INCONGRUOUS INTERLUDE

Struggling, quite unsuccessfully for more than several days it must be admitted, with a few ideas as the calendar year wound down, the decision was made to “put a pin” in these potential projects and enjoy the distraction and diversion promised by a counterfactual scenario. [1] The inspiration for the following anachronistic adventure can be traced directly to page 37 of Wargame Tactics, a book authored by Charles Grant and published in 1979. [2] While it is tempting to cite the full excerpt and then pull it apart sentence by sentence, [3] I will deny myself that particular subjective fun and get to the general point. Charles Stewart Grant wrote that it was silly (my word, not his, but the overall assessment is very similar) for an “Egyptian army of about 3,000 BC to meet a Byzantine army from the sixth century AD on the wargames tabletop.” He also brought up the additional “wild” example of “Ancient Britains [sic] facing off against Alexandrian Macedonians.” Even though chronology and geography precluded these contests from taking place, this early member of the admired and recognized hobby pantheon admitted that, “miniature battles fought between these kinds of armies could be hugely exciting and interesting.”

To be certain, I was not looking to put myself under any additional pressure with this improvised project. (It was the month of Christmas and other holidays, with all their attendant activities, requirements, stress and so forth, after all. Then there was the all too rapid approach of the New Year and its accompanying portents and promises.) A solo wargame that proved engaging and entertaining (notice the complete absence of any modifiers) would suit me just fine, would be enough. Even though it was very tempting to draft, build, and deploy armies for Boudicca and Alexander (a possible Billie Jean vs Bobby Riggs kind of contest taking place in the BC era - dating myself there with that reference, I suppose), I opted to assemble and arrange my “normal” functional and inexpensive if also rather large [4] as well as visually unappealing forces. For this solo wargame, I would have “model” armies representing New Kingdom Egyptians and Thematic Byzantines on my tabletop. After reviewing the options afforded in a few rulebooks, [5] I decided to go with GRAND TRIUMPH! for this “ring out the old/ring in the new” scenario. [6]  

Terrain & Deployments

Forgoing the simple procedures of determining the topography, who had the tactical advantage and how many terrain pieces to prepare, I tossed a coin to see where, approximately, within the territory of Early New Kingdom Egypt, the fictional battle would take place. “Heads” being the result, the contest would be fought over a stretch of delta. (A result of “Tails” would have meant dry terrain, so a number of sand dunes and perhaps an oasis.) While some readers will find fault with my choice to not place encampments (fortified or otherwise) for either army, unless these are part of a historical scenario or campaign-generated battle, I have rarely employed camps on my tabletop. (These temporary structures seem more like a competition-oriented device, at least in my opinion.) Anyhow, the Egyptians would deploy along the southern long-edge of the playing surface. The coastline would be to their left. The Byzantines, their despised and anachronistic arch rivals, would assemble for battle along the northern long-edge. The coastline would be on their right, then. 

In an effort to provide a little more detail, the Egyptian left wing consisted of 11 units and was arranged in the following manner:

                                  [sand dune]

[coastline / shore]      Sk LF Rd CH CH CH CH 

                       CH#           Rd Rd Rd

Where Sk are Skirmishers; LF are Light Foot; Rd are Raiders, and CH are Chariots. The CH# shows the position of the sub-general in command of this corps or wing. 

The Egyptian center was a rather impressive site, even if it was not made of 28mm painted and based figures, as it contained elements of three commands and added up 31 units in total. The left section of this line of battle looked like this:

Ar Rd Ar Rd Ar Rd Ar HF Ar HF Ar

CH#

Where Ar represents Archers, Rd are Raiders, and HF depict units of Heavy Foot. Again, the CH# indicates the sub-general of the command, riding around in a chariot and accompanied by at least a dozen more early “armored fighting vehicles” pulled by horses. 

The main command of the Egyptian line, led by Pharaoh, looked like this:

HF Ar EF Ar EF Ar EF Ar HF Ar HF Ar HF Ar

      CH$

Here, EF represents Elite Foot. The Pharaoh’s chariot squadron is marked by CH$ as opposed to CH#. 

Finally, the right flank of the Egyptian army looked like this. The foot component was attached to the main line of battle, the chariots were tasked to sweep a “valley” between an unnamed village and a slight sand dune. 

Rd Ar Rd Ar CH CH CH CH CH CH CH

                CH#

Arranged against the Egyptian right was the Byzantine left, which was an all-mounted force. This command contained 9 units and looked like:

HB HB HB HB HB 

JC JC JC# JC

HB indicates stands or units of Horse Bow and JC represents Javelin Cavalry. As with the Egyptians, the # denotes a command stand.

The left-center of the Byzantine line looked like this:

Sk LF Ar Sp Sp Ar Sp Sp Ar Sp Sp

 

  JC JC JC# JC

This command had Skirmishers and Light Foot on the left, then a combination of Archers and Spear in the main line. The corps had a reserve of 4 units/stands of Javelin Cavalry.

The right-center of the Byzantine army contained 19 units and was arranged like this:

Ar Sp Sp Ar Sp Sp Ar Sp Sp LF LF Sk Sk

     EC EC    EC EC$

              EC EC

Elite Cavalry were positioned behind the Spear infantry formations. There was an additional reserve of 2 units of Elite Cavalry. The army commander was closer to the front, but still behind the main line of battle. The Light Foot and Skirmisher units stood on a gentle rise in contrast to the “normal” or flat ground occupied by the Spear and Archer formations. 

In the coastline sector, the Byzantines placed the rest of their Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry. This command was arranged in the following manner:

[marshy ground]

HB HB HB HB [coastline / shore]

JC JC# JC JC

The quickly “drawn” and consequently fairly crude maps accompanying this post should help to make more sense of the opposing deployments, the general nature of the battle space, and the general course of the fictional battle.

How It Played: A Summary

The Byzantines started this anachronistic dance by making some very good command rolls and executing a series of march moves to force the Egyptians to respond. As the respective flanks or wings of both armies consisted of mounted formations, fighting started in these sectors long before the opposing lines in the center of the fictional battlefield moved into arrow range. Though somewhat cramped for space near the coastline, the Egyptians quickly turned to the tide against the eager Byzantines and whittled away at their Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry units. After a few turns of chaotic fighting, the Byzantine command was demoralized, having lost several units in combat and another due to a required rout move. The decimated survivors continue to resist the odds; the Byzantine sub-general and his men were able to hold off three-times their number in a desperate contest. 

Over on the opposite flank, near the village, a savage back-and-forth battle developed, with one side gaining a bit of an advantage and then the other side clawing back that same advantage. Early on in this struggle, the Egyptian wing commander joined the melee. This turned out to be a costly mistake as the Byzantine sub-general was able to gather a few units and work his way around the left flank and rear of the occupied Egyptian leader. Attacked from the front, flank, and rear, the “cuneiform was on the tablet” for the Egyptian commander. He and the men in his squadron were overwhelmed. Dismayed but not officially demoralized by this development, the rest of the Egyptian charioteers fought on. In fact, they began to exert some dangerous pressure against the left flank of the Byzantine left wing. 

In contrast to the combats on the flanks, the fighting in the center was almost boring. The Byzantines were slightly hampered by the nature of the ground: they had to contend with a sand dune on their right as well as a minor depression in the middle of their line of battle. They also had to contend with a large number of Egyptian archers who preferred to stand off and loose volleys rather than directly face their enemy. Fortunately for the Byzantines, most of the initial volleys were tolerated; these initial barrages did not disrupt the overall line. However, as the distance closed between the two long lines, the Egyptians found the range and remembered their hours upon hours of training. In a matter of minutes, the Byzantine line was rather disorganized. Egyptian infantry followed up the volleys and attacked sections of the Byzantine formation. These troops were on the receiving end of a few arrow volleys, but the Byzantine archers were not as numerous nor as skilled (with the dice) as the Egyptians. The ensuing melees were confused and back-and-forth, much like those contests being fought on the wings. At the end of five turns, the Egyptians had a slight advantage in that they had broken 3 Byzantine “battalions” at the cost of 1 unit lost, but the Byzantine line was still intact. Plus, the Byzantine commanders had a cavalry reserve that they could call on. The Egyptian leaders had no cavalry, and if they committed the chariot squadrons they commanded, there was a risk of leaving the infantry and archers without direction. 

At the end of three more turns of fighting (i.e., of play), the scales were definitely tilting in favor of the Egyptians. The Byzantine right, even with a constant stream of sixes for its command rolls, was not able to stem the tide of the enemy Chariots and other troops along the shoreline. When Game Turn 8 was finished and the table tidied up a bit, it did not go unnoticed that there was just a single stand/unit of Byzantine Javelin Cavalry in this sector of the field. (Instead of a proper endnote, I will simply remark on the simple procedure found under Section 8.1 on page 43 of my spiral-bound 2008 copy of IMPETVS. One key sentence in this paragraph reads: “When a command takes 50% losses to its VDT (i.e., Total Demoralization Value), then it is removed at the end of the turn.” Of course, there will be supporters on both sides of this representation. And there will be those who advocate other procedures for handling demoralized or broken commands of a larger army. While the IMPETVS version is somewhat drastic, the command is on the field one turn and then “poof,” it’s gone the next turn, I find this a little more realistic or plausible than commands fighting to the last unit, to the last man.) Given this status of the Byzantine right, it would simply be a matter of time before the Chariots of the Egyptian left were to make a threat against or physical impact on the Byzantine center-right. This particular command had taken a few more losses in trying to deal with the Egyptians facing them. A quick accounting informed that this large Byzantine “division” was one point away from becoming demoralized. So, it looked very much as if the entire right side of the Byzantine deployment was going to “go away” or at least start looking in earnest for an exit. 

Ironically or coincidentally, over on the other side of the field/table, the Egyptian right wing had been routed. These troops (a mix of Chariots and foot) did not enjoy good command dice, and were very much impacted by poor melee dice. While many of these units did rout off the field, and their commander had been taken out of the equation around Game Turn 4 or 5, there was still an Egyptian unit stubbornly hanging on against all odds. Again, this development struck me as a bit unusual or unrealistic/implausible. I am not saying that it was not possible, I am simply commenting on the probability of it. (This might be a half-way decent subject for another post: studying to see how often troops stayed on the ancient, dark ages or medieval battlefield when common or military sense strongly suggested that they leave in order to live to fight another day.) 

The center of the field continued to be a bit of a “meat grinder” for both sides. Each army had two commands committed to the action in the center of the fictional plain, but by the conclusion of Turn 8, the Egyptians were managing the slugfest a little better than their opponents were. The troops of Pharaoh “Whatwashisnameagain” had lost 5 units compared to 9 units on the Byzantine side of the butcher’s bill. Furthermore, the Egyptians appeared to be in better control of this sector as they had more units around the minor depression as well as the advantage of numbers around the dune on the Byzantine right. The nature of the struggle and the initial deployment prevented the Byzantines from using their cavalry effectively. Indeed, the vast majority of these troopers simply sat on their mounts and watched the infantry lines engage in a series of vicious melees. 

Sensing that the Byzantine center would soon be in serious trouble, the decision was made to halt the proceedings and award a tactical win to the Egyptians. It had been a Pyrrhic kind of a battle, to be sure. A survey of unit losses and points informed that the Egyptians had taken 63 points worth of casualties (this tally included destroyed and routed units), while the Byzantines had chalked up 75 points worth of casualties. This record of damage was done to armies with an initial if also unusual starting strength of approximately 192 points. With regard to percentage of original numbers lost, the Egyptians were at approximately 33 percent, while the Byzantines were slightly higher at 39 percent. 

Evaluation

The large and officially incomplete ahistorical contest between Byzantines and Egyptians did distract and did prove to be something of a diversion. However and unfortunately, it appears that staging such a large contest close to the holidays was a mistake, but not a massive or unrecoverable one. Even though one of the stated objectives was to not place any more pressure on myself, it appears, ironically and funnily enough, that I managed to do just that.

Unfortunately, I cannot truthfully say that this particular solo wargame was, to use the words of Charles Grant, “hugely exciting and interesting.” The general idea has or had promise, though. Perhaps it was the nature of the terrain on my fictional battlefield. Then again, perhaps the problem or problems revolved around the deployment of the various component parts of the armies employed and the command of same. 

During the course of this abbreviated (i.e., comparatively rushed) project, I made a point of checking in with various wargaming blogs and forums just to keep current with the latest hobby news or keep tabs on what more accomplished and traditional historical wargamers were doing. During those several days, I could not help but reflect and wonder if this condensed counterfactual would have been a better experience overall if miniatures had been used. (I would have to look it up, but I recall someone on some forum suggesting that my time in the hobby would be better spent, that I would enjoy it more, if I were to “convert” or “conform” and employ traditional miniatures. Perhaps this suggestion or philosophy is a subject or topic for another post?) Along this same line of criticism or questioning, I wonder if the overall experience would have been more engaging and entertaining if there was an actual opponent or partnership for myself and an associate to face, to “do friendly battle with?” Admittedly, these two questions or comments are rather out of character given my long history of atypical historical wargaming and equally long history of solo wargaming. Even so, the points are worth considering . . . I guess. 

Steering this evaluation section back to something a little more concrete, it seems that I did not do that bad of a job in either role as commander of the Byzantine army or of the Egyptian army. (Opinions of readers will likely differ, of course.) Historically and from a purely wargame point of view, it made sense to place mounted units on the flanks and concentrate the infantry in the center. Given the necessarily abstract nature of combat in the rules used, I guess it was not surprising to see Chariots and units of Horse Bow engage in a “to and fro” kind of fight. Although each unit type has missile weapons, this “ranged combat” was only conducted when the opposing stands were in physical contact and the presumed missile exchanges were combined with the general melee process. (Another parenthetical: A similar engagement using the Armati 2nd Edition rules would see the Byzantine horse archers and Egyptian chariots making full use of their missile capabilities. The opposing stands/formations would be “letting fly” from a distance rather than moving in close and exchanging what could be called “point blank fire” or volleys. These rules would have also seen units from both sides becoming fatigued/exhausted as they continued to engage in round after round of close combat.) In summary, it seems that the action on the flanks was left to the dice, as it often or usually is in wargames, or at least in those that use dice to resolve combat. I could make the same general statement about the fighting in the center of this fictional field. 

Given the advantage the Egyptians held in units armed with bows and arrows, I thought the Byzantines would have been subjected to a fair number of turns of targeting and a fair number of casualties as well. This was not the case in the eight turns that were played, however. Yes, the Egyptian archers did make their presence known, but it was not as “loud” as I thought it would be. Again, this may be the result of my “generalship” or of the dice rolls. Instead of deploying the archers in groups of three or four units to concentrate their firepower, their volleys, I deployed them in “penny packets” between units of Egyptian infantry designed for hand-to-hand. The numbers of Egyptian archers did not prevent the Byzantines from using their numerous cavalry formations. This lack of use was the product of the Byzantine deployment and then of focusing on the action between the infantry lines and so, forgetting that there was cavalry that could have been used. Thinking about the lack of Byzantine cavalry involvement seems prudent, as archers have a pretty good melee modifier versus mounted. I knew that I had the “charge through” Battle Card for use with the Byzantine Elite Cavalry units, but I just never saw the turn where using that Battle Card could have broke things open for me as commander of the one army. Then again, this goes back to the initial deployment. Perhaps I should have grouped the Elite and or Javelin Cavalry in one or two places in the overall line of battle. This deployment reflection goes back to pre-game phases and the variety of ways in which a solo player might make things a little more interesting. Then again, this particular deployment question or concern could be easily resolved by engaging a friendly opponent across the tabletop.

In the interest of full disclosure, I ran into a couple of “hiccoughs” with regard to the order of procedures when it came to missile fire. A question was posted to the TRIUMPH! Forum and almost immediately answered by the resident experts. An electronic note was made, the relevant section of the rulebook read again, and the scenario continued with the clarifications available for reference/reminder. I do not believe that any side gained an advantage by my temporarily incorrect processing of this section of the game move sequence. Then again, there may have been an instance or two where one side lost, temporarily, the advantage of overlap in a melee situation. In the grand scheme of things, I do not believe these “hiccoughs” produced the Egyptian tactical win. I think this declared victory was the result of the Byzantine right wing being obliterated and the right-center of the infantry line being pushed very close to its demoralization edge. Then again, there is the point differential to think about: Byzantines losing 75 and the Egyptians losing “only” 63. 

So, overall, this contest was a success in that it offered a bit of distraction and diversion. As to whether or not this will become an annual “thing” or “event,” it’s a bit early to say. The idea has merit, even if it is somewhat derivative. I confess that I am still thinking about and struggling with those ideas mentioned at the outset of this post. Perhaps I might try the additional distraction and diversion of Ancients Britons versus Alexandrian Macedonians? But with a different set of rules. However, this seems like procrastination or an excuse for procrastination. Perhaps I might keep that aforementioned “pin” stuck in those aforementioned ideas and move on to something else a little less frustrating or problematic. Then again, it’s even money that in two weeks or so, another idea will come along or develop (very likely from perusing various blogs and forums) and that is where I will direct my energies, faculties, and resources (such as they are). 

Notes

1. One of the ideas concerned the 23 September 1459 engagement of Blore Heath. I could not make up my mind about how to approach it exactly. Should I attempt a mini-Battle Day, should I tinker with that idea and stage a modified Battle Day, or should I leave traditional wargaming alone and focus more on what research into this historical battle might suggest for the future of the hobby? Another project, more a collection of various if also previously established threads - not by me but by others, entertained the prospect of drafting another “paper,” similar to “The Ways of Wargamers,” in which I would attempt to knit together these threads into something coherent and worth consideration. Then there was my on-again, off-again “relationship” with evading or the evade phase as it is known in many sets of ancient wargaming rules. This unplanned idea or project came from “left field,” and developed a degree of traction after a series of exchanges in one of The Society of Ancients forums. Ideally, I should have liked to draft and then submit something for review by the newest editor of Slingshot, but further research was interrupted and then halted completely as other subjects fought for my attention. 
2. Paraphrasing MacArthur’s famous speech, this notable figure of the hobby “faded away” in 1979, but his impact, importance and influence have not lessened at all with the passing decades. For some idea of his contribution to the development of hobby of historical wargaming, please see: https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/research/19grant/; https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/7202318.Charles_S_Grant; https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/5559/charles-grant-i, and https://battlegames.co.uk/old-school-wargaming/.
3. The first sentence of the excerpt which I decided not to transcribe in full reads as follows: “It has become standard practice among ancient wargamers to fight completely speculative battles between armies which could never have met historically . . . this being made possible by rules postulating a sort of common denominator in tactics and weaponry.” This book was published in 1979. I do not know if the “practice” mentioned started during that calendar year or had been “in fashion” for some time. What I do know is that this practice is going strong today. One simply has to look at the excellent wargaming blogs produced by Tim, Phil, and Simon, to name just three. Please see: https://www.madaxeman.com/match_reports_index.php; https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2020/08/john-doukas-byz-his-time.html; https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-hail-lot-o-scots.html; https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2022/09/chalgrove-2022.html, and https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2021/09/chalgrove-2021-cheesy-indians-in-action.html. The evolution of rules is another topic worth serious consideration or at least on which an informal survey might be attempted. For just one example or question, how many rulesets for ancient wargaming have been produced and purchased between the years 1980 and 2022? 
4. The points value for a typical TRIUMPH! army is 48. Please see Part 1 of the Later Crusader vs Mamluk Egyptians ZOOM battle on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@triumphancientandmedievalw3229/videos. Player-generals may field two commands (96 points worth of troops), a double-sized game, or three commands (144 points worth of troops). For this “holiday event,” I gave myself an early present of building opposing armies that were valued at 192 points each.  
5. I found two New Kingdom Egyptian lists on Page C of the Biblical Section in the Armati 2nd Edition rulebook. I thought the list containing the “King’s Braves” and “Strong Arm Boys” had a bit more color than the less descriptive NKE list. The Byzantines, in the Triumph of Cavalry Section, were also quite colorful. Next, I looked over the lists found in my 3rd Edition copy of L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG. The Egyptians (Number 14 on page 89), looked similar to the Armati offerings; the Byzantines (Number 127 on page 149), also looked similar to the Armati list. Just for fun, I considered the respective selections provided in my PDF copy of the ‘Free Army Lists’ [updated 30/6/2020] for TO THE STRONGEST! 
6. Quite a few years ago, I happened upon a Christmas or New Year’s scenario for Armati that was generated by Steven Phenow. He used to be rather active on the Yahoo Armati forum. I see that his name is included under “developers” for the Armati 2nd Edition rules. I think one of my historical “what ifs” may have inspired his group to attempt something similar but only better. (This “what if” was about the Spanish Armada landing a bunch of troops on the shores of England.) Anyway, at one time, I think Steve used to put together an end-of-year game for his club and then offer the scenario to members of the now defunct Armati Yahoo Forum. I do not know if this gentleman is still involved in any capacity with Armati wargaming or wargaming in general.

 AETIUS vs ATTILA: PART 2

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a search of the TRIUMPH! Forum (please see https://forum.wgcwar.com/) informed that Châlons had been refought or staged many times and apparently, with great success. In a post made on December 17 of 2016, David Kuijt reported that Châlons had been presented at a number of conventions along the East Coast during the previous five months. Another David, this one having the last name of Schlanger, posted on July 19 of 2017 about the success of TRIUMPH! at Historicon. Châlons was refought (perhaps more than once, though I am not entirely sure), and the tabletop was well attended by player-generals. Evidently, the rules were well received. Unfortunately, a search of the ‘Campaigns and Battle Scenarios’ section of the Forum did not result in the discovery of any files or suggestions about how one might reconstruct Châlons with these rules. Disappointed but not dissuaded, I decided that I would attempt to put together my own scenario. I figured that I could make use of the free Army Lists found on https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. I also figured that I could make use of the detailed if also necessarily estimated orders of battle and other gaming notes provided by Simon MacDowall in his September 2010 Slingshot article. 

Orders of Battle - An Interpretation

In “The Battle of Châlons,” Simon guesses that there were around 40,000 men on each side of the Catalaunian Plains, with a slight advantage going to Aetius. Further, he suggests a unit scale which provides varying numbers or strengths depending on the troop type. Even though the TRIUMPH! rules do not describe, recognize, or set a traditional figure or unit scale, I decided, after some tinkering, to establish an approximate scale of one unit, regardless of type, would represent 600 cavalry or infantry. Being a fan of larger actions, I opted for the higher numbers provided in Simon’s orders of battle. To be certain, translating the language of Comitatus into the language of TRIUMPH! did present a bit of a challenge. Additionally, some of the free army lists found on  https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home did not include the exact types of troops or units that one might expect for that particular force. 

Simon started with the Army of Aetius, taking a look at the Visigoths first. This is where I started as well. To model the Visigoths under the command of King Theodoric, I prepared the following formations/units:

01 x Knights

01 x Javelin Cavalry

03 x Elite Warriors

11 x Warriors

03 x Bow Levy

Notes: 

1. Elite Warriors are not an established/recognized troop type in the TRIUMPH! “dictionary” of troop types. I was trying to depict Simon’s listing of “shieldwall infantry with exceptional morale.” I figured this new troop type would be worth 4 points, just like Elite Foot, and because of their fighting ability and spirit, have a +1 melee die modifier. 
2. King Theodoric would be riding with his Knights, of course, and confer a +1 melee modifier to this unit. The points value of his command added up to 59 points, which is 11 over the normal size/strength for a typical TRIUMPH! army. Theodoric’s men would become demoralized on losing 20 points worth of stands/units.

For the much smaller contingent under Thorismund, I fabricated the following formations/units:

04 x Javelin Cavalry

02 x Skirmishers

Notes: 

1. Thorismund would accompany a stand of Javelin Cavalry, adding a +1 melee modifier when engaging in combat. 
2. His contingent would become demoralized when it had lost 8 points worth of stands/units.

Using the established as well as approximate unit scale, there would be 15,000 Visigoths on my tabletop. 

Moving on to the Alans under King Sangiban, I built the following units (i.e., counters):

03 x Knights

05 x Horse Bow

Notes: 

1. King Sangiban would ride with a unit of Knights. Based on my reading, he and his troops were not all that capable or confident, apparently, so I decided that he would not get the usual +1 melee modifier for commanders. 
2. The Alan contingent would become demoralized when it had lost 25 percent of its strength, which translated into 8 points worth of stands/units.

Using the same unit scale, there would be 4,800 Alan cavalry present on my tabletop.

Turning to the Romans (and others) under the overall command of Aetius, I decided to prepare the following formations/units:

02 x Knights

03 x Javelin Cavalry

Notes: 

1. Flavius Aetius would be integrated into a unit of Knights. I went back and forth about his ability, finally deciding to award him a +2 melee modifier. 
2. His small contingent would have a demoralization level of 10 points, or 50 percent of its total strength. 

These approximately 3,000 horsemen would be under the direct control of Aetius.

For the Roman infantry (and other foot) under Avitus, the following counters were made:

01 x Javelin Cavalry

04 x Heavy Foot

04 x Warriors

08 x Heavy Foot

06 x Elite Foot

04 x Archers

Notes: 

1. Avitus would be attached to the unit of Javelin Cavalry and add a +1 melee modifier to its fighting ability. He would command half of the listed formations, so the strength of his contingent would be 48 points, the usual size of a typical TRIUMPH! army. As such, his command would become demoralized when it had lost 16 points worth of stands/units. 
2. His anonymous co-commander would lead an identical formation. It would also “lose heart” when it had suffered 16 points of casualties. Unlike Avitus or Aetius, this nameless commander would not have a melee modifier.                                                                                    

This would give Avitus (and another subordinate officer) just over 16,000 men to command and control.

For the approximately 4,800 Franks under King Merovech, I assembled the following formations/units:

01 x Elite Warriors

07 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. King Merovech would place himself with his Elite Warriors, obviously. He would confer a +1 melee modifier when those men were engaged. 
2. At 25 points of value, the Franks would become demoralized when they had lost 9 points worth of stands/units.

Aetius and his co-commanders would have roughly 44,000 men on the field. These would be represented by a mix of 73 units. 

Looking across the tabletop at Attila and his “alliance,” I started with the Ostrogoths. 

Instead of dividing the three brothers into distinct commands or contingents, I decided to combine Vidimir’s formations with his older and more experienced brother, Valamir. Their command was depicted in the following manner: 

02 x Knights

08 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. Valamir would ride with one unit of Knights; Vidimir would ride with the other. Only Valamir would provide a melee modifier of +1 to his troopers, however. 
2. This contingent would “lose heart” when 11 of their 32 points had been destroyed/routed.

Theodimir’s command consisted of the following:

05 x Knights

04 x Bow Levy

Notes: 

1. Theodimir would ride with a unit of Knights. As with his brother, Valamir, Theodimir would provide a melee modifier of +1 to his troopers. 
2. This contingent would become demoralized when 10 of their 28 points had been lost.

There would be roughly 11,000 Ostrogoths on my tabletop, then. 

Turning my attention to Attila and his formations, I prepared the following stands or units:

05 x Knights

16 x Horse Bow

This would place about 12,500 Huns on the table.

Notes: 

1. Attila would command 3 units of Knights and 4 units of Horse Bow. His melee modifier would be equal to that of his Roman counterpart, a +2. Attila’s men would become demoralized when they had suffered 50 percent casualites (i.e., 14 points). 
2. The other commands would each contain a unit of Knights and 6 units of Horse Bow. Perhaps one of these formations would be led by Ellac, but either way, each leader of these groups would confer a +1 melee modifier to his men. These formations would also “lose heart” after leaving half of their men dead or wounded on the field.  

Considering the Gepid contingent under King Ardaric and his subordinate Sigurd, the following formations or units were developed:

03 x Knights

01 x Javelin Cavalry

03 x Bow Levy

03 x Elite Warriors

16 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. King Ardaric would provide a +1 melee modifier. He would command all the Knights, the Javelin Cavalry, 1 Bow Levy, 1 Elite Warrior, and 4 Warrior units. His contingent would be valued at 34 points, so it would become demoralized when it had taken 12 points of casualties.  
2. Sigurd would be embedded with a unit of Elite Warriors. His formation would include 2 Elite Warriors, 2 Bow Levy, and 12 Warriors, giving it a strength of 48 points. This command would “lose heart” when 16 points had been removed from the tabletop.                                                                                                                                                                               

Almost 16,000 Gepids would join forces with Attila and his other allies. This would give the ‘Scourge of God’ an army with a total strength of around 40,000. In terms of actual formations on the tabletop, Attila would deploy 65 units. 

Terrain & Deployments

Before setting out the various contingents as depicted in the simple diagram provided on page 9 of that September 2010 issue of Slingshot, I made sure to breakup the “immense” stretch of dark green flatness that constituted my playing surface or battlefield. I arranged a dozen pieces of irregularly shaped/cut speciality paper, arts & crafts material, and colored cloth to represent different types of grass or slight variations in the nature of the plains. None of these inexpensive additions or decorations was classified as “proper terrain.” Again, these were simply used to provide some additional color to the larger battlefield. The only “real” terrain feature was the hill positioned to the left of the Ostrogoths. 

Early on a warm September evening, the reduced-in-scale opposing armies or alliances were deployed on my large (at least in some circles) tabletop. Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry are the two fastest troop types in these rules, with a movement rate of 8 MU. (One MU is the equivalent of half of the frontage of a troop base or stand, so if you are fortunate or smart enough to be using painted and based 25/28mm miniatures, then the stand would be 80 mm wide, so one MU would be 40 mm. With this scale, Horse Bow could move 320 mm or 32 cm in a turn.) I was employing units with a universal frontage of 30 mm, so one MU for this present project was 15 mm or 1.5 cm. Units of Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry, then, could gallop up to 12 cm each turn. 

The “terrain” arranged and “troops” arrayed for a full-scale refight of Châlons. This photo taken above the Roman & Allied right, showing the Visigoths at the bottom, the Alans (in purple) in the center, and then the Franks and the rest of the Romans going left or toward the top. The large and variously colored d6 are the command dice. The smaller blue dice are the combat dice, and the white dice are to mark the melee modifiers. 

A view from the Gepids sector, showing the size of Sigurd’s command. There are Huns to his left and the foot element of King Ardaric’s contingent is to his right. The “rulers” mark the approximate distance between the opposing lines. 

The final arrangement of the opposing armies or alliances was a poor facsimile of the diagram provided by Simon MacDowall in his 2010 Slingshot article. Starting way over on the Roman left, I placed Aetius and his small cavalry command. Next in line was an anonymous officer leading half of the Roman infantry as well as a few Saxon warriors. To the right of this formation was Avitus, commanding a duplicate body of troops. Continuing right down this “model” line, there were the Franks under King Merovech, the Alans under King Sangiban, and then the Visigoths under the King Theodoric. Thorismund and his detachment was further to the right, angled toward the single terrain feature of the battlefield. 

Shifting to a brief survey of Attila’s dispositions, King Ardaric and the Gepids held the right. The king and his horsemen were farthest to the right; his foot component was deployed to his left. Next was Sigurd’s command, a larger formation by comparison. Two commands of Huns were stretched across the center of the line. These fierce veterans were facing the Franks and a portion of the Alans. Theodimir’s command was next, followed by the contingent led by his two brothers. These formations would have to deal with Alans and Visigoths. A third unit of Huns was rather isolated, far out on the left flank of Attila’s army. These cavalry were tasked to counter Thorismund if not attack the right flank of the enemy line of battle.

A close up of the Roman left flank, showing the mounted formations under Aetius as well as part of the “long blue line” commanded by an anonymous officer. 

Across from Aetius rides King Ardaric and his Gepid cavalry. To his left, there are warriors and a unit of bow levy. 

How It Played

The first three turns of the battle saw both sides making a series of march moves as the command dice were very good all around. The Roman contingent advanced with some speed, choosing, evidently, to take the fight to the Gepids rather than wait for the enemy cavalry, warriors and bow levy units to approach. Over on the far left of the Hun line, the Visigoths under Thorismund “arrived the fastest but not with the mostest” (if I may adapt a nineteenth century military quote), and were able to wreck no little havoc on the larger numbers of Hun cavalry. The terrain advantage and excellent die rolls (compared to the abysmal rolls made by the Huns) saw the Huns forced back and then whittled away. Indeed, it seemed only a matter of minutes before the Hun commander in this sector found his unit assailed from the front and flank. Once again, the dice were not kind. He was mortally wounded and his men were routed. Sufficed to say, this negative development on Attila’s left flank was not appreciated. The luck of Aetius and his allies seemed omnipresent, as the first combat in the center of the broad field went to a couple of units of Alan light cavalry that managed to gain the flank of some Huns. 

In the interest of brevity and retaining the reader’s attention (hopefully), it seems prudent to describe or summarize the action of the next several turns by looking at the various sectors of the field. I will start on the far right of Attila’s line, with the cavalry command of King Ardaric of the Gepids.

The first melees of the refight happen on the Visigoth right/Hun left. The Hun horse bow come in second in the race to the crest and are forced to fight at a terrain disadvantage. It was hoped that their numbers would tell, would turn back the Visigoth tide. The first die rolls dash that hope into several pieces. Here, the white die behind each engaged unit is their melee factor or modifier and the color die is the melee roll. A score of 8 will always beat a score of 5. After double-checking the combat results tables, the Hun horse bow were moved back the depth of their stand/counter. 

The rapid advance of the Roman horse was met by the Gepid cavalry and a wild as well as back-and-forth melee developed. King Ardaric was in the thick of it, while Aetius and his unit stayed out of the melee until they could find an enemy flank upon which to fall. The Roman troopers proved quite stubborn, resisting the heroic efforts of the Gepid horsemen to overthrow them. Eventually, however, the balance tilted in favor of the Gepids and the surviving cavalry under Aetius were demoralized. While this intense cavalry contest was taking place, the Roman foot commands and the Gepid foot under Sigurd finally came to blows. 

With the advantage of fighting downslope and the more significant advantage of much better die rolling, the Visigoths under Thorismund have pushed the Huns back. Adding injury to insult, they have also managed to rout a unit of horse bow. 

The struggle between the opposing lines of legionaries and other heavy foot versus warriors and bow levy was slower to develop. The legions and other elements in the Roman formations proved their mettle though, as they either pushed back or routed units in the Gepid line. However, there were points in the general melee where the supported warriors were able to push back the Roman foot. To be certain, it would take much longer to reach a decision here than it did between Ardaric and Aetius.

Another photo of the initial contest for the hill . . . The Huns are in trouble, having lost another unit to a charge from the Visigoths. The Hun commander of this contingent is also threatened from the front as well as the flank. Again, the dice tell the tragic story. (Note: Javelin Cavalry shatter Knights if/when they outscore them in melee.)

In the center of the field, Attila and his Huns were facing a portion of the infantry under Avitus, the Franks under King Merovech, and the Alans under King Sangiban. The Hun cavalry, as might be expected due to their tactics, had some trouble contending with the solid formations of warriors. More often than not, the cavalry was pushed back or forced to evade from the various walls of shields and spears. Even when the light horse were able to attack the front and flanks of isolated units of enemy foot, success was not always guaranteed. This local action seemed to be turning into a battle of attrition. Shifting left a little, Attila and his heavier Hun cavalry had their hands full with King Sangiban’s Alans. This contest was back-and-forth just like the fight between King Ardaric and Aetius; this contest was even harder fought than that action on the flank. The Alans proved surprisingly tough in round after round of close combat. At one point in the chaotic ballet of fighting, Attila’s men nearly succeeded in cutting down King Sangiban, but the leader of the Alans escaped capture or injury. Fortunately, Attila’s men were soon reinforced by a number of Ostrogoth cavalry led by Theodimir. These horsemen were held up by some Alan horse archers, however.

An aerial view of a large portion of the field showing the general progress being made by both sides. The Romans have been jogging forward for some time, which made me wonder about drafting some kind of fatigue rule. The Gepids under Sigurd are slowed by the bow levy units in the formation. 

The Visigoths under Thorismund are striving to rout the Huns in this sector, but a terrible command roll is not helping their cause/effort. 

The “big red 1” hampers King Theodoric and his massed warriors. 

Unfortunately, the bad luck with the command dice continued with King Sangiban. Fortunately, the dice gods took pity on the rest of the commands and contingents under the overall leadership of Aetius. 

Over on the other side of the battlefield, in the area of the hill, not much was happening between the Visigoths under King Theodoric and Thorismund and the smaller force of Ostrogoths led by Vidimir and Valamir. Thorismund was still reorganizing his command after routing the Hun detachment, and King Theodoric was moving slowly or carefully towards the shorter line of Ostrogoth warriors.

Over the course of the next almost three turns, the battle was decided. This engagement would not be a stunning or sweeping victory for one alliance over the other, however. Instead, it would be a “win” based on one side doing more damage to the other but unable to fully take advantage of the occasion due to the setting sun which resulted in growing shadows and then darkness blanketing the field. 

King Sangiban makes a daring attack on Attila and his cavalry. The Alans succeed in “isolating” the Hun commander, but the dice fall in favor of Attila and King Sangiban and his men are pushed back in the swirling melee. (The white dice indicate the melee modifier. Attila had a +2 in addition to the KN value, but he was overlapped twice. The colored dice indicate the melee rolls made.) Note: The large purple die is the command pip die for the Alans.

Chaotic fighting continues near the hill on the Roman right and Hun left. Thorismund is finally able to catch a unit of Hun horse archers and deliver a knock out punch with the help of a flank attack. 

The Huns in the approximate center of the field have a tough time, initially, versus the various units of warriors. On occasion, however, their tactics of riding across the front of the enemy formation and raining arrows down on them produces a local victory. 

The contest between the Gepids with King Ardaric and the Roman cavalry commanded by Aetius is a “doozy.” Perhaps I should type “donnybrook”? The Gepids take an early lead by routing a unit of Roman horse, but the Romans prove very stubborn or is it lucky? In this photo, King Ardaric has the enemy Javelin Cavalry between a rock and a hard place, but the Romans managed to “flip” the die roll and the melee is a draw. 

The Hun horsemen continue to have trouble with the Franks and Saxons in the approximate center of the field. In this photo, a unit of Saxon warriors is attacked on three sides by a swarm of Hun light cavalry and still manages to prevail. 

A view of the Gepid sector, showing how far the Roman infantry have advanced. The command led by Avitus can be seen at the top of the photo; an anonymous officer leads the formation in front of the white die showing a 3. 

While Aetius continued to retreat with the skeletal remains of his cavalry command, his subordinate leaders continued to encourage their men in their contests against the Gepid warriors and Hun cavalry. Sigurd’s large contingent was battered and bruised by the attention of the legions and other Roman foot. Before King Ardaric could effectively intervene, Sigurd’s men were demoralized. 

A similar situation developed on the other side of the field, when King Theodoric and his warriors launched themselves into the thin line of Ostrogoths led by Vidimir and his brother. The melees raged back and forth, but the Ostrogoths could not stop the impetuous charges; they could not stand firm against the fierce attacks. Shortly after the morale of Sigurd’s command faltered, the men still standing with Vidimir became demoralized. This meant that half of the contingents fighting for or with Attila were now in a sorry state. To continue fighting against more numerous enemy formations with better morale would mean inviting certain defeat if not disaster. Even though he had participated in the savage combats versus King Sangiban and his men and had seen the leader of the Alans fall from his saddle (finally!), Attila knew that he could not turn the tide of the general battle with this localized victory. Orders were issued to couriers who galloped off in various directions to convey them to various commanders. Under the confusion of the ongoing struggle and with the assistance of the approaching darkness, the Huns and their allies broke off the engagement and retreated to their large and fortified encampment. 

Attila and his bodyguard are engaged in an extended melee with King Sangiban and his bodyguard. This was a back-and-forth battle. Here, Attila almost succeeds in routing the Alan cavalry and capturing or killing King Sangiban.

“Crunch time” between the Gepid warriors and Roman heavy foot elements. The Gepids did not fare well in the initial round of melees. 

After a few hard-fought turns, the cavalry contest between Aetius and King Ardaric is decided. With this successful flank attack (finally!), the cavalry contingent under Aetius is demoralized. 

After putting up a stubborn fight against Attila and his Huns. King Sangiban finally meets his end when some Ostrogoths from Theodimir’s contingent join in the wild melees taking place in the approximate center of the field. A unit of Ostrogoth cavalry is blocking the fall back area or space of the Alan cavalry. This is how King Sangiban is lost; this is how the Alans become demoralized and effectively open up a rather large hole in the center of the Roman position. 

Shortly after the Alans are demoralized, the Ostrogoths under Vidimir and Valamir suffer a sharp decline in their morale after being pummeled and pushed back by the greater numbers of Visigoths commanded by King Theodoric. Indeed, their position was threatened by Thorismund’s horsemen, who were beginning to envelop the left flank and potentially rear of Vidimir’s and Valamir’s line. 

Comments

The decision to end the game before an official decision was reached was based on a survey of the state of the tabletop conducted in the middle of the tenth turn. On Attila’s side of the field, one command had been routed and three were demoralized. His army had suffered the loss of 25 units (nearly 40 percent), which amounted to approximately 86 points by my calculations. The majority of casualties occurred in Horse Bow and Warrior troop types. In rather sharp contrast, Aetius and his alliance lost just 10 units and only had a single contingent demoralized when the contest was called. The Alans had effectively been broken, and their king had been lost. No major leaders in Attila’s army had been captured, wounded, or killed. Most of the losses for Aetius were concentrated in the Frankish and Saxon warriors. The legions and other Roman foot, while heavily engaged, carried themselves well. The total damage to the alliance forged by Aetius amounted to 36 points or roughly 13 percent of his total strength. Setting aside the basic math and numbers, I should like to move to a brief consideration of what did not go so well and those things that went okay. 

With the reflection that is afforded by 24 hours after cleaning up the tabletop, it seems to me that  melees involving knights depend more on luck than any other factor. Commanding small formations of knights, Attila and King Sangiban went after each other for several turns. The dice favored one side and then the other, often during the same phase. Enemy bodies of knights were forced to fall back and immediately pursued as that is what knights do under these rules. Given my long experience with another set of rules, it struck me as a bit odd or at least unusual that knights and especially the horses they rode on would not grow tired after successive rounds of close combat. I was also given to wonder why there was no degradation in unit effectiveness. After three or four turns of back-and-forth melee, one would think that there had been casualties, that a unit would not be as fresh or strong as it was when it first charged into a fight. Again, there seemed to be a fair degree of luck involved. On the other hand, it appeared that one could only assure an enemy unit’s destruction by moving a friendly unit behind it and thereby block its avenue of retreat. This, combined with an effective frontal attack, guaranteed the destruction of the targeted enemy unit. 

In a similar vein, I found it curious that an attack made upon the flank of a unit of Roman Archers was not very powerful. In this specific situation, a unit of Gepid Javelin Cavalry was able to fall upon the left flank of a unit of Roman Archers. According to my reading of the QRS, Archers have a +4 factor against Mounted while Cavalry have a +3 factor against Foot. As they were taken on the flank, the modifier for the Archers was reduced to +3. Given that the cavalry was coming at them from the flank, it seemed to me curious/odd that the factors would be even in the melee. Yes, archers have the ability to loose a volley or volleys at distance, but even when attacked by cavalry on their flank? The balance of factors did not seem quite right to me. 

While I was satisfied with the fact that I was able to fit this comparatively large battle on my full tabletop, I was still slightly disappointed with the fiddly sizes of the heavy foot (or HF) troop types. With the addition of the unit identification tag, I found the manipulation of these various units (Heavy Foot, Elite Foot, Warriors, etc.) to be a little problematic. To be sure, the small sizes employed did not significantly impact the wargame or my ability to play it for approximately 11 turns. The small sizes of many of the units/counters did result in a little frustration with keeping lines straight and commands intact. On further reflection, it occurs to me that I should have built my units/counters with a universal frontage of 40 mm. 

Turning from the negative or “needs some work” to the positive, the recently completed refight of Châlons gave me a little more confidence in my ability to use and understand the TRIUMPH! rules. Even though it was a derivative effort (based on the original work of others) and even though it was largely lacking in aesthetic appeal, this reconstruction of Châlons gave me another chance to revisit a place in the historical record and gain a little more understanding of what it may have been like, of how the actual battle might have gone if this or that variable had been slightly different. Additionally, focusing my attention on playing a turn or two a day or every other day and then taking some pictures and typing some notes, provided me with a break or an escape from daily concerns, stresses, and worries. Perhaps I am “scraping the bottom of the barrel” here, but with my counter-based approach, I was able to refight this historical battle at minimal cost. Thinking more about this topic, I find it interesting that in terms of identifying negatives and positives, it seems easier to list specific examples of the former while the positive aspects tend to be more general in nature. [1] 

Evaluation

The rules employed for these two refights are quite different, obviously. Painting with a very broad brush, the Armati rules are rather strict with respect to movement and combat resolution is based on unit breakpoint. Further, units engaged in melees will earn fatigue markers or points until they become exhausted. This condition or status will adversely affect their ability to fight. In contrast, the TRIUMPH! rules are less strict when it comes to movement. Resolving combat is more “black & white” than it is with Armati. Units do not track breakpoints or fatigue; they are either forced to fall back, evade, are destroyed, etc. Accepting these differences between the employed sets of rules, I thought the Armati set more realistic. Given my long history with these rules, this assessment might be indicative of a certain level of bias. 

As the first refight involved only two-thirds of each opposing alliance and the second refight employed entire orders of battle, an argument could be made that one would be comparing apples and oranges when judging the two tabletop contests. It’s a fair point. Perhaps I should have tried harder to figure out how to fit all of Châlons on my extended table with Armati. Perhaps I should have mirrored the Armati effort with TRIUMPH! and used just the Huns, Gepids, Romans, and Alans. At least in this way, I would have been able to prepare and play with slightly larger counters and thereby avoided the aforementioned fiddly characteristics of the smaller units.  

Looking at the results of each experiment, these were slightly different as well. The first modified exercise of Châlons using the Armati rules resulted in a Pyrrhic victory for Attila and his forces. The second refight resulted in a more historical result, I think, in that Attila’s army was rather damaged, essentially demoralized, and forced to quit the field. Both contests saw a lot of casualties suffered by the Huns and their friends, but the first was judged a win while the second was considered a loss. 

Looking back at the experience of refighting this historical battle with two different sets of rules, I would have to say that I enjoyed using the TRIUMPH! system(s) a little more than Armati. Some 48 hours after hostilities ended and the tabletop was cleaned up, I found myself thinking about ways—or if was even possible—to combine aspects of each set into a “new” set of rules. For example, I am wondering if it might be possible to combine the unit breakpoint and fatigue rules of Armati with the “outcome moves” listed in the latter pages of TRIUMPH! It’s something to think about and perhaps experiment with, I suppose.

In Part 1 of this report, I gave myself a grade of 79 or 80 out of a possible score of 100. As for Part 2, I think I did better, so I believe a score of 85, or perhaps even 86, would be justified. This gives me an average grade of 82-83, which is not that bad. (Would that I had done as well years ago on quizzes and tests in my Geometry and French classes! Mon Dieu!) Of course, that finite group appreciated and industrious readers who have taken the time to read and think about both installments of Aetius vs Attila may well have a different opinion and may even be moved to offer a comment or two. 

Notes

1. In the process of proofreading this second installment, I was reading a couple of library books for fun. One of these was, THINKING 101 - How to Reason Better to Live Better, by Professor Woo-Kyoung Ahn. Chapter 5 is titled ‘Negativity Bias,’ and it proved an interesting if sometimes uncomfortably too-close-to-the-truth read.