Marlburian Warfare 1702-1714

Wargame Rules

reviewed by Pat Condray

This reasonably priced and understandable little book by Stuart Asquith should make it possible for two players with relatively small model armies to engage in an absorbing Marlburian game after only one or two passes through the rule system. it has the added advantage of being in roughly the same level of representation and using the same approximate base size as my own game - so if you are sick of the latter you can make the change without rebasing, although some adjustment must be made for unit size.

Having said that, I must acknowledge a certain lack of qualifications for the task of reviewing - I have written rules for the period, and these are not the ones I have written. With that disqualification I will try to identify some salient aspects of the game under rule mechanics, which are partly a matter of taste, on the one hand, and historical interpretation on the other, which is at best a matter of uncertainty. Of course the two are intertwined in some crucial areas.

GAME MECHANICS: The tactical units are brigades, which are more or less locked in step except when accompanied by a brigadier, and move 1" or 25mm per pip on a single die for infantry, double for cavalry. Thus the same cavalry brigade (or detached unit if sent by a brigadier) charging over the same ground in the same condition will move anywhere from 2" to 12". Forced movements from melee or morale affecting a battalion or squadron of a brigade lacking a brigadier affect the total brigade.

Fire is by front rank only, as is melee. Both are adjudicated by a reference to average dice by number of figures as applied by cross reference to results table. The net effect is to cause realistically low loss rates; 3 hits causing the loss of a 3 figure base. Fire at incoming horse is at long range to allow for fitting of plug bayonets. French and their allies fight in a mandatory double rank for infantry and column of squadrons for cavalry, British and their allies in double squadron front, but only British infantry fight in a single line. Most melees lead to a victory for the side inflicting higher casualties, which leads to a push back. Three such in succession and the loser leaves the battle. infantry may not melee infantry.

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION/OVERLAP: Although copyright 1986, this book seems primarily to reflect the state of popular English language historical writing a decade earlier at the latest. in fact, while David Chandler may not be the ultimate historian of the period it is interesting that Asquith includes "Marlborough as a Military Commander" (1973) by that author, but not "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough" (1976) from the same source. Thus while Asquith forces all non-British foot to fight with a useless second line - double the presumed 3 ranks of the British (who, according to Chandler's second work, were using the Dutch system) and gives the British 12 figures per battalion, he gives the the French and Bavarians 15 figures per battalion. Chandler (p. 97, Art of War) gives the French battalion of 1704, after Puysegur (who did more to win the battle of Oudenarde for the allies than Eugene and Marlborough put together) as 690 men, while the Anglo-Dutch battalion numbered 16 companies of 60-75 men, or 780 or more men.

Also, while the French had regulations which called for 5 deep lines in 1703, Puysegur gives the normal depth as 4 in 1701, and in the regulations of 1706. There also seems to be no basis for Asquith's insistence that French horse could only fight in column of squadrons (the English accounts of the celebrated overthrow of 8 Gendarme Squadrons by 6 British at Blindhiem have the French with 6 in the center and 2 thrown out ahead as flankers). in addition, Asquith absolutely forbids infantry melees, while it seems apparent that bayonet charges were made, on various occasions, although rarely by AngloDutch troops except in stormings. Gunnar Arteus's study (Karolinsk och Europeisk Stridstaktik 1700-1712) makes it clear that some charges occurred in the west, while the pike and bayonet charge was the preferred Swedish tactic, although he found that lines no more than 4 or less than 3 ranks were well nigh universal.

Having quibbled to such an extent, I would suggest that for 0.90, even at the worsening rate of exchange, this book is well worth the price for players interested in the period, especially if they would like to add some of the random movement value of TSATF fame to this more staid and formal era.

More Reviewing Stand

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #6
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1987 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com