OH ME, OH MY! SO MANY ALEMANNI!

In the third paragraph of his excellent article on Agrentoratum, the late Patrick Waterson explained and concluded:

In AD 357, the Roman armies in Gaul were ordered to carry out a two-pronged    

        attack on a growing concentration of Alemanni under their charismatic chief 

        Chnodomar. The main prong, some 25,000-30,000 soldiers under Master of the 

        Infantry (magister militum) Barbatio, would approach from the south, while a 

        subsidiary force of 13,000 under the Caesar Julian would close from the west. 

        With approximately 40,000 Romans against an army of perhaps 60,000             

        Alemanni, the outcome would not be in doubt. [1]

In the next paragraph, Patrick described the apparent jealousy, mistrust, or simple lack of communication between the Roman commanders and then reported on the evident incompetency of or plain bad luck experienced by Barbatio, which resulted in a fairly severe reversal. This initial victory, engineered by the charismatic and either lucky or tactically skilled (or a bit of both) Chnodomar, gave me pause and made me wonder if the aforementioned outcome would have been, in fact, a given. Interested in finding out how this contest that never took place might have turned out, I decided to stage it—or my perceived version of it, in my usual non-traditional manner, on a tabletop. I surveyed my small library of rulebooks to see which one might best fit the project in development. After giving due consideration to several other sets, I chose L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG. 

Orders of Battle

In his article, Patrick provides a wargamer-friendly ‘force structure’ table for the small Roman force under the command of Julian. This army is broken down into a variety of cavalry formations, legionaries, auxiliary units and, intriguingly, a fairly large number of carroballistae. Using this table as a foundation, I tripled the number of Romans reportedly present on that fateful day in late summer of 357 AD and then referred to the Late Imperial Roman army list (Number 86), found on pages 127-128 in the ADLG rulebook. 

Using the suggested scale of one unit of heavy (or battle line) infantry represents 500 men, I needed to fabricate or prepare 24 units of auxiliary infantry to model the estimated 12,000 auxiliaries that would be present on my fictional battlefield. Four of these units would be archers (light-medium infantry or LMI per the troop type definitions provided on page 13). Six units would be classed as Auxilia Pseudocomitatenses, which are mediocre medium swordsmen. The remaining 14 units would be Auxilia Palatina. These bases or stands would be medium swordsmen with impact. Four of these formations would have missile support, meaning that they would have archers integrated into their rear ranks. In the historical battle of Argentoratum (also called Strasbourg), the Batavii and Reges auxiliary units consisted of hardened veterans, so these formations, these two units, were upgraded to elite. 

For this counterfactual engagement, I built 52 stands of legionaries. These units would represent around 26,000 heavy infantry. Checking this section of the army list on page 127, I decided to create 13 stands of heavy swordsmen, 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with impact, 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with impact and armour (or armor), and 13 stands of heavy swordsmen with missile support. Six stands of heavy swordsmen with impact would be classed as elite troops, while six stands of heavy swordsmen with impact and armour would also be rated as elite troops. 

To complete the infantry contingent of this estimated force, I prepared 9 stands of light infantry. These were evenly divided into skirmishers carrying slings, bows, or javelins. In a nod to Patrick’s argument or conclusion about the presence of Roman field artillery, I built 10 stands of light artillery and 10 more stands of medium artillery. 

The representative unit scale for cavalry formations is one-fourth the number established for foot. Starting with the lighter horse, I made 8 stands of Equites Illyricani (light cavalry with javelins) and then 12 stands of Equites Sagittarii (light cavalry with bows). Twelve units of Cataphract cavalry were fabricated; two of these units were upgraded to elite status. An impressive total of 19 units of Equites (heavy cavalry) were built. Nine more of this type were fashioned, but these were classed as heavy cavalry with impact. Three of these units were upgraded to elite troops. 

By my count, always subject to correction of course, there were a total of 153 units in this Roman army. These various formations added up to approximately 1,369 points. The infantry units accounted for 847 of these points, while the horse accounted for 522. A typical friendly or competitive game of ADLG features opposing armies valued at 200 points each and divided into three distinct commands or corps: a left “wing,” a center, and a right “wing.” The imagined Roman force for this fictional contest, then, was the equivalent of about seven traditional ADLG armies. Obviously, there would be more than just three Roman commands or corps on my table. Turning my attention to the other side of this pretend field of battle, I started by considering the cavalry contingent of the Alemanni host led by Chnodomar. 

Studying the Franks, Alemanni, Burgundi, Suevi army list (Number 96) on page 133 of the rulebook, and deciding to triple the barbarian mounted elements indicated by Patrick, I crafted 72 stands of cavalry for the planned engagement. Forty-eight of these stands or units were categorized as medium cavalry; the rest were classed as heavy cavalry. Eight units of the heavy cavalry were upgraded to elite. 

Feeling somewhat constrained by the provided army list, especially after reading Patrick’s article a number of times and consulting the narrative provided by Ammianus, I decided to add a couple of categories for the barbarian infantry. In addition to the impetuous heavy swordsmen, I would create an impetuous medium swordsmen as well as a medium swordsmen with impact and a mediocre swordsmen with impact categories. Satisfied with this adjustment, I proceeded to build 35 units of impetuous heavy swordsmen, 25 units of impetuous medium swordsmen, 15 units of medium swordsmen with impact, and 15 units of mediocre medium swordsmen with impact. To represent the elite warriors, the globus under the direct command, apparently, of Chnodomar, I prepared 12 units of elite impetuous heavy swordsmen. Two dozen stands of light infantry or skirmishers were prepared as well. One-third of these young men were carrying bows; the rest carried three or four javelins each.  

A few quick calculations informed that Chnodomar, along with his subordinate kings and chieftains, would lead very close to 200 units into battle against the “swarthy little men from the south.” [2] In terms of total points, the Alemanni would field 568 points of cavalry and 881 points of infantry or warriors. Added together, this gave the barbarians a slight numerical advantage of 80 points (1,449 versus 1,369) over Julian and his better trained as well as veteran force. 

Terrain

Drawing inspiration from a battle report found in an “ancient” (October of 1990) issue of Miniature Wargames (“A Return to Ancients,” by Chris Tofalos, saw 4,000 points worth of Galatians and Republican Romans have at it on a 7 feet by 3 feet tabletop using WRG 7th), I decorated my 10.5 feet by 3.75 feet playing surface with more than just several patches of woods. However, I did not go “terrain feature crazy” and place a variety of marshes, steep hills, plantations, villages or villas, gullies, as well as the odd lake or swiftly flowing river. In broad overview, the intent was to create something colorful, if not exactly aesthetically impressive or stunning like those miniature displays offered by Simon MacDowall, Simon Miller, James Roach, and Rick Priestley, just to name several personalities (or celebrities, or leaders) in the world of historical miniature wargaming. I also wanted to create something “clean” and fairly linear, replicating, to the extent that I could with the meager resources available, the open ground whereupon the opposing lines of heavy infantry and warriors would clash. After experimenting over the Memorial Day weekend with a few set ups, I decided that my field would include the following: a villa along with a couple of plantations; three gentle hills and one steep hill; three wooded areas; three patches of brush or scrub, and just for sake of additional color and interest, a small stream. (The incorporation of a villa, a built-up-area, was inspired by the “Barbarians at the Gates 500 AD” narrative provided in the Hail Caesar rules. I also recall seeing something similar in a post read on Dr. Paul Innes’ blog, caliban-somewhen.blogspot, but a 20 minute search early one morning in June turned up no exact match, unfortunately. If memory serves, this battle involved Romans and barbarians. Gauls, I think.) As I had made adjustments to the dimensions of the various units, it followed that I would tinker, just a little, with the stated limits for the sizes of terrain elements or features. Generally speaking, I decided that my functional terrain pieces would have to fit within a template measuring 8 inches by 12 inches. The finished table, while certainly not an award winner at any show (unless they give out prizes for the most basic and inexpensive terrain), looked pretty good. Of course, that assessment is subjective. This version of the battlefield certainly came together. It did not disappoint or frustrate. In the spirit of full disclosure, a small area of marsh was added to a corner of the tabletop. This feature seemed to pair naturally with the stream.  

Deployments

Rather than follow the procedure detailed in the “Sequence of deployment” section (page 71 of the ADLG rulebook) or draft some other process whereby die rolls determined what units and commands go where, I simply operated under the assumption that there would be a large cavalry battle on one flank of the field, and that an infantry contest would dominate the center. As for the other flank, well, that would be paid some attention, but it would not be the focus of either commander, really. 

With respect to the Roman arrangement, the Equites were massed on the right wing. These heavy horse were partially screened by some Sagittarii and Illyricani. The Cataphracts were positioned on the inside of this wing, next to the infantry center. These very heavy cavalry did not have the most open terrain to their front (to their left front, there was a villa and some planted fields; to their front there was a patch of woods), but they were deployed on a gentle hill and were under the watchful eye of Julian, the overall commander of the Roman army. The strength of the Roman position was its center. Here, there were three lines of legionaries. The first line was supported by 10 “batteries” of medium artillery. This first line was also screened by a smattering of skirmishers armed with bows, javelins, or slings. Auxiliary infantry, along with light artillery and some additional light cavalry was assigned to the left wing of the Roman position. Unlike the heavier legionaries, the auxiliary infantry was drawn up in two lines. (Note: Prior to making final decisions on the deployment of the Roman forces, I re-read the relevant pages (131-139) of The Roman Army at War 100 BC — AD 200, written by Professor Goldsworthy.)

Shifting perspectives so that I was looking from the other side of this fictional field of battle, there was an impressive and frightening mass of cavalry on the barbarian left. No fewer than four lines of cavalry, a mixture of medium, heavy, as well as some elite squadrons waited for orders to move forward and launch an all-out attack on the Roman troopers. Five large warbands occupied the center of the barbarian position. King Chnodomar was on a gentle hill behind this line, standing with his fierce, veteran, and elite globus of warriors. This collection of colorful and hairy warbands was screened by a number of skirmishers, most of whom carried three to four light javelins. A smaller number of warbands—and lighter in weight as well—were stationed on the right. These “lesser” warriors were also screened by skirmishers, though not as many as the central command. The right wing of the barbarian alliance was reinforced by a handful of medium and heavy cavalry, Chnodomar figuring that it might be wise to deploy at least a few mounted troops in this sector. 

How it Played

The first turn was all command rolls and movement, as the opposing lines had been deployed approximately three light cavalry moves apart. The barbarians had some excellent rolls, though, and both cavalry and foot were making a good pace towards the Romans. Bragging rights for drawing first blood went to the Roman light horse on their far left flank. As they were facing heavier enemy cavalry and had just annoyed them, the Sagittarii wheeled about and tried to put as much distance between the two lines as they could. The barbarian warbands made good progress in this sector, even if they had to negotiate a stream and gentle hill on the other side. However, they also had to contend with some auxiliary foot and neighboring archers. These Roman troops slowed their advance quite a little bit. The Roman light artillery was soon busy and seemed to be effective (or lucky) against the boiling mass of warriors. 

In the center of the field, things were relatively quiet (except for the breathing of the thousands of warriors as they slowly jogged forward) and rather impressive, as their lines rolled forward like a multicolored, variously armed, and perhaps irresistible wave. Waiting for them was a Roman wall, bristling with about 100 cart-mounted ballistae. 

The cavalry contest over on the Roman right flank developed rather quickly, as both sides were eager to come to grips. The Roman light horse dashed in and let loose a volley of arrows and javelins, but these missiles had no noticeable impact. Like their counterparts of the other flank, these troopers wheeled around and left the main affair to the heavier cavalry formations. While the Alemanni had the numbers, they did not, at least in this opening round, have the luck or the comparable weight. By the end of Game Turn 3, the barbarian cavalry was down 7 units versus the loss of just 1 unit of Equites for the Romans. The melee was a messy and costly contest, however. The Romans had 5 units near their breaking points. Both sides did have reserves waiting to get stuck in. The Alemanni hoped that their luck would change. 

By the end of Game Turn 6, the Romans had moved some of their cavalry reserve into the swirling melees taking place on their right wing. The supply of Alemanni horse seemed endless. The Roman Equites would engage them, whittle them down or in some cases defeat them quickly, but a new squadron would appear to take the place of the routed and ruined one. A brief survey and counting informed that the barbarian commander on this flank had around 20 fresh units of cavalry to contribute where they might be needed. Though an impressive and imposing number, this proven leader was finding it sometimes difficult to make his advantage in men and horses work to King Chnodomar’s benefit. The space for fighting the Romans was somewhat limited. That same space was becoming rather littered with the detritus of a chaotic battle between the opposing mounted units of each side. 

Sensing possible trouble, Julian ordered the commander of the Cataphracts to commit his men to the fight. Part of the “division” took on some barbarian cavalry; the other half of the very heavy horsemen moved forward to engage some impetuous (as well as foolhardy) warriors on foot. The cavalry melees were won by the Cataphracts, though at the cost of a squadron. The contest with the warbands was much easier; the Cataphracts literally ran over the hapless warriors. 

In the center of the field, the advancing line of warriors finally came within range of the carroballistae “batteries.” Unfortunately and to the concern of the waiting and somewhat nervous or tense legionaries, the crews of these large-missile-flinging machines did little to the advancing wall of warbands. 

The effectiveness of the scorpions over on the Roman left flank was better and so, appreciated by the accompanying auxiliary infantry formations. Severus, the commander in this sector, was being pressured at a few points, however. His cavalry contingent had given ground after loosing a few volleys of arrows that failed to find their targets. In fact, the Roman light cavalry were rapidly running out of room in which they could operate. A fair number of warbands had made contact with the line of auxiliaries and light artillery. The fighting had been savage, and there were losses on both sides. To the far right of where Severus was trying to set up a defensive position against an expected enemy cavalry attack, a group of warriors had found and exploited a weakness in the Roman line. There was a distinct possibility that Severus and his men would be cut off from the main Roman formation. Indeed, there was a chance that the Romans might find themselves in a three-sided box on this side of the field. 

A calculation of the casualties on both sides showed that the Romans were making the Alemanni pay, and rather dearly. Thus far, the Romans had lost 18 units and had 15 disordered. In pretty stark contrast, the barbarians had lost 38 units and currently had 20 more disordered on the blood-soaked field. 

As might be imagined, expected, or even wondered why it took so long, after three more turns of hard fighting, a general sense of exhaustion began to develop across the length and breadth of the field. Over on the Roman left wing, Severus was preparing for a last stand. The friendly light cavalry in this sector had decided that discretion was the better part of valor and had fled the field without loosing any more arrows or even hurling any javelins. (In fact, the Illyricani, after considering their options and chances, had simply followed the Sagittarii off the table.) In terms of numbers, Severus had 5 units of auxiliaries that he could cobble together, but they were outnumbered 2 to 1 by enemy warriors and a further 2 to 1 by enemy cavalry. The 

Roman left was being forced into a growing-smaller-by-the-minute three-sided box. Over on the opposite flank, it was a veritable slaughterhouse. Men, horses, and other items produced by dozens of swirling melees littered the field as far as one could see. While the Romans were not being boxed in, there were certainly being worn down. The barbarians had the numbers. The reserve of Alemanni horsemen was three-times the size of the Roman reserve. The fighting had been fierce as well as back and forth. A portion of the Cataphracts had done well, but it had cost them, especially against fresh units of the elite enemy noble heavy cavalry. It was only in the center of the field where the Romans could claim any kind of advantage or success. 

The various and numerous warbands of Alemanni had finally crashed into the waiting line of Roman heavy infantry. All the way in, the carroballistae had let fly with “spears as tall as a man.” While not devastating, the effects of the cart-mounted “batteries” did have an impact, did weaken certain warbands so that the legionaries simply had to clean up what was left. After a couple of rounds of melee, the first line of Chnodomar’s massed warbands looked rather ragged. There were gaps in the line and units were almost at their breaking point. In rather sharp contrast, the Roman line was in good condition. There were also plenty of reserves at hand; 24 fresh units of heavy infantry, some classed as elite troops, stood waiting for their turn to enter the fray. The only reserve Chnodomar could call on was his globus.  

After approximately 10 turns of play, a halt was called so that a survey of the general situation could be made, so that an accounting of the losses suffered by each side could be completed.

The Alemanni had 37 units in disorder. In addition, three of their subordinate leaders had been killed. They had lost 64 units in close combat or to the combined effects of missile fire and melee. Added together, these losses represented 84 percent of their established army breakpoint. If the destroyed or routed units were the only ones counted, then the barbarians were at 64 percent, well more than half way to their tipping point. Applying the same sums to the Roman side of the tabletop, their 43 destroyed or routed units represented 56 percent of their determined army breaking point. If the disordered units (of which there were 17), leaders killed or captured (four for a total value of six points), and units that fled the battle (all 12 troops of light cavalry on the Roman left) were added to this figure, then the Romans were at 79 percent. 

It appeared quite evident that an argument could be made for a bloody draw. According to one count, the Romans had an 8 point advantage. In another count, the Roman advantage narrowed to just 5 points. From the perspective of position or positions, the barbarians had essentially won on their right flank and were in the process of winning on their left. However, given that these local victories might take a few more turns, it seemed quite apparent that the Alemanni would be forced back if not annihilated in the center. Based on these calculations and looking over the current state of the field, a bloody draw was declared, with perhaps, a very slight edge to the Romans.

Evaluation

While this counterfactual was just one game staged by a solo wargamer with an interest in the ancient and medieval as well as early Renaissance periods of military history, it appears that the costly “victory” won by the Romans refutes or at least casts a rather large shadow of doubt on the late gentleman’s contention that the outcome of a meeting between 40,000 Romans and 60,000 barbarians would never be in doubt.  

To be certain, to reiterate, I owe a large debt of thanks to Patrick for providing the inspiration which turned into an idea, which developed into a project. This solo wargame was engaging and entertaining. However, I think that if I attempt something of this unusual size in the future, I will be sure to raise the height of the tabletop (all that leaning over resulted in a sore lower back!), and I might seriously consider enlisting some friends or colleagues, as moving and fighting with approximately 350 separate units presents an almost Herculean task for an individual historical wargamer. [3] 

As the “miniature” battle progressed, I found myself wondering (as I am sure the majority of wargamers do) about certain aspects of the rules as well as about my own bias. For example or for instance, the cavalry contest on the Roman right seemed to take a very long time. Granted, there were a large number of horses and riders present, but still. I often caught myself thinking about the fatigue markers and exhaustion rules that I made use of in Armati wargames. In a similar manner, I often thought about the rout path for broken units and how it is longer than the rout path defined in ADLG. A third issue or point which slightly diminished my level of satisfaction in the recently concluded contest was that of tied melees. In Armati games, drawn melees normally produce casualties (and fatigue) for both sides engaged. In ADLG, nothing happens but a continuation of the fighting in the next melee round. 

Upon reflection, it appears that I missed an excellent opportunity to address army morale before the first command rolls were made. I should have designated or determined a demoralization level for each sector on each side of the field. I refer again to the swirling cavalry contest. The Alemanni troopers suffered significantly, yet they kept on fighting, kept on moving into contact with the next group of Romans. Had I established distinct morale levels for the left, center, and right of each army, I think there might have been a clear winner, and I think it would have been the Alemanni. Why? Well, the same sector morale rules would apply to the Roman formations. While the barbarians did lose a lot of cavalry, the Romans also suffered significant casualties. In what turned out to be a battle of attrition, the Romans would have, I suggest, reached their breaking point on the right and left before the Alemanni reached theirs. 

Upon further reflection and review, there were most certainly mistakes made. These errors would have been both tactical faux pas as well as rule interpretation “oopsies.” As the barbarian commander, I was not subtle at all in my battle plans. I simply moved forward and charged the moment I could. I wanted to use my weight in numbers to push the Romans off the field. This turned out to be, as related above, an expensive idea. In the role of Julian, I suppose I could be faulted for my deployment. Perhaps I should have reinforced both wings with some legionaries? Perhaps I should have placed at least a small group of heavy cavalry on my left flank? As Julian, I can also be taken to task for almost always responding to moves and attacks made by the warriors of King Chnodomar. While these various mistakes did not turn the tide of the battle one way or another and did not detract from the overall experience, I am quite certain that I will be thinking about them for the next couple of weeks or even months. Reason enough to start drawing up plans for another big battle.

Notes

1. Please see “Argentoratum, AD 357,” on pages 27-36, in the November/December 2018 issue of Slingshot, The Journal for the Society of Ancients. Tragically, Patrick Waterson passed away in January of 2020. At the risk of embellishing or overstating, in my estimation, he was a pillar in The Society of Ancients. He was also an encyclopedic force to be reckoned with in its electronic forums as well as in the Guardroom pages of its signature and long-running publication. The Editorial of the March/April 2020 issue of Slingshot was, in essence, an obituary, though one formatted for members of The Society than for members of the larger wargaming community. In the July/August 2020 issue of Slingshot, Professor Phil Sabin offered a memorial to Patrick titled “Honour and Loss.”
2. In a narrative titled “The Battle of the Mandubian Hills,” an engaging report found in Wargames Tactics, Charles Grant (yes, that Charles Grant) employs this descriptive, and by today’s standards, impolitic and likely viewed as culturally insensitive, phrase. 
3. I wonder if this counterfactual might qualify as the largest game of ADLG played to date? Perhaps I should check with PHGamer? (He posts frequently to TMP about his adventures and exploits with ADLG.) I suppose I could also send an email to Tim over at Madaxeman.com. Update: Both gentlemen were kind enough to respond with remarks and thoughts. I am still on the trail of the elusive “big ADLG battle.” The maximum number on points cited by these two veterans was 400 points. On a related note, both were generally pleased with the changes made in Edition 4 of the rules. I strongly doubt, however, if I will spend the money to make the purchase of another new and shiny rulebook. Seems to me that a “rulebook mountain” can sometimes compete with the often mentioned “lead mountain.” 

DOUBLE DUTY WITH ARMATI 2ND EDITION

Drawing inspiration from the excellent Glasgow Armati Battle Reports which were published in the May-June 2015 issue of Slingshot, I thought I would try to imitate the entertaining as well as opposing point-of-view narratives provided by Mark Grindlay and John Bradley. Instead of deploying armies representing Late Macedonians and Republican Romans on my table top, I would employ groups of Galatians and formations under the command of Pyrrhus of Epirus. Instead of using small or regular-sized armies, I would assemble larger forces, doubling the core units and doubling the number of points allowed for the selection of bonus units. My “miniature” army of Galatians, then, would contain a minimum of 10 units of WB (Warband - Heavy Infantry). My “miniature” army of Galatians could have as many as 16 more units of WB, for an impressive and intimidating total of 26 units of hard-hitting and impetuous warbands, each with a movement rate of 6 inches and a unit breakpoint value of 4. My “miniature” Pyrrhic army would contain a core force of 6 units of PH (Phalanx - Heavy Infantry), 4 units of LI (Light Infantry - Peltasts), 2 units of SI (Skirmisher Infantry), and 2 units of HC (Heavy Cavalry). The PH units in this original force would consist of two units with a frontal fighting strength/value of 8 and 4 units with a frontal fighting strength of 7. Under one option, the bonus points for my Pyrrhic army could be spent on 20 additional units of PH. These orderly formations would consist of units having a frontal fighting value of 8, Tarantine phalanxes with a frontal fighting value of 6, and Allied formations armed with spears that also had a frontal fighting value of 6. Instead of using the core and bonus terrain features or pieces provided in each army list, I decided to stage this imaginary scenario on historical ground. Half a dozen ancient battlefields were selected from the pages of Warfare in the Classical World and previous issues of this august publication. [1] Each ancient battlefield was assigned a number and then I rolled a d6. The result gave me my terrain for this fictional and what I hoped would prove to be fun contest. I addressed the problem of not having a readily available and challenging wargaming opponent by drafting six basic battle plans for each army. Once this enjoyable task was finished, I rolled a d6 for the Galatians and then another d6 for the Pyrrhic army. The results of these separate die rolls determined how each force would deploy for the planned engagement. Map 1 shows how my table top looked prior to the first turn being played. The combined narratives offered by Mark Grindlay and John Bradley provided a “you are here” or “you were there” experience as well as a peak into the minds of experienced if not expert wargamers. In the report that follows, I am going to imitate this engaging format (or try to do so). It would be rather silly, however, to keep retyping my name as I first assume the role of the veteran Pyrrhic army general and then switch to the perspective of the (I would imagine) fierce-looking, well-muscled, and quite possibly tattooed Galatian commander. Therefore, I will simply start each descriptive paragraph with either the bracketed identifier [Pyrrhic General] or [Galatian Commander]. 

The Opposing Plans

[Pyrrhic General] I could not ask for better terrain for the various types of troops under my command. I have a shallow river and some marshy ground on my left flank, and there is a long, low hill running parallel to my right. The vast majority of the ground is flat and open, excellent terrain for my phalanx and heavy horse. After due consideration, I post my light cavalry [1] and some peltasts [2] on my left. I arrange my phalanx in five corps or divisions. Starting on the left wing, I “stair-step” the allied contingents [3, 4] and then the Tarantine infantry [5, 6]. My regular troops are posted on the right, in the traditional position of honour [8]. Several units of heavy cavalry [9] hold the far right, next to the long, low hill. To their rear are my veteran pikemen [10]. Assuming the role of Pyrrhus, I place myself next to the veteran heavy horse [11]. As for the nellies [7], well, I hold them in reserve, behind the Tarantine phalanx. It is my hope that the weight of these animals lends some confidence to the suspect Tarantine foot. My general plan? Well, I will attack on my right, hoping to pierce and then turn his line. The rest of the phalanx will fight a holding action, and my left wing will harass and delay his right wing. 

[Galatian Commander] The landscape does not favour me, save for my chariots and cavalry having no features to block or impede them, so it looks like I will have to launch an all-out attack and overwhelm my more civilized opponent. To that end, I place all of my cavalry [A - light; B & C - heavy] on my right flank, next to the river. My chariots [H, I] are assigned to the left flank. The half-dozen units of Gaesati [E] are arranged in front of my rather orderly line of heavy and slower warbands [D, F, and G]. The Gaesati form a “throwaway” or “forlorn hope” formation if you will, with which I plan to wound and tire out enemy troops. My second line of warriors will then charge. While I expect the fighting to be bloody and difficult, I trust that the impetuousness and savagery of my warbands will carry the day. As king of the collected tribes, I take up a position behind the centre of my line, attached to a unit of veteran warband. My subordinate is given command of the cavalry wing. 

The Reveal

[Pyrrhic General] Oh my . . . There are so many warbands. Even so, I have a level of confidence that my phalanxes will be able to hold against the surging waves of bellowing and or screaming warriors.  I am a bit worried about my left wing, as I see that I am facing all the Galatian horse in this sector. I will probably have to send the elephants in that direction, though perhaps my peltasts and a portion of my allied contingent can hold. Then again, I may need the elephants to bolster the Tarantine foot in the centre. Oh dear . . . My plan to attack on my right and roll up the enemy line looks problematic. My horse has to break through a fair number of chariots and then engage the enemy foot. It will be a contest of quality versus numbers. It will also be a contest of who throws better dice.

[Galatian Commander] Though my heavy horse are a bit constrained by the nature of the ground on my right flank, I believe I have an advantage here over my opponent. I need to respect his peltasts, however. My general plan to rush forward and overwhelm seems like it might work, as my Gaesati warriors find themselves opposite the Tarantines - not the most capable troops on the enemy’s roster. The challenge will be on my left, I think, where my chariots and warbands face better quality cavalry and better quality heavy infantry. I hope to exert enough pressure all across the line so that he cannot decide where to commit his elephants. I do not believe my warriors will do well if they have to deal with those four-legged and armed-with-ivory-tusks creatures. 

The Battle

[Pyrrhic General] I win the move option for the first turn of this fictional dance and order my formations forward. I expect that there will be contact on my right wing next turn, as his chariots would not dare wheel about and withdraw against my heavy horse. There will probably be action on my left as well, though my light cavalry (Tarantines) will not fare well versus the heavy cavalry of the enemy. The clash of opposing lines of foot is still a few turns in the future. [2] I need to decide where to commit my elephants. 

[Galatian Commander] A series of notes blasted on horns made of animal bone signals my army to advance - or at least I imagine so. The orderly advance of my warriors is rather impressive. My chariots will be engaged by next turn, and I think a portion of my heavy horse on my right will be involved in melee as well. It is a fairly even match on my left; I should win the right without suffering too many losses. I need to turn his right and fold up his phalanxes before he can get his pike-wielding heavy infantry into contact with my variously-armed warriors. Then again, if the dice fall my way, I could punch a few holes in his phalanxes. 

[Pyrrhic General] Having secured the initiative for the second turn, I press forward with the various contingents of my phalanx and order the elephants to advance as well. A thin screen of peltasts in front of the Tarantine foot is now within javelin range of the oncoming Gaesati. Will Game Turn 3 see any impact by the volley of missiles? On my left, I debate moving forward with the Tarantine light horse. Better, I think, to let the Galatian cavalry come to me. Then again, I would certainly like to be able to withdraw my light horse through the peltasts. Over on my right flank, I dare his chariots to charge my horsemen. They oblige me and the ensuing melee produces even casualties. That wall of warriors is drawing closer. 

[Galatian Commander] Ideally, I should have placed my light cavalry forward on my right flank. Ah well, I will have to charge and scatter his light horse with my heavy troopers. The reserve formations of peltasts will be more of a problem, given that they can gang up on my cavalry. The staggered approach of the enemy main line has left my skirmishers, few that they are, without any targets again. Perhaps in another turn or two my light troops will be able to discharge some light javelins and other missiles? It’s crunch time on my left. His cavalry advanced to within spitting distance so I had no choice but to close into melee. I thought I had him on his back foot for a moment in one melee area, but then rolled an even worse combat die than he did. So far, the contest is even. 

[Galatian General] Finally, a win in the move option column for my army. After taking a couple of hits from Tarantine javelins over on my right wing, I charge my heavy cavalry into the thin line of light horse. For the most part, the melees go my way. A poor roll in the contest nearest to the marshy ground sees my already wounded troopers suffer more casualties. As this action unfolds, I move my light cavalry towards the centre of the field and then bring up my other division of heavy horse. In the centre of the plain, my Gaesati take a single hit from some javelins thrown by peltasts. I advance my entire host of warriors. The Gaesati close the gap against the peltasts, while I hold back a little on my left due to the ongoing melee. In this turn of fighting, my medium chariots do not do so very well. Half of my formation is on the verge of breaking, while only one-fourth of the enemy division is in danger of routing. 

[Pyrrhic Commander] I fully expect a heavy infantry clash in the centre of the field next turn, as my Tarantine phalanx is about to meet the Gaesati. I hope that my peltasts and skirmishers are able to pick off a few more of the fanatics before the proper melee commences. Over on my left wing, my light cavalry are selling themselves to wound and tire out the Galatian heavy horse. I am keeping the numerous peltasts in reserve and out of the rout path. The small contingent of allied hoplites is slowly making its way over to this sector. I do not believe that I will have to worry about being taken in the flank. The combat on my right wing is tilting in my favour. I fear that my heavy cavalry will be exhausted and in no condition or mood, really, to take on the waiting wall of warbands. In terms of infantry on this flank, I have him outmatched. The melee, when it begins, should go my way. I just need the Tarantines to hold in the centre of my line. 

[Pyrrhic General] The move option is mine once again. In the centre, I launch another javelin volley - this time using both my peltasts and skirmishers. The impact is not what I had hoped; only one enemy unit takes a hit. Wishing to retain the initiative, I pushed forward with my heavy infantry, dispersing my own light troops. I move forward on the right wing as well, as far as the ongoing melee will let me. With my reserve cavalry unit, I wheel and move further to the right, just in case things go sideways versus the chariots or the warbands. The elephants continue walking behind the Tarantine phalanx units. As expected, my light cavalry on the left wing crumbles before the heavier horse of my opponent. I score a hit however, and I do add another fatigue marker to each of his formations. He now has to deal with my peltasts and the reinforcing contingent of my allied phalanx. The centre is chaos. I should have halted my Tarantine infantry so that they could receive the charge of the Gaesati in a better formation and attitude. A series of rather poor die rolls sees half of my Tarantine formations evaporate when engaged by the screaming barbarians. This is not good. Fortunately, my command and control remains unaffected. Over on the right, I rout two of his chariot units. My cavalry formations are exhausted now, and the veritable wall of warbands is very close . . . too close, in fact. 

[Galatian Commander] What ho! My heavy troopers on my right wing have broken his Tarantine light horse. I have some reserves at hand, but believe it will be difficult to get rid of all those peltasts and hoplites. There is a chance that my light cavalry might annoy or even attack the other group of allied hoplites in the flank. I will have to see how this sector develops, however. In the centre, my groups of Gaesati have done stellar work. Fully half of the enemy phalanx has folded in the face of their fierce charge. Granted, I gave up some command and control points to split the assault, and a few of my warbands took hits from javelin volleys, but the combats with the heavy infantry went in my favour. If only I could pursue, punch through, and then turn on the more vulnerable flanks of various enemy formations. The success in the centre was countered by problems on my left. Half of my chariot division is no more. On the plus side, all of his cavalry are tired and my warbands are salivating at the prospect of charging into melee against these exhausted horsemen. (Please see Status of Field - End of Game Turn 4 Map.)  

[Galatian Commander] Even though I am down 4 to 2 in terms of command and control points, I manage to snatch the initiative from Pyrrhus and his subordinates. Pre-move and pre-melee volleys of javelins do not make much of an impact, though I do score some hits versus a section of allied hoplites deployed against my right, and I do survive a barrage of missiles from a large group of peltasts on my far right wing. I begin the close combat resolution on my left and am saddened to see yet another chariot unit bite the dust. Taking a positive view, his strong cavalry force is now somewhat depleted as well as exhausted. If and when I can advance my fresh warbands into these horsemen, well . . . In the centre of the plain, the Tarantine phalanx suddenly finds a bit of backbone and fights stubbornly against my Gaesati warriors. Over on the right, my light horse manages to catch a unit of allied heavy infantry in the flank. These troopers do some damage as well as stop the division in its tracks. Further to right, much blood is spilled as I sacrifice a portion of my heavy horse against a group of enemy peltasts. Half of the light-heavy infantry is bowled over by the impetus of my charge(s), but the survivors prove more than capable and defeat two of my weakened units of horse. Ouch! Fortunately, I do have a division of reserve heavy cavalry on hand. 

[Pyrrhic General] For now, my centre is holding. I have yet to commit the elephants. I think I need more space for them to be effective. My allied contingents should be okay on the left wing. I do not believe his heavy cavalry stands much of a chance in a frontal assault against a phalanx bristling with long spears. My peltasts are doing excellent work against his heavy troopers. Over on my right flank, I have moved up a division of proper pikemen. In the process, I dispersed a couple of units of pesky enemy skirmishers. I may get this phalanx into action by next turn as my counterpart seems to be waiting for the resolution of the contest between his chariots and my cavalry. Speaking of that combat, my cavalry has been bloodied and are exhausted, but I am on the verge of sweeping his chariots from the field. I am concerned, however, as to how my tired horsemen will fare against his fresh and fierce warbands. Thus far, the battle has been rather even. I have 9 key units left in my morale “bank”, the Galatians have 11 units left in theirs. I do have an advantage in command and control. Hopefully, I can use this to dictate the tempo of the rest of the battle. 

[Galatian Commander] I win the move option but find that my masses of warriors are prohibited from getting “stuck in” because of command and control issues. A number of ongoing melees block the various paths that these divisions of warbands might take. Frustrating! While my surviving chariot manages to tie the enemy horse and therefore, last another turn, my troops are on the losing end in other contests. For example, my light cavalry - the unit that attacked an allied hoplite formation in the flank - has suffered a reverse. Apparently, the heavy infantry did not like being pestered and harassed on their left side. Over on the right wing, I have lost another unit of heavy horsemen to the attention of two units of peltasts. And one of my fresh units of cavalry has lost its first round of melee versus a third unit of light-heavy infantry. 

[Pyrrhic General] On my right, I have advanced some pikemen closer to a rather large group of warbands. Next turn will see a melee commence. In this same sector, one of my cavalry units continues to struggle with some stubborn charioteers, while the other units take advantage of the lack of an opponent to rest and reorganize. In the centre, nothing of note really, except for holding off the Gaesati and slapping away some buzzing enemy light cavalry. My left wing enjoyed the most success, in that it broke another unit of Galatian heavy horse and inflicted losses on a fresh unit of the same type. I do believe I have the advantage in this part of the field.  

[Pyrrhic General] The initiative remains with me, but I voluntarily split a couple of formations that are in melee, thus potentially squandering my previous 4 to 2 advantage in command and control. It also appears that I have squandered half of my cavalry on my right wing. Having rested and reorganized, two of my weakened cavalry units attempted a charge against a wall of warbands. Hopes of breaking through were dashed as the barbarians made short work of one troop of heavy horse and then another. To add insult to injury, my phalanx advanced into contact and while the first combats went well, one of the units of pikemen in the middle of the larger formation collapsed in panic after being struck by a ferocious charge. The fact that I finally defeated the Galatian chariots in this sector offered little satisfaction. Over in the centre of the field, my Tarantine infantry and allied foot continue to battle against the Gaesati. My elephants remain in reserve. On my left, the enemy light cavalry is finally repulsed from its harassing attack on the flank of my one formation, and the surviving peltasts have followed up a javelin volley with a charge into some enemy heavy cavalry, much to the latter’s consternation. In sum, not a very good turn, as I find myself just 6 key units away from defeat. 

[Galatian Commander] The wall of warbands on my left has done rather well this turn. They have broken or routed no fewer than three enemy units. I may have a good fighting chance in this sector of the field. I just have to watch out for that one unit of enemy heavy horse that slipped around my extreme left flank. If these horsemen can wheel and line up for a charge or charges into my flank or rear, well, things will get interesting very quickly. Nothing remotely as dramatic on my right or along my centre. I still have not committed my main forces of warbands against what remains of his army. 

[Pyrrhic General] The move option is mine again, and once again, I choose to move first. Before I can though, I have to endure some missile volleys from his skirmishers on my left wing. Fortunately, the hail of light javelins miss. Unfortunately, I cannot make many moves, as I am stuck in melees all across the line. I do push a single heavy cavalry unit further into my enemy’s left rear. It will take a couple of turns, at least, to wheel these horsemen around so that I can fall on the warbands from behind. After measuring the distance, I elect to about face a damaged unit of heavy horse so that I can get them out of the way on this flank. Let my “elite” phalanx units deal with his bellowing warriors. On the other side of the field, my peltasts, even though tired, continue to frustrate and inflict damage upon opposing units of enemy cavalry.

[Galatian Commander] If only I could get my centre and right divisions of warbands into the actual fighting. Ongoing melees as well as command and control issues prevent me from making this happen. In melees on my right and left as well as in my centre, I take more casualties than I dole out. On my left wing, I advance part of a large division in an effort to catch some weakened enemy horse, but do not quite reach them. My counterpart has managed to get a unit of horse around my left flank, but it is just one unit and it has some ground to cover before becoming a worrying threat. Oh, how I wish I could throw in more of my warbands and overwhelm these invaders! (Please see Status of Field - End of Game Turn 8 Map.)

[Galatian Commander] Securing the move option, I push some warbands into contact on my left wing. Hopefully, they will do better than the chariots that started the battle in this sector. Over on the right, I push forward with another division of warriors, the screen of skirmishers having done absolutely nothing versus some enemy hoplites with a volley of javelins. I opt to start the fighting on my right and move across to my left. The dice do not favour me. No, not at all. I lose two heavy cavalry units on my right. One of these routs into a warband that was too close and well, these fierce warriors were caught up in the flight. In the centre of the field, two units of Gaesati finally give way to the Tarantine pikemen. More Galatian warriors fall dead or wounded on my left, as the pike phalanxes proved effective and stubborn. Suddenly, I find myself just three key units away from having a broken army. 

[Pyrrhic General] I think I will dedicate a monument to my peltasts. They have done really good work today against the enemy heavy horse. My Tarantine foot will also get a monument of some sort, though not as large and splendid as the one for my light-heavy infantry, for they are finally showing some mettle against the Gaesati tribesmen. If I can get my veteran heavy cavalry into melee the next turn, I just might be able to pull this off. There are four enemy units almost ready to rout. I have the advantage in fighting value against all of these formations. I just the need the dice to cooperate a little. 

[Galatian Commander] Though I secure the move option, there is little I can do to affect the eventual outcome. It is all up to the dice. Over on my right wing, the last of my heavy cavalry goes down against a combined attack by tired peltasts and fresh allied hoplites. In the centre, the other division of allied hoplites holds off wave after wave of barbarians, while a unit of wounded Tarantine pikemen finally succumb and break. My fierce Gaesati are charged by some elephants, but they survive the impact of these trumpeting animals. Things fall completely apart on my left. The enemy phalanx pushes its way through in several places, as warband after warband is defeated and routed. Further out on my left flank, the last key unit is lost. This collapse pushes my army past its morale tipping point. The field, to my chagrin and disappointment, belongs to Pyrrhus and his cronies.  

[Pyrrhic General] Well done boys! My peltasts, over on the left wing, really proved themselves today. With a bit of assistance from an allied contingent, these light-heavy infantry tore into and then tore apart a large force of enemy cavalry. They saved my army from potential disaster. My Tarantine phalanx traded men for time, allowing the better troops in my other phalanxes to get into the fight and punish the Galatians. On immediate reflection, I was lucky. Not only did the dice fall more in my favour, but the barbarian commander could not move all of his warriors into battle. Had he been able to do so, I think I would have been sorely pressed in all sectors of the field. In fact, I believe that I would have gone down in defeat. 

The Commentary

Save for adjusting the unit dimensions and using a particular ruler, the preceding scenario was played without any rule amendments or modifications, which is, I admit, rather out of character for me. Despite this lack of tinkering or tweaking, I thought the wargame was engaging as well as entertaining. I quite enjoyed playing against myself. Then again, this assessment might be the influence of the “split-personality” format. As to this particular approach, there were times when I worried about repeating myself, for if something was remarked upon by the Galatian commander, should the Pyrrhic general also offer a comment or his interpretation? 

The use of dice to determine the nature of the terrain as well as the deployment of each army was, in my opinion, a simple and effective (but by no means original) answer to a couple of the “problems” posed by being a solo wargamer. In reviewing the opposing battle plans, I could not help but note that each commander did not really carry out his stated strategy. As the Pyrrhic general, I failed to pierce the enemy’s line on my right. On the positive side, I managed to hold the line in all other parts of the field. As the Galatian commander, I failed to overwhelm the enemy. Perhaps my costliest mistake was to lead with my cavalry on my right wing. On reflection, I should have advanced my right division of warbands and scattered the peltasts. I could have followed up with my cavalry or perhaps attacked the flank of the enemy centre with my heavy horse. Of course, this is hindsight. The Galatians fought well; the dice were just not on their side.

Unlike recently completed wargames and wargame experiments, this scenario was fun if not strictly historical. (3) The size of the engagement was satisfactory, the rules were concise and simple, and again, the “new”, at least for me, narrative approach added an element of being embedded with each army instead of just reporting the action from an invisible as well as modern-day blimp floating a mile or so above the battlefield. Given all these positives, I find myself very tempted to try another scenario using another pair of armies. Then again, the arrival of the Tactica II rules in the post a few weeks ago has me wondering how this imaginary battle might play when using a different set of rules. 

 

Notes

1. The possible fields of battle were: Mantinea, Chaeronea, Pharsalus, Idistaviso, Argentoratum, and Chalons. The first five were from Warfare; Chalons would be based on the model battlefield offered in the issue of Slingshot containing the FOG report of Chalons from Battle Day 2013.  

2. For this solo scenario, I used the Intro Scheme ruler for 25 mm scale figures, provided on page 36 of the rulebook. I was not using 25 mm miniatures, however. Instead, and as usual, I was using coloured counters produced on my ancient MacBook. These two-dimensional counters were based on the 15 mm measurements given for Epic Units on page 1, but reduced so that the uniform frontage of a unit was 60 mm rather than 80 mm. The depth of the units, depending on type, was adjusted accordingly. 

3. This Armati “adventure” was staged after spending a few months camped on Bosworth Field. The reports produced during this “working vacation” will be submitted in time for Battle Day 2020. Anyhow. I am not aware of any recorded battles wherein Pyrrhus of Epirus and his army fought against Galatians. 

Explanatory Note:

For a change of pace, the following effort is not one of the armful of articles that have been submitted to Slingshot by this solo wargamer/writer over the past few years. As will become evident rather quickly, this “research” was inspired by an article found in that long-running publication. 

As this piece was not written for consideration by the editor of that well known and well regarded journal, I did not have to worry about the mechanics and nuances of British-English versus American-English. However, and as always, any lazy or silly mistakes that made it through the fairly rigorous editing process (i.e., five or six proof readings) are entirely mine. 

ARGENTORATUM:

INTERPRETATIONS & ITERATIONS

It would be interesting, I think, and well worth the time, to compare and contrast the two-page set of guidelines or instructions found in Issue 23 of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, with the nine-page analysis and examination that was published in Issue 321. The shorter submission was written by Phil Barker, an instantly recognizable if not iconic name in the wargaming community, and was titled “Reconstructing the Battle of Strasbourg.” The second submission or treatment, with the title “Argentoratum, AD 357,” was produced by the late Patrick Waterson, an admired, respected, and erudite member of the smaller in number, but illustrious and worldwide Society of Ancients community. [1] In order to complete this comparison/contrast, I would need to purchase “The Golden Years of Slingshot, 1965-2015,” which would, according to the currency exchange rates as of December 01, 2020, require an outlay or investment of roughly 55 US dollars. Let us round this up to 60 US dollars for postage and shipping, an amount that I am, as of this typing, not inclined to pay. Even without a copy of what might be labeled the “Barker Brief”or “Strasbourg Summary” in front of me, it seems possible to attempt a tentative comparison and contrast of these two submissions. 

 

In terms of general or obvious similarities, both gentlemen tackled the same historic engagement, and both articles were published in the same magazine or journal. Based on an article Mr. Barker (it feels disrespectful as well as odd to refer to him as Phil; it’s like being on a first name basis with a celebrity, an important government representative or even a religious official) submitted to Issue 12 of Miniature Wargames, it appears that both writers consulted or studied the narrative account provided by Ammianus Marcellinus. [2] This is where the comparison ends. Due to it being limited or condensed to just two pages, I cannot be certain that Mr. Barker discussed the specific stages of the battle.  

Looking at the numerous differences between these two articles, let me start with Patrick’s division of the engagement into five distinct phases. (I feel more comfortable using his first name, as we had what might be described as a “working relationship” when I was an active and  contributing member of The Society.) Patrick examines these segments of the historical contest, supporting his analysis and “arguments” with the sections of the narrative account supplied by  Ammianus. The material from this ancient author is reinforced by the writing of three others. In the bibliography, Patrick provides links for Orations, by Flavius Julianus, Funeral Orations for Julian, from Libanius, and Book II of New History, by Zosimus. Due respect to Mr. Barker, but my guess is that he probably did not refer to these additional narratives. He did, however, provide instructions for recreating the battle. I do not think this was the engine that powered Patrick’s work. While Patrick did supply a few ideas for “enlivening” what was in his words, “a Roman walkover,” I have a hunch that Mr. Barker explained how an early edition of the WRG Ancients rules could be used for refighting the battle. The substantial difference in length between the two pieces has already been mentioned. I rather doubt that, but again, I could be mistaken, “Reconstructing the Battle of Strasbourg” included any maps. I would also guess that this set of instructions in Issue 23 of Slingshot did not contain any pictures. The engaging and excellent—in my opinion—piece written by Patrick is certainly colorful. There are three photographs of 28 mm miniature Late Romans, all supplied by another well known name in the ancient wargaming community, Simon MacDowall. There are three full-color maps of the contest, showing deployment, mid-point, and conclusion of the battle. There are two wargamer-friendly “force structure” tables as well. While I cannot confidently comment on the possible differences existing in each article with respect to numbers, organization and deployment, my hunch is that each author would respectfully disagree with his counterpart. Finally, I cannot help but wonder what Mr. Barker would say about Patrick’s argument or conclusion, based on reading between the lines of Ammianus, that there were something like 80 carroballistae on the Roman side of the field on that fateful and evidently rather warm day in late summer of 357 AD. The inferred presence of quite a few pieces of Roman field artillery or “mobile missile platforms” (MMPs?) on this ancient battlefield was something not mentioned in other examinations, whether these were academic, “academic,” or conducted by experienced historical miniature wargamers. 

In the wargamer-friendly information provided in the diagrams, speculative orders of battle, and summary explanation found on page 206 of Warfare in the Classical World, there is no mention of carroballistae. Similarly, no mention or reference could be found in a paper authored by Adam Glen Hough in The Graduate History Review: Vol 2 (2010). [3] In his refight of the battle using his Vis Bellica rules, Robert Avery permits the Romans one unit of light artillery, though the rationale behind this decision is not explained. [4] Simon MacDowall might be viewed as an expert on this engagement as he reports, at Legio Wargames.com, having “played the scenario, or versions of it, many times.” [5] Interestingly, in the order of battle using his Comitatus rules, he offers the following option for the Auxilia Palatina contingent: “Up to 2 of these may be crossbowmen to represent the possibility that the Balistarii, Julian had with him prior to the battle were crossbow armed. Another alternative is to have them as artillery.” [6] It was not until about a week or so into this developing project that I typed “Battle of Strasbourg” into an Internet search engine. As one might expect, I was directed to the Wikipedia entry. There was no mention or reference to carroballistae found here either. [7] If “Reconstructing the Battle of Strasbourg” is determined to be the earliest evidence of the clash between Caesar Julian and  King Chnodomar provided by a historical wargamer or earnest student of ancient military history, then the Osprey book “Strasbourg AD 357: The Victory That Saved Gaul,” written by Raffaele D’Amato and Andrea Frediani, might be the most recent work offered on the battle. [8] While it might be interesting to see how this team of authors approaches and or tackles the subject matter, I am rather skeptical that their research will turn up anything new or significant. But again, I concede that I may be mistaken. 

In his excellent article, Patrick contends that the Roman carroballistae:

. . . would have been shooting downslope, the elevation provided by the cart 

        would have been accentuated by the downslope view, allowing them to engage 

        the Alemannic formations over the heads of the Romans. Shooting into packed 

        masses of Alemannic infantry from above, most of the missiles would have 

        struck heads. They would also have struck hard at Alemanni morale. 

In his interpretation of the contest, Patrick has the Romans on a gentle hill or slope. Julian’s outnumbered formations have a slight advantage then, against the roiling mass of barbarians.

The diagrams of the action in Warfare show a low hill of several elevation lines behind the main Roman line of battle. Phrased more succinctly, the majority of Roman troops are positioned on level ground, on the same ground as the more numerous but less professional Alemanni warriors. An opposite view is taken by Mssrs. Barker and MacDowall, as well as by Adam Hough. In his “ancient” article which appeared in Miniature Wargames 12, Phil Barker refers to the Germans “making for the high ground and rough terrain.” Apparently, that is where they stayed until rested and then attacked by the Romans. For Simon MacDowall’s scenario, his table has the barbarians waiting on a gentle hill or ridge (it runs the length of his 6 by 4-foot model battlefield) composed of three elevation lines. In his academic paper, Adam Hough informs:

The tactical preparations made by Chnodomar were entirely negated by Julian’s 

patience and ability to hold his units in formation. Severus’ legion did not fall 

        prey to the ambush on the left flank, and Chnodomar lost the advantage of the 

        hill (bold type is my format change) be being forced to charge Julian at a 

        distance, rather than from short range, as was Alamanni custom.

A careful study of the Ammianus narrative by this wargamer-writer did not yield a definite resolution to this apparent disagreement. The ancient author does refer, in XVI.12.19, to “a hill of gentle slope, covered with grain already ripe, and not far distant from the banks of the Rhine,” but this is the only reference to this particular terrain feature in his account. In Section 141 of the Funeral Oration offered by Libanius, there is another mention of the hill. In this passage, the baggage train guards, “left on the top of the hill,” join the general and evidently rather desperate engagement. Estimating that the camp of Julian might have been a mile or more from the Roman line of battle, I am inclined to “follow” the Warfare diagrams which show a majority of the Romans deployed on level ground. On the other hand, the map included with the Wikipedia description has a certain appeal. In this representation of the battlefield, there is high ground, but its orientation does not appear to favor either side. The direction of this slope runs diagonally, from the far right of the barbarian position to the far right of the Roman line. In his consideration of the engagement, Jonathan Webb comments of the various interpretations of the location of the hill or gentle slope and concludes, “Regardless of which side held this terrain, it does not appear to have significantly affected the battle.” [9] At this time (very early morning of December 02, 2020), I have not decided how or even if I will model this gentle slope on my table top. It was much easier to make a decision about the rough terrain on the Alemanni right.

In his brief description found in Section 140, Libanius informs that Chondomar and his subordinate kings and chieftains “had strengthened their own right wing with a reserve which they concealed behind an elevated water-course, overgrown with reeds, that country being marshy, that concealed them sitting down.” This planned ambush did not succeed, however. Somehow, the Romans advancing on the far left of the line saw this barbarian reserve and, ironically, surprised the warriors into either launching a premature attack or forced them to yield the concealing and rough terrain. The narrative provided by Ammianus supports, generally, this version of events. In XVI.12.23 there is mention made of “secret and puzzling ambuscades.” In XVI.12.26, the Romans on the left, under the direct command of Severus, stop short of springing the ambush, stop short and deploy in front of “trenches filled with (Alemanni) soldiers.” Then, in XVI.12.37, it turns out that the German warriors did launch a premature charge and were “driven back by the force of a left wing marching in close formation.” As with previous sub topics, there is a variety of opinions on this “surprise attack” and the terrain from which it was launched.

The Warfare maps show a line of concealed trenches, just within a wooded area, running nearly perpendicular to the barbarian formations on the far right. Curiously, these trenches are not occupied. A similar depiction is offered in Robert Avery’s Vis Bellica scenario, which leads me to believe that the Warfare information may have been used while preparing his version of the contest. For his Comitatus model of the battle, Simon MacDowall decorates a small fraction of his tabletop with woods (i.e., rough terrain) but notes: “As the Romans suspected the ambush I suggest that there is no point in trying to hide a possible deployment by the Alamanni in the woods.” In the Wikipedia version, there appear to be around 2,000 German warriors positioned in the forest on the far right of Chondomar’s line. These troops are not as condensed or solidly formed as the warrior contingents drawn up in the open. Interestingly, there is no indication of trenches, a water-course, or any other feature that might assist in hiding an ambush. The academic though non-wargamer, at least I guess that he is not, Adam Hough describes the Alamanni right as resting on a canal, and that the ambushing force was “hidden by reeds and carefully constructed ditches.” Turning to the article prepared by Patrick Waterson, it was found that approximately 5,000 Alemanni warriors were placed in ambush, in a stream bed, that ran at an angle to the main line formed by the rest of Chnodomar’s tribal levies and warbands. If only to break up an otherwise featureless and plain-looking table, it seems that some sort of terrain feature or combination of features will have to be positioned on the far right of the barbarian line. Perhaps this feature or combination of features will extend towards the center of this short-edge of the table? Perhaps this feature, whatever final form it takes, will extend all the way to, or brush up against, the Roman left? 

Shifting my attention to the combined concerns of numbers involved, the types of units present, their deployment as well as respective frontages and depths, the disagreement between various interpretations was more pronounced. For example, Patrick explains that, “Ammianus provides only sketchy details for each side’s order of battle.” A reported 35,000 barbarians were present, and Julian’s small army numbered some 13,000, with “only a few contingents distinguished.” Taking the other side, Simon MacDowall offers a similar number for Julian’s army, but informs that “many of his (Julian’s) actual units are known.” With regard to the Alamanni, the tendency of Romans to inflate enemy numbers was noted, so the overall total of barbarians on the actual field may have been closer to 20,000. 

The information found on page 206 of Warfare in the Classical World is, again, wargamer-friendly and, I would remark, readily transferrable to any number of wargame rules for the ancient period. Unlike any other visual representation of the battle, the barbarian infantry are illustrated by small wedge-shaped symbols, which matches the description given by Ammianus in XVI.12.20. There are asterisks next to the Infantry and Cavalry breakdowns, however, noting that the “information about some units’ strength and disposition is incomplete and so speculative.” This speculation is continued on the Wikipedia page, though there does appear to be more thought and research put into the composition of the opposing forces. One of the attractive aspects of this communal effort is that names of possible sub-commanders of the Alemanni are identified. There is also the interesting possibility of a contingent of Burgundian troops being present. On the Roman side, names for the handful of legions that were present are suggested. The supporting auxiliary formations of archers are also indicated. 

The suggested deployment of Julian’s army, as indicated in the full-color map included with the Wikipedia description, seems fairly traditional, if not quintessentially Roman. Slight variations of this interpretation are presented in Simon MacDowall’s model, Robert Avery’s adaptation, the first diagram of the Warfare explanation, and in the estimation offered in the paper written by Adam Hough. In stark contrast, Patrick Waterson argues for a different deployment. Based on his close reading of the source material, especially the narrative provided by Ammianus, his Roman position consists of a main line and a couple of supporting formations. On the Roman right, Patrick places a reserve formation of auxiliaries and legionaries, with the legion infantry positioned on the right or outer flank of the auxiliaries. In Patrick’s version of the historical battle, the Roman center appears dangerously thin, being manned by just three legions, or an estimated total of 4,800 heavy infantry. 

Finally and briefly, the Warfare information indicates that the “German cavalry dismounted at the insistence of the infantry who feared abandonment.” This adjustment was taken to heart by Robert Avery in his Vis Bellica scenario. In his Comitatus scenario, Simon MacDowall gives the barbarian commander/player the option of dismounting his cavalry force. In my opinion, Patrick effectively refutes these interpretations, citing or referencing Sections 21 and 22, 24, 36 and 37 of Ammianus, Book XVI, Chapter 12. 

In the ‘Tips and Tactics’ section of his Strasbourg scenario, Simon MacDowall writes: “This is a fairly simple and straight forward game.” He continues, explaining that he “has played this scenario, or versions of it many times.” While I can see how most wargames featuring Romans and barbarians could be categorized as “simple and straight forward,” the variety of interpretations concerning terrain and troops leads me to believe that a miniature reconstruction of this particular battle may not be so direct and easy. Unlike the accomplished author and well-known wargamer, I have not had the pleasure of refighting this engagement on my tabletop. Drawing inspiration from Patrick’s article, I thought I might address this discrepancy. To be certain, I do not intend to compete with or attempt to surpass Simon MacDowall in this specific regard. However, I do think it might prove educational, engaging, and entertaining to stage five  refights of the contest between Julian and Chnodomar using five different sets of rules. In effect, I would be staging a mini-Battle Day. [10] My amateur effort would be different on a number of levels. For example, and in no particular order of significance, I would be playing all of these wargames solo. Given this approach, the project would necessarily be long-term. Indeed, I estimate that it would take at least five months, if I averaged one game per month, or perhaps half a year to complete the handful of tabletop battles. These wargames would be set up and played using no painted and based miniature figures whatsoever. 

When I can, when the opportunity presents itself, I like to proceed or work in alphabetical order.  The rulebooks that will be employed in this admittedly rather ambitious project are the following: ARMATI 2nd Edition; Hail Caesar; IMPETVS; L’Art de la Guerre or ADLG, and To The Strongest! Each report will follow a similar format and will include a brief critique and evaluation. When all five wargames have been played, I think I will draft a final critique and evaluation, wherein I compare and contrast (briefly) the selected rulesets and perhaps even rank them, though this kind of assessment would be entirely and obviously subjective. 

Post Script:

My original position of being disinclined to find the required amount of funds and send them over the Atlantic so that I could secure a compilation of hundreds of electronic copies of Slingshot weakened as December progressed and then essentially evaporated by the middle of the month. (Given this impressive display of will power, it is probably a good thing that I never started collecting and painting actual miniatures. I can easily picture having a lead mountain the approximate height of the second story window to the immediate right of my writing/typing desk.) Unfortunately, there was a problem with the purchased memory stick which arrived in early January of 2021. This concern was communicated, and a replacement device was soon on its way, courtesy of the excellent customer/member service “department” personnel. Anyway. As I now had access to Issue 23 of this reputable publication, I was able to do a proper comparison/contrast of Barker and Waterson. By complete accident, I stumbled across an article by James Manto in Issue 216 (please see “Slouching Toward Strasbourg: The Battle of Argentoratum (357 AD) Refought” on pages 20-22). As this report directly concerned my current interests, I decided to conduct a brief examination of this “new” material as well.

The demonstration put on my Mr. Barker and, one presumes, his colleagues, took place on March 15 of 1969 at the A.G.M. or Annual General Meeting. To quote, in full, the fifth paragraph of the brief summary: “Strasbourg was selected because it was fought between 35,000 barbarians on the one hand and 13,000 Romans under the Caesar Julian on the other. It thus gives great opportunities to bring out the relative value of discipline and numbers”. With regard to numbers, both authors are in agreement. However, deployments and terrain highlight the differences between the two interpretations. 

Mr. Barker arranges the German infantry in a massed and very deep formation on a steep ridge. Patrick is in agreement about the depth of the barbarian units, but he places the Roman forces on a ridge or at least slightly elevated position. In his view, the Germans have to attack uphill, whereas Mr. Barker has the screaming hordes charging downhill - with, one estimates, quite a bit of impetus. As to the location of Chnodomar, Mr. Barker stations the king on the left of the German deployment, among the light cavalry and supporting light infantry. In Patrick’s version of the historical battle, Chnodomar is with his “elite globus”, which is positioned as a reserve behind the very deep main line of warriors. 

In Mr. Barker’s demonstration, which was a fairly decisive Roman victory and including at least a few ballistae models, the attending players were “satisfied that they had achieved a realistic portrayal”. In fact, they “thought it more realistic than the real battle”. Patrick cannot report the same evidence, for he did not actually wargame the battle. However, his assumption is that any refight might run the risk of being one-sided or worse, boring, as the “historical contest was a Roman walkover with a few exciting moments”. 

As mentioned above, it was by accident that I happened to stumble upon “Slouching Toward Strasbourg . . .”. One afternoon or evening, I was skimming through the contents of the new memory stick, just seeing what was there, and I discovered, fortunately, the engaging article/report by James Manto. (Going back to the provided Index, I typed Argentoratum then Strasbourg in the search window. Curiously, the submission written by James did not appear.) 

The provided orders of battle seemed more in tune with Patrick’s research and were more detailed than the broad statements made in Mr. Barker’s summary. For his reconstruction, James did include two units or models of carroballistae. Evidently and obviously, Argentoratum has been studied before, as James informs that Perry Gray wrote an article for SAGA magazine about the engagement, or at least about the Roman forces that were present. 

In terms of the terrain, due to logistics and trunk space, James opted to ignore the question of which side had the advantage of being on a ridge or low rise; he did keep the large wooded area on the German right/Roman left, however. With respect to deployment, James arranged the Romans in two lines. The legions were in the second line. This placement is quite different from the positions advocated or suggested by Patrick. Like Mr. Barker, James had Chnodomar over on the far left, commanding his few thousand horsemen supported by light troops. 

Over the course of a weekend, James was able to umpire/play three refights of Argentoratum employing his own rules, Legion and Empire. Over the course of this weekend (in early 2001 or late 2000), history was reversed twice. The Germans won on Saturday morning, lost on Saturday afternoon, and forced the Romans to concede on Sunday morning. Like the player-generals in March of 1969, the participants in the games staged by James had an enjoyable experience. 

James concluded his article/report with a few paragraphs on possible revisions to the tabletop refight of Argentoratum. There was talk of dismounting the barbarian cavalry, tinkering with leadership values, toying with terrain, and swapping out the Roman mobile “field artillery” for a unit or two of men armed with crossbows. 

While I will admit to a history of tinkering with established and accepted sets of rules, I think, for the sake of this planned project, that I will try to keep the variables to a minimum. Again, the overall idea is to use Patrick’s article as a foundation and see what I can or might build with five different rulebooks. 

NOTES

1. Patrick Waterson passed away in January of 2020. At the risk of embellishing or overstating, in my estimation, he was a pillar in The Society of Ancients. He was also an encyclopedic force to be reckoned with in its electronic forums as well as in the Guardroom pages of its signature and long-running publication. The Editorial of the March/April 2020 issue of Slingshot was, in essence, an obituary, though one formatted for members of The Society. In the July/August 2020 issue of Slingshot, Professor Phil Sabin offered a written memorial to Patrick titled “Honour and Loss.”   
2. Please see “The Sharp End in AD360,”on pages 13 and 14 of Miniature Wargames, Issue 12. From an advertisement for the ‘National Wargames Championship’ found on page 18, I am guessing that this issue appeared in late 1983 or perhaps early 1984. (I could not help but notice the price. In the UK, the magazine cost 75p. The cost in this country, some 3,000 miles across The Atlantic Ocean, was $3.50.) My guess is that Issue 23 of Slingshot appeared in the post in late 1969 or early 1970. The following link will take the interested reader to the relevant book, chapter, and starting section of the fairly wargamer-friendly narrative written by Ammianus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D16%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D19
3. Please see “Julian and the Decision to Fight: Strasbourg, 357.” Here is the link to an abstract of the article which will also take the interested reader to the complete paper: https://www.historyoftheancientworld.com/2010/12/julian-and-the-decision-to-fight-strasbourg-357/.
4. Please see https://www.vislardica.com/vb-sc-argentoratum.
5. Please see http://legio-wargames.com/strasbourg/4542978511.
6. On studying Mr. MacDowall’s scenario notes, I wondered if there might be some confusion over the meaning over the word “ballistari.” Could Patrick have interpreted or translated it one way and Mr. MacDowall another? A quick Internet search turned up this interesting page or site: lukeuedasarson.com/Balistarii.html.
7. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg. (Sidebar: In the November 23, 2020 issue of The New Yorker, Louis Menand offered an interesting and thought-provoking article titled “WHAT DO YOU KNOW? Wikipedia, “Jeopardy!,” and the fate of the fact.” I honestly had no idea that Wikipedia would celebrate 20 years on January 15 of 2021. 
8. The publication date for this title, Number 336 in the Osprey Campaign Series, was May 30, 2019. Securing a copy would cost me around 20 US dollars. 
9. Please see www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-strasbourg-357.
10. For a general overview of this annual event, please see http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day. For a more detailed look at how Battle Day works, please see http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/175-battleday-2019-report and http://soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/161-soa-battleday-2018-report.