Meddling with Metaurus

In the May/June 2020 issue (Number 330) of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, Dr. Paul Innes provided readers with an in-depth analysis of the Tactica II rules. In one paragraph, the gentleman academic, accomplished wargamer, and former editor of the long-running and august publication remarked: “Tactica II is something of a toolbox. If you want to try out alternatives, swap out some of the components.” It occurred to me - and I fully stipulate that this is neither an original nor revolutionary idea - that it might be possible to take a similar approach to historical battles. To clarify, I am not suggesting that one should stage a refight of Agincourt, just to cite one of dozens of possible examples, and swap out the component of a French defeat. But I wonder: would it be interesting, entertaining, and worthwhile to design a scenario where the ground was not so rain-soaked and muddy? Would the English have prevailed if the terrain had been dry and firm? What about changing sides, so that the French would deploy where the English originally did? What about orienting the respective lines of the historical battlefield in another direction? Anyway, moving from a consideration of an engagement that took place during the Hundred Years War to the time period of the Second Punic War, I found myself wondering what kind of wargame might result if the sides at the 207 BC/BCE battle of Metaurus had been switched. What if the Romans were the ones who were trying to find their way along a river while pursued by some Carthaginian cavalry (likely Numidians)? What if one or more of the legions had been recently formed and so, were deployed on that ground originally occupied by Hasdrubal’s Gauls? (Evidently, many of these warriors were inebriated or just fatigued.) Using this role reversal as a foundation or template, I proceeded to draft and then revise plans for my next solo wargame project. 

Preparations

There was about a week delay as I debated the pros and cons of using this or that set of rules. Without going into too much detail, it would be fair to remark that things got heated and a completely different set of rules was considered - not as a compromise, but just to remove the perceived problem(s) and positions held by each stubborn side. Anyway, this issue finally resolved, I quickly moved on to the design of the battlefield and development of the orders of battle and troops that would be deployed on the tabletop. With an equal emphasis on low cost and functionality, this was simply and quickly completed. To be sure, the finished battlefield lacked a certain and traditional (acceptable or expected?) level of aesthetic appeal, but there was no mistaking what this or that terrain feature was, and there was no mistaking which units were Carthaginian and which were Roman. 

How It Played    

This simple and functional approach (likely anathema to some), is illustrated in the following series of basic maps. The captions provide a brief but sufficient description of the terrain, deployments, and course of the general engagement. 

Comments    

The following extended quote was copied from page 203 of Hugh Bicheno’s excellent (in my estimation) BATTLE ROYAL - THE WARS OF THE ROSES: 1440-1462:

A battle has at least four identities. The closest to reality is the mosaic of 

participants’ perceptions, soon subsumed into the second, which is a body of 

accepted facts to which memories retrospectively conform. The third is the 

canonical version, coloured by the propaganda use to which it is put at the time 

and later. The fourth seeks to rediscover the first, but is shaped by the intellectual 

climate of the time in which it is written.

I wonder if and to what extent “wargame report” might be substituted for the word “battle” in this interesting excerpt? Being a solo wargamer, I certainly was the closest to the recently fought action, recently completed scenario. My report of it and my perceptions have been communicated through this blog post as well as through some other channels. I rather doubt that there will be a second or even third “identity” of this solo wargame, but again, it is interesting to think about. 

Shifting abruptly from academic or interpretative considerations to the field of wargame accounting, I thought some readers might be interested in reviewing the losses list for each army. 

Roman casualties:

1 heroic Legate

1 unit of Roman cavalry

5 units of Latin cavalry

1 unit of Illyrian cavalry

1 Roman quincunx (half of a legion)

2 units of Italian allied infantry

6 heroes

Carthaginian casualties:

4 units of Elephants

1 unit of Greek mercenary hoplites

1 unit of Campanian cavalry

4 units of Numidian cavalry

3 units of Gallic warriors

3 units of Ligurian infantry

2 units of Spanish cavalry

2 units of Gallic cavalry

3 subordinate commanders/generals

8 heroes

Turning the figurative wheel of this final section in another direction, it was either ironic or coincidental that I happen to pick up and read selected articles of the March/April 2021 issue (Number 335) of Slingshot earlier this month. The prolific and well-known Rick Priestley was interviewed by Gordon Garrod. Rick’s response to the question about “realism and playability” especially caught my attention. The author of the Hail Caesar rules (and several others, as well as a good number of wargame magazine pieces) offered some interesting comments about realism, starting with how the word might be defined by ancient wargamers. In the last paragraph of his thoughtful answer, Rick spoke about the “importance of striking a balance between a game played for entertainment and representational credibility.”

As I mentioned briefly above, there was some discussion over which set of rules to use for this scenario. The main concern was the depiction of and related fighting ability of a Republican Roman legion and its allied equivalent. In the scenario recently ended or decided, as the Carthaginians stood no realistic chance of coming back from such a victory medal deficit, I had 10 legions on the tabletop. If an average strength of 4,000 is assumed, then in terms of legionary heavy infantry alone (in addition to the skirmishing leves), there were some 40,000 Roman foot on this model battlefield. I opted to represent each legion with two stands or quincunxes, so that meant that a total of 20 squares would be occupied by these deep units. The chosen rules do not establish a specific ground scale, but I suppose it would be possible to determine or at least estimate the actual metric footprint made by 10 actual Roman legions drawn up in the checkerboard formation of maniples. Moving to the aesthetic question or issue of this “representational credibility,” I imagine that some readers, if not a majority, might blanch or shake their heads when they find out that my Roman legions were simple and  functional two-dimensional models (i.e., counters). Furthermore, to indicate the three lines or component parts of hastati, principes, and triarii, I used blue, yellow, and green dice, respectively, so that at a glance, I could see which legionary troop type was fighting in the front rank of this representative formation. For tracking losses to any legion, I used a black die, so that I could see how many disorders were currently on the unit. Anyway, the irony of using various colored dice in an expressly dice-free set of rules to indicate troop type within a specific formation, disorder from casualties, ammunition supply, or wounds to generals and subordinates, was not lost on me.  

In drafting, revising, and reviewing the various parts of this most recent project, it occurs to me that I may have, perhaps, relied too heavily on or referenced too many times, the 4 “A’s” that David Kay talked about in his “Alternative Rant” article. (Again, full credit and admiration to Anthony Clipsom for sharing his thoughts about the 3 “A’s” about terrain with the Society membership initially. Please see the section titled ‘Considering Casualties’ in https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Mulling%20over%20Metaurus%20and%20other%20Matters.) Anyway, continuing with my model legions, it is stipulated that these were abstractions and were lacking in traditional aesthetic appeal. However, and at the risk of repeating myself, this abstraction and this very low aesthetic appeal did not interfere in the playing of or completion of the wargame. Perhaps concerns and questions might be raised about the authenticity of my recently completed scenario. Some, who may or may not identify as gatekeepers, will likely “poo-poo” the setting of this fictional contest. They also might judge the composition of the “model” Carthaginian army, and then offer a “thumbs-down vote” with regard to the number of legions deployed. To satiate their particular appetites then, please allow me to provide a couple of links by which they might want to make a comparison or contrast: 

https://www.vislardica.com/blog/2025/7/9/tts-aar-to-the-smallest-game-4-arab-conquest-vs-later-carthaginians [another sub-set of gatekeepers will likely dismiss the ahistorical aspect of this friendly contest, while the same or another sub-set will take issue with the extra materials on the tabletop]

https://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.com/2025/07/sea-peoples-invade-egypt.html

It seems appropriate to close with a comment about “ambition,” the fourth “A” in this useful but perhaps not universally accepted or applied rubric. If I understand David’s point, then this characteristic or quality is generally defined as “capturing why we wargame and what we get out of it.” Here I was, thinking it might have something to do with setting up your largest playing surface and then populating it with unusually large armies, at least for a To The Strongest! game. At the risk of being chastised for giving a superficial answer to a serious question or topic for an interesting and wide-ranging discussion, I wargame because I have always had an interest in military history and well, this hobby seemed to fit nicely within that academic if also amateur interest. As for what I have gotten out of the hobby, well, it would be fair to remark that this has evolved over the years. The appreciation and understanding of military history seems to grow as I age and accumulate (hopefully) more experience and knowledge. Writing about my hobby activities was never part of the plan, in as much as I had a formal or informal wargaming plan at the tender age of 14 or 15. Here is another point of irony. Now, it seems that at least half if not rather more of the time dedicated to participating in or pursuing this hobby is spent sitting at a keyboard and staring at a screen as opposed to looking over a tabletop, contemplating my next move(s), and hoping that my dice or cards or chips treat me reasonably well.   

_______________________________

Orders of Battle    

ROMANS:

[Left]

Command 1: x4 units of Latin allied Cavalry; x1 unit of Latin allied Cavalry (veteran); x1 hero, and mounted, detached leader  

Command 2: x3 units of Gallic allied infantry (deep); x3 heroes, and mounted, detached leader 

Command 3: x3 units of allied Italian infantry (javelinmen); x1 unit of light infantry - javelins; x1 unit light infantry - slings, and mounted, detached leader 

Totals: 128 points, 33 VMs - so the Roman left is demoralized with loss of 11 VMs

[Center]

Command 4: x1 Latin allied quincunx (raw) with screening leves (raw); x1 Roman quincunx (raw) with screening leves (raw); x1 hero, and mounted, detached Praetor

Command 5: x2 Latin allied quincunx with screening leves (raw); x2 Roman quincunx (veteran) with screening leves (raw); x3 heroes; x2 mounted, detached Legates, and x1 senior, mounted, detached Consul

Command 6: x1 Latin allied quincunx (raw) with screening leves (raw); x1 Roman quincunx with screening leves (raw), and a mounted, detached and heroic Praetor

Totals: 317 points, 75 VMs - so the Roman center is demoralized with loss of 25 VMs

[Right]

Command 7: x3 units of allied Italian infantry (javelinmen); x2 unit of light infantry - javelins; x1 unit light infantry (veteran) - bows, and mounted, detached leader

Command 8: x3 units of Latin allied Cavalry; x1 hero, and mounted, detached leader 

Command 9: x4 units of Roman Cavalry; x1 hero, and mounted, attached and heroic leader

Command 10: x3 units of light cavalry (Illyrians and Tarantines), and mounted, detached leader  

Command 11: x1 Latin allied quincunx with screening leves (raw); x1 Roman quincunx with screening leves (raw); x2 heroes, and mounted, detached Praetor

Plus - x1 senior, mounted, detached Consul

Totals: 212 points, 50 VMs - so the Roman right is demoralized with loss of 17 VMs

______________________

CARTHAGINIANS:

[Right]

Command A: x3 units of Numidian Cavalry; x2 units of Campanian Cavalry, and mounted, detached leader  

Command B: x2 units of African Elephants (deep); x1 unit of light infantry - bow: x3 units of Greek mercenaries (hoplites - deep); x1 hero, and mounted, detached leader

Plus - senior, mounted and detached general 

Totals: 195 points, 25 VMs - so the Carthaginian left is demoralized with loss of 9 VMs

[Center]

Command C: x4 units of Gauls (deep); x4 heroes, and an attached, mounted leader

Command D: x3 units of Iberians (scutarii); x1 unit of light infantry - javelin; x1 hero, and mounted, detached leader

Command E: x3 units of African spearmen (deep); x2 units of light infantry - javelin; x2 units of African Elephants; x1 hero, and senior, mounted and detached general

Command F: x3 units of African Elephants; x1 unit of light infantry - slings, and detached, mounted leader

Command G: x3 units of Greek mercenaries (hoplites - deep); x1 unit of light infantry - javelins; x1 hero, and mounted, attached leader

Totals: 244 points, 56 VMs - so the Carthaginian center is demoralized with loss of 19 VMs

[Left]

Command H: x3 units of Gauls (deep); x3 heroes, and an attached, mounted leader

Command I: x3 units of Ligurians (javelinmen); x1 unit of light infantry - slings, and mounted, detached leader 

Command J: x3 units of African spearmen (deep); x1 units of light infantry - javelin; x1 hero, and senior, mounted, detached and heroic general

Command K: x2 units of Spanish Cavalry; x1 unit of Spanish Cavalry (veteran), and mounted, detached leader 

Command L: x2 units of Greek Cavalry; x1 hero, and mounted, detached leader 

Command M: x2 units of Gallic Cavalry; x1 unit of Gallic Cavalry (veteran), and mounted, detached leader 

Command N: x3 units of Numidian Cavalry, and mounted, detached leader  

Plus - x1 senior, mounted, detached general

Totals: 226 points, 57 VMs - so the Carthaginian left is demoralized with loss of 19 VMs