MANY SHADES OF GREY
Looking over the “what main ancient wargaming rulesets do you currently use” poll, which was posted by Dave Hollin to a Society of Ancients sub-forum on 26 December, 2019, I marked a capital “X” under to the titles that were in my small collection. Then I went back over the list and wrote a capital “P” under the titles that I had experience (whether it was a little, some, or quite a lot) using to govern the various battles and scenarios that I have played (albeit in a non-traditional way) on my tabletop over a fair number of years. A table was created wherein all this information was recorded. Out of habit and preference, the listed titles were alphabetized to the best of my ability. Some titles were italicized and others were not. For all the rulebooks, I used a bold font. Only one author was included in the listing, as this was how the information was originally presented.
Ancient and Medieval Wargaming AMW (Neil Thomas) | DBMM | Lion Rampant | TACTICA II X, P |
ARMATI X, P | Dux Bellorum X | LOST BATTLES | To The Strongest! X, P |
Classical Hack | Dux Britanniarum | Men of Bronze | Warrior |
Commands & Colors: Ancients | Field of Glory FoG X | Mortem et Gloriam MeG | Warhammer Ancients P |
Comitatus | Hail Caesar X, P | Scutarii | Warlord Advance Guard |
DBA X | IMPETVS X, P | SPQR | WRG 1st-6th |
DBM X | L’Art de la Guerre ADLG X, P | Sword and Spear | WRG 7th |
In the interest of transparency and or clarification, I have the original ARMATI rules, the ADVANCED ARMATI booklet, and ARMATI 2nd Edition. With regard to DBM, I have Versions 1.1 and 3.2. However, I have only skimmed these rules; I have never set up and played an actual scenario or wargame with them. My copy of IMPETVS is the 2008 Edition. My copy of ADLG is the 2014 Edition. I understand that there is a 4th Edition. I opted not to make the additional investment in the updated version of ADLG. (However, I do have a print out of the ‘Changes in Version 4’ document.) I have not played very many games using Simon Miller’s innovative and popular rules (i.e., To The Strongest! and not For King and Parliament, of which he is a co-author), but I have downloaded, printed, read, annotated, and then stored the various revisions and updates to these card-driven rules. My rather worn copy of Warhammer Ancients and two or three supplements to the rules were sold years ago when I inventoried and reorganized my hobby materials and supplies in an attempt to narrow my interests. (The effort met with mixed results.) Anyway, reviewing my catalog of wargame writing (here’s hoping that does not come across as too something or other . . .), it appears that my last activity with this particular set of ancient wargaming rules was in the last quarter of 2010. This “work” resulted in a brief report titled “The Fall of the Fourteenth,” which appeared in the January 2011 issue (Number 279) of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED. Taking a closer look at this record, it appears that between 2005 and 2010, I played and submitted four accounts of WAB games. (These accounts were not all submitted to the fine folks of WI.) Anyway and finally, I have a copy of Might of Arms and as well as a copy of Vis Bellica. I think I might have tried to or actually played a solo battle with each, but would have to take some more time to search that aforementioned informal catalog. To be clear, citing additional examples of my “ancient” writing is not the purpose of this post. As some readers may have guessed by the “clever” title (“Surveying the Herd” and “Pachyderms & Percentages” were also given serious consideration), the subject matter of this present effort is elephants or pachyderms, if you prefer that nomenclature. I am interested in looking at how they are depicted or represented in ancient wargaming rules. As for my specific intent, and as to carefully outlined format and structure, well . . . let me just say or type that after an uncomfortable number of days drafting frustrating false start after frustrating false start, the decision was made to set aside, for all intents and purposes, a clearly defined goal, goals or thesis, and to not worry so much about format or structure. Not one of my better introductions to be sure, but then, here we are.
__________________________________________________________________________
In the September 1987 issue (Number 52) of Miniature Wargames magazine, at the end of a short but in my opinion, engaging and informative article titled “The Elephant in Battle,” mention was made that the Newbury Fast Play Rules and Army Lists were going to be “used once again in this years [sic] Armageddon Wargames Championships.” I vaguely recall having purchased these rules way back when. (This would have been in the late 1980s, as the rules were published in 1985.) I have an equally vague recollection of trying to set up a scenario and play a game or at least an exercise to become familiar with the mechanics and procedures. Anyway, I wondered if these rules were still around and if they were being actively played by a small number or select group(s) of ancient wargamers. A quick search of the Internet informed that I could, if I really wanted to, repurchase the rules from at least one source. (Please see https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147412707/Fast-Play-Rules-for-Ancient-Warfare.) A search of TMP resulted in some less than positive remarks and reviews. (Please see http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=503681.) Given that almost four decades have passed since these rules were made available, it comes as no surprise to see that they no longer enjoy “pride of place” at wargaming shows. (Another brief search of the Internet for information about Armageddon Wargames Championships returned quite a few results about professional - ahem - wrestling, so . . .) Along that same line, since becoming aware of it, I have been fairly interested in the annual Battle Day event hosted and run by The Society of Ancients. Since its debut in 2004, which featured various refights of Gaugamela, to the more numerous refights of Second Mantinea (362 BC or BCE), held on 1 April of 2023, I have neither seen nor read a single Battle Day report wherein the Newbury Fast Play Rules were employed.
These admittedly amateur and uncorroborated findings have led me to wonder if historical wargamers, or specifically, historical miniature wargamers with an interest in the ancient and medieval periods (i.e., 3,000 BC or BCE to approximately 1500 AD or CE), will be using ARMATI, ADLG, DBM, TACTICA II, the Triumph! rules, or other titles, 35, 40, or 50 years from now. To be certain, I will not be around to notice (I estimate that I have approximately 25 years left - then again, fate may have entirely different plans), but which set or sets of rules might be popular in the 2060s and 2070s is a subject that I ponder every now and then.
The part of this short and ‘ancient’ article written by Trevor Halsall that attracted more of my attention and interest was the beginning of the final indented paragraph. The accomplished gentleman asked and then answered his own question. In early attempts to develop this idea into a post, I enumerated his necessarily long response; I amended the language; I corrected some perceived spelling mistakes, and I inserted a few commas. For this present version of this particular project, I have decided to transcribe the relevant section in full as it was printed on page X of that September 1987 issue.
Finally, what special provisions must wargames rules incorporate in order to deal with war
elephants properly? Clearly the primary effect of elephants must be to adversely effect the
morale of opposing troops, and to some extent the more elephants there are the greater
should be the effect. They must disrupt and disorder hostile cavalry in close proximity, and
they should disorder infantry which they break into in melee. Furthermore the missile fire
of crew members should be effective even though they are few in number. On the other hand
elephants must be unpredictable, (they should never be classed as disciplined), vulnerable
to massed missile fire, and more experienced infantry facing them should have the facility to
take special precautions such as opening ranks to let them pass through. As an elephant
model must invariably represent more than one beast care must be taking not to allow too
many in an army list, on the other hand the rules must have provision for the diminishing
effect of such models as the individual component elements in represents are incapacitated
or eliminated (this can be represented by progressively removing crew figures until the
complete model is removed). Finally, elephants must of course be expensive in points.
Without question, this is a lot of material. This is quite a detailed and long “shopping list,” if I may use the analogy. Indeed, I could not help but be reminded of the saying about having an elephant for lunch or dinner. (Please see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfully-present-fully-alive/201804/the-only-way-to-eat-an-elephant.) Anyway, by my study and separation, I counted 10 “special provisions” or requirements. Given the apparent short-lived success of the Newbury Fast Play Rules, in which these provisions were “carefully incorporated” according to the author, the obvious question arises about the comparative complexity of these elephant rules contributing to that unfortunately brief lifespan. To borrow a twice-used phrase from Trevor, on the other hand, I wondered to what extent these requirements might be used to assess how well the ancient wargaming rulebooks of this “current” time period (say from 2005 to now, so two decades, approximately) address a perceived or potential “pachyderm problem”?
Late one afternoon, in a flight of fancy (guessing that is not a phrase heard very often), I pictured an International Ancient Wargaming Conference, where, on the second day of the four-day gathering attended by thousands of like-minded individuals, an afternoon session was reserved, in a brand new, big and beautifully appointed theater, for a panel on playing at ancient war with pachyderms. (Incidentally, a last minute insert into the program announced that there would be a discussion, held in an off-the-beaten-path basement meeting room, about the usefulness of alliteration in wargaming writing.) What might be on the panel’s agenda at this figurative conference? Well, for starters, a frank discussion about the efficacy of the “Halsall special provisions.” Perhaps the participants would be able to combine and condense these requirements. Then again, perhaps they might come up with a few new ones based on more recent scholarship regarding the use of elephants in ancient and medieval warfare. This seems as good a place as any to note that Trevor listed a single text as his reference. This was The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, by H. H. Scullard. (For more information about the wargaming CV of Trevor, please see: http://www.warlordrules.com/contact.html and https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/27768/trevor-j-halsall. According to some 2019 TMP posts that I happened upon and read, with a degree of interest, Simon Miller has run into Trevor at various shows. Evidently, this veteran wargamer and author was still active in the hobby at that time. My amateur search turned up nothing more recent.)
In no particular order (neither alphabetical nor chronological) and at the acknowledged risk of further losing myself in this flight of fancy, the following is a working list of who I would like to see on the pretend panel for “pachyderm policy/wargame rules development” and the reason(s) why they deserve a seat at the table or on the dais, a placard, and a microphone:
Patrick Waterson
In the January 2012 issue (Number 280) of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, this prolific and frighteningly well read on matters of ancient military history gentleman treated readers to a learned article about war elephants, appropriately titled “War Elephant.” In the brief introduction, he explained that the piece was “essentially a tour of our literary sources to air a few accounts of how elephants performed in battle.” The talented individual cited the ancient writings of Ammianus, Diodorus, and Polybius, just to name a few. His examination of “elephant episodes” spanned some 1400 years (from circa 950 BC or BCE to 363 AD or CE) and ranged geographically from Assyria to Africa to the Hydaspes. Patrick’s conclusion is, I believe, worth transcribing in full.
These accounts illustrate that elephants could be highly effective against troops not properly
trained to deal with them. Many of our accounts of elephants in battle are from engagements
in which they did not distinguish themselves, e.g. Zama, because their opponents adopted
effective countermeasures. This has tended to skew wargamers’ and military historians’
perceptions of the effectiveness of the elephant as a battlefield system, with the result that the
elephant is often unfairly downgraded.
It would appear the major determinant of elephant effectiveness was how well the opposition
were trained to cope with elephants. If they weren’t so trained, the elephants were crushingly
effective. If very well trained, elephants were relatively ineffective. This is true of most weapon
systems from chariots to tanks, and suggests that the key to coping with elephants was not
technology but effective training of troops.
[Note: Curiously, this same excellent article was reprinted in the July/August 2018 issue
(Number 319). This time, there was a colorful or colourful map of the ancient world along
with several photos of spectacular 25/28mm elephant models. Tragically, Patrick passed
away in January 2020. His contributions to Slingshot, the hobby in general, and general
character were noted in columns penned by Roy Boss, Justin Swanton, and Philip Sabin.
Please see Numbers 329 and 331.]
Dave Letts
In the January 1998 issue (Number 195) of Slingshot, this fellow provided readers with some results regarding his research into elephants and their effectiveness. Dave started with Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, by Duncan Head, and then “dug deeper turning to the original sources,” as well as Scullard’s 1974 text, The Elephant in the Ancient World. As with Patrick’s effort, I will transcribe a portion of Dave’s comparatively short submission, which was titled, “Thoughts on Elephants and Flanks.”
Twenty-five of the battles included elephants and the list below summarises my findings.
> Elephants damaged by light troops - 10 battles.
> Elephants damaged own side - 8 battles.
> Elephants successful against cavalry - 4 out of 4 battles.
> Elephants successful against legions - 2 out of 2 battles.
> Elephants stopped by obstacles - 2 battles.
> Elephants fought other elephants - 3 battles.
Conclusions:
1. Elephants had 100% success against legionaries.
2. Elephants had 100% against cavalry.
3. If elephants were not protected by light troops they suffered significant damage from enemy
missile fire.
4. In about one-third of the battles studied elephants did damage to their own side.
5. Obstacles were very effective on the few occasions used.
6. There seems to have been very few elephant versus elephant fights.
[Note: I was not sure where, exactly, to place this indirectly related information; this seemed
as good a spot as any. A review of the Battle Day selections informed that by the conclusion
of Ilipa (206 BC or BCE) (Battle Day 2024), elephants will have been present for five of the
20 selections. I suppose one could discount the refights of Gaugamela (Battle Day 2004), as
historically, the animals did not participate. But then, my understanding of Battle Day is
that it is not simply to demonstrate what the accepted sources say happened, it is to allow
participants the opportunity to rewrite history and have an appropriate amount of fun while
doing so. There were approximately the same number of elephants at Cynoscephalae
(Battle Day 2007), but they were certainly not the focus of the historical engagement nor, I
would guess, of the various refights. Elephants were present in substantial numbers at
Hydaspes (Battle Day 2015) and Paraetacene (Battle Day 2018), and so, played a bigger
role in each refight staged. Elephants will be present on the Carthaginian side for Battle Day
2024, but I rather doubt if they will feature prominently in the various reconstructions that
will be played on that future date. According to my simplistic math then, it appears that
elephants make an appearance at Battle Day events about 25 percent of the time. This may
or may not mean that elephants will return to this prestigious gathering before or by the
year 2028. I do not know, off hand, just how many well documented ancient battles featured
elephants. My guess would be less than 100 contests. I would imagine that the number of
those deemed worthy of Battle Day consideration would be around 20 or even fewer.]
Simon Watson
In the November/December 2020 issue (Number 333) of Slingshot, this veteran wargamer and staunch advocate of Arty Conliffe’s TACTICA II rules educated, engaged, and entertained readers with “How to Use Elephants in Tactica 2.” This was a two-part submission, with the first being a history lesson about war elephants as they featured in Ancient India, and the second being a well-written wargame report wherein Indians and Macedonians engaged in an exercise very similar to the historical engagement of Hydaspes. The included picture was not a photo of this particular wargame.
This splendid visual was, if memory serves, downloaded from the photos Simon attached to one of his entertaining battle reports posted to the relevant Society of Ancients sub-forum. Simon was generous and kind enough to grant permission for its use in this patched-together with duct tape post. As far as I recall, this was an Indians versus Seleucids scenario. The Indians are in the foreground. The Indian general is on an elephant behind the infantry line. I believe there may be a sub-general to his right, riding in a four-horse chariot. There is an elephant screen of 10 models in advance of the line of battle, and these animals are protected by packets of skirmishers. The Seleucid skirmishers occupy the very slight hills in front of the main Seleucid line, which contains several very strong looking pike phalanxes. There is also a small elephant screen in advance of the Seleucid left. Simon and his fellow player-generals either built or invested in a very sturdy playing surface, as it had to hold the weight of at least 15 picturesque pachyderms! (Admin Note: If Simon is not available, I think Dr. Paul Innes would make a superlative alternate. This academic and life-long wargamer was the mind behind “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis,” which appeared in the pages of the May/June 2020 issue (Number 330) of Slingshot. If the reader is not aware of his blog, I strongly encourage them to set aside at least 45 minutes to scan the numerous entries at https://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/.)
Professor Philip Sabin
Though elephants do not receive a ton of coverage (weak attempt at a some kind of pachyderm wordplay there) in his well-researched and well-written text, LOST BATTLES — Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, I think having this accomplished academic (now retired and residing in Chile, as far as I am aware) present would be a foolproof way to guarantee a packed auditorium for the panel discussion.
Phil Barker
Well, if the name alone is not reason enough . . .
In the March/April 2015 issue of Slingshot (Number 299), this veritable demigod in the pantheon of wargaming hobby personalities provided readers with the short but thought-provoking “Killing Elephants and Frightening Horses,” wherein the prolific and greatly respected gentleman claimed that the long-established ancient wargaming wisdom (that horses were afraid of elephants), was not technically true. At the risk of appearing sycophantic, I would guess that his presence and participation would result in scores of attendees standing in the back and along the sides of said auditorium.
Mark Fry
In the November/December 2014 issue of Slingshot (Number 297), Mark shares with readers what he found out when he took the time to take a close look at “The Elephant in the Room.” This accomplished gentleman acknowledges the inherent difficulties with time period comparisons, but his list of the three aspects of his research that he found “especially interesting “ secure him a place on the panel. (Interestingly, Mark found evidence that some elephants may actually have an aversion to horses, so Phil Barker may have some company or at least evidence to back up that potentially paradigm-shifting argument.)
Jeff Jonas
Two reasons.
First, “War Elephants and Warhammer Ancient Battles,” which appeared in the March 2001 issue (Number 214) of Slingshot.
Second, “The Ancient Indian Army of Poros: Recreating the Army of the Paurava King at the Hydaspes 326 BC,” which appeared in the November/ December 2014 issue of that well known journal.
Austin and Carl (from Mark’s Game Room)
In the interest of catering to or representing a younger demographic (no offense or discrimination intended to the other possible panel members), I think that these two bespectacled and similarly dressed fellows should have a place on the stage, a seat at the table. If nothing else, this would afford Carl an opportunity to expand upon and or explain why he believes elephants are “hot garbage” in the To The Strongest! rules. (If you type ‘ancient wargame rules review’ into your preferred search engine, you should be able to find the 14:13 YouTube video titled “Ranking Ancient War Games Rules!”) Using a simple set of criteria: the geometry of ancient warfare; the possibility of heroics, and the representation of accurate/historical troop types, this dynamic duo offers commentary and criticism on six sets of rules in addition to teasing the review of a seventh. The quoted remark/opinion about refuse of a certain temperature starts at around 7:16. After rewinding it several times to ensure that I had heard it correctly, what might be described as juvenile laughter fills an additional three or four seconds. Anyway, this was a missed opportunity to be more constructive or reasonable in my admittedly subjective opinion, but what can one do?
Harold Gerry and Tony Bath
Oh dear! I nearly forgot!
To reiterate, this proposed afternoon session at a four-day International Ancient Wargaming Conference is the product of my often times overactive imagination. That said, I think the addition of Tony Bath and Harold Gerry to the panel would round things out very nicely indeed. This esteemed pair would offer a perspective from the “distant” past. In the September 1966 issue of Slingshot (Number 7), these gentlemen provided readers with their thoughts about elephants on the wargame table and in history. I, for one, would be most interested to hear what they had to say about Trevor’s “provisions,” as well as what they thought about the research, conclusions, and findings of Patrick Waterson and Dave Letts.
In a second, albeit smaller flight of fancy, I think it would be interesting to have these gentlemen, along with about a dozen others, on a panel that discussed the development if not explosion of ancient wargaming rules as the twentieth century progressed then finished, and the twenty-first century began. Referring to the primitive table displayed in the introduction, there are, after setting aside the rules that appear to cater more to specific periods or what could be called the “dark ages,” about 21 titles. If one adds Strength and Honour, Triumph!, and Piquet Archon 2, then that makes for two dozen sets of rules. Talk about being spoiled for choice!
__________________________________________________________________________
I very much liked Patrick’s analysis of the ancient source material and the related examinations of more than several episodes involving elephants. I thought his conclusions were reasonable and well supported, but it occurred to me (I am not as quick as others when it comes to grasping the obvious) that if I relied on this interpretation of historical evidence, my ancient wargaming might not be all that much fun. For just a few examples, if I prepared scenarios wherein Sea Peoples fought Later Carthaginians, Early Seleucids engaged Ancient Britons, and Classical Indians faced off against 100 Years War French, well . . . it seems that these tabletop contests would not be very contested. The armies that were not used to dealing with or even aware of elephants being used as a military system, weapon, or unit, would very likely be defeated. In fact, depending on the number of model nellies present, these “unfamiliar with elephants” armies might just turn about and flee in disorder if not complete panic.
I thought the percentage-based findings provided by Dave Letts were very good, too. This approach, if that is an acceptable term, seemed more agreeable or more fun than Patrick’s arguably “black or white,” “yes or no” method. If, for an admittedly extreme example, I set aside several months in order to play 25 wargames wherein Early Seleucids engaged Ancient Britons on a tabletop, then, according to the gentleman’s math, the Seleucids would see their elephant squadrons inflicting damage against their own side in about one-third of these ahistorical scenarios. It appears that the cavalry and chariots of the Ancient Britons would not stand a chance against the enemy elephants. If the Britons deployed numbers of light troops or perhaps took advantage of the terrain in some fashion, then perhaps more harm would be visited upon the Seleucid elephants. While I respect and admire Patrick’s work (he was rather prolific when it came to submitting uniformly excellent if not challenging and or thought-provoking material to Slingshot), strict adherence to his conclusions would limit the size and depth of one’s “ancient wargaming pool.” To be certain, the findings offered by Dave for consideration are based on the review of secondary as well as historical sources, but they seem to offer, at least, a little “wiggle room” - for lack of a better term - with regard to exploring and enjoying the bounty and variety of ancient wargaming.
__________________________________________________________________________
In a few earlier versions of this “paper,” I experimented with various approaches to looking at elephants and how they were depicted in various rules. As I appear to be more focused on the possible wargaming applications in this section of a work in progress post, I thought I might copy, paste, and then modify a portion of that previous “work.”
Let us say that two friends get together on a weekend afternoon for an ancients wargame using the ARMATI 2nd Edition rules. To provide additional context, let us say that one player-general selects his army from the Late Roman (Eastern) list provided on Page O of the ‘Triumph of Cavalry’ section, while his colleague decides to field a Sassanid Persian army from that same section, but detailed on Page P. The figures employed are 25/28mm, and the Unit Size for this friendly, non-competition nor campaign game is Optimal. Therefore, any units of Sassanid war elephants will have a tabletop footprint of 12 centimeters by 8 centimeters, while any units of Late Roman heavy infantry will have a tabletop footprint of 12 centimeters by 4 centimeters. (If deployed deep, the infantry would have a frontage of 6 centimeters and a depth of 8 centimeters.) Now then, it does not seem outlandish or completely out of the realm of possibility to hypothesize that at some point during this miniature engagement, that a stand of war elephants will come into contact or be contacted by a stand of Late Roman heavy infantry. What happens when that takes place? What would be the result of that initial contact?
The following table presents some information with regard to those two basic questions. To be certain, the table and the paragraph(s) that follow are neither an in-depth nor scientific analysis provided by someone possessing at least two advanced degrees in statistics and supported by several peer reviews, but the table and paragraph(s) offer something resembling a starting point for further discussion or possibly debate. For those readers not familiar with the mechanics and procedures of the ARMATI rules, here is a brief overview.
The entry or line for the heavy infantry in the Late Roman (Eastern) army list reads as follows:
FT [key] 6 [2] 1 +1 spear/jav/swords
The FT is an abbreviation for Footmen, which is one of ten different kinds of infantry units represented in these rules. It is a “key” unit, in that its loss (destruction or rout) impacts army morale. The “6” refers to its FV or fighting value. In this case, against any enemy unit to its front. The bracketed “2” refers to the unit’s fighting value when attacked from the flank or rear. The “1” is its fighting value in special circumstances, such as when facing certain kinds of enemy troops, or when engaging in melee in certain types of terrain. The “+1” is the unit protection factor when attacked by enemy missile units. The “spear/jav/swords” is a brief description of the weapons carried by the unit. The lack of “shields” in this line does not mean that the unit of infantry lacks shields; it is simply assumed that the unit has shields, like every other heavy infantry formation one might encounter on an ancient battlefield.
Turning to the Sassanid elephants, here is the description of that particular unit:
EL [key] 5 [3] 2 +1 various
These four-legged animals are one of eleven different types of mounted units identified in these rules; they are “key” formations as well. The elephants have slightly different fighting values than the Late Roman heavy infantry, but share a similar protection factor. Given the assumed presence of towers manned by a few crew members as well as the presences of some escorting light infantry, the weapons of the war elephants are described as “various.” These Sassanid elephants have no ranged combat ability, however. The advantage of the elephant stand is that it has impetus versus any heavy infantry formation on initial contact. Elephants will also have an advantage versus enemy cavalry. On the other hand, elephants use their “special circumstances” fighting value when engaged by enemy light-heavy, light, and skirmisher infantry types. Anyway. With respect to the resolution of combat, each unit rolls a d6 and adds this score to their fighting value. The higher total wins the melee round.
Table A: Sassanid elephants vs Late Roman (Eastern) heavy infantry
| TRIAL 1 | TRIAL 2 | TRIAL 3 | TRIAL 4 | TRIAL 5 |
Round 1 | Inf 9-8 | EL 8-7 | Inf 12-7 | Inf 9-7 | Inf 11-10 |
Round 2 | Inf 9-7 | Tie 9-9 | Inf 9-7 | Inf 11-8 | EL 11-7 |
Round 3 | Tie 8-8 | Inf 11-9 | EL 8-7 | Inf 9-6 | Inf 8-6 |
Round 4 | EL 11-9 | Inf 11-7 | Inf 7-6 | Inf 7-6 | Inf 11-10 |
Round 5 | Inf 12-7 | EL 11-8 | Inf 7-6 | Inf 12-7 | EL 11-9 |
Round 6 | Inf 8-6 | EL 10-7 | Inf 9-7 | Inf 9-6 | EL 10-7 |
Round 7 | Inf 10-9 | EL 9-7 | EL 8-7 | Tie 8-8 | Inf 11-8 |
Round 8 | Inf 12-6 | Inf 12-9 | Inf 10-6 | EL 11-9 | Tie 11-11 |
Round 9 | Inf 11-8 | Inf 12-9 | Inf 11-8 | Inf 12-7 | Inf 12-8 |
Round 10 | EL 10-9 | Tie 10-10 | EL 11-10 | Inf 12-10 | Tie 10-10 |
I am not sure what, exactly, these results tell us, other than that it appears fairly difficult for a unit of elephants to break (i.e., destroy) a unit of enemy heavy infantry by frontal melee. The Sassanid war elephants start out with a disadvantage in terms of fighting values. Also, the unit breakpoint of elephants is 3, compared to the slightly more sturdy unit breakpoint of 4 for heavy infantry formations. On those infrequent occasions (6 out of 50 rounds) where the initial melee was a draw, both units received a breakpoint as well as a fatigue marker. (Note: In this and other planned examples or experiments, I have opted not to focus on the fatigue or exhaustion status of the involved units.) In these half-dozen situations, the elephants have two-thirds of their original strength remaining while the infantry formation has three-fourths of their original strength left. When the melee continues, the elephants will still be at a minus one with regard to fighting values. As the second, third and possible later turns of melee are not the initial contact, the defending (or attacking) infantry unit does not have to worry about being immediately broken, as the impetus advantage no longer applies.
To be sure, these five trials do not offer a great amount of data from which to draw any substantive conclusions, but it does seem, based on these completed and controlled “experiments,” that Sassanid elephants face a challenge when trying to deal with Late Roman (Eastern) heavy infantry. Based on my amateur review, the elephants did their best in Trial 2, and that was due to the brief run of luck in Rounds 5 through 7. Even in this isolated trial, the enemy heavy infantry still won the majority of the melees. To be certain, more trials would have to be conducted in order to gather more data for analysis. Playing devil’s advocate for a moment here, would not these additional trials be subject to a certain degree or turn of luck? For example, what if the elephants rolled a string of sixes? Conversely, what if the infantry unit rolled a succession of ones? Absent those additional results, would it be fair to say that Sassanid elephants should not expect to win more than 40 percent of the time when they engage, one on one, with Late Roman (Eastern) heavy infantry? Based on my amateur number crunching, in 50 rounds of melee, all other things being equal, the Sassanid elephants managed to secure an “impetus-driven or supported win” 13 times. Expressed as a ratio, this works out to be roughly 26 percent. So, out of every four times a unit of elephants charges into or otherwise comes into contact with a unit of enemy heavy infantry, it should expect to achieve a single as well as local victory.
Out of curiosity, I modified the initial experiment a little (or a lot, depending on your viewpoint).
I kept the Sassanid elephants, but changed the Late Roman (Eastern) heavy infantry into a unit of Early Byzantine Skutatoi. (Some readers might mumble “po-ta-to - po-tah-to.”) This key formation of heavy infantry was selected from another army list also provided on Page O. The stats of this unit were as follows:
FT [key] 5 [1] 1 +1 Spears—Bows
Instead of simply placing the opposing stands in contact, I set the Sassanid elephants 25.5 inches away from the Skutatoi. Under the rules, elephants have a movement rate of 9 inches, so it would take the Sassanid pachyderms three turns to reach the waiting heavy infantry. Under the rules, the game move sequence has missile fire taking place before movement, so the Sassanid elephants would be able to make a “free move” before coming under fire at 16.5 inches. (The range of infantry units with bows is 24 inches.)
Table B: Sassanid elephants vs Early Byzantine heavy infantry (with bows)
| TRIAL 1 | TRIAL 2 | TRIAL 3 |
Round 1 | 0 / Inf 9-8 | 1 / EL 8-7 | 1 / Inf 12-7 |
Round 2 | 2 / Inf 9-7 | 1 / Tie 9-9 | 2 / Inf 9-7 |
Round 3 | 0 / Tie 8-8 | 0 / Inf 11-9 | 1 / EL 8-7 |
Round 4 | 1 / EL 11-9 | 0 / Inf 11-7 | 1 / Inf 7-6 |
Round 5 | 0 / Inf 12-7 | 0 / EL 11-8 | 0 / Inf 7-6 |
Round 6 | 0 / Inf 8-6 | 0 / EL 10-7 | 0 / Inf 9-7 |
Round 7 | 1 / Inf 10-9 | 0 / EL 9-7 | 1 / EL 8-7 |
Round 8 | 0 / Inf 12-6 | 0 / Inf 12-9 | 1 / Inf 10-6 |
Round 9 | 0 / Inf 11-8 | 0 / Inf 12-9 | 1 / Inf 11-8 |
Round 10 | 0 / EL 10-9 | 1 / Tie 10-10 | 0 / EL 11-10 |
The results of each round were recorded in the following manner: number of unit breakpoints or hits scored by the enemy missiles / result of the initial melee between the elephant stand and the waiting infantry formation. As with the data provided in Table A, I am not completely certain what these results tell us. At first and then second glance, it seems safe to remark the archery skill of the static infantry unit was not very good. Interestingly, even though the advancing elephants and defending infantry had the same frontal fighting values, the pachyderms only managed to break the foot 9 times out of 30. Coincidentally, this success rate was approximately the same as determined or estimated in the previous table, but in this experiment, only three trials were completed. It remains to be seen if the data collected from two additional trials would have impacted the results and led me to revise my amateur analysis. What I think is even more interesting and perhaps merits the development of some rule amendment, is that in the four instances when elephants took casualties from arrow volleys, they still managed to wreck the infantry unit. Referencing the “special “provisions” promoted by Trevor Halsall, this brief experiment appeared to reinforce his argument or advocacy for 1) elephants being vulnerable to massed missile fire, and 2) the diminishing effect of incapacitated or eliminated elephant models.
__________________________________________________________________________
In another earlier version of this project (the working title was “Seven Shades of Grey”), I thought I would use a table format and assess how well seven sets of ancient wargaming rules did when the criteria were the “Halsall requirements.” To be certain, this was an ambitious, if not overly ambitious goal. While I was able to set up the format, type in the 1987 provisions, and explain my simple as well as subjective scoring system (initially, I thought a 1 to 10 rating might work, but then revised this to a 0 to 3 scale, with 3 meaning “very good”), I was not able to “cross the finish line” with regard to this comparatively herculean endeavor. However, in my improvised approach, I was able to do some work, at least, on the tenth standard established by Trevor nearly 40 years ago. The fourth draft of this particular table is displayed here:
Number 10: Elephants must be expensive in terms of cost in points. | ||
ARMATI 2nd Edition | The price for elephants on the Indo-Bactrian army list (Page K in the Age of Empires section) is 12 points per unit. This is the most expensive formation in the army list, with both non-Indian Heavy Cavalry and Pike Phalanx coming in at 10 points each. In the Later Carthaginian army list (Page H, same section), elephants cost 10 points per unit. These animals have a FV (fighting value) of 4 compared to the Indo-Bactrian elephants’ FV of 5. The Carthaginian elephants cost the same as good Heavy Cavalry, but are less in price than the African PH infantry, which costs 16 points per unit. | 3 |
Hail Caesar | The Carthaginian army list provided on pages 52-53 of the Biblical & Classical Supplement informs that a unit of elephants has a point value of 23. This places the African pachyderm at around 6th place when compared to the price tag of some other units. Additionally, per the army or force structure parameters, Carthaginians are permitted to field 1 elephant unit for every 10 units drafted and deployed. Elephant units from the Pauravan and Mauryan Indians list on pages 38-39 have a price tag of 24 points. However, per their army structure or composition, up to 1 in 5 units can be pachyderms. | 3 |
IMPETVS (2008) | Scanning the Middle Ptolemaic (276-168 BC) army list on page 19 of Extra IMPETVS 4, it was noted that up to 3 African Elephant bases can be purchased for use in a balanced, 500-point army. Each elephant stand is worth 21 points. There are seven troop types or units with a higher point value. Eight, if the Aetolian allies are included. Turning to the army list for Eumenes (322-316 BC) on page 25 of this booklet, up to 4 Elephant bases can be bought for 28 points each. These latter animals have a slightly higher VBU (basic unit value) and VD (demoralization value) than the former tuskers. | 3 |
L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG (2014) | Looking over the Kushan army list (Number 107) and the Sassanid Persian army list (Number 109) on pages 139-140 of the thick and colorful rulebook, a unit of elephants costs each player-general the same: 13 points. The Kushan commander can have 2 stands in his 200-point and 3-division force, while the Sassanid commander can have 3. These stands rate very expensive when compared to other units in either list. | 3 |
TACTICA II | Looking over several army lists in the back of the spiral-bound rulebook, it was noted that the smaller African variety of elephant costs 30 points per figure or model, while the larger Indian animal costs 42 points per figure or model. Elephant prices are the among the highest in these rules as each elephant model, depending on variety, represents 5 or 7 heavy infantry figures. | 3 |
To The Strongest! | In the Middle Carthaginian list, found on page 28 of the Free Army Lists - updated 30/6/2020, depending on the scenario or choice, African elephants will cost either 3 points or 6 points per stand. If the former price, then only 4 may be selected. If the more expensive elephant, then between 2 and 6 stands may be deployed. The better quality African elephants are less costly than 16 or so other troop types on this detailed list. | 3 |
Triumph! | Regardless of army list, elephant bases are valued at 4 points each. This puts the nellies in the highest priced unit bracket, along with Cataphracts, Chariots, Pavisiers, and Raiders, just to name several other categories. | 2 |
By tallying the various scores in the ten categories, I would have been able to determine a subjective winner as well as silver and bronze medalists of the seven competing rulebooks. In a review of the wreckage of this particular draft, I noted that I was not able to fairly score some of the provisions. In fact, in certain cases, scoring of a “special provision” did not seem to apply. This is where additional sets of eyes and sharper minds would be a great help. Again, all of this incomplete work was premised on the acceptance of the validity of the original provisions, which was why I started thinking, that is to say daydreaming, about the International Ancient Wargaming Conference in the first place.
__________________________________________________________________________
A little over a year ago, on December 22, 2023, to be exact, I attempted to start a discussion thread/new topic under ‘Rules Systems’ on The Society of Ancients Forum. I inquired about the current thinking of members regarding elephants and what members thought of the current rules with respect to their treatment of elephants. I also asked about the “realistic” representation of elephants on the wargame tabletop. Over the course of approximately a week, the discussion was viewed 217 times and generated 20 replies. (The status of the electronic conversation and correctness of the data was checked on 23 December, 2023.) Instead of transcribing or providing a link to this previous topic, I will pick and choose just a couple of the replies made by interested Society members who took the time to weigh in with their thoughts.
One gentleman by the name of Nick Harbud offered that, when it comes to elephants, “rulesets vary from the sublime to the ridiculous.” He also commented on the evidently unrealistic role the number of model elephants played on the final standings in competitions. Another erudite and well regarded member by the name of Mark G. stated: “I’m not sure we can agree on what ‘realistic’ is, never mind if it’s reflected in the rules.” As is often the case in these sub-forums, the discussion took an “off ramp,” and the discussion shifted to a focus on Hannibal and his use of elephants during the Second Punic War.
In late March of 2023, I revisited and attempted to revive the subject, establishing the “Many Shades of Grey” discussion thread. (Evidently, I have been holding on to the title for around nine months.) Unfortunately, this conversation was even less well attended than the previous, garnering just 72 views and generating an impressive total of five replies. It was not a complete failure, however, as long-time Society member Richard Taylor offered a few observations and remarks that were, in my opinion, thought-provoking. First, he suggested, based on his reading and understanding of Tony Bath’s work, that there was a “folk understanding of elephants, which may or may not match historical reality, but which may be sufficiently ingrained that a game that doesn’t show elephants this way might disappoint.” Second, he was the only participant to refer to the “special provisions” promoted by Trevor Halsall. Richard considered the lack of historical evidence to support the “effective missile fire of elephant crews.” This, apparently, is called the “elephant-as-tank” model. He also commented on the dual use of elephants: as a screen or employed en masse. If the former, he was of the opinion that a small number of elephants in a model army, deployed as a protective if also perhaps porous screen, should have the miniatures mounted on very wide bases. I think this depiction makes a lot of sense. The problem, obviously, becomes one of addressing this in the rules.
The plan, such as it is or exists (remember that I started this post without any actual outline to refer to), calls for this post to be finished, edited, and put online by the end of the first week in the new year. I confess that I will be curious to see how it does and what kind of response or discussion, if any, it generates. (Sidebar: Like all bloggers, I presume, I am looking for attention, feedback, recognition and relevance. Before making that assertion, however, I suppose I should take the time to look articles and or studies on the psychology of blogging, which may or may not be a more focused form of social media. By that, I mean, based on my experience, it takes a little more concentration, focus, and time to write as well as a little more concentration, focus, and time to read, in addition to achieving a level of understanding.) Anyway, based on the performance of the two previous attempts to generate a conversation on a Society of Ancients sub-forum, I am rather skeptical that this post will result in a significant increase with respect to my blog numbers. I am also accepting of this likelihood.
__________________________________________________________________________
In the lull between the consumerism and craziness of Christmas and the consumption as well as crescendo marking the arrival of the inexperienced and unsullied new year (I suppose this figurative lull could be compared to the flat and slow portion of a roller coaster ride), I debated how to draw this unplanned post to a satisfactory conclusion. Reverting to a comparatively simple method learned years ago, I thought I would review what has been covered. I would simply “tell you what I told you.” But then, I wondered what purpose this regurgitation or summary would serve, as you, the most appreciated reader, know what you have read and have, undoubtedly, developed ideas and opinions about the material. So, I decided to take a slightly different tack.
Referring to the mention of the brief pieces written by Harold Gerry and Tony Bath, it seems fair if not pretty safe to remark that there is a long history of interest in studying how elephants were used in the ancient world, as well as in playing at ancient war with elephants. A brief search for posts about elephants on the various discussion boards of TMP returned quite a few results, as one might expect or imagine. Scanning the numerous entries, I noted a conversation started in early August of 2005 about how elephants were used in ancient war, and another initiated in mid October of the same year about which elephants carried crews in howdahs. A cursory search of ancient wargaming blogs today will likely result in more than several posts about pachyderms - whether these entries be about where to purchase them, or how to perfectly paint them, or how to become a semi-pro when playing at war with them. (For just one spectacular example, please prepare to spend at least 30 minutes and very possibly longer looking over https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Elephants.)
On page 4 of Version 3.2 (April 2011) of De Bellis Multitudinis - Wargame Rules for Ancient and Medieval Battle: 3000 BC to 1500 AD, otherwise known as DBM, the following description is found under ‘Troop Definitions’:
ELEPHANTS, of either species and various crew complement. They are used to charge solid
foot, to break through gateways, and to block mounted troops, whose frightened horses are
reluctant to close with them. They can most easily be killed by artillery or by the continued
showers of missiles of light troops. They are all irregular.
As I stated earlier, this a set of rules in my collection, but one that I have failed to learn and use. In looking through the pages of the rulebooks I have and do employ when I put on that figurative general’s helmet, breastplate, and or cape, I found similar language with respect to the depiction and function of elephants. My guess is that were I to flip through the pages of the other rulebooks alphabetized on that introductory table, I would find familiar language as well. I might even see the beginnings of or sufficient evidence for a consensus. However, given the number of commercial rulesets that are available and given the ever-present conflict between game play and simulating history, I wonder how strong this predicted consensus would actually be? I wonder too, how many of the two dozen or so sets of rules would pass what might be called the “Halsall test” with respect to their depiction and treatment of elephants?
That question presumes the acceptance of those “special provisions” spelled out in that article from the September 1987 issue of Miniature Wargames magazine. If a consensus is probable with regard to the language defining elephants as a troop type, then is it not possible to come to a general agreement with regard to how elephants engage in or respond to missile fire, participate in melees, and how they are impacted by these events and other battlefield conditions? Is there a compromise, a middle ground that can be found between the “sublime and ridiculous” assessments mentioned in a reply by that one Society of Ancients member? At the risk of ending this post with another question, if the elephant rules of a rulebook are judged to be “hot garbage,” should that rulebook be filed away, never to be opened again? At the acknowledged risk of ending this post with perhaps an unnecessarily alliterative question, should the interested ancients wargamer take the time and make the effort to patch those perceived pitiful procedures pertaining to pachyderms?
It appears quite evident that not only will I be in that parenthetical basement meeting room for a presentation on the usefulness of alliteration in wargaming writing, but I will be the featured speaker.
