A TINY CRUSADE

Drawing an appropriate amount of inspiration from the two-part video of a friendly Triumph! wargame played over Zoom which featured Later Crusaders versus Mamluk Egyptians (please see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMiqEZjn1w43ZN1ox_JXWw), I decided to attempt something similar. My derivative battle would be larger as well as smaller. It would also be atypical or non-traditional, in that it would follow the “radical philosophy” espoused by what I have taken to calling “the Perkins School of Wargaming.” [1] My imitation scenario would be larger in that I would field armies three times the size of those traditional miniature forces employed in the Zoom meeting/wargame attended by two remote player-generals and umpired by a fellow who set up the battlefield and troops (under the direction of the distant commanders), rolled the dice, and moved the various units. This knowledgable and talented gentleman also acted as audience, providing commentary and remarks as the wargame progressed. My fictional engagement would also be smaller in that the universal frontage of my representative bases, stands or units measured just 25.4mm or one inch. This modification of the listed base widths and depths provided in Appendix A of the rules allowed me to set up on a tabletop measuring 60 inches by 30 inches. Given the unusual size of the representative formations, there was more than enough space left over. As an additional bonus, this particular table was in a spare room, so I could wargame the engagement at my leisure without worrying about having to clear the tabletop for other uses. Anyway, let me move onto a brief description of the terrain and a somewhat longer description of the orders of battle as well as opposing deployments. 

The Field and The Forces

The terrain of my tabletop bore a faint resemblance to that used in ‘Go Meek Into The Desert - 260 AD,’ a Romans vs Sassanids scenario presented in glorious color along with engaging text on pages 138-143 of the Hail Caesar rulebook. There were several gentle hills or elevations along with the requisite sand dune. I also had a patch of scrub and a small area of rocky ground. There was some greenery and a water source, in other words, an oasis. Most of the terrain features were for decorative purposes only, and would have no impact on movement or melee. A few features were similar to those listed in the relevant section of the Triumph! rules, and would, therefore, interfere with movement and melee, etc.   

With regard to the opposing forces, these were selected from https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home, and consisted of two 144-point (approximately) armies, one being Later Crusaders, obviously, and the other, of course, being Mamluk Egyptians. If some readers like to have a time frame or specific year for additional context, let us say that this fictional engagement is taking place (or took place) in the early summer of 1260 AD (CE). 

In brief summary, the respective orders of battle were as follows. The Later Crusaders would field 14 units of Knights, 3 units of Horse Bow, 12 units of Heavy Foot, 3 units of Spear, 6 units of Archers, and 2 units of Bow Levy. The Christian men-at-arms would have the “Charge Through” Battle Card. The Crusaders would not have any camp or pack train on the model field, however, as it was estimated that they had marched some seven miles from their base of operations looking for their sworn enemy. For the Mamluks, they assembled 9 units of Elite Cavalry (all with the “Shower Shooting” Battle Card), 9 units of Horse Bow, 5 units of Javelin Cavalry, 5 units of Bow Levy, 2 units of Light Foot, 2 units of Rabble, 2 units of Skirmishers, 2 units of Warband, 2 units of Horde, and 2 units of Artillery. This army of alleged heathens did not set up a camp or improvised stable of pack animals and etc., as they were also some distance from their established and guarded water supply, surrounded by carefully positioned as well as quite numerous tents. 

As for details regarding deployments, I shall start with a look at the Crusaders. On their left, there were 3 units of Horse Bow positioned as a screen ahead of 4 units of Knights. Behind the right-most unit of men-at-arms the sub-general in command of this division was stationed. Extending to the right from the Knights were the following troop types: Heavy Foot, Bow Levy, Spear, Archers, and another unit of Heavy Foot. The Crusader left was worth 48 points. The center of the Christian army consisted of two lines. The first was an infantry formation containing: Heavy Foot, Archers, Heavy Foot, Archers, Heavy Foot, Archers, and more Heavy Foot. Six stands of Knights were arranged behind these melee and missile troops. These heavy horsemen were aligned with the left of the infantry. The overall commander of the Crusaders rode with his Knights behind the second-to-last unit on the right of this line. There was a gap between foot and mounted, as the depth of the Archers formations did not allow a clean or connected line of deployment for the Knights. The value of this central command was 52 points. (Technically, this strength is four more than the rules as written allow.) The right division of the Crusaders was also set up in two lines. The infantry, in front, consisted of 2 units of Heavy Foot, Spear, Archers, Heavy Foot, Spear, Archers, 2 units of Heavy Foot, Bow Levy, and another Heavy Foot. Four units of Knights were stationed behind (but not in contact with) the subset of the infantry line containing Spear, Archers, and 2 units of Heavy Foot. The leader of this command was with the left-most unit of Knights. This wing had a value of 48 points. 

Some distance across the model field of battle, the Mamluk left was situated. This formations consisted of the following troop types (from left to right): 3 units of Horse Bow, Javelin Cavalry, 4 units of Elite Cavalry, Javelin Cavalry, and 2 units of Horse Bow. The sub-general in charge was with another group of Elite Cavalry and was positioned behind, and in contact with, the several units of Elite Cavalry in the center. This corps was worth 48 points. The Egyptian center contained all of their foot elements. Starting on the left of this line and working to the right, there were: Skirmishers, Light Foot with Rabble immediately behind, Artillery with Horde immediately behind, 2 units of Bow Levy, Warband, 2 units of Bow Levy, Warband, Bow Levy, Artillery with Horde directly behind, Light Foot with Rabble in support, and then another unit of Skirmishers. The general of the Mamluk army was riding with Elite Cavalry and deployed himself behind the Bow Levy units on the right side of this mixed formation. The point value of division was 46. The right wing included the following (described left to right, again): 2 units of Horse Bow, 2 units of Javelin Cavalry, 2 units of Elite Cavalry, and then an attached column of 2 units of Horse Bow and 2 units of Javelin Cavalry. The commander of this mounted formation was located behind the Elite Cavalry. These various cavalry units added up to 44 points, so the whole of the Mamluk army was valued at 138 points, 6 less than the Later Crusaders. (Ideally, the Egyptians should have had an equal number of points, but I let this imbalance slide as I figured it was not all that often that historical battles occurred with opposing armies of exactly equal strength.)  

Picture 1 -

This photo was taken from behind and above the Egyptian center. Three terrain features can be seen, The oasis should be clearly visible. To the left of the oasis is one of the gentle hills that dotted the landscape. The feature under the left side of the Mamluk center is not an official feature at all; it was just something to break up the flatness of the arid landscape or desert-themed cloth that was draped over the smallish tabletop. The Egyptian center command stretches for just 13 inches, a little over one-fifth of the table length. The command is made up of 18 bases or units. The troop type is printed on the color counter for ease of reference and to assist play. Some counters have additional wording which indicates Open Order or Close Order. The yellow dots on the units of the central Egyptian command identify them as units in the central command. These markers separate the center from the units of the left or right wings. 

Picture 2 -

Another photo taken from the Egyptian side, this time over the left wing command. Additional terrain features can be seen. Again, some are recognized by the rules, so will have an effect of movement and melee, etc., and others are just for decoration. A portion of the opposing Crusader line of battle can be seen as well. The Mamluk left was an all-cavalry command. The division was identified with purple markers. The Elite Cavalry had a second marker, informing the player-generals (i.e., reminding me) that these bases or units had the Shower Shooting ability or Battle Card. 

Picture 3 - 

Looking down the battlefield/tabletop from the Egyptian right, Crusader left. The patch of rocky ground to the right of the Mamluk right wing is visible. The majority of the fictional battlefield is flat and open ground. On the Crusader left, the Turkopoles have formed a fairly solid screen for the Knights of this Christian command. 

A Summary of the Action

Given the size of the opposing units in relation to the size of the tabletop battlefield, the focus of the first several turns of the action was dedicated to movement. Having wings that were all-mounted forces and enjoying better command dice than the Crusaders, the Mamluk cavalry were able to trot forward at a fairly decent clip. However, the center of the Egyptian army and all of the Crusader commands were hampered by slow moving troop types such as Artillery, Horde, and Bow Levy. In a matter of minutes, both sides had exhausted their March Move options in order to make a little more progress with their respective foot elements. 

First blood on the day went to the Mamluks over on their right. A small group of Crusader Turkopoles decided to test the enemy and, over the course of two rounds of melee, wound up losing two-thirds of their strength. The surviving unit of Turkopoles proved quite stubborn, however, fighting off two successive attacks where the numbers greatly favored the Egyptians. In this same sector, Crusader Knights were charged by some Syrian Javelin Cavalry along with a unit of Royal Mamluks. This first round of close combat saw neither side gain an advantage. 

Over on the Crusader right wing, the infantry line was preparing for an attack by the enemy. The supporting Knights had shifted further to the right in order to counter the threat of some daring Mamluk Horse Bow. As related above, the slow centers of each army were still quite far apart. However, the Crusader center formations were watching with interest as the situation developed to their left.

Picture 4 - 

Staying on this side of the tabletop, the Egyptian right wing (identified with the green markers) has split into two groups and advanced against the Crusaders (dark blue markers). In response, the Christians have pushed their Horse Bow units forward. The combined line of foot and Knights (and Bow Levy) marches forward slowly. 

During the next three turns, the opposing centers drew closer, but were still well out of arrow range and the range of the primitive artillery drawn by animals and slave labor. It appeared that a fair portion of the Mamluk foot would be blocked or at least hampered by the oasis. Meanwhile the contests on the respective right and left wings heated up to a boiling point. 

The Crusader left and Egyptian right struggled mightily with each other. Opposing cavalry units charged and fought, regrouped and did it all over again. The Crusaders reached their morale tipping point first, but with an excellent command roll, were able to stay in the chaotic melees. Two units of Knights were able to contact the Mamluk sub-general and his unit of Elite Cavalry on the front and flank. In an almost too-close-to-call melee, the Christian Knights prevailed. With this local victory, they had pushed the Egyptians past their breaking point. The disorganized and wounded units remaining in this sector of the arid battlefield were all demoralized now. 

Picture 5 -

Still on this side of the battlefield, the action has developed between the Mamluk right and Crusader left. The Turkopoles have been much reduced, while other Egyptian horsemen engage the more numerous Knights. The other part of the Egyptian right approaches very near to the waiting line of Crusader foot. 

Picture 6 -

Shifting position to the other side of the tabletop, the Mamluk Horse Bow are trying to turn the Crusader right. The small reserve of Knights have shifted over to prevent this envelopment. The main line of Egyptian cavalry trots forward, targeting a section of the Crusader infantry. The far left of this Crusader line of battle wheels to the right, hoping to put pressure on the local Egyptian flank. 

Picture 7 - 

Looking down at the “mess” on the Crusader left. The Christian units are demoralized. (There are black markers placed behind the affected formations.) Their Knights are all over the place. The Egyptians are rather disordered and damaged as well. 

The Crusaders making up the right wing of the army proved their mettle and to be more than a match for the flailing Mamluk formations. The Christian Knights held the enemy Horse Bow in check, pushing them back and pursuing the annoying horse archers. The Christian foot formed several solid lines in the sand and advanced against the Mamluk horsemen, forcing them to adjust their positions. In several sharp contests, the Christian units managed to get the upper hand and rout their opponents even though they lost a few of the melees. With his flanks rather cut to pieces and his center at risk of being flanked on its left, at least eventually, or of being pierced and destroyed by the powerful contingent of Knights in the Crusader center that had yet to lower its lances and charge, the Egyptian commander conceded, issuing the orders for his central command and surviving formations to retreat.

Picture 8 - 

Returning to the other side of the field, where the Crusader right wing has had success against the Egyptian formations. The surviving Mamluk bases are demoralized as well as rather dispersed. However, the slower moving Crusaders cannot hope to catch up with the faster and fleeing Egyptian cavalry. This photo also shows the centers of each army still some distance from each other. In fact, they would not cross swords or spears on this day. 

Worrying that I might have ended things too quickly (the solo wargame ran for just 7 turns), I played another turn the morning after a subjective decision had been reached. As related above, the Crusader left and Mamluk right were mere skeletons of their former strengths. The desperate and chaotic melees continued. Each side managed a good command roll, which permitted them to move a fair number of units (that were within the reduced command radius) into contact with the enemy. In the subsequent melee rounds, the dice deities abandoned the Egyptians. They had managed to engage a unit of Knights (help from the Crusader center) from the rear as well as from the flank. The Crusaders rolled high and the Egyptians rolled low. Their attacking units were forced to pull back. Over on the other side of the tabletop, a similar event took place. The Mamluk division was demoralized and most of its surviving formations were making a bee-line for the friendly long edge of the field. A poor command roll allowed a last gasp attack against the Crusader sub-general and his Knights on this flank. Once again, the Crusader die came up better than the Mamluk score, and the charging Elite Cavalry were forced to recoil. These final reverses on the flanks reinforced the determination made some 18 hours prior. The day and the field did indeed belong to the soldiers of Christ. It had been a hard-won victory, however, given the terrible condition of their troops on the left wing. 

Comments & Evaluation 

The accompanying pictures show the various stages of the contest between the Later Crusaders and the Egyptian Mamluk forces. Referencing the short op/ed piece mentioned in the footnote, a correction is in order. For this solo effort, little colored card stock rectangles were employed rather than “little cardboard squares.” Further, at the end of his second paragraph, Jon Perkins explained: “The effect is as if you were fighting with a movable coloured battle-plan, which in effect you are.” Based on this, the following question or questions  about my effort might be raised: 1) Was this a wargame? 2) Was this a historical wargame? 3) Was this a historical miniatures wargame? 4) Where does this kind of approach belong or fit on the wargaming spectrum? If the reader will permit me to attempt to tackle the questions in order. 

Yes, I believe or would argue, in a civil manner, to be sure, that this was a wargame. There were two opposing armies; there were dice and measuring devices; there were tables and modifiers; there were terrain features and there was a PDF of rules that was consulted when something needed to be checked or clarified. There was pretend fighting or interaction between formations and units of the opposing sides, and units were destroyed in this abstracted combat or routed off the model field of battle. 

The recently completed action was also a historical wargame. It was set in the year 1260 AD (CE) and featured two likely opponents: Later Crusaders and Egyptian Mamluks. At the same time, the actual armies were not based on any period sources or narratives, and the terrain was not based on period maps of certain regions. This much admitted and accepted, I still think this solo project counts as a historical wargame. 

Without question, this was not a historical miniatures wargame, as no scale of miniature Knights or Horse Bow figures or Bow Levy models were employed. Ironically, I did rely on rules for historical miniature wargaming. 

In the single page article submitted by Jon Perkins just over four decades ago, the gentleman “senses the conventional wargamer turning away in disgust,” and imagines that “many people will probably regard this [approach or method] as heresy.” I would not be surprised, but would be a little disappointed, to find that the mind set, opinion, and view has changed little if at all since 1980. That minor disappointment set aside, it seems to me that “wargaming with a movable coloured battle-plan” would be far to the left on the historical wargaming spectrum. I have not attempted any thorough research into this position nor have I studied the large amounts of data that might be available from 10-15 years of The Great Wargaming Survey, but I would venture that three-dimensional board games such as COMMAND & COLOURS ANCIENTS would be to the right of this functional as well as economical approach. Moving further to the right, I would hazard a guess that the wonderful paper soldiers produced by Peter Dennis and other skilled artists could find a place, maybe not general acceptance, but a place. To the right of these various approaches or methods catering to various periods of history, I think one would find the “miniatures” offered at https://wofun-games.com/. For more information about these 10mm, 15/18mm and 25/28mm “figures,” please see https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=4. The far right region or side of this figurative historical wargaming spectrum would be reserved for the traditional 3-dimensional, dare I remark sometimes chunky, miniature models that require an amount of preparation before they can be painted, finished, mounted on terrain-flocked bases or movement stands and then stored in plastic bins, or drawers attached underneath purpose-built wargame tables, or carefully arranged on shelves in display cabinets.  

Taking a figurative breath and taking a step back from the larger and possibly more philosophical issues of wargaming, I should like to offer a few comments and remarks about the recently completed and reported upon action. 

The terrain, such as it was, added some color if not atmosphere to the proceedings. Curiously, there was no fighting at all inside of or over any of the features. There was some potential for a clash in the oasis, but as related above, the action was concluded before the opposing centers could enter and contest this more verdant than the rest of the plain ground feature. 

The troops, such as they were, were functional but also a little fiddly. The tiny size of the Heavy Foot and Spear units sometimes made movement tricky and caused a few challenges in keeping the lines of the larger formations and groups orderly and straight. This project or experiment proved that such a reduction could be achieved, but on reflection, I think it might be easier to fabricate and use bases or stands with a 40mm frontage. Not only would this address the fiddly quality of the tiny stands (and me being all thumbs at times), but this minimum base size would allow me to include combat values on the base, stand or unit, so that I would not have to check the QRS as frequently. Employing larger representative units would also make command or division assignment/recognition easier. 

The contest was a fairly simple and straight forward affair. Neither side had any detailed plan of battle save for moving forward, engaging the enemy, and hoping to defeat them. The Mamluks, on reflection, had a basic plan or intention of enveloping the Crusaders by winning on the wings. Unfortunately, they were not able to carry this out. In the aftermath of the battle, I wondered if I should have kept the Mamluks together, so that all three commands would have joined in the fighting. I also wondered if I should have drafted a completely cavalry force to go against the Crusaders. As for the plan(s) of the Crusaders, they were also interested in moving forward and engaging the enemy. Given the better rate of movement and initial command rolls made by the Mamluks, the Crusaders often found themselves reacting to what the enemy was doing instead of controlling the tempo of the engagement. As to the specifics of the contest itself, I was not that surprised to find the Crusaders were able to stand up to and in most cases resist the charges of the Egyptians. I did find it odd, however, that on a few occasions, Christian units attacked from front and flank or front and rear, were able to resist and even push back their attackers. On a related note, I found it ironic as well as humorous that neither side made use of their Battle Cards. At no point during the wargame did the Christian Knights execute a ‘charge through.’ Similarly, at no point during the action did any Mamluk Elite Cavalry unit employ ‘shower shooting.’ It seems quite likely that in the heat of battle, I, as general of both forces, completely forgot about these Battle Cards and tactics. 

Let me end this final section with some number crunching. In surveying the damage inflicted by both sides, it was noted that the Crusader left wing lost the following units, either through destruction in melee or from routing away: 3 Horse Bow, 3 Knights, 2 Heavy Foot, 1 Spear, and 1 Archers. This added up to 38 points out of an original strength of 48 points. The Crusader center suffered no losses at all, though one of its Archers units was subjected to ineffective long range Artillery fire. Over on the Crusader right wing, the following units were placed in the “dead/routed” pile: 2 Heavy Foot and 1 Bow Levy. Adding these 8 points to the casualties from the left produced 46 points, which was approximately 31 percent of the Crusader army. With regard to the Egyptian casualties, coincidentally, both their left and right wings suffered the loss of 7 cavalry units each, a blend of Horse Bow, Javelin Cavalry, and Elite Cavalry. The Mamluk center was not damaged. In point of fact, this heterogenous formation was a thirteenth century cannonball away from being attacked by any Crusader formation. In contrast to the Christian commands, which did not see any leader fall in battle, the Mamluk sub-general of the right division was killed in the action. In terms of percentage of casualties, the 56 points lost by the Egyptians represented approximately 41 percent of their army’s original strength. (Correction! The Elite Cavalry with ‘shower shooting’ were worth 5 points each, not the usual 4, so the total casualties amounted to 60 or perhaps 61 points. This means that the Mamluks lost 44 percent of their strength.) 

In conclusion, it would appear that the Crusaders are on something of a distantly-connected roll. The Zoom wargame which inspired this larger as well as smaller scale contest resulted in a win for the Later Crusaders. They eliminated 17 points of the enemy against 9 points of losses. I checked the end of the Hattin refight just to be sure, and the Crusaders rewrote history there, defeating Saladin and his mobile forces. This most recent wargame, albeit a non-traditional one, though I like to think that Jon Perkins would have approved if not appreciated it, also saw the Crusaders victorious. So the current overall score is 3-0 in favor of the Europeans. More than enough reason for a rematch. Best of seven, maybe?  

Notes

1. In the March 1980 of Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients), a gentleman by the name of Jon Perkins submitted a one-page article titled “Battles Without Troops.” He reported that he had played “at least 20 battles in the last two and one-half years (so from the middle of 1977 then) without employing models or miniatures. Instead, he and his campaigning colleagues utilized what Jon described or labeled as ‘Little Cardboard Squares.’ In the following paragraphs (two long and two very short), he considered both sides of the issue of historical wargaming, imagining that the conventional wargamer would “turn away in disgust” and judge this approach or practice as “heretical.” On the other hand, fabricating and using ‘Little Cardboard Squares’ offered flexibility, simplicity, and functionally at a fraction of the cost. In the interest of full disclosure, I happened upon this single page quite by accident while searching through back issues of Slingshot. I thought it quite interesting as well as coincidental that, in or around 1993, and without any knowledge of Jon’s approach and practice, I also started making and using ‘Little Cardboard Squares’ for my wargaming projects and pursuits. (I simply called them counters, and was initially interested in the Horse & Musket Periods before graduating to the Ancient and Medieval Eras. Evidence of this practice or “discovery” can be found in “A Question of Scale, Another of Representation,” an article of approximately 8,000 words and 5 diagrams/figures, which was kindly published by Hal Thinglum in the September/October 1993 issue of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter). At the risk of extending this note, I looked through the next six issues of Slingshot to see if there was any feedback offered about “the Perkins School.” Nothing was found, which provides fertile ground for speculation as to why there was no reaction or response. Rather than tilt as those figurative windmills, it might be a more constructive use of my time to take another look at a recent post by the well-known and well-respected blogger Aaron Bell. In his post of October 3 (please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2023/10/if-i-could-turn-back-time.html#comment-form), the accomplished and prolific gentleman offers 14 answers to the following question, which was inspired by another blog post (which was, coincidentally, inspired by another blog post): ‘What would I tell a younger person starting out on their wargaming adventures?’ I like the responses given for Numbers 10, 11 and 14. If I had to rank them, I would award the advice and or answer for Number 11 the gold medal and 14 would get the silver. Opinions will vary of course, as evidenced by the responses made to Aaron’s thought-provoking post.