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.