Mulling over Metaurus and other Matters . . .

Initially, I had thought that the two-part article by Bruce Douglas, assisted by Alan Douglas (a father-son team?), was the earliest written record of the 207 BC/BCE battle of Metaurus told from a wargamer’s perspective. After a bit more digging around in the confusing, dusty, and incredibly vast mines of the Internet, an even earlier piece of evidence was uncovered (more like stumbled over). In the May 1975 issue of Wargamer’s Digest (five points to each reader who remembers that particular publication), there was an article titled: “The Battle of Metaurus 207 B.C.” (Please see https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147413195/Vol-2-7-Bunker-Hill-The-Battle-of-Metaurus?srsltid=AfmBOorSPuq9qQ0YgTGdH_DzG9xS2J4FOE-Jor8OTK6VpczWX0bmBIlG) Normally, I would not blink an eye over the minor cost of this “ancient artifact” and the associated postage (roughly the same as a coffee order - depending on one’s personal taste of course - from Starbucks), but given current circumstances, factoring in the comparative lack of interest in or traffic on this blog, and considering that I am in possession of three related pieces of “archeological” evidence, the decision not to make the purchase was deemed acceptable and prudent, if also regretted slightly. Anyway, let me try to provide some context. 

As stated in the title of this post, I have, of late, been thinking about the battle of Metaurus. As with most of my projects or thought processes, this thinking has not followed any coherent or direct path from Point A to Point B. A more apt description of it would be a doodle or squiggle. (But nothing at all similar to what has been in the national news recently - o tempora, o mores!) That self-deprecating but too often true admission aside, I found myself interested in investigating the wargaming history of Metaurus. As I have an excellent source in the form of the Slingshot Index (this handy little compilation - memory stick downloaded to a file on my current computer - contains the full contents of 333 issues of The Journal Of The Society of Ancients), this was my first stop on this unplanned journey. In the January 1979 issue (Number 81) the aforementioned team of Bruce and Alan Douglas provided readers with “THE MATAURUS [sic] - An Account Of The Campaign And Battle Of The Metaurus, 207 BC - Part 1: Setting The Scene.” After a brief introduction in which the authors opined, “The second [sic] Punic War was one of history’s turning points, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, and the Battle of the Metaurus in its turn ensured the eventual outcome of that war,” an outline of the history of the conflict up to the Metaurus was laid out. This was followed by a consideration of the opposing armies, with the Romans and their legions being examined first. There was then an interlude wherein commanders and tactics were briefly discussed. This was followed by a necessarily lengthy review of the polyglot composition of the Carthaginian army or armies. In the March 1979 issue (Number 82), this dynamic duo of ancient wargamers offered subscribers and general readers, “THE MATAURUS [sic] - An Account Of The Campaign And Battle Of The Metaurus, 207BC [sic]- Part 2: The Battle, And A Wargame Refight.” In this half of their engaging and excellent submission, the gentlemen described the period just before the contest, how the armies deployed, and the course of the historical engagement. As might be imagined, there was reliance on the ancient source material, though there was also some conjecture. This educated reasoning was admitted with regard to the map provided. The meat of this Part 2 was dedicated to the refight. Here, Bruce, assisted as ever by Alan, explained how the numbers were decided, what rules and amendments were employed, what the composition of the miniature armies were, and how these model forces were deployed on a 6-by-4-foot tabletop. A short narrative of the wargame refight was then provided, which was followed by an analysis. [Spoiler alert: In this nearly 50-year old wargame, the Romans repeated history, thought they did not imitate it exactly.] The section of Part 2 that I found rather interesting was Bruce’s list of “sources and suggestions for further reading.” The names and translations of Livy and Polybius were familiar to me. However, of the eight titles provided, only the name of Arnold Toynbee was recognized. To be fair, Bruce did comment that these source materials were “modern (well, relatively).” 

Returning to the temptation of that slightly earlier (and possibly earliest) article in the pages of Wargamer’s Digest, I would hazard a guess that Livy and Polybius were probably referenced as well. I cannot speak with any certainty though about the modern scholars and treatments that may have been consulted. And I do not know if there were suggestions on how to refight the battle or if there was a report on a refight in this four-years-earlier coverage. Moving back to the “comfort zone” of the Slingshot Index, I must confess that I found it slightly puzzling to find that there was nothing published about Metaurus until approximately 14 years after the journal debuted. This is not intended as a judgement; it is simply an observation. Reviewing the contents of Issues 1-80 of this publication more carefully, I noted that the Second Punic War was the subject of a handful of articles. Peter Bull has first place honors or honours, as he shared “The Battle of the Trebbia, 218 BC” with readers in Issue 9. Roger Johnson followed suit, after a lengthy intermission, with his thoughts on Trasimene and Cannae in Issues 32 and 34, respectively. The fourth and fifth submissions were from the mind of the much-better-known name C S Grant. (Sorry Mssrs Bull and Johnson.) This arguably hall of fame member of the hobby wrote a few pages about Zama in Issue 35, and then quite a few more pages about “The Army of Carthage at the Time of the Second Punic War” in Issue 36. Based on my amateur and informal research of this Index, there would be a gap of almost 50 issues before another article about the Second Punic War appeared in the pages of this journal. On reflection, this cannot justifiably be called unusual, given the expanse of history covered by The Society of Ancients, and the fact that membership numbers were comparatively small, even though readership was growing, albeit by fits and starts, between late 1965 and the start of 1979. 

The second piece of evidence I accidentally tripped over was found in the April 1995 issue of The Messenger. A gentleman by the name of Stephen Phenow provided readers with an informative article on Metaurus. Similar to the Douglas duo, Stephen divided his examination into several smaller parts. He looked at the campaign, the forces involved, the field and battle, and then offered a few ideas on wargaming the contest. (If interested, please see https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/messen/199504/ms9504m4.htm) Based on my reading of both treatments, I think that Stephen, Bruce, and Alan would get along rather well. Indeed, it might be remarked that Stephen had a stronger opinion regarding the importance of the historical engagement. The first line of his April 1995 treatment reads: “Metaurus is a fascinating battle to refight as it is the only battle in Italy where a Carthaginian army was destroyed.” While I could not find any specific evidence, it seems safe enough to postulate that Stephen and his colleagues wargamed this contest at least a few times over the years. [Sidebar: I recall Stephen being a very active as well as almost-frighteningly erudite member of the now defunct Armati Yahoo! Forum way back when - 2008 or so. Curious to see if he was still active in the hobby, I did a search for his name and it appears that the gentleman is now living on the other side of these United States. I am not sure of his current hobby involvement, however. At the risk of further distracting myself from what is an intended distraction (more on this later, perhaps), I was completely and blissfully ignorant of the existence of The Messenger. This is not surprising, I suppose, given the niche nature of the publication and my general level of ignorance. (Sidebar: I recall seeing something on the QI program wherein the great Stephen Fry talked about the amount of ignorance versus the amount of what is actually known.) Here is the link to the 30-year-old article about wargaming Metaurus: https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/messen/199504/mstc9504.htm] Anyway, it might prove interesting - at least to a small and select group - to compare and contrast the earlier effort of Bruce and Alan with the later effort produced by Stephen. At the risk of appearing to take a side, the battlefield map presented by the California resident (at the time), is more linear and unified than the disjointed diagram offered by the Douglas wargaming and writing team. 

Advancing the calendar approximately eight years, the third example of Metaurus wargame writing or “Exhibit C” was written by a solo wargamer who just so happens to be the individual behind this blog. I confess (and am rather embarrassed) that I had completely forgotten about this effort, had simply buried it deep under a pile of dusty files and folders in a part of my brain that is not often accessed/used. Hal Thinglum was kind enough to accept and then publish my submission, “Modeling Metaurus: Reconstructing Hasdrubal’s Defeat in the Second Punic War,” in the January/February 2003 issue of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter). In summary, this was a consideration of how one might go about refighting the historic battle using the Armati and Advanced Armati rules. My report looked at sources and then moved on to a consideration of the orders of battle and how these might be depicted using the army lists and unit sizes provided within the chosen rules. I then looked at terrain and deployments. (The map I provided is very similar, in my estimation, to that offered by Stephen Phenow, though I did not refer to his work as again, I had no idea about The Messenger.) Anyway and to reiterate, it might prove interesting to conduct a comparison and contrast of the three cited pieces of evidence. Ideally, it would be nice to have a fourth - and possibly earliest - treatment of Metaurus, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that there might be more similarities found with this first effort than differences. (Here is the link, for those readers who may be interested in reviewing a two-decades-old example of my writing: https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/mwan/121/mw121me1.htm)

At the acknowledged risk of being accused of self-promotion, but more in the interest of drafting a better record of its wargaming history, I should like to inform readers that my wargame report “Three Against One: Modeling Metaurus with Armati,” appeared in the May/June 2015 issue (Number 300) of Slingshot. This project took place some 12 years after my earlier effort, and was, if I may be so bold as to comment, a better piece of writing. The article also contained a little bit of color or colour, even if it was still rather lacking in traditional aesthetic appeal. According to my “research” then, this is the second article about Metaurus in over 350 issues of this long-running and august journal. 

Shifting from traditional or old school formats to the blogosphere, in addition to a whole lot of links and references to a certain Sergeant who is well known in the Warhammer 40K universe (another example of my ignorance), I found a fair number of reports of the attempts that have been made by wargamers to reconstruct this particular battle. The following list is presented in chronological order. By no means is it a definitive or an exhaustive catalog of how many times or ways Metaurus has been refought on a tabletop. At the risk of going off on a related tangent and or being proven wrong, I would guess that Metaurus might not make a “wargamer’s top three list” of most interesting or important battles of the Second Punic War. (On this subject, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Second_Punic_War. Adding to this parenthetical, it might prove interesting to conduct a poll in The Society of Ancients Forum and see how many respond and or rank their choices.) Anyway, here are the blog posts that I was able to discover:

> November 2014 - https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2014/11/games-day-1-metaurus.html

> April 2017 - https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2017/04/fun-at-wargames-holiday-centre.html

> July 2019 - https://www.talesfromawargameshed.com/blog/adlg-punic-wars-back-to-the-metaurus

> December 2019 - https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2019/12/battle-of-metaurus-207bc-using-ancients.html

> April 2024 - https://chicagoterrainfactory.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/little-wars-battle-of-metaurus/

> March 2025 - https://www.mytoysoldiersandme.com/2025/03/20/reminiscences/

Shifting back to books or academic papers as source material, again, I do not presume to present a complete and vetted selection of works focused on the battle of Metaurus. However, the following texts and papers might prove familiar or perhaps be of interest to some readers. 

> Pages 184-190 of HANNIBAL’S WAR - A Military History of the Second Punic War, by J. F. Lazenby. Though somewhat dated (1978), I find this to be an excellent resource. 

> “Metaurus: The Most Important Battle of the Second Punic War,” by Nicholas Brookland. Please see https://www.academia.edu/12881446/Metaurus_The_Most_Important_Battle_of_the_Second_Punic_War

> In October of 2017, a gentleman by the name of Alexander Hamer provided this material to interested readers: https://realhistoryco.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/battle-of-the-metaurus/

Searching the shelves of my small library for additional Metaurus-related content, I found a one-sentence description or reference to the engagement on page 123 of Warfare in the Classical World. Understanding that the accomplished academic likely had to edit a long list of battles otherwise his work would have required three or four volumes, it was still rather curious/interesting to see that Metaurus did not make it into LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, Professor Sabin’s engaging and excellent book. Then again, neither did Trebbia nor Lake Trasimene. 

___________________________

Considering Casualties

On page 12 of LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, Professor Philip Sabin references a journal article from 1985 wherein the author studied a number of hoplite battles and worked out that, on average, the winning side in these positively horrific contests suffered casualties amounting to 5 percent, while the losing side experienced losses of approximately 14 percent. [Note to self: Check with the library to see if I can secure a copy of ‘Casualties in hoplite battles,’ from Greek, Roman & Byzantine Studies, 26(1).] In an admittedly amateur attempt to validate these figures, and accepting completely the challenges and problems discussed by Professor Sabin when it comes to analyzing the numbers provided in ancient source materials (this thorny subject is reviewed on pages 11-15), I thought I would look at the battle of Delium, which took place in 424 BC/BCE. According to Wikipedia and its newly formed A. I. assistant, the Athenians mustered 18,000 men for this short, sharp, and savage contest, while the Boeotians deployed 18,500. With respect to reported or estimated losses, the Athenians saw 1,200 fall on the plain. Apparently, the majority of these were hoplites. In contrast, the Boeotians lost around 500 men. Working with these figures, and admitting to the often questioned reliability of Wikipedia information as well as to the introduction of the research performed by an A. I. assistant, simple math suggests that the Athenians lost approximately 7 percent of their army, while the Boeotians lost around 3 percent of their men. So, it could be remarked (with qualification) that the losing side at Delium suffered twice as many casualties. On the other hand, if I accept the troop type breakdown and focus just on the number of dead hoplites produced in this meeting of city-state phalanxes, then it appears that the Athenians lost 14 percent of their citizen heavy infantry, while the victorious Boeotians lost an estimated 5 to 7 percent of their citizen heavy infantry. The reference to the now 40-year-old study by one P. Krentz led me to wonder if there might be similar surveys of the battles and engagements fought during other periods within the sweeping ancient time frame. Using the chapter headings of his engaging, well-researched, and well-written book, does the student of ancient military history have access to battlefield casualties as a winner and defeated percentage for ‘Alexander the Great,’ ‘The Successors,’ ‘Carthage and Rome,’ and ‘Rome Moves East,’ to name four of the information-filled and wargamer-friendly sections of this again, excellent text?

Acknowledging that the following section is based on numbers collected during an amateur and informal search of the Internet and relies heavily on the “information” provided by Wikipedia and its bodiless assistant, I would still humbly suggest that this “research” or these “findings” offer - perhaps - a starting point for more academically acceptable work. That important qualification reiterated, I thought I would start with the 317 BC/BCE battle of Paraitacene, which is briefly analyzed by Professor Sabin at the bottom of page 12 in his text. According to the narrative supplied by Diodorus, “Antigonus fielded 28,000 infantry and 8,500 cavalry (of whom 3,800 were killed and 4,000 wounded), whereas Eumenes fought with 35,000 foot and 6,100 horse (of whom 540 died and 900 were wounded).” If one separates the fatalities from those infantry and cavalry who were returned to the ranks after recovering, then the army of Antigonus lost about 10 percent of its strength on that fateful day. This number was approximately 10 times more than the casualties suffered by the men fighting for Eumenes. Folding in the number of wounded into my simple calculations, it was found that the percentage of losses experienced by Antigonus increased to around 21 percent, while the dead and wounded accounted for about 3.5 percent of Eumenes’s original strength. Interested in seeing what kind of difference there might be, I went from Professor Sabin and Diodorus to Wikipedia and its new friend with the initials A. I. Doing some more math based on the figures provided in a neat little table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paraitakene, it appears that about 17.5 percent of the army of Antigonus was knocked out of service that day, while around 4 percent of the army under Eumenes was, in one form or another, left bloody and broken on the field. Very broadly speaking then, it might be said that for this particular engagement and review of figures, that Wikipedia and A. I. are within the margin of error, which might be agreed upon at plus or minus 3 percentage points. However, it was interesting to note that in the traditional examination, Antigonus lost seven men for every man Eumenes lost, while the Wikipedia source informed that this ratio was more like four dead/wounded for Antigonus compared to one lost by Eumenes. Curious to see what else Wikipedia and its intelligent assistant might have to say, I worked backwards from Paraetacene, and focused on The Society of Ancient’s Battle Day list. [For more information about this annual event which I hope to attend at least once before I “finally shuffle off this mortal coil,” please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day] With regard to format, it seemed that KISS [keep it simple, seriously] would work well enough, so I am just listing the historical engagements and indicating what the percentages of casualties (reportedly) were for each side. 

> Arsuf, 1191 AD/CE (Battle Day 2017) - 

Crusaders, about 3.5 percent; Saladin’s army, about 28 percent lost. 

> Pharsalus, 48 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2016) -

Caesar’s forces, about 5 percent; Pompey’s army, about 15 percent lost.

Note: Like other ancient contests, this one had quite a few interpretations as to 

numbers that were killed, wounded, captured, etc.  

> The Hydaspes, 326 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2015) -

Alexander’s army, about 2 percent; the army of Porus, about 22 percent lost.

Note: I used the ‘killed’ numbers provided by Diodorus. I did not factor in the 

reported number of those who were captured. 

> Montaperti, 1260 AD/CE (Battle Day 2014) -

Sienese, et al., about 6 percent; the Florentines and their friends, about 15 

percent lost. 

Note: If the higher number of Florentine casualties is accepted, then the 

percentage changes to 30.

> Chalons, 451 AD/CE (Battle Day 2013) -

Given the variety of sources and wide variation in numbers, I hesitate to offer 

even a guesstimate. It does appear, however, that this battle was quite bloody. 

Evidently, some 51,000 men (from both sides) may have perished on this field or 

these fields. If both armies added up to 150,000 men, then this would mean that 

  roughly 34 percent of those involved died in the fighting.

> Plataea, 479 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2012) -

Another problematic engagement with regard to accurate numbers, unfortunately  

but not unexpectedly. According to some interpretations, the Persians may have 

suffered five or even times as many casualties as the Greeks. 

> Kadesh, 1274 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2011) -

Yet another case of multiple question marks . . . Not very surprising, given the 

very early date of this historical battle. Apparently, the losses on both sides were 

fairly heavy. 

> Zama, 202 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2010) -

Around 5 percent of the Roman army was killed; the Carthaginians suffered an 

estimated 40 percent killed, so eight times as many lost. 

> Callinicum, 531 AD/CE (Battle Day 2009) -

And yet another engagement for which the numbers of losses are difficult to 

determine.

> Poitiers, 1356 AD/CE (Battle Day 2008) -

The percentage breakdown depends on if only the reported dead are counted, or 

if this number is added to those who were captured. The numbers would likely 

change if more information was available regarding the non-knightly or men-at-

arms classes. Very broadly speaking, it might be suggested that the French 

suffered four or five casualties for every man laid low on the English side of the 

field. 

 

> Cynoscephalae, 197 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2007) -

The Romans lost 3 percent of their army; the Macedonians lost 31 percent, so 

approximately 10 times more. This Macedonian figure does not include those 

who were captured. 

 

> Dorylaeum, 1097 AD/CE (Battle Day 2006) -

It appears that the Crusaders lost around 25 percent of those engaged, while the 

Turks may have suffered as many as 50 percent casualties.

> The Sambre, 57 BC/BCE (Battle Day 2005) -

Impossible to state with any real hope of accuracy. Caesar’s account is helpful to 

an extent, but not so very much when it comes to figuring out how many were 

killed, wounded and captured on each side.

> Gaugamela, 331 BC/BCE (Inaugural Battle Day, 2004) - 

And another one of those head-scratching cases wherein arguments can be made 

for this or that interpretation. For example, one camp or school of thought holds 

that the Macedonians lost just 2 percent of their army strength, while the 

Persians may have lost as much as 16 percent of their army. Phrased another way, 

for each soldier of Alexander’s who died, 40 Persians were cut down on that large 

and flat plain. 

On further review, while this was an interesting exercise or second (third?) distraction, I am not sure if there is any consistent through line here. Yes, the losing side in an engagement suffered more dead and wounded. Usually significantly more than were listed as casualties on the winning side. However, it does not appear that one could or should attempt to make a general statement based on a variety of calculations, as the gentleman academic did back in 1985.  

Shifting the focus (or my attention, to be perfectly frank) back to the more controllable environment of the tabletop, I continue to wonder how this disparity in losses might be better (i.e., more historically) depicted. Almost in the same breath, however, I wonder if this emphasis on historical accuracy would impact the playability as well as the enjoyment of a friendly wargame. To be certain, I hold no advanced degree in the study of ancient military history. However, through reading a little bit and through other experiences such as wargaming for a fair number of years and talking with or exchanging emails with like-minded individuals, I have developed this idea or impression that ancient battles could vary wildly in duration. Furthermore, and with regard to casualties, it seems that it was often the case that the battle “hung in the balance,” and there were some losses on both sides. Then, at some point, the morale of one side collapsed for this reason or these reasons, and they fled from the field. It was during this rout and pursuit that the majority of losses were suffered, unless I am much mistaken. 

In David Kay’s “An Alternative Rant” (May/June 2020 Slingshot, Number 330), the veteran and prolific 6mm wargamer references the admired intellect of Anthony Clipsom when he cites the sub-forum discussion of “the three A’s of wargame terrain.” In addition to “authenticity, aesthetic, and abstraction,” David suggested adding a fourth characteristic or quality. This is “ambition,” which - if I understand his point - is generally defined as “capturing why we wargame and what we get out of it.” Perhaps one could also use the word “transactional,” although it does not begin with an “A,” so it upsets the pattern. 

To be sure, as ancient wargamers we represent the casualties suffered by a unit and its parent formation or army in a variety of abstract ways. I have seen clear plastic rings employed; very small colored dice seated on movement stands/trays; decorative markers with indicators of current strength or number of breakpoints, etc.; colored beads or similar objects such as pieces of decorative pipe-cleaner (i.e., flexible craft sticks), and tags that are matched to a computer spreadsheet, to name just five methods. Interestingly and ironically, many of these methods tend to impinge upon the overall aesthetic of the tabletop. Then again, we might be reminded of the human cost of warfare if dozens to scores of “casualty bases” were fabricated for use during a friendly or competition wargame. These dioramas - of varying sizes - might show the remnants of an infantry formation or a cavalry formation (dead, wounded, and or riderless horses). They could also depict a dead elephant or elephants mixed with other troop types, as well as damaged chariots. The deadly progress of the miniature battle could be marked by the number and type of “casualty bases” placed on the table as the game was played. This depiction would certainly bend towards a “more authentic arc,” but would require a fairly high level of ambition - not to mention a fair amount of discretionary income to purchase, paint, and base all of these deadly dioramas. 

___________________________

A Healthy Blog is a Happy Blog 

(or, Comparison is the Thief of Joy*)

[*Please see: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/02/06/thief-of-joy/ and or https://medium.com/thrive-global/roosevelt-was-wrong-comparison-is-not-the-thief-of-joy-9e490cd6225]

Every once in a while - there is no set schedule to what could be called a “check in” - I will take a look at the numbers or stats for my comparatively young, admittedly niche, as well as poorly marketed blog. I will also, out of curiosity (or is it vanity? wait, let me look in the mirror and check my necktie and hair before continuing), glance at how various posts are doing on more established and substantial sites. 

In late April of this year, I posted an invitation on the To the Strongest! Forum, informing members of an Early Franks versus Early Vandals scenario/wargame. As of the latter half of July, it had been viewed 101 times. There were no remarks or replies. At the start of May, I posted an invitation about Cunaxa, or my interpretation of it. This did slightly better, generating 107 views. However, there was not a single comment. Looking over the stats of the general site, I noted that there were 934 registered members. (This does not mean that all are active, however, unless there is some sort of Forum admin person or persons who keep good track of this.) Anyway, focusing in on the ‘Battle Reports and Gallery’ sub-forum, I saw that there were 534 topics (as of late July), and approximately 2,200 posts. If I do simple division, this would mean or suggest a little over four posts for each topic. Obviously, this is not the case. If I assume the views for my invitations or posts are by actual members and not guests or bots, then it appears that each “announcement” I publish is attracting the attention of around 10 percent of the stated membership. Ten percent is better than five percent, or three percent. The oft quoted saying is: “Misery loves company.” I am not suggesting that I am experiencing anything like misery on this wargaming site, but I it does appear that I have company. 

A quick survey informed that a member by the name of ‘VisBellica’ (could this be Robert Avery - the author of the Vis Bellica rules?) posted two invitations and received 149 and 109 views, respectively. Like me, he also had zero comments or replies. (Maybe we should start a club and have jackets made?) This almost-a-pattern with regard to my posted material was repeated on the Washington Grand Company Forum. 

Employing the Triumph! or Grand Triumph! rules, I posted information about four solo wargames played between late January and early July of this year. As of this typing (latter half of July), the Indians versus Seleucids report, posted on 22 January, had racked up 13,785 views or visits, and generated four replies. (For the record, half of these replies were mine.) Parthians versus Seleucids went up or out on 14 February. So far, it has generated 14,165 views or visits and two replies. Moving into late May, a Pontics versus Romans scenario has secured 2,890 views and zero comments. If just two percent of these viewers had left a comment or remark, then I would have had 58 replies. To receive that kind of attention and notice would have been most surprising, completely shocking, and very much appreciated. The most recent solo contest, wherein a large army of Kushans battled against an equally large army of Suren Indo-Parthians, has garnered 281 views or visits as of this typing. Checking the membership stats and other information, it was noted that there are 329 members of this Forum. There are 1,245 topics and 7,143 posts. It could be remarked that this works out to around six posts per topic, but that is just simple division. It occurs to me that it is likely that the majority of these views are by guests and or bots. In the information section of this site, I was informed one morning that there were 287 guests online. This count dwarfed the number of members present. If all of these guests decided to join, the WGC membership would essentially double. 

According to their excellent and appreciated admin, stats or algorithm(s), I have been a member of The Society of Ancients since late September of 2013. It could be remarked that my (our) twelfth anniversary is coming up. Evidently, silk or linen is the traditional gift. A pearl or pearls are the modern choice. The representative flower is peonies. I will pass respectfully on all of them, although a small bouquet of peonies would certainly brighten up what passes for a kitchen table. Anyway. During the course of this “transactional relationship,” I have made 1,479 posts to the various sub-forums of the larger Forum. A fair number of these (I am not sure of the exact percentage) have been about the games I recently played, battle reports, and or links to my relatively new blog so that those curious or brave enough can read a story or quasi-graphic novel about a solo wargame. (Sidebar: A very small percentage have been painful puns or “bad form” attempts at humor.) I posted an invitation to the aforementioned Early Franks versus Early Vandals contest. As of this typing (late July), 113 Society members - or guests to the site - have viewed/visited. One person took the time to leave a brief comment. Another report, this one about “shifting June 18, 1815 to the Italian Wars,” has been viewed 43 times and generated one remark/reply. On occasion, something (a related topic or question or tangent) will generate more interest, such as occurred with my “Rebels vs Royals” announcement. An unusual 317 views resulted, and 24 comments were generated. To be sure, the majority of views and remarks were not about the report, but about the side-discussion that sprang from it. Still, any publicity is good publicity, as the superficial saying goes. 

These selections and comments about same should not be taken as complaints, for again, I find myself in good company. For example, Simon Watson, that indefatigable advocate and veteran player-general of Tactica II, posted a report/invitation about a New Kingdom Egyptians versus Sea Peoples scenario that was viewed 42 times but generated zero replies. A member identifying himself as ‘Keraunos’ posted about “Alala! with pikes.” This was viewed 191 times and produced two replies. The aforementioned David Kay posted another installment of his always-worth-the-time Little Battles. The “score” when I last checked was: 212 views and 11 replies, so a response rate of about 5 percent, if my math is correct. It would be remiss of me not to mention a report posted by the prolific Jon Freitag. His colorful narrative of Mortimer’s Cross garnered 118 views and generated 8 replies, so a 7 percent rate (almost) of response. (His long-running and well-known blog does much better, obviously.) Looking at the general stats of this Forum, just as I did with the other two sites, it was noted that there are 799 members. (This total fluctuates, but seems to hover around 800.) As this is one of the longer-running sites, it was not surprising to see an impressive 9,366 topics recorded, and an even more impressive 119,041 posts. Now then, I am not sure of the exact start date of this dedicated Forum, but if I estimate 2010, then simple division would suggest a fair or respectable number of topics and posts over the course of these last 15 years. A related concern and question is: will the membership increase, decrease, or stay roughly the same over the next 15 years?

My first blog post “went live” in April of 2021. As of this morning (still late July), a check of the “vital signs” of this “pre-schooler” of a wargaming blog informed that I had made 96 posts which have generated a total of 254 comments (a decent number of these are mine, as I strive to respond to every remark, reply, or question); I had 24 followers (23 actually, as one is a duplicate somehow, and I have not heard a peep from 75-80 percent of these individuals), and over the short life of this way of communicating, this simple blog has been visited just over 49,000 times. In terms of strict calendar time then, it could be said that my blog has averaged nearly two posts per month; has averaged about five comments per month, and has been visited or viewed approximately 960 times per month. These numbers are the result of simple division, however. They are not representative of what is really going on - or not going on - with respect to my blogging efforts. For example, my latest post (which was not a wargame report) has garnered 66 views and resulted in six comments - half of which were typed by me. For a second example, a post made on 04 June has been viewed 52 times, but produced only two comments. That is a rate of about four percent. For a third, final, and ultimately more representative example, a post wherein I “contemplated Cunaxa” was visited 63 times. Not a single reader, presuming each visitor read the post all the way through, bothered to leave a remark, whether positive, negative, or neutral. 

Usually, on a weekly basis, I will check out what is happening with Big Lee, Simon Miller, and Eric. This morning, I noted that since starting in 2009, Big Lee (please see https://www.blmablog.com/) has secured 518 followers and received 4,788,991 visitors to his blog, vlog, or YouTube channel. The inestimable Simon Miller started blogging a year earlier than Big Lee, so it was not surprising to see a higher number of followers - 620. According to the counter, Simon’s blog (please see https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/) has been viewed or visited 40,332 times in the last 30 days. (That 30-day number is very close to the total visits my blog has accumulated since 2021.) Turning to Eric’s efforts (please see https://shedwars.blogspot.com/), it was noted that this semi-professional if not professional wargamer started his blog in 2011. He is the youngest of this trio of hobby titans, then. Over the course of 14 years, Eric has attracted 520 followers and has accumulated 2,501,470 page views. 

In reflecting on my blog and blogging habits or maintenance, in thinking about the more substantial blogs mentioned as well as others that were not (please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/, https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/, and https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/ [What is going on with James?!]), I wondered if it might be possible or even constructive to apply the 4 “A’s” mentioned earlier in this growing-longer-by-the-day post. Certainly, one could not deny the authenticity of any of these blogs. Even my nascent effort. Though not physically tangible, they are real. They exist, they grow, and they change. With the noted exception of my blog (it’s right there in the title), there is a definitive aesthetic element and quality to these showcases of the hobby, or individual showcases of how these particular player-generals, modelers, and sometime scholars pursue their varied interests. While we all deal in abstraction (to one extent or another) when it comes to “playing at war” on a tabletop, referencing the previous statement about overall appearance or focus on how things look, it would be justifiable to comment that I might have more of an interest in abstraction and or simply focus less on the category of aesthetics. Does this mean, then, that I have less ambition? That is an interesting question and or point. I think I will leave it to the reader to answer or ponder, if they deign to bother spending their valuable time on such a topic. 

At the start of this section, I described my blog as “admittedly niche and poorly marketed.” I suppose I could rejoin TMP and post invitations to visit and comment. I suppose I could also look into consulting with a marketing firm or something similar as well. (Note: Look into the costs, pluses and minuses of Four Square and American Eagle.) These proactive measures might increase traffic and improve my numbers. There would be a financial investment, however. It would not be prohibitive with regard to TMP, but it could add up if I signed on with an actual marketing firm. It could also place pressure on me to produce more content for consumption. I find this development interesting . . . Not that very long ago, I used to write and submit articles to various publications. I was quite content in doing so. I will also freely admit that it was nice to see my “work” accepted and then published, but that was not the main goal. I found that I enjoyed the process more. I came to realize that I liked writing about wargaming and related subjects, even though at times I absolutely hated it. There is just something about the challenge or opportunity presented by the wisp of a wargaming idea and by the blank white page, or in my case, a blank screen, with that siren-like cursor blinking and or luring, blinking and or luring . . . 

___________________________

Scenario Design & “Danger Zones”

In the March/April 2019 issue of Slingshot (Number 323), Steven Neate - a former editor of the journal and substantial contributor to its pages [a very quick search informed that his first byline appeared in Issue 155 or May of 1991; there were dozens of other articles and reviews written by the gentleman] - treated readers to a delicious serving of “Inventing Early Bronze Age Scenarios.” I reread this engaging article with interest, as I had been thinking about “spicing up” my own tabletop efforts. I cannot recall exactly when or why, but I pulled up a copy of the SoA Battle Day History document and started going through the selection of engagements, trying to figure out if these contests might make for a decent “flip the script” scenario. Let me try to provide more context or make an attempt at an explanation. 

The vast majority of readers will likely be familiar with Gaugamela. They will know which armies fought the battle, what the terrain was like, and which side won. If one were to switch sides for the purposes of a different kind of Gaugamela, well . . . this would not be all that interesting. The terrain would be the same. The armies would be the same. Alexander and his counterpart would have just switched sides, so, this is not a good example. The Sambre (2005), also does not work. Roman legions inside a wooded area, waiting to attack across a river? Nope. Next please. Now then, I won’t bore the reader (if I have not already) by going through the entire list. Sufficed to say, I think that there is potential in Cynoscephalae, Poitiers, and Telamon. “Flipping the historical script” for these refights or scenarios might provide engaging and entertaining tabletop contests. 

These two paragraphs are a roundabout way of introducing an idea I have been thinking about lately. What if the “script was flipped” at Metaurus? Is there potential here for an interesting and entertaining refight or scenario based on the historical action? If not, can a key element or feature of an actual and well-documented battle be used as a source or springboard for scenario development? Once again, it appears that the 4 “A’s” might be put to use here. In this particular case, I think “Ambition” would be the major variable. How much “work” does the ancient wargamer want to put into to developing his next tabletop game? 

To be certain, I am making no claim or claims about originality or revolutionary thinking when it comes to creating solo scenarios for play on my tabletop. In point of fact, it is usually the case that I am borrowing and then adapting ideas from other, more traditional and more accomplished historical wargamers. It would be fair and correct to remark then, that the majority of my “work” or “product” is derivative. Given this, it is curious to find that there has been an increasing frequency of times when scenarios that I have attempted to bring to the tabletop or have played for a number of turns, have, for some reason or reasons, faltered and then failed. 

Reviewing my “wargaming activity calendar” for this year [a newer document developed that may or may not be representative of certain aspects of my wargaming personality], I could not help but notice the frequent - if also partial - entries lamenting the lack of progress with an idea, a post or possible article, as well as regretful comments about an attempted game or scenario gone wrong. Now then, I have neither started nor completed a “deep dive” into the reason(s) behind these multiple false starts or failures because, well . . . I might not like the conclusions that could be suggested. For as much thought as I have given to this sensitive topic, I wonder if this noticed or perceived increase in frequency of started and then stopped wargames is a product of my advancing age, the apparently related decreasing level of focus, the self-imposed stress and worry of producing decent content for my blog, or if it is just one of those examples of Life getting in the way. I have wondered too, if other historical wargamers have run into this problem, into this figurative and frustrating wall. If I adapt the 4 “A’s” mentioned by David but initiated by Anthony, I wonder if meeting the figurative or subjective standards of these categories has had an impact on my scenario design and as a result, impacted or influenced my ability to see these various solo wargames and or writing ideas/projects through to a satisfactory conclusion. 

___________________________

“Hi. My name’s Chris, and I’m a rules tinkerer.” 

Reviewing some records, it appears that I was fairly busy, with regard to hobby activity anyway, in 1996. Six articles were submitted to, accepted, and then published by the editor of MWAN. Four of these submissions were wargame reports that I played solo using the Armati rules. In fact, and to digress for just another moment, “SPRINGTIME IN PONTUS: An Ancients Wargame Report,” was my first ancients wargame report to appear in a wargaming publication. (My first wargame report was published in the July/August 1995 issue of MWAN. It was a Seven Years’ War contest, played on the floor, using colored counters and home-grown rules.) In none of these four wargames played and then reported on did I use amendments. Given my inexperience and lack of knowledge, etc., I was very much a “rules-as-written” type of wargamer. 

I do not recall and have not conducted an exhaustive search for evidence of when I discarded that “formal suit coat” of being a “follow the rules carefully” kind of wargamer. However, a search of my collected files (I really should take a few weeks to go through and reorganize these) turned up a copy of an Armati Yahoo! Forum page or discussion thread wherein a fellow with the screen name of “rodger1uk” informed members on the status of rule variants. The date on this copied and pasted “evidence” is Wednesday, September 3, 2008. There are 12 years between 1996 and 2008. As I stated, I have not found any “smoking guns” of me changing written rules during that time period. It does seem safe to suggest, however, that from September or perhaps even a month or two earlier, I was aware of the possibility of amending or tinkering with an established set of rules. 

Fast-forwarding my wargaming “career” approximatley 12 years, in late June of 2021, I posted “TACTICA II: TESTING AND TINKERING” to my blog. (Please see https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Tactica%20II%3A%20Testing%20%26%20Tinkering) Acknowledging that this is a pretty significant gap, and skips over the evolution or back-and-forth arguments I might have had with myself about drafting scenario rules, amending rules-as-written, or even further tinkering with established variants, it appears that I have become one of those wargamers who is  quite comfortable with changing a commercially available, well-written, and presumably thoroughly play-tested set of rules to suit my own needs, perceptions, and understanding of ancient/medieval history and battles. 

The specific mention of that June 2021 blog post is rather relevant, as I have been reviewing its content while considering what additional “chrome” or changes I might make to this set of rules that might allow me the opportunity to better enjoy a solo wargame or scenario. Here again, the 4 “A’s” come directly into play, though I think that the category of “authenticity” holds most of the power here. For example, while the four classes of morale provided in the Tactica II rules (Militia Grade, Veteran, Elite, and Legendary) are well-explained and work within the overall design framework, I do wonder about the accuracy of lumping the majority of troops on the tabletop into the class of “Veterans.” Is it not reasonable to suggest that within the category of experienced troops, that there are some who are better than others? If this point is agreed to, then how should the general class of “Veterans” be further divided? Granted, this brings into play the “abstraction” and “ambition” components of this “gang of four,” but should not the interested ancients wargamer at least have the opportunity to see what effect(s) such tinkering has upon his scenarios?

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 this 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.” This seems a fairly reasonable and open-minded position. Then again, I am quite certain that there are other wargamers out there who have distinctly different opinions on this particular subject.   

___________________________

The Health of the Hobby

Throughout my years of wargaming, I have had the pleasure of attending a number of conventions. Admittedly, most of these have been Little Wars, so I have no direct experience with Historicon, Partizan, Salute, or Colours and similar events. Fortunately however, through the coverage provided by traditional wargaming magazines and then through the photo or video records of various well-established bloggers, I have had a chance to remotely attend a variety of wargaming shows. While I have often been impressed (as well as gobsmacked more than once) by the display of variety and skill and spectacle, I could not help but notice other aspects of this niche hobby. More concerned and curious than judgmental, I did some quick “research.”  

Sufficed to say, the facts and numbers found at https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult-obesity-facts/index.html, were not all that surprising to me. The poor general health of the American public has been in the news for a number of years, and there has often been commentary on the size and eating habits of US citizens. On a personal note, my father was a large man for his height. (His care or concern about his nutrition, exercise, and physical health struck me as rather ironic, given that he was a doctor of internal medicine.) My middle brother was also very large. It would be fair to say or reasonable to suggest, that his weight, combined with his life style, was not objectively healthy. Anyway, the United States is not the only country to be afflicted with this major health concern. It would be fair to remark that I was rather surprised to read some of the data found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/update-to-the-obesity-profile-on-fingertips/obesity-profile-short-statistical-commentary-may-2024. 

I wondered, to what extent could these statistics and related data be applied to the general population of wargamers? In conjunction, I reflected upon the comparatively low-impact and caloric expenditure of this primarily sedentary hobby. (I type this sentence while seated in front of my computer. If I were a painter of figures, that would require even more time in a chair, as well as additional eyestrain. From what I can gather from looking at pictures of various friendly games and competition events, there is also quite a bit of sitting. Again, this is not a judgment, but an observation.) This question, as one might imagine, led me to the edge of a “rabbit hole” that others have previously considered and commented upon at varying length. 

Based on my cursory investigation (assisted more than a little by A. I.), it appears the the United States might have twice to five times as many people involved - to one extent or another - in the hobby than the UK. Now then, an exact count has not been made and corroborated for the historical wargaming population in the UK, but a figure of 50,000 has been estimated. Is it fair to apply the statistics determined by accredited health organizations and professionals to a comparatively small slice of the general population? In strict philosophical terms, this does not seem to work. The characteristics of the whole do not represent the characteristics of the part(s) - or something like that. And yet, and yet . . . The visual evidence, at least what I have seen, seems pretty convincing if not concerning. 

I am old enough (irony noted again) to remember the great discussion(s) about “the graying of the hobby.” Perhaps smaller conversations about this topic are still being held or being revived every so often. However, I have never stumbled across or otherwise encountered any discussion concerning other aspects of the health of this hobby.   

For want of a better conclusion to this potentially divisive section, I am going to provide a few links which I think (or hope) might be of interest to any reader who has made it this far.

> https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3164537/how-many-wargamers-are-out-there/page/4

> https://splendoroffire.substack.com/p/the-sad-decline-of-the-historical?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

> [this post is a bit dated, but still interesting, in my opinion] https://shedwars.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-big-is-wargames-industry.html

> https://www.blmablog.com/2023/09/how-many-historical-wargamers-are-there.html

> https://www.miniatures-workshop.com/lostminiswiki/index.php?title=A_Timeline_of_the_Historical_Miniatures_Wargaming_Hobby

___________________________

A Summary - of a sort . . .

Having completed several edits of what I have typed so far (any overlooked mistakes are entirely my fault of course), I readily acknowledge that this is a lengthy post. I certainly hope readers find it more interesting and thought-provoking than they do disagreeable, interminable, or simply uninteresting. I also hope that they might find themselves moved sufficiently to comment and remark constructively, or to raise objections and counter arguments to the various chapters or sections. 

My attempt at wargaming history of Metaurus is a first draft. I think there is more there to mine and develop. I imagine too, that at some not-too-distant point, I will probably order that 1975 copy of Wargamer’s Digest. Before I justify that minor expense, I will probably seek out Goldsworthy’s book on the Punic Wars and reread what this prolific and accomplished academic has to say about the battle and campaign. I might also take some time to check and see if there has been anything published recently about the historical battle. I do not think I will go so far as to stump for Metaurus to be considered for a future Battle Day, but I do think it might make for a decent selection. 

My current preoccupation with casualties, morale, and how these are depicted or handled on the tabletop is nothing new in terms of the larger hobby. It does seem to be a perennial issue, however, for rule designers and writers as well as for player-generals. It also seems that links can be forged, if they do not already exist, between this subject and scenario design and tinkering with rules. More food for thought here, certainly. That expression provides a nice transition to the last chapter, wherein the literal health of tens of thousands of folks who participate in this hobby is of concern. Historical wargaming, in its various forms, does not cause high blood pressure or obesity, but the comparatively sedentary nature of the hobby could be a contributing factor. At the risk of ending on a potentially critical or divisive note, perhaps in our quest for more authenticity, better aesthetics, and less or more acceptable levels of abstraction, we might encourage more ambition to add a little cardio to our wargaming schedules. Instead of adding to the lead mountain, or decreasing its height and mass by painting 100-200 figures in a month, perhaps we should find or make the time to take a walk, ride a bike, play a game of pickle ball, go for a swim, or even do hot yoga. Years ago, I had a Latin teacher in high school who often used to say: “Wealth you can live without. Health, you cannot.” He may have been quoting some ancient Roman writer, but I cannot recall. His advice or argument has merit. I do know that this statement, and other phrases this high-energy and somewhat peculiar educator repeated during his classes have stuck with me over the years. Here are three: “Repetition is the mother of studies”; “like water off a duck’s back,” and the classic, “Arma virumque cano . . .”