HISTORICAL HOCUS-POCUS

On page 37 of his 1979 book, WARGAME TACTICS, Charles Grant noted: “It has become standard practice among ancient wargamers to fight completely speculative battles between armies which could not have met historically—for reasons either of space or of time—this being made possible by rules postulating a sort of common denominator in tactics and weaponry.” This important figure in the history of the hobby (my humble opinion) added the following qualification: “This may or may not be a good thing; it depends entirely upon the players and the compiler of the rules.” Nearly half a century after this excellent - again, in my opinion - as well as little hardcover book (it measures approximately 9 by 6-inches and contains 186 pages) was published, then discovered, purchased, and devoured by a much younger version of me, it appears quite evident that this “standard practice” remains popular and continues to enjoy a rather robust health.  A few minutes spent searching selected wargaming blogs indicated as much. (Please see: https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-britches-of-brits.html; https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/07/schiltron-for-samurai.html; https://www.madaxeman.com/reports/Beachhead_2023_1.php; https://www.madaxeman.com/reports/Teams_2022_1.php; https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2022/09/chalgrove-2022.html, and https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-2019-to-strongest-worlds-part-iii.html.) Based on these admittedly subjective findings, it appears reasonable to suggest that “completely speculative battles” will remain a “standard practice” for many years if not decades to come. Further along page 37, Mr. Grant (it strikes me as too casual or informal to address such an impressive and important figure by only his first name) explained, “It is incongruous to match an Egyptian army of about 3,000 BC with a Byzantine one of the sixth century AD; anything similar is so wildly anachronistic as to make it impossible to provide a reasonable version of this common denominator.” 

I do not disagree with the statement. However, I found the incongruity or proposed pairing rather irresistible and so, decided to stage a solo scenario wherein New Kingdom Egyptians, under the direct command of Pharaoh Rameses II would face off against a “model” army of Byzantines led by Count Belisarius. This, for lack of a better term, would be the first of three “anachronistic adventures” played on my smaller table, the one measuring 6.5 feet by 3.75 feet. Anyway, the New Kingdom Egyptian force was drafted from page 6 of the TO THE STRONGEST! Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020). This collection of chariots and other units was quite a bit younger than the Egyptian military described by the venerable wargamer and author. The Byzantines were an “earlier version” of this fairly familiar as well as colorful tabletop army. Their order of battle was selected from the list found on page 38 of that same electronic or physical booklet. From a geographical perspective, it seems that the opposing forces were not all that far apart. In terms of time, however, they were comfortably separated by at least 15 centuries. 

Remarks 

In the May 1981 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, a Derek O’Callaghan provided casual readers as well as more serious subscribers with a one-page battle report entitled “Liegnitz Revenged!” The top third of this brief contained the orders of battle for the participating Mongols and Norman-Welsh forces. The middle third contained a simple black and white diagram of the tabletop showing the terrain, opposing deployments, and general moves of various units. The last fraction of Derek’s short report summarized the friendly contest in just three paragraphs. As this 43-year old effort formed the basis for two recent experiments wherein rather large Mongol armies were employed, I thought I might borrow from the Irishman again for this project. Without going into too much additional detail, I thought I would attempt something similar. That is, I would strive to be more concise in my presentation and reporting. Instead of a black and white diagram with a landscape orientation, I would prepare a vertical color map. The orders of battle would be placed in text boxes on either side of the gridded map, and a bare-bones narrative would be presented in a larger text box on the rest of the electronic page. To be certain, this was a rather different approach and so, felt a little weird, for lack of a better description. I suppose this explained why I fell back on old habits (i.e., typing a fair amount of words) for the comments and evaluations. So much then, for trying to be more concise . . .

 

On page 73 of WARGAME TACTICS, Charles Grant almost waxes romantic about painting and playing with a miniature army of Byzantines. He starts by explaining: “Again, a number of Byzantine figures arrayed upon the wargame table provide a most spectacular appearance, the large round or oval shields of the heavy infantry and light cavlary, the pennons on the long spears and the outlandish Huns all contributing to a high degree of visual satisfaction.” He continues this, well, one might call it ‘gushing,’ when he rationalizes losing while commanding miniature Byzantines in battle. The accomplished and respected gentleman offers, “However, it is such a pleasure to move the fine figures around the table that defeat is only incidental in comparison with the visual delight they provide.” 

I can appreciate his emotion and emotional attachment, but I cannot really relate, as I have never had the pleasure or privilege of “moving fine figures around my tabletop.” (This is the predictable result of not having an ounce of modeling/painting talent, to say nothing of the possessing the estimated volume of disposable income necessary to build a comparable force in 28mm or 15mm scale.) As I have explained numerous times in previous posts and traditional articles, my approach, adopted rather early in my solo wargaming “career,” is similar to the “alternative gaming” described by Simon Miller on the lower right of page 6 of Version 1.1 of his TO THE STRONGEST! rules. In summary as well as obviously, this first adventure in anachronism was nothing to look at, and so, nothing really to write home about. (The following link provides a little traditional eye-candy, at least for the Egyptian side. Please see https://us.warlordgames.com/products/egyptian-chariot-ii. This second link offers a view of the opposition, though I believe it is from another time period, distinct from the era of Belisarius. Even so, the color and power of the Byzantine heavy horse is apparent and visually appealing. Please see https://www.warlordgames.com/community/topic/thematic-byzantine-heavy-tagmata-kavallarioi/.) On the plus side, this first scenario did serve the dual purposes of engaging a portion of my spare time in addition to helping me to better understand and maybe - just maybe - become a little bit better at using the TO THE STRONGEST! rules.

Shifting the focus of these comments and remarks to a consideration of the deployments made and tactics or plans used, it seems logical to estimate that speculation, theories, and perhaps even constructive criticism will abound. Given the limited number of units in each army and the way that their respective forces were organized, it seems safe to say that there were a finite number of possible deployments as well as proposed plans of battle. It is interesting, I would submit, to think about how this solo wargame might have played if there were two player-generals involved. Would the Egyptians have elected to mass their light chariots and or mass their infantry archers? Such a deployment and related battle plan would not have necessarily guaranteed that their numerous arrow volleys would have done more damage against the Byzantines, however. A brief look at the other side of the field (tabletop) suggests that Count Belisarius used his numerous cavalry units as a bunch of hammers with which he charged into and then pounded the Egyptian line. To be certain, in the one sector, there was a bit of back and forth fighting between the light chariots and the Arab light horse. For the most part, though, the Byzantine heavy cavalry simply threw themselves at the Egyptians. The light chariots evaded if they were able. The foot units could do little more than wait for the enemy horsemen to arrive with their leveled lances. These interactions were a little curious at first, as I have more experience with sets of rules which provide for the possible collapse of defending infantry that are charged by impetuous cavalry. It was also odd to see that no engaged unit, whether cavalry, chariots, or infantry, grew tired by their exertions. On reflection, I do suppose that being disordered and having a harder time scoring a hit against an enemy in melee, is a kind of representation of fatigue. 

Reviewing the progress of the engagement, I found it interesting and perhaps even realistic, accepting the counterfactual nature of it all, that the Egyptians were rather disadvantaged at first, but then were able to fight back and almost even the score of victory medals won. It was also surprising to see that Egyptian archery did not have more of an impact on the charging Byzantines. Given their initial deployment and so called plan of attack, it was not that surprising to see the Byzantine foot regiments played no part in the action. Going back over some notes and then looking over certain sections of the rules such as those paragraphs pertaining to generals and the use of lances, it appears that I did many things right and only committed - perhaps - minor errors in a few instances. The wargame, though definitely lacking in visual appeal, was educational and engaging. The brief exercise left me wondering how many times New Kingdom Egyptians and sixth century Byzantines had faced each other on tabletops across the wargaming world since 1979. Related to that topic, I wondered what the win-lose-draw score was between the two sides. 

Addendum:

There is no polite way of saying - well, typing, this. It appears that I have developed a case of “solo wargamer’s senescence.” This self-diagnosis was made when I took a few minutes to check if I had previously staged a time-bending tabletop battle between Egyptians and Byzantines. Much to my chagrin, I found out that I did. This was in the fall/winter of 2022. Not quite two years ago, then. The rules employed? GRAND TRIUMPH! The blog post was made on 22 December. (Please see “Incongruous Interlude” if you are interested.) The first paragraph of the report cited Charles Grant and his WARGAME TACTICS as the primary source of inspiration or reference. It would appear that, in this uncomfortably personal example, one could modify MacArthur’s 1951 farewell to Congress to read: “Old solo wargamers do eventually die, and before that, their memory of previous wargame reports often tends to fade.”

____________________________________________________

At the bottom of page 37 and bleeding over a little onto page 38 of his 1979 book (again, highly recommended), Charles Grant relates: “I know that hugely exciting and interesting battles can be fought using this system of reducing weapon capabilities to a uniform standard—Ancient Britains against Alexandrian Macedonians, for instance.” He continues, explaining, “I have taken part with great enjoyment in many such combats, but I basically feel that there should be some degree of probability about an ancient battle . . .” Once again, this well-known name in the hobby provided this experienced amateur if not outlier a bit of inspiration. My next self-directed tutorial or refresher using TO THE STRONGEST! would see Alexander and his Macedonians land on the shores of that future empire  island nation and engage one or maybe a tenuous alliance of a few of the indigenous tribes in honorable battle. 

Remarks 

As the figurative chieftain or king of the assembled tribal warriors, I suppose I can be faulted for not fighting to the very end, for not continuing the tabletop struggle until those last two victory medals were pried from my figurative cold, dead hands. However, the situation appeared to be quite irretrievable. The Macedonians had five times as many victory medals remaining, and fortune seemed to be smiling on Alexander. On reflection, I do not think it is highly unusual or even unsporting to concede a friendly wargame when the situation was like it was for my Ancient Britons. I have read accounts of numerous games wherein one player-general or a group of player-generals decided to “wave the white flag” at some point. Indirectly related, I have also read accounts of tabletop battles that were called on account of time. Anyway, as I wondered with the previous contest, I will start with this likely unanswerable question: How many times have Alexandrian Macedonians and Ancient Britons engaged in miniature across tabletops over the years? Educational guesses will vary of course, but the number of occasions where Alexander attacked Britons who were in a fairly decent defensive position or posture is probably less than 20, perhaps even less than 12. While the subject is or may be interesting to consider, there is no way to know for certain. 

Upon further review, I thought it somewhat strange that in this admittedly unusual pairing, Alexander did not win the day by delivering a decisive attack at the head of his Companions. To be certain, the young and often foolhardy commander was involved heavily against the barbarian left. He was even slightly wounded for his efforts. However, he could not claim the honors and glory of the win. These laurels and plaudits belonged more to the Greek cavalry on the left, the Greek hoplites, and to the single unit of Hypaspists. The Greek horsemen were able to effectively deal with the annoying enemy light chariots. The hoplites did solid work by ganging up on a warband and breaking it. The Hypaspists fought another warband (a particularly stubborn one), and were able to rout this formation while also dealing a death blow to the enemy chieftain in charge of this sector. 

The pike phalanx looked impressive (or I imagined that it did; here are a couple of links to some possible Macedonian eye-candy: https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2024/02/plymouth-2024-battle-reports.html and https://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-hydaspes.html), but it was rather ineffective against the defensive position held by the enemy warriors. Two of the pike units stood in front of the trees and fought off repeated charges by screaming warriors. Given the nature of the terrain and the length of the weapons these foot regiments carried, it seemed illogical if not unrealistic for these formations to advance into the woods. It was a little surprising to see one unit of the phalanx succumb to the savage attention of another large group of warriors on level and open ground. I suppose that once a barbarian and his friends succeeded in getting past a veritable hedgerow of pike points, the melee balance would tilt rather sharply in their favor. 

As I had based the terrain of this fictional field and in fact, the deployment as well as plan of the Britons on another chapter in Charles Grant’s excellent little book (please see “The Battle of the Mandubian Hills”), I wondered as well as worried about employing my warbands and light chariots. I wondered if I should have kept the one command of warriors on the gentle hill. I also wondered why they would not gain any kind of impetus or “to hit” bonus when they charged down the slight elevation and into the enemy ranks. In the terrain-busy center of the tabletop, I wondered if any kind of surprise benefit should have been given to the warriors the first time they charged out of the woods, screaming at the top of their lungs. The combat along the front of the wooded area was perhaps the most interesting of the scenario. As I stated previously, given their formation and style of fighting, it would have been nonsensical for the Macedonian pikemen to move into the woods. At the same time, it was a little odd to picture a mass of warriors running out of the trees and shrubs, hacking at the front of a phalanx, and then withdrawing back into the trees in order to catch their collective breath and perhaps reorganize for the next attack. (For some pictures of what Ancient Britons and their compatriots might look like when done properly, please take a few moments to check out: https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/ancient-britons, https://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/ancient-celts, and https://shedwars.blogspot.com/2024/02/battle-of-mons-graupius-28mm-ancient.html.) 

On additional review and reflection, it appears that I did better in the role of Alexander or as one of his subordinates. I think my deployment of the Macedonian formations was fairly historical. I also think my basic battle plan was sound, even if this did entail engaging a bunch of warriors standing on a gentle hill with a handful of heavy cavalry. As remarked above, the formations and units that were supposed to pin the enemy while things happened elsewhere did much more than that. It occurs to me just now, that maybe I should have committed the hoplites to fighting in the woods while the phalanx held back, stood still, and watched. The Greek cavalry would still have been tasked with taking on the enemy light chariots. Then again, maybe I should have held the Companions in reserve as well, and moved the phalanx to the right, and ordered these men to advance up the hill where the enemy camp was situated. 

In summary, this was obviously a different and more difficult battle than the first scenario or adventure. Deep units of pikemen versus deep units of warriors will tend to produce prolonged combats. The point totals may have favored the Macedonians, but the nature of the ground and the luck of the draw resulted in an even fight for eight turns. The bruised Britons were then “broken” when the Macedonians - with the notable exception of Alexander - performed very well during the following turn. 

Addendum:

Hoping to avoid further embarrassment, I searched my records for evidence of staging a counterfactual contest wherein Alexander and his Macedonians faced off against a bunch of Ancient Britons. I was not able to uncover any evidence of such a solo wargame. (Phew!) 

____________________________________________________

For the third and final ahistorical adventure, my tabletop would see Marian Romans face off against Normans. This contest was a revision of the initial idea, which was to have Romans do battle with Burgundians. This unusual pairing (more chronological than geographical, I submit) was inspired by the half-dozen reports provided by Chris Jolley in the March 2008 issue of Slingshot (Number 257). This DBMM player-general described his experiences against six other player-generals, commanding five different armies (only one of these being an appropriate opponent for Chris’s Early Imperial Romans) at BRITCON 2007. I found myself drawn to the two reports wherein Chris related his losses against the Burgundian Ordonnance forces commanded by Niall and David, respectively. Again, originally, the idea was to prepare orders of battle for Romans and Burgundians. But, after completing a few drafts, I decided to switch to the equally unusual combination of Marian Romans and Normans. As with previous efforts, I consulted the pages of the TO THE STRONGEST! Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020). The Romans were taken from page 31, while the Normans were selected from page 69. 

Remarks 

The final result of this contest was something of a surprise. Given the historical record of the Roman legions, and given the advantage the deployed Roman force had with regard to numbers of units as well as points, I thought the scenario would end in favor of Rome. In fact, I was a little concerned about the disparity in terms of points between the two armies. However, as reported in the abbreviated summary 

(I did not have room to relate how each side lost a general to a severe wound, and each side had a general who was lightly wounded in the back and forth melees), the Normans were able to overcome these challenges. They were also able to deal with the terrain of the tabletop, which did not seem all that friendly to a force consisting mainly of heavy cavalry. On further reflection, it seems too simple to suggest that the chips fell more for the Normans than they did for the Romans, but this is apparently what happened. Though both sides were annoyed by the frequent appearance of an Ace (sometimes two in a row), the Normans were able to gain and keep a local advantage when it really mattered. 

On review, I cannot find any real fault with the Roman deployment or plan, save perhaps, the possibly rash advance of the first line of legionaries, which exposed their left flank to attack. Assuming the post-battle role of the Roman commander, it was a little troubling to find that my heavy infantry could not do better in the rough ground against the enemy horsemen. I wondered, too, about the performance of my auxiliary infantry on the right. Should they have relied more on javelin volleys? Should I have ordered them to occupy attention and then “pinch” the enemy center? Should I have deployed them on my left and placed the cavalry in reserve? Setting these various “should I . . .” questions aside, it was rather frustrating to see that almost half of my legionaries played no role at all in the engagement. It was only late in the action when a couple of units from the second legion supported the contest on the scrub-covered low hill.

Shifting gears, it is difficult to draw a careful comparison between Marian Romans and New Kingdom Egyptians. Even though the data set is very small, it is interesting to see that two heavy cavalry armies were able to win their respective encounters with the simple tactics of charging into contact with the enemy and using their lances. Based on this work in progress conclusion, it might be entertaining to see what happens when Byzantines face off against Normans.  

Shifting gears again, but here to a brief consideration of questions about the rules, the interaction between the Roman legionaries and the Norman cavalry was curious. A review of the rules about the Roman pila indicated that the Roman infantry could not throw their pila at attacking cavalry. I wondered about the historical accuracy of as well as evidence for this. Is this prohibition simply a matter of timing? Is the rule based on ancient manuals covering tactical practice? I recall the source material about Pharsalus, where Caesar’s men evidently jabbed their pila into the faces of the men in the large cavalry contingent commanded by Labienus. A pilum is not a pike, so it seems that these individual or small unit melees would take place within a very space. How could infantry stand against fast-moving enemy cavalry? Then again, how could enemy cavalry charge formed Roman infantry, especially the veteran cohorts set aside as a reserve by Caesar? Returning to the rules, it occurs to me that Roman legionaries might (emphasis might) be able or allowed to throw pila when they move to attack enemy horse. Then again, it seems that enemy horse would likely evade the approaching legionaries. But, what if they failed their evade attempt? Would not the legionaries have the chance and time then to launch a volley? Additional thinking or “thinking” leads me to believe that this level of detail, the interaction between units of a certain size and the process of throwing pila and reacting to such a volley, might, in some regards, be too much for a set of fast-play rules. Anyway.

Turning to the other side of my recently cleaned up tabletop, I wondered about the efficacy of the lances used by the Norman heavy cavalry. While these long and sturdy weapons did not prove that effective in the attack (frustrating, to be certain), I wondered about their employment in defense. Could cavalry lances be likened to infantry long spears or pikes? Should an enemy unit attacking cavalry armed with lances have to hit on a 8+ instead of a 6+? Would this adjustment better represent the challenge of negotiating one’s way through a line of leveled lance points? 

Unfortunately, I was unable to incorporate links to pictures (i.e., eye-candy) of traditional miniatures into this final section. To be consistent, I provide a number of them here. The Romans are first, followed by the Normans. Please see: https://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/search/label/Caesar%27s%20Romans; 

https://scalecreep.com/product_info.php?products_id=1290; https://www.baueda.com/hostis_auc.html; https://www.victrixlimited.com/en-us/collections/normans-1; https://despertaferres.wordpress.com/2021/03/01/to-the-strongest-the-normans/, and https://shedwars.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-norman-infantry.html. 

In the third paragraph of my first set of remarks, I explained the two benefits of undertaking this solo project. All three of the counterfactual scenarios did provide a distraction from the concerns, routines, and stresses of everyday. All three of these historical fantasies also served to increase my level of comfort and competence with Simon’s rules. To be certain, I do not think that I am quite ready to participate in the Chalgrove “Worlds” (please see https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2022/09/chalgrove-2022.html) or other friendly competitions featuring TO THE STRONGEST!, but I am feeling a little more confident. Finally, if pressed to choose which of the three solo wargames I enjoyed the most, I would, despite the attritional nature of it, cast my vote for the one featuring Ancient Britons and Alexander’s Macedonians.  

 

Addendum:

Another search of records resulted in a match and informed me that way back in December of 2013, on the 21st to be exact, I posted a report titled “Impossible History with IMPETVS: Chapter Three - EIR versus Normans” to the dedicated board on TMP as well as to the IMPETVS Forum. Here is the link in case anyone is interested in looking at some material from just over a decade ago: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=330495. I should like to think that I would be more excused for not remembering this particular solo wargame. 

At the risk of extending this addendum, and as a consequence, this post, I recently looked up my first published ancient wargame report. “SPRINGTIME IN PONTUS - An Ancients Wargame Report,” appeared on pages 15-22 of the July/August 1996 issue of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter). Hal Thinglum would be kind enough to include quite a few of my submissions in subsequent issues of his publication. Anyway, it was quite a trip down solo wargaming memory lane to look at the format, structure, and “style” of this early piece of writing. I could not help but note the type font, the “flow” of the narrative, and the hand-drawn maps that were included. It seems reasonable to suggest that I have made progress, albeit not continuous and certainly not without some degree of awkwardness—as a solo wargamer, a student of military history, a writer, and as a person—from that specific starting point nearly 30 years in the past. It seems unnecessary to remark that I still have quite a ways to go, and still have a lot of things to learn. That assessment aside, I am given to wonder: How many readers, or how many active ancient wargamers remember their first ancient wargame? What percent of these were recorded for posterity, whether for personal use or public consumption? How many readers and or active ancient wargamers would be interested in reliving that original experience with their current collection and favorite set of rules? I do know that MWAN is no longer in publication. However, I do not know the status of Hal Thinglum. Is the generous gentleman still active in the hobby? I also wonder if, at some point, I might make the time to travel again to Pontus in the spring season and conduct a solo wargame with the express purpose of preparing a report for submission to a current hobby publication. Or, will I simply post the carefully edited narrative including color but comparatively primitive maps to this blog?