Sunday, October 23, 2022

A BIT LIKE BRUNANBURGH




I cannot say for certain how many times I have read “The Battle of Brunanburgh - 937 AD” report found on pages 154-161 of the Hail Caesar rulebook, but I think the number falls somewhere between 12 and 20. Similarly, I cannot estimate the amount of time I have spent admiring the included photographs and studying the provided orders of battle along with the map of the marvelous-looking tabletop. What I do know is that this colorful description of grown men playing at war in the Dark Ages and hurling period-specific insults at each other (in good-natured jest, of course) served as inspiration for my amateur attempt to stage a version of this bloody contest using the L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG rules. Looking back through my records, I see that this was ‘Battle Report’ Number 31 posted in late September 2016 to the “Games Last Played” discussion thread of The Society of Ancients Forum. In “When Kings Collide,” there were approximately 1,000 points of “miniature” Vikings and around 850 points of “miniature” Anglo-Saxons on my tabletop. (This was substantially larger than a typical ADLG game wherein armies worth 200 points would be deployed.) The length of the finished narrative was roughly 4,800 words. The great and much missed Patrick Waterson [1] was kind enough to offer a comment (the only comment as it turned out) on my effort. 


Approximately six years later, I found myself suddenly interested in revisiting “one of the largest battles of the Viking Age,” as Rick Priestley notes on page 154 of his popular rules. My intention was not to reconstruct a more accurate or more historical version of the actual engagement, nor was it to make amends for my ADLG treatment of the action. I was simply interested in staging something like Brunanburgh. I guess it could be said that I had developed an “appetite” for a scenario in which shieldwalls would figure prominently. Once again, in order to continue to increase my comfort level, experience and knowledge of its finer points, I decided that I would employ the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. In addition to rereading the colorful account provided in Hail Caesar, I looked at “The Battle of Brunanburh Re-Fought,” written by one H. Charlesworth of the Rotherham & District Wargames Association and published in Issue 103 of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients. I also took another look at the original poem. (Please see https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/why-cant-we-still-speak-like-that-the-old-english-poem-the-battle-of-brunanburh/.)


Orders of Battle

On the one side of my 6.5 feet x 3.75 feet tabletop, I had 96 points of Saxons (Middle Anglo-Saxon [617 AD to 1016 AD]) and 48 points of Vikings (Viking [850 AD to 1260 AD]). These forces as well as those of their opponents were found (for free, it should be noted if not emphasized) at: https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. For lack of something more original or clever, the Saxon-Viking army was designated the Blue Army. On the other side of my “model” battlefield, there were 48 points of Welsh (Dark Ages Welsh [580 AD to 1149 AD]), 48 points of Scots (Pre-Feudal Scots [842 AD to 1124 AD]), and 48 points of Vikings. For the sake of consistency as well as simplicity, this three-sided alliance was labeled the Gray Army. 


As for command and “control,” there were three generals in each army. The overall leader of the Blue Army was an English king. He was assisted by a cousin (a prince) and a fierce Viking chieftain. The Gray Army had an even more fierce as well as scarred, tattooed, bearded and barrel-chested Viking. This Viking was a very capable and much feared veteran of a dozen campaigns. He was given a +2 command modifier. His co-commanders were a Scottish king (the overall leader of the “Alliance”), and a Welsh prince. Due to a lack of imagination, none of these leaders were given a period-appropriate name. 


Terrain

Initially, I thought I would try to construct a hybrid model of the landscape pictured in the Hail Caesar narrative and the diagrams provided with the Charlesworth report. [2] After a couple of days wherein I sketched, tinkered and toyed, I decided to go in a completely different direction. 


On page 42 of Wargame Tactics [3], there is a neat, simple black and white map of the first turns of “The Battle of Korepsis Pass,” a fictional ancient contest between Athenians and Aetolians. I thought I could borrow this terrain and then modify it slightly for the proposed Dark Ages struggle. I figured that a village or at least farmstead of some sort, a few fields, a track and perhaps even a pond or small lake would add some color to my “model” battlefield. Again, I gave myself a couple of days to mull this option over, to sketch some rough maps and tinker. It will probably come as no surprise to the handful of readers of this post that I decided scrap this plan as well and develop third one. (The idea placing a large forest on the table was at once intriguing but also problematic.) 


Looking back through the Terrain rules in my PDF version of TRIUMPH!, I knew that I did not want to follow the standard procedures for selection, numbers, and placement of features or types. I did know, however, that I liked the variety of choices offered under the ‘Arable’ topography. Two more days, perhaps three, were spent sketching and tinkering (in my spare time) until I was satisfied with the fictional landscape.


Standing next to one long-edge of my tabletop, I imagined the wooden surface as a compass. I was at the S of the directional device. To my right was E, and to my left was W. The other long-edge would represent the N of this imaginary compass. With that orientation, I hope the following description makes at least a little sense. 


The Village of Clarendon was located on a steep hill in the northeast corner of the tabletop. It was a fair-sized village, surrounded by a number of fields and not too far from a patch of light woods (directly south of the dwellings), through which a shallow freshwater stream meandered. The stream was no real impediment to man or beast; in its deepest parts, it only came up to a short man’s thighs. The vast majority of the watercourse would only soak feet and dampen shins. Very close to the N on my “compass,” there was another steep hill. This terrain feature had a patch of scrub in front of it. Traveling west a bit, there was a rather small and gentle hill in the north-west corner of the fictional battlefield. This slight elevation was partially covered by a patch of heavy woods. Moving directly south from this stand of trees, there was a large area of scrub and then in the south-west corner, there was steep hill which had a patch of rough ground on a portion of it. Moving in an easterly direction across the southern long-edge of the tabletop, one crosses the stream and comes to another large patch of scrub. Immediately to the right of this is a thin gentle hill with a small patch of rough ground on its northern side. Close to the center of the fictional field is a large gentle hill which angles toward the northwest. In the approximate middle of this hill, there is a patch of scrub.  


If this section was too confusing or wordy, here’s hoping that the three or four pictures of the terrain set up will help sort things out. 


Showing most but not all of the terrain of the fictional field on which Saxons, Vikings, and others will do battle. This is taken from the west looking east. At the top left of the picture, the fields before the Village of Clarendon may be seen. There are other features of course: gentle and steep hills, areas of scrub, and the stream that does not penalize movement nor melee due to its shallow nature and negotiable banks. 



Looking directly at the northeast corner of the field, at the Village of Clarendon and its surrounding terrain. There are five (5) agricultural plots or fields; there is a light woods, and a stream meandering in the foreground. 



This photo shows the corner of the field opposite from the Village of Clarendon. Here, there is a hill covered by a patch of rough ground. There is some scrub and another hill on the upper right. 



Deployments

Looking over the northern side of the battlefield first, the Saxons took up their posts on the left and center; the Vikings held the right. The deployment of the secondary Saxon command was as follows:


Sk Rb HF HF HF EF* HF HF HF HF HF HF


Hd Hd Hd Hd


Where Sk represent Skirmishers - in this case bowmen, and Rb represents Rabble or “Scouts” armed with javelins. The HF stands for Heavy Foot or Select Fyrd. The EF* represents a unit of Elite Foot, or in this particular case, Thegns. The commander of this formation was embedded with these veteran fighters. The Hd indicates stands of Great Fyrd troops or Horde. As one might imagine, these men are not the most capable or confident of soldiers. 

This shows the arrangement of units on the Saxon-Viking (i.e., Blue Army) left. The Select and Great Fyrd are positioned on the level ground before the Village of Clarendon. 



The Saxon center was arranged in this way:


HF HF HF HF HF EF EF$ EF HF HF HF HF HF HF


This command included Select Fyrd and a few units of Thegns. The overall commander of the Saxon-Viking army was in the center of his Thegns (the unit marked with the $ symbol), weapon drawn and shield held fast, ready for battle. 


The right wing of the army contained the Vikings. These grim warriors were deployed as follows:

                    Ar       Bk

HF HF HF HF EF EF* EF HF HF HF Rd Rd


Where HF represents Hird; EF represents Huscarls; Ar stands for Archers; Bk stands for Berserkers, and Rd represents Raiders or Marauders. As with the Saxons on the left wing, the Viking chieftain was with his central unit of Huscarls. 


Here is the Viking contingent on the right of the Saxons-Vikings deployment. These seasoned warriors would face off against the Scots over fairly open terrain. 


Shifting the focus to the “Triple Alliance” arranged along the southern half of the tabletop, the Scots held the left flank, the Vikings were in the center, and the Welsh were assigned to the right flank. The army or alliance commander was the Scottish king. His formation was drawn up in a single line running at a slight south-west to north-east angle. From left to right, his command consisted of the following:


BH LS LS LS LS LS Wb Wr$ Wb Wb Wb Wb LS LS LS JC


And here are the Scots, all nice and neat in a line. The Scots had some horsemen, but these mounted troops would make no great difference in the coming battle. 


Where BH represents Bad Horse or Scots on horseback, and LS represents Light Spear. Wb represents Warband, in this specific case, Galwegians. The Wr stands for Warriors or Scottish Thegns. (Again, the $ indicates the unit to which the army general is attached.) The JC represents a better kind of mounted Scots: Javelin Cavalry. 


The Vikings in the center were arranged in this manner:


                          Sk  Bk

Rd HF HF HF HF EF EF* EF HF HF HF HF


The Viking commander was an especially fierce and experienced campaigner, to say nothing of a towering specimen. His melee modifier was +2 instead of +1. 


The Welsh contingent on the right wing was a little cramped for space due to the nature of the ground. Their formation was deployed as follows:


                                             LF LF

Wb Wb Wb Wb Wb Wb Rb Rb

Wb  JC* Wb  JC Wb Wb


The Welsh were tasked with capturing the village or at least forcing the Saxons in front of it to run away. Due to space limitations as well as a bit of unfamiliarity with the rules, the Welsh warbands were deployed in depth. The Welsh cavalry was also incorporated into the “wall” of troops. All of the light troops were placed on the right. 


Where LF represents Light Foot (basically javelinmen), and Rb indicates Rabble (more Welsh carrying javelins). Wb, as above, stands for Warband, and JC represents mounted Welsh or Javelin Cavalry. The commander of the Welsh is with one of these units. 


In contrast to the simple counters used in the time-traveling Pharsalus scenario, the counters employed for this solo contest were crafted with a little more care. To be certain, these colored card representations do not hold a candle to the more traditional historical miniature games. [4] However, as I have often remarked or stated (sometimes to the annoyance of those readers who persevere through these infrequent and various posts), that is not the intention. If pressured to provide and explanation or make a statement, I guess I would adopt this “philosophy” toward historical miniature wargaming: “The play’s the thing . . .” — if I may be permitted to borrow a line from one of Shakespeare’s most recognized plays. 


How It Played

The Gray Army or “Triple Alliance” — as Scots, Vikings and Welsh were working together — started the battle rather poorly with each contingent rolling a 1 on their command die. Moves forward were made, but there was a slight sense of embarrassment. This emotion increased when the Saxons and Vikings rolled much better and were able to conduct a couple of march or double moves. The first few turns went back and forth like this. Fortunately, the Gray Army did better on subsequent command rolls and was able to get its various troop types moving or catching up with the enemy. The Scots completed a couple of wheels to bring their formation more into line with the approaching Vikings. 

This photo was taken from the Scottish left flank, showing their advance as well as the Vikings forward movement in the center. (Another name for the Gray Army was the “Triple Alliance.”) As indicated previously, the Scots would face a group of Vikings, while another group of friendly Vikings would fight the main Saxon command. 


First contact occurred in Turn Four and took place on the long central hill when some Scots charged into Vikings and Saxons. These initial melees resulted in a series of ties. Evidently, neither side wanted to give the enemy the satisfaction of drawing first blood or pushing a friendly unit back. Over on the far left of the Scots’ position, a unit of Light Spear was routed by a unit of Viking Raiders, so first blood did go to the Blue Army. This local defeat was countered when a unit of Viking archers made the mistake of attacking instead of standing off and loosing volleys. They were quickly put to the sword by the targeted formation. Adding insult to injury, a unit of Berserkers charged but was repulsed and forced to fall back. 


This picture was taken above the middle of the field and shows the slow advance of the opposing center formations toward each other. The general of the “Triple Alliance” is quite powerful (melee modifier of +2), and his Huscarls are screened by some Berserkers as well as some skirmishing bowmen. 


In the next turn, the battle developed all across the field as the Welsh were finally able to get troops up and fighting. Their warbands did well initially, destroying one unit of Fyrd and forcing another to recoil. On the right of this sector, however, the Welsh light troops were stymied and forced to regroup for another effort. A battle of attrition developed in the center of the field, with a slight advantage going to the Saxons. Over on the left of the Gray Army, things were not going so good. While a unit of Scottish horse was able to fight off enemies to their front and flank, the Scottish foot could not roll a decent melee die. The Vikings hacked and slashed and stabbed, cutting their way through no fewer than five units of Galwegians and or Light Spear. 


At the start of Turn 6 of the battle, a collective groan was produced on one side of the field when each command roll produced a 1. Despite this circumstance, the Gray Army was able to stave off defeat. The Scots held after some desperate fighting. In the center, the Viking contingent was able to mete out some punishment against the Saxons, essentially evening the casualties score. The Welsh also held on. In this sector, the fighting also took on the attributes of a struggle of attrition. 


Near the Village of Clarendon, the Welsh, formed two-ranks deep, are advancing against the Saxons assigned to guard this sector. Note that the Welsh Rabble has not been able to keep up due to low command dice and having to move through woods. 


The pressure on the Scots was too great and this contingent became demoralized in the next round of melees. The Vikings were simply too capable, fierce, or lucky. The commander of the “Triple Alliance” was attacked by three Vikings and cut down as his unit of Thegns was overwhelmed. In a last-ditch effort, a unit of Galwegians and a unit of Light Spear charged into the Viking line and fought stubbornly for several minutes. The enemy numbers were too many and eventually, the Galwegians were routed. Desperate fighting ranged across the other sectors of the field. Fate smiled on the Saxons in the center, and they were able to push the Vikings past their break point. In addition to the left flank being completely routed, the center formation of the Gray Army was now demoralized. The Welsh, after some initial success, were now also on the brink of having their morale crack. Recognizing that the battle was lost, the Viking commander let fly with a stream of curses and then issued orders for what was left of his army to withdraw. The Saxon contingents, being rather bloodied, elected not to launch any organized pursuit. The Vikings, occupied with plundering what they could find on the bodies and horses of the killed and wounded Scots, were too far away. 


A close up showing the evolving contest between the Scots and the Vikings. The green and yellow dice indicate the final melee modifier, while the white and blue dice show the combat rolls made for the units involved. Here, the Galwegians are overlapped and so drop from a +3 to a +2. They roll a 1 on the white die and score a total of 3. By contrast, the Viking Hird have a +4 value, to which the 3 on the blue die is added. The Vikings have a 7 versus a paltry 3 for the Scots. The Galwegians are destroyed, and the Hird pursues due to the difference in the result.


Back over on the Saxon-Viking left flank, the Welsh are starting to make progress. Their warbands have pushed back a unit of Select Fyrd and are attacking the Saxon sub-general from the front and flank. The colored dice show the success of the Welsh Light Foot against some Saxon Rabble. 


The desperate fighting continues between the Scots and the Vikings in this sector. This photo shows the Scots general (the commander of the “Triple Alliance”) being attacked on the flank by a unit of Viking Hird. The result of the added dice informs that the Scottish Thegns lost the melee. However, there is sufficient room for them to withdraw without bumping into a friendly unit. This withdrawal will open them up to another attack on the flank, unfortunately. 


The Scots have lost their commander, and sufficient units to become demoralized. The black dice serve as a visual reminder of this status. Demoralized units fight with a negative modifier. Further, the ability of a commander is reduced when his force is demoralized. If the commander has been captured or killed, then command and control is, obviously, much more difficult.  


This photo shows the status of the center of the battlefield near the end of the engagement. The “firework effect” is evident as the Vikings have had success against the Saxon left, while the Saxons have had success fighting the Viking left. 


A melee that tipped the Vikings contingent of the “Alliance” over the edge. Here, Select Fyrd of the Saxon center have engaged an isolated unit of Viking Hird. (The melee just before this saw a unit of Viking Raiders, on the left of the Hird, destroyed.) The several dice show the clear if also deadly result for the Vikings. The Hird were destroyed/routed, and the unit of Select Fyrd will pursue. 



The consequence of losing that unit of Hird results in the Viking contingent of the “Triple Alliance” becoming demoralized. This picture shows the black dice marking each demoralized unit. At the top of the photo, the pursuit of the victorious Select Fyrd unit can be seen. 



Evaluation

Comparing this wargame to the previous effort, wherein I transported Pharsalus to mainland Europe in the fourteenth century, there is no question that the terrain was more “colorful” and complex. The opposing armies were certainly more “colorful” as well, though this assessment might be a matter for debate. Did the “improvement” of both terrain and troops provide or result in a better wargame experience? Again, this would seem a possible subject for debate or at least discussion.  While certainly more functional, the unit counters were still a bit “fiddly.” This might be a product of their hasty production. There might be a scale issue here, as I am thinking that preparing counters with a universal 50 mm frontage or using the provided 60 mm dimensions would allow for easier manipulation. 


As was the case with the previous engagement, there were no specific battle plans made by either side. The Saxons (with the exception of the contingent in front of Clarendon) and Vikings advanced to fight, while the Scots, Vikings, and Welsh did the same. An argument could be made that the recently concluded tabletop engagement was similar to that of historical Brunanburgh. Looking over the lines of the poem, I found this portion or excerpt: “. . . on the battlefield where banners crashed and spears clashed in that meeting of men, that weapon-wrestle, when on the death-field . . .” (Please see the Osbourne translation at https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/why-cant-we-still-speak-like-that-the-old-english-poem-the-battle-of-brunanburh/.)


I should like to think that I am getting more comfortable if not confident with these rules. Of course, I am sure that a few mistakes were made in this Dark Ages contest. However, I do not think that these errors swayed the fictional battle one way or the other. Tactically, the one gaffe that sticks out was when I committed a unit of Viking archers to close combat instead of having them stand back and loose a volley or two. Additionally, I left a unit of cavalry (Bad Horse, I think) stranded in an enemy ZOC. They were eventually attacked in the flank. This command decision was made, if memory serves, as the command die roll for that particular contingent was not sufficient to do all that was needed. With respect to rule questions or concerns, I only had one situation in which I was not entirely sure of the proper resolution. In this specific instance, a unit was attacked from the front as well as on its flank. Even with this disadvantage, the unit was able to rout the enemy to its front. I was not exactly sure what happened to the flanking enemy unit. I presumed that this unit would be pushed back. Again, my “confusion” on this point did not tilt the battle to one side or the other. 


In summary, I think this quasi-Brunanburgh went well. I was distracted if not entertained for a total of three hours or so. I learned more about the TRIUMPH! rules, though not necessarily about how to be a better tabletop general. This experiment and experience also gave me a little more confidence as well as some ideas for future solo “miniature” wargames. 



Notes

  1. Roy Boss, then the President of The Society of Ancients, pre-empted the editorial of the March-April 2020 issue of Slingshot with some very sad news: He notified readers and subscribers of the death of Patrick Waterson on 14 January of that year. To be certain, I did not know Patrick as well as Roy or other high-level or long-standing members of The Society did, but I would agree without reservation with the closing remarks made by Roy. He stated: “Patrick was a character of no small significance. The Society will miss him.” Then, in Issue 331 (July-August 2020), Professor Phil Sabin offered a more substantial remembrance of Patrick entitled “Honour and Loss.” 
  2. As I studied the pictures and especially the map accompanying the Hail Caesar narrative, I could not help but notice that nearly half of the battlefield/tabletop was not used. In addition, there was a very nice looking model of a fortified village, but this too was not used or was left unoccupied. Evidently, the player-generals decided to offer battle on the ground in front of the built-up-area and fortifications. There appeared to be a couple of hills or ridges and a number of trees as well as one or two patches of scrub or vegetation. For the most part, the model field of battle looked fairly open. From what I could discover in my study of the H. Charlesworth diagrams (they were quite small and the identifying print was also rather tiny), there was a forest and ditch along or covering one short-edge of the field/tabletop and a shallow curve of the River Rother running along the other short-edge. It appeared that one army was positioned on a hill or at least a slope, while the other and more numerous army was stretched across a long-edge and needed to advance up the slope towards the smaller force. 
  3. This 1979 book, written by the Charles Grant is, I would respectfully contend, a must-have for the library of any serious historical wargamer. 
  4. See, for just a handful of examples, the following blogs: http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/; http://keefsblog.blogspot.com/2016/; https://saskminigamer.blogspot.com/2011/; https://sgtsteiner.blogspot.com/; http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2017/05/jugurtha-versus-marius.html, and again, http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2012/.




Tuesday, October 11, 2022

A 14TH CENTURY PHARSALUS





After 16 attempts at drafting a “paper” about refighting Second Mantinea (362 BC) [1] as a solo wargame—some more lengthy than others, obviously [2]—and after completing five turns of a Tactica II refight of this historical engagement that was ultimately discontinued and dismantled due to a rather disconcerting growing lack of interest [3], it occurred to me that I was not going to succeed at staging a solo refight nor have a successful return visit to Second Mantinea. [4] The evident and prudent course of action then, was to leave Second Mantinea in the more capable hands of others [5] and draw up plans to “attack” in a different direction. As the title of this post informs, I decided to transplant a well known battle from the First Century BC [6] to the late Middle Ages. [7] Instead of Romans commanded by Caesar facing off against more Romans as well as allies led by Pompey, there would be an army of Early Medieval French troops taking the field against assembled formations representing a number of Medieval German City States. As for the rules, well, I would be playing this solo wargame using GRAND TRIUMPH!


Orders of Battle

Using the “allowance” of 144 points, I reviewed the ‘Troop Options’ for ‘3 Main Army Commands’ for the Early Medieval French and drafted the following force: 15 units or stands of Knights (Chevaliers); 8 units of Bow Levy (Bowmen and Crossbowmen); 5 units of Archers (Genoese Crossbowmen); 2 units of Skirmishers (Spanish Crossbowmen); 12 units of Heavy Foot (Communal Militia or Brigands armed with mixed Pole-arms), and 2 units or stands of Light Foot (Bidets or Bretons). With the same amount of “money,” I purchased the following troops from the Medieval German City States list: 3 units or stands of Knights (City men-at-arms and Mounted Burghers); 3 units of Elite Foot (City Guard Halberdiers or Axemen); 3 units of Bad Horse (Mounted Armored Crossbowmen); 8 units of Bow Levy (City Militia Crossbow-men); 2 units of Archers (City Militia Crossbowmen); 12 units or stands of Heavy Foot (City Militia Spearmen); 4 units of Skirmishers (City Militia skirmishing bowmen); 6 units of Bow Levy (Heerban armed with crossbows or bows), and 8 units of Heavy Foot (Mercenary Axemen, Swordsmen, and Halberdiers). 


Adding the variety of troop types together, the French would field 44 units or stands, while their German opponents would muster 49 units or stands. In order to fit these large armies on my comparatively small table, I used the smallest dimensions provided in the rules: each unit or stand would have a frontage of 40 mm and its depth would vary depending on type. 


Terrain

To the extent that I was able to do so, I recreated the landscape diagrammed on page 171 of Warfare in the Classical World. I did not bother keeping or even changing the names of the identified terrain features, and I did not bother with representing the camp of Pompey’s legions,  or the line of fortifications extending from that evidently massive camp to the river. The terrain on my tabletop was functional and simple, even primitive in comparison to more traditional setups. [8] This fact stipulated, my “terrain” would still serve its purpose. While preparing this quasi-historical battlefield, it occurred to me that there was some similarity to the location of Second Mantinea. From what I have read, it appears that while there certainly were terrain features present on that fateful day when Epaminondas expired, terrain did not play a significant role in the actual battle. 


Deployments

The Early Medieval French assumed the role of Pompey’s ancient army and so, were positioned with their right flank close to the unnamed river. The Medieval Germans, from a number of City States, represented Caesar’s troops. Their left flank was nearest to the river, while their right flank was in the neighborhood of the slopes and rough terrain of the anonymous ridge line and mountain. 


In greater detail, the French right wing was where the majority of their Knights were lined up. There were two “commands” here. The Knights, all nice and neat, and then on their right, a unit of Bow Levy and two units of Light Foot. As the counters employed were very simple (some might judge them as crude or even beneath usage for this kind of hobby [9]), I have decided not to include photos of the set up or game in progress but do want to experiment with “diagrams.” 

Using abbreviations, the French right looked like this:


Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn Kn    BL LF LF  >marshy ground and river<

                               Kn*


Where Kn represents a stand of Knights; BL represents a stand of Bow Levy, and LF represents a stand of Light Foot. The Kn with an asterisk represents the sub-general’s stand on this flank. 


Looking over the left and center of the French position, this is how their troops were arranged:


Sk Sk

BL BL BL BL BL HF HF HF HF Ar Ar    BL HF HF Ar HF HF Ar HF HF Ar HF HF BL

            Kn Kn* Kn Kn Kn$


Where Sk represents Skirmishers; HF represents Heavy Foot, and Ar represents Archers. The Kn followed by the $, means that this is the stand of the army general. 


A unit of French Knights would have to trot or gallop just over three moves to reach the German City State troops. The overall commander of the German alliance arranged his contingent closest to the river. His troops would bear the brunt of the attack by the mass of French Knights. Starting on the far left of the German line and continuing to the right end of the central “command,” this was how the City State formations were deployed:


BH BH BH

  HF HF HF HF HF HF Kn Kn   Ar Ar BL BL HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF BL BL BL BL

Sk BL     Kn$ ElF*


Where BH represents Bad Horse and ElF represents Elite Foot. Again, the German City States had their general on the left wing, while two subordinates led the center and the right. There were three groups making up the German left; there was only one group in the center of the field. 


The German right wing consisted of the following troop types (from left to right):


BL BL HF BL BL BL HF BL BL    Sk Sk Sk  >ridge line<


                HF HF HF ElF* HF HF


The rationale behind this deployment was that the Bow Levy units (BL) would weaken the enemy or absorb the first round or two of close fighting, which would leave the reserve line of Heavy Foot (HF) to restore the line or rout a damaged and disorganized enemy. This “plan” did not work all that well, unfortunately. 


How It Played

After opposing plans were finalized and couriers sent this way and that, drums sounded, standards fluttered, and thousands of feet and hundreds of hooves began to advance. The movement of each army was somewhat hampered by low command pip scores and the inherent slow rate of march of Bow Levy units. On the German left, near the river and its muddy bank, the first combat of the day took place. Here, a unit of Bad Horse bravely charged into a unit of French Knights and succeeded in forcing them back. Evidently, the bolts from the mounted crossbowmen irritated the Chevaliers. This initial victory was quickly reversed when two-thirds of the German Bad Horse were routed while fighting more Knights and some Bow Levy. The advantage stayed with the French in this sector, even though the first charge of their Knights was held by the German infantry. A second and then third charge did great damage to this stubborn line of troops, tearing gaps in the formation, sending neighboring units of German Knights fleeing in rout, as well as catching the German commander of this wing (and of the entire army) flat-footed. He and his retinue were cut down in a desperate melee. Significant losses resulted in the surviving German troops becoming demoralized. In the span of a few minutes, the remaining troops were running away from the disorganized French.


In the center of the field, the contest was much more even, more of a back-and-forth affair as one side was forced to yield ground, would recover, and then push the other side back 20 or 30 yards. Various units of Archers loosed a number of volleys. Some of these arrows landed well and forced a targeted unit to retire briefly, while other arrows had little effect. Oddly enough, though the fighting in this sector was intense, the casualties inflicted on this part of the field were minor in comparison to what took place near the river. 


Over on the French left wing, their initial efforts were challenged by a few units of German skirmishers. A unit of Knights was ordered to deal with these annoying crossbowmen, but soon found itself involved in a protracted struggle against the dextrous enemy foot. The main bodies were slow to make contact as again, poor command rolls prevented coordinated movement. The French Heavy Foot scored a local success against the German left, destroying two units of exposed Bow Levy. The aforementioned unit of French Knights was finally able to catch the skirmishers while they were reloading their crossbows, evidently, and kill, trample, or otherwise scatter them. The contest on this flank continued to go against the German effort. They had to divide their reserve line of Heavy Foot to counter threats that were developing on the left and right flanks of their position. Another turn of melees saw another unit of Bow Levy collapse. This brought the German losses on this wing to 14 points (out of a possible 16). The commander of the German center, learning that his leader had been lost on the left and that the right wing was about to collapse, decided to save those units in the center of the field he could and ordered his men to withdraw. 


Comments

Due to circumstances and their associated stressors, it has been more than several weeks since I have been able to approach this hobby and consider a project or two with anything like my usual level of motivation. According to my records, it has been several months since I used the TRIUMPH! rules on my tabletop. In the interest of transparency, and at the acknowledged risk of sounding like a “crabby-appleton” or one of the Seven Dwarves (his name rhymes with ‘lumpy’), I can report that the circumstances and related stressors have not markedly improved, unfortunately. (In fact, the future looks rather uncertain, which is disquieting to say the least.) As a result, the consequences of this on-going situation cannot help but have an impact on my approach to the hobby as well as on any writing that might be produced. That much aside, I should like to divide this section into two parts. First, I think it might be interesting to compare and contrast, briefly, this fictional wargame to the historical battle of Pharsalus. In the second part, I will attempt to offer some thoughts on the rules and how the game played with them. 


As previously related, the German City State formations represented Caesar’s forces on my tabletop. Unlike the historical battle, it was the German left (closest to the river) and not the right wing that was attacked and then broken by a large number of French Knights. The center of the field came closer to mirroring the historical engagement in that both sides struggled to overcome the other; the center of the field saw a back-and-forth clash between heavy infantry that was punctuated at times by archers and other troop types. The French left was successful, but only after a protracted contest against German skirmishers and a first line of troops that consisted primarily of Bow Levy. In summary, the terrain of my tabletop was modeled after the historical battle and there were a few points of similarity between my fictional contest and the actual battle. However, the largest difference, aside from forces involved and the time period, was that the French army, in the role of Pompey’s legions and allied troops, emerged victorious. 


As a transition between these two sub-sections or topics, the preceding “experiment” certainly qualifies as a wargame or a “battlegame”—if I may use a term employed by Henry Hyde. [10] The tabletop action also qualifies as historical, since the opposing armies were from the same era and geographical region. However, as there were no painted and based figures present, this “experiment” cannot be called a historical miniatures wargame. That obvious distinction accepted or restated, I should like to move on to a consideration of how the rules worked. 


Initially, I was concerned about the various movement rates and the ability of the various units with the scale I was using. Bow Levy, for whatever reason(s), are very slow moving troops. As many of these stands were present (on both sides), the opposing lines took some time make contact. (I understand that March Moves are allowed, but the command rolls on both sides limited this opportunity.) In other respects, I found movement of individual stands or units to be more flexible or liberal than other rulesets, like Tactica II, for example. Resolving combat, whether missile fire like arrow volleys or close-action between units armed with spears and swords or billhooks and pikes, was also quite different. Instead of handfuls of dice and a number of rolls being made, each unit was given a single d6 and a basic modifier. The score decided the result of the local contest. While necessarily abstract and “black and white” versus “shades of gray” (that is to explain a unit won or lost or remained in melee, it did not lose casualties or strength points and it did not become tired after a certain number of turns), I thought it more realistic to see this unit or that one forced to fall back or in some cases, panic. 


I think having certain units pursue, depending on the situation, was also realistic. Turning to morale, it appears that this “slippery slope” is also treated abstractly, at least on the individual unit level. If a unit is defeated in combat (that is pushed back), its morale does not go down. It can return to the fight immediately, providing it has the command points to do so. Broadly speaking, an army or a portion of an army is demoralized when a third of its strength is destroyed/routed. I wondered about this rule. I wondered if an army’s breakpoint could be adjusted based on its condition. In other words, would a well supplied and veteran army run away when it lost a third of its strength? Or, would losing half of its number be more realistic? 

In the fictional contest recently completed or called as the Germans were on the brink of having both flanks routed, I wondered about the impact of losing skirmishers and Bow Levy units. In other rule sets, these formations would not be classed as important or “key,” and as such, their loss would not affect the army’s overall morale. On a related note or point, the loss of commanders does not appear to have any impact. Of course, I could be mistaken. As I stated earlier, I am not very experienced with these rules. That is why I am staging wargames like this. 

I note too, that commanders seem to be equal with respect to their ability. I suppose it would be an easy fix to draft scenario rules wherein a general or sub-general does not confer a +1 modifier to the troops he/she is fighting with. It would also be possible to give really talented and or charismatic commanders a modifier of +2. 


The sequence of each turn flowed smoothly enough, in my estimation. The contest lasted six turns, which were played over the course of several days. I am not sure how long (in real time) the fictional battle lasted then. My guess would be two or three hours. I am also not sure of sizes of the opposing armies as there is no set unit or figure scale provided in the TRIUMPH! rules. These two items are minor points, however. While I am not completely excited about these rules, I am neither completely confused nor greatly disappointed with them. I think they merit further play. To be certain, I will be re-watching certain videos posted on YouTube about certain aspects of and how to play TRIUMPH! At some point in the future, I might want to explore employing these rules in an actual historical refight or two as well.





Notes

  1. There is a wealth of wargamer-friendly information found at the top of page 65 in Warfare in the Classical World. However, the relevant question is, “Is this information historically accurate and valid?” A translation of the brief narrative account provided by Xenophon can be read, studied, and annotated here:  http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0206%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D18. The narrative supplied by Diodorus, please see Chapters 84 to 88 here: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/15E*.html, can be compared and contrasted with the former author. For the analytical as well as critical  summary, I would recommend pages 121-124 in Professor Philip Sabin’s excellent and thought-provoking LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing The Great Clashes Of The Ancient World. A search of the Internet will turn up additional information and sources, obviously. If I may suggest the following sites for perusal and or study: https://wargamerabbit.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/battle-of-mantineia-362-b-c/; http://lukeuedasarson.com/Mantinea.html, and finally, http://wringher.blogspot.com/2016/04/battle-of-mantinea-362-bce-part-3.html.
  2. The titles varied but tended toward the alliterative, such as “Mulling Over Mantinea,” “Managing Mantinea,” “Models of Mantinea,” “Much Ado About Mantinea,” or even “The End of Epaminondas?” The lengths varied as well. Some were as short as 200 words (and correspondingly awful), while other efforts approached 5,000 words (so a longer form of torture if I may be so self-deprecating). There were several canceled drafts that fell between this wide range. 
  3. In an early iteration, the plan was to stage three refights of the historical battle using three different sets of rules: Tactica II, To The Strongest! and TRIUMPH! This ambitious goal soon collapsed under its own weight. Initially, the revised plan (wherein I would just refight the battle with Tactica II) went well, and I thought playing a turn a day and making notes about said turn would be a manageable schedule, but as the battle progressed and handfuls of dice needed to thrown and casualties recorded, I found myself questioning the effort; I found myself remembering why I did not like the chosen rules all that much. (I am not sure whether it counts as irony, but I have enjoyed reading the battle reports written by Simon Watson in previous issues of Slingshot as well as those picturesque accounts posted to the dedicated section of The Society of Ancients Forum. Readers might also be interested in checking out the Tactica II Forum.) Additionally, real life was interfering for lack of a better description and well . . . I would remark that we have all experienced this at one time or another. 
  4. Technically, my first visit occurred in February of 2014. I reported, briefly, on my experiment in a post to the Battle Reports section of The Society of Ancients Forum. For those readers who may be interested, “A Makeshift Model of Mantinea” was posted on February 19, 2014, at 10:11 PM. The more traditional and perhaps more widely read or at least noticed visit occurred when Dr. Paul Innes published “Mantinea on my Mind” in the January-February 2016 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients. In his editorial, he described my submission as “effectively a mini-Battle Day using three different sets of rulesets, and moves us through various permutations of the battle that saw the end of Epaminondas.” The three rulesets employed were: Armati 2nd Edition, Hail Caesar, and IMPETVS. 
  5. On March 22 of 2022, the esteemed Richard Lockwood announced the selection for Battle Day 2023. The historical engagement to be refought on a number of tabletops using a variety of rulesets would be Second Mantinea (362 BC). This was Richard’s next to last selection, as he has “captained” Battle Day since its debut in 2004 and is retiring from this “job” or responsibility. [For a history of Battle Day, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.] A gentleman by the name of Jeremy Giles has been promoted to this annual command. May his tenure be as successful and as long-running as that of his predecessor. The announcement inspired the popular and prolific Aaron Bell to get started on preparations for his involvement. [Please see  https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2022/04/working-through-prep-for-2nd-mantinea.html.] I have no doubt that many hoplite-loving enthusiasts will participate on the scheduled day and roll dice or flip cards until they “come home carrying their shield or on it.” Although I am no longer an active or contributing member to The Society, I hope that Battle Day Second Mantinea is as well attended and chronicled as Battle Day Chalons, when 14 games were staged and numerous reports were published. (Based on my “research,” this has been the only Battle Day to receive “cross-coverage,” as several articles appeared in the August 2013 issue of Wargames illustrated®, in addition to the narratives written by those in attendance which were published in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot.) My more reasonable estimation is that Battle Day 2023 will likely mirror Battle Day 2022, where 8 games of Adrianople (378 AD) were staged, 42 player-generals were in attendance, and a single brief report was produced. (This information was retrieved from a brief summary written by Richard Lockwood and posted late in the afternoon of March 22.)
  6. A few suggested references regarding Pharsalus . . . One could look over the wargamer-friendly information found on the bottom of page 171 of Warfare in the Classical World. There is a fairly detailed diagram, orders of battle, and a brief synopsis of the engagement. One could also study pages 215-219 of LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing The Great Clashes Of The Ancient World, by Professor Philip Sabin. Pages 422-431 in CAESAR - Life Of A Colossus, by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy, are also worth the investment. Of course, one could also type in “Pharsalus,” “Battle of Pharsalus,” or even “wargaming Pharsalus” into a search engine and then proceed to separate the wheat from the chaff. 
  7. According to Wikipedia, the “accepted” time span for this period of history is 1250-1500. According to another site, the label covers 200 years, from 1300-1500. Please see https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/late-middle-ages-0. Pressed to choose a year for my fictional contest, I would say early summer of 1339. 
  8. For just one stunning example, please see the December 31, 2014, post titled “Solo Zorndorf Turn 3” at: http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2014/. 
  9. One would not be incorrect to return to the post listed in the previous note to take a long second look at the miniature units on display. That visual splendor aside, on page 6 of Version 1.1 of his very popular To The Strongest! rules, the respected and well known blogger, wargamer and writer of rules Simon Miller opines that miniatures are not absolutely necessary for playing at war on a tabletop. He remarks that, “Games played with unpainted plastic minis stuck on colored sabot bases proved to be just as much fun as those played with 500 professionally painted miniatures!”  The gentleman also notes, “Whilst it is great to play a game with beautifully painted miniatures, please don’t let the lack of such an army stop you (from) having fun!”
  10. Please see https://battlegames.co.uk/ and “The Masters Interviews: Henry Hyde - Part 1,” which was posted to YouTube on September 20, 2020.


Sunday, October 2, 2022

SOLO WARGAMER CONTINUED




I concluded my late July post with a word of sincere thanks to the readers of this comparatively and justifiably unpopular blog. It seems then, quite appropriate to begin this post with an additional word of thanks as well as appreciation for their patience and understanding. Without wishing to appear obsequious, I would like to specifically acknowledge the words of support offered by Anthony, Aaron, and Shaun.


Even though personal and professional circumstances have not markedly improved, even though things still look very uncertain and I continue to search for the answers to a number of serious questions as well as feasible solutions to a number of significant problems, I have decided or managed to resume (as the title of this post states) playing solo wargames and then preparing and posting “articles” and reports to NPR. (i.e., No Painting Required, not to be confused with National Public Radio!)


Here’s hoping that the small cohort of followers and an inflated estimate of a legion of casual readers will enjoy and perhaps even offer a comment or two on the ideas and projects that are “in the works,” as the saying goes.


Until that new post-interruption post appears, may I recommend the following blogs (if you have not discovered, had recommended to you, or visited these admirable and exemplary sites already):


https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/


http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2022/09/wednesday-night-madness-last-weeks-was.html


https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/


http://www.blmablog.com/


http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2022/05/link-updated-east-front-miniatures.html




Cheers, good health, good fortune & good gaming,


Chris