When Warbands Collide

The full paragraph on page 52 of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC–AD 200 (an excellent 1996 study written by Adrian Goldsworthy, who was a Research Fellow at the University of Wales Cardiff at the time) led me to look up the online translations of the referenced passages in Annals and then Germania, two works by the ancient author Tacitus. The first line of Book 13, Chapter 57 did not disappoint when it informed: “The same summer a great battle was fought between the Hermunduri and the Chatti, both forcibly claiming a river which produced salt in plenty, and bounded their territories.” What did disappoint, however, was the lack of any further information that could be called wargamer-friendly about this “great battle.” One is left to wonder how large were the forces mustered by each tribe? Did their contingents of warriors number 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000? Did one side have a numerical advantage? What was the nature of the ground like? How were the opposing armies deployed? Who were their leaders? What was the course and length of the engagement? The only thing that a wargamer knows for sure about this contest is that it will never be included on the ‘possibles’ or ‘candidates’ list for the annual (since its debut in 2004) Society of Ancients Battle Day. 

Turning my amateur’s attention to the second work, the following excerpt was taken from Chapter 33: “May the tribes, I pray, ever retain if not love for us, at least hatred for each other . . .” Accepting the awkward phrasing, at least to my modern ears used to a daily cascade (sometimes torrent) of American English, the general point is made or understood. Evidently, the tribes populating the province or territory known as Germania did not play well together. Although my conclusion is based on just two pieces of evidentiary text, it seems safe to suggest that the tribes of ancient Germany went to war against each other for this or that provocation and perhaps with some frequency. It also seems reasonable to argue - respectfully - that this situation was also rather common in the neighboring territory of Gaul. On page 197 of his superb 2006 biography CAESAR - Life of a Colossus, Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy further defined the famous Roman’s division of the ancient ‘nation’ into three parts when he explained: “Each of these groups was in turn subdivided into numerous individual peoples, who for all their similarity in language and culture were often mutually hostile.” While I have not been able to find primary or secondary source evidence supporting the contention, I would nevertheless ‘argue’ that a similar relationship of “mutual hostility” existed among the various tribes residing on the island of Albion. 

Although not documented by narratives from the tribal equivalents of a Xenophon, a Livy, or a Polybius, it appears that there is a presumably vast amount of unexploited territory available for mining by the imaginative and resourceful ancients historical wargamer. Battles or scenarios and perhaps even campaigns could be arranged between Gallic tribes, German tribes, and British tribes. One could also stage German incursions into Gaul. These engagements might feature alliances and so, involve even larger numbers of warriors, cavalry and other troop types - say 35,000 to 40,000 or more on a side. Then again, one might be tempted to push the historical envelope by anticipating Caesar’s ‘adventures’ in Britain by 80 to 140 years or so, by creating a Gallic invasion force which lands on the southeastern shores of that island across the Ocenus Britanicus, and then moves north or west, seeking glory and loot. [1] 

I confess that it is confusing, ironic, and unfortunate that this opportunity, that this vast resource has not been fully embraced or at least better explored by the ancient wargaming community. In my limited search of blog posts and more traditional material such as wargaming magazines, I have discovered only two reports describing what happened when armies of barbarians or opposing tribes met on a battlefield. The first dates to 07 November 2015, and comes to us courtesy of the admired and well established in the hobby, ‘Caliban’ (aka Dr. Paul Innes - unless I am much mistaken in the identity of this apparent fan of Shakespeare). On that date nearly a decade ago, a fellow by the name of Gordon (one of his colleagues no doubt) prepared the summary of a campaign-generated as well as fictional Germans versus Gauls engagement. (Please see https://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2015/11/germans-against-gauls-oh-my.html for the full account and some wonderful pictures, even if the hills do seem an odd color for the larger landscape.) The second and last summary report (again, as far as I have been able to determine), was posted to the Battle Reports sub-forum within the larger Society of Ancients Forum on 30 July 2024. This more recent but equally fictional battle saw two Gallic tribes fighting over a patch of ground that bore a faint resemblance to the historical field of Idistaviso. While both scenarios featured barbarian armies, it seems fair and proper to remark that this is where the similarity between the two ends. To be certain, there are more than a few entries which can be made in the ‘contrasts column.’ One could start with the rules employed, move on to a critique of terrain, and then proceed to comment on the scale of figures, offer remarks on the solo versus group effort, etc. Anyway.

In several earlier versions of this idea or project, I considered including or simply concentrating on an informal survey of a limited number of rules. The objective would be to ‘analyze’ how these various rulebooks depicted, represented, and handled combat between opposing warbands. A few initial trials were conducted, but playing out and then formatting the results of three ‘experiments’ for six selected rulesets proved too large of a task. To be certain, there was a fair amount of repetition involved as well, especially when rules like Hail Caesar and Tactica II (both of which usually require quite a few dice when resolving melees) were placed under the subjective microscope. The contrast between these two sets and the ‘yes/no’ or ‘black/white’ melee procedure of TRIUMPH! (which uses a single die per unit engaged) is quite stark and more abstracted. Alternative formats were also considered, wherein I might have employed a series of tables to explain and review how certain categories or qualities of the various representations of warbands interacted within the larger design and intent of the rules. After struggling for some time with making sense of this survey and its possible format, I wondered if it might be simpler as well as more engaging to present this information in a series of wargame reports. For example, I could stage six versions of the historical battle between the Hermunduri and Chatti by using six different sets of rules. The idea had a certain amount of appeal, but on reflection, common sense carried the day, arguing/explaining that such a project would be Herculean, would require quite a few resources (mainly a lot of time), and would likely produce a series of reports that could be judged as repetitive and therefore, risk boring those individuals brave enough to attempt that lengthy reading mission.

Looking at this from the other side of the figurative aisle, there is certainly no shortage of rulebooks and accompanying army lists to choose from. In fact, it seems appropriate to comment that the ancients wargamer in 2025 is rather spoiled for choice. While contemplating the rulebook survey discussed above, I took a few minutes to look over the late December 2019 “what main ancient wargaming rulesets do you currently use?” poll conducted by the inestimable Dave Hollin, a recent former and altogether excellent editor of Slingshot. By my count, there are 33 titles on this poll. Estimating that one-quarter of these books may not be written for the ancient periods when warbands were common, the number drops to around 25 titles. Figuring that newer rules have been written and put on the market in the years since the poll was offered, it seems safe to suggest that one might have a catalog of approximately three dozen titles to choose from. Obviously, much will depend on the interests, needs and collections or other methods favored by the individual player-general or group of player-generals. Is their main focus on fun, playability, realism, or something else? Is their main focus a delicate yet satisfying subjective blend of all these characteristics and or requirements? As I type and revise this section, I find myself drafting a mental list of the advantages and disadvantages of staging a large Armati 2nd Edition scenario. This would be a Gallic versus German contest, and would employ armies equal in size to those used by Mark Fry and his friends when they refought Chalons (451 AD) at Battle Day 2013. At the same time, a Tactica II battle featuring 4,000 or so points of Gauls versus almost 5,000 points of Germanic warriors is calling to me with a Siren-like voice. To add a third layer or yet another appealing choice, I wonder how a barbarian battle would play if I used Simon Miller’s innovative rules? If I set up my larger table, then I could deploy quite a few Gauls and as many fi not more Germans across long-edges measuring 29 squares.  

Given the admittedly limited exposure and infrequent production rates of this blog, it will be difficult to determine exactly how many readers or visitors bothered to click on this previously referenced link: https://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2015/11/germans-against-gauls-oh-my.html. As such, it will be equally difficult to hear or read what they think about it, and what their general or specific views are on the topic of Gauls versus Germans or regarding any other combination of tribal warriors versus tribal warriors. My guess is that this small group has no concerns about or problems with reading battle reports featuring hoplites versus hoplites, pike phalanxes taking the field against other pike phalanxes, or with Roman legions fighting other Roman legions. My guess is that this same group would happily participate in a wargame, either historical or simply a scenario, that saw these similar armies deployed across a tabletop. As intimated earlier, I struggle to understand the reason or reasons behind the lack of warbands engaging enemy warbands reports and posts. Could it be something a simple as ‘Gauls, Germans, or Britons versus Roman legions’ are more entertaining, because what ancient wargamer does not like to ‘beat up on’ Rome? Conversely, what ancient wargamer does not like to ‘teach those barbarians a lesson’? Could the majority hold the following opinion: If the tabletop is filled with hundreds of 15mm or 28mm tribal warriors - figuratively banging on their shields and bellowing their respective war cries, then that’s just a bunch of noise made by identical troop types and so, not as enjoyable.

In conclusion - though I am reserving the right to revisit this topic when time permits and inclination prompts, it is possible that I am relying too much on the relevant sections found within the two books written by Adrian Goldsworthy. I should really expand my search for more recent articles or books about warbands. (A brief search of the papers on academia.edu did not return anything of note.) It was interesting, however, to look around on TMP for material about warbands. Two fairly well attended electronic conversations were held in March and August of 2015, but these appeared to be mainly concerned with how these ‘units’ interacted with or what effect they had on Roman formations. As far as I was able to discover, there has been nothing new added to these related 10-year old discussions. Turning to the over 300 PDF issues of Slingshot - as I often do - for additional articles and material, I guess that I was not that surprised by the lack of specific information related to my current interest and related questions. There were a handful of articles that were either skimmed or closely read, but again, most of this discovery revolved around warbands and R0mans, how warbands were represented in various rules, or miscellaneous matters pertaining to warbands. I was not able to find a single article or report in this very valuable treasure trove that detailed or discussed wargaming with warbands against warbands. Reason enough, I grant, to go back to the debut issue of this long-running journal and carry out a better organized and more careful search.  

Notes

1. As evidence, I provide the reader with several maps (see below, please) illustrating a recent scenario played using the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. It is my hope that the diagrams, simple as they are, and the accompanying captions will prove sufficient in both describing the fictional battle and demonstrating that a wholly tribal-oriented wargame can be staged.