Project 58 BC

Examining, Exploring, and Evaluating a Tabletop Puzzle

For want of a more engaging opening sentence, let me start with this remark: Lately, I have been thinking quite a lot about the late summer/early autumn contest between six Roman legions commanded by Caesar and seven identified tribal contingents of Germanic warriors led by Ariovistus. This sudden interest (there is a petition going around to have it labeled a preoccupation) was the result of randomly rereading a portion of Professor Adrian Goldsworthy’s superb 2006 biography, CAESAR - LIFE OF A COLOSSUS. This modern analysis and interpretation of an ancient military campaign led me to a translation of the original narrative account (specifically Chapters 48-53), which can be studied at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001. Searches for additional relevant information resulted in the discovery of this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vosges_(58_BC), as well as a 1981 paper titled “Caesar’s Battle-Descriptions and the Defeat of Ariovistus,” authored by one Christopher Pelling. I also stumbled upon a number of blog posts and videos about wargames/battles featuring Germans and Romans. Anyway, for lack of a better plan (as evidenced by nearly 20 discarded drafts) with regard to working from a revised outline or having ideas about the format and structure, I thought I might attempt a modified Battle Day approach, wherein the questions of terrain and troops will be considered. The reported course of the selected historical engagement will also be closely reviewed, albeit by someone possesses neither an advanced nor doctoral degree in ancient military history. (For more information about Battle Day, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day-2.) If something else occurs to me during this latest (and hopefully final) draft, then I will weigh the merits of its inclusion and either type an additional paragraph or paragraphs, or simply focus on polishing and proofreading what I have managed to get down on these electronic pages.  

The Look of the Landscape

In his narrative account of the preliminaries and the apparently short but hard-fought action, Caesar makes mention of a hill in Chapter 48, but offers no further description of the nature of the ground on which the battle took place. There are references to the opposing camps, but it is questionable if the Roman fortified positions were close to the front lines. The figurative picture painted of the large German barricade fashioned of “chariots and wagons,” which was populated with “disheveled and emotional women folk,” provides an opportunity for the more skilled terrain builders and artists to craft numerous dioramas of this dramatic scene. These make-shift walls might also give game organizers/umpires something to think about with regard to melee or morale bonuses for the German warbands that are within “entreatment range.” 

In studying the ‘Battle against Ariovistus’ diagram on page 231 of his masterful 2006 biography, Professor Adrain Goldsworthy has approved two lines of elevation running along the frontage of the German position. (Unfortunately, there is no compass rose or indication of any other salient natural terrain feature.) In his accompanying analysis and interpretation of this fateful day, the accomplished academic and prolific author explains at the bottom of page 230: “He [Caesar] then led the army straight up the slope against the Germans, going far closer to their camp than he had ever done on previous days.” Evidently then, the Germanic host occupied a hill or ridge. The degree of the slope is not known, however. Was it gradual or steep? Was it a combination of these variables, depending on what part of the hill or ridge was occupied? The character of the rest of the battlefield is also not known. While a certain aesthetic appeal could be achieved with a basic or simple model of this ancient terrain (several books positioned under a thick green cloth, for example), a more attractive design could be achieved with the inclusion of the front portion of the Germanic camp or laager. The positioning of random patches of scrub, lichen or rocky ground, as well as of small groups of trees and perhaps even a few agricultural plots, would serve to add some natural color as well as subjective approval to this particular canvas. 

In brief summary and based on my several readings of both ancient and modern source material, terrain did not seem to play a significant role in this engagement. Then again, I am mindful of that truism which begins: “The absence of evidence . . .” Anyhow, it appears that a fair degree of authenticity could be easily as well as simply achieved. The comparable level of aesthetic appeal attained or desired would, of course, be more of a subjective assessment. The final look of the tabletop would seem to depend on the ambition, ability, and available disposable income of the interested ancient wargamer(s). 

The Orders of Battle

On page 213 of CAESAR, the good professor explains that Caesar “now had six legions at his disposal, with a total of something like 25,000-30,000 men, and a force of allied cavalry that would soon muster about 4,000 men, along with some light infantry.” This reported strength was before his first major battle against the Helvetii. It seems safe to conclude that a certain number of casualties were taken in this drawn-out and hard-fought engagement. It also seems logical to suggest that day-t0-day campaigning had an impact on the roster strength of the various legions. Then again, perhaps there was some sort of system by which replacements were marched in and distributed among those cohorts and legions in need of them. With regard to the strength of the collected tribes under Ariovistus, the number “brought in and settled” east of the Rhine is given as 120,000. (224) If 30 percent of this reported population might be considered to be of fighting age or as part of a general muster of warriors, then Ariovistus would have had 36,000 men under his command. On this point, the question is whether to include or count as separate and distinct, the “6,000 horse, and as many very active and courageous foot, one of whom each of the horse selected out of the whole army for his own protection.” (BG I.48) If the focus remains on the estimated 36,000 warriors, then for the seven named tribes (identified in the page 231 diagram and by Caesar in Chapter 51), each of these groups may have had a strength of 5,142 warriors. Then again, if the combined strength of the horse and supporting light foot is taken as part of this estimated number, this would mean approximately 24,000 warriors available to fight the Romans. Divided into seven contingents, this would mean an average strength of 

3,428 fighting men per tribe. 

The potentially frustrating and typically problematic issue of numbers of infantry and cavalry on an ancient battlefield aside, it could be generally agreed to that there were six Roman legions present, and very likely some supporting cavalry formations. On the other side of this landscape, there were seven identified tribal contingents, supporting cavalry on the wings, and perhaps those nearby women folk counterparts, who were perched on a variety of transports and may have numbered in the thousands. 

Thoughts on How the Engagement Reportedly Unfolded

Three years having passed since I last made an extended if also figurative visit to this particular ancient battlefield (please see https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Seven%20Tribes%20for%20Six%20Legions.), it seemed appropriately prudent to brush up on the modern scholarship or interpretation as well as the existing source material. For the former, I relied upon the excellent work of Professor Adrian Goldsworthy. Specifically, I annotated and referenced Chapter X - ‘Migrants and Mercenaries: The First Campaigns, 58 BC,’ in CAESAR - LIFE OF A COLOSSUS, his absolutely engaging, well-written (in my opinion), and well-reviewed 2006 biography. Even more specifically, I scoured pages 224-232, and would guess that I spent at least 2.5 hours studying the ‘Battle against Ariovistus’ diagram provided on page 231. With regard to the source material, I looked carefully at both https://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html and https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001. Finding the latter more to my liking, I focused on Chapters 48 through 53. Anyway, what follows is my attempt at a point-by-point comparison of these two authors. The one, obviously, was present on that fateful day, though his narrative was likely selective in its detail and description, as the emphasis or overall intention was designed to cement if not increase his ability, character, and standing in the eyes, minds, and hearts of the various classes of citizens residing in Rome. The other was not, indeed and obviously could not be in attendance, but his academic accomplishments and publishing record are greatly respected and so, deferred to accordingly. 

At the bottom of page 230, Professor Goldsworthy explains that Caesar:

. . . stripped the camps of all but the barest minimum of guards and formed the 

rest of the army into a triplex acies, with the cavalry probably on the wings. He 

then led the army straight up the slope against the Germans, going far closer to 

their camp than he had ever done on the previous days.

 

In the first part of Chapter 51, Caesar - writing or dictating in the third person - informs: 

Caesar left what seemed sufficient as a guard for both camps; [and then] drew up 

all the auxiliaries in sight of the enemy, before the lesser camp, because he was 

not very powerful in the number of legionary soldiers, considering the number of 

the enemy; that [thereby] he might make use of his auxiliaries for appearance. He 

himself, having drawn up his army in three lines, advanced to the camp of the 

enemy.

The deployment of the legions in three lines, the standard triplex acies formation, is a common thread in both passages. The nature of the terrain is suggested in the modern analysis, as is the presence of mounted units on the flanks of the legionary line. Caesar’s version of these pre-battle events appears heavily weighted on the actions of or orders given to the auxiliary troops. Interestingly, there is also a reference to the apparent disparity in numbers. 

On page 231, the prolific academic provides this description:

Ariovistus led out his men, who formed in units according to their clans and 

tribes - mention is made of seven distinct contingents. Behind the line were the 

warriors’ wives, perched on wagons and cheering on their men folk, begging 

them to protect them from slavery at the hands of the enemy.

This picture is essentially a copy of what Caesar saw and said in the second half of Chapter 51:

Then at last of necessity the Germans drew their forces out of camp, and disposed 

them canton by canton, at equal distances, the Harudes, Marcomanni, Tribocci, 

Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii, Suevi [sic]; and surrounded their whole army with 

their chariots and wagons, that no hope might be left in flight. On these they 

placed their women, who, with disheveled hair and in tears, entreated the 

soldiers, as they went forward to battle, not to deliver them into slavery to the 

Romans. 

The naming of the seven tribal groups is certainly wargamer-friendly, but what was the strength of each contingent? Were they all approximately the same size? What exactly is meant by “equal distances”? Is this referring to the space between the contingents or the space between the barbarian front line and the Roman front line? Incorporating another Goldsworthy text into this project or current subject matter, did these seven tribal groups arrange themselves so that the “better equipped, nobler warriors and those especially keen stood in the front rank”? (Please see pages 42-53 in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200.) In the Goldsworthy diagram on page 231, the Harudes contingent is on the far right of the Germanic line, and then the identified tribes follow in order. This places the Suebi on the far left. It appears that seven contingents match the frontage of six legions, though there are no universally accepted numbers for either of these large formations, and attempting to estimate the actual frontages of these infantry lines of battle could easily be equated to tilting at windmills. Anyway, back to Caesar’s description. Curiously, the entire German army is apparently “surrounded by a collection of chariots and wagons.” As I do not read or speak Latin (my three years of Latin in high school are a distant memory), it seems that the word “surrounded” is simply referring to the makeshift frontal barricade of the German encampment. Perhaps there were several or even seven points of egress, so that the disposition of the assembled warriors would not take so long, especially in the face of an apparently advancing line of half a dozen Roman legions. The “disheveled and emotional” women (it seems reasonable to include wives, sisters, mothers, and others in this group that must have numbered in the thousands) present an interesting opportunity for the ancient wargamer or club group. On the one hand, this “entreating mass of females” would make for an aesthetically attractive series of dioramas. One could imagine two or three stands for each identified tribe. On the other hand, it is interesting to consider the value of this “disheveled and tearful mass” in terms of possible melee and morale bonuses for their fighting husbands, brothers, fathers, etc. Then again, all attention and focus (i.e, talent, time and treasure) could be reserved for the engagement. 

At the bottom of page 231, the good professor writes: 

In this battle all six legions took their place in the battle line, so that Caesar 

clearly felt that the Eleventh and Twelfth now had sufficient experience of 

campaigning to cope with the stress of battle. Probably they were both 

sandwiched between more experienced units and it is very likely that a veteran 

legion was stationed on each flank. 

There is no comparable line or passage in Caesar’s narrative account, save for the general statement made in Chapter 51. It should be noted that in the accompanying diagram of how this battlefield might have looked if viewed from 5,000 or 10,000 feet, Professor Goldsworthy has positioned the Tenth on the Roman right. None of the other legions are so identified. For what it may be worth, in the Wikipedia entry for this engagement, the Roman legions are numbered consecutively, staring with Legio VII and ending with Legio XII. (Again, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vosges_(58_BC).) At the risk of getting sidetracked, the academic’s comments about the experience levels of the legions that were present offers another opportunity for the prospective player-general. I confess to having thought about this at various times, and have tentatively contemplated incorporating - somehow - the troop gradings listed and defined on pages 7-8 of David Brown’s General de Brigade 2nd Edition rules. 

Professor Goldsworthy continues his “lecture” on pages 231-232 when he describes the Roman command and control arrangement:

Caesar’s five legates and his quaestor were each given command of a legion ‘so 

that every many should have a witness of his courage’. He stationed himself on 

the right flank, where he through the enemy was weakest and most likely to be 

broken.

The first two sentences of Chapter 52 read:

Caesar appointed over each legion a lieutenant and a questor [sic], that every one 

might have them as witnesses of his valor. He himself began the battle at the head 

of the right wing, because he had observed that part of the enemy to be the least 

strong. 

In as much as I understand the chain of command in the Roman legion during this historical period, it seems safe to suggest that individual cohorts and the larger legions benefitted from an informed and organized system of command and control. Once again, this presents an opportunity for those player-generals who might have an interest in attempting to reconstruct this battle on their own tabletop. Each model legion should have a command stand or figure. Whether or not this stand or figure plays an important role in the planned wargame is left to the rules that are chosen and or to the investment of the player-general(s). Perhaps a preferred set of rules might need a few scenario rules drafted, tested, and revised? If one accepts the positioning of the Tenth legion, my guess is that Caesar likely stationed himself with this formation. While annotating both the modern and ancient texts, I could not help but think of Chapter 4 (‘The General’s Battle’) in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR. Specifically, the three vantage points of a general/commander as detailed on pages 150-163. 

At the top of page 232 of CAESAR, Professor Goldsworthy describes the opening stage of the historical contest: “The battle began suddenly, both sides charging into contact without the normal exchange of missiles.” The language used in Chapter 52 paints a slightly different picture, or least presents something a little more sequential than “all of a sudden.” Caesar’s states: “Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them.” At the risk of referring too many times to THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR, I thought that pages 191-209 (Close-Order Infantry Against Close-Order Infantry in ‘The Unit’s Battle’ [Chapter 5]), were especially helpful in grasping what might have taken place on that sloped terrain nearly 2100 years ago. The wargaming application questions continue, as might be expected. In order to stage an authentic simulation of this action, neither side should be allowed to throw missiles of any kind. This might make some Roman player-generals unhappy, as the pre-melee pila volley was one of the signature tactics of the cohort and its parent unit. Perhaps a house rule might be created, so that there is a chance that some cohorts might be able to throw their javelins before the hairy as well as scary Germans are upon and among them? 

The rest of the savage contest developed like this, according to the analysis and interpretation of the admired and respected academic and author:

Caesar managed to break through the enemy left, but was too closely involved to 

keep much control of the other sectors of the battle. The German right began to 

drive back the Roman left, and it was only the prompt action of the young Publius 

Crassus, who as commander of the cavalry ‘could move around more easily than 

the officers of the main line’, which saved the day. Crassus ordered up the cohorts 

of the third line and they restored the situation. Soon afterwards the break- 

through on the far wing spread panic throughout the entire German army, 

which collapsed into flight. (232)

In the rest of Chapter 52 and a little bit of Chapter 53, Caesar informs:

Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. 

But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, 

sustained the attack of our swords. There were found many of our soldiers who 

leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and 

wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was routed on 

the left wing and put to flight, they ‘still’ pressed heavily on our men from the 

right wing, by the great number of their troops. On observing which, P. Crassus, a 

young man, who commanded the cavalry - as he was more disengaged than those 

who were employed in the fight - sent the third line as a relief to our men who 

were in distress. 

Thereupon the engagement was renewed, and all the enemy turned their backs, 

nor did they cease to flee until they arrived at the river Rhine, about fifty miles 

from that place. 

Again, thinking about these passages in tabletop terms, I would reiterate the unusual/rare occurrence of Roman legionaries not using their pila. On further reflection, I would take issue with legionaries jumping onto or into a reported enemy phalanx from the lower position of a sloping hill or ridge. How could one even achieve that impetus? Of greater concern and question is the legionaries apparently abandoning sword and shield to use both hands in order to “tear away” the enemy shields, and then somehow retrieve their short swords and inflict wounds while occupying a superior position. Admittedly, I have never been involved in hand-to-hand combat on an ancient battlefield, so I cannot say from experience what actually takes place during those chaotic and violent episodes. However, I find this particular description a bit difficult to accept without mentioning a few reservations. 

How much of the German left was “routed and put to flight”? What tribal contingents were subjected to this fate? Estimating that this permitted the second or third lines of the victorious Roman legions in this sector to pivot and engage other German tribes in the flank, how come this local victory did not result in a rolling up of the barbarian line?

Evidently, the Germans outnumbered the Romans on the Roman left. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that P. Crassus was “disengaged” then. If there were in fact more Germans in this sector of the field, it seems that it would be more likely for P. Crassus to be in the thick of things, trying to hold back the waves of warriors - both on foot and horseback. Additionally, there is something that does not sit right with regard to the apparent lack of control by the individual legion commanders. It seems to me that these officers, these selected-by-Caesar-himself legates, should have more control over their reserve cohorts than a young cavalry commander posted to a wing. Evidently, the additional weight of the third line cohorts convinced those Germans still standing that the battle was lost. Imagining a fairly rapid flight, I cannot help but wonder what happened to all those chariots and wagons, and all the women folk standing in them. Anyway and in summary, the ancient narrative account and modern analysis/interpretation combine to offer more than enough figurative wargame fodder for leisurely mastication. 

An Informal & Sometimes Repetitive Survey 

of a Selection of Rules

Taking my usual alphabetical approach and reminding myself to try to be brief, if I decided to use the ARMATI 2nd Edition rules, it seems to me that it would be possible to fabricate the six legions present on that fateful day by building 60 units (i.e., cohorts) of 15mm scale Optimal Size Units. By eliminating the intervals between the cohorts making up the standard triplex acies, but leaving a gap between each legion, the calculated frontage of these six legions would be approximately 83 inches (211 cm). The depth of these deployed legions would be about 9 inches (23 cm). 

As this present effort (i.e., draft number 21) is more of an exercise than a structured approach to an actual goal, such as staging a refight and preparing a report of same for this blog, I have not worked out the specifics for command and control, legion or army breakpoint, or even how many units would be needed for the auxiliary cavalry stationed on the right and left flanks of the legionary line. I regret to inform that I have not done anything more than think about the German cavalry formations. It occurs to me that these wings should be stronger than their Roman or auxiliary opponents. I also think that there should be light infantry supports attached to these mounted commands. The composition of the identified tribal contingents appears to be rather limited as I review the Ancient Germans army list, found on page K of these rules. If Caesar’s narrative account is to be accepted without reservation, then it seems justifiable to weight the right side of the German line with more units of WB (warbands). Perhaps these units could be deployed “in depth,” while the units facing the Roman right and some of the center could be deployed “wide.” Then again, since Professor Goldsworthy explains that Ariovistus was a part of the Suebi tribe, it might be permissible to move this contingent to the center of the Germanic line of battle, or perhaps even over to the right, if the understood “position of honor” could be applied to a barbarian army. As with the Roman force, command and control as well as breakpoint is a potentially thorny but not impossible-to-resolve issue. The diagram on page 231 indicates where Caesar and P. Crassus were at the start of the engagement. The location of Ariovistus is not shown. Given his relationship with the Suebi, perhaps it would make historical sense to integrate him with this contingent. Once this was decided, his leadership position (front rank, within the unit, behind the unit, and either on foot or horseback) would also have to be decided. 

Moving into the “H’s” of my dedicated and labeled storage bin, a consideration of the Hail Caesar rules (2011 Edition) would see much of the same thinking and approach. 

Depending on the scale of the figures used and the sizes of the units employed (standard for the Romans would be appropriate, with a fair smattering of large formations for the Germans), the respective footprints of the armies involved would probably be a little different. An even larger playing surface might be required. While the representation of 10-cohort-strong legions would certainly be unusual for a Hail Caesar wargame, my guess is that the command and control rules, as well as the leadership rules and various unit characteristics would allow for a much more colorful scenario when compared to one guided by the ARMATI 2nd Edition rules. 

Turning to the IMPETVS (2008 Edition) file folders, I initially thought that I would be able to make use of the Romans and enemies lists contained within one of the colorful supplements. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Fortunately however, I noticed that there was a small army list for ‘Caesar’s Romans’ included with the spiral-bound rules. Although there was no German army list, it occurred to me that one could simply adapt the ‘Gauls’ list. 

As with the previous rulebooks, IMPETVS contains no specific details or instructions about how to model and or “fight with” Roman legions. (There were pila rules found in a supplement, however.) That stipulation aside, I still think that these diorama-based and interesting rules with regard to activation/game move sequence, could provide for an engaging and entertaining reconstruction of a contest wherein six legions came to grips with seven tribal contingents. 

Reaching further into this dedicated and labeled storage bin of rules for ancient/medieval wargaming, I retrieved my rather worn copy of L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG (2014 Edition). Admitting a preference, I turned to Army List 82 - Triumvirate Roman on page 125, and refreshed my memory. After about 10-15 minutes studying this offering of unit choices, I spent another hour reviewing the rules. As an afterthought, I spent 5-10 minutes looking over the German list (Number 90 on page 130). Anyway, it appeared to me that a refight of this particular contest between legions and warriors would be generally similiar to the decisions and work-in-progress designs established for the previous sets of rules. Doing some quick figuring on a scratch piece of paper, if I prepared six legions and each of these contained 10 cohorts, then there would, again and necessarily, be 60 units on my tabletop. The estimated point value of this all-legionary force would be 640, which is over three-times the usual value of a typical friendly or competitive ADLG wargame. (Note: While reviewing the above section, I recalled the recent conversation on a Society of Ancients sub-forum about the pros and cons of the “furious charge” rule in ADLG.)

The Tactica II rules contain a number of pages on modeling and “fighting with” either Republican or Marian Roman legions. As mentioned above, three years ago, I published a picture-heavy report of my first refight of this engagement. (“Lukewarm” and “rather modest” would, I think, be a suitable adjectives to describe the reception of, interest in, and cumulative traffic generated by this post.) If I eventually decide to make a return trip to this same field and use these rules again, I will, as is my habit or practice, tinker, make some changes, and or refine the amendments previously drafted. For as much thought as I have given to what would amount to a second “working vacation,” I think that I would combine the cohorts of each legion into three units that had a little more substance, a little more staying power. Admittedly, this melding will produce first line formations of 32 figures arranged in two ranks of 16, but I think/hope this modification will prove workable, and will give the Roman cohorts a little more stamina in the face of a host of hairy, bare-chested, bellowing, and scary German warriors. 

The second hanging file folder in this section of the container holds my heavily annotated pdf copy of Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules (Version 1.1). Referencing the Marian Roman list in the Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020), it was noted that a 10-cohort legion would cost 100 points, so I was looking at deploying at least 600 points worth of legionaries before arranging any other troop types on the prospective model battlefield. Based on my limited experience with these rules, command and control would be easier to establish as well as provide for a little more color. Although the “planned” scenario would be quite a large wargame (especially when played solo), the freedom from rulers, wheel-measurement devices, and assorted handfuls of dice would help to reduce the administrative burden and so, probably speed up the tabletop contest.

At the risk of repeating myself for the third or fourth time, the TRIUMPH! rules, like most of the previous sets, do not specifically cater to or cover the depiction of Roman legions and how they should be employed on a tabletop. In fact, based on my experience with this set of rules, it would be unusual to see a Roman player-general deploy his single, double, or triple-sized army (48, 96, and 144 points, respectively) in more than one line. He would be more concerned, I would guess, in making sure that the left, center, and right sectors were adequately covered. Anyway, a suitable workaround may be developed, I think, by using the “method” or “procedure” already explained. A Caesarian legion could be modeled with 10 stands of Elite Foot or Heavy Foot. The legion could also have a dedicated officer (i.e., legate) embedded with one of these stands. The value of a legion would vary from 40 to 30 points depending on the type of Foot. The former representation is quite close to the value of an army used in a typical game of TRIUMPH! The 30-point legion is a little more than half of this number. For as much as I have thought about this particular version of this specific refight, I suppose that all the Roman legions could be deployed as Elite Foot. The men of the Eleventh and Twelfth might have or would have a minus 1 modifier applied to their melee rolls. 

Remarks

The subtitle of this post equates the historical battle between Caesar’s legions and the warriors led by Ariovistus to a puzzle. While I think I have done a fair job of putting the available pieces together, I think that the analogy is still very applicable, still pretty good. However, it has to be said that the puzzle remains incomplete. At the risk of congratulating myself again, I would suggest that I have also done a fair job of examining, exploring, and evaluating the various aspects of this topic. Had I sufficient time, treasure, and ambition, I do not doubt that a much better job could have been done. For example, I could have staged, refought, and reported on seven refights of this Romans vs Germans battle. This necessarily long-term project, this potential solo Battle Day could have answered a number of questions at the same time it raised others. It seems safe to suggest that three of the rulesets might generate some response or traffic if/when a link to the respective reports were posted to their respective forums. 

In an attempt to imitate previous Battle Packs, I looked at the terrain of this ancient contest, the troops that were involved, and the reported course of the engagement. Again, at the risk of complimenting myself, I think an acceptable if not fairly decent job was done with these topics. It seems fair to remark that this “analysis” (quotations are mine) might spark an interest in others to consider staging a version of this action on their own tabletop using their preferred set of rules. At the very least, this post might encourage others to take a look at the Goldsworthy texts, Caesar’s narrative account, or that 44-year-old paper written by Christopher Pelling. 

This final section seems an appropriate place to review and make an attempt at applying  the three “A”s first advanced by Anthony Clipsom in a Society of Ancients Forum discussion thread, and a fourth “A” argued for by David Kay. On the topic of wargame terrain, Anthony considered the categories or concepts of abstraction, aesthetics, and authenticity. David added ambition, defining this as “why we wargame and what we get out of it.” The gentleman went on to note “that we all have differing views and priorities on each “A.” (Please see “An Alternative Rant,” page 17 of the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot.) Even though I would rate as a mere velite against the accomplished and respected triarii status of these two gentlemen, for what it may be worth, I have been thinking about a fifth “A.” This would be the amusement level. Instead of something funny that makes one chuckle or laugh, amusement level would refer to the subjective degree of entertainment, enjoyment, fun, diversion, or interest there was when standing over or sitting at a tabletop and commanding model troops. 

In studying and thinking about this battle between Caesar’s legions and the warriors led by Ariovistus, I recognize that I have perhaps been too focused on the six legions and how they were deployed, as well as how they reportedly fought. That much admitted, I would maintain that in order to stage an authentic as well as aesthetically pleasing reconstruction of this ancient battle, one would need to have six legions, and these would have to be arranged in three lines. Ideally, there would be four cohorts/units in the first line, and three cohorts in each of the supporting lines. Furthermore, each legion should have its own command stand or figure, which would again be authentic and aesthetically correct if not also pleasing to look upon. Admittedly, this historically accurate representation would require a certain level of ambition. Referencing the Tactica II diagrams again, and deferring the vast majority of historical wargamers with an interest in Ancients, it would take quite a lot of talent, time, and treasure to paint and base approximately 500 legionaries. Granted, if one were using 6mm scale miniatures, the challenge would not be that great. But then, there might be the idea or inclination to double or even triple the rules-required number of 6mm figures on a stand in order to achieve more of a visual impact.

On reflection, it appears that I could go on and on about these few “A”s and the two additional proposed categories. I could remark about how each of the potential seven tabletops would be abstractions of the actual terrain, and even if six legions of 60 cohorts were deployed against seven tribal contingents of massed Germanic warriors, these representations would also be abstractions. When focusing on the course of the tabletop game, it would be most authentic to repeat the events as they reportedly happened, but as Featherstone has noted, this would not be a wargame, it would simply be an exercise. (Please see Battle Notes for Wargamers, pages 10-11.) 

As I made reference to Battle Day in the introduction, it seems fitting to draw this post to a close with a few more words about this annual event. Accounts of the 2013 and 2019 Battle Days were retrieved and reviewed. When looking at possible ways to refight this particular historical battle, I looked at seven sets of rules. It seems safe to suggest, based on the articles published in the August 2013 issue of WARGAMES illustrated^® and electronic report about Telamon, that the library of available rules has barely been checked out. I confess that I am rather curious and quite interested to find out how the following rules might be employed to handle the fight between Caesar and Ariovistus: BBDBA, Commands & Colors, DBMM, Field of Glory, Piquet Archon, The Die is Cast, War & Conquest, Lost Battles, Strength & Honour, Mortem et Gloriam, and WRG 7th Edition. 

If my addition is correct, then there could be a potential roster of 18 sets of rules and therefore, at least 18 wargame refights of this late September in 58 BC contest, if the engagement was selected for a future Society of Ancients Battle Day. Resigning myself to the fact that the odds of this actually happening are probably the same or slightly better than purchasing a winning lottery ticket, I still find it a constructive use of my spare time to wonder about how the prospective game organizers would address those various “A”s. I also wonder who would take home the various “serious” awards distributed at the close of the annual event. Let me see . . . There would be a Best Terrain award, obviously. There would be awards for the Best (i.e., prettiest) Roman and German armies. There would be a Best Game of the Day, too. Then, depending on the capabilities of the organizers and the availability of donated prizes, there could be awards for the following: Caesar of the Day, P. Crassus of the Day, Ariovistus of the Day, Legate of the Day, and Tribal chieftain of the Day.

It is something to think about, anyway. Battle Day 58 BC is something that provides a few minutes of much needed distraction as well as authentic amusement, although I may well be the only one, or one a a very small group to hold that opinion. Unexpectedly and interestingly, all this typing about Caesar and Ariovistus, all this consideration of Roman legions and Germanic warriors appears to have rekindled a tiny bit of green in what could rightly be described as a sizable and fallow field of wargaming interest. At the risk of extending the metaphor, I wonder if this minimal growth of green will yield anything consumable in the coming months.