SEVEN TRIBES FOR SIX LEGIONS

On pages 228-229 of his well reviewed book, CAESAR - LIFE OF A COLOSSUS, Professor Adrian Goldsworthy describes, in some detail, a meeting that took place between Julius Caesar and the Germanic leader Ariovistus in the late summer of 58 BC. Evidently, Caesar substituted men from his favored Tenth Legion to escort him to this complicated-to-arrange parley. The parameters of this meeting were quite involved apparently, with the parties halting some 200 paces apart and then the leaders of each army riding forward with just a handful of men as a bodyguard. The ensuing conversation was conducted in Gallic, with Ariovistus speaking as he knew the language and Caesar making use of a translator. The discussion was also rather tense, as one might imagine, for it is reported that Ariovistus made a veiled death threat against Caesar, while the Roman commander, not quite a great man yet, responded more civilly by reinforcing his or Rome’s position. From that point, things quickly fell apart, and the parley ended abruptly when some Germans began throwing missiles at the mounted legionaries. (An online translation of these circumstances, the events leading up to them, and the resulting engagement can be found in Chapters 44 through 53 at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001.)

While rereading these pages in my annotated paperback copy of the professor’s 2006 text (the Atlantic Monthly said the book was “monumental”), I let my mind wander and then wondered: If this episode from the pages of ancient history were made into a movie or television series for one of the cable/streaming services, who would play the parts of Caesar and Ariovistus? In the grand scheme of things, a very unimportant question, to be sure. And yet, it is something to think about while sweating through a boring cardio workout at the gym, riding the train into the city, or being at the office and sitting in yet another pointless meeting that feels like it is slowly moving into hour number five. Initially, I struggled to develop a possible list of celebrities to play these historical figures. Then it came to me. For Caesar, I think Benedict Cumberbatch might be a good choice. The gentleman seems to have a something like a Patrician air about him. (Make up and or special effects would have to do something about his hair, though.) For Ariovistus, I thought that Daniel Craig might be a viable choice. A very strong second would be Chris Hemsworth. I am still thinking about who might play Publius Crassus. Maybe Zac Efron? I don’t know. To reiterate, it is an unimportant question. Perhaps the dozen or so readers of this post might have some better suggestions?

Setting aside these influenced-by-popular-culture musings, the more interesting challenge and “problem” was how to stage a refight of the ‘Battle against Ariovistus.’ There is a relatively wargamer-friendly diagram provided on page 231 of the professor’s well-reviewed book, and there is a summary of the engagement provided on page 232. For additional information and to refresh my knowledge, I went back to page 212, where the ‘New War’ chapter started, and reread as well as re-annotated the following 20 pages. Additional “research” was conducted online. I also took a few minutes to review the previous campaign and engagement against the Helvetii, summarized by Professor Philip Sabin on pages 209-212 of his excellent text, LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. (Sidebar: Stipulating to the fact that I did not conduct an exhaustive search and hope that a reader or readers will correct me, I still found it interesting that this engagement has not made it into the pages of any hobby magazine. In comparison, there were quite a few results when I searched “wargaming Bibracte.” At one point while this idea/project was evolving, I briefly considered staging a kind of a mini-campaign. The tentative title was “Summering with Caesar,” and the somewhat ambitious plan was to refight Bibracte as well as the battle against Ariovistus.) 

Choices & Preparations

It would be fair to say that I have a bit of history with Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II rules. For just several examples of this experience, I would refer the reader to these previous posts: “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering;” “Hannibal vs Scipio: Refighting Zama with Tactica II;” “Pikes vs Pila in Pontus,” and “Messing with Magnesia.” There have been other solo experiments with these thoroughly play-tested as well as favored-by-some-groups set of rules, but I would certainly not claim a “veteran status” with respect to being confident about my ability with them. In fact, it would also be fair to say that based on my various experiences and experiments with Tactica II, I have developed a few reservations about them. My main “concern” about the rules revolves around the number of dice required to resolve combat. I also have quibbles about the game move sequence, the role of “divisional” leaders, and the limits or restrictions with respect to troop quality. This much admitted, I find Tactica II to be the only set of rules in my small library that permits any “realistic” representation of either Republican or Marian Legions on a tabletop. Looking over the deployment diagram provided on page 67, I saw that the “Acies Triplex” of a ten-cohort legion matched Professor Goldsworthy’s frequent mention of Caesar drawing up his men in “the standard triplex acies” formation. Consulting the 15mm column of the Figure Basing Table provided on page 1 of the rules, I noted that one of my “model” legions could be depicted with 10 color counters and when drawn up in “triplex acies,” would have a footprint—that is frontage—of approximately 30 centimeters. The six legions present in the field (i.e., on the table) against Ariovistus and his German tribesmen would have a combined frontage of around 180 centimeters then, or roughly 72 inches (6 feet). In order to allow Roman and Allied cavalry formations to be posted on the wings of this heavy infantry juggernaut, I would need to use my full playing surface; I would need to prepare my 10.5 by 3.75 feet tabletop for this attempt at a reconstruction. 

I drafted or “designed” the Roman forces first. The six legions and various auxiliary units were followed quickly by a bunch of hairy as well as scary Germanic warriors. I briefly considered building some skirmishers for the warbands, but figured that I would just attach one or two units of these “specialist formations” to the German cavalry. 

Studying the provided diagram and rereading the professor’s summary of the actual battle, I wondered how I would landscape my table for the planned engagement. I thought about the “old school” method of placing magazines and books under my green cloth. I also thought about how I might inexpensively fabricate what appeared to be an extensive stretch of hillside. (Sidebar: I found it interesting that the Germans did not deploy on the higher slope. I also thought it curious that they did not come charging, “Hell bent for leather,” down the hill and crash into the Roman line.) For a “quick and dirty” if also functional representation of the hill side, I figured that I could use two long pieces of suitably colored yarn to indicate the “levels” or tiers of the hill. While I considered these options, I knew that I wanted to break up the simple expanse of green with various pieces of felt and specialty paper. These irregular shapes would not represent any kind of terrain feature like scrub, brush, or an isolated as well as open stand of trees, but they would add a little visual appeal to the “model” field of battle. 

Orders of Battle

The Roman army contained 6 legions, numbered from the Seventh (VII) through the Twelfth (XII). Each legion consisted of 10 cohorts, and each cohort had a strength of 8 legionaries, arranged in 2 rows of 4 “figures.” (If a figure scale of 1:40 was used, then each cohort had a strength of 320 men. If, however, a figure scale of 1:60 was adopted, then each cohort would have a strength of 480 men. So, it could be said that the Roman army deployed between 19,200 and 28,800 heavy infantry.) Three legions were rated as Veteran units. The First or “Eagle” Cohort of these three legions contained Elite troops. Two legions, the Eleventh and Twelfth, were also rated as Veteran units, but their First Cohorts contained Veterans instead of Elite heavy infantry. The Tenth Legion was filled with Elite soldiers, from the First Cohort to the Tenth. Support for the legions came in the form of 4 units of Auxiliary light infantry, each containing 16 “figures” deployed in 2 ranks. I also built a couple of skirmishers units. One had 12 slingers and the other had 12 archers. For the allied/auxiliary cavalry, I prepared 2 wings, each having 3 units of 16 horsemen. The auxiliaries, skirmishers, and cavalry were all classed as Veteran troops. For command and control, there were 6 legion officers, two officers for the cavalry wings, and then Caesar and Publius Crassus. 

If my sums are correct, then the Roman army had a strength of 640 massed unit figures. This meant a breaking point of 320 accumulated casualties or losses. With regard to value, again, if my addition is correct, Caesar commanded 4,848 points of legionaries and auxiliary troops. 

Shifting my attention and talents (ahem . . .) to the assembly of the tribal warriors and cavalry under the overall command of Ariovistus, I prepared the following formations. To depict the Harudes, Triboces, Nemetes, and Sedusii clans, I built 3 units, each containing 30 warriors arranged in 3 ranks of 10. (These formations were based on the 13 x 20mm dimensions found on page 1.) For the Marcomani, Vangiones, and Suebi, I built 4 units, each containing 30 warriors arranged in 3 ranks of 10. (These formations were based on the 10 x 15mm dimensions, also found on page 1.) The German cavalry was also divided into 2 wings. On the left and right, the Germans had 3 units of cavalry, each with a strength of 18 “figures.” One unit of cavalry on each wing was supported by an attached unit of 12 skirmishers with javelins. To add a splash of color to the cardstock “wall” of warbands, I constructed a small unit of 24 elite warriors, arranged in 3 ranks of 8. No tribal affiliation was assigned to these tough fighters. I simply figured that Ariovistus would have a bodyguard or retinue of some sort. 

Completing a second set of calculations, it was found that the German army added up to 852 massed unit figures. This produced a breaking point of 426 for Ariovistus and his men. The value of the German host was, after double-checking the sums, determined to be 5,556 points. A quick comparison informed that the Germans had 212 more massed unit figures and 708 more points than the Romans. 

Deployments & Plans

From left to right, Caesar arranged his legions in the following order: The Seventh (VII) was on the far left and the Eleventh (XI) was next to it. The Seventh had a unit of skirmishers to its front and a unit of auxiliary infantry to its left. The Eleventh also had a unit of auxiliary infantry attached. These light troops were out front. The center of the Roman line was held by the Ninth (IX) and Eighth (VIII) Legions. The Ninth was screened by another unit of auxiliary troops. Over on the right were the Twelfth (XII) and Tenth (X) Legions. The Twelfth had a unit of skirmishers out front and a unit of auxiliary foot to its right rear. Cavalry “divisions” provided “bookends” for the “legionary volumes” arranged in orderly triplex acies formation. Borrowing the battle plan explained by Professor Goldsworthy, as Caesar, I intended to march my legions directly at the Germanic warriors. I would be sure to make use of the pila, however. I hoped that my cavalry wings would be able to hold off or even defeat the slightly larger number of German troopers. If that proved to be the case (fingers crossed!), then I could use the surviving cavalry to envelop the barbarian position. If my cavalry suffered a reverse, then I would have to detail cohorts from the legions at either end of the line to block the enemy horse. 

Picture 1 / The “model” battlefield almost finished . . . This photo was taken from above the German right/Roman left. Both sides have cavalry on the flanks and their infantry concentrated in the center. The reported or named seven Germanic tribes occupy the forward slope of a hill. The Romans have deployed all of their legions in the traditional “triplex acies” formation. Exercising a bit of solo wargamer’s license, I added some auxiliary units and a handful of skirmishers to Caesar’s army. 

Picture 2 / A close up of the X (Tenth) Legion on the Roman right. The cohorts are arranged in three lines of 4, 3, and 3 cohorts. The purple markers on each counter/stand represent the pila volley. When the legionaries throw these missiles just before melee, the marker will be removed. Caesar is present, stationed behind the right wing cavalry and to the right of the second line of cohorts. [Note: I went back to Professor Goldsworthy’s excellent book, THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, and found the following on page 138. First, 

A cohort of 480 men would have covered an area of 146 by 6.4 m. (160 by 7 yards), 

if deployed in three ranks. A cohort of 800 men covered about 247 by 6.4 m. (270 

by 7 yards). It is however, difficult to calculate the area occupied by a legion, even 

assuming it was full strength, because we have no information on how large the 

intervals between the cohorts were.

A plastic ruler was laid in front of the Tenth Legion. The front line of the “checkerboard” extended for 12 inches. According to the approximate scale offered on page 1 of the rules, the “model” Tenth would have a frontage of between 120 and 180 yards. Hmmm. Perhaps my cohorts were drawn up in six ranks, giving them a frontage of around 80 yards?

For consistency and simplicity, I placed the 1st Cohort on the right front of the formation and then just went down the line, deploying the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Cohorts. In the second line, I placed the 5th on the right, followed by the 6th and 7th. The third line of all my legions had, from right to left, the 8th, 9th, and 10th Cohorts. This arrangement differed from that detailed by Professor Goldsworthy at the top of page 138. In this specific example, the legion - arranged in a “duplex acies” - deployed its cohorts in an odd-even manner. 

Picture 3 / Taken from behind the Roman line, this photo shows the IX and VIII Legions deployed for battle. Notice the gap or weakness directly behind the 4th Cohort of the VIII Legion and the 1st Cohort of the IX Legion. I could not figure out how to close this gap. 

Changing into the trousers, cloak, and I would imagine ornate helmet of Ariovistus, my deployment of the gathered tribes basically mirrored the enemy’s position. I placed my cavalry on the wings. Each group of horse (not each unit) had the support of an attached light infantry unit. From right to left, the order of the clans was as follows: Harudes; Macromani; Triboces; Vangiones; Nemetes; Sedusii, and finally, the Suebi. As for my position, well, I was leading from the rear (for now) and placed myself between the Vangiones and Triboces tribes. My unit of elite warriors was standing to my immediate left. As for my plan of battle, I figured that I would engage with my cavalry right away and hope to gain an advantage on one or both flanks. With regard to the use of my massed warbands, well, I wanted to maintain the terrain advantage as long as I could. That said, I did not see anything wrong with using the slope to gain some additional momentum on that first charge into contact. Hopefully, the general attack would crash like a wave into a wall of sand. 

Picture 4 / The Roman cavalry wing on the left of the line. Publius Crassus is to the right of the white dice. I placed some playing aids in this corner as I did not have room elsewhere on the tabletop. 

Picture 5 / The German cavalry wing that was opposite the Roman cavalry seen above.

Picture 6 / Looking down the German position, to their right flank or wing. The blue dice are the German dice for melees and so forth. The green, red, and yellow dice are for indicating impetus, missile halts, and disorder, respectively. The black dice on the German units are a reminder that the warriors will get to throw a few missiles (2d6 only) prior to engaging the Romans in melee. These missiles range (no pun intended) from arrows, slings and javelins, to large pieces or wood or sizeable rocks that have been picked up off the ground. 

Picture 7 / A close up of the 4 warband units making up the Macromani Tribe. Their position on the slope is indicated by the functional and inexpensive piece of yarn running across the front of the formation. 

Summary of the Engagement

During the first few turns of the battle, the Romans did the majority of marching and moving. The assembled legions advanced quietly for so many armed and armored men in orderly lines.  The Germans, standing in their respective tribes and clans, found it almost unnerving or at least unnatural as they watched this procession. They massed warbands replied with war cries and insults as the legionaries closed the distance. As expected and as planned, first contact was made and first blood on the day was spilled on the flanks. The cavalry wings of each army slammed into each other; the German troopers with embedded light infantry support arriving just a little after the initial charges went in. In the ensuing chaos, slashed and stabbed at each other; fighting men grunted and screamed. More than several score fell. Horses screamed and snorted too, as their riders urged them to gallop directly at the oncoming enemy. Riderless horses ran off in different directions, seeking safety from the maelstrom of the swirling melee. In a matter of minutes, the tide of battle turned against the Romans on the each flank. One wing of cavalry lost two-thirds on its original strength; the other lost one-third of its original numbers. It appeared as if the Germans would be able to envelop and possibly roll up the long line of Roman heavy infantry. However, this would take some time as it was not easy to wheel a body of cavalry around, especially after it had fought an intense melee. Anticipating such a local disaster, Publius Crassus had taken charge of some auxiliary infantry and was moving them into position. It looked like he would need to call on a few cohorts as well. Over on the other side of the field, Caesar had not taken preventive measures yet. All along the hill, the Germans showed great restraint as arrows and sling stones and javelins flew into their formations. There was little damage done by these missiles, however, but still. The first line of cohorts was approaching and Ariovistus wanted to be sure that the initial charge had the most effect, weight, and results. 

Picture 8 / The first cavalry contest of the battle sees the German and Roman troopers engaged in a swirling melee on the Roman left wing. The blue dice indicate the hits or kills made by the German riders; the white dice indicate the kills scored by the Roman riders. Casualties are tracked by the use of a small red marker. Losses are counted from the left rear of each unit, moving to the right and then up to the next row as needed. The black die showing a 6 on the middle German unit is a reminder that this unit has light infantry attached, so extra dice are thrown in melee.  

Picture 9 / Taken from behind the German warbands, showing the advance of the legions and their auxiliary troops. The screen of slingers has found the range and has started annoying the German warriors with a barrage of sling stones.

During the next few turns, the Romans did not do as much moving or marching, but they certainly engaged in a lot of melees. Not wanting to delay any longer, the legion commanders pulled back their skirmishers and light troops so that the cohorts could finish the advance and begin the real fighting. When the comparatively isolated cohorts of the first line went in, javelins were thrown and the Germans replied with a lesser number of a variety of missiles. Men on both sides fell dead or wounded, but overall, the volleys of pila and such did not have that much of an impact. Closing the gap of the last few yards, the Roman legionaries gripped their shields and swords tightly, waiting for the inevitable surge of barbarian warriors. 

Somewhat surprisingly, not many of the warbands were able to gain momentum (i.e., impetus) while advancing down the gentle slope to meet the Romans. A few warbands did execute fierce charges, however. One cohort in the Tenth Legion was simply run over by the irresistible force of the attacking warriors. This caused a nearby cohort to become disordered. Generally speaking, the 24 cohorts in the first line were able to hold their own, even with the terrain disadvantage. To be certain, the fighting was severe all along the line. (Sidebar: A rough survey was done at the end of Turn 4 and it was found that 24 cohorts had suffered a total of 83 kills. For reference, each cohort had 8 “figures,” so that would be 192 “figures” in all. On the German side of the chaotic battle, approximately 72 “kills” had been inflicted by the Romans. This number included those few losses from skirmisher and light infantry missiles.) 

Picture 10 / The screen of archers over on the Roman right has loosed an unwelcome volley onto the heads of the Sedusii Tribe. The red markers indicate some good shooting, as three hits were scored. (Granted, this was out of 12 dice thrown, but still.) 

Picture 11 / The German troopers have destroyed 2/3 of the Roman left wing cavalry. Both winning units pursued. At the very top of the frame, one can just see Publius Crassus trying to organize a line of defense with some auxiliary foot. 

Picture 12 / Taken from above the Roman left, showing the general as well as orderly advance of the legions against the German position. Roman skirmishers and auxiliaries moved quite close and harassed the warriors with arrows, sling stones and javelins. Ariovistus sent riders and runners to remind his chieftains to hold their ground until the order to attack was given. 

Picture 13 / Another view of the Roman advance on the hill and the waiting Germans. This snapshot is from behind the Ninth and Eighth Legions. Near the top of the picture, Ariovistus can be seen. He is next to the maroon and gold die. His band of elite warriors is to his left. 

Approximately ten minutes later, the second line of Roman cohorts advanced up the slope, hurled their pila, drew swords, and then joined in the mayhem. Scores of men fell as the growing battle of attrition raged up and down the line. Unfortunately, it appeared that the Romans were getting the worst of it. Another survey of the field was taken. The Romans had eight cohorts marked as disordered fighting units. It appeared that an equal number of cohorts were very close to being routed. Three legions had lost three cohorts. In the battle between the infantry, not a single German unit was disordered. To be sure, more than several had been bloodied, but the warriors were still standing and could rely on other warbands positioned farther back from the main line. 

Picture 14 / The cavalry melee on the Roman right wing. Though the German horsemen in the center of the chaotic melee took severe losses and their attached light infantry did not help turn the tide, the Romans still lost a unit. Fortunately, its rout did not impact the neighboring troopers. In this case, the Germans were able to pass the Control Test, so they did not pursue the survivors. At the end of Turn 3, the Germans were definitely winning the cavalry battle. 

Picture 15 / Taken from above the right flank of the Triboces’ position, looking left down the hill. The first line of Roman cohorts have made contact. The black dice on the warband units indicate pre-missile melee ability, just as the purple markers on the cohorts indicate a pila volley just prior to the crossing of swords. The green dice (very few of those unfortunately or fortunately, if you are a fan of Rome) mark the warbands that will have impetus going into the first round of melee.  

Picture 16 / The view from the Roman right, looking down the line. The first wave of cohorts is certainly in for a fight. They are outnumbered; they will suffer from having to negotiate the slope, and some units will be charged by screaming Germanic warriors. 

Shifting my attention to the flanks, the Romans were in serious trouble here. Their left flank cavalry had been completely destroyed. The German horse, though now with fewer numbers, was getting in position to sweep down the left flank of the Roman line. It looked like a Harudes warband was hoping to join this move as well. Publius Crassus was trying to organize a road-block of sorts out of some light infantry, some slingers, and two cohorts that he borrowed from the Seventh Legion. Over on the opposite flank, Caesar’s situation was not as critical, but the commander of the Roman army still ordered three cohorts from his favored Tenth Legion to wheel right and prepare to deal with the victorious and reorganizing German cavalry. Numerous messengers, sent from worried legates, had found him as well. The overall status of the field was not good. The battle was not going his, that is, Rome’s way. 

Picture 17 / The white dice indicate the effect of the Roman pila volleys. As can be seen, this initial volley did not have much of an impact. The German missiles were even less effective. These hits are marked by the black dice on this or that cohort. 

Picture 18 / The Fourth Cohort of the Tenth Legion has bitten off more than it can chew. The Suebi warband took a hit, maybe, from the pila volley. The short swords and shields did not do much more damage. Having impetus in this first round of combat (indicated by the green die), the Germans were able to roll 20 d6 against the isolated cohort. The blue dice show the destructive result. The 4th Cohort was wiped out. This local disaster produced disorder in the ranks of the 7th Cohort. Other units nearby ignored the situation. The victorious warriors followed up, came running down the slope and smacked right into the shaken ranks of the 7th Cohort. 

Picture 19 / Another example of the “dice heavy” combat resolution, this time over with the Macromani warriors and legionaries of the Seventh. The warband had suffered a single loss from a volley of sling stones. The pila volley added another, and the effort of 2 cohorts inflicted 4 more kills on the Macromani. The Germans had their impetus divided between the engaged cohorts. Fortunately for the Romans, the dice were not that good. It was an even contest, at least for now. 

Picture 20 / Taken from above the German far right sector, showing the barbarian cavalry trying to wheel around so that they can attack the exposed left and potentially rear of the busy legionaries. Two units are marked with a yellow die, as these formations have just completed an extended wheel (i.e., complex move) and so, are disordered. The other unit of German cavalry, though weakened, has charged into some enemy light infantry. It was either that or stand still and be subjected to a volley of javelins.

Picture 21 / Meanwhile, over on the other flank, the surviving units of German horse have also wheeled toward the center of the field. The lone Roman cavalry is in the upper right of the frame, having opted not to get attacked in the flank by superior numbers. At the top of the frame, Caesar is striving mightily to get some cohorts facing in the right direction so that he can put a stop to this threat by the barbarian cavalry. 

Picture 22 / Moving back to the German right flank, the melee between the cavalry and the auxiliary infantry does not go well for the troopers. However, they do manage to pass their Fates Test with an 11 on the blue dice. Though a shadow of its former strength, the German cavalry will stick around for a little longer, much to the displeasure of Publius Crassus. 

Picture 23 / The Romans won the melee direction for Game Turn 6 and decided to start on their left and work toward the right end of the long line. In this photo, the contest between some warriors of the Harudes tribe and two cohorts of the Seventh Legion is depicted. The blue dice indicate the kills scored by the Germanic foot, while the white dice show the kills made by the Romans. The white die showing a 1, sitting on the German counter, informs that a pila volley from one of the cohorts was able to catch some warriors and thereby decrease the melee dice rolled in the round of combat. Note: The red markers (for tracking casualties) have yet to be moved or placed on the engaged units. 

At the conclusion of the next turn, Caesar realized that the contest was lost, that his legionaries would not overcome the German warbands. The Seventh Legion, on the far left of the line, had broken after several rounds of fierce fighting. Publius Crassus, therefore, had no troops at hand to stem the advance and attack of the German cavalry in this sector. The Eighth Legion was also on the verge of collapsing, having lost six cohorts in its attempt to force the barbarians to relinquish their hold on the slope. Seven of the 21 cohorts still engaged in melees all along the line were disordered; all of the cohorts had suffered losses. Some of the cohorts were down to their last century or two. The small silver lining to this general development was over on the Roman right, where a reserve cohort of the Tenth Legion was attacked by some German cavalry. The legionaries responded with cool efficiency and sent the surviving barbarian troopers fleeing in rout. Caesar’s army had lost all of its cavalry. The legions had been fairly well mauled. One-third of the cohorts had been routed. When the disordered cohorts were factored in to this number, approximately one-half of Caesar’s infantry had been put out of action. To be sure, several German tribes had been depleted by the savage fighting, but not a single warband had been broken. The only losses were on the flanks, where a total of three cavalry formations had been routed. A brief survey of the German position informed the Ariovistus had half a dozen warbands in reserve. This count did not include the unit of elite warriors, who were still in the same position they were in when the battle began. In fact, and somewhat surprisingly, the leader of the Germanic host did not have to draw his sword and participate in the fighting. 

Picture 24 / Another “action” photo, showing the combined effects of having three cohorts of legionaries advance up a slope and begin hacking, stabbing, and shoving. These men are from the Eleventh Legion. As can be seen by the lack of blue dice, the Germans did not do well in the round. Their dice had to be divided into three groups or throws for the three distinct melees. The legionaries, in contrast, have done very well. 

Picture 25 / A rather complex or involved melee between the Macromani tribesmen and cohorts of the Seventh Legion. The German warriors had secured “impetus inroad” last turn and checked to see if they maintained that fighting advantage. The blue dice show that they won it again, hence the third green die on the unit. The Romans controlled the melee direction, moving left to right. In the first melee, the Romans took 2 hits but inflicted 2 in return. (Note: As they had impetus - again! - the German warriors were permitted 20 dice divided across three melee areas. I divided the dice into handfuls of 6, 7, and 7.) In the second or middle melee, the Romans were wiped out after killing 1 warrior.  This result required a morale check or Control Test on the neighboring units. The yellow dice indicate that it did not go well for the Romans. (As the melee on the left had already been fought, it did not impact that result.) In the final melee on the Roman right, the cohort was disordered and could only use half of its dice for the combat. This number was further reduced by the terrain disadvantage. The blue and white dice show that the Macromani scored 4 kills on the unfortunate cohort while suffering only 1 in return. 

Picture 26 / Showing the status of the Eleventh Legion at the end of Turn 6 after all the dice and other playing materials have been tidied up. As can be seen by the red markers, the cohorts of the XI Legion are in trouble. They still have some stubborn Triboces to deal with, and then there is a fresh reserve warband waiting for its chance to join the fight.  

Picture 27 / This snapshot shows the status of the Tenth Legion on the Roman right. Again, the red markers are on every cohort. It’s truly a battle of attrition, and one it seems, that the Romans are going to have a very difficult time winning. Note: For reference, Caesar is just to the left of this frame, trying to get some reserve cohorts ready to face some approaching German cavalry. 

Picture 28 / The game turn the battle was called . . . Looking left down the line from the German right. The Seventh Legion cohorts (indicated by the flipped-over counters), have been repulsed if not routed by the combined efforts of the Harudes and Macromani.  

Picture 29 / In the approximate center of the field, the Ninth Legion is having a very hard time against the Vangiones. Three cohorts are disordered (as indicated by the yellow dice) and the engaged cohorts have taken quite a few casualties. The Ninth and Tenth Cohorts are moving up to help out, but unfortunately, it appears to be a case of too little, too late. 

Picture 30 / Looking at the left side of the German line, focused on the Sedusii tribe. Again, the red markers indicate the casualties taken by each unit/counter. The yellow dice indicate units that are disordered and so, at a disadvantage in melee. Evidently, the dice gods did not favor the Romans during this solo wargame . . . A warband of the Sedusii was involved with three cohorts of the Twelfth Legion. It suffered many losses but as the blue dice show, the decimated unit passed its Fates Test.  

Commentary & Critique

In many ways, I find concluding a battle report, non-battle essay or “paper” more difficult than starting one. I am given to wonder if other wargaming bloggers/writers experience this same challenge or “condition.” Initially, I thought I would just provide a comparison/contrast of my solo wargame with the brief account provided by Professor Goldsworthy on page 232 of his excellent biography. This would be followed by a paragraph or two on the rules and how they worked or did not work. This review would be followed by or combined with an amateur assessment of the battle plans drafted and pursued by both commanders and their armies. 

As I struggled with how to proceed, I secured the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot from its clear plastic storage bin. I wanted to reread “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis,” authored by Dr. Paul Innes. I hoped that his well-written article would provide some inspiration, would provide me with a starting point. Ironically, it turned out that I paid a little more attention to the article by David Kay. In “An Alternative Rant,” David referenced a discussion thread on The Society of Ancients Forum wherein Anthony Clipsom (a long-standing and erudite member as well as prolific contributor to the publication) defined “the three ‘A’s’ of wargaming terrain.” These “categories” were: authenticity, aesthetics, and abstraction. David added another “A,” advancing the idea that ambition (i.e., why we wargame and what we get out of it) also plays a part. While rereading these two articles, it occurred to me that I could borrow these four “categories” and redirect the attention from the ground-level concern of terrain to the “higher-level” concern of this recently completed project.  

Addressing the authenticity of this solo wargame reconstruction first, and admitting a certain degree of bias here, I think the effort was fairly authentic. There were seven identified tribes or clans of Germanic warriors facing off against six identified Roman legions. The cavalry of both armies was deployed on the flanks. The personalities of Ariovistus, Publius Crassus, and Julius Caesar were represented on the tabletop. The massed warbands of the Germans were deployed on a gentle hill or forward slope of an elevation. The legionaries were drawn up in “triplex acies.” These were the basic positives of the reconstruction, for lack of a more descriptive term. On the other hand, the Roman legions were all the exact same strength. This does not seem authentic at all. Similarly, there was a degree of consistency in the sizes of the German tribes. In the solo wargame, Caesar had some skirmishers and auxiliary light infantry, which does not appear to have been the case in the historical engagement. So this is another “strike” against the authenticity of the project. Finally (though I am certain that some readers will be able to find and perhaps even make additional points - constructive criticism is always welcomed—in fact, I would argue that it is necessary), the Romans lost the tabletop battle. This was not what happened historically, so the result can be considered another “strike” against me in the category of authenticity. (Note: I thought about adding a comment or two about the lack of noise on my tabletop as well as the complete lack of actual fighting, its inherent confusion, fear and the detritus - including smells - produced, but understand that this is a level of authenticity that no historical wargamer can achieve nor would want to have recreated on his tabletop.) 

Turning to a consideration of the second “category,” of aesthetics, of appearance or visual appeal, there can be no question that my refight of this battle was significantly different from the model masterpieces produced by James Roach or Simon Miller, to name just two of the admired and leading “celebrities”or exemplars of this wide-ranging hobby. (For evidence of their high-standards of work, please see the following: http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/search/label/Battle%20Report; http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2020/10/reorganising-and-rebasing-my-crusades.html; https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/After%20Action%20Reports, and https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2017/10/ruspina-46-bce.html.) 

At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, I would contend that even without three-dimensional figures and terrain, the refight between Ariovistus and Caesar did have a certain aesthetic. The terrain features were indicated or suggested; the opposing armies took up space; the various units were functional and fairly easy to handle (I suffered no wounds from miniature pila to my palms or pinky fingers, no cavalry troopers had their spears bent, and no stand suffered damage to due the dice), and the addition of markers and other play aids such as casualty rings or expensive color plastic markers labeled “Charge!” or “Routing” did not clutter the overall appearance, as they might when mixed with carefully painted and based 28mm figures. I would respectfully submit that this project was historical wargaming. However and obviously, I freely and fully admit that it was not historical miniature wargaming. 

Moving on to take a look at abstraction or the level of abstraction employed, I do not want to go off on a tangent and get mired in a “technical” discussion or “semantic” sand trap, but it seems to me that abstraction is universally employed by historical wargamers. The painted and based miniatures represent, but are not actual formations of infantry, cavalry and so forth. The colored counters also represent these various units and formations but they are not actual bodies of cavalry, infantry, elephants, scythed chariots, or even gun-powder artillery, if the setting of the tabletop battle is, for example, Europe in the late eighteenth century. It also seems that any consideration of abstraction will have to include a look at the rules used and how the action played with them. 

Being familiar with several sets of rules for ancient and medieval wargaming, and being especially familiar with one set of rules, I still found myself resisting or questioning Tactica II with regard to the game move sequence, movement rates, and procedures for resolving missile fire and melees. I think that skirmishers should move faster than heavy infantry. I believe the same should apply to light and heavy horse. I think that missiles should be exchanged in the first or second phase of a game turn so that their impact (whether moral, physical or both) might affect movement and so forth.

When I am inspired to stage another large Tactica II battle, I think I might keep track of how many dice I roll or how many times I roll dice. I understand, from reading Dr. Innes’ aforementioned article on the design and workings of Tactica II that a fair number of dice are employed in order to create an “attrition effect,” to reduce the chances of combat or other situations relying solely on luck. I recall that first round of melee, when the first line of cohorts advanced up the slope and began fighting the Germans. A cohort would throw its pila. The German warriors would respond with their missiles. This was the beginning of the local fight. The volley of pila required four six-sided dice. In the actual close combat, the cohort would roll three dice, due to the terrain disadvantage. Depending on the situation, the cohort would be subjected to four, six, or even 10-plus dice rolled by the engaged warband. This process was repeated some 24 times. A version of the process was repeated when the second line of cohorts advanced into the ongoing melee. In summary, there was a lot of dice rolling. I don’t mind rolling dice. I do wonder, though, about needing to roll dozens of the six-sided cubes in order to produce a result or results.  

Shifting gears to type some thoughts about David Kay’s fourth “A” - ambition, I am thinking that his definition or questions about why we wargame and what we get out of it might merit a separate “paper” or post. Then again, the answer(s) to these questions are probably running between the lines of all my previous “work,” from the articles accepted and published in MWAN, to those accepted and published in LONE WARRIOR, to the small “catalog” of material printed in the pages of Slingshot.

My guess is that—maybe— I will get a few constructive comments as well as corrections from the members of the Tactica II Forum. I think, however, that this august group as well as general readers will agree that the recently completed battle was certainly an ambitious undertaking for a solo wargamer. I am not sure if the tinkering with the scenario (adding some skirmishers and auxiliaries, giving the German warbands a chance to throw a few missiles, etc.) falls within the definition or scope of ambition. Again, I will defer to those with more experience and expertise. I will also have to do more thinking about these suggested “categories” and how I might apply or use them in my future tabletop contests. I wonder, too, if I might be able to come up with a fifth or even a sixth category starting with the letter “A”? 

Looking back over my comparatively short history with Tactica II, I think it would be fair to remark that this historical wargame was one of the better experiences I have had with the rules so far. I was pleased with how it looked, even though the “troops” were deployed from table-edge to table-edge. I was pleased with how it played, even though I continued to have reservations about particular aspects and even though the Romans were defeated. I was pleased with the fact that it took my mind off of things (i.e., more weighty matters) for at least a little while. (Hmmm, perhaps that counts as a partial answer to David’s question about why we wargame and what we get from it?) At the risk of starting a new topic as I draw this post to a close (finally!), I was also pleased that this experience led me, indirectly, to the admittedly impulse purchase of Strength and Honour. Realistically, I cannot be sure that I will be able to stage a version of this particular battle using the newly acquired rules. (Hopefully, this PDF will not wind up on the rulebook equivalent of the “lead mountain.” Not that I ever have to worry about scaling that particular terrain feature!) Based on what I’ve seen on YouTube and read so far, it seems that I could use my smaller table, and perhaps around 10-12 units to represent the Romans with a roughly similar number of units or counters to depict the Germans. More importantly, it appears that I would not have to throw what feels like a ton of dice to determine the outcome of the battle.