A SOLO WARGAMER’S 

“WORLD CUP”

Quite unexpectedly, a spark of renewed interest was generated for the hobby of ancient wargaming. [1] Even more surprisingly, the inspiration stemmed from listening to, watching, and reading post-match analyses and reports of the international women’s football (some still call it soccer) competition taking place in Australia and New Zealand. [2] In broad outline, I decided that I would attempt to stage my own tournament, wherein 16 teams, that is to say armies, would battle each other for the well-deserved honor and right to call themselves champions. In greater detail, the parameters of this impromptu as well as improvised solo tournament were as follows:

1. The rules used would be TRIUMPH! (Rules for Tabletop Battles - Ancient and Medieval, Version 1.1, November 2019) [3] 
2. The size of each competing army would be limited to 48 points (i.e., Standard size engagements as opposed to the larger forces employed in GRAND TRIUMPH! games). This determined number included units as well as Battle Cards and fortified camps, etc. The stand size for the various troop types would be 40 mm, which meant that the MU (movement unit) would be 20 mm. The playing surface (I almost typed “pitch”) dimensions would be 96 cm by 64 cm. 
3. The nature of the ground for each battle would be determined by rolling 2d6 (each one a different color) and consulting the pages of terrain in Appendix H of the TRIUMPH! rules.
4. There would be no Flank Marches permitted in this improvised competition.
5. In order to ensure a wide variety of forces, the tournament was designed as an “open competition,” which would allow armies from 3,000 BC or BCE to 1,500 AD or CE to participate.
6. Selection of the 16 armies was made by a number of die rolls, using a variety of dice. [4]
7. Simple results would be provided for the ‘knockout round’ of 16. For the quarter-finals, one tabletop battle would be chosen to be described in more detail, but the narrative length would be kept (hopefully) under 1,000 words. A diagram or map of the selected engagement might also be provided. One of the semi-final matches would receive a similar treatment. Here, however, there would be at least a deployment map included. The final game would also see a summary of between approximately 1,500 and 2,000 words. The final game would see two if not three maps of the battle prepared for the reader’s possible enjoyment, inspection, or critique. 
8. With regard to the calendar, unlike the football tournament, specifically the ‘knockout rounds’ as opposed to the group games, which ran from August 05 to August 20, this competition would see a wargame played every week. [5] If I was able to maintain this comparatively easy or slow pace, then a winner would emerge and be crowned by the time the US Thanksgiving holiday arrived.  

The Round of 16 and Results

Game 1         Sogdians vs Akkadian

Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs California Coastal First Nations

Game 3 Early Swiss vs Emirate of Granada

Game 4         Early Bronze Age Highlanders vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

Game 5 Later Philistine vs Early Medieval Scandinavian

Game 6         Free Company vs Golden Horde & Successors

Game 7 Later Emishi vs Suren Indo-Parthian

Game 8         Early Ming Chinese vs Campanian

The armies advancing into the next round were: 

Akkadian: They simply slaughtered the Sogdians, inflicting 16 points of damage while losing none.

Later French Ordonnance: CCFN conceded when the score was 15-0 against them.

Early Swiss: The Swiss lost 12 points of Raiders (Halberdiers) on one flank, but managed to knock out 17 points of the enemy. Compared to the first two games, a more interesting as well as hard fought contest. 

Early Patrician Roman (East): Another rout. It took just 25 minutes for the Romans to run up a 16-0 score.

Later Philistine: Scandinavians submitted after falling behind 15-3 in six turns of play.

Free Company: The Knights and supporting troops were able to swat away the numerous Horse Bow of the Golden Horde in a 16-3 win for the Europeans.

Suren Indo-Parthian: A resounding win for the Indo-Parthians; inflicting 18 points of damage while taking no losses at all.

Campanian: The closest battle in this round. The Chinese artillery routed 6 points of Hoplites, and their Horse Bow irritated the left flank of the enemy line. The Campanian force persevered, however, winning by a score of 16-13.

Quarterfinals: A Report and Results

The advancing (or surviving) eight squares of paper were refolded and placed into the container for another round. The subsequent drawings determined which pairs of “armies” would do battle over the course of approximately several weeks. 

Quarterfinal Game 1 Suren Indo-Parthian vs Later Philistine

Quarterfinal Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs Early Swiss

Quarterfinal Game 3 Early Patrician Roman (East) vs Akkadian

Quarterfinal Game 4 Campanian vs Free Company

“Summary Report” of Quarterfinal Game 1

Initially, I thought I would walk the reader through the step-by-step process of setting up a 48-point per side TRIUMPH! game.  I quickly realized that this was a fool’s errand and deleted the 800 words or so that had been typed in an attempt to explain the comparatively simple process. Obviously, the experienced TRIUMPH! player-generals do not need this information. For those who might be interested in trying out TRIUMPH! and for those curious about the way the rules work, I strongly recommend that you visit the TRIUMPH! YouTube channel and enjoy the fairly large library of video tutorials. With regard to setting up a battle, well, the “Setting up a Game” video explains it all. There is also the first part of a Later Crusader vs Mamluk Egyptians wargame that shows the setting up procedure in action, or prior to action. (Please see Triumph Setting up a Game and Triumph Later Crusader vs Mamluk Egyptians Part 1.) Anyway, following, please see the orders of battle for this first quarterfinal match.

For the Later Philistines, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Battle Card ‘Pack Train and Herds’ / 1 point - this was their camp

03 units of Chariots / 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general

01 unit of Spear / 4 points - battleline zone troops

07 units of Heavy Foot / 21 points - battleline zone troops

02 units of Light Foot / 6 points

02 units of Rabble / 4 points 

For the Suren Indo-Parthians, I had a 47-point force consisting of:

Battle Card ‘Pack Train and Herds’ / 1 point - this was their camp

03 units of Cataphracts / 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general and these units were battleline zone troops

05 units of Horse Bow / 20 points

01 unit of Rabble / 2 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Skirmishers / 3 points

01 unit of Light Spear / 3 points

01 unit of Horde / 2 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Elephants / 4 points - battleline zone troops

Map 1 shows the nature of the ground for this first battle in the second round of contests. It also informs how the opposing armies deployed for the action. In order to make viewing the diagram a little easier (and production a little simpler for my aging eyes), I increased its size by a factor of three. This did not leave room for any caption box, so a brief explanation of troop type abbreviations and other notes will have to be included in the body of this summary. 

The Later Philistines are identified by the purple units and occupy the right side of the field or map. The Indo-Parthians are light blue in color and are arranged for battle on the left of the diagram. Two, three, or four-letter abbreviations identify the troop types. For several examples: Cat = Cataphracts; HB = Horse Bow; LtSp = Light Spear, and HF = Heavy Foot. The other units should be recognized by experience, inference, or the following narrative. 

As might be expected, both armies spent the first few turns of the game moving forward. Each side was careful in its approach, however. The Indo-Parthians decided to secure the village with some Skirmishers. These light troops would later be joined by some Rabble. It looked as if action would commence on the Philistine left wing, as their Chariots were facing large numbers of enemy Horse Bow. In the center, both sides seemed content to walk slowly forward, staring daggers at each other.

First blood was in fact spilled on the Philistine left wing when the Chariots and Horse Bow clashed. Half of the Chariots were routed, and the other squadron(s) were pushed back. In the next turn, the Parthian Horse Bow swarmed the surviving Chariots and destroyed them. Not much else happened in other parts of the field. Over by the village, two smaller lines of opposing units were lining up and staring more daggers. The Philistines did not particularly like the idea of making an urban assault, however. The sixth and seventh turns saw the centers of each army meet with something resembling a terrible crash. The Philistine foot units proved rather stubborn against the lumbering Parthian Cataphracts. A unit of Philistine Rabble proved especially capable as it fought off both a frontal and rear attack by those same swarming Horse Bow. The combat in the center grew more chaotic as the Philistine General moved his Chariots into the swirling action by charging the flank of an enemy unit of Light Spear. The Philistine Rabble earned their pay by repulsing another multi-directional attack from the Parthian Horse Bow. Unfortunately, the Cataphracts were finally able to punch a hole or two in the Philistine infantry line, and this spelled the end of the battle. 

It had been a hard fought affair, and it had been fairly enjoyable, but the final score was very lopsided: Indo-Parthians - 17, Later Philistines - 0. A review of the turn record informed that the Parthians had much better command dice or pips, earning 30 over seven turns of play against 15 command points or pips for the Philistines. Even though there were a number of units in and around the village, no actual fighting took place around in inside the buildings. In sum, the combination of Horse Bow and Cataphracts, as well as a turn of luck with the combat dice, secured a convincing win for the Indo-Parthians. 

Results of the Other Games

The Indo-Parthian would be joined by three other winning armies as they advanced to the semifinals. Those armies (and very short descriptions of their contests) are listed below.

Early Swiss: Their Bad Horse and Skirmishers frustrated the flank attacks on the right, while their Raiders (i.e., Halberdiers) were able, finally, to turn the Later French right flank. A fairly long and hard fought contest, wherein the French failed to make good use of their Archers and Artillery, and failed to roll good melee dice. The Early Swiss advanced to the semifinals with a score of 17 - 3. 

Early Patrician Roman (East): A hard, slow slog for the Legions and Foederati against the stubborn Akkadian militia pikemen. The Romans lost their Javelin Cavalry and Skirmishers on their left, but manage to finally envelope the interior right of the Akkadian line. Again, a hard-fought contest, with the Romans prevailing by a score of  16 - 7. 

Campanian: The advance of the Hoplites was repulsed, with no little embarrassment, by the Free Company Archers and Crossbowmen. Meanwhile, on the Free Company right flank, a group of Knights tangled with and overran some enemy Light Foot and Javelin Cavalry at the cost of one unit. (A Campanian distraction or forlorn hope?) Incensed, the Hoplites charged back in and punched holes in the Free Company line of battle; a unit of Light Foot finally came to grips with the offending Crossbowmen and cut them down. A hard won victory for the Campanian soldiery. The final score was 16 - 10. 

Semifinals: Another Report and Results

For this pre-championship round, only four squares of paper were refolded and placed into the container. The determined matches were as follows:

Semifinal Game 1 Campanian vs Suren Indo-Parthian

Semifinal Game 2 Early Swiss vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

“Summary Report” of Semifinal Game 1

This contest would be fought over arable ground, as the Campanian general rolled a lower score than the Parthian commander. The Parthians would enjoy the Tactical Advantage, however. To make more room for his Cataphracts and Horse Bow (and Javelin Cavalry), this insightful Indo-Parthian leader used that advantage so that there would be only two pieces of terrain on the battlefield. (There was a coast as well, but this did not figure prominently in the engagement.) 

The nature of the open, arable ground as well as opposing deployments are shown on Map 2. The Indo-Parthians on are the right of the diagram; their units are represented by the pink rectangles or squares. The Campanian formations are indicated by the yellow rectangles or squares. Following, please see the detailed orders of battle for both forces: 

For the Campanian army, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Pack Train and Herds [per Battle Card - cost of 1]

02 units of Javelin Cavalry / 08 points - 1 of these units contained the army general

06 units of Heavy Foot (Hoplites) / 18 points - battleline zone troops

05 units of Light Foot / 15 points - battleline zone troops

03 units of Rabble / 06 points

For the Suren Indo-Parthians, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Pack Train and Herds [per Battle Card - cost of 1]

03 units of Cataphracts/ 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general; all had to deploy in the battleline zone

05 units of Horse Bow / 20 points

01 unit of Javelin Cavalry / 04 points

01 unit of Elephants/ 04 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Horde / 02 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Rabble / 02 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of LIght Spear / 03 points

The status of the field at the end of Turn 4 is shown on Map 3. The Parthian general gambled on dividing his army into three separate commands. Additional money was wagered on drawing the attention of the enemy with his Elephant “combined arms” group, while pushing forward at speed with his numerous Horse Bow units. The Campanian leadership, in contrast, opted to advance with their Heavy Foot as well as wheel their Light Foot to counter the expected mounted threat. 

First blood was scored/shed in the third turn, when a unit of Light Foot was routed by some excellent shooting by the Parthian Horse Bow. (Note: These units do not actually engage in missile fire, but when they roll 6s and the attacked unit rolls a 1, well . . .) This situation turned from bad to worse on the Campanian right flank when three units were destroyed or routed from the attention of the Parthian light cavalry. 

While this chaotic melee was taking place, the opposing centers met in a resounding clash or arms. The Campanian Hoplites fought well, and stood up to the lumbering charges of the enemy Cataphracts and Elephants. On the Parthian right, the Hoplites were not able to deliver a knock-out blow to either the enemy Rabble or Horde, but did succeed in pushing them back. The pressure was on the main Campanian line of battle to do something, as their side trailed the Parthians by a score of 9 - 0. 

The Indo-Parthians continued chipping away at the Campanian right, “closing the door” on a unit of Light Foot and then winning the frontal melee. The struggle between the main lines continued without pause, but the Parthians were frustrated by poor dice even when they had tremendous positional advantage. For example, a unit of Campanian Hoplites was fighting against a unit of Cataphracts. The very heavy horse were assisted by a neighboring unit of Cataphracts. In addition, some Parthian Javelin Cavalry had the range, and cheekiness, to wheel about and fall on the rear of the hard-pressed and fighting desperately Hoplites. The melee dice indicated a draw, so kudos to the Hoplites! In another section of this line, two more units of Hoplites ganged up on the enemy elephants. Despite this advantage (attacking from front and flank), the Campanian Heavy Foot could not make the animals pack their trunks and leave the field. This misfortune was soon added to back over on the right of the line, where the Cataphracts were being fought. In this melee round, the Hoplites could not hold. The outnumbered unit collapsed. This local defeat increased the Parthian advantage to 15 - 0. Rather than fight on, the Campanian general read the writing on the wall and conceded the contest.

In the second semifinal match, the Patrician Romans decided the topography as well as secured the Tactical Advantage. Five pieces of terrain and a coastline decorated Terrain Card/Diagram 5 - 1, with the Romans having the coast on their right flank. The Roman line contained a mix of troop types, from Cataphracts to Heavy Foot to Archers, while the Early Swiss army was almost entirely infantry and included a large number of halberdiers (Elite Foot and Radiers). 

This was an especially hard-fought battle. Evidently, both armies decided to advance directly and engaged in a head-on collision or contest. The Heavy and Elite Foot of one side hacked and stabbed at the Raiders and Elite Foot of the other side and vice versa. The Swiss troops had some minor success in the edge of the large field on the Roman right, but it was an attritional affair in other parts of the field. The Romans experienced some difficulties with command and control, rolling three 1s in succession. At the end of Turn 6, the Early Swiss had lost 11 points, while the Patrician Romans had lost 10 points. The bloody tide finally turned in favor of the Romans when, in the next turn, the Swiss General and his battalion were overlapped on each flank and rolled a 1 in the melee. The final hole in the Swiss line was made by the Roman Cataphracts. Assisted by some Archers attacking from the flank, these armored horsemen just managed to outscore the Raiders, pushing the Swiss beyond their breaking point. The final score was: Romans - 19, Swiss - 13.

The “Championship” Game

For the final match of this improvised tournament, the Early Patrician Romans (East) would face off against the Suren Indo-Parthians. The pre-battle or set up rolls were quickly completed. The Parthians decided the topography of the contest, choosing Hilly terrain. The Romans just secured the Tactical Advantage and shifted the number of terrain pieces down a level so that there would be three instead of four along with a permitted coastline. A die roll determined the layout of the tabletop, and the terrain as well as deployments of the opposing armies can be seen/studied on Map 4. Having had some degree of success with it previously, the Parthian commander arranged his army into four separate divisions or groups. The Romans, in contrast, drew up their units in a single formation. 

The status of the field after four turns of play can be seen on Map 5. The Parthian plan for a rapid envelopment of both Roman wings was slow to start, as the Parthian general rolled just three command pips or points for the first two turns. This challenge was resolved on the next turn and the turn after, when a 5 and 6 were rolled for the Parthian formations. After moving up the group with the Elephant and poor quality foot, the Parthian Horse Bow launched a series of attacks. On their right, the Horse Bow faced enemy Horse Bow and Cataphracts. The contest went back and forth. Seeking to even things out a bit, the Roman commander ordered a stand of Elite Foot (Legionaries) to join the swirling melees. The addition of this capable and comparatively powerful unit had no immediate impact; the melees continued to swing back and forth. Over on the Roman right, the Archers saw a chance and moved up to let fly with a volley at the enemy Javelin Cavalry. Scores of shafts found their marks, and the Parthian unit of horse was no more. In exchange, a unit of Roman Javelin Cavalry was finally routed in another swirling melee in this sector. These troopers were destroyed after being attacked frontally and from the side by a swarm of Parthian Horse Bow. 

The fifth turn of play spelled the end for the Patrician Romans, as the dice gods abandoned them in two key melees. In the ongoing action on the Roman left, a stand of Elite Foot found itself double-overlapped by Horse Bow and a unit of Light Spear detached from the lumbering Elephant group. The modified combat factors were 2 for the Parthians and 1 for the Romans. The Parthians rolled a 3, while the Roman die turned up a 1. Scratch a unit of Elite Foot, advance the Horse Bow, and really start to worry about the chances of Moeius, Larrius, and Curlius surviving, along with their brothers in arms. Over on the Parthian left, an isolated unit of Cataphracts found itself sandwiched between flank attacks by a unit of Raiders and another of Light Foot. The infantry just managed to outscore the armored horsemen, thereby forcing them to flee the field. This temporary success was immediately countered, however. A melee in the center, between some Cataphracts and Raiders, saw a chance for the Romans to shatter the enemy very heavy horse disappear when another 1 was rolled on the Roman melee die. This hardy band of Auxilia Palatina was trampled under hoof and or scattered to the wind by the Parthian Cataphracts. This loss pushed the Patricians to their breaking point. The final score was Parthians - 16, Romans - 8. 

Evaluation & Remarks

Where to begin? Perhaps an attempt at analyzing the margins of victory in the 15 wargames staged and played. 

In the initial round of contests, six of the eight matches were what most would call, or agree to call, routs. The losing side managed to score a few points in two of the games, but failed to inflict any damage in the remaining four battles. There was no “middle ground” in this initial series of matches. On further reflection, it appears that there cannot be. Perhaps. In the two wargames that were battles of attrition, or pyrrhic victories, both armies managed to score in the double digits. The results in the quarterfinals were a little more varied, a little more spread across the figurative graph. Half of these contests were complete routs; one battle saw the losing side inflict seven points of damage, and another wargame saw the defeated army score 10 points against the winner. The semifinals reinforced the “all or nothing” nature of the previous decisions. The Indo-Parthians steamrolled the Campanian army, while the Early Swiss and Early Patrician Romans fought another battle of attrition. As just related, the final match witnessed the Parthians continue their apparent mastery of all fields and all opponents, defeating the Romans by a convincing margin. 

Looking over the armies competing in that initial round, I would have wagered (no money, just a friendly bet) or thought that there were a handful of armies that could have or should have done better than the Indo-Parthians. Just to name a few, I would have thought that Later French Ordonnance, Free Company, and the Golden Horde & Successors might have made it further in the tournament. Upon reflection and the perspective afforded by the passage of approximately 72 hours since the dust settled over that final field of battle, I wonder if the success of the Indo-Parthians was a result of my generalship, the luck of the dice, the random draw of pairings in each round, or a combination of these and other variables? 

Switching, admittedly abruptly, to a consideration of what went well and what could have gone better, playing 15 games with the TRIUMPH! rules certainly gave me that much more experience. I have no doubt that a few mistakes were made with regard to interpreting the rules, but I do not think this lack of mental acuity resulted in any unfair contests. The tournament also gave me experience in commanding (or attempting to command) a wide variety of armies. Prior to this experiment, I have never had reason to or interest in, honestly, deploying representative Sogdians, Later Emishi, or an army representing the California Coastal First Nations on my tabletop. Taking my usual functional approach, I was able to conduct and complete this improvised solo tournament without going into debt and without suffering additional carpal tunnel symptoms (prep and painting) or additional eye strain (prep and painting again). Broadly speaking, I think I stayed within the parameters established at the outset. In fact, I think I did rather well in meeting the report “restrictions” outlined in Number 7. With regard to the original calendar time frame, it appears quite evident that I grossly overestimated how long this tournament would take. I did not keep time records for every wargame, but I doubt that any battle took longer than 45 minutes once the tabletop was landscaped and the opposing armies deployed. 

As for what might have gone better, well, though the following idea is anathema to a solo wargame or tournament, it might have been beneficial to have the occasional opponent. This is not to suggest that I preferred one side over the other in any engagement. I have decades of experience playing solo and believe I strive to represent or command both armies equally well (or equally poorly). To be certain, I always know what the other side is thinking or planning to do. Then again, one could argue that, generally, ancient battles were typically very straight-forward affairs. Anyway, my belabored point is that an occasional opponent would have been good if only for that fact that it would have been a change; it would have been different. On further reflection, I wonder if this tournament would have been more engaging and enjoyable if I had taken some additional time to prepare a variety of “strategy cards” that would be employed by one or both forces. For a very rough example, one “strategy card” would have instructed: “Attack the enemy left, while holding your center and right.” The opposing army might have drawn a card that read: “Concentrate all units in the center deployment zone; play defense.” I guess this process, even though it was not completed and instituted, would count as a very basic kind of artificial intelligence or programmed opponent, thus removing the need for another player-general as well as removing any chance of playing favorites or being accused of playing favorites. 

I found it somewhat curious that not a single camp (fortified or just a collection of herd animals and pack trains) came under threat of enemy attention and attack. Had I known this would be the case in the 15 games played, I would have put those points elsewhere. (I have not done an exhaustive study of ancient battles to determine in what percentage an encampment was attacked and sacked during the engagement, but my guess is that this was a rare occurrence.) While the 48-point armies were simple and functional, I found myself missing the subjective spectacle of a larger battle. After the fact, I am thinking that 96-point armies might have made this tournament more exciting. This increase would have permitted bigger battlefields as well as afforded the opportunity for a portion of the army to become demoralized. This increase in size might also have allowed a camp or three to be attacked and taken. 

While I became more comfortable with the set-up process and the use of the terrain cards, there were times when I was scratching my head over how the battlefield for a particular match looked. Sometimes, the landscape did not appear suitable for either army. Many times, I found myself thinking about the impact terrain would or should have on moving, melee and missile exchanges. As with other sets of rules, terrain features have an abstract quality about them in TRIUMPH! If I attempt a second solo tournament, I think I might prepare 10 or 12 terrain cards based on historical battlefields and then roll dice to determine which battlefield is used. There would be a detailed explanation page attached to each card, describing the characteristics of the terrain features (if any were present) and what impact these features had on movement, melee, and missile exchanges. 

On a slightly related note, I think a narrower or better defined time window would have been beneficial. This might not have given me the opportunity to gain at least a little experience with armies never before used, but it would have, I think, reduced those occasions where one army was completely outmatched and so, failed to score any points against the army deployed against it.

On final review, I think this solo tournament, inspired by the recent World Cup, went fairly well. I gained some more experience with the selected rules; I had a chance to command armies that I have never put in the field before, and I was engaged and entertained. Though I have no prepared rubric, I think a grade of 82 out of 100 (a B minus), would be given for this project. The series of games, the overall experiment was by no means excellent or grand. Similarly, it was not awful or disappointing. In summary, it was pretty good. However, this assessment, like the grade, is completely subjective. If the next Women’s World Cup should find me revisiting this idea (and that is a fairly large if), there will certainly be some tinkering done. I have four years, or hope that I will. As one participant in the recent tournament stated, “four years is a long time.” Well, I guess it’s a matter of perspective. To be sure, a lot can happen in four years. Indeed, a lot can happen in a week, even in a day. I confess that I am a little bit curious to see if my previous level of interest and production in this varied and variously pursued hobby returns. At the risk of ending with almost clever word play, if my “mojo” does find its way back, I will be sure to keep you posted. 

Notes

1. On May 04, 2023, I posted “A Last Hurrah at LITTLE WARS” to No Painting Required (see, if you would like to, https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/). In the introduction to this photo-heavy post, I reported on the serious if almost nearly fatal condition of my interest in historical wargaming. In the last few paragraphs, I reiterated the point or explanation and estimated or gave a dark prognosis (to extend the medical analogy) that this post was “very likely a ‘last hurrah.’”
2. In the 2023 Great Wargaming Survey (please see The Great Wargaming Survey), there is a question about inspiration. It asks, “What inspires you most?” The are 11 choices, one of these being the broad category of “Other.” I would estimate that no respondent to this survey selected “Other” and then typed in a brief explanation of how he or they were inspired by watching highlights of the football matches online or reading reports about the various matches in a newspaper. On the other hand, it occurs to me that wargame tournaments, whatever their themes, have been done many, many times before and so, this is not an original idea on my part. I make no claim that it is. I merely point out the unusual or unexpected source of the inspiration.  
3. Please feel free to visit https://forum.wgcwar.com/.
4. There are 40 ‘Thematic Categories’ provided at Meshwesh. (Please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home.) These 40 categories were divided into groups of 5. A d6 was rolled for each group. Results of 6 were rerolled. This score gave me the category. Depending on the number of army lists within the category a d6, d12, or d20 was rolled. This result was matched to the corresponding list, which gave me one of the 16 armies. The category was removed from the initial group of 5, and the process was repeated until 16 army lists or potential armies were determined. Sufficed to say, this was a fairly simple if very unscientific process. It also produced some armies that, it would be fair to say, would find themselves heavily outmatched in the planned tournament. The pairings would be determined by writing the names of each army on a small square of paper, folding it twice, and placing it in a container. The container was then shaken, and two squares were drawn. This process was repeated eight times. As the competition continued, certain armies would be left out of the container. On the plus side, the fairly wide variety selected would give me experience in playing with/commanding armies that I do not usually if ever employ. The tournament would also add to my experience level with the TRIUMPH! rules. 
5. I confess that I am having trouble coming up with a good comparison to describe the almost glacial or pre-industrial revolution pace of this schedule against the advanced machine-like production of a respected and well-known blogger like Jonathan Freitag. Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/. For a more specific example, see his efforts for the month of March 2023 at https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/03/. Based on a number of viewings of the helpful videos found at https://www.youtube.com/@triumphancientandmedievalw3229/videos, I estimated that each tabletop battle would take between 90 and 150 minutes. Taking the larger number and not counting the time for set up, take down, or administrative tasks like preparing a new pair of opponents or writing up a brief report, then I would be spending around 37.5 hours on this solo “world cup” tournament. 

A MATTER OF TIMING

Coincidentally, like the Gaul mentioned by Caesar in opening line of his Commentaries, this “paper” is also divided into three parts. [1] However, unlike those ancient volumes written in the third person and debated over by scholars as well as discussed or referenced by historical wargamers with an interest in that specific historical period, the following body of text will not be studied, annotated, referenced, or even, I imagine, read by more than 30 or so individuals who happen to stumble upon this post. Anyway, that tendency toward self-deprecation aside, and for as much planning has gone into this “project,” the first part or section is a comparison/contrast essay. This consideration of similarities and differences helps to establish a contextual foundation, I think, for the second part, in which I hypothesize and speculate, or attempt to do so. This portion of the “paper” adds walls, duct work, plumbing, and etc., to continue the construction analogy, so that I can make an attempt at the third and final part wherein I consider the future. (I guess this would represent the roof of the structure and finishing touches, or perhaps an area in the backyard reserved for building an addition.) As I am not an accomplished futurist, I spend the majority of this section reviewing the available material (by no means an exhaustively researched collection) instead of making and defending predictions about what is to come 50 or 60 years from now. Absent a better introduction to a jumbled collection of thoughts, permit me to start walking down this figurative road.

John C. “versus” John N.

In the last third of August, and without inspiration or provocation, I thought it might prove interesting if I  compared and contrasted two wargame reports that were published in “ancient” issues of Slingshot. The first narrative, simply titled “Battle Report,” appeared in the second issue (November 1965) of this long-running and read-around-the-globe publication. The author was a gentleman by the name of John Carlin. [2] The second piece appeared in Issue 52 (March 1974), and was written by a fellow named John Norris. He titled his narrative “Action in Mesopotamia: A Battle Report.” With regard to format and or structure of this improvised composition, in the first paragraph(s) I will consider the similarities between the two published pieces. I am not sure if I will produce a list of bullet-points, write in full sentences, or employ some combination of the two. After I have identified the common ground shared by the two articles, I will move on to the contrast portion of this self-styled and subjective exercise. In this section or sections, obviously, I will examine the differences between the two reports offered to the subscribing as well as general readership of Slingshot. Anyway, for lack of a better explanation, let me dive, if rather clumsily, into the comparison pool.

The wargame reports written by John Carlin and John Norris share several if not more similarities. Starting with the simple and moving toward what might be called the more complex or nuanced, both reports were written by historical wargamers named John. (Perhaps this is more of a coincidence than anything else.) Obviously, both reports were printed in the pages of Slingshot. The miniature battles which generated these respective reports were set in the ancient period, were wargamed with written rules, and involved two persons (a player-general commanding each side). Each report contained at least one diagram or map so that the readers could make more sense of the action described in the provided narratives. Each report also presented a fairly chronological summary of the wargame. There was a beginning, middle, and end phase to each miniature contest. That reminds me, both wargames employed miniature figures to represent the actual infantry, cavalry, elephants, and or other troop types on the model battlefield. The reports written by John C. and John N. also informed the readers which side won the battle. In brief summary, I think a very strong case could be made that each narrative fits neatly into the ‘Informative Report’ category or classification defined by the respected and well-known blogger Aaron Bell, who explained (albeit with “tongue firmly in cheek”) in a post dated September 12, 2018 (please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-taxonomy-of-battle-reports.html), that ‘Informative Reports’: 

Talked readers through the game, narrating the action while also informing readers on how 

rules mechanisms work. Might touch on selected mechanisms; might list the whole lot. 

Digesting the complete report might be helped by drinking up to three cups of tea, coffee, 

hot water, warm milk, etc.

My guess is that not every reader of this “paper” will have access to the aforementioned “ancient” issues of Slingshot. My second and related guess is that not every reader of this effort will feel that strongly about battle reports. So stipulated. I would, however, strongly encourage readers—especially those with an interest in ancient wargaming and or the history of ancient wargaming—to explore the possibility of securing the 333 back issues of Slingshot (1965-2020) which are available on a memory stick/thumb drive. (Please see  https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/slingshot. They might also consider securing the free download of the Article Index for 1965-2019. This is available at https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/downloads. And no, I do not receive commission for any sales generated!) Shifting my attention, rather abruptly I admit, to a contrast of the two reports submitted by these gentlemen, well, it’s fair to remark that the differences comfortably outnumber the similarities.

In the Editor’s Note to John Carlin’s battle report, Tony Bath (the founder and driving force behind Slingshot), explained: “This battle was fought between John Carlin and Brian Palmer using flat figures. The rules used were the current Bath Ancient Rules. [3] The battle was part of a campaign.” 

The opponent for John Norris was one Jim Poulton. John and Jim did not use flat figures (as this was not specifically mentioned), and the rules employed by John and Jim were some iteration of the WRG Rules. This is an “educated guess” on my part, due to the language, terminology, and comments found with the Norris narrative. Additionally, the wargame played by John and Jim was not part of a campaign. Before I swim farther out into the contrast lake, it should be pointed out that the title “Action in Mesopotamia” is different as well as a little more descriptive than the earlier and generic but serviceable “Battle Report” label. Further, nearly a decade separates these submitted reports. To reiterate: the Carlin contest appeared in November 1965; the Norris narrative was published in March 1974. In terms of paragraph length, the report by John Carlin ran nine short paragraphs (including the Editor’s Note). The report written by John N. was eight paragraphs in total, but his paragraphs were longer. As for total number of pages, it appears that the November 1965 effort was approximately 1.5 pages long, while the March 1974 submission was a little over 2 pages in length. Anyway, to continue. I should now like to address the stark contrasts, at least in my estimation, with regard to the orders of battle, rules, terrain, deployments, and game results. 

The identity of the armies used by John Carlin and his colleague Brian Palmer were not revealed. Their respective compositions and strengths were, however, quite detailed. John C. explained: 

My army comprised 10 camels, 3 elephants, 38 heavy cavalry, 45 light cavalry, 40 light 

infantry, 40 spearmen, and 20 dismounted heavy cavalry. Brian had 5 camels, 5 elephants, 

30 heavy cavalry, 38 light cavalry, 50 light infantry, 40 spearmen, 20 axemen and 40 

swordsmen. 

In contrast (I hope that I don’t overuse this phrase), John Norris commanded a Sassanid army against a Byzantine force led by Jim Poulton. Both sides employed auxiliary units, and both sides deployed armies worth approximately 2,500 points. In terms of numbers, John explained that, “Brian had 4,914 Byzantines along with 600 Huns, while I commanded 3,060 Sassanids and a small contingent of 100 Arabs.” My guess is that John and Jim’s armies were 25/28mm solid figures, with most of the miniatures based on movement stands. John and Brian’s armies were, again, flat figures. My guess is that these side-on-view figures were based individually. As mentioned above, the rules employed by John and Brian were identified; the rules used by John and Jim were not, but my hunch remains unchanged from some early version of the WRG Rules. Interestingly, I find myself drawn to or perhaps even liking the Bath Ancient Rules. In the first report, John Carlin describes, among other things, being able to fire flaming arrows so as to set fire to structures. There is also the possibility of friendly camel troops scaring away enemy horsemen. There are also some intriguing lines about infantry formations, and how, if deep enough, they can be used to repulse cavalry or bull their way through an enemy foot formation. With regard to the rules of the March 1974 wargame, I felt a little like I was in the wrong college classroom. There was a paragraph dedicated to Byzantine light cavalry weapons and their capabilities in melee. There were terms used like “uncontrolled charge,” and there was a suggestion of orders being needed to move units around on the battlefield, though this was not expressly stated. Switching abruptly, again, to a review of the terrain fought over in these two miniature battles, I am very tempted to say, that is type, three words: “Night and Day.” 

I do not know the dimensions of the tabletop on which John and Brian battled for victory and or temporary bragging rights down at the local pub. My guess is that the playing surface was somewhere between 6 to 8 feet long and 4 to 5 feet wide. What I do know or can safely remark, is that the nature of the landscape in this campaign battle was busy, even complicated. In fact, I am tempted to comment that the look of this tabletop was unusual for an ancients contest. [4] By my count (which I checked and then checked again), there were a dozen terrain features on this table. Starting at the north end of the provided diagram (Brian’s right; John’s left), there was a sizeable wood butting up against a rather large hill. The height of this hill was not specified. It could have been gentle, medium, or steep. Either way, it was a pretty big hill. Moving down the field, there was a large haystack, a village of four dwellings (three on the north side of the road or track, and one on the south side), and a small copse in front of John’s far right flank. On the other side of the table, there was a field in Brian’s center-left sector. There were also two hedgerows. The longer one ran from the hill to the road near Brian’s center-right; the shorter one ran from the southern house or hut in an L-shape to the edge of the aforementioned copse. There was no photo showing how this tabletop looked, but I would venture a guess that it looked pretty good if again, rather busy. If I was the commander of a miniature ancient army, I think that I would have some reservations about deploying for battle on this kind of ground. In contrast, the field fought over by John Norris and his like-minded friend was completely flat and open. There wasn’t a single model tree, a single piece of lichen, or a single small, homemade hill to be found. The dimensions of the playing area were 10 feet by 6 feet. To accommodate this quite large battlefield, the floor of John’s drawing room was taken over for the engagement. The fairly significant contrast between these two wargames is also highlighted by the deployments made by the opposing player-generals.

In the first battle, I would respectfully submit that the opposing deployments are or were non-historical. While the nature of the model landscape may have dictated the arrangement of the armies, I still found it rather odd that John placed his light cavalry in the center of his line and put his heavy horse on their flanks. The infantry formations were assigned to the wings; the camels and elephants were positioned on the far left, facing the small alley of open ground on the tabletop. Brian’s deployment was fairly similar as well as strange. His light cavalry was also in the middle of his position. His heavy cavalry and elephants were arranged to their left. Three-fifths of his infantry strength was deployed on the right side of his line. His handful of dromedaries were stationed in front of the right-most infantry unit. Further study revealed three sizable gaps in these deployments which also struck me as somewhat unrealistic, or ahistorical.

In the second wargame, taking place approximately nine years later, the opposing deployments impressed me as much more historical if not traditional. As related above, there were no terrain features or elements that disturbed or impacted that arrangement of each army. The Byzantines screened their foot formations with a long line of cavalry. Their line of battle may have stretched for nine of the available ten feet marked out on the drawing room floor. Curiously, light cavlary units were placed in the center, and heavier units were posted to the flanks. (I’m beginning to think I need to revisit and revise my opinion or secure some additional knowledge, at least on this subject.) The Sassanid force was an all-mounted one, and the light cavalry units were weighted to the left side of the larger formation, as this deployment was part of the overall plan of battle. The heavier horse was posted to the right and also as a reserve. The small number of elephants were positioned as a second line on the far right of General John’s line of battle. My guess is that the Sassanid footprint may have been about six feet or so. In some ways, I was reminded of Alexander and his Macedonians when he faced much larger armies in his campaigns against the Persian Empire and on the subcontinent. 

Moving on to the results of each contest, the textual evidence informs that the earlier wargame was decided by losses, while the latter wargame was decided by concession. In the last paragraph of his brief narrative, John Carlin relates the success his camels had against a larger formation of enemy light cavalry. This development tilted the battle in John’s favor, and Brian decided to quit the field. The final sentence of the report reads: “Losses were heavy on both sides, Brian’s being about four-fifths and mine about two-thirds.” At the risk of repeating myself, this sounds like a very enjoyable wargame, and I would be interested in trying to refight it in some fashion. However, the casualty lists strike me as a bit excessive, dare I say non-historical. Given the extent of the damage suffered on both sides, I wondered about the morale rules that may or may not have been in use. Based on my reading of the Norris narrative and based on my study of the accompanying maps, there does not appear to have been much damage inflicted by either side in this wargame. John’s right wing, supported by elephants, did succeed in breaking three Byzantine units and thereby convinced Jim to concede the day, but the majority of units on both sides did not come into contact, did not engage in melee. While John certainly deserves to be lauded for securing a win with his outnumbered army of Sassanids in just five, albeit long, periods of play. According to the second sentence of the report, the victory “took up nearly a whole Sunday.” The actual time is not stated, but I will venture a guess of around six hours (perhaps as many as nine or ten) of playing, of kneeling on that drawing room floor measuring moves and rolling dice. John Carlin does not mention how much time it took for him to win the day against Brian, but I imagine that it was significantly less than six hours. To the benefit of the player-generals involved, no one had to bend or stoop, kneel and get back up, or crawl around on a drawing room floor. As a final point of contrast, I should like to take a few minutes and consider John and John’s level of engagement in the hobby as well as the number of submissions made to Slingshot and participation in The Society.  

From what I have been able to discover, it appears that the ancient wargaming candle of John Carlin burned brightly but all too briefly, unfortunately. I could find only one other report written by the gentleman after searching through the next 36 issues of Slingshot after November 1965. [5] On the other hand, John Norris ignited his ancient wargaming flame in Issue 43 (September 1973) with a Guardroom letter/reply. [6]  This fire burned fairly steadily for around 40 issues. From my “research,” it appears that John contributed about 15 articles, pieces, or reviews to the pages of this journal. [7] His last submission was published in Issue 82 (March 1979). My scanning and skimming also informed that John was Society Secretary in the mid 1970s, when Richard Nelson was editor. Additional poking around revealed that John also served as Editor of Slingshot as the 1970s drew to an end.

Studious & Subjective Speculation

In the process of thinking about various wargaming topics and drafting these various pages (including numerous previous attempts at something resembling actual writing), I found myself wondering what John Carlin and or John Norris would think and say about the state of the hobby today. As I thought more about this hypothetical, it occurred to me that I could possibly extend this exercise by attempting to walk in another wargamer’s shoes, “kicks,” or trainers. To a certain degree, the comparison and contrast format would continue, but the focus would shift more to contemplation or speculation as well as to the attempt (my attempt) to figure out some possible or probable answers. Lacking any better transition, the general parameters or guiding question(s) would be: “What opinions, remarks, and thoughts would John Carlin and or John Norris have if they were able to attend, participate in, or just witness a number of modern wargaming events?” After spending an hour or so scanning a number of blogs, forums, sites, in addition to looking through my small library of wargaming literature, rules, and collection of various hobby publications, here is what might be called a “fairly representative as well as small basket of goodies” selected for this second part of the larger “intellectual” exercise:

Example 1: https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2023/08/to-strongest-at-britcon-23.html

Example 2: https://gapagnw.blogspot.com/2023/07/battle-of-turin-361.html

Example 3: https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-tau-of-tuareg.html

Example 4: The Hail Caesar rule book (I have the 2011 edition), and the seven battle reports contained therein.

Example 5: The Society of Ancients Battle Day, specifically: https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/161-soa-battleday-2018-report.

Example 6: http://www.blmablog.com/

Example 7: http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2023/01/solo-salamanca-turn-1.html

While I certainly cannot speak for John Carlin or John Norris, from the evidence provided by their compared and contrasted wargame reports, I think I could speculate as to what the reactions, remarks, and thoughts of these two gentlemen might be when they were exposed or introduced to the state of the hobby as indicated by this subjectively selected sampling. Rather than go through the list of examples and guess what John and John might have to say or what they might think (this would likely get repetitive), I thought I would try to paint their probable comments in admittedly broad strokes as well as alphabetically. 

I think Mssrs Carlin and Norris would be: amazed, curious, delighted, excited, fascinated, inspired, puzzled (but in a good way), as well as stunned (also in a good way). Readers are invited to weigh in on this speculation in the comments section, if they feel so compelled. Overall, I think that their exposure to these examples of wargaming would be generally if not very positive. At the same time, and understanding that change is often difficult, these two ancient wargamers might view some of the examples or portions of the examples as overly complex, foreign, or even unacceptable according to their sense and sensibilities. Again, this is all speculation. It is not possible to find out for certain what John Carlin and John Norris would think about the “small basket” of examples of modern day wargaming. That said, I think it would be possible to interview the individual(s) behind each of these examples to find out what their reactions, remarks, and thoughts would be about John Carlin’s wargame with flat figures and the “current Bath Rules” and the Byzantine vs Sassanid battle staged by John Norris and his friend. This “flipping of the script” would be interesting and instructive, I think. Had I the time and resources, I should like to undertake this related project. I do wonder though, what kind of response rate I would get if I emailed these individuals and groups, providing them with a list of questions, copies of the two wargame reports, and a brief explanation of what I was doing or attempting to do. 

What’s your calendar look like for April 2083?

There are approximately 60 years between November 1965 and August 2023. Obviously, much has changed in the hobby of historical wargaming since John Carlin faced off in a friendly campaign contest with Brian Palmer using flat figures, flaming arrows, and lots of terrain. Indeed, one could justifiably remark that a lot had changed between November 1965 and March 1974, when John Norris engaged Jim Poulton in traditional miniature battle on his drawing room floor. At the risk of repeating myself, it appears very likely that John C. and John N. would be amazed if not nearly overwhelmed to see how much the hobby has changed and grown over the intervening decades. The curious mind then, might well wonder where the hobby will be or what condition it will be in, when another 60 years has been recorded in the history books. To be sure, the consideration and contemplation of this subject, of this future, is not an original idea. For this final section, it is my simple intention to provide a partial list of links discovered during the course of my “research,” and maybe a comment or two on these items or pieces of evidence. Before I get to that, however, I should like to return, briefly, to the seven examples provided in what might be generously described as “Part 2 of my figurative Gaul.”  

In the year 2083, will historical wargamers with an interest in the ancient and medieval periods still be playing To The Strongest!? What about Rick Priestley’s Hail Caesar? Will The Society of Ancients  still host and sponsor its annual Battle Day? While health care and medical science continue to make impressive strides and people are living longer, actuarial tables strongly suggest that Phil, Lee, and James will no longer be with us, unfortunately. What rules will take the place of those colorful and popular volumes written by Simon and Rick? If Battle Day does fade away, will any comparable event replace it? Who will walk in the giant footsteps left by Phil, Lee, and James? Who will carry on the legacy of these three gentlemen, and who will pick up the torch (or shield, sword, and spear) of the hundreds if not thousands of other wargamers who advance as well as showcase the hobby through their blogs and in other ways when these cohorts or legions “shuffle off this mortal coil” well before the arrival of the 2080s?

As I believe I’ve stated before, I am not a futurist. I do not possess a crystal ball, and I am not especially talented when it comes to predictions. (Then again, I am fairly sure that something bad or embarrassing will happen if I am walking, looking at my phone/texting, and chewing gum.) Those qualifying statements aside, at the risk of hedging my bets, I think it could be said that in the decade of 2080, the hobby of historical wargaming will be one of the following:

—changed, bigger as well as more diverse (especially with regard to participants)

—changed, but in terms of size and popularity, about the same where it is now

—changed, smaller, and continuing to be played/pursued by a certain demographic

Like Phil, Lee, and James, I will not be around to see what actually happens with historical wargaming in the 2080s. My sincere hope is that along with changing (becoming better as well as  less expensive and perhaps even more technologically compatible), is that it becomes a larger and more diverse hobby. 

Without a proper transition, let me switch to those links and evidence mentioned above. I present this material in no particular order and in the interest of full disclosure, I present the following without dedicating sufficient time to really analyze, review, and study it. 

Item 1) Adam, the bearded and bespectacled gentleman over at Tabletop Minions provided interested viewers with a couple of videos about the future of  wargaming. One specifically considered tabletop wargaming, and looked at augmented reality versus virtual reality applications as they might be used in the hobby. The other video was a collection of “interviews” with attendees, participants, sellers, game organizers, etc., at AdeptiCon 2023. These individuals were asked to predict what the future of wargaming might hold. (Please see the videos section at tabletopminions.org.)

Item 2) ‘The Future of Wargaming’ was a topic brought up on TMP. On September 02, 2021, a member with the screen name of Gorgrat posted the general question as to what wargaming would look like in 5, 10, or 50 years. Since that date, the discussion has generated 40 posts (a fourth or more are by Gorgrat), and the discussion thread has accumulated 1,813 hits as of this typing. I found it fairly interesting reading. Adages, sayings, or cliches about “old dogs and new tricks,” “change being inevitable,” and “change being good” were bandied about or at least intimated. There were also some interesting points about the attraction if not need for the tactile element, which would not go away even with all this technological advancement. 

Item 3) A Google search for “future of wargaming” turned up more than several interesting sites, as might be expected. This original and academic article caught my attention, but not enough so that I would invest 50 US dollars to secure a copy. The abstract was free, and is worth citing in full.

Wargames have captured the imagination of persons seeking a competitive edge over their opponents. For over a thousand years people have used games to analyze problems, develop solutions, and train problem solvers. This paper reviews critical developments and innovations in the history of wargames. Wargames provide an opportunity to test hypotheses, offer alternatives, solve problems, and stimulate innovation. Wargames continue to offer opportunities to understand possible future states and develop compatible decision models.

For additional information, please see  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23800992.2018.1484238?journalCode=usip20.

Item 4) The SITREP Podcast of December 11, 2022, asked and offered answers to the question “What is the future of Wargaming?” in a Zoom meeting attended by four gentlemen with some experience in the hobby. In watching this back and forth discussion, I could not help but recall the comments and predictions made about diversity in the AdeptCon 2023 video. 

Item 5) To go along with the professional paper described in Item 4, I was fortunate to stumble across this video lecture given by Professor Philip Sabin. (Please search for the “The Future of Wargaming to Innovate and Educate,” on the King’s Wargaming Network, posted January 25, 2022.) While it is geared more to larger and more complex simulations than a simple tabletop battle on a Sunday afternoon between friends, I think the video lecture is well worth the time. It was nice to be able to place the learned face with the LOST BATTLES book I have on one of my shelves. 

Item 6) There is no question that advances in technology have broadened the reach of this hobby as well as facilitated engagement and play. As just one example of this, I offer the following video posted by the aforementioned Phil, wherein Table Top Simulator is used to stage a hypothetical encounter between Medieval Scots and Samurai using the L’Art de la Guerre rules. Please see https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/07/schiltron-for-samurai.html.

Item 7) I would be remiss and quite possibly run the risk of being tarred and feathered (as least on social media platforms - maybe), if I did not include and mention the Little Wars TV episode posted in September of 2020. In this comparatively short but well produced video, the spokesperson for this well-known group asks this question: “Is historical wargaming dying out?” It was interesting to see and hear the opinions and thoughts of a fair number of notables and or personalities in the hobby. 

Reflection & Remarks

Looking back over my “writing career,” from the time I was an awkward and spotty-faced student at 13 or 14 to now, as a bags-under-the-eyes and worry-lines-scarred adult who dabbles in historical wargaming, drafting conclusions has always proved difficult. Early on in this “career,” someone advised me that essay writing could be summed up as: “tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them, and then tell them what you told them.” Simple and useful, but again, putting this into practice, putting the last part on paper (whether actual paper or an electronic screen) has always been a challenge, has always been frustrating. If I were to employ this method, then I might try/type something like the following.

In this “paper,” I have attempted to look three different periods of historical wargaming. I have focused on just a sliver of the past, as represented by the two wargame reports that were compared and contrasted. I have, I think, taken a broader look at the present, and engaged in a “what if” exercise wherein the wargamers from the 1965 and 1974 are able to visit 2023, and wargamers of 2023 are able to visit those earlier years. With regard to looking into the future, well, I have relied on those “explorers” or “pioneers” who have gone there (i.e., asked the key question) before. In terms of offering a convincing prediction about the state of this hobby in 2083, well, I have offered a few options as well as my choice or hope, but realistically, I cannot know. Somewhat related to this line of thinking or this observation, I saw on Simon Miller’s blog that he enjoyed the TtS! games so much at Britcon that he was already looking forward (planning?) to go next year. I have never been able to think/plan that far ahead. In fact, I am not sure what I will be having for dinner tonight.  Admittedly, 2024 is not 50 or 60 years in the future, but Simon and dozens of other historical wargamers seem to possess that vision in addition to a cornucopia of other talents. Anyway, like I said, conclusions can be a kind of crucible. 

This exploration of a figurative, if also very different kind of Gaul, was an attempt to distract myself from more weighty and serious matters. In a limited as well as subjective way, when I was “in the zone or flow” as I understand that it is sometimes referred to, I may have succeeded. However, this distraction was only temporary. When the thinking, typing, and editing was done for the day, there were those heavy and significant issues again, waiting patiently to do their thing and exact their inevitable toll. [8] Shifting away from the personal arena, in drafting this “paper,” I hope that I have had more success in engaging and entertaining however many readers risked investing the time to get to this point. If I have encouraged further discussion or thinking amongst those who pursue this multi-faceted, multi-layered, and rich in history hobby, then so much the better.  

It seems safe to assume that John Carlin had no inkling that a non-traditional historical wargamer would, in the latter half of August, 2023, spend a fair amount of time and effort on a wargame report submitted to a fledgling publication in November of 1965. If a record can be produced showing that John Carlin did, in fact, think about this, that evidence would be scarily prescient. As I have briefly touched upon the subject of the future of wargaming or, more specifically, the future of historical wargaming in the ancient and medieval periods, I wonder if some person in their 30s, 40s, or 50s, will, in the year 2083, be looking through digitized copies of Slingshot, stumble upon one, two, or three of my submissions, and find a bit of inspiration? (It occurs to me that a 50-year old in 2083 will have been born in 2033, ten years from now.) Will that person be moved to write an essay wherein he or she or they compares and contrasts my reports with the one or two produced by John Carlin? At what point does this speculation become hubris? Or, to pursue a direction that does not involve me directly, will this future historical wargamer draft an article wherein he compares current approaches to the hobby to the presumably primitive approaches found in a sample of Slingshot issues from 2016-2021?

Since much of this present project seems to have been organized around asking questions and engaging in speculation, it seems appropriate to end on a similar note. I wonder what topic(s) this essay might have examined, what format used or position it might have taken, and if it would have been drafted at all and reviewed for errors were I not besieged by the aforementioned weighty and serious issues? 

Notes

1. The following passage should be familiar to any student who took Latin in school: “All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.” This translation takes me right back to Latin III with Mr. Paris, a wonderful teacher, if also a bit eccentric. I, along with other “suffering” students, had “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres . . .” almost pounded into our teenage heads by sheer repetition. Please see  https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001.
2. Based on my “research,” John Carlin has the distinction and honor of being the first person to have a battle report published in the pages of Slingshot.  However, whether or not this was the first published battle report in the history of modern wargaming remains to be proven. On pages 57-58 of The Wargaming Compendium, Henry Hyde traces the history of the hobby during ‘The post-war expansion’ years. The accomplished gentleman and well-known name in the hobby points to the efforts of Jack Scruby and Joseph Morschauser in America, and Don Featherstone in the UK. Jack’s War Game Digest appeared seven or eight years prior to the debut of Slingshot. Don, along with Tony Bath, created a UK version of War Game Digest in 1960, which evolved into the Wargamers’ Newsletter after a an apparent “schism” in 1962 between the respective approaches and focuses or philosophies of Jack and Don. As I do not have copies of these original publications, I cannot say for certain that any issues prior to November 1965 contained what might be called or identified as battle reports. I would be very interested to find out. I would be even more interested as well as grateful to be able to read these narratives.
3. After reading and or studying this report for a number of days, I considered replicating it on my tabletop. I drafted (day dreamed) plans for replicating the respective orders of battle with flat figures from WoFun. (Please see https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=4; https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=1788; https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=3448, and https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=1473. Sorry, I got carried away.) With regard to the rules, I posted a “help wanted” notice on The Society of Ancient Forums and received same-day replies from several of the generous, experienced, and knowledgeable members. I found myself tempted by the compendium of Tony Bath rules. (Please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/publications/53-tony-bath-s-ancient-wargaming.) Preparing the terrain for a nearly 60-years-later refight of this particular battle would have been something of a challenge, I think, but it would not have been impossible. I imagine it would have been time consuming, somewhat costly, as well as frustrating, as I do not have the skills set necessary for making effective and eye-pleasing wargames terrain. 
4. It appears that I need to be or practice being curious instead of critical. This character flaw, not unique to historical wargamers I should think, reminded me of watching and enjoying the Apple TV+ series TED LASSO. In that one episode where Ted plays darts with Rupert at the pub, I appreciated the quote/philosophy attributed to Walt Whitman. I was not all that surprised to discover that some entertainment license had been taken. Please see https://ace.nd.edu/news/be-curious-not-judgmental-not-walt-whitman and https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/be-curious-not-judgmental-walt-whitman/. Anyway, even though the table set up by John and Brian was busy and crowded with terrain, I still would have enjoyed being witness to the actual contest. I would have enjoyed it more if I could have participated. 
5. In the March 1966 issue of Slingshot, John Carlin provided readers with another “Battle Report.” The first paragraph is worth citing in full: “This battle was fought with flat figures under the current Bath rules, my opponent being Brian Palmer, who was defending the road leading to his capital. Each army consisted of 12 regiments of foot and 6 of horse, 10 camels, 6 elephants, 10 chariots, 3 stone throwers and 5 light spear throwers.” The terrain for this second campaign battle was even more complex than that employed in the first contest. This landscape had an orchard, earthworks, and a palisade, in addition to the “usual” hills, woods, village, road, and ploughed field, etc. This narrative was 15 paragraphs long, so about twice the size of his first effort. The victory went to John, though at a lesser cost than was paid in the first engagement. The last sentence read: “Brian’s losses amounted to about two-thirds of his army, mine to about one-third.” 
6. In this brief correspondence, John offered some suggestions on the topic of concealment on the wargaming table. He also informed any readers that he was a “convert” to Ancients, having concentrated, originally, on gaming in the First and Second World Wars. Towards the end of this communication, the gentleman mentions the Research Group Rules, which seems to confirm my suspicions about the rules used to fight the “Action in Mesopotamia.” 
7. A selection of his offerings would include the following: “Celtic formation density,” in Issue 44; “Sling and Bow Ranges,” in Issue 55; “Loose order troops,” in Issue 62; “The Armies and the Battle of Hastings in 1066,” in Issus 69 and 70, and “Review of Ian Heath, Armies and Enemies of the Crusades,” in Issue 79.
8. Ever since finding one of his essays in an issue of The New Yorker, I have admired the writing of Dr. Atul Gawande. When he started putting out books, I made sure to add them (the paperback editions anyway) to my meager library. To get to the point of this note. In Chapter 5 of BETTER — A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, he writes: “All doctors—whether surgeons, psychiatrists, or dermatologists—have patients they are unable to heal, or even to diagnose, no matter how hard they try.”  At the top of the next page, page 163, Dr. Gawande remarks: “At some point you have to admit that you are up against a problem that you are not going to solve and that, by pushing further and harder, you might well do more harm than good. Sometimes there is nothing you can do.” Now then, I am not a medical professional. (Don’t make me or others chuckle.) For better or worse, I found that something in that second sentence really struck a chord; I found that I could readily identify with that experience or thought process, disappointing and discouraging as the realization is.