BOUDICCA vs PAULINUS
Three experiments or scenarios were planned. The goal was to refight the Battle of Watling Street, or at least a few interpretations of that interesting historical engagement, using the TRIUMPH! and GRAND TRIUMPH! rules.
For the first contest, I essentially imitated the “ancient” effort made by John Sampson and his club mates. Instead of an asymmetrical tabletop battle using WRG 6th Edition rules and about 2,800 points worth of painted and based miniatures (presumably 28 mm scale), my engagement would feature armies of equal size or points value. As mentioned in the second sentence, I would be employing the TRIUMPH! rules. Furthermore, I would be wargaming this battle and the other two contests solo. As per usual, I would not be using painted and based miniatures of any scale. (The approach of a common heretic who is prone to type 47 words when 12 would suffice, I know . . . “but needs must.”) In their aesthetically pleasing place would be functional, inexpensive, and quick-to-fabricate color counters.
Watling Street - Refight 1
Map 1 shows how the terrain of my 6.5 foot by 3.75 foot table was arranged as well as how the opposing armies were deployed. Even though this was not a “Featherstone standards” refight, I did study the ancient narratives; I did review the diagrams found in Warfare in the Classical World; I did search for additional information in publications and texts at hand, and I made sure to consider multiple sources or interpretations found in an online search. The Roman order of battle was as follows: 2 units of Javelin Cavalry, 4 units of Elite Foot, 2 units of Heavy Foot, 2 units of Raiders, 2 units of Light Foot, and 1 unit of Skirmishers. Governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was attached to one of the stands of Elite Foot. On the Ancient Briton side of my comparatively simple tabletop, Queen Boudicca had mustered the following formations: 3 units of Rabble, 1 unit of Bad Horse, 3 units of Battle Taxis, and 10 units of Warband. The legendary personality of Boudicca was with one of the Battle Taxi units. (The army lists for the opposing forces can be studied here: https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e1e1af060017709831/explore and https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e1e1af06001770986a/explore The rules-oriented discussion boards can be accessed here: https://forum.wgcwar.com/ )
Maps 2 and 3 provide an overview of the status of the tabletop during selected turns of the scenario. To a certain degree, Maps 2 and 3 also provide a narrative of the engagement. The following summary is typed with the understanding that these sentences will probably not add anything of substance to these visual accounts.
Operating under the assumption that the Romans would not give up their terrain advantage, in the role of Queen Boudicca, I pushed my host forward, hoping to make use of the “shattering” effect Warbands have against units of Elite and Heavy Foot. Having rolled well for command pips, I thought I might prevent any spoiling flank attacks by directing my light cavalry and some chariots/Battle Taxis to deal with the Roman horse and auxiliaries. Unfortunately, on my right flank, I was stymied by poor die rolls. I only managed to involve the Roman cavalry, and did not succeed in destroying the unit or in turning this Roman flank. On my left flank, I engaged superior numbers that had come down from the higher ground. On reflection, this was a mistake. Sending a single unit of Warband over to help out was like trying to use masking tape in the hope of holding back a weakening dam. Even so, I did manage to take out one unit of Roman auxiliaries and I did keep a fair number of enemy units occupied.
As related in the caption for Map 3, my attempt to storm the Roman position did not go at all well. Initially, I sent forward the units of Rabble (i.e., slingers and or adolescents armed with javelins). These “formations” did nothing but annoy the solid line of legionaries. Again, knowing that the Romans would not come down “to play,” I ordered a general attack or charge.
As recounted, this uphill rush was stubbornly resisted and then severely damaged. While the final score was much in favor of the Romans, in the guise of Queen Boudicca, I did have the satisfaction of facing the Roman commander in battle and forcing his cohort/men to fall back.
However and unfortunately, this small personal victory did not translate into a larger general victory.
Comments
Even though I was not specifically trying to refight the Battle of Watling Street in this scenario, it appears quite evident that history was repeated. It also appears that the level of the Roman win more closely mirrors the description offered by Tacitus than the drawn-out struggle narrated by Dio. With regard to the look of the contest, I think I was fairly close with the terrain. Opinions will vary of course. If one follows the Tacitus account, from a wargaming point of view, it does not make a lot of sense to leave the higher ground in order to engage the enemy. If I had done this with my legionaries and auxiliaries, I would have opened myself up to the greater chance or chances of units of Elite Foot and Heavy Foot being shattered by the impetuous Warbands. Turning to a brief consideration of the orders of battle, even though I was using the largest unit sizes available in the rules, the Roman position was not covered in its entirety. Comparing my set up to the diagram on page 194 in Warfare in the Classical World confirmed this “worry.” As this was not a more serious attempt at a historical refight, the opposing armies were evenly matched in terms of points. While the strength of the barbarian alliance offered by either ancient author has to be “taken with a grain of salt,” on reflection, I suppose that I might have allowed the Ancient Britons to have at least twice as many points. That admitted, I wondered about the composition of the British used army in this scenario. Did I have too many Battle Taxi stands? Did I have too many units of Rabble? As this was more a wargame than an actual historical refight, I wonder if I should have deployed my Warbands and other troop types differently. Perhaps I should have concentrated the horse and “chariots” on one flank and made an effort to turn the Roman position. In this version of the contest, I would have reigned in the Warbands, only releasing them to support the sweeping flank attack(s) against the static Roman line.
Watling Street - Refight 2
For this scenario, I wanted to make sure that the Roman army filled or occupied the defile; I wanted to make sure that the Roman position was stronger. I started by checking the frontage of the functional hill located on one side of my smaller tabletop. Estimating that I had roughly 150 centimeters to work with, a unit frontage of 6 centimeters would give me (or Governor Paulinus), exactly 25 units to face the very large alliance forged by Boudicca. Coincidentally, if I were to establish a scale of 500 men per unit, then 25 Roman units would mean an army of 12,500, which is pretty close to the strength reported in the account written by Tacitus as well as near enough to estimates provided by modern authors. Using this same reasoning, it seemed appropriate to provide Queen Boudicca with 50 units, thereby giving her a numerical advantage for the planned wargame.
Map 4 shows how these larger armies were deployed for this second scenario. The terrain remained unchanged, and the Roman arrangement was essentially identical to that employed in the first battle. Paulinus placed his cavalry on the wings, his auxiliaries on the flanks, and his trusted veteran legionaries in the center of the line. Given that there were now 25 units instead of just 13 under the Roman commander, I decided to divide his small force into a “left” and a “right.”
On the left of the Roman line, under the direct supervision of Suetonius Paulinus, there were: 8 units of the 14th Legion (Elite Foot), 5 units of auxiliary infantry (3 units of Raiders and 2 units of Light Foot), and 1 unit of Roman horse (Javelin Cavalry). The right division or wing was led by an anonymous subordinate. This Roman officer commanded 5 units of the 20th Legion (Heavy Foot), 5 units of auxiliary infantry (3 units of Raiders, 1 unit of Light Foot, and 1 unit of Archers), as well as 1 unit of auxiliary horse (Javelin Cavalry). The command of Paulinus added up to 54 points (6 points over the usual size of a normal TRIUMPH! army), and the division of his subordinate added up to 38 points (10 less than the size of a normal army).
To add some color to this second scenario, I identified and organized the mass of Ancient Britons into three tribes. Obviously, Queen Boudicca led the Iceni. Her contingent contained the following: 4 units of chariots (Battle Taxis), 3 units of Skirmishers (slingers), and 11 units of Warband. The Atrebates were led by a fierce and veteran chieftain riding with a number of chariots. (This “figure” was on a stand containing Battle Taxis.) His contingent brought a unit of cavalry (Bad Horse, or pony-riding troopers with javelins but no melee weapons), 3 units of Skirmishers (slingers again), and 11 units of Warband. Rounding out the trio of allied tribes were the Corieltavi. These painted fighters joined the rebellion with the following: 2 units of chariots (Battle Taxis), 1 unit of cavalry (Bad Horse), 3 units of Skirmishers (one-third were slingers; the rest were adolescents armed with javelins), and 10 Warbands. Queen Boudicca had exactly 50 units in her army. The total point value of her force was 150. The barbarians outnumbered the Romans by 68 points. (This number, this difference was the equivalent of a basic TRIUMPH! army plus 20 points.)
Maps 5, 6, and 7 provide a visual record of how the tabletop battle proceeded. This solo wargame resulted in a second Roman victory, and if viewed through the lenses of the ancient narratives provided by Tacitus and Dio, this attempt at a reconstruction seemed to mirror the contest described by former historian. Admittedly, the Roman right wing was undone, but the main line held and the casualties inflicted on the Atrebates and the Iceni were significant. To be sure, the total of dead, wounded and captured was nothing close to 80,000. To be sure, the Romans did not pursue the defeated tribes all the way to the wagon laager and thousands of supporting family members and other non-combatants. A quick count of the “dead pile” did inform that 21 Warband units had been broken in a series of attacks on the legionaries and auxiliaries.
At the risk of providing redundant information (again, please see Maps 5, 6, and 7 for a visual narrative), the Romans waited for the tribes to approach. The only offensive movement was that conducted by the cavalry on the wings and some auxiliaries on the Roman right. The fighting began in a variety of areas; there was no coordinated rush of the Roman line by a mass of British warriors, chariots, and other troops. For quite a few turns, the opposing units of cavalry on the flanks of each army battled back and forth. Eventually, the dice gods decided in favor of the barbarians and Paulinus was stripped of all his mounted troops. His legionaries and about half of the auxiliaries were able to “take care of business” though, as they repulsed a couple of attempts by the enemy to take the higher ground and then started cutting apart a number of warbands. Turn 6 proved especially costly for the Britons, as 5 Warband units were routed.
For the majority of the action, the Romans and auxiliaries stayed on the higher ground. Even with this tactical advantage, the Iceni Warbands and Battle Taxis proved rather problematic. The Battle Taxis would charge in and be forced to fall back or evade. The next turn found them charging in again and meeting the same result. The Roman cohorts were frustrated by their apparent inability to break the chariots and their nimble as well as annoying crew. Paulinus was shocked on one or two occasions when he had flanked a unit of the horse-drawn vehicles and saw the melee dice indicate a tie. He wondered how the chariots could withstand pressure from two directions, and from legionaries as well. After some very hard and costly fighting, a couple of Warbands from the Iceni contingent were able to overcome the Romans and punch a hole in the legionary line. These local successes were not taken advantage of, unfortunately, as the subsequent command dice and subsequent melee rolls would not permit it.
The Roman left wing was the first to claim a sector victory after pushing the Atrebates passed their designated demoralization point. The Roman center followed by forcing Boudicca to withdraw, but again, it was a harder fight. Queen Boudicca ordered one final attack, but the impetus was not there and the results favored the legionaries fighting under Paulinus. To her dismay, she had to abandon a few Warbands in order to stay in control of the remnants of her contingent. The Roman right wing fell victim to the efforts of the Corieltavi. These tribal warriors proved themselves again and again in melees against a group of auxiliaries as well as some cohorts from the 20th Legion. They had not suffered as much as their allied tribes (they lost only 3 Warbands), and they almost turned the Roman flank. However, they could not make the day theirs with the majority of their fellow warriors running away. It appeared that their victory would come later, as they still had many Warbands intact. They would be able to make a convincing argument for electing one of their chieftains to lead the alliance, or at least what was left of it.
Comments
This wargame was, I think, rather more like a historical refight than a simple one-off battle. I think, generally speaking, the opposing forces were more accurate, at least in terms of numbers and perhaps even with regard to the types of troops represented. The course of the wargame, as referenced above, seemed to mirror the ancient narratives. The noted exception being the defeat of the Roman right by the Corieltavi tribesmen.
This seems as good a point as any to review the losses suffered by each side. The Romans lost just a single unit on their left wing and 2 units of the 14th Legion in the desperate fighting with the Iceni. Their right flank was essentially destroyed by the aforementioned warriors, losing a total of 19 points by the time or game turn the wargame was called. The Ancient Britons, in contrast, suffered even greater casualties. Both the Atrebates and Iceni lost 9 Warbands each. These tribes also lost 4 other units. The Corieltavi, however, only suffered the loss of 3 Warband units. If my sums are correct, these lost units add up to 75 points, which is exactly half of the points in the alliance Queen Boudicca launched against the Roman line of battle. Per the rules, then, the British warriors were defeated. While fairly decisive, this “miniature” victory was not even close to the alleged slaughter that took place on the day of the actual battle.
Generally speaking, I thought the rules worked well for this closer approximation of the historical battle of Watling Street. However, I did have a few questions or observations. In no particular order, these were as follows. On flat ground, Warbands have a +3 melee factor against Foot, while legionaries (depending on type) have a +4 or +5 melee factor. When the “higher ground” modifier is added, the Romans have a decent chance of slaying Warbands that charge in. Even if the result is a “fall back,” this opens up the neighboring Warband to worse odds, as these warriors are overlapped as well. With a “flipped roll” (meaning 6 for the barbarians and 1 for the Romans), there is a chance for the Warbands to “shatter” (i.e., destroy or rout off the board) the defending cohorts. As related in the brief summary and shown in the comparatively low-grade maps of the contest, this did not happen very often. Given this disparity, it would make a certain amount of sense, at least from a wargame point of view, to not rush headlong in attacks with Warbands against legionaries and other good infantry types when they hold the higher ground. It would make more sense to “work the flanks”; it would be a better tactical plan of battle to try to get around the solid as well as deadly Roman line. In the recently completed action, this was almost accomplished with the Corieltavi. While I could have advanced the other tribes and then just stood there demonstrating until one or both flanks were turned, this did not seem in character for a barbarian force. This plan would not have matched what the ancient sources appear to tell us about the engagement.
I found myself both impressed and frustrated by the Battle Taxi units employed by the Ancient Britons. The Iceni used these the most in the just completed wargame, charging in, being forced back, and then charging in only to have the results inform that the drivers of these light-weight vehicles needed to evade. No matter how hard they tried or how many times they tried, the Romans could not knock out these units. I wondered about this during a couple of turns. Then again, it was slightly entertaining, at least in the role of the tribal chieftain, to see the Romans roll so poorly when having all these advantages against my chariot formations.
There was a similar concern that developed during the last few turns of the wargame. The Iceni Warbands had made a breech in the Roman line and, as a result of command pips and movement, were able to “sandwich” a cohort of the 14th Legion. One Warband attacked from the front (a +3 for the Warband vs +5 for the Romans), while another Warband was able to take the cohort from the rear. (This reduced the melee factor of the Romans to +4.) Perhaps I made the attack incorrectly, but it does seem to me—and here I will reference, generally, some of the reading I’ve done about the devastating impact to unit morale and cohesion that rear attacks have on an ancient battlefield—that attacks into the rear of a unit, any unit, should stand a very good chance of succeeding. The Roman cohort in this specific instance was from the 14th Legion and so, was rated as Elite Foot. Evidently, being elite troops made them better able to stay in formation and keep their heads while they were attacked from two directions at once. I am curious to see how often this might happen in the next iteration of this historic battle. I am wondering if I should draft a scenario rule stating that rear attacks add a minus 2 or even minus 3 modifier to the melee factor of an engaged unit.
Watling Street - Refight 3
For this final interpretation of the historical battle, I decided to simplify the terrain even more. The hill or ridge on the Roman side of the tabletop was removed. (Another reading of the ancient narratives confirmed that there was no mention made of any higher ground occupied by the Roman formations.) I also removed the “woods” or indication of heavy woods behind the Roman position. A final adjustment was made by removing the played-no-part river or stream from the barbarian side of the table. The funnel shape of the battlefield, as least as formed by the thick woods on either side of the opposing forces, was left unchanged. Map 8 shows this “cleaner” battlefield set up as well as the initial positions of the respective armies. The Romans were arranged in a single long line. This deployment adhered to the description provided by Tacitus. With regard to the Britons, I “set my tabletop” with four tribes of warriors. On the left were the Corieltavi. To their right were the Atrebates. Next, came the Iceni contingent led by Queen Boudicca. The right was held by the Trinovantes. I went back and forth on the actual set up of these various tribes. Initially, I tried out a “mass” of Trinovantes, mixing the Skirmishers with the Rabble, placing the bad horse on the edges and then interspersing the Battle Taxis with the numerous Warband units. While the impression of an irregular barbarian formation was made, I thought that this “formation” might be challenging to handle on the tabletop. So, I rearranged the various units so that the Skirmishers and Rabble were together. I also placed the Bad Horse and Battle Taxis into a group. The Warbands were positioned in a 2-unit-deep line. (This formation did not give them rear support or add extra power to their initial charge or charges.) This general process was followed with the other three contingents. There were a few changes or exceptions. For example, in the Atrebates, the mounted elements were drawn up in the third line. With the Iceni, the numerous squadrons of Battle Taxis were deployed as the main line of battle, just behind the screen of Skirmishers and Rabble. This arrangement gave each tribe of Ancient Britons three commands or formations under one leader with a single command die. It was hoped that this arrangement/decision would reflect the historical command and control issues often experienced by barbarian or tribal armies.
History was reversed in this third and final refight. Instead of playing until victory (as described in the rules) had been achieved, I took what I thought was a more historical if not realistic view, and declared the battle over when the Roman center had been demoralized or overwhelmed by the Iceni Battle Taxis and the hard-fighting Warbands of the Atrebates. As with the previous efforts, the stages of the wargame can be seen and hopefully understood on Maps 8, 9, and 10. As with the previous refights, this contest followed, generally, the course of the historical action.
Comments
It was interesting to see history being rewritten as the last turns of this final solo wargame were played. On immediate reflection, it seems that it was more “dumb luck” or “simple luck” than brilliant tactics or leadership. A review of the combat factors when Battle Taxis and units of Elite Foot are engaged in melee will support that position.
According to the QRS, Battle Taxis have a +2 combat factor versus Foot units, while Elite Foot have a +3 combat factor against Mounted units. A review of the Results section of the QRS informs that Battle Taxis will evade if doubled by most Foot, so it appears to those relatively new to the rules that Battle Taxi units are hard to destroy. It occurs to me too late of course, that I should have tried to record that portion of the Ancient Britons’ phase of Turn 10 when the dice gods smiled (from ear to ear) on Queen Boudicca’s cause. If there are no other modifiers, such as overlaps or a general/leader present in the combat, a Battle Taxi unit will have to double the unit of Elite Foot in order to destroy it, in order to remove it from the tabletop. As stated above, a unit of Elite Foot versus Mounted has a +3 combat factor. In order for the Battle Taxi unit to have a chance, the Elite Foot unit has to roll a 1 on its melee die. This result would give the Elite Foot unit a score of 4. Now then, the Battle Taxi unit needs to roll a 6 in order to make an 8, which will double the Elite Foot score. As described in the caption to Map 10 as well as referenced in the short summary, Queen Boudicca enjoyed a nice run of luck when she attacked the Elite Foot of the 14th Legion on this pivotal turn. The initial success provided something like a “domino effect” for the other melees. The initial win and rout of a Roman unit improved the odds for the subsequent contests. Sufficed to say, it was both entertaining and interesting to see the dice on both sides fall they way that they did at this point in the refight. Shifting the focus from the particulars of melees between units of Battle Taxis and Elite Foot, I should like to comment on the deployment of the several barbarian tribes and how the arrangement of troop types impacted play.
Initially, I set up the Trinovantes as one giant mass of Skirmishers, Rabble, Warbands, and chariots (i.e., Battle Taxis). The front of this formation was uniform; it was a straight line. The rest of the formation looked like a kind of jigsaw puzzle. My thinking was that the Ancient Britons would “form up” in a rather disorganized fashion. My thinking was to try and imitate, within reason, the description provided by the one ancient author, who spoke of the barbarians moving in every direction. I figured that this deployment would better represent the nature of the tribal command and control as well as present me with the challenges of trying to command and control the different troop types making up the various contingents of warriors. Thinking it over for a day or so, I decided to revise the deployment of the Ancient Britons, and positioned them on my tabletop in the following manner. For all the tribes present, I placed a screen of Skirmishers and Rabble in the front. This “formation” was closely supported by either a block of Warbands (a double line of units) or a line of Battle Taxis with light cavalry escorts. The third line of the various tribal contingents consisted of either Warbands or chariots. This “reserve” depended on what troop types were drawn up as the second line or wave. This division of the tribes into 3 basic formations also provided for a fairly decent depiction of command and control issues, as each tribal commander had to roll a 3 on his or her d6 in order to move each formation or group. It was often the case where a 1 or 2 would result, and the forward progress of the tribal contingent would be hampered. This movement problem was brought into starker relief as the various tribes closed with the waiting line of Roman legionaries and auxiliary troops.
As might be expected and as history has often shown, Skirmishers and Rabble types do not usually do wall against heavy or even medium regular infantry formations. This happened more than several times during the recently concluded or decided refight. The “problem” of defeated troops evading and supporting units passing through came up several times as well, however. It was often the case where Skirmishers, Rabble, and Battle Taxis could not evade the required distance, as this would have placed the temporarily retreating unit on top of or in the middle of a friendly unit. My understanding of the rules (supported by repeated viewings of the relevant video tutorials) informs that the evading unit stops when a friendly unit is encountered. The evading unit does not have to move all of the required distance if there is not enough room. This is the opposite of the Rabble units that panicked after trying to fight the legionaries. These irregular and inexperienced units were destroyed. However, I found myself frustrated in a few attempts to come to grips with the Roman line of battle by the crowd of troop types positioned and fighting in the front lines. It was often the case that the Warband units could not “pass through” the screen of Skirmishers and Rabble to bring the fight to the legionaries and or auxiliaries. The same problem occurred with some of the Battle Taxi units. In other words, in the role of the barbarian leaders, I had quite a few troops but I was not able to coordinate or combine them to their best advantage. Looking at this historically, this challenge seems quite correct. It appears rather clear that, at Watling Street, there was a finite battlefield frontage and so, only a certain number of the Britons could be engaged at one time. Accepting this, one still has to wonder about unit endurance and fatigue as well as whether or not it was in the nature of Skirmishers and Rabble to hang around the fighting once the “big boys” got involved. (In these circumstances, I could not help but be reminded of my experiences with the Armati rules, which allow units of heavy infantry to disperse friendly and or enemy units of skirmishers that are in their way. Furthermore, these eliminated friendly skirmishers are not considered “key” units, so they do not affect the morale of the army. Under the TRIUMPH! rules, the loss of units of Skirmishers and Rabble has an impact on army morale. Admittedly, their loss is not as damaging as the loss of Elite Foot or Javelin Cavalry units, but still. It occurs to me, after the fact of course, that I could have addressed this “problem” with a scenario special rule.) Thinking more about this concern and experience, it is entirely possible that I made mistakes when deploying the various tribes for battle. Perhaps I should have combined the Skirmishers and Rabble with the Warbands and placed the Battle Taxis and pony-riding cavalry on the flanks?
Reviewing the course of this refight with the ancient narratives in mind, it seems that this wargame reconstruction was closer to the account offered by Dio than it was to the account provided by Tacitus. That said, the tabletop action was not as long as the Dio battle, and it did not appear to have as many of the identified categories of combat. Reviewing the “casualty piles” after the contest was called, it appears that the losses suffered by each army/side were pretty close. However, it has to be remembered that the assembled tribes of Ancient Britons had greater numbers, so they could absorb more damage before their morale cracked. On the Roman side of the tabletop, the auxiliary formation on the right of the line came through without a single unit lost. Their friends on the left of the line took 12 points of damage. They lost all of their cavalry along with a unit of Raiders. The Roman center, under the direct command of Paulinus, was valued at 50 points. When the dust cleared, I noted that 2 units of Heavy Foot from the 20th Legion and 4 units of Elite Foot from the 14th Legion had been lost. This added up to 22 points, which was more than one-third of this formation’s total strength or point value. As related above, the Roman center was demoralized and a subsequent command roll did not help matters. The Roman center was well and truly broken. On the other side of the ledger, the warriors from the Atrebates contingent suffered the most during this “miniature” engagement. They accumulated 22 points worth of damage, which was just one point away from their morale breaking point. The casualites to the other tribes were: 6 points against the Corieltavi, 5 points against the Iceni, and 5 points against the Trinovantes.
Evaluation
To a degree, I suppose that this TRIUMPH!-centered project could be viewed as a kind of compensation for the failure of the mini-Battle Day effort referenced in “A Queen’s Gambit,” which was posted to this blog on 05 March. Then again, an argument could be made for looking at and critiquing this “triple play” on its own merits, without comparing or contrasting these wargames to the one played with the Armati rules. A brief review would suggest that while three solo wargames were staged and played either to a rules-determined end or to a “historical” end, only two of these contests (the second and third games) would probably meet the criteria of a proper historical refight. In these two contests, history was repeated and then it was reversed. As detailed above and in the maps for the final staging, this reversal was due primarily to the dice rolled by both sides. So, at the risk of wading into a semantic discussion, the third scenario was not, at least in a narrow sense, a historical refight, since the Romans lost. Here too, there is room for additional debate and discussion. For example, if the wargame had continued until an official, rules-determined winner had been declared, would that victor have been Paulinus or Boudicca? In other words, could the auxiliaries have been incensed by the rout of the Roman center, and so doubled their efforts on the wings, and subsequently defeated the Warbands and other troops in their sectors? Opinions on this “what if” will vary of course, but that particular question strikes me as more “game focused” than “history focused.” To be sure, I realize that there are at least a few historical examples of an army winning the battle after its center had been broken or defeated, but it seems to me that these examples are comparatively rare. These examples are the exception and not the rule.
At the end of “A Queen’s Gambit,” I referenced a couple of blog posts wherein the subject discussed as well as debated was historical refights. (Again, please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/01/refighting-history-in-miniature.html as well as http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6633.0 ) Providing an excuse, well . . . of a sort, I refrained from delving into this very interesting topic and instead, offered a number of simple bullet-point comments. If the reader will permit me, I should like to use the rest of this final section to tackle or attempt to tackle the previously deferred topic. With regard to format, it makes sense I think, to answer or again, try to answer, the serious questions raised by “General” Jon Freitag and then reiterated by Anthony Clipsom in his analysis and remarks. Given this intention, it seems justifiable to shift from the paragraph structure to answering each question as if testifying before a congressional panel or sitting at a conference table for a team interview. (Neither of these experiences strikes me as synonymous with comfort, and the reader will note that the exact wording of some of the questions has been changed and a new question has been added.)
What was my desired goal in refighting this historical battle?
While there was a plan, and there was a purpose behind said plan, I do not believe that I had a specific “desired goal” in mind or even codified for these three historical refights. I did not have an objective of proving that the Britons could have or should have won, nor did I have the objective of arguing about the misinterpretation of the nature of the terrain by many other historical wargamers. I knew that I was running low on my reserve of articles/reports ready for posting on the blog, so perhaps my goal was as simple as preparing more material for followers and readers. I knew, too, that I was curious to see how the selected rules would handle the “stresses and strains” of staging a historical refight.
Did the choice of rules matter?
Yes, the choice of rules mattered. The challenging part of this question is to weigh or decide how much the choice mattered. As of this typing, I can say that I have refought the Battle of Watling Street five times employing three different sets of rules. Do I or did I have a favorite or preferred set based on this handful of experiences? That’s a difficult question, too. I am inclined to answer or point to the Armati rules and my amendments, but that assessment might be unfair given my relative lack of experience with IMPETVS and TRIUMPH! Perhaps Jon will host a Zoom version of Watling Street at some future date? I have no doubt that his post about the game would generate 40-50 comments if not more. Perhaps the gentlemen over at The Washington Grand offices might stage a traditional refight of this historical battle and post it to the TRIUMPH! YouTube channel? I see that Simon Miller staged a version of this battle at SALUTE 2019. His games were certainly more visually impressive than mine. His games were also better attended. So, by these metrics (a mix of objective and subjective standards), the choice of rules certainly mattered.
In my Armati version of this historical engagement, I decided to draft scenario rules regarding the use of wedges by the legionaries and auxiliaries. I also put together something to cover the pila volleys. These were aspects of the battle reported on by Tacitus. I considered doing something similar for the TRIUMPH! scenarios, but thought that this additional “chrome” might complicate the process. A review of the combat factors for Roman infantry and barbarian warbands informs that there is a pretty decent advantage on the side of the Romans, so providing for additional bonuses might skew the melee process too far. On further reflection, it appears that I could have saved myself some of this concern and worry by choosing a set of rules that already provided for the wedge formation and effects of a Roma pila volley. The Hail Caesar and Tactica II rules spring immediately to mind. However, my limited experience with each set has taught me that they are rather dice-heavy. Also, the Hail Caesar rules seem more social, meaning that several player-generals as well as an umpire are needed for a decent wargame. Then again, this impression may just be the result of reading a fair number of engaging battle reports wherein these rules were used.
Did the type of game matter when viewed along the “Game vs Simulation spectrum”?
(Slight groan . . .) Another difficult question, as I fear my lack of knowledge regarding the current thinking on this particular and serious topic will be very apparent and thus subject me to the “slings and arrows” of more informed readers. That phobia aside, I checked my old copy of Merriam-Webster as well an online dictionary for working definitions, so that I could have some sort of foundation, however tentative.
All three of these refights qualify as games, as a board, playing pieces, dice, and rules were used. All three of these refights were games as there was a winner and loser, even though each contest was played solo. As I related earlier in this post, the first refight was more of a game than historical refight as it was more of a normal or typical TRIUMPH! wargame than a concerted effort to recreate history on my tabletop. The second and third refights would have a place on the right of this spectrum or graph, as I was trying to simulate the historical battle. Rereading this answer, I have a feeling that I am flailing about a little, so I will grab on to an imagined life preserver found in “General” Jon’s January 31 post. He talked/typed at length about multi-player games and what he does as host or umpire to encourage or drive the historical action or narrative. He also discussed some problems areas wherein compromises (for the sake of play, time, schedules, etc.) might have an impact on the “historical framework.”
As a solo wargamer, I guess I benefit from not having to deal with and or worry about these variables. At the same time, I fully acknowledge that it’s very difficult to recreate the “fog of war” as an individual commanding both sides or “role playing” a handful of leaders on the tabletop, as I know what everybody is supposed to do or will do. Returning to the three games played, the first was a “warm up” for lack of a better description. It was a refresher on the rules, a practice scenario on how units moved and fought and reacted. The second and third games were larger, obviously, and more concerned with simulating history or my current interpretation of it. This interpretation or understanding might be called a success, as two reports were produced. However, did the rules truly allow a historical refight to occur? Did my actions as both Roman and British commander allow history to be repeated? At the risk of repeating myself, I think back to the game or wargame aspect of keeping to the higher ground as this has many advantages, as opposed to the historical narratives which appear to report the Romans moving out or down to meet their foe.
How did I handle or not handle the constraints of time, space, figures available, numbers of players, and so forth?
Many of the aspects of this question do not apply, as I am a solo wargamer who does not make use of traditional figures when he “plays at war” on his tabletop. That said, I think I handled the listed constraints or challenges fairly well. I will admit that it would have been nice to have a few player-generals in attendance for the third and final refight. The Ancient Britons had approximately 100 units on the table. Simple math informs that over the course of six turns, I had to measure for and move almost 600 units! This logistical “problem” could have been better handled by enlisting a player to command and control each tribe. Along these same lines, I might have asked three people to take charge of the Roman left, right, and center. Then again, as Jon and others mentioned or intimated in their comments and remarks, if I had invited six or seven people to walk down Watling Street with me, then the chieftain of the Atrebates might have found himself a little bored while be watched his fellow chieftains and queen roll their command dice and move their units.
Where did my recreation start?
As this question was posed by Anthony but inspired by Jon’s post, I had to go back and study the components of the query. To the extent that I was able, in all three scenarios or refights, I should like to think that the force selection was historically accurate or as close as I could get. The same could be said for the terrain, acknowledging that I made a major change in the look of the battlefield between the second and third refights. The Roman deployment was based on my understanding of the historical sources and what the modern scholars have determined. The composition and arrangement of the various tribes was conjecture on my part. I did make an effort to glean what I could from the ancient narratives as well as draw from some other sources. I am not sure if I was or if I felt constrained by the set up of each scenario. I knew that in the role of Paulinus, I wanted to survive the onslaught and hopefully break the barbarian host. In the role of Boudicca and her subordinate chieftains, I knew that I wanted to overwhelm and destroy the Romans.
I do suppose it might be an interesting exercise to allow the Roman commander to deploy as he wishes. The legionaries could be posted to the flanks or even held in reserve while the auxiliaries bear the brunt of the fighting. I am not sure what else could be done with the mass of tribal warriors and their supporting units. I do suppose that a counterfactual could be explored wherein the terrain is not designated as impassable and so, some warbands might be permitted to attempt a flanking move against the Roman line of battle.
Related to this question, I should like to explain when this recent interest in Watling Street started. The idea or inspiration stemmed from reading Chapter 10 (The Death of a Queen) in Nero: Matricide, Music, and Murder in Imperial Rome, written by Anthony Everitt and Roddy Ashworth. (For a review, please see https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/60406066)
Were the “Featherstone Guidelines” employed?
Quoting, once again, the common sense approach promulgated by one of the “founding fathers” of the hobby, at the bottom of page 10 of Battle Notes for Wargamers, Donald Featherstone explained or instructed: “To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces.”
As I am not aware of a confirmed and accepted-in-academic-circles location for this historical battle, my model terrain was an interpretation of the available source material, or at least the source material that I secured and studied. If, at some time in the future, Watling Street was selected for The Society of Ancients Battle Day, I would be very curious to see how the game organizers set up their tabletops. I wonder if the majority of games would feature Romans on a hill, or if the terrain focus would be placed on the defile. As is often the case in historical battles featuring Romans versus barbarian peoples, there is more wargamer-friendly information available about the strength and composition of the Roman formations. In these three refights, using the “sliding scale” of the TRIUMPH! rules, I think I did a fairly good job of modeling the Romans. The strength and composition of the British tribes remain a series of question marks. That much admitted, I still think my interpretation of the ancient sources was reasonable. While none of the refights were replicas of the account provided by Tacitus, there were all engaging and enjoyable experiences in their own right. At the risk of appearing like I’m advocating or campaigning for Watling Street to be the selection for Battle Day 2033 or 2034, again, I would be very interested to see how many Ancient Britons (and in what scale) game organizers might paint and bring to the event.
Sources
In no particular order, here is a fairly comprehensive listing of the sources I considered, read, reviewed and or studied for this post.
The narratives of Tacitus and Dio were found at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/tacitus/annals/14b*.html and http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/62*.html. With regard to the Tacitus translation, I find Chapters 34 and 37 wargamer-friendly as well as integral to setting up a refight of the action. Chapter 38 provides some interesting after-the-battle information. To be sure, a paper or separate post could be typed comparing and contrasting the speeches given by the opposing generals. It seems that both Tacitus and Dio spend quite a bit of ink relating these pre-battle talks to the troops. With Dio, Chapter 12 is the most informative. Interestingly, this chapter contrasts sharply with the former author’s account of how quickly the battle was over.
I confess I was a little surprised to find so few articles about Boudicca in copies of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. In over 340 issues of this read-around-the-world publication, there were just four articles, and one of these was a two-part effort. “The Wedding of Boudicca,” by Ivan Withers (Australia), appeared in the July 1980 issue. It was an interesting read. I would never have thought to make a wargame out of a wedding ceremony. The reporting by John Sampson was much more useful. His two-part “Wargaming Boudica’s Revolt,” appeared in the May and July 1981 issues. I found the second half more engaging than the first. I was tempted to track down Graham Webster’s 1978 book, Boudica, The British Revolt Against Rome AD60. The final Boudicca-related article would not be published until March of 2002, when Ian Storer submitted “Boudica and the Rebellion of the Iceni: An Interpretation” for subscribers and other readers.
Digging through my little library as well as my collection of other wargaming magazines, I regret to inform that the “work” did not result in the discovery of a lot of treasure. Of course, there was the wargamer-friendly if question-generating coverage found in Warfare in the Classical World. Additionally, the references to Boudicca and her revolt in the pages of Adrian Goldsworthy’s The Roman Army At War 100 BC—AD 200, were helpful. Even though it was approximately 100 years before the contest between Boudicca and Paulinus, I found reading about Caesar’s invasions of Britain in Caesar - Life of a Colossus, another Goldsworthy book, helpful as well. In the April 2011 issue of WARGAMES illustrated®, there is a lengthy and picture-packed report showing how Rick Priestley’s Hail Caesar rules and John Stallard’s wargame room were used to recreate a large and colorful battle featuring Boudicca and her warriors versus the legions of Rome. This was not a strict refight of the historical engagement, but it certainly looked spectacular, and according to the report, those present had a very good time.
Turning to material available on the internet, well . . . typing a few key words into a search engine will return hundreds if not thousands of results in the blink of an eye. To save the interested reader some trouble and a little time, let me offer the following links. For general background knowledge, I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Suetonius_Paulinus; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudican_revolt; https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Watling-Street, and https://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/celts_32.html If the interest is gaming approaches to Watling Street and Boudicca’s Rebellion, then, and in no particular order, here are several blogs worth a visit: http://johnstoysoldiers.blogspot.com/2011/07/battle-of-watling-street.html; http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-battle-of-watling-street.html; https://bucellarii.blogspot.com/2022/05/watling-street-6061-ad-strength-and.html, and http://oldbuckenham.blogspot.com/2013/05/battlelines-drawn-in-old-buckenham.html I also stumbled across a couple of YouTube videos that might be of interest. The first, with a running time of just four minutes, offers the viewer a very brief period with the friendly voice of Simon Miller and his spectacular if also nearly back-breaking SALUTE 2019 demonstration game of The Battle of Mancetter. Of course, his popular To The Strongest! rules were being used by the engaged player-generals. The second, with a running time of nearly 80 minutes, is a less visually stunning game; it’s more of an instructional presentation or a tutorial. (There is also a black cat!) This Storm of Steel production is a play test of the Watling Street scenario as offered in the newly released Strength & Honour rulebook. Readers with the proven ability to persevere might be interested in looking at my 2013 attempt to refight this historical battle using the IMPETVS rules. (Please see https://lonewarriorswa.com/the-governors-gamble-aar )
As this ”research” was undertaken for a simple blog post and not for a dissertation or a book, I did not do as much reading as I could have and probably should have done. For example, I did not secure the Osprey Book about Boudicca. (Please see https://ospreypublishing.com/uk/boudiccas-rebellion-ad-6061-9781849083133/ ) Nor did I make a concerted effort to obtain a copy of Margaret Hughes’ 2020 book, Boudica at Mancetter: The Latin, The Land, The Logistics. (For a review, please see https://www.history.org.uk/historian/resource/10000/boudica-at-mancetter-the-latin-the-land-the-log ) Finally, I suppose that a certain amount of chastisement or heckling is in order, as I did not purchase or otherwise secure four of the five books on this historical figure that were recommended by Richard Hingley. (Please see https://fivebooks.com/best-books/boudica-richard-hingley/ )
No comments:
Post a Comment