ANOTHER PLAIN IN SPAIN

After reviewing the text describing and studying the diagrams showing Roman Republican Legions on pages 61-64 and 68 of the TACTICA II rules, I decided to prepare simple models of two legions in order to see what kind of footprint these functional representations would have on my tabletop. Using the dimensions for 15mm scale miniatures provided on page 1 of the spiral-bound and reportedly thoroughly play-tested rules, it took about 10-15 minutes to set up and experiment with my “miniature” Hastati, Principes, Triarii, figurative division commander, and skirmishers (i.e., Velites). 

With 8 Velites (as opposed to the units of 12 or 16 skirmishers shown in the schematic on the left side of page 68) screening the three lines of heavier infantry, my primitive and certainly non-traditional pair of legions had a frontage of 14 real inches and a depth of 12.5 real inches. I fussed a bit with this depth, wanting to ensure that the three lines were within supporting distance (8 scale inches) but outside of the rout path (4 scale inches), should an enemy unit break a unit of Hastati or Principes. A few simple math operations informed that my experimental legions added up to 584 points. (The Principes were given spears instead of pila and so, valued at 7 points each instead of 8.) Each legion contained 36 “massed unit figures,” which might or might not be counted against the determined army breakpoint. 

Now then, if I set up my larger tabletop (the playing surface measuring 10.5 feet by 3.75 feet), it occurred to me that it would be possible to fit or deploy 10 Roman legions in this space and still have a little over two feet on each flank for the positioning of cavalry and other auxiliary units. More math informed that if I did not change the training or quality of these legions, then the value of these formations would add up to 2,920 points as well as equal 360 “massed unit figures.” Even though I am not a very experienced TACTICA II player, based on what I’ve seen and read - mostly on the dedicated TACTICA II Forum - almost 3,000 points before adding cavalry and other troop types, let alone the total points for the opposition, represents a fairly if not unusually large TACTICA II scenario. [1] Setting aside this number crunching and order(s) of battle drafting for a moment, I should like to explain how this latest effort, idea, or project started.

_________________________________________

Although the decision had been made not to participate in Battle Day 2024, wherein Ilipa (206 BC) will be staged on multiple tables and wargamed by a decent number (hopefully) of player-generals employing various sets of rules, I found myself drawing a little inspiration from the selection and subsequent announcement. [2] Even though it had not been that long ago since a Punic Wars contest had been set up on my atypical tabletop, I thought it might be interesting to stage a completely fictional engagement, wherein forces representing the interests of Carthage and Rome met on a pretend field of honor. [3] In the interest of being more forthcoming, it would be fair to say that I also borrowed an idea or two from Steven Neate’s wonderfully picturesque report, “Carthage vs Rome with Hail Caesar,” which appeared in the pages of the November/December 2019 Slingshot (Number 327).

It would also be fair to remark that a first attempt at a rather large scenario using GRAND TRIUMPH! collapsed under its own weight and or failed to hold my interest for a number of reasons. [4] Going back to the proverbial drawing board, I decided that a set of rules containing specifics (depictions and procedures) about the Roman Republican Legions would be a requirement. Having a limited library, this narrowed my selection to either Arty Conliffe’s comparatively dice-heavy TACTICA II or Simon Miller’s dice-less TO THE STRONGEST! The perceived pros and cons of each were debated and rated over the course of a few days. The choice was made to try my luck, to see if I could get things right with a second scenario which would also be a rather large battle, by using TACTICA II. To establish a little more context, it was decided that the setting for this imaginary contest was somewhere in Spain (closer to the Mediterranean than the Atlantic) in the late spring of 238 BC. 

_________________________________________

The complete orders of battle for this fictional fight are provided in Appendix A. The terrain of this fictional field was rather simple. Some might even remark that it was boring. To be certain, the vast majority of readers would likely judge my tabletop as visually unappealing. [Sidebar: Without question, the “landscape” of my tabletop was nothing as representative of the hobby nor as spectacular as a James Roach table. For three museum-quality pictures (in my humble opinion) that display what can be done by a capable if not very talented pair of hands steered by an impressive mind and backed, I imagine, by considerable resources, please see: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgASSpSTjpe71r267ChUW-nALl73wmu4lOcBpcrzLwOR8zRlqWtWA1bppd0JFMgVpd0Cr-r7xZ9haizkWz0KUeTW5qGM_Oqwcg6dlhrThtXI6rAnm9I1DX4RdqlxA2aln9wFf22wIRHNVeU/s1600/IMG_5333.JPG, https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgquaBJOEgzvMhqa_LTc4m_aKRKemUN1sWjCS_lStaQU_C6rasiGzLfHGAha0_0Vt6E4wRhfxxcky02Uu8OG1Yi49CiooJbPo5lswO3S4fmdZ79UFcNl4lf-UwuHkWjbjOENydZhTyPLoI/s1600/IMG_2105.JPG, as well as  this lovely example, even though it is far removed from the Punic Wars period: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6bVMko8RXxYDO85sEcRvzF_V92ptGA9wpDNtjfRjkqkgtQ9-jDCUAEebLSBHLw_CE7lzqEGR8Cisa1PCE3IW3AVtnaiLhPG3qbBUNkN3VwCyXQt7gYL2NHMclik8hNLPyV2MD_GEtTAU1/s1600/IMG_5528.JPG.] That comparative assessment aside, my focus was on functionality and simplicity as opposed to designing and creating an aesthetically pleasing landscape. After spending a little bit of time thinking about it, I decided that my tabletop would be “decorated” with a few gentle hills or rises as they are labeled in the Terrain Effects Chart on page 53, two patches of rough ground (only one of these would cause disorder, and neither would block missile fire), a small woods, and a stream. To provide additional description: all of the gentle hills or rises fit within 8-inch by 8-inch frame established under ‘Terrain Sizes’ on the bottom of page 52. The patches of rough ground and woods fit within the smaller 8-inch by 4-inch template. After looking over the bullet points provided for streams (page 54), I adjusted my small and shallow water course so that units crossing it would lose just 1/4 of their normal movement rate. Further, a failed control test would see the unit in question suffer a melee decrement of 15% instead of 25%. The unit failing the control test would also lose any chance at impetus dice. Anyway, Map A shows the “look” of my tabletop after the terrain features had been arranged and various contingents and formations of both armies had been deployed.

_________________________________________

At the acknowledged risk of disappointing some readers (or again, perhaps the majority), the format of the following narrative will be turn-based and supported by a few diagrams or maps. If I limit myself to no more than 300 words for describing what happened during a particular game move (the original plan of 200 words had to be adjusted as I got further into the scenario - sorry!), then a battle lasting 16 turns should be covered in approximately 4,800 words. (I cannot imagine that the initial turns of the scenario will require the use of all 300 words, and I honestly wonder if the planned contest will take 16 completed moves before a decision is reached or determined.) If I reinforce this “restricted narrative” with a handful of diagrams and maps, then these visual aids and their captions will help “paint the picture or pictures” that I could not accomplish in “digestible chunks” of 300, 600, or 900 words. 

_________________________________________

Turn 1 — The Carthaginians won the move option 5 to 1 (an obvious omen from the dice gods) and elected to move first. A general advance saw their varied formations march almost as a single body across the flat ground. Some of the cavalry on the wings were slowed by the lumbering elephants to their front. A portion of the Citizen infantry was delayed, slightly, when crossing the stream. The other division of Citizen foot remained in place. In general, the Romans replied in kind. On their left, a unit of cavalry was kept in reserve and one division walked its horses forward instead of at a trot. On the opposite wing, the Allied legions did not move forward. Half of the Roman cavalry remained in their starting positions as well.    

Turn 2 — The Carthaginians won the move option a second time by the same score after a couple of ties. (Opposing rolls of 5 to 1 were adjusted to 3 to 1.) They decided to keep this initiative. On their right flank, they played “cat and mouse” with the enemy horse. The patch of rough ground was keeping most of the cavalry units in this sector apart. Javelins and sling stones flew back and forth, as the skirmishers of both sides moved into range. Casualties were light. In fact, the auxiliary light infantry on the Roman right threw several poor volleys into the rapidly approaching enemy heavy cavalry, knocking down just a few riders. In the first melees of the day, on the far Roman right, their heavy horse engaged some Numidians and a couple of screening elephants. These were sharp as well as confused contests, which saw the Romans losing 11 figures versus 9 for the Carthaginians. Not exactly a promising start for the Romans, but it was very early in the battle and Fortuna might yet make her appearance. 

Turn 3 — With +4 move option advantage, Romans finally secured the initiative and chose to move first. They also elected to evade a number skirmisher units that were “danger close” to enemy formations. The missile exchanges between opposing lines of skirmishers and Velites were nothing to write home about. The melee direction was decided by the Carthaginians. On their right wing, elephants, Numidians and some mercenary Hoplites were engaged by enemy cavalry. Generally speaking, the Carthaginians did better in these localized battles. In the center of the table, a pair of warbands were met by a pair of Hastati units. One warband was savaged by a pila volley and then further damaged in the subsequent melee. The other warband gained an impetus advantage and simply rolled right over the hapless Hastati. Just across the stream, a group of Celtiberian skirmishers were able to wrestle the patch of woods away from some Velites. The left wing saw a growing melee which involved cavalry, auxiliary infantry, elephants, and more cavalry. This fighting was back and forth. Both sides took losses and a unit of Roman heavy horse was routed off the field. 

Turn 4 — The Carthaginians took back the move option with roll of 4 to 1, which made the modified result 6 to 1, and decided to go first this turn. Given that three areas of the tabletop were fairly busy with melees, there was not a lot of movement. In the open ground between the Celt warbands and the patch of rough ground, the opposing lines of skirmishers continued to throw missiles at each other. This time, the Velites did better by knocking out 4 enemy javelineers and or slingers. As for the melees, the Roman right saw another round of bloody fighting. The auxiliaries continued to hold against the Carthaginian horse, but they could not last much longer. The Roman cavalry struggled against the enemy elephants, but were slowly wearing down the animals. Near the stream, a unit of Hastati prepared to take back the woods from enemy skirmishers, while the Celts pressed forward, engaging another line of legionaries in the shin-deep water while another warband rolled over some Principes like they weren’t even there. On the Roman left flank, a unit of cavalry was lost to some mercenary Hoplites. This score was made even when an elephant was killed which led to the collapse of a unit of Numidians. The contest on this side of the field was far from being decided, however. 

Turn 5 — The Romans wrestled away the move option with a tied die roll, which was modified to 5 versus 3 in favor of the Latin speaking officers and soldiers. Very few javelins or sling stones were thrown this turn. The Roman Velites rushed their counterparts, but this melee of skirmishers was rudely brushed aside when the African heavy infantry, elephants, and mercenary Hoplites advanced. A volley against a teetering unit of Hastati failed to inflict more damage. Directing the melees, the Carthaginians started on their left. Here, the cavalry and elephants were successful, but at a rather heavy price. While the enemy auxiliary light infantry and a division of cavalry were pushed off the field, the few elephants in the screen were on their last legs and the various horse formations were much the worse for wear. In the stream sector, the Hastati crowded the enemy skirmishers out of the woods, but then were stopped by the approach of a strong group of Citizen foot soldiers. One warband of Gauls or Celts continued to fight desperately in the stream and along its gentle banks. The other warband ran into and then over the Triarii formation of the legion it had chosen as its target. A legion-sized hole had been punched in the center of the Roman line. Over on the Carthaginian right, a stalemate of a sorts continued as the rough ground was limiting the freedom and range of movement. The Allied cavalry were whittling down the Numidians and the elephant screen, but there was no real threat of the Carthaginian flank being turned.

(A quick count of breakpoints was made at the end of Turn 5. The Carthaginians had suffered 86 “kills” in massed units or massed unit figures, while the Romans more than doubled that figure, sustaining losses of 184. A brief consideration was given to the morale effect caused by having a line of battle punctured or ruptured.) 

Turn 6 — With a roll of 5 to 1 (adjusted to 5 versus 3), the Romans held on to the move option and elected to go first. With the exception of a few poorly aimed and consequently ineffective javelins thrown by some Numidian light cavalry, there were no missiles exchanged this turn. The Romans won the melee direction as well, and opted to start rolling handfuls of dice on their right flank. The fresh division of militia grade Roman horse moved up, dispatching a badly wounded elephant in the process. In the contest between what was left of the Carthaginian cavalry and the first line of the Allied legions, the Latin Hastati won hands down. The pila volleys took down a few riders and then hundreds of short swords and large shields did the rest. Over in the stream, one warband erased a unit of Hastati and then made contact with the next line of legionaries. The other warband made a large wheel to its right, becoming disordered as a result. In the space north of the patch of rough ground, the mercenary Hoplites, elephants, and Africans met the Hastati of three legions. The pila volleys in this contest did well enough to weaken the elephants and annoy the Hoplites. In the ensuing melees, an exchange was made. Two units of Hastati were broken, while the Carthaginian elephants were panicked. These animals disordered a neighboring unit, which was roughly handled by some legionaries and then failed a required control test. Another unit of Hastati, in a different part of this sector, was trampled - though at a cost - by a another group of elephants. These victorious animals pursued into the waiting line of Principes. Over on the Roman left, nothing happened that merited reporting.

Turn 7 — The Carthaginians took back the move option with a modified dice roll of 6 to 1 (a +4 advantage added to their roll of 2 against the Roman die showing a 1). There was not a great deal of movement, as most of the formations on both sides were locked in combat or within a threat zone (i.e., zone of control). There was even less missile fire, since the skirmishers (those that remained, anyway) had withdrawn behind the competing opposing lines. The Carthaginians also won the melee direction and chose to resolve contests starting on their left. There was a pause in the cavalry action, as the Numidians evaded before the approaching enemy horse. The fresh mercenary Hoplites collided with the Hastati of the Allied legions. There were losses on both sides. Just north of the stream, some Hastati were destroyed trying to hold back a mass of Citizen infantry from making progress in this area. Not too far away, the Celts or Gauls appeared to run out of steam, as both warbands were very roughly handled. That is to say, they were driven beyond their breaking point by a couple of units of legionaries. Further south of the hole in the Roman line being temporarily repaired, the African foot and more Hoplites continued to fight and make some progress in this sector. These units were not entirely fresh, however. The last of the Numidians on the far right flank were finally caught by some Roman troopers and destroyed in a quick and savage melee. 

Turn 8 — The Romans secured the move option with a modified score of 7 to 5. There was little movement as most units were embroiled in combat. There was no exchange of missiles. The Carthaginians won the melee direction roll 6 to 1 and for the second turn, opted to start the fighting and dice throwing on their left flank. The Roman cavalry in this sector were very close to getting rid of the remaining elephants and had chased the Numidians to their starting edge. However, the infantry contest was not going their way. The mercenary Hoplites had dismantled 2 units of Allied Hastati and were on the verge of wiping out the Triarii of a nearby Roman legion. Two large groups of Citizen foot and a packet of elephants were bearing down on a barely holding Roman center. On the north side of the stream, a couple of Roman legions had two-thirds of their original strength left. On the opposite side of shallow water course, the local Roman commanders were scrambling to find legionaries to plug this gap. Over in the center of the field, the African infantry continued to roll forward, breaking a stubborn line of Romans. In a nearby melee, a unit of Principes was nearly wiped out, but the doughty survivors passed their Fates Test and held on, faces grim and short swords bloodied as well as blunted. To the right (south) of this sector, the Romans were able to break a unit of Hoplites, but in another contest nearby, a number of their cavalry troopers were felled and their wing commander or sub-general was killed in the melee. Around the patch of rough ground which had caused the cavalry of both sides so much trouble, another Carthaginian elephant was killed, which resulted in a friendly cavalry unit being disordered. The Allied cavalry could not take advantage of this, as most of these units had been disorganized by performing extended wheels. 

Turn 9 — The Carthaginians regained the initiative, with a modified move option result of 5 to 2. They elected to move first. As there were not many skirmisher units still on the field, and since most formations were locked in a death struggle, there was no exchange of missiles. The Romans rallied a few units of horse. The Carthaginians won the melee direction and decided to begin the process on their right flank. It was not a very good beginning, as a disordered unit of cavalry was thumped in close combat and then rolled “snake eyes” for its required control test. Scratch that unit from the army roster. The victorious Allied cavalry pursued and were able to capture the exposed Carthaginian sub-general of this sector. In the center of the field, things went better for the Carthaginians. The African foot continued to push forward. By the stream, the line of Citizen infantry almost caught a unit of Triarii in the flank. Somewhat surprisingly, the Roman veterans went down like a house of cards. There was a gaping hole in the Roman center again. On the other side of the stream, large formations of mercenary Hoplites advanced into the last Roman lines of defense. Perhaps too late, the Triarii moved up to support the Principes in the Allied legions on the right. Far removed from these melees involving shields, spears and swords, the contest between the Roman cavalry and Numidians continued. A stubborn elephant was finally taken down. A unit of Roman horse was lost, but the defeated troopers succeeded in killing the Carthaginian sub-general of this flank in the confused melee. In the corner of the tabletop, more Numidians fought stubbornly, but half were routed and the other half disordered by the fresher and more numerous, if also inferior Romans.  

Turn 10 — A +2 advantage on the move option was no help to the Roman cause. Their sworn enemy stole the initiative with a modified 6 to 3 roll. The Romans were, however, able to dictate how the many melees were resolved. In the far northwest corner of the field (tabletop), the Roman cavalry forced the stubborn Numidian “regiment” to break and flee. Unfortunately, the winning Romans gave chase right off the board. Elsewhere and otherwise, things looked pretty dire for the Romans. North of the stream, a unit of Hoplites had been quite bloodied but had passed the required Fates Test. The remaining Roman or Allied lines were getting terribly thin as well. In fact, they were rather outnumbered in this sector. Crossing to the other side of the stream, effective and organized Roman resistance was no more. The African foot and Citizen infantry, along with their small unit of elephants, had broken the Roman center into pieces. Further to the right, from the Carthaginian perspective, a unit of Allied horse was put to flight by the long spears of some worn out Hoplites. In the last act of the cavalry contest in this sector, a unit of Spanish heavy cavalry managed to catch an enemy formation in the flank. The results were not at all pretty; the subsequent rout of survivors disordered two more friendly units of Allied cavalry. 

Surveying what once was a large and undisturbed patch of fairly flat ground that held neat and orderly lines of opposing infantry and cavalry formations in addition to a few pachyderms, the decision was made to call a halt to the battle. Based on final positions, a win had to be awarded to the Carthaginians. It appeared, however, to be one of those pyrrhic victories. 

_________________________________________

Comments

Before I get to the subjective evaluation and remarks of the recently concluded solo contest (as always, readers are invited to weigh in with their thoughts), it seems appropriate to review the “butcher’s bill.” 

As indicated in the map showing what the table looked like at the completion of Turn 8, the Romans had suffered 194 “kills” out of an available 332, while the Carthaginians had 292 “kills”marked against their determined limit of 405. The end of Turn 9 saw increases on both sides, with the Romans moving up to 242, and the Carthaginians moving up to 347. I should have been paying closer attention during Turn 10, as at some point, the Romans were pushed past their army break point of 332. (Quite a jump from the previous turn.) The Carthaginians added only 20 to their total of “massed unit figures killed,” bringing this casualty roster to 367 out of 405 points. The description of the Carthaginian victory as pyrrhic is very appropriate, I think, as their losses represented 90 percent of the calculated army breaking point. 

Turning to the related consideration of which side won the move option and which side decided the melee direction, I see by reviewing the turn record chart (used to help me keep track of where I am/was in a game turn), that the Carthaginians won the move option roll 6 times. They also were able to decide on the melee direction 6 times. It would be fair to remark, I think, that they controlled 60 percent of the tempo of this fictional battle. Phrased another way, the Romans were reacting 60 percent of the time. The casualty lists and turn record reviewed, I can now proceed with making an evaluation or offering a few remarks. 

For a change of pace, I thought I might try a “point-counterpoint” or perhaps a “problem-positive” format in this last section. A few attempts at this novel structure soon found me rather “lost in the weeds” as some might say when the situation merits. So, the change of pace idea was put in a box, labeled, and then placed on a shelf. It seemed easier, even though I am finding these conclusions to be more and more challenging, to simply comment on the content of the previous pages. 

Even though my model legions were made of paper, they were functional and served their purpose. [5] Recording losses and noting status (missile halt, disorder, etc.) was easily managed, and I did not have to worry about knocking something over, bending a spear shaft, a sword, or damaging a standard. As I hinted at in the first couple of pages, this scenario was a kind of counter-programming to the selection of Ilipa for Battle Day 2024. As I also mentioned, this solo wargame drew some inspiration from a colorful report written by Steven Neate. Similar to that annual tribute game, my table groaned (if only figuratively) under rather large orders of battle and troops/units were lined up edge-to-edge. (Note: My tabletop was nowhere near as attractive as the one upon which Steven and his friends played at ancient war. Then again, I was not trying to compete with them or their spectacular set up.) [6] 

I think most readers would agree that this was a sizable battle. As per usual, I worried that it might be too big for a solo player, but managed to get through 10 turns without too much trouble by dividing up the turns over the course of a couple weeks. On reflection, I think I could have streamlined certain aspects of the wargame and thereby reduced the time and “labor” involved. That much admitted, I think that the opposing deployments were fairly historical. I followed the schematic provided by Simon Miller when setting up the Romans. The Carthaginian deployment was more “educated guess work,” but I think it was acceptable. However, I do think that if I were to stage a refight of this fictional battle a few months from now, I would be sure to remove or modify the patch of rough ground that proved something of an obstacle for the left wing Allied cavalry and right wing Carthaginian horse. This observation about a particular terrain piece in a particular sector of the tabletop offers a transition to considering, subjectively of course, how the game played. 

Overall, I thought it went rather well. I think that I am becoming more familiar or at least may be getting better with the TACTICA II rules. To be certain, I am no expert. To be sure, there are details and nuances that I need to work on. However, I do not think that any of the mistakes made in this recently completed contest were major ones, or were errors that resulted in an unfair advantage to one side or the other. 

I confess to being surprised at how well the Roman horse did on their respective flanks. Given what I have read about the Punic Wars, especially the second one, it appears that Carthaginian and especially Numidian cavalry were dominant. This was not the case in this solo wargame. I wondered if I did not employ the Numidians as I should have. They were deployed as massed units instead of skirmishing cavalry. I wondered if I should have modified their fighting value or perhaps their unit grading. On a related point or subject, it seemed to me that the cavalry of both sides was rather slow in this battle. The disrupting quality of the patch of rough ground in the one part of the fictional field has already been noted. I guess I just found it odd that the opposing cavalry formations could not resolve their combats faster than what was taking place between the opposing infantry units in other parts of the table. I was also a little dismayed to find that cavalry could not be more flexible and fluid, for lack of better adjectives. I remember the Allied cavalry on the Roman left getting bogged down by complex moves and then having to wait to rally while the battle was slipping away from them in the center. Referencing the various battles in the Second Punic War, it appears that cavalry from a flank or wing was able to win their local battle and then move to another sector where their numbers and strength would have a significant if not deciding impact on the overall course of the engagement. 

Shifting to thoughts about infantry, I appreciated having a chance to try my hand at commanding a fair number of legions. I liked the ideas behind and procedures depicting line relief. It was difficult, at times, to be reminded of the staying power of the Allied or Roman legions, when first one line and then another would be “hit” and then “knocked into the next calendar week” by a larger enemy unit. (So far, thankfully, I have not had nightmares about the 36-figure strong warbands [arranged in 3 ranks of 12] charging, with impetus, into a single line of 12 Hastati.) 

I think the amended rules about fighting in and around the stream worked fairly well. It occurs to me that this terrain feature, small though it was, might have had a great impact on the Romans because it divided their line into two parts. However, the same can be said about the Carthaginians. The patch of woods next to the stream certainly saw some action. Although, I wondered why the skirmishers could not have stood up more to or resisted longer the Hastati unit which advanced into the trees and undergrowth. In a different area of the tabletop, I also wondered why some Velites could not take advantage of their position and agility to fall onto the flanks of some enemy pachyderms. This seemed an ideal situation for the fleet-footed light troops to get in among the lumbering animals and hamstring them or poke javelins and spears into their faces, etc. 

Turning, briefly, to the Carthaginian elephants - on reflection, it appears that these animals did good service for the cause, even if they paid a fairly heavy price on the day. Again, were I to rerun this scenario two or three months from now, I would make a mental note to be sure to break-off the Roman or Allied horse formations that got involved with the enemy elephant screen. Even though these pachyderms were few in number, they acted as mobile patches of rough ground and tied up Roman and Allied cavalry that could have been used elsewhere. 

In summary, I would evaluate this scenario as the best TACTICA II wargame experience that I have played so far. While it was completely fictional, unusual with regard to size and so required deployment of the various “model” troops from one table edge to the other, I think it went quite well. I was engaged and entertained. At the risk of over simplifying things, is that not the central point or bottom line? Even though lots of dice were required, I found myself more accepting of that than frustrated or fatigued by it. To be certain, this solo wargame was not a perfect demonstration of the TACTICA II rules. I made small errors regarding skirmishers, the staying power of elephant screens that had been whittled away to nothing, the proper command of Republican Roman legions, and the sensible placement of certain terrain features. However, I do not think that these silly and small as well as expected gaffes affected the outcome. This was a battle set in the Second Punic War after all. It seems that the Romans stood a pretty good chance of being defeated.  

Appendix A: Detailed Orders of Battle

To supplement the Second Punic War specific army lists found on pages L12 (Roman) and L13 (Carthaginian), I studied the Later Carthaginian 275 BC - 146 BC list and especially the notes provided on page 30 of BOOK 2: 500 BC to 476 AD of the D.B.M. ARMY LISTS. The Polybian Roman 275 BC to 105 BC list and notes on page 31 were also reviewed. As a third source, I read and annotated Simon Miller’s February 2016 pdf “The Polybian Roman Army in To the Strongest!” (Please see https://aventineminiatures.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Polybian-Romans.pdf.) In the Free Army Lists (updated 30/6/2020), I poured over the Middle Carthaginian army list provided on pages 28-30 of that pdf. 

The Romans

Map Identifier - I

Division XXI

Commander - anonymous officer selected from patrician ranks or similar

04 units of Allied Cavalry, each: 18 x HC, FV 4-6, MG, Javelins

72 “massed unit figures”; 360 points 

Map Identifier - II

Division XIV:

Division XXI

Commander - anonymous officer selected from patrician ranks or similar

04 units of Allied Cavalry, each: 18 x HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Javelins

72 “massed unit figures”; 432 points 

Map Identifier - III

Division III:

Commander - anonymous legate or tribune 

Allied Legion I - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, MG, Javelins

    12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, MG, Pila/Swords

    12 x Principes, FV 5-6, MG, Spears

    12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears [well-protected]

Allied Legion II - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, MG, Javelins

     12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, MG, Pila/Swords

     12 x Principes, FV 5-6, MG, Spears

     12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears [well-protected]

72 “massed unit figures”; 472 points

Map Identifier - IV

Division IV:

Commander - anonymous legate or tribune 

Roman Legion III - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

        12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

        12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

        12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

Roman Legion IV - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

        12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

        12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

        12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

72 “massed unit figures”; 584 points

Map Identifier - V

Division V:

Commander - anonymous legate or tribune 

Roman Legion I - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

     12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

     12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

     12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

Roman Legion II - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

       12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

       12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

       12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

72 “massed unit figures”; 584 points

Map Identifier - VI

Division VI:

Commander - anonymous legate or tribune 

Roman Legion V - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, MG, Javelins

       12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, MG, Pila/Swords

       12 x Principes, FV 5-6, MG, Spears

       12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears [well-protected]

Roman Legion VI - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, MG, Javelins

        12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, MG, Pila/Swords

        12 x Principes, FV 5-6, MG, Spears

        12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears [well-protected]

72 “massed unit figures”; 472 points

Map Identifier - VII

Division Auxiliary Infantry:

Commander - anonymous officer 

04 units of Auxiliaries - 16 x LI, FV 4-6, Vet, Various

72 “massed unit figures”; 384 points

Map Identifier - VIII

Division VIII:

Commander - anonymous legate or tribune 

Allied Legion III - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

      12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

      12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

      12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

Allied Legion IV - 08 x Velites, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

       12 x Hastati, FV 5-6, Vet, Pila/Swords

       12 x Principes, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

       12 x Triarii, FV 5-6, Elite, Spears [well-protected]

72 “massed unit figures”; 584 points

Map Identifier - IX

Division XVI

Commander - anonymous officer selected from patrician ranks or similar

04 units of Roman Cavalry, each: 12 x HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Javelins

48 “massed unit figures”; 288 points 

Map Identifier - X

Division XX:

Commander - anonymous officer selected from patrician ranks or similar

04 units of Roman Cavalry, each: 12 x HC, FV 4-6, MG, Javelins

48 “massed unit figures”; 240 points 

Total Points: 4,400

Total “massed unit figures”: 664

Army Breaking Point: 332

The Carthaginians

Map Identifier - A

Division A:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Numidian Cavalry, each: 12 x LC, FV 3-6, Vet, Javelins

36 “massed unit figures”; 144 points 

> elephant screen of 3 arranged in front / 3 x EL, FV 5-6, Vet, Various

each “model” representing 04 “massed unit figures”; 30 points each, so 120 points total

Map Identifier - B

Division B:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Numidian Cavalry, each: 12 x LC, FV 3-6, Vet, Javelins

36 “massed unit figures”; 144 points 

Map Identifier - C

Division C:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Heavy Cavalry (Spanish, Campanian, Greek)

each: 18 x HC, FV 4-6 or 5-6, Vet, Javelins

54 “massed unit figures”; 360 points

> elephant screen of 3 arranged in front / 3 x EL, FV 5-6, Vet, Various

each “model” representing 04 “massed unit figures”; 30 points each, so 120 points total

Map Identifier - D

Division D:

Commander - anonymous officer

04 units of Heavy Cavalry (Spanish, Gallic, Citizen, Greek)

each: 18 x HC, FV 4-6 or 5-6, Vet, Javelins

72 “massed unit figures”; 468 points

Map Identifier - E

Division E:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of African Infantry, each: 24 x FT, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

02 units of Skirmishers, each: 12 SI, Sk FV 4-6 or 5-6, Vet, Javelins or Slings

01 unit of Elephants: 2 EL, FV 5-6, Vet, Various

80 “massed unit figures”; 624 points

Map Identifier - F

Division F:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Mercenary Hoplites, each: 24 x FT, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

01 unit of Skirmishers, each: 12 SI, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

72 “massed unit figures”; 528 points

Map Identifier - G

Division G:

Commander - anonymous officer

04 units of Citizen Infantry, each: 24 x FT, FV 4-6, MG, Spears

01 unit of Elephants: 2 EL, FV 5-6, Vet, Various

104 “massed unit figures”; 540 points

Map Identifier - H

Division H:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Mercenary Hoplites, each: 36 x FT, FV 5-6, Vet, Spears

108 “massed unit figures”; 756 points

Map Identifier - J

Division J:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Citizen Infantry, each: 36 x FT, FV 4-6, MG, Spears

01 unit of Elephants: 2 EL, FV 5-6, Vet, Various

01 unit of Skirmishers, each: 12 SI, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

116 “massed unit figures”; 624 points

Map Identifier - K

Division K:

Commander - anonymous officer

03 units of Celts or Gauls, each: 36 x WB-impetus, FV 4-6, Vet, Various

02 units of Skirmishers, each: 12 SI, Sk FV 5-6, Vet, Javelins

108 “massed unit figures”; 750 points

Total Points: 5,198

Total “massed unit figures”: 810

Army Breaking Point: 405

Notes

1. For comparison and or context, the Magnesia scenario prepared by Bob Burke (and his fellow player-generals, available in the Files section of the Tactica II Forum) calls for 3,104 points of Romans and a “massed unit figure” count of 378. The Seleucid opposition for this refight has 4,000 points on the table, and a “massed unit figure” count of 538. The provided scenario is an interpretation of the historical battle. Typically, again as I understand it, most games of TACTICA II feature armies in the 2,000-2,500 points range.
2. Please see “Ilipa: Notes and Questions,” posted to this blog on 09 January 2024. 
3. A quick check of previous blog posts informs that in 2021, I tackled or attempted to tackle the subject matter of Zama. One might even venture to remark that I was “zeroed in” on the historical contest. Please see the “Zama” posts made in March, September, and October of that year. 
4. Using the free lists provided here, https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home, I built a Carthaginian army of 7 commands, containing 89 units, and worth 314 points. (This total is substantially more than the typical 144-point size used in GRAND TRIUMPH! games.) The Romans also had 7 commands. These formations contained 93 units which added up to a total point value of 294.
5. In the last two paragraphs on page 6 of Version 1.1 of his TO THE STRONGEST! rules. Simon Miller offers an opinion or two about the necessity of traditional miniature figures. This well known gentleman wargamer explains: “In order to test some aspects of the rules the author and a friend used a couple of dozen plastic minis from a used copy of a Battlelore game picked up in a charity shop. These were stuck onto coloured sabot bases with Blu-Tak. The games we played with these were just as much fun as if we had used five hundred professionally painted miniatures!” Simon continues, suggesting other options or approaches. He ends by saying,  “Whilst it is great to play a game with beautifully painted miniatures, please don’t let the lack of such an army stop you having fun!” Readers might find the following ironic, but I agree with the accomplished gentleman and hobby celebrity.  I also think it is great to play at war with well-painted figures, and have them “fight” across well-made terrain. However, I have never let the lack of physical model figures and terrain interfere with my gaming activities and interests. Coincidentally, earlier this morning, I had the chance to watch Big Lee’s latest video. This thought-provoking installment dealt with the question of historical wargaming and elitism. (Please see https://www.blmablog.com/2024/01/is-historical-wargaming-elitist.html.) 
6. At some point before or during this solo wargame, I reread the July 2023 issue of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED (Number 427). I thought the article by Colonel (Retired) Bill Gray was quite good. In the ‘Keeping It Clean’ section of “TWIGLET redux Or: Why These Rules Are Better Than My Own,” the gentleman wrote: “. . . I cringe when I see a beuatfiul table with hundreds of museum quality miniatures, that is peppered with labels that use more paper than the latest edition of Tolstoy’s War and Peace.” I can appreciate the point. It seems unnecessary to litter a table with so many extra pieces. If the various markers are to assist in game play, then perhaps they should be disguised so as not to distract the eye. This is not an original idea. Anyway, I could not help but wonder what the retired officer (presume he achieve bird-colonel rank as opposed to silver oak leaf) would think about ADLG tables with the colored status markers or friendly competitions wherein the players used TO THE STRONGEST! and dealt numerous playing cards on the model battlefield. I also wondered if there might be a ancients version of these TWIGLET redux rules available or in production. 

 

 ILIPA: NOTES & QUESTIONS

I scanned the electronic pages of Patrick Waterson’s excellent article “Scipio’s Masterpiece: The Battle of Ilipa,” which originally appeared in the January 2011 issue of Slingshot (Number 274), and then printed a copy for closer reading as well as heavy annotation. This enjoyable task completed, I looked back through my collection of electronic copies of this long-running journal and located the two-part article submitted by John Gerson, who wrote in from Australia. His efforts, “The Battle of Ilipa (206 BC): Part 1 and Part 2” (which were published in the March and then May 1983 issues of Slingshot), were printed out, stapled, read, and annotated as well. Finding no other matches in a search of the Index of 333 Slingshot issues (from September 1965 to November/December 2020), or in physical copies going up to Number 347, I looked through other wargaming publications stored away in a fair number of labeled and stacked plastic bins kept in what might be called a spare room. After a bit of digging, I uncovered Jim Webster’s “The Battle of Ilipa: 206 BC,” in the September 1987 issue of Miniature Wargames magazine (Number 52). The comparatively short article was read and read again. I did not bother to make a copy for the purpose of annotation. However, I did make a point of keeping the actual, if rather “ancient” magazine close at hand. 

Shifting from the hobby publications (to be certain, my discoveries are by no means complete or exhaustive: for just one example, see ANCIENT WARFARE XV.4 [https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/en-us/products/ancient-warfare-xv-4]), I turned to traditional books and recognized as well as respected scholars. First, I pulled the copy of Professor J. F. Lazenby’s Hannibal’s War - A Military History of the Second Punic War off a shelf of my very small library and did a close reading of pages 144-151, wherein the academic examined what the ancient sources had to offer about the battle of Ilipa. Setting that text carefully aside, I turned to Professor Philip Sabin’s LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, and his analysis and remarks provided on pages 186-188 of this well received and reviewed book. 

As more information is often better than less information, I perused the discussion threads found on The Society of Ancients Forum. In particular, the ‘Thoughts of refighting Ilipa’ topic, and the sagacious comments offered by former Society official as well as veteran Society member Duncan Head on 11 October 2023, were reviewed and considered.

Blogs were next on my mental list, and the brief search of the internet for various interpretations or illustrations of Ilipa by more experienced as well as traditional historical miniature wargamers did not disappoint. In no particular order, though I will admit to having a preference, the following links (by no means a complete catalog) are well worth the investment of time and attention:

> Aaron Bell, an accomplished and admired wargamer/blogger, refought Ilipa in March of 2013 using Professor Sabin’s LOST BATTLES rules. Please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/search?q=ilipa. 

> The popular, prolific, and prone to statistical analysis Jon Freitag has wargamed, or served as umpire via Zoom, the battle of Ilipa more than a few times. Evidently, all of these refights were played using Commands & Colors Ancients. From what I have been able to piece together, this record started in late March of 2011, and then there was a long intermission until August and September of 2023, when a flurry of games were played. Regardless, it seems fair to remark that Jon’s total number of Ilipa refights may well equal or even surpass the number of tabletops set up and played at the actual Battle Day event. Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/search?q=ilipa. 

> I suppose that there is a certain irony in the name of this blog, as who does not like to be reminded of those innocent days of childhood/youth when toy soldiers were set up and knocked down . . . Anyway, for another treatment of Ilipa, please see https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2019/12/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc.html. 

> Steven does not offer a photo-heavy account of his refight, but only a brief outline of his plans to refight the historical battle using the Field of Glory rules. Even so, I still

found the post worthwhile. Please see https://balagan.info/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc. 

> I confess to being somewhat surprised to find that Simon Miller had not attempted Ilipa, and presented his usual spectacular work. This slight disappointment was quickly replaced by admiration as well as awe, when I happened upon the masterpiece of modeling provided by James Roach. Please see https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-battle-of-ilipa-206-bc-using-to.html and https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/07/ilipa-206-bc-battle-report.html. 

> Over on TMP, I stumbled (fortunately) upon Simon MacDowall’s preparations for Battle Day 2024. Here is the link directly to his excellent blog, and his test game (the first of two or perhaps even three, apparently) before the selected date in March arrives. Please see and enjoy, if you have not already, https://www.legio-wargames.com/post/somewhere-in-spain-3rd-c-bc. 

My due diligence having been performed (to a large degree, one could or might  remark), I imagine that many readers will be somewhat surprised to find out that I was not planning to stage a solo refight of this chosen battle and submit a report on my research, preparations and playing of, so that it coincided with the expected arrival of other Battle Day reports in late April or May. In the interest of being selectively transparent and honest, the announcement of the selection for Battle Day 2024, followed by details explaining the scheduled date and location, etc., left me feeling lukewarm at best. In fact, a slight shoulder shrug accompanied by a “meh,” is probably the best description for summing up my reaction or response. To be sure, it is rather ironic that I eventually proceeded to research and review the aforementioned variety of materials and sources. It is also ironic that I spent a few days considering how I might stage a version of this selected historical contest using either the TACTICA II or Triumph! rules. 

With TACTICA II, it appeared that it would be simple enough to model the four legions present (two Roman and two allied) on the day. If I opted for 15mm scale, then the frontage of these formations would be exactly 48 centimeters. Allowing intervals of a few centimeters between each legion would increase this frontage to approximately 57 centimeters or 22 inches. The Spanish infantry assisting Scipio might be depicted as five quasi-legions and so, have a similar representation as the Republican units. Their frontage would be 60 centimeters if deployed in a single, uninterrupted line. Using the same intervals for the real legions, their frontage would expand to around 72 centimeters or 28 inches. Adding the two frontages together would give me 50 inches, which would fit easily on either tabletop I wanted to use. (I could prepare either the smaller table, with a length of 78 inches, or the larger table, which has a length of 126 inches. I wondered about how to depict the Roman light troops and cavalry, however. I also wondered how to replicate or at least allow for the chance of modeling the complicated movements achieved by the Romans on that historic day. Even though they were not present in large numbers, I also wondered about how to best depict the elephants used by Hasdrubal. How many models or other representations should be prepared, and should they be deployed as screens, massed units, or a combination? Turning to the Triumph! rules, I wondered what unit scale I should establish for an attempt at refighting this particular battle. Perhaps it would be simplest to declare that each stand or unit, whether infantry or cavalry, was the equivalent of 1,000 men. What would this mean for the small number of Carthaginian elephants then? Should I prepare two stands, each representing 16 animals for deployment on the flanks of Hasdrubal’s line of battle? Or, should the elephants be abstracted as a melee modifier screen for certain Carthaginian units? Would it be better to reduce the representative scale to a unit equals 500 foot or horse? How would I approach or address the fact that one cannot physically represent the three lines of a Republican legion with the Triumph! rules or dedicated army list? Anyway. 

A third level or irony is present or will become evident in the following section, wherein I pose a number of questions and then attempt to answer some of them. To be sure, this “solo socratic” approach is more the purview of the official Battle Day Pack. However, given that this is, I believe, the first official Battle Day under the leadership of Jeremy Giles, I am not sure if he will follow in the giant footsteps of Richard Lockwood, or if he will blaze his own trail regarding Battle Day 2024 and future years, and so create his own Society of Ancients legacy. (For additional information and or reports on this annual gathering, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/175-battleday-2019-report; https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/132-a-successful-battle-day-2016, and https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.) 

_______________________________

With regard to the format of this portion (the second half, if you will) of the post, I think it best to proceed in a “top down” manner. It could also be described as “large to small,” or “general to specific.” With regard to looking at the refighting the historical battle, I am going to try to keep to the accepted and understood chronology. On to the questions then, and some possible answers or remarks. 

> How well attended will Battle Day 2024 be, how many games will be staged, and how many different sets of rules will be employed? 

Okay, so that’s actually three questions, but they are very much related. My guess is that this particular event will be fairly popular. I can picture the latest venue being filled by 40 to 50 like-minded individuals, with the majority being of or from a certain demographic. As for the number of games staged, my estimate is that there will be 10 tabletops decorated with model terrain as well as a variety of miniatures. It seems rather certain that Simon MacDowall will be there and running his game. (The margin of error for this prediction is plus or minus 3, so between 7 and 13 contests. This guess does not include those wargamers who will participate in absentia, and may also submit accounts of their experience.) As there will be or may be 10 tables in use on the day, there will be, of necessity or ideally, at least 10 different sets of rules used by those player-generals present. Looking to a previous Battle Day, I think that Battle Day Ilipa might bear a fair resemblance to Battle Day Chalons, at least as reported in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot (Number 289). As to the eventual appearance of reports from those fortunate enough to be in attendance, I am going to suggest five narrative accounts, though it is unlikely that these descriptions will appear in the pages of the same publication. Then again, perhaps the editor will decide to imitate that aforementioned issue, which contained nearly a dozen after-action reports. It seems that enough time has passed. It has been just over a decade after all. 

> Which interpretation, or which ancient author’s narrative - especially with regard to reported numbers present, will be presented by the majority of participants?

Here, I cannot help but be reminded of the “Featherstone rules or common sense guidelines.” On page 10 of Battle Notes for Wargamers, this well known figure in the history of the hobby explained: “To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces.” I do not mean to dismiss the terrain aspect of this Battle Day selection, but from what I have seen and studied, the nature of the ground did not have any great impact or influence on the course of the action. This does not mean, however, that artistic modelers such as Mark Craddock for instance, or some unknown newcomer, should feel constrained with regard to creating a pleasing miniature battlefield for the enjoyment of the attending player-generals as well as those individuals who find a few free minutes to walk around and take in the sights of the various tabletops. The depiction of numbers and respective frontages is rather more important, I think. Hence, I lean toward the analyses of Patrick Waterson, Professor Sabin, and Professor Lazenby. 

 

> How will deployment be handled in the various refights?

In the 1987 article penned by Jim Webster, he remarks that “Ilipa is a difficult battle to refight from a wargamer’s point of view.” The prolific and accomplished Society member goes on to explain two significant points relating to this difficulty. The first is Scipio deploying before the Carthaginians; the second is the complicated movements which saw the better Roman formations on the wings extend or at least match the enemy line of battle. Will the various reconstructions on that late March day of pretend battle seek to replicate these points? Or, will the majority of tabletops simply present a deployment after all the “mind games” and “surprise switch of center for wings,” and stage a straight forward scenario? 

> Will the various tabletops provide for player-generals to play a waiting game?

The ancient sources and scholarly treatments mention a number of days when both sides deployed for battle and yet nothing happened. Evidently, this was not an unusual occurrence. Indeed, I recall reading sections of books by Professor Adrian Goldsworthy where he makes mention of this “demonstration of strength,” this apparent attempt at intimidation. Given the fact that there is a time constraint to the Battle Day event, I wonder if the various tabletops will even consider this pre-battle gamesmanship? If they do, then how will the bluffing be conducted? Referencing the excellent piece by Jim Webster again, he describes or suggests a kind of “paper deployment / bluffing” procedure that requires three people: the opposing generals and an umpire or controller. I do not think that this requirement will present a problem on the scheduled day of gathering to refight Ilipa on multiple tables with multiple sets of rules. This procedure does, however, present an interesting problem for the solo wargamer who might be interested in trying to stage a version of this battle. 

> How will the reported skirmishing be addressed?

I understand from reading the various accounts, that there was skirmishing a day or two before the main engagement as well as fairly prolonged skirmishing on the actual day of battle. Will this fighting be played out on the various tabletops, or will it be addressed by a series of dice rolls, card draws, or civil arguments, wherein one’s skill at debate is tested? I wonder, too, if some reconstructions will opt to set aside the skirmishing all together and focus their attention and energies on the clash of the main lines instead?

(As I look over what I’ve typed so far this morning, it appears that I am asking more questions in my responses than providing useful answers. Acknowledging that this amateur effort will come out - that is be posted - before the better presentation by Jeremy Giles, it seems safe to presume that he and his colleagues, especially the gentleman or gentlemen giving the Battle Day presentation, will provide more answers and guidance. Anyway.) 

> How will the fatigue and hunger of the Carthaginian formations be depicted?

The simplest way to replicate the reported hunger and fatigue of the Carthaginians is to assign a negative melee and perhaps even morale modifier to all of their units and formations, from cavalry to elephants and all in between. However, this penalty may not be enforced if the Carthaginian player-generals decide that they do not want to wait around for six or seven hours before moving their miniature models forward and engaging the hated Romans and their Spanish “allies.” 

> Will provisions be made for the complex movements completed by the Romans? 

On reflection, I find myself of two minds or perhaps three on this question and topic. First, I wonder if it is absolutely necessary to model the wheeling and marching and then wheeling again movement reportedly conducted by the left and right wings of Scipio’s army. If this is attempted, should there also be an allowance made for the Carthaginian commanders to interrupt or attempt to interfere with this series of maneuvers? How disordered might the Romans become if or when their “fancy marching” is interrupted by an advancing enemy line or lines? Second, like many of the other contests selected for Battle Day reconstructions, is not the emphasis to be placed on the engagement of the two main lines of battle? Is there not something to be said for setting down the miniatures after all the “fancy marching” and letting the dice (i.e., dice gods) and ability of the various player-generals decide? Turning to the inestimable Featherstone again, on page 11 of the aforementioned text, he explains that a historical refight can be staged as “an historical exercise.” This would be the equivalent of or very much like a demonstration game, wherein the accepted and studied source material is translated into miniature action on a colorful tabletop. The gentleman notes, however, that “an historical exercise is not a wargame.” He continues, offering:

Another method is to follow the original course of events reasonably well, but 

allow some leeway, without too much imaginative stretch, for a reversed result. 

Too many liberties may not be taken, however, or, as we have said, the battle will 

become a wargame played for its own sake, lacking any precision.

Even though I have never had the privilege or pleasure of attending a Battle Day, it seems to me that each and every refight presented is carefully done, so the “lack of precision” comment might be judged as unfair or unwarranted. I am not a scholar of Battle Day, but it seems to me that part of the fun is getting a chance to rewrite history or perhaps even experiment with a different interpretation. I recall reports of The Hydaspes wherein Alexander was defeated, and the miniature Indian line of battle stretched for an impressive length across the model battlefield. I recall a report of Chalons wherein the Roman forces were placed on the right of the Roman-led alliance instead of situated on the left. Anyhow, this second method appears to present a potentially difficult needle to thread, if I may use the expression. How much “imaginative stretch” is too much? Could a Carthaginian commander choose to move his center forward and take on the enemy Spanish troops? Would such a move result in the Romans peeling off units from their wings in order to support their center or take the Carthaginian center from the flank? What would happen, what would other attendees think if one tabletop allowed its assembled player-generals to deploy their miniature formations as they desired? The numbers of troops and terrain would still meet the Featherstone “requirements.”  

> Will weather be a factor? 

A “study” of the various source materials informs that a sudden rainstorm occurred after the battle had been decided but before the Romans could successfully secure the enemy camp. I wonder if weather will play a part in any of the planned reconstructions. 

Will some refights allow for a shift in the weather? What would be the effect on the course of the contest if the rainstorm starts earlier in the day? Accepting that inclement weather should produce penalties in terms of movement, missile fire, melee, and possibly on morale, to what degree should this happen? 

_______________________________

Moving on to closing comments and remarks, I should like to begin by reiterating the degree of irony or the unusual approach taken in terms of Battle Day Ilipa. I have done a fair amount of research, with the admitted and notable exception of not completing a close reading or readings of the existing ancient source material and annotating same. I have looked at other interpretations and treatments, and consulted a variety of modern sources. Early on, however, the decision was made not to participate, not to stage a solo version of the selected historical engagement. Even after the passage of a number of months and after conducting this amateur study of the battle and how it could be wargamed, that initial decision remains unchanged. 

Related to this decision, research, and again, perceived irony, I think it important to communicate that by this post about Ilipa I am not trying to “steal anyone’s thunder” or “step on anyone’s toes.” Indeed, given the traffic that this blog has been able to generate, I do not think this post - this “Ilipa inquiry” - will pose a problem, create difficulties, or even “ruffle feathers.” (Sidebar or random thought: It occurs to me that in some ways, this blog is the negative proof of The Field of Dreams “rule.” The oft quoted line from that piece of cinematic history is: “If you build it, they will come.” It is most effective if delivered as a kind of ghostly whisper. Adapting that line to this ongoing effort, I would suggest that, “If I post it, they won’t read,” applies. Then again, this perception does not completely hold up when the numbers are reviewed.)   

In looking over my history with respect to the history of the Battle Day event, I see or note that I have been very consistent with respect to my record of attendance. I have been present at zero of the Battle Days. For the record, I do not believe that I became aware of this annual gathering until approximately 2013, when my official membership began. Over the course of the past 10 years, however, I have made some progress with respect to participation. Reviewing the complete list of Battle Days (from 2004 to the present), it appears that I have staged solo refights, in one manner or another, of 10 of the historical battles selected for this honor. A more careful survey informs that I have, on occasion and not necessarily matching the date of the particular Battle Day event, conducted mini-Battle Days wherein I have staged a few versions of the contest using different sets of rules. I think it would be fair to remark that over the course of my awareness of this annual event and involvement (albeit from a great distance), I have played and reported on approximately 20 wargames. The following is a “work in progress and needs to be double-checked” list of my Battle Day record: 

The Sambre

Cynoscephalae

Callinicum

Zama (at least 3 times or versions)

Chalons (2, maybe 3)

The Hydaspes

Pharsalus

Paraetacene (pieces of)

Telamon (maybe 3 times)

Bosworth (2 times, perhaps 3)

Second Mantinea (3 times)

Simple addition informs that I have “participated” in 11 out of the soon to be a total of 20 Battle Day events. Simple division informs that this represents an average of 55 percent. In the context of The Society of Ancients signature event, I think that most will agree that this represents an average level of performance that could stand to be much improved. In other situations, a success rate of 55 percent would be catastrophic if not criminal. Here, I am thinking of road and bridge construction, food safety, and the practice of medicine, to name just three. If, however, I make the context major league baseball, specifically my performance when facing an opposing pitcher, then getting a hit or getting on base 55 percent of the time would guarantee me numerous awards, numerous endorsements, a commensurate if not outrageous salary, as well as a place or places in the record book. (Not being very athletic or that interested in most professional sports, the percentage is better indicated as .550.) 

Battle Day 2024 is about two months from now, and interested parties will have to wait a little longer to see how well it went. Unless, of course, an attendee or two manage to make a video of their experience and share it with the ancient wargaming community. Aside from the time and attention required for this post, I have already set my sights on Battle Day 2025. I anxiously await the announcement of the ancient or medieval battle that is chosen. Admittedly, this anticipation is quite premature. That said, I sincerely hope that I will be able to improve my overall percentage, if only by a little. (According to my calculations, I would be “batting” 57 percent, or .570.) If this future Battle Day does not inspire, if my reaction is another shoulder shrug (there is that old saying: “you can’t please all of the ancient wargamers all of the time”), then I suppose I can always go back to thinking about and working on elephants.