A QUEEN’S GAMBIT

According to Dio’s narrative, Queen Boudicca [1] “rode in a chariot at the head of an army of about 230,000 men.” [2] In his account, Tacitus did not provide an exact figure for the alliance assembled by Boudicca (except for the alleged and likely inflated barbarian losses), but he did report that “their numbers were unprecedented, their confidence was high, and the tribal warriors were disposed in bands of foot and horse, moving jubilantly in every direction.” [3] Supplementing the ancient authors with a modern, if perhaps a bit dated, but certainly colorful and impressive interpretation offered by Rick Priestley and colleagues (see the April 2011 issue of WARGAMES illustrated® [4]), I attempted to model this army of Ancient Britons on my tabletop using the Armati 2nd Edition rules. Instead of using the list found on page L of the included catalog, I drafted my “miniature” army from extensive ‘Tourney Approved’ listing offered on the Warflute site. (Please see http://warflute.org/approved_army_en.php  specifically, http://warflute.org/armies/ancient_british_tribal_army_luxor_army_t3.html ) 

The army of Queen Boudicca consisted of the following tribes and units:

Atrebates - 

Tribal Leader (General), mounted in a light chariot

1 unit of light cavalry

1 unit of light chariots (champions)

4 units of skirmishers (2 carrying javelins and 2 with slings)

10 units of warband-deployed in depth (1 of these classed as veterans)

Trinovantes - 

Tribal Leader (General) mounted in a light chariot

2 units of light chariots (champions)

2 units of skirmishers (1 carrying javelins and 1 with slings)

9 units of warband-deployed in depth (1 of these classed as veterans)

Iceni - 

Alliance/Army Leader (General) - Queen Boudicca, mounted in a light chariot

1 unit of light chariots (champions)

2 units of medium chariots (nobility)

3 units of skirmishers (2 carrying javelins and 1 with slings)

12 units of warband-deployed in depth (1 unit of veterans; 1 unit of champions)

Corieltavi - 

Tribal Leader (General) mounted in a light chariot

1 unit of light cavalry

1 unit of medium chariots (nobility)

2 units of skirmishers (1 carrying javelins and 1 with slings)

9 units of warband-deployed in depth

On the other side of the 6.5 by 3.75 feet tabletop, a “miniature” Roman force, under the overall command of Suetonius Paulinus, waited in complete silence and perfect alignment on elevated ground which was bordered on three sides by heavy woods. This modified collection of legionaries and auxiliaries was drafted from a list found on the Warflute site as well. (Please see http://warflute.org/armies/provincial_garrison_roman_100bc_-_100ad_mithridates_army_t3.html ) From far right flank to far left wing, the greatly outnumbered Roman formations included:

2 units of Auxiliary heavy cavalry

1 unit of Auxiliary LHI (light-heavy infantry with javelins)

1 unit of Auxiliary LI (light infantry with bows)

1 unit of Auxiliary LHI (light-heavy infantry with javelins)

2 units of Auxiliary FT (heavy infantry with pila and swords)

5 units of Cohorts - Legion XX (heavy infantry with pila and swords)

8 units of Cohorts - Legion XIV (heavy infantry with pila and swords)

2 units of Auxiliary FT (heavy infantry with pila and swords)

2 units of Auxiliary LHI (light-heavy infantry with javelins)

1 unit of Auxiliary LI (light infantry with javelins)

1 unit of Auxiliary heavy cavalry

1 unit of Auxiliary light cavalry

Looking at the command structure of the Roman army, Paulinus was the general, obviously. He was supported by several subordinates. There was a commander for the XIV Legion and another for the detachment of the XX Legion. There was also a commander for each wing of auxiliary troops. 

Picture A—An aerial view of the initial deployments, taken from above the Roman right wing. The green line at the bottom of the frame shows the edge of the heavy woods; a class of terrain not passable by either side. The straight lines and ordered ranks of the Romans and their auxiliary units are evident. They have the advantage of being deployed on a slight rise as well. The comparatively bald nature of the selected battlefield is also apparent. On the right of the frame, the massed British tribes can be seen. Their deep warbands are screened by a variety of skirmishers, light and medium chariots, and some packets of light cavalry. The leaders of the several tribes command from the front. The red, purple, orange and yellow markers stockpiled behind each army are for marking casualties, fatigue, wedge formation, and disorder or being “unformed”/“undressed.” 

Picture B—Another aerial view of the initial set up, this one taken from above the right of the assembled Ancient Britons. Again, skirmishers, light and medium chariots, and light cavalry screen the massed formations of tribal warriors. To depict the presumed massed formations of warriors (certainly not rigorously trained nor subject to strict discipline Roman troops, these hairy and painted fellows), the deep warbands are staggered to present a “bar graph” frontage. Across the expanse of flat and featureless terrain, the outnumbered Romans wait in very orderly lines on the second tier of a slight hill/ridge. Again, the various colored markers positioned behind each army will be used to track unit status and formation, etc. 

Picture C—Taken from behind the Roman legionary line, showing the “serried ranks” of Legion XIV. In addition to the legate, Suetonius Paulinus is present and leading the army from behind the relative safety of two cohorts of heavy infantry. The light green markers on each Roman unit represent the pila volley ability for this scenario.  

Scenario Notes & Special Rules

1. My interpretation of the terrain of this battlefield was based on the information provided by Tacitus (Ann. XIV. 34) as well as the wargamer-friendly diagram found on page 194 of Warfare in the Classical World. To be sure, my model battlefield was more abstract, simple, inexpensive, and correspondingly less visually appealing than those model battlefields found in other stagings of the Battle of Watling Street. [5] My model battlefield was functional however, and it would serve its purpose. 
2. In order to fit this refight—this interpretation—on my smaller wargaming table, I reduced the listed sizes for 15 mm Epic Scale Units by 25 percent. As a result, the deep British warbands would have a frontage of 3 cm and a depth of 9 cm and the Roman cohorts would have a frontage of 6 cm and a depth of 3.37 cm. 
3. For consistency, the missile ranges and movement rates were also reduced by 25 percent. 
4. Not every rule variant was utilized for this scenario, but the comparatively long list provided at http://warflute.org/playtest_rules_en.php was reviewed and several amendments were seriously considered. 
5. Legionary and auxiliary cohorts (not LHI or LI) could from wedges at the cost of half of their movement allowance. The wedge formation would provide a +1 melee modifier.
6. Roman units armed with pila will conduct a pre-melee volley against enemy formations. This volley is treated as normal missile fire resolution, even though it takes place just prior to the melee phase of the game turn. Targeted units will not have a protection modifier; this is a simple competitive die roll. If the targeted unit loses, then it must roll another 1d6. On a result of 1-3, the unit receives a Fatigue marker as well as a minus 1 of the first round of melee. On a result of 4-6, the unit receives a Fatigue marker only. 
7. British warband units and medium chariots have impetus, as per usual. However, the 2d6 impetus rule variant will not be employed in this refight. Further, if a warband or medium chariot unit defeats a Roman unit in the impetus round of melee, the Roman unit will not be broken automatically. It will be marked as unformed or disordered, and it will receive 2 casualty markers in addition to the fatigue marker given to units participating in a round of melee. 
8. Command and Control or divisional organization and deployment is an integral part of the Armati rules. In the case of historical refights, however, this important feature of the rules can sometimes prove a bit of a challenge. For this planned wargame, the Romans will have (enjoy) 3 light division control points and 8 heavy division control points. As for the British tribes, I think 6 heavy division control points and 11 light division control points should suffice. Opinions of those individuals with more experience and expertise with the Armati rules will vary, of course.
9. A count of the Roman units informs that Paulinus has 24 key units in his command. Given the circumstances and situation, the British will need to break or rout 11 of these key units in order to achieve victory. 
10. A survey of the several tribes present informs that the Atrebates have 11 key units; the Trinovantes also have 11 key units; the Iceni have 15 key units, and the Corieltavi have 10 key units. To win the battle, the Romans have to break 2 of the 4 tribes arranged against them. The Atrebates and Trinovantes run away when they have each lost 5 key units. The Corieltavi rout when 4 key units have been broken. Queen Boudicca’s tribe loses heart after 7 of their key units have been lost to the Roman war machine. 

How It Played—

Given the distance between the opposing forces at the start, as one might expect, the first few turns of the wargame were spent moving the mass of British warriors forward. The Romans won the move option or initiative on each of these turns, but deferred to the barbarians so that they could react to developments if needed. At the start of Turn 3, there was a volley of arrows loosed by the auxiliary infantry on the Roman right. These shafts had no effect what so ever on the enemy light cavalry unit that was their target. Queen Boudicca seemed to have in mind demonstrating and or threatening with various formations of chariots, along with some more missiles hurled or thrown by assorted screens of skirmishers. For their part, the Romans finally awoke from standing still and silent. The cohorts of legionaries and auxiliary infantry were moved forward to the edge of the ridge or hill. Over on the far left of the Roman line, the auxiliary light cavalry came down off the higher ground and skirted the edge of the woods. Evidently, they were hoping to get onto the flank or even behind the warbands of the Atrebates.

In the next couple of turns, the wall of British warriors advanced through their skirmishers, dispersing these slingers and javelin-armed youths. The vast majority of warbands did not contact the waiting Romans, however. On the flanks, the Roman light troops found themselves very hard pressed and in a few instances, unable to resist the attack of screaming tribesmen. Elsewhere along the line, squadrons of British chariots charged into the enemy line. There was not a “crush” or “narrowing” of the barbarian push or pushes forward, but there was enough room on the flanks for the Roman and auxiliary horse to move into flanking positions. On the Roman left wing, the unit of heavy horse came down onto the level ground and then conducted a complex wheel in order to get into a better attack position. A similar development took place on the Roman right wing. Here, however, a unit of Roman heavy cavalry engaged a stubborn unit of British light cavalry. To the enduring embarrassment of the Equites, they were repulsed in the first round of close combat. The chastised Romans were able to recover, however, and were able to break this bothersome enemy unit in a later turn. 

Picture D—Taken from above the Roman right/British left, this photo shows the several British tribes making their way across the open and flat ground before the Roman defensive position. As might be expected, the light and medium chariots as well as the “squadrons” of light cavalry have made faster progress and are close enough to “demonstrate” against the slightly advanced wall of Roman formations. The various tribal leaders are still in front of their collected warriors, providing a different example than the Roman officers, all of whom are positioned behind the orderly ranks of their units. 

Picture E—One of the first local contests of the larger battle. Over on the Roman right wing, their heavy cavalry moved off the elevated ground. One unit of heavy cavalry took on some brave enemy light cavalry who opted not to evade. The second unit of Roman heavy cavalry made for the vulnerable flank of the mass of advancing warbands. In the melee phase, the dice produced an embarrassing “bop on the nose” against the Roman horse. As the distance between opposing units had decreased by quite a lot, there was also an exchange of missiles in this sector. However, nobody was able to hit anything with javelins, arrows, or sling stones. 

Picture F—Action over on the Roman left flank, showing the warbands of the Atrebates and the Trinovantes making contact with or getting very close to the Roman line. The orange markers on the Roman units indicate that these cohorts have formed wedges, which will give them a melee bonus when they advance into contact. The light and light-heavy infantry of the Roman left face a large number of enemy warriors. These defending units have also taken some losses and earned some fatigued markers from the enemy skirmishers who have been dispersed by the wave of warriors. While the situation facing the Roman left looks grave, the Roman cavalry on the far left have managed to move off the slight ridge and move behind the occupied enemy mass. The yellow markers on the Roman units indicate disorder, as these units had to perform complex wheels in order to reorient themselves toward the now vulnerable enemy formations. 

Turns 6 and 7 witnessed more damage if not danger to the Roman flanks, as several warbands of the Corieltavi and Atrebates were able to defeat the light-heavy infantry arranged against them. Unfortunately, the pursuit moves took theses victorious warriors further up the hill instead of seeing them shifting to fall on the exposed flanks of the Roman heavy infantry. Most of the Roman cavalry units on the outside of these flank struggles were still trying to reform their disordered ranks before launching what were expected to be a series of devastating charges into the vulnerable flanks and rear areas of massed warbands. There was a single unit of heavy cavalry that did manage to redress, reform, and attack the flank of a slower unit of Corieltavi warriors. The result was rather damaging. The warband would not last long. 

To be certain, there was bloody and hard fighting across the rest of the field as the various tribes made their first and second assaults against the Roman infantry line. Almost at the same time, many of the cohorts had formed wedges and prepared to throw their pila before wading into melee with drawn swords and readied shields. In some cases, this offensive movement required the legionaries to leave the higher ground and meet the barbarians on the level plain. As it turned out, most of the pila volleys had no effect on the massed warriors. The wedges did much better, with the legionaries hacking, stabbing and skewering scores of crazed barbarian fighters who threw themselves at these special formations. At the end of Turn 7, a tally of losses was completed. The Romans had lost 4 key units. All of these were on the flanks, the result of warbands mowing down auxiliary infantry. (The leaders of the auxiliary infantry units were also caught up and killed in the pursuits.) To be sure, there had been casualties inflicted on the cohorts, but no units of heavy infantry had been broken. On the British side of this informal roster, the Corieltavi had lost 3 key units, the Trinovantes had lost 2 key units, and the Iceni, under the direction of Boudicca, had lost 7 key units. The strongest tribe of the alliance had its morale broken and so, per the scenario rules, had to withdraw. This left quite a hole in the British line of battle. The hole was made even larger when the Corieltavi joined the Iceni by running away after that exposed warband was finally defeated by the flanking Roman cavalry. With half of the tribal contingents beating a hasty retreat and especially with Boudicca’s contingent in a state of complete disarray if not demoralization, the battle laurels were awarded to Paulinus and his legionaries.

Picture G—Taken from behind the sector assigned to Legion XX, this photo shows the cohorts of this detachment in wedge formation and sacrificing the advantage of fighting on elevated ground in order to engage the enemy. In this specific case, these legionaries will do battle with warriors from the Iceni tribe. These fighting men have moved up through their screening skirmishers, but have not reached the enemy line. On the left of the frame, one can just make out the Iceni medium chariots engaging some other legionaries who did not leave the hill. Now that the fighting is about to begin, Boudicca has been moved behind her wall of warriors. Note: The white die shows the Initiative rating for the British alliance. 

Picture H—Another view from behind the Roman position being assaulted or challenged by the numerous Iceni warbands. The Iceni medium chariots are having a difficult time of it against a few cohorts of Legion XIV “supervised” by Paulinus. The struggling chariots are holding up a number of eager warbands. Meanwhile, to the right and left of this local contest, the legionaries have made contact with the large numbers of tribal warriors. The pila volleys have yet to be resolved. (Spoiler Alert: The Romans did not do very well in this amended sub-phase.) Again, the orange markers indicate cohorts formed into wedges. The warbands will still get impetus, however.  

Picture I—Taken before the last turn of the refight, this photo shows most units carrying red and purple markers which indicate casualties and fatigue. The Roman left (cohorts of the XIV) and a couple of auxiliary cohorts are heavily engaged with warriors of the Trinovantes and the Atrebates. As for the Iceni, well, their medium chariots have been routed by the Roman line on the top of the hill. This defeat resulted in some additional morale damage to the reinforcing warriors. In this sector, the dice were just not with Boudicca and her warriors. Ironically, her tribe was the first to reach its breaking point. This created a rather large hole in the British line. The Corieltavi were the next to collapse. This was due to Roman cavalry attacking the exposed flank of a warband, the destruction of this unit pushed the tribe to its determined breaking point. 

Comments—

In this reconstruction of Watling Street, history, or a version of history was repeated. Reviewing the specifics of the wargame, it appears that this refight more closely resembled the intensity, variety, and length of action narrated by Dio as opposed to the quick and clear-cut contest described by Tacitus. On further reflection, at least in as much as approximately 24 hours allows one to gain additional perspective, it appears that the wargame went fairly well. It played smoothly. That positive assessment noted, I did find myself wondering about the interaction of chariots and warbands during the tabletop action. While some might debate the distinction between light and medium chariots, I wondered about the operation of these vehicles; I wondered about their integration within the tribal contingents. It occurs to me that light chariots should be able to weave or wind their way through friendly formations, perhaps after paying a small movement penalty. The heavier medium chariots might pose more of a problem. In the recently concluded refight, the Iceni paid a steep price for following too closely behind some medium chariots. These vehicles went in against a line of cohorts and after a few periods of melee, were defeated. The Iceni foot warriors were in immediate reserve, waiting to add their weight and impetus to the melee. They could not do this, however. Instead, due to positioning and poor dice, about half of the warbands were broken when the surviving chariots routed away from the Roman line. In summary, I am wondering if there should be or should have been some sort of amendment drafted whereby warbands and chariots would operate in conjunction as opposed to moving and engaging in melee as two distinct formations or unit types. The mention of another rule amendment provides a nice transition to the consideration of the tinkering done for this refight.

In my estimation, the adjustment in unit dimensions and related changes to missile ranges and movement rates worked rather well. I also thought the scenario rules for Roman heavy infantry wedges and pre-melee pila volleys worked. Admittedly, they are not perfect and have not been heavily play tested and vetted, so this is just an initial assessment and impression. The same remarks can be made for the effectiveness of the modified impetus rule. The notes about command and control as well as the decisions made respecting army and tribal break points also seemed to work well enough. During the course of the solo wargame, I sometimes found myself thinking about the number of amendments that had been prepared. Were there too many? Then again, when it came to the cooperation of chariots and warbands, the relative inability to direct masses of deeply deployed warbands on to an open flank, and the similar challenge of shifting cavalry formations to fall on open enemy flanks or rears, I wondered if and or worried that I had not thought of or written enough special rules. 

On what I believe is a related note, the wargaming wunderkind Jon Freitag recently posted about refighting historical battles in miniature. (Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/01/refighting-history-in-miniature.html ) Jon’s post (inspired by another post) generated quite a few comments, as one would expect. Indeed, it is a rare day when one of his posts does not generate 40-plus remarks and replies. His thought-provoking post was picked up and expanded upon over on The Society of Ancients Forum. (Please see http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6633.0 ) At the risk of adding more to my already full plate (a subjective opinion, to be sure), I should very much like to comment on this referenced post and the generated discussion thread. At the risk of appearing to make an excuse, I think it might be too early in my long-term project to produce a decent amount of cogent and considered remarks. I am making mental and written notes, however, and do intend to respond—possibly—at length, at the end of these reports. [6] In the meantime, left me offer the following bullet-point “statements”:  

• this wargame refight was enjoyable and engaging
• the Armati rules and my amendments did a good job of recreating history on my tabletop
• I should have prepared more Britons, as it struck me as unrealistic for the Roman cavalry to be able to get on the flanks and even into the rear area of the massed warriors
• I hesitated to commit the Roman legionaries to battle. I wondered why troops would give up the advantage of higher ground in order to engage a much larger body of enemy troops. 
• It seems, at least based on my reading, that the pila volley should have a “ranged effect” or impact. That is to clarify: a volley of Roman pila (maybe 400 to 500 javelins) should always have some sort of effect on the targeted unit. This effect should be graduated and consist of 4 to 6 levels, ranging from “slight effect” to “devastating” for lack of any more definitive descriptions or terms. 
• Understanding the confusion of ancient combat, and understanding the problems with moving large bodies of troops, I still wondered if it should not be a little easier to shift troops on a tabletop. (Here, I am recalling the warriors on the flanks of the Roman line. These fighters simply pursued straight ahead instead of changing direction to where the fighting was still ongoing.) 
• The question of numbers still lingers. How can a Roman force, outnumbered, I estimate, by 3-to-1 if not more, stand up to such a massive attack and come out on top? Even though I can offer my own answer(s), I am still left to ponder this question and its variables. 

____________________________________________________________

Notes

1. There are a few spelling variations of this historical figure’s name. For this present project, I have opted for the double-consonant spelling. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
2. Please see the second part of Chapter 8 at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/62*.html Chapters 7 through 12 summarize the engagement, with quite a bit of attention paid to the speeches given by each commander. Chapter 12 of this narrative will be of the greatest interest and use to the interested historical wargamer as, in a very general way, it provides a Keegan-like outline of the course of the ancient contest.
3. Please see Chapters 33 through 38 at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/tacitus/annals/14b*.html Like Dio, Tacitus spills some ink and spends some time describing the motivational speeches made by the opposing leaders. In my opinion, Chapters 34 and 38 offer more wargamer-friendly material compared to the narrative provided by Dio. It is interesting to contrast each author’s version of how the battle was fought and how long it lasted. It is also interesting to compare the Roman casualties recorded by Tacitus in Chapter 37 against the reinforcements sent over from Germany in Chapter 38. 
4. “Boudica’s Final Battle” starts on page 66 and finishes on page 77. This colorful report is essentially an introduction to and a “how to play guide” for Hail Caesar. Although no specifics were provided, the large table employed (standing in a large room dedicated to the hobby) was, I  would guess, at least 12 feet long by 6 feet deep. I would estimate that hundreds of 25/28mm figures were deployed and manipulated by the 6 player-generals in attendance. In addition to the engaging and explanatory text, there was a baker’s dozen of splendid pictures included.  
5. For just several examples, please see: http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-battle-of-watling-street.html; http://oldbuckenham.blogspot.com/2013/05/battlelines-drawn-in-old-buckenham.html; http://johnstoysoldiers.blogspot.com/2011/07/battle-of-watling-street.html, and https://bucellarii.blogspot.com/2022/05/watling-street-6061-ad-strength-and.html If you type “Boudicca’s Revolt SALUTE” into a search engine, you will be directed to a short but spectacular YouTube video showing Simon Miller’s aesthetically pleasing and apparently nearly back-breaking staging of the Battle of Mancetter. (On this name, please see https://www.history.org.uk/historian/resource/10000/boudica-at-mancetter-the-latin-the-land-the-log) 
6. The original and rather ambitious plan called for a mini-Battle Day treatment of Watling Street. I would attempt, over the course of a number of months, to refight and report upon this historical battle several times. While I was able to complete the Armati iteration of this long-term solo project, the plan unraveled, or “the wheels came off,” about 3 or 4 turns into the L’Art de la Guerre (ADLG) attempt. I am not sure of the specific reason or reasons. It may have been a combination of setting up another Watling Street too quickly after the first reconstruction or another instance (universally experienced by historical wargamers, it appears evident) of “life getting in the way.” Then again, it may have been something simpler, such as the commitment required and long-term nature of a mini-Battle Day project. To be certain, I regret the development. If I had completed the original plan, perhaps even adding a couple more refights to make it a half-dozen and thus more like an actual Battle Day event, I would have had more data to draw on when I returned to the questions raised by “General” Jon in his thought-provoking post about historical refights.