had Franks to their front and enemy horse to the left and potentially, rear. The Frankish Nobles to the left were damaged and exhausted from previous combats. The Visigoths, though down to two-thirds their original strength, were nearly rested and reorganized from their previous exertions. The question and concern was, which way would these mounted barbarians turn and how long would it take for their arrival to have any real impact?
During the next two turns of play, the Hun vise continued to squeeze the Alan formations. A unit of retainers fell victim to a rear attack by some Hun light horse. Fully half of the reserve commanded by King Sangiban was shot down by effective arrow volleys delivered by a few units of Huns who then galloped into contact with the outnumbered Alans. A check of losses informed that King Sangiban’s force had reached its determined breaking point. To be sure, the local victory had cost the Huns. These feared and experienced troopers were just 4 units away from quitting the field. They were also in no real position to have an impact on other parts of the battlefield. Three units were disordered; 4 units were fatigued, and 8 units had taken losses in dealing with and defeating the Alans.
This photo shows the evolving contest between the Gepid warbands and a portion or portions of the Roman defensive line. The Auxilia Palatina continues to resist the greater numbers of warriors while the legions and skirmishing bowmen watch. Half of the Saxon contingent has advanced to contact and has suffered a “bloody nose” as a result. To the right of this melee, a formation of Gepid cavalry, now exhausted, fight what appears to be a losing battle against more Saxons. Aetius waits with his retinue of officers and messengers at the top of the frame, identified by the light blue die showing a 5. To his left are 2 units of very good cavalry, awaiting orders to join the action.
A close up of the fighting over on the Gepid right/Saxon(Roman) left. The Saxon infantry continue to have problems versus their Gepid counterparts. In the ongoing contest between the Gepid Retainers and Saxon warriors, the dice gods are favoring the horsemen. Even though the troopers are tired, they have scored another hit against the warband as well as caused it to become fatigued as well.
Evidently, the dice gods are fickle. Another group of Gepid Retainers is trying to sweep away a stubborn unit of Roman horse. These equites had been disorganized when friendly units of light cavalry were forced to evade through their position. Before the Roman heavy horse had a chance to sort themselves out, they were attacked. Its fighting value decreased due to its lack of formation, the Roman unit was able to resist the Gepids, inflicting some casualties and causing the enemy troopers to become tired.
Taken above the left flank of the Alans’ position, this picture shows the state of the field in this sector as well as the pressure being applied against King Sangiban and his troops. On the right side of the frame, the Alans have done well enough. A brave unit of light-heavy infantry have even engaged some Hun cavalry accompanied by Attila. While this was happening. King Sangiban had his reserve formation reduced by half due to effective arrow volleys. The remaining Household troopers threw themselves against a larger formation of Hun cavalry.
The fight between the Gepids and Romans continued to be a battle of attrition as well as will. Both contingents were 5 units away from their respective morale tipping points. Both sides also had a number of units that had not been committed to the general melee. Surveying the sector, it appeared that the Gepids would eventually turn the Roman left, as they did have more heavy cavalry in that particular area. The Gepids also had a formation of heavy cavalry that was resting and reorganizing after chasing off some enemy light cavalry. These horsemen would probably give chase to the Visigoths and remaining Frankish Nobles, or perhaps wheel left and move against the Frankish warbands and Roman legions. On the Roman side of this equation, they were still on defense, reacting to the moves made by King Ardaric and Sigurd. The only offensive capability that Aetius had existed in the form of some Visigoth cavalry and a small unit of Frankish Nobles. Additionally, he did have 2 units of Bucellarii (HC) standing near him, waiting behind the Roman legions. It would all come down to timing. Would these cavalry have a chance to impact the Gepid foot before being attacked from behind by enemy horse? Or, would they choose to wheel about and interfere with either the Gepid or Hun cavalry that were planning on moving against the Roman/Frankish right?
Distracted by the promise of another installment of a much delayed Spartans vs Vikings project as well as a large Germans vs Romans historical battle, and not looking forward to three or four more turns (however simple to resolve) or attritional fighting, I decided to make an “educated” prediction or projection and end the current scenario.
It appeared quite certain that the Romans would lose 2 more units in the next turn or two. It also appeared quite certain that the Romans’ position would become untenable. Aetius would have Gepid horsemen on both flanks, strong pressure against his front, and then a number of Hun units circling to “join the party.” A victory, albeit a Pyrrhic one, was therefore awarded to Attila.
Comments
As this version of Châlons was inspired by the battle reports written by Mark Fry, it makes a certain amount of sense I think, to compare my recently “completed” refight to the presentation and play completed by Mark and his fellow historical miniature wargamers way back in 2013. Setting aside the obvious differences (Mark and his fellow player-generals used actual miniatures on a 72-square foot tabletop that earned Mark Craddock the ‘Best Terrain Prize’), I should like to consider and look for similarities or less obvious differences.
In his summary, Mark reported that, “We had two good battles across the day and in both cases the Huns were victorious.” Well, this was a solo effort, and I think the single refight went well enough. It was rather large and even though I am used to Armati 2nd Edition and like the rules and their variants quite a lot, keeping track of casualties, fatigue, and units that were “undressed” or in a state of disorder got a bit repetitive. As indicated above, I decided to award the Huns a win, so Attila’s record, at least in this limited context, now stands at 3 and 0. (Not bad for someone who has been dead for over 1,500 years!) On that attempted humorous point, neither Attila nor Aetius, nor any other commander was captured, suffered wounds or experienced worse on my tabletop. In the refights Mark played and witnessed, Aetius did not make it, twice, and Attila met his end once, reportedly on the business-end of an Alan lance. In my refight, only Ellac had a “near miss,” as related in the narrative. Attila was with a unit of elite Huns who were attacked by a unit of Breton light-heavy infantry. He was in never in any real danger, though. While King Sangiban and his “regiment” were engaged, he did not come to harm. Neither Aetius, King Ardaric, nor Sigurd were involved in any fighting. Unlike the Gepids on Mark’s table, my Gepids were not invincible or all that lucky. Mark ended his summary by pointing out “how quick Armati is to play to a conclusion and how it rewards aggressive play.” A quick tabulation of the original orders of battle informed that Mark and his colleagues needed to move and roll dice for around 110 miniature units. Dividing this responsibility between half a dozen players produces very manageable commands. In my staging, acknowledging that I planned for a bigger yet modified battle, one person had to move, roll dice for, and track the status of approximately 140 units. To be sure, I was under no time constraints, as my attempt at reconstructing a portion of Châlons did not take place at a Battle Day event. Therefore, I was able to spread out the solo wargaming over a number of afternoons and evenings. I was able to proceed at a leisurely pace. Even so, 140 units is quite a large number for a single player-general.
Turning briefly to the rule amendments and how the game “flowed,” I think, overall, it went fairly well. I did begin to question the evasion phase of the game move and the penalties associated with it. I believe I made some use of Mark’s LC/HC interpenetration rules, but did not find that this interaction or cooperation had a major impact on how the battle progressed. In fact, I started thinking (again) about interpenetration and what I was trying to model on my tabletop. On reflection, it appeared that I was inconsistent with applying the modified impetus rules. Perhaps the Gepid formations would have done better against the Auxilia Palatina? Perhaps the limited cavalry charges would have had more of an impact against their chosen targets? Finally, I figure I have a couple more days of mentally kicking myself for not having drafted a rule or rules for what happens to the winning contingent in a sector where the enemy formations have run away. The Hun victory against the Alans was not unexpected: they had the numbers and they had the bows. I suppose I could have sketched out a “reaction table” that required a die roll or two. This table would have determined how many of the Hun units shifted to help out their Ostrogoth allies, how many Hun units continued to pursue the Alans, and how many Huns turned right so that they could join the Gepids in the hard fighting against the Romans, Franks, Saxons, et al. To reiterate, despite the complete lack of miniatures, despite making some questionable tactical decisions, and despite not officially finishing the wargame, I think it went fairly well. If pressed to give myself a numeric grade, I think that an 79 or 80 out of a possible score of 100 would be reasonable and or justified. Of course, readers who have persevered to this point may have a different opinion.
Notes
- A second collaboration occurred in 2015, when Hydaspes, 326 BC, was selected for modeling on tabletops at The Society of Ancients annual Battle Day event. According to my brief review of the available material, participants played 17 games using 15 different sets of rules. Alexander the Great was the theme for Issue 333 of WARGAMES illustrated®. It should come as no surprise to find that the prolific Simon MacDowall was central to this joint-effort. His name was on all four of the articles found in Issue 333. Given this level of production, it was no surprise that he did not submit one of the 11 battle reports which appeared in Issues 301, 302, and 303 of Slingshot.
