In the Shadows 

of Chalons

Three options were under consideration. The first solo scenario would be based on the historical battle of Quatre Bras. This adaptation was tentatively titled ‘The Quarrel for Quattro Strade,’ as over the years, I have developed a soft spot for alliteration in titles, and would feature representative forces drawn from the Early Renaissance (1) pages of the ADVANCED ARMATI rulebook. In general, three Italian City State armies, supported by two Swiss (15th century) armies, would meet four Burgundian armies who were, as might be imagined - given my preference for ‘bigger battles,’ reinforced by two different Italian City State armies. A measure of redemption was the underlying goal of this scenario, as a previous Italian Wars experiment or interlude had proved somewhat disappointing. The second scenario that would also be played by myself/against myself, advanced the calendar to the Later Renaissance (2) section and lists of this same rulebook. For this fictional contest, French Huguenots would meet Spanish (16th century) forces in a simpler yet still rather sizeable engagement. Drawing some inspiration from David Kay (as well as being more than a little envious of his talents), I thought I might try something similar to the recent as well as very large if also anachronistic contest he presented to Society of Ancients members. This battle saw quite the collection of 6mm Roman legionaries and auxiliary formations tangle with an alliance of Greek city-state hoplites supported by cavalry and light troops. While strong cases could be presented for each of these projects, I imagine it will come as no great surprise to the handful of readers when they are informed that an entirely different option was conceived and then acted upon. As the title of this post suggests, this unlisted option, this out-of-nowhere - something like a ‘dark horse’ of a project, would have something to do with the historical battle of Chalons. To be clear, this would not be a refight or a carefully supported interpretation of that 451 AD/CE contest. (For inspiration and reference, I reviewed the engaging and excellent content of the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot, wherein numerous reports of Battle Day 2013 were published.) Instead, this scenario would afford me the opportunity to see if I could manage a really big battle using the TRIUMPH! or GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. This improvised project would also give me a chance to try out the recent rule revisions. (These were not extensive, but limited in scope as well as carefully considered and explained.) Finally, this design-as-I-went scenario would provide me a testing ground for some ‘house rules’ regarding demoralization.  

Preparations

Instead of following the procedures for determining what the tabletop would look like, I decided to keep things fairly simple. The terrain for this fictional field of battle would be essentially flat and featureless. However, there would be a single gentle hill (two-tiers in height) located in the approximate center of the table. In addition, there would be three areas categorized as elevated ground or rises. These were not features in the strict sense. They were simply places on my fictional battlefield where the ground was not completely flat. These rises would not confer any melee advantage(s) or interfere with movement of troops; they were fabricated and positioned in order to break up an otherwise arguably boring and visually unappealing model of what a vast plain might look like in what is now western Europe during the latter half of the fifth century.

Interested in seeing how large of a battle I could effectively manage, I built two alliances. Each of these tentative coalitions would contain four armies or contingents. On the Huns’ side of the tabletop, there were: Gepids, Ostrogoths, Alemanni, and of course, a good number of those fearsome horse archers. On the Patrician Roman side of the tabletop there were: Burgundi, Visigoths, Early Franks, and a fairly large contingent of Romans or troop types associated with and or in the employ of what remained of the once great empire. Typically, a friendly game of TRIUMPH! sees two 48-point armies engaging in battle. In a GRAND TRIUMPH! scenario, observers will see two 144-point armies fight for possession of the determined battlefield. For this solo wargame, I would prepare Hun and Roman armies adding up to approximately 144 points. These formations would be supported by three ‘allied’ armies containing around 96 points each. Simple addition produced 432 points as an estimated total strength for each alliance. It seems safe to remark that this is an unusual if not bordering on ridiculous point total for a GRAND TRIUMPH! scenario.  

This would be my first contest wherein I employed the handful of amendments made to Version 1.1 of the TRIUMPH! rules. Studying the ‘rules sticker’ and discussion notes, it appeared that only the bullet points concerning Bow Levy slightly improved movement rate, Rabble being able to pass through, and the Pursuit and Fall-Back modification would be applicable to this possibly too large and again, fictional contest.  

Finding myself unhappy with or unsure of the original Demoralization rules, I thought I might tinker with these and see what happened. To a large degree, they were left as written. However, the following bullet points were drafted for testing in this ‘big laboratory’:

> units in demoralized groups that are outside of 8 MU (adjusted command radius) or not given orders are “frozen in place.” They will not fall back and then rout. They will stay in their current position until and if given orders.  

> commands that lose half of their original strength are considered broken and will immediately flee the field (i.e., be removed from the table) regardless of their circumstances or situation. 

> victorious commands or groups responsible for the breaking of an enemy command must roll a d6 to determine how they react

result of 1-2 / 1 turn immobile (rest and reorganize)

result of 3-4 / 2 turns immobile (rest and reorganize)

result of 5-6 / 3 turns immobile (rest and reorganize)

How It Played

As has apparently become my practice, the following series of maps or simple diagrams should provide sufficient and perhaps even satisfactory narrative with regard to how the battle began, progressed, and concluded or was determined to have run its course. 

Commentary & Critique

On review, it appears that my intention with this project was two-fold. First, I wanted to see if I could manage an unusually large battle using the selected rules. Second, I wanted to test the recently released official amendments as well as try out a few of my own. 

Broadly speaking, I think that I was able to manage a rather large battle. If I were to grade the effort however, and not referring to any draft or established rubric, I think I would give myself a B-minus or an 81, maybe an 82 on a 100-point scale. (Of course, readers of this post may disagree. That is their prerogative.) As far as I could tell, the official amendments seemed to work very well. Having had some experience with the turtle-like pace of the Bow Levy units in previous scenarios, the increase in movement rate to 3 MU versus 2 MU did add up over the course of several turns. Then again, the Roman Artillery stands did cost more command pips as well as slow down the advance of the Roman infantry lines. Shifting to an assessment of my rough draft ‘house rules’ regarding demoralization, well, I think this tinkering worked well enough. However, there is always room for improvement, is there not? At the risk of extending this final section, my concern or “issue” with demoralization is that it seems to allow commands that have ‘had the stuffing knocked out of them’ to hang around until such a point as there are just a few dozen or hundred men left. While morale rules in a sense, in the recently completed scenario, the Roman contingent appeared to be completely unaffected by the sudden appearance of a large hole to its right. Granted, the Gepids were not able to exploit this advantage and the Huns were too far away, but on an actual ancient battlefield, I think this would be a significant development. 

Changing gears, I fully admit that this latest solo project would not qualify as a pretty wargame. That was not its intention. To merit that adjective and subjective opinion, I think that well-painted and based 15mm or 25mm figures would be required. Ideally, unit bases would have had a universal frontage of either 50mm or 60mm. This increase in dimension would, of course, made a much larger tabletop necessary. And this more expansive tabletop would have needed a few pieces at least, of well-modeled terrain features to add to the level of prettiness. Along this same line of consideration, the recently completed scenario was not a social event. It is not too difficult to imagine the 15mm or 25mm figures and formations being ‘commanded’ by eight player-generals, who are, in turn, supported by an experienced umpire and his knowledgeable assistant. Does a pretty as opposed to a functional wargame, and one that is more social with regard to participating individuals, make for a better wargame or experience? Here again, opinions will vary. More context is needed to provide a better answer. (There is that word again.) Off the top of my gray-haired head, I can think of two instances where this might not be the case. First, imagine that you have been designated as a commander of a flank or sector and then, through no fault of your own, you do not have or wind up not having a whole heck of a lot to do during the scenario except watch the other players move their traditional units and engage in battle on some pretty good-looking terrain. Two, you are again assigned to a command or commands, and then, by sheer chance, find yourself situated next to a fellow player-general who is rather overweight and who could also use a reminder tutorial on the basics of good personal hygiene and or manners. 

Shifting from hypotheticals and the subjective to something more measurable, I should like to use this paragraph to examine the losses suffered by each side during the engagement. As described in the captions, the Roman alliance witnessed the collapse and rout of four of its original nine commands. Half of the Visigoth contingent was forced off the field, and one of the Roman commands was eliminated from the battle. The entire Burgundi contingent was broken after a hard fight with the Gepids. In terms of points, these losses added up to 179, which represented 41 percent of the starting Roman strength. In addition to these casualties, there were nine units worth 27 points lost by the Franks; 2 units worth 8 points lost by the Romans, and 2 units lost by the Visigoths worth 8 points. This damage added 43 points to the Roman roster, bringing their total to 222 points. If my math is correct, this represented 51 percent of the Roman original numbers, so, technically, it appears that the Romans were defeated. Turning to the other alliance or coalition, the Huns experienced the complete loss of one command, which was equal to 48 points. No other commands/groups were routed, but a few were rather beaten up in the engagement. Another ‘division’ of Hun Horse Bow lot five stands or 20 points. The Gepid contingent (demoralized), had suffered the loss of six units of Bow Levy, three units of Knights, and five units of Warriors. These casualties added up to 39 points. The Ostrogoths lost four Knight stands and a Skirmisher stand for a total of 19 points. (Their command of Knights was demoralized.) The Alemanni suffered 38 points of losses in the form of seven units of Bow Levy, three units of Light Foot, and five units of Warriors. To reiterate, one of the Alemanni commands was demoralized. If my additional math is correct, then the Hun alliance suffered 164 points of combined losses. This amounts or amounted to around 35 percent of their original strength. Based on this figuring, it appears that I should amend my judgment of a draw to a minor and somewhat costly Hun victory. 

In the report provided by Adam Hayes in the July/August 2013 issue of Slingshot [see, if you are able to, ‘Chalons 451 AD - With Piquet Archon 2: It’s all in the Planning (?)’], the esteemed gentleman explained: “All too often, every available unit in both armies meets up for a huge barney in the centre of the map. This can be ungainly and tedious to fight on the tabletop.” On the one hand, I could not help but be reminded of this as I played 11 turns of my latest solo and rather or purposefully large wargame. In terms of points, I believe that this contest qualifies as a “huge barney,” and may be, at least unofficially (who keeps track of these categories anyway?), one of the largest TRIUMPH! wargames ever staged on a tabletop. Admittedly, the functional and simple units could be described as “fiddly,” and so, proved challenging to handle at times. But as this was a solo project, I did not have to worry about disappointing other player-generals or upsetting the sense and sensibilities of the participants. Admittedly, there were instances of “tedium,” as resolving a large number of melees can become repetitive and again, require some delicate handling with units that are objectively small, flimsy, and lacking in aesthetic appeal. Then again, I think one could remark or perhaps even argue that these situations can be found in and or experienced when playing in sizable traditional wargames. 

Anyway, in brief review, I think the terrain was sufficient and the opposing armies were satisfactory. As a learning module, this fictional battle proved itself valuable. For future ‘mega-games’ with these rules, I think a unit frontage of 40mm should be the smallest employed. Then again, I might experiment with methods involving 50mm units, which would allow for missile and movement ranges to be measured in inches instead of some other odd increment. I could also see if staging three or four separate but integrated battles would allow for a subjectively better wargaming experience. 

Over the past couple of years, I estimate that I have completed between 20 and 30 TRIUMPH! wargames. The majority of these were completed in a ‘World Cup’ format of 15 contests played in 2023. To be certain, I make no claim to be expert with these rules. However, I think that I do have a respectable level of experience. This has been gained through solo play, submitting questions to the WGC Forum, watching the various You Tube videos, and being at table side (as an observer only) when Rod C. presented and umpired a historical battle at a Little Wars Convention. In the recently completed contest, I found very few instances where I had to stop and check the rules or consult some exchange that had been copied and pasted into a reference page from the WGC Forum. There were more instances of being surprised when Bow Levy were able to repulse multiple attacks or even, on some occasions, score a local victory when doubling a better and more expensive enemy unit. Even though I had prepared a ‘cheat sheet,’ and was especially curious or eager to see how my Roman infantry with bow support might fare in the struggle, these legionary and auxiliary formations never got the chance. In fact, it struck me as rather odd that units armed with integrated archers were restricted in their target selection. The numerous units of Huns were also restricted, at least in my mind or perhaps it is simply bias formed from using other rule sets and reading other wargame reports, as these could not loose arrow volleys at their enemies. So, I found myself struggling to figure out the best way to fight with Horse Bow against Knights. Instead of sweeping away the Visigoths, either by volume of archery or by ‘feigned flight’ tactics, my figurative Huns were hard pressed to make any progress against the Visigoths. As reported in the map captions, they were eventually able to force the infantry off the field, but a fairly steep price was paid.