ILIPA: NOTES & QUESTIONS

I scanned the electronic pages of Patrick Waterson’s excellent article “Scipio’s Masterpiece: The Battle of Ilipa,” which originally appeared in the January 2011 issue of Slingshot (Number 274), and then printed a copy for closer reading as well as heavy annotation. This enjoyable task completed, I looked back through my collection of electronic copies of this long-running journal and located the two-part article submitted by John Gerson, who wrote in from Australia. His efforts, “The Battle of Ilipa (206 BC): Part 1 and Part 2” (which were published in the March and then May 1983 issues of Slingshot), were printed out, stapled, read, and annotated as well. Finding no other matches in a search of the Index of 333 Slingshot issues (from September 1965 to November/December 2020), or in physical copies going up to Number 347, I looked through other wargaming publications stored away in a fair number of labeled and stacked plastic bins kept in what might be called a spare room. After a bit of digging, I uncovered Jim Webster’s “The Battle of Ilipa: 206 BC,” in the September 1987 issue of Miniature Wargames magazine (Number 52). The comparatively short article was read and read again. I did not bother to make a copy for the purpose of annotation. However, I did make a point of keeping the actual, if rather “ancient” magazine close at hand. 

Shifting from the hobby publications (to be certain, my discoveries are by no means complete or exhaustive: for just one example, see ANCIENT WARFARE XV.4 [https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/en-us/products/ancient-warfare-xv-4]), I turned to traditional books and recognized as well as respected scholars. First, I pulled the copy of Professor J. F. Lazenby’s Hannibal’s War - A Military History of the Second Punic War off a shelf of my very small library and did a close reading of pages 144-151, wherein the academic examined what the ancient sources had to offer about the battle of Ilipa. Setting that text carefully aside, I turned to Professor Philip Sabin’s LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, and his analysis and remarks provided on pages 186-188 of this well received and reviewed book. 

As more information is often better than less information, I perused the discussion threads found on The Society of Ancients Forum. In particular, the ‘Thoughts of refighting Ilipa’ topic, and the sagacious comments offered by former Society official as well as veteran Society member Duncan Head on 11 October 2023, were reviewed and considered.

Blogs were next on my mental list, and the brief search of the internet for various interpretations or illustrations of Ilipa by more experienced as well as traditional historical miniature wargamers did not disappoint. In no particular order, though I will admit to having a preference, the following links (by no means a complete catalog) are well worth the investment of time and attention:

> Aaron Bell, an accomplished and admired wargamer/blogger, refought Ilipa in March of 2013 using Professor Sabin’s LOST BATTLES rules. Please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/search?q=ilipa. 

> The popular, prolific, and prone to statistical analysis Jon Freitag has wargamed, or served as umpire via Zoom, the battle of Ilipa more than a few times. Evidently, all of these refights were played using Commands & Colors Ancients. From what I have been able to piece together, this record started in late March of 2011, and then there was a long intermission until August and September of 2023, when a flurry of games were played. Regardless, it seems fair to remark that Jon’s total number of Ilipa refights may well equal or even surpass the number of tabletops set up and played at the actual Battle Day event. Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/search?q=ilipa. 

> I suppose that there is a certain irony in the name of this blog, as who does not like to be reminded of those innocent days of childhood/youth when toy soldiers were set up and knocked down . . . Anyway, for another treatment of Ilipa, please see https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2019/12/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc.html. 

> Steven does not offer a photo-heavy account of his refight, but only a brief outline of his plans to refight the historical battle using the Field of Glory rules. Even so, I still

found the post worthwhile. Please see https://balagan.info/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc. 

> I confess to being somewhat surprised to find that Simon Miller had not attempted Ilipa, and presented his usual spectacular work. This slight disappointment was quickly replaced by admiration as well as awe, when I happened upon the masterpiece of modeling provided by James Roach. Please see https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-battle-of-ilipa-206-bc-using-to.html and https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/07/ilipa-206-bc-battle-report.html. 

> Over on TMP, I stumbled (fortunately) upon Simon MacDowall’s preparations for Battle Day 2024. Here is the link directly to his excellent blog, and his test game (the first of two or perhaps even three, apparently) before the selected date in March arrives. Please see and enjoy, if you have not already, https://www.legio-wargames.com/post/somewhere-in-spain-3rd-c-bc. 

My due diligence having been performed (to a large degree, one could or might  remark), I imagine that many readers will be somewhat surprised to find out that I was not planning to stage a solo refight of this chosen battle and submit a report on my research, preparations and playing of, so that it coincided with the expected arrival of other Battle Day reports in late April or May. In the interest of being selectively transparent and honest, the announcement of the selection for Battle Day 2024, followed by details explaining the scheduled date and location, etc., left me feeling lukewarm at best. In fact, a slight shoulder shrug accompanied by a “meh,” is probably the best description for summing up my reaction or response. To be sure, it is rather ironic that I eventually proceeded to research and review the aforementioned variety of materials and sources. It is also ironic that I spent a few days considering how I might stage a version of this selected historical contest using either the TACTICA II or Triumph! rules. 

With TACTICA II, it appeared that it would be simple enough to model the four legions present (two Roman and two allied) on the day. If I opted for 15mm scale, then the frontage of these formations would be exactly 48 centimeters. Allowing intervals of a few centimeters between each legion would increase this frontage to approximately 57 centimeters or 22 inches. The Spanish infantry assisting Scipio might be depicted as five quasi-legions and so, have a similar representation as the Republican units. Their frontage would be 60 centimeters if deployed in a single, uninterrupted line. Using the same intervals for the real legions, their frontage would expand to around 72 centimeters or 28 inches. Adding the two frontages together would give me 50 inches, which would fit easily on either tabletop I wanted to use. (I could prepare either the smaller table, with a length of 78 inches, or the larger table, which has a length of 126 inches. I wondered about how to depict the Roman light troops and cavalry, however. I also wondered how to replicate or at least allow for the chance of modeling the complicated movements achieved by the Romans on that historic day. Even though they were not present in large numbers, I also wondered about how to best depict the elephants used by Hasdrubal. How many models or other representations should be prepared, and should they be deployed as screens, massed units, or a combination? Turning to the Triumph! rules, I wondered what unit scale I should establish for an attempt at refighting this particular battle. Perhaps it would be simplest to declare that each stand or unit, whether infantry or cavalry, was the equivalent of 1,000 men. What would this mean for the small number of Carthaginian elephants then? Should I prepare two stands, each representing 16 animals for deployment on the flanks of Hasdrubal’s line of battle? Or, should the elephants be abstracted as a melee modifier screen for certain Carthaginian units? Would it be better to reduce the representative scale to a unit equals 500 foot or horse? How would I approach or address the fact that one cannot physically represent the three lines of a Republican legion with the Triumph! rules or dedicated army list? Anyway. 

A third level or irony is present or will become evident in the following section, wherein I pose a number of questions and then attempt to answer some of them. To be sure, this “solo socratic” approach is more the purview of the official Battle Day Pack. However, given that this is, I believe, the first official Battle Day under the leadership of Jeremy Giles, I am not sure if he will follow in the giant footsteps of Richard Lockwood, or if he will blaze his own trail regarding Battle Day 2024 and future years, and so create his own Society of Ancients legacy. (For additional information and or reports on this annual gathering, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/175-battleday-2019-report; https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/132-a-successful-battle-day-2016, and https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.) 

_______________________________

With regard to the format of this portion (the second half, if you will) of the post, I think it best to proceed in a “top down” manner. It could also be described as “large to small,” or “general to specific.” With regard to looking at the refighting the historical battle, I am going to try to keep to the accepted and understood chronology. On to the questions then, and some possible answers or remarks. 

> How well attended will Battle Day 2024 be, how many games will be staged, and how many different sets of rules will be employed? 

Okay, so that’s actually three questions, but they are very much related. My guess is that this particular event will be fairly popular. I can picture the latest venue being filled by 40 to 50 like-minded individuals, with the majority being of or from a certain demographic. As for the number of games staged, my estimate is that there will be 10 tabletops decorated with model terrain as well as a variety of miniatures. It seems rather certain that Simon MacDowall will be there and running his game. (The margin of error for this prediction is plus or minus 3, so between 7 and 13 contests. This guess does not include those wargamers who will participate in absentia, and may also submit accounts of their experience.) As there will be or may be 10 tables in use on the day, there will be, of necessity or ideally, at least 10 different sets of rules used by those player-generals present. Looking to a previous Battle Day, I think that Battle Day Ilipa might bear a fair resemblance to Battle Day Chalons, at least as reported in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot (Number 289). As to the eventual appearance of reports from those fortunate enough to be in attendance, I am going to suggest five narrative accounts, though it is unlikely that these descriptions will appear in the pages of the same publication. Then again, perhaps the editor will decide to imitate that aforementioned issue, which contained nearly a dozen after-action reports. It seems that enough time has passed. It has been just over a decade after all. 

> Which interpretation, or which ancient author’s narrative - especially with regard to reported numbers present, will be presented by the majority of participants?

Here, I cannot help but be reminded of the “Featherstone rules or common sense guidelines.” On page 10 of Battle Notes for Wargamers, this well known figure in the history of the hobby explained: “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.” I do not mean to dismiss the terrain aspect of this Battle Day selection, but from what I have seen and studied, the nature of the ground did not have any great impact or influence on the course of the action. This does not mean, however, that artistic modelers such as Mark Craddock for instance, or some unknown newcomer, should feel constrained with regard to creating a pleasing miniature battlefield for the enjoyment of the attending player-generals as well as those individuals who find a few free minutes to walk around and take in the sights of the various tabletops. The depiction of numbers and respective frontages is rather more important, I think. Hence, I lean toward the analyses of Patrick Waterson, Professor Sabin, and Professor Lazenby. 

 

> How will deployment be handled in the various refights?

In the 1987 article penned by Jim Webster, he remarks that “Ilipa is a difficult battle to refight from a wargamer’s point of view.” The prolific and accomplished Society member goes on to explain two significant points relating to this difficulty. The first is Scipio deploying before the Carthaginians; the second is the complicated movements which saw the better Roman formations on the wings extend or at least match the enemy line of battle. Will the various reconstructions on that late March day of pretend battle seek to replicate these points? Or, will the majority of tabletops simply present a deployment after all the “mind games” and “surprise switch of center for wings,” and stage a straight forward scenario? 

> Will the various tabletops provide for player-generals to play a waiting game?

The ancient sources and scholarly treatments mention a number of days when both sides deployed for battle and yet nothing happened. Evidently, this was not an unusual occurrence. Indeed, I recall reading sections of books by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy where he makes mention of this “demonstration of strength,” this apparent attempt at intimidation. Given the fact that there is a time constraint to the Battle Day event, I wonder if the various tabletops will even consider this pre-battle gamesmanship? If they do, then how will the bluffing be conducted? Referencing the excellent piece by Jim Webster again, he describes or suggests a kind of “paper deployment / bluffing” procedure that requires three people: the opposing generals and an umpire or controller. I do not think that this requirement will present a problem on the scheduled day of gathering to refight Ilipa on multiple tables with multiple sets of rules. This procedure does, however, present an interesting problem for the solo wargamer who might be interested in trying to stage a version of this battle. 

> How will the reported skirmishing be addressed?

I understand from reading the various accounts, that there was skirmishing a day or two before the main engagement as well as fairly prolonged skirmishing on the actual day of battle. Will this fighting be played out on the various tabletops, or will it be addressed by a series of dice rolls, card draws, or civil arguments, wherein one’s skill at debate is tested? I wonder, too, if some reconstructions will opt to set aside the skirmishing all together and focus their attention and energies on the clash of the main lines instead?

(As I look over what I’ve typed so far this morning, it appears that I am asking more questions in my responses than providing useful answers. Acknowledging that this amateur effort will come out - that is be posted - before the better presentation by Jeremy Giles, it seems safe to presume that he and his colleagues, especially the gentleman or gentlemen giving the Battle Day presentation, will provide more answers and guidance. Anyway.) 

> How will the fatigue and hunger of the Carthaginian formations be depicted?

The simplest way to replicate the reported hunger and fatigue of the Carthaginians is to assign a negative melee and perhaps even morale modifier to all of their units and formations, from cavalry to elephants and all in between. However, this penalty may not be enforced if the Carthaginian player-generals decide that they do not want to wait around for six or seven hours before moving their miniature models forward and engaging the hated Romans and their Spanish “allies.” 

> Will provisions be made for the complex movements completed by the Romans? 

On reflection, I find myself of two minds or perhaps three on this question and topic. First, I wonder if it is absolutely necessary to model the wheeling and marching and then wheeling again movement reportedly conducted by the left and right wings of Scipio’s army. If this is attempted, should there also be an allowance made for the Carthaginian commanders to interrupt or attempt to interfere with this series of maneuvers? How disordered might the Romans become if or when their “fancy marching” is interrupted by an advancing enemy line or lines? Second, like many of the other contests selected for Battle Day reconstructions, is not the emphasis to be placed on the engagement of the two main lines of battle? Is there not something to be said for setting down the miniatures after all the “fancy marching” and letting the dice (i.e., dice gods) and ability of the various player-generals decide? Turning to the inestimable Featherstone again, on page 11 of the aforementioned text, he explains that a historical refight can be staged as “an historical exercise.” This would be the equivalent of or very much like a demonstration game, wherein the accepted and studied source material is translated into miniature action on a colorful tabletop. The gentleman notes, however, that “an historical exercise is not a wargame.” He continues, offering:

Another method is to follow the original course of events reasonably well, but 

allow some leeway, without too much imaginative stretch, for a reversed result. 

Too many liberties may not be taken, however, or, as we have said, the battle will 

become a wargame played for its own sake, lacking any precision.

Even though I have never had the privilege or pleasure of attending a Battle Day, it seems to me that each and every refight presented is carefully done, so the “lack of precision” comment might be judged as unfair or unwarranted. I am not a scholar of Battle Day, but it seems to me that part of the fun is getting a chance to rewrite history or perhaps even experiment with a different interpretation. I recall reports of The Hydaspes wherein Alexander was defeated, and the miniature Indian line of battle stretched for an impressive length across the model battlefield. I recall a report of Chalons wherein the Roman forces were placed on the right of the Roman-led alliance instead of situated on the left. Anyhow, this second method appears to present a potentially difficult needle to thread, if I may use the expression. How much “imaginative stretch” is too much? Could a Carthaginian commander choose to move his center forward and take on the enemy Spanish troops? Would such a move result in the Romans peeling off units from their wings in order to support their center or take the Carthaginian center from the flank? What would happen, what would other attendees think if one tabletop allowed its assembled player-generals to deploy their miniature formations as they desired? The numbers of troops and terrain would still meet the Featherstone “requirements.”  

> Will weather be a factor? 

A “study” of the various source materials informs that a sudden rainstorm occurred after the battle had been decided but before the Romans could successfully secure the enemy camp. I wonder if weather will play a part in any of the planned reconstructions. 

Will some refights allow for a shift in the weather? What would be the effect on the course of the contest if the rainstorm starts earlier in the day? Accepting that inclement weather should produce penalties in terms of movement, missile fire, melee, and possibly on morale, to what degree should this happen? 

_______________________________

Moving on to closing comments and remarks, I should like to begin by reiterating the degree of irony or the unusual approach taken in terms of Battle Day Ilipa. I have done a fair amount of research, with the admitted and notable exception of not completing a close reading or readings of the existing ancient source material and annotating same. I have looked at other interpretations and treatments, and consulted a variety of modern sources. Early on, however, the decision was made not to participate, not to stage a solo version of the selected historical engagement. Even after the passage of a number of months and after conducting this amateur study of the battle and how it could be wargamed, that initial decision remains unchanged. 

Related to this decision, research, and again, perceived irony, I think it important to communicate that by this post about Ilipa I am not trying to “steal anyone’s thunder” or “step on anyone’s toes.” Indeed, given the traffic that this blog has been able to generate, I do not think this post - this “Ilipa inquiry” - will pose a problem, create difficulties, or even “ruffle feathers.” (Sidebar or random thought: It occurs to me that in some ways, this blog is the negative proof of The Field of Dreams “rule.” The oft quoted line from that piece of cinematic history is: “If you build it, they will come.” It is most effective if delivered as a kind of ghostly whisper. Adapting that line to this ongoing effort, I would suggest that, “If I post it, they won’t read,” applies. Then again, this perception does not completely hold up when the numbers are reviewed.)   

In looking over my history with respect to the history of the Battle Day event, I see or note that I have been very consistent with respect to my record of attendance. I have been present at zero of the Battle Days. For the record, I do not believe that I became aware of this annual gathering until approximately 2013, when my official membership began. Over the course of the past 10 years, however, I have made some progress with respect to participation. Reviewing the complete list of Battle Days (from 2004 to the present), it appears that I have staged solo refights, in one manner or another, of 10 of the historical battles selected for this honor. A more careful survey informs that I have, on occasion and not necessarily matching the date of the particular Battle Day event, conducted mini-Battle Days wherein I have staged a few versions of the contest using different sets of rules. I think it would be fair to remark that over the course of my awareness of this annual event and involvement (albeit from a great distance), I have played and reported on approximately 20 wargames. The following is a “work in progress and needs to be double-checked” list of my Battle Day record: 

The Sambre

Cynoscephalae

Callinicum

Zama (at least 3 times or versions)

Chalons (2, maybe 3)

The Hydaspes

Pharsalus

Paraetacene (pieces of)

Telamon (maybe 3 times)

Bosworth (2 times, perhaps 3)

Second Mantinea (3 times)

Simple addition informs that I have “participated” in 11 out of the soon to be a total of 20 Battle Day events. Simple division informs that this represents an average of 55 percent. In the context of The Society of Ancients signature event, I think that most will agree that this represents an average level of performance that could stand to be much improved. In other situations, a success rate of 55 percent would be catastrophic if not criminal. Here, I am thinking of road and bridge construction, food safety, and the practice of medicine, to name just three. If, however, I make the context major league baseball, specifically my performance when facing an opposing pitcher, then getting a hit or getting on base 55 percent of the time would guarantee me numerous awards, numerous endorsements, a commensurate if not outrageous salary, as well as a place or places in the record book. (Not being very athletic or that interested in most professional sports, the percentage is better indicated as .550.) 

Battle Day 2024 is about two months from now, and interested parties will have to wait a little longer to see how well it went. Unless, of course, an attendee or two manage to make a video of their experience and share it with the ancient wargaming community. Aside from the time and attention required for this post, I have already set my sights on Battle Day 2025. I anxiously await the announcement of the ancient or medieval battle that is chosen. Admittedly, this anticipation is quite premature. That said, I sincerely hope that I will be able to improve my overall percentage, if only by a little. (According to my calculations, I would be “batting” 57 percent, or .570.) If this future Battle Day does not inspire, if my reaction is another shoulder shrug (there is that old saying: “you can’t please all of the ancient wargamers all of the time”), then I suppose I can always go back to thinking about and working on elephants.