THE BIBRACTE PROJECT
Reviewing Section 1.2, Figure Basing (per figure), on page 1 of the Tactica II rulebook in conjunction with the Roman Marian Legion diagrams on page 67, it was determined that a 15mm scale model of a legion deployed in “acies triplex” would have a frontage of approximately 30 centimeters and a depth of around 25 centimeters. It would present no great challenge then, to prepare and set up the four veteran legions Caesar arranged on the forward slope of a hill somewhere in Gaul in 58 BC (BCE). [1] I could use my smaller wargames table, the one measuring 78 inches by 45 inches, and, if I employed the “Perkins School Principles,” then the four legions could be quickly as well as inexpensively fabricated. [2] However, I was not entirely sure that I wanted to stage a refight of the historical battle. Less than half an hour searching online convinced me that more than sufficient coverage had been given to this ancient contest of arms and wills. [3] As a result, I questioned whether my attempt to wargame the engagement would add anything of value to the already substantial record. So, instead of staging and reporting on another refight of Bibracte, I thought it might be interesting to use the ancient battle as a kind of laboratory wherein I would conduct an experiment or two. With this improvised and rather vague goal in mind, I started by taking another look at the cohorts of a Roman Marian Legion as described and diagrammed on pages 65-67 of the Tactica II rulebook.
Cohort “Complications”
My most recent “model” of a Roman Marian Legion cohort is shown in Picture 1. This depiction is the product of combining the information and interpretations found in a few sources. First, there were the relevant pages of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy. Next, there was, as mentioned above, the Tactica II rulebook. Then there was Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules, as well as the various amendments and updates he has supplied over the years. If the reader will bear with me as I attempt to explain this two-dimensional “model.”
Picture 1At the bottom of page 138 in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR, Professor Goldsworthy informs: “A cohort of 480 men would have covered an area of 146 by 6.4 m. (160 by 7 yards), if deployed in three ranks.” If I establish a figure to real man ratio or scale of 1:20, then I would need 24 figures to represent an average or typical, albeit full-strength, Roman legionary cohort. Possessing neither the treasure nor talent necessary to purchase, prepare, and paint 24 legionary miniatures (in whatever scale - 6mm, 10mm, 15mm, 25/28mm, etc.), I employed what I have taken to calling the “Perkins School Method,” wherein I “designed” and then printed a two-dimensional color counter. The 23 circles or dots stand in for the 24 miniatures. It will be noticed that there is a heavily bordered square in the approximate middle of this card stock reinforced with cardboard formation. This different shape will be explained in due course. Referencing pages 65-67 of the aforementioned rulebook, along with the Roman (Marian) army list provided on page L14, I identified my “model” cohort and assigned it various characteristics as well as included reminders to facilitate play. The number of d6 that this unit will roll when throwing pila or engaging in close combat is 8, as there are 8 “figures” in the front rank. The Fighting Value or FV or the formation is 5-6, which are the numbers on a d6 that enemy units must roll in melee in order to inflict casualties on the cohort. The unit Quality is VET, which is short for Veteran or Veterans. Instead of adhering to the Tactica II rules on this and other points, I decided to give each cohort within the larger legion a Unit Quality, meaning a point at which the formation will likely break, when it decides that it is better to run away so as to live to fight another day. To this end, I borrowed the Troop Grading system from David Brown’s General de Brigade (2nd Edition) rules. The following table is a work in progress and so, will need testing if not further tinkering.
Unit Quality | Breakpoint Percentage Loss | Situational Modifier |
Guard | 75% | Plus 3 |
Elite | 65% | Plus 2 |
Veteran | 55% | Plus 1 |
Line | 45% | 0 |
2nd Line | 35% | Minus 1 |
Conscript | 30% | Minus 2 |
Levy | 25% | Minus 3 |
The pictured Roman cohort has a strength of 24 “figures” and is rated as a Veteran unit. It can lose 13 “figures” (55 percent) before it has to take a Fates Test to determine if it can remain on the fictional field of battle. The Situational Modifier for Veteran units is +1, which gives them a very slight advantage or bonus when testing morale in certain situations. (In the Tactica II rules, the standard number required on 2d6 is 7 or better, so a Veteran unit testing will pass with a roll of 6 or higher.) The third line on the cohort’s ID tag indicates that the legionaries are carrying pila and swords (along with shields, obviously). The large size of the shields gives the men of the cohort a well-protected rating, which means that enemy units firing or flinging missiles at it will roll 2d6 for every 3 “figures,” instead a d6 for each “figure.” The smaller color counter labeled Centurions is a nod the information found on pages 13-14 of THE ROMAN ARMY, as well as to the Hero rules found in Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! For this particular cohort, when the Centurions join in the hand-to-hand fighting, they add 1d6 to the cohort’s melee dice total. Like the Unit Quality Table, the rules governing the employment of these Centurions counters are very much a work in progress. I am given to understand that centurions sometimes suffered high attrition rates, so it seems justifiable to check on their status after participating in a melee by rolling a d6. Let us say that a result of 1-3 is not good. A second roll of a d6 determines the fate of the handful of centurions. A roll of 1-3 means that they have been killed; a roll of 4-6 means that they have been wounded. Wounded centurions should have a reduced close combat ability. Dead centurions should have a potential impact on the morale of a cohort. The turn or sub-phase of the game move in which a cohort loses its centurions, 2d6 are rolled. If the cohort scores a 7 or better, then things are OK. If the modified result is 6 or less, then a disorder marker seems warranted. Here is a case where the situational modifier would also apply. As I stated above and will repeat quite often throughout this “paper,” these additional rules are a work in progress.
A few lines on the dimensions of this “model” cohort and ground scale. As can be seen in the picture, the physical frontage of this “model” cohort is approximately 6 centimeters. Referring to the measurements given by Professor Goldsworthy, this would suggest an equally approximate ground scale of 1 centimeter being equivalent to 26.6 yards. Obviously and as is always the case, the approximate ground scale does not translate or work when it is applied to unit depth. For this color counter, the cohort depth is approximately 2.5 centimeters, which would mean an actual depth of 59 yards, or more than 8 times the depth offered by Professor Goldsworthy. A similar problem or challenge is faced and accepted when a “model” of a larger cohort is considered.
Picture 2 shows the First Cohort of the Seventh Legion. The information included on the ID tag should be familiar. The obvious difference is the size of the cohort. This formation has 13 “figures” in each rank as opposed to just 8. This design was based on the following sentence found at the bottom of page 138 in the Goldsworthy text: “A cohort of 800 men covered about 247 by 6.4 m. (247 by 7 yards).”
Picture 2Using the established figure scale would give 40 miniatures or models, but this number is difficult to arrange in three even ranks. Therefore, I reduced the strength of this double-size cohort to 780 men. There is a Centurions counter for this unit as well. These veterans are a little more experienced, having 2d6 to add to the melee dice when they join in hand-to-hand fighting. There is also an Eagle counter. This is another adaptation from the To The Strongest! rules. Instead of placing a “Massed Unit Figures” value on this standard, I am thinking of assigning a number of victory points. In this example, the Eagle of the Seventh Legion is worth 12 victory points. As with other amendments, the procedures governing the loss of an Eagle are a work in progress. I should think that the First Cohort would have to be broken before the golden standard was at risk, and then a d6 roll or perhaps a 2d6 roll to determine what happens to it. Oh yes, readers may have noticed the purple marker on the left of the counter. This is the “pila volley marker.” It is removed once the cohort has thrown its pila prior to engaging an enemy formation in melee.
A “New Look” for a Legion
Returning to the bottom of page 138 and continuing to rely on the scholarship of Professor Goldsworthy, the following sentence or caveat is found: “It is however, difficult to calculate the area occupied by a legion, even assuming it was at full strength, because we have no information on how large the intervals between the cohorts were.” With this in mind, I reviewed the diagrams provided on page 67 of the Tactica II rules. On the top third of that page, there is a top-down view of a legion, deployed in “acies triplex” formation. Four cohorts make up the first line. There are three gaps or intervals, each corresponding to the second line of three cohorts, deployed just beyond the rout path distance as explained in the rules. The third line of three cohorts is deployed at the minimum safe distance, but instead of being positioned to cover the intervals of the second line, these cohorts are lined up behind the second line cohorts. It was interesting to see that the double-strength or “Eagle” cohort was in this third line, stationed on the right. Anyway, Picture 3 shows an interpretation of how a Roman legion, containing 10 cohorts, might have deployed in three lines (triplex acies - this is the terminology used by Professor Goldsworthy). My “model” legion has a first line of cohorts (First to Fourth, right to left); a second line of cohorts (Fifth to Seventh, right to left), and then the last line of cohorts (Eighth to Tenth, right to left). Each line has sufficient gaps or intervals so that cohorts from other lines can move up and fill these holes, cover these intervals.
Picture 3 For the moment, the distance between lines is around 9 centimeters. I have not decided how long the Rout Path or how large the Panic Zone will be. Neither have I determined what the movement rates and missile ranges will be. (So much work in progress, so little time . . .) Anyhow, the Centurions counters are visible, as are the “pila volley markers.” Each legion will have two additional counters. The first is the commander of the legion, here positioned somewhat behind the First Cohort. This is the Legate. In further tinkering with the Division Commander rules of Tactica II, I gave this gentleman a leadership rating, a morale modifier, a melee value, and a points value if captured or rendered hors de combat. The second is a Tribune. This fellow rides with the third line and serves as a subordinate to the legion commander. The following table is a working draft or adaptation of leadership abilities. The general idea is to add a little more color but not complexity to command and control.
Quality | Range | Situational Modifier | Melee Dice | Value |
Genius/Charismatic | 40 centimeters | Plus 3 | 3d6 (or more) | 20 figures (or more) |
Expert | 40 centimeters | Plus 2 | 2d6 | 10 figures |
Fair | 40 centimeters | Plus 1 | 1d6 | 5 figures |
Poor | 40 centimeters | None | None | 0 figures |
Incompetent | 40 centimeters | Minus 1 | None | 0 figures |
Cowardly | 40 centimeters | Minus 2 | None | 0 figures |
Note: The six categories of leader quality were borrowed from my 2008 Edition of IMPETVS.
Larger (and Louder) Warbands
Having spent some time considering how cohorts of a Roman Marian Legion might be represented, it seems reasonable to shift the focus to the other side of the wargames tabletop and take a closer look at the barbarians, or in this specific case, the Helvetii.
Picture 4 shows a couple of warbands of “Contingent A” lined up for battle. Again, a ruler is provided for scale, and the “ID tag” of the color counter contains information adapted from the Tactica II rules and army lists, which will assist the armchair general in playing at ancient war. Warband 3 contains 45 “figures” arranged in five ranks. The unit has a Fighting Value of 4-6, which means that Romans or other enemy units have to roll a “4-6” on a d6 in order to inflict damage. The Quality of this particular unit is Line, which again, was borrowed from an old set of Napoleonic rules. (The explanation or definition provided for “Line” units is: “Regular infantry, reasonably well trained and motivated.” It occurs to me now, only after the counter has been manufactured of course, that “Second Line” might be a better rating. The explanation or definition given for this grade is: “Infantry in receipt of some training or of suspect morale.”) Referencing the first table, this warband will reach its morale tipping point when 45 percent (20 “figures”) of its original strength has been lost.
Picture 4 This tipping point is indicated on the counter by the white circle with the heavier border or outline. In contrast to the uniform weaponry carried by Roman legionaries, the warriors in this unit carry a variety of arms. It might be said that they have a certain missile ability, that they will throw spears and such immediately prior to engaging in hand-to-hand, but the weight of this improvised barrage is not recognized or treated like the potentially more powerful pila volley. This warband unit does have impetus or the possibility of gaining an impetus advantage when it charges a certain type of enemy unit. If this impetus bonus is secured, then the front rank melee dice are doubled. Warband 3, then, has the potential of rolling 18 d6 in a melee round. This total number of melee dice can be increased with the depth bonus. Using the rules as written for a change, the bottom left side of page 33 in Tactica II informs that warbands are given “1 bonus die per rank deeper-per melee area.” So, in a contest against a Roman cohort that is 3 ranks deep, this warband would gain 2 additional d6. The warband could roll either 11 or 20 dice in a melee round, depending. The Hero counter is another nod to Simon Miller’s innovative and popular rules. If these brave, strong, and probably fanatic characters are committed to the melee round, then the warband gains another pair of six-sided dice. Unlike the Roman Centurions counters however, these Hero counters are a single-use “sub unit.” Their loss has no impact on the morale status of the parent warband. All of the above applies to Warband 4, though it will be noted that Warband 4 has a strength of 50 “figures” or approximately 1,000 men when the established figure scale is applied.
Picture 5 shows almost the entirety of “Contingent A.” There are five warbands of Helvetii, drawn up for battle. Generally speaking, the Quality of these warbands is Line. There is one 2nd Line unit on the far left, however. Each warband has a Hero counter. Like the Centurions counters, the melee value of these characters varies from 1d6 to 3d6. The overall commander of this Contingent is represented with the Chieftain counter. Like the more civilized Legates and Tribunes, this leader has a rating, a morale modifier and a melee value, as well as a points value should he be captured or killed. Tribal chieftains could also be wounded when they join in a round or rounds of close combat.
Picture 5An Experiment, Not a Wargame
On page 221 of CAESAR - Life of a Colossus, Professor Goldsworthy offers his interpretation of the charismatic Roman’s third-person account of the action on that fateful day in 58 BC (BCE). The prolific academic informs: “The battle began in the middle of the afternoon, when the Helvetii advanced up the slope against the Roman line. They came on in good order, keeping a close formation.” He continues, explaining that, “When the Helvetii came close — probably with in 10-15 yards — the legions threw their pila . . . The momentum had gone from the attack and the Romans followed up their advantage by cheering, drawing their swords and then charging into contact.” The well-known and respected professor finishes, relating that the Romans “had the advantage of the ground and the enthusiasm and impetus of the charge, but even so the Helvetii fought on for some time before they began to give way and retreated down into the plain.” Pictures 6 and 7 show my attempt to recreate this historical scene, or at least the start of this historical and fairly well studied engagement. The long line of orderly Helvetian warbands is clearly visible. The checkerboard formation of the defending Roman cohorts is also evident.
Picture 6
Picture 7With regard to modeling the terrain, I simply draped a long piece of colored yarn across the front of the Roman deployment to indicate the first elevation line of the hill on which Caesar deployed his veteran legions and then dismounted. (According to his commentary, Caesar ordered his subordinates to do the same so that they would share the risk with their men.) Acknowledging that the vast majority of readers will likely roll their eyes, turn up their noses and or sigh at this non-traditional depiction or representation of legionaries, warriors, and terrain, my goal was not to produce a cover-story for one of the glossy monthly wargaming magazines or to generate 1,000 new visits to and attract 100 new followers of my blog. (Though I confess that this increase in interest or traffic would be rather pleasing.) My intent and interest was simply to see if I could somehow model the first phase of this ancient battle on my tabletop. My overall goal was to test the various work in progress ideas and rules.
As this scenario or set up was not an official wargame (solo or otherwise), I dispensed with the familiar routine of working through the sub-phases of the game move sequence. I did not roll any dice to determine which side had the initiative, and I did not roll to see how far the warbands or their parent formations moved. These procedures and tables were, like so many other parts of this project, a work in progress. I can report however, that I was thinking that a basic movement rate of 10 centimeters would be sufficient for heavy infantry types. I also thought about modifying the game move sequence as it currently existed in the Tactica II rulebook. The amended game move sequence would look a lot more like the one set forth in the Armati 2nd Edition rules. At the risk of distracting myself from the intention stated above or annoying the handful of readers, the following tables offer some evidence of that tinkering.
Unit Type | Move | Wheel | Notes |
Heavy Infantry : PH, HI, WB, FT, etc. | 10 cm | 3 cm | May conduct about face with complex move; some units may combine wheel with straight move. |
Light Infantry | 14 cm | 6 cm | May about face at cost of 2 cm and move; may always combine wheel and straight move. |
Skirmishers | 18 cm | n/a | A very fluid or cloud like formation/screen; skirmishers may move straight, on an angle, backwards, etc. |
Heavy Cavalry | 16 cm | 3 cm | If conducting an about face, unit is disordered and has movement rate reduced by half. Heavy horse may combine wheel and straight move. |
Light Cavalry | 24 cm | 6 cm | Light cavalry can about face at cost of 4 cm and may move; they may also combine wheel and straight move. |
Skirmishing Cavalry | 30 cm | n/a | Similar to their bipedal brothers, but faster. |
Modified Game Move Sequence (based on Armati 2nd Edition) | Game Move Sequence as provided on Tactica II QRS |
1. Missile Fire | 1. Move Option Decision |
2. Evade Phase | 2. Skirmish/Evade Phase |
3. Movement: order determined by Initiative die roll | 3. Movement - based on determination in Phase 1 |
4. Melee | 4. Rally |
5. Breakthrough | 5. Missile Fire |
6. Rally | 6. Melee |
7. Pursuit | |
8. Breakthrough |
Moving along . . . In Section 7.13 of the Tactica II rules, the difficult issue of fighting a melee in certain kinds of terrain is covered. Rather than adopt the blanket 25% reduction in melee dice for the attacker, I decided to revise the process a little by varying the percentage reduction based on the result of a d6 roll.
Further, for purposes of this experiment, I divided the Helvetians’ “advance to contact” into five parts or sectors. Contingent A, on the left of the long line, rolled a “5,” so their melee decrement or penalty would be 10 percent. Contingent B rolled in the middle of the 1-6 range, so their melee decrement would be 15 percent. The overall chieftain’s bodyguard unit would be penalized by 10 percent. Contingents C and D had their initial melee dice reduced by 20 and 15 percent, respectively.
A Photographic Summary
The Helvetii won the melee direction roll and decided to start the battle, that is to say experiment, with the contest against the men of the Tenth Legion. The pila volleys from the four cohorts meeting the wall of warriors were not very effective. Unfortunately, their melee dice were equally unimpressive. Fortunately though, only two of the warbands gained impetus in their advance up the slight slope. The first round of melees found the Romans rather bloodied, as the First and Second Cohorts each lost a third of their strength. It appeared that a below-average number of barbarians were cut down even if all of their heroes were spent in this initial charge. An impression was made and a worry started to develop in this sector of the Roman line. Breaking the larger melee into several digestible or more manageable parts, the Roman issues continued all long the line. The other pila volleys had little overall impact; the ability of the men in other legions with their swords and shields was also judged to be rather lacking. One especially embarrassing episode occurred over on the left, when the First Cohort of the Seventh Legion (a total of 13d6 worth of pila) failed to inflict any damage at all. On the other side of the heaving, sweating, cursing, and crying in extremis scrum, the Helvetii elected to expend all of their attached heroes in this initial clash. Ten out of 21 committed warbands secured the impetus advantage, and this, combined with the depth advantage and heroes, did a fair amount of damage to the 16 cohorts that stood in the path of this fierce and frightening Gallic attack.
Picture 8 shows the start of this first round of close combat resolution. The largish black die informs that the barbarians were able to choose which way the melees were fought. The laminated card informs that the Helvetii went alphabetically, starting with Contingent A versus the Tenth Legion, and then working toward their right. This photo shows that contact has been made. The Romans have yet to throw their pila (the purple markers are still there), and the warriors have yet to commit their embedded heroes in order to gain an additional melee die or two or three.
Picture 8
Picture 9 offers a similar view, only from the opposite side of the model field. Contingent D has moved into contact with the frontline cohorts of the Seventh Legion. In Picture 10, the engaged cohorts have thrown their pila. The lack of red dice on the Gallic side of the melee shows how poorly these heavy javelins were thrown. Perhaps the legionaries were intimidated or rushed? Fortunately, only two of the charging warbands secured the impetus advantage. (The small yellow post it note indicates the melee decrement assigned to this group of Helvetian warriors. Each warband will lose 10 percent of its basic melee dice.)
Picture 9
Picture 10In Picture 11, the comparatively dice-heavy melee resolution process has begun. The First Cohort of the Tenth has been engaged by two warbands. (Technically, one full warband and half of another.) The additional red dice show how many melee kills the First Cohort was able to dole out: 4 against Warband 5, and just a single kill on Warband 1. The combined Helvetian warriors inflicted 13 hits or kills on the hard-pressed cohort. The barbarian heroes and their depth advantage contributed to this comparatively high count. The Centurions of this formation were held back for this first round of melee. The Eagle of the Tenth was also out of danger, at least for the time being.
Picture 11
In the next phase or turn of this experiment, I moved up the cohorts of the second line into contact with the engaged Helvetian warbands. These fresh legionaries were able to hurl their pila. In many cases, unfortunately, these volleys had little if any impact on the targeted enemy formations. I confess that I was tempted to give the charging legionaries the impetus ability or advantage, a characteristic normally reserved for their barbarian counterparts. This was the result of reading the following sentence at the bottom of page 221 in the CAESAR text: “They had the advantage of ground and the enthusiasm and impetus of the charge . . .” However, I decided against allowing the Roman heavy infantry to have this ability, even though I would imagine that the arrival and charge of fresh as well as somewhat formed legionaries would have had quite an effect on the occupied and growing tired Helvetii. This turn saw the barbarians retain the melee direction determination. They decided to resolve the numerous combats starting on the other side of the long line of engaged units. Checking on the 10 warbands that had secured impetus in the first round of melee, it was determined that only two of the warbands maintained this advantage and so, would get to roll double the number of dice this time around. Picture 12 offers a slightly blurry snapshot (sorry!) of the status of the engaged cohorts of the Tenth Legion on the Roman right before the supporting cohorts advanced into the fight. The red dots or markers on the opposing units indicate how many casualties each has suffered in the initial close combat. Having hurled their pila, the front line cohorts do not have the purple markers. The second line cohorts have these markers, but will remove them as soon as they roll for the effect of their respective volleys.
Picture 12In Picture 13, taken on the other side of the model battlefield, the Seventh Legion is heavily engaged with the warriors of Contingent D. The black dice indicate the number of kills scored against each cohort. (The red markers have yet to be adjusted to reflect these losses.) Two disorder counters have been placed, as two of the engaged cohorts have lost their centurions in the desperate fighting. The Helvetian counters have a number of red dice placed behind their line. The dice just behind the warbands represents the number of kills scored by recent pila volleys; the dice farther away from each unit represents the number of “figures” killed by legionaries in the melee round. Adding up the dice, the Romans are doing better, having lost 14 compared to 35 for the Gallic tribesmen. However, the Helvetii can afford to lose more men than the legions. A brief survey of the tabletop after all the melees were completed revealed that the centurions of 10 cohorts had been cut down, resulting in disorder markers on five of the impacted formations. Of the 28 cohorts that were now hacking and stabbing at the wall of warbands, six were uncomfortably close to reaching their morale tipping point.
Picture 13For the final phase or turn of this experiment, there was very little official movement as both sides were heavily engaged all along the line. To see how they would fare, I had the chieftains as well as the overall commander of the Helvetii join the general melee. On the Roman side of the combat, all of the centurions, even those that were wounded, were ordered into the fighting. Once the various counters were arranged, the melee direction die roll was made. The Romans won by a score of 6 to 1 and elected to start the subjectively dice-heavy process on their right, with cohorts of the Tenth Legion.
Pictures 14 and 15 offer moments in time with regard to the contest between the legionaries of the Tenth and the warriors of Contingent A. The numerous red dice placed behind the warband bases show that the Roman heavy infantry did rather well in this round of close combat. The First Cohort of the legion was pushed to its break point and had seen its veteran centurions wounded in the desperate fighting.
Picture 14 
Picture 15 However, a Fates Test roll of “11” meant that the survivors would stay in place, at least temporarily. (Rules Note: Fates Tests are passed on an unmodified roll of “11” or “12” with 2d6.) The man bearing the standard of the legion and the proximity of the legion commander may have had something to do with this fortunate Fates Test result. The Second Cohort did not fare so well, as indicated by the gap in the Roman line. The hard fighting and mounting casualties pushed this unit past its breaking point. Luckily, none of the neighboring cohorts were bothered (i.e., disordered) by this development. Moving further to the left along the position held by the Tenth, the reinforced line of cohorts managed to break one of the warbands, producing a slightly larger hole in the Gallic line. The Fourth Cohort, even though suffering many casualties and losing its centurions and failing its subsequent morale check (hence the disorder marker), was able to keep fighting. The attritional nature of the combat is rather apparent, as the warband facing off against the Fourth and Seventh Cohorts has lost a lot of warriors as well.
In Picture 16, a local success—indeed, the only real success—of the Helvetian charge is seen. Here, three cohorts of the Ninth Legion have been overcome and dispersed. Fortunately, two of the three victorious warbands involved were held up by melees with other Roman formations, so they were not able to join the middle unit in making a tentative breakthrough move. These outer warbands had managed to gain another impetus bonus, which permitted them to throw double the usual amount of dice in a second round of melee. To be sure, these extra dice did damage to the opposing Romans, but a careful look will reveal how close these two warbands are to breaking. The Retinue or elite bodyguard of the Helvetian commander is just one kill away from having to take a Fates Test. The First Cohort of the Eighth Legion would have had 13 dice to throw if there was another turn of melee. I am not sure of the odds, but it seems likely that one if not more of those 13 dice would have come up a 4, 5, or 6.
Picture 16Picture 17 offers a bit of perspective, at least from above the Roman right. The aforementioned hole punched in the Roman line can be seen at the top of the frame. The reserve line of cohorts, three for each legion, can also be seen. It stands to reason, that were the experiment continued for another turn or two, the single enemy warband would have been confronted and stopped by a pila volley or volleys and legionaries wielding short swords and shields. Picture 17 also shows that while a portion of the line held by the Ninth Legion had been broken, other cohorts in that same line had defeated a fair number of warbands. The hole between the Helvetians fighting with the First Cohort and the distant warband with two impetus markers is evident as well as sizable.
Picture 17The stubbornness of the men of the Eighth Legion is shown in Picture 18. Five cohorts are holding off three warbands. The Helvetii do have another warband in reserve, but this formation never did make into the line. Of the cohorts engaged, three have lost their centurions and as a result, two of these formations have become disordered. The middle cohort has retained its composure, even though it is dangerously close to its morale tipping point. The enemy formations are not in very good shape either. Warband 5 has a disorder marker, and the unit on the other side of the combat is close to its breaking point. The comparatively poor condition of the Helvetian army is reinforced by Picture 19. Two warbands from Contingent D have been forced to withdraw and another has been marked disordered. While the presence of the red markers informs that the Romans have suffered quite a few losses in fending off the repeated charges up the slope, the barbarians have taken just as much damage if not more. The status of this contingent is questionable, as its chieftain was carried off when one of its warbands routed.
Picture 18
Picture 19
Before moving on to the final section of this “lab report,” it seems that it would be helpful as well as reasonable to provide some sort of accounting summary of the losses and overall status of each army.
On the Roman side of this experimental field. The color counter representing Caesar had 12 fresh cohorts in reserve. These formations were in four groups, each led by a Tribune. (Note: At no point in this test did Caesar move or dismount. In stark contrast to his historical counterpart, this two-dimensional proconsul did not participate in the fighting.) This third line had the potential to add 96 dice for pila volleys, along with another 96 dice for a melee round. Reviewing the historical account of the action, perhaps it would not have been fair to permit this, as these cohorts would have been tasked to address the arrival of fresh barbarian warbands on the Roman right flank. The massed Helvetii had no comparable reserve. There were two or perhaps even three warbands that did not fit in the main battle line. However, these formations were not concentrated, and they certainly were not under the control of a single chieftain.
Turning to a brief consideration of the damage suffered by the Romans, it was noted that the centurions of these several legions were on the receiving end of more than just a bloody nose. When the experiment was halted, 28 cohorts had been committed to the contest. Of this impressive number, 13 cohorts had lost their centurions to enemy spears and swords, while half a dozen cohorts saw their veteran leadership wounded. Some quick math informed that this represented a casualty rate of around 68% for the centurions. On further review, that percentage does seem rather high, so perhaps the drafted rules for the involvement or and subsequent risk to centurions need to be revised. Expanding the view to the legions, it was noted that four cohorts had been destroyed or routed by the Helvetii. (Three of these were from the Ninth.) There were five cohorts with disordered markers, and another five cohorts that were on the brink of reaching their morale tipping point. This number included the First Cohort of the Tenth, the formation that had passed its Fates Test.
In comparison, there were a few warbands in the wall of warriors that were “danger close” to their determined breaking point. One of these was, as I believe a photograph shows, the Retinue led by the overall commander of the assembled Helvetian warbands. In terms of destroyed or routed units, the barbarians had lost seven units of varying sizes. Three of these were from Contingent B, so half of its starting strength, and two were from Contingent D. As related above, in this sharp action on the left of the Roman line, the chieftain leading these warbands was carried away when the unit he attached himself to routed. Doing some additional simple math, it was found that the Romans had lost 96 legionaries (i.e., “massed figures”), while the Helvetii had lost some 340 warriors. Applying the established scale to these totals, the Romans had suffered 1,920 casualties compared to 6,800 for the Helvetii. It could be suggested then, that for these three test “turns,” the Romans killed or otherwise incapacitated roughly 3.5 warriors for every legionary they lost. It seems fair to remark that this exchange rate was not sustainable for the warbands present on the tabletop.
Observations & Remarks
Without question, there are differences between my amateur attempt to depict or model a Roman Marian cohort and legion and the guidelines provided on specific pages of the Tactica II rulebook. It seems reasonable to assume that there will be advocates or arguments on both sides of this representational debate. It also seems likely that there will be those who hold a position nearer to the middle of these interpretive “extremes.” To reiterate, even though my method was not traditional, I would suggest that the 24 “figure” model of a cohort is more realistic than one wherein a handful of 25/28mm actual figures are used. Further, it strikes me as more historically accurate to provide for cohort leadership with “model” centurions, and to establish a more realistic breaking point for this particular formation. Again, I am not very well read on the military history of ancient Rome, but I doubt that there are more than a few examples of cohorts of a Roman Marian legion fighting to the last man. This “to the last legionary” should be the exception then and not the rule. Along this same line of thinking or wondering, a mental review of the rulebooks for ancient wargaming within my small library does not produce a great amount of material or reference points for the building and deployment of individual cohorts on the tabletop. I think the closest set of rules to the Tactica II representation might be To The Strongest! I recall Simon Miller produced a brochure or the equivalent on modeling a Republican Roman Legion (the formations with Hastati, Principes, Triarii along with allied units), but I have not seen anything similar regarding the Roman Marian Legion. To be certain, I am not promoting my two-dimensional “models” as better, but I do think there is something there. There is a certain amount of potential. There is also a degree of bias, no matter how carefully I try to tread. Ideally, I should like to work out something with regard to simplifying the combat mechanics, so that one would not have to roll so many dice in each round of melee.
Building on these somewhat disorganized thoughts, I think the adapted/revised Unit Quality Table gave me more freedom to create certain kinds of units, at least as far as representing their ability, training, and perseverance. In this regard, I do not think the additional quality levels complicated the playing of the game. This specificity or unit identity could be extended to the larger legionary formations used by the Romans in the recently concluded experiment. I am not placing myself on the same level as Professor Goldsworthy, but I do see the concern and question he raised about the apparent interval between cohorts. On the one hand, there has to be space so that units do not become intermixed during an advance. On the other hand, I wondered how cohorts would not find themselves overlapped when confronted and contacted by larger warbands, or a group of warbands. The nature of my “models” prevented any flexibility by either side, but it occurs to me that if a warband of approximately 800 men makes contact with a Roman cohort, and only half of the warriors are engaged or involved, then the other half are not likely to just stand around and wait for that melee area to be resolved. Likewise, if one-third or one-half of the cohort is not engaged, do these legionaries stand in place, or do they avail themselves of the exposed flank of the attacking warriors? As I tested my work in progress ideas and rules out over the course of a few “turns,” I wondered how things would have gone had I deployed a solid block of cohorts in those three lines. This arrangement would have reduced the Roman frontage by quite a bit. Doing so might have afforded the Helvetians an opportunity to envelop the shorter Roman line. It occurs to me that this reduction would have also required the development of “supporting line” or “swapping line” rules, so that the hard-pressed cohorts in the first line might be relieved by the fresh and eager-to-fight cohorts of the second and or third lines.
Making an abrupt shift to the topic of leader ability, again, I think that the upgrading of division commanders and overall commanders added a bit more color to the proceedings. To be certain, qualifying various characteristics of formation and army leaders is not an original concept. One only has to look at the Hail Caesar, L’Art de la Guerre, and IMPETVS rules to find three examples. Restating my significant lack of knowledge when it comes to ancient military history, I maintain that unit, formation, and army leadership played an important role in the prelude to and fighting of a battle. At the risk of starting another subjective debate, the division commanders allowed in Tactica II are simply markers. They serve a command and control purpose, but they have no “personality,” they have no ability to get involved. If the focus is on the game as opposed to a simulation (words that are, I would respectfully contend, synonyms), then instead of serving as simple playing pieces, the more defined commanders actually play a part in the wargame. They can be wounded, lost, or perform acts of bravery and inspiration by fighting alongside their men.
The preceding paragraph leads me, in an admittedly indirect way, to a brief consideration of the warbands that were employed in the test wargame. I thought the heroes (borrowed from Simon Miller’s rules) were a nice touch. On reflection however, I wondered if I should have created a certain number of hero counters and then drafted some additional house rules to govern their use. That is to ask: Should I have given the Helvetians the opportunity to use heroes at other times than just in their initial charge against the Roman line? Would this amendment have complicated things? As to the larger or general question of the warbands themselves, was there enough care taken or focus placed on these units? Working with the revised Unit Quality Table, was I biased towards how these formations were represented? If so, then how could I better address this in future experiments? Looking at it from a design perspective, did the various counters representing the Helvetian warbands really suggest barbarian warbands? If not, then how could these warbands have been made to look more fierce, intimidating, or even accurate? Should they all have been more wedge-shaped to reflect the small number of braver warriors that would form the point of a broad spear or arrow head, especially when viewed from above? Finally, and I see that I am asking more questions here than making observations and remarks, should the chieftains of the various contingents have been embedded with certain warbands and more involved in the fighting than they were? In reading other parts of Professor Goldsworthy’s acclaimed book about Caesar, it was noted that quite a few Gallic personalities got themselves into mortal trouble while defending against or attacking the Roman legions and auxiliary troops. Would it be incorrect to state that a Gallic chain of command was markedly different from and worked differently than a Roman chain of command?
Switching to the topic of the Game Move Sequence (I am more comfortable and like to think fairly well read here), there can be no doubt that a thorough test of the modified game move sequence was not completed. Again, this project was more of an experiment than an actual wargame. That point reiterated, I think there is an argument to made for a cleaner, simpler Game Move Sequence. I also think there are arguments to be made for initiative switching back and forth by some process, and for missile fire to take place before movement. While “working” my way through the various and somewhat regulated steps of this experiment, I wondered about the melee process. These musings were not specifically about how close combat is handled in Tactica II, but about how melees are handled in general in the various sets of rules that I have had the pleasure and privilege to use in my historical “miniature” wargaming career. I will not go into great detail on this point, as I am still thinking about it. However, I will say that my thoughts or questions revolve around the issue(s) of timing.
On a related subject, it appears that the adjustment of the melee decrement dice procedure needs some serious work. While it would be the simplest course to leave the rule as is, as written, I am not sure that I agree that a unit or warband attacking up a gentle slope should be penalized to the same extent as it would be if it were fighting in a woods. Perhaps something could be developed (yet another table) wherein the number of dice lost by the engaged units is associated with the type of terrain? There would be no percentages then and so, no additional math required. At the risk of complicating the process, perhaps there could be an additional d6 rolled to determine if more melee dice are lost or if some are recovered due to this or that condition, status, or development. Another work in progress then, to add to an already long list.
It occurs to me, after the fact of course (as is almost always the case), that this particular experiment may have been too large. I am given to wonder if I could have collected similar “data” by setting up just two legions, or perhaps even a single legion and its barbarian counterpart. As I have some experience with the Tactica II rules, I am familiar with the comparatively dice-heavy process of resolving missile fire and melee rounds. Given that I made a variety of changes to the rules as written, I admit that I may have unintentionally increased the number of dice needed to complete each turn. While resolving the melees for one of my legions, the Eighth, I think, I could not help but be reminded of the melee process employed in the Triumph! rules. On the QRS for that set of rules, Roman legionaries have a certain melee factor. Gallic or Helvetian warbands also have a certain melee factor. These basic melee factors may be modified; it depends on the specific situation. Both units get to roll a single six-sided die and the overall scores are compared. If memory serves, a warband unit can ‘shatter’ Roman legionaries by outscoring them. The warband does not have to double the Roman score. This melee process is quite different from the more attritional and involving morale process employed in the Tactica II rules. Which leads me to wonder about the possibility or existence of a set of rules that offers some kind of middle ground. If this set of rules does exist, does it also provide for a more realistic depiction or modeling of a Roman cohort and legion? Or, is this desired combination too complicated for representation in miniature on a tabletop? Does the attention to historical accuracy, at least as found in the ancient sources and scholarly research, conflict with the playing of the game and as a consequence, potentially impact the level of enjoyment, of player-generals having fun?
Stipulating to the fact that fun is a subjective word, concept or experience, I can honestly report that there was a certain level of enjoyment achieved in putting together this project, improvised and disorganized as it is. In past writings, whether these have been submissions to magazines, journals, or early posts to this niche-within-a-niche blog, I believe that I have remarked upon having more “fun” researching and writing, in trying to figure out approaches to a wargaming “problem” than when I actually play the wargame based on the “research.” In many ways, I think that same sense of enjoyment or satisfaction was evident here. Conducting the “turns” or testing of the various revised rules was interesting. I am not sure it meets the personal definition and subjective standards of fun, however. With the notable exception of drafting the last part of a battle report, blog post, or article on another subject matter (a book review, for example), I find writing to be engaging and enjoyable, as well as educational. So, in a sense, sitting at a desk, typing on a keyboard and trying to fill a blank electronic page with coherent prose qualifies as a kind of fun. But only for a certain type of individual.
Reading and thinking about ancient military history is also educational, engaging, and enjoyable. That’s another check mark in the fun column then. In fact, prior to starting “work” on and throughout the course of this experiment, I had been mulling over the idea of refighting Bibracte with Tactica II. For this hypothetical plan, I would refrain from adding any chrome to the rules. I would play them as written, curious to see what kind of refight would result. It seems to me that the initial stages of this historical contest would pose no problem. However, I do wonder how I could or should handle the shifting of the Roman third line of cohorts to meet the new groups of Gallic warriors. Reading the narrative produced by Caesar and the modern analysis provided by Professor Goldsworthy, it appears that some kind of scenario rules would have to be drafted. Then again, I do suppose I could avoid this potential problem by having all the Gallic warriors arrive on time for the battle. It occurs to me that I could also allow the Romans to deploy their legions as they wished instead of adhering to the existing historical record. This wargame would not be a historical refight, however. Reviewing the source material, it seems that this historical engagement might provide an excellent foundation for a mini-campaign. One could set up some simple but severe supply rules. It might also prove interesting and entertaining (i.e., fun) to work up a scenario regarding the two-legion detachment under Labienus and its mission. These work in progress ideas call for a few players at least. I wonder how or even if a mini-campaign could be constructed for solo-play? I wonder, too, if Bibracte might be a suitable candidate for a future Battle Day, that excellent annual event hosted by The Society of Ancients?
Notes
- See the bottom paragraph on page 219 of CAESAR - Life of a Colossus, the well-reviewed 2006 book written by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy. The small diagrams at the top of page 231 are also quite helpful to the interested historical wargamer. It is interesting to compare the modern day academic’s interpretation to the original passage written or dictated by Caesar. See https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D24.
- As I explained in an extended footnote to “A Tiny Crusade,” in an article published in the March 1980 issue of Slingshot, Jon Perkins shared his different approach to historical wargaming. He and his fellow player-generals opted for function and simplicity as well as a focus on play rather than paying attention to aesthetics, model preparation, terrain building, and probable substantial investment of time and treasure. As I also mentioned, surveying the next six issues of Slingshot did not result in any feedback or findings about the “Perkins School Approach.” Evidently and unfortunately, “Battles Without Troops” was the only submission made by Jon to the journal. Estimating that the gentleman was in his early 30s at the time, that would mean he would be in his mid 70s now. I wonder is he is still wargaming or at least has an interest in the general hobby or in military history? Anyway, back to the cost and preparation requirements. A brief search of the Internet informed that one could purchase 15mm Roman legionaries from Old Glory Miniatures. A pack of 30 legionaries or auxiliaries was found for $21.50, and a pack of legionary command was found for $15.00. (See https://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=15RAE-301.) Needing 80 or 88 figures for each Tactica II Roman Marian Legion, approximately 15 packs would be needed to model the six legions under Caesar at Bibracte in 58 BC. It seems that two packs of command would be sufficient. (See https://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=15RAE-300.) I suppose that four to six packs of auxiliary foot would work for the other infantry serving with Caesar’s legions. (See https://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=15RAE-302.) For his auxiliary or allied cavalry, perhaps four to six packs of medium/light Gallic cavalry would suffice? (See https://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=15RAE-109.) Estimating the approximate cost of just the figures (no bases, no flocking for the bases, no paints or brushes, and no Helvetian tribal warriors), I arrived in the neighborhood of 550 dollars US. To remark that this amount is a lot of money, at least to some individuals, seems quite unnecessary.
- In no particular order, I would invite interested readers to check out the following blogs and links: https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/wargaming-introduction-battle-of.html; https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2013/12/caesars-battles-bibracte.html; https://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com/2015/02/bibracte-58-bc.html; https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=48463.0; https://javieratwar.blogspot.com/2012/11/bibracte.html; https://www.2tnews.de/bibracte-58-bc-strength-and-honour-game/; https://toofatlardies.co.uk/the-bibracte-campaign/, and https://wargame.hu/a-bibractei-csata-dioramaja/. There is also a To The Strongest! YouTube report posted by the Red Beard Baron in November of 2016. And of course, there is also the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bibracte.
No comments:
Post a Comment