One way to generate interest in wargaming, any period of wargaming, is to play the games in the context of a campaign. Campaigns may be as simple, or as complex, as the players desire. My own philosophy is that the fundamental purpose of a campaign should be to generate table top battles, but to do so in a meaningful context and provide a background for the battle and its aftermath. Many of our concepts of wargame campaigns have come to us from the British. Their general concept of a campaign would appear to involve the use of an umpire and several players. In these types of campaigns, the umpire designs and controls the campaign and is a non-player. It is my opinion based on my own experience, that you can have an equally exciting and entertaining campaign which does not require an umpire, and in which all players participate on an equal basis. Obviously, at least one or perhaps several individuals will have to sit down and prepare the background and details of the campaign, and develop the rules, but once the rules are in place a campaign can proceed without the necessity of an umpire. This has been the basis of my own ancient campaigns, where I generally have provided the historical background and detail for the beginning of the campaign, in addition to the rules, but then have participated with the others as an equal player. I enjoy ancient campaigns with an historical context, although I have played in other types of campaigns. It seems to me that there is no good reason for not playing games in an historical context. Other period wargamers would not dream of pitting Napoleonic armies against Seven Years War armies, or Civil War armies, although that concept appears to be commonplace in "ancient wargaming". Likewise I prefer historical wargaming in the ancient period, not just wargaming with "historical figures". When playing a campaign within an historical context, one has a great deal of the background material already prepared forthern in addition to numerous historical personalities, locales, and causes belli. My method is generally to select some historical date or event, and then generate the campaign from that time forward. It is often easy to pick a year in which an invasion or a war began or perhaps it may be equally as challenging to begin a campaign after a particular battle has occurred. In any event, one can simply pick that period in time, research the historical sources and literature, develop historical orders of battle, lists of commanders, and generate the background necessary for commencing an ancient campaign. In the Lincoln area we have played several such ancient campaigns overthe last few years. In so doing we have gradually developed a set of rules that governed these campaigns. The initial campaign was a very simple one involving three people in a Roman-Pontic scenario. We initially used a hand drawn map of the Middle East, penciling in the strategic cities and other features, and some simple strategic rules. The purpose of the campaign was to generate battles with our armies, and as I recall each of us at that time had our forces allocated into three field armies, two particularly strong and of equal strength and a third army of lesser proportions. One playerw as of course Roman, the other Pontic, and we eventually added a Galatian player, because he was at the time building an army of Celtic troops. For some now unknown reason we started that campaign over and began afresh. The rules continued to develop, and it soon became obvious that we needed some sort of economic and monetary system in orderto initiate bribes and other diplornatic maneuverings. The most memorable battle I recall, was when my small Pontic cavalry force consisting primarily of horse archers, other light cavalry, and a few heavy cavalry, was confronted by a much larger Galatian army. I had to skirmish and otherwise deal with overwhelming numbers while attempting to strike a decisive blow at some point in his much longer battle line. This is obviously a prime example of the benefits of campaigning, when one suddenly finds themselves confronted in a unique and unusual situation, instead of the routine and sterile battles that often occur between ancient players with forces of almost equal strength. The next campaign was a Roman-Syrian affair involving five players. We began using the SPI "Conquerors" maps. This board game provided an excellent set of maps for campaigning in the ancient world, in addition to counters and rules which could be used on their own merits for the basis of an ancient campaign. Unfortunately, it has long been out of print, and these maps are somewhat of a premium in my opinion. One battle which comes to my mind as a result of this campaign, was when the Galatian player allowed my Roman army to occupy a city under his control and in which he had his own force. I proceeded, with my overall objective of exterminating the Galatians and attacked his forces within the city itself. We thus had a large battle in the streets of a city laid out on the table top. Needless to say it was most unusual and I have not participated in a battle like this since. Likewise, I recall when several of the other players, offended with the genocidal policies of the Romans, massed their forces against the Roman field army when then fought its battle outnumbered by at least 2 to 1 under the walls of a city which it controlled, using the engines on the walls to provide fire support for the Roman army. Another Campaign After that, we played a campaign involving the Calatian invasion of Greece with two Calatian players, a Macedonian player and a player representing several of the independent Creek states. This game involved simply another hand drawn map, but was memorable for at least one battle in which the Macedonian army inflicted a severe and lasting defeat against one of the Galatian armies. We also played a campaign based on Pyrrhus' invasion of Sicily involving some five players, representing Carthaginians, Mamortines, Syracusans, and other Creeks and well as Pyrrhus. Naval forces were also involved. Later we proceeded with a much larger Roman-Syrian campaign involving some eleven players representing a variety of major and minor powers. This campaign was memorable for the many large naval battles. We eventually ended up using the Avalon Hill "Trireme" rules and Valiant 1/900 scale ships. Interestingly enough the naval battles proved to be much more decisive than many of our land battles, with one side being virtually eliminated. Several sieges were played with troops encamped outside of city walls fighting the besieged forces attempting to fight their way out. In one battle, the besieged player actually breached his own walls in order to allow his troops to disgorge themselves onto the field in a more rapid fashion. As a result of these various campaigns we began to develop a body of rules which gradually became more and more detailed and involved a variety of different aspects of warfare in the ancient world. Reviewing the table of contents of these rules, they covered such activities as ambushes, assassins, attrition, mercenaries, fortified camps, hostages, piracy, raids, revenue, recruitment of troops, revolt, sacking cities, sieges, spies, supply, and treachery. Most of our campaigns involved the use of a central map and simultaneous movement of forces until a battle or battles developed. There were some provisions for secret movement, but because of the game time span involved, most of the movement was deemed apparent to the various players, which we rationalized as due to the difficulties of secretly marching large bodies of troops throughout the countryside. At the same time the preplanned movement was going on, players also conducted their own diplomatic initiatives among thernselves, arranging alliances, bribes, and a variety of other activities. Perhaps the ultimate ancient campaign was a Pan-Mediterranean campaign circa the Second Punic War and involving some 16 players. Players generally represented more than one power, usually at opposite ends of the Mediterranean. An attempt was made to recreate the Punic War between Rome and Carthage, the simultaneous conflicts in the eastern end of the Mediterranean between Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt, and the numerous wars in Greece involving Macedon and the various Greek Leagues. This campaign used both of the map sheets from the SPI "Conquerors" game, in addition to hand drawn extensions on hex paper covering the North African coastline, the eastern parts of Persia and the south shore of the Black Sea. This campaign went on for some time and involved numerous battles, both land and sea, as well as a great deal of diplomatic maneuvering. Perhaps the most memorable event was when a Celtic mercenary army was bribed to change sides and attack his erstwhile ally in the flank during the course of a major battle. The unsuspecting ally was suitably outraged, and unfortunately the player who agreed to this treacherous act was never trusted by any other player during the course of the campaign. And Another We subsequently attempted another Pyrrhic-Sicilian campaign involving some five players, this time using a hexagonal map that appeared in a past issue of "Slingshot" and later a First Macedonian and a Second Macedonian War Campaign. The last campaign which I developed and in which several people participated was again a Pontic War campaign. This campaign involved approximately a dozen players and covered the entire eastern Mediterranean theater. To conduct this campaign we used one of the SPI "Conquerors" map sheets, with a transparent overlay reflecting the subsequent historical changes in the borders and additions of important cities. One item that should be noted when conducting campaigns, is to recognize that all of the necessary historical participants or troop types may not be represented by miniature troops available to the various players. This is particularly true regarding secondary or lesser powers. Generally, however, these types of forces can be represented by a variety of common mercenary or other levy types of troops. It may also be necessary, and should not be considered a sin from an historical viewpoint, to substitute similar types of troops for actual historical troops in the context of the campaign. For example, any number of eastern type troops can be substituted for similar troop types in a comparable eastern army. Cataphracts of one nation can be substitute for cataphracts of another nation, or slingers of one type can be substituted for slingers, of another. Likewise, Gauls or Celts can be used for Galatians, and even in a pinch, an early Imperial Roman Army can substitute for a later Republic Roman Army. Likewise, Successor armies can fill a variety of bills, simply substituting various auxiliary troop types to change a Macedonian army to a Selucid army, or a Ptolemaic army, or even a Pontic army. One may have to be a little flexible, but once one begins to become enmeshed in the details and role play of the campaign these minor substitutions are easily overlooked, and the overall enjoyment of the campaign becomes the foremost consideration. Outcomes One might well ask what were the actual outcomes of the various campaigns. Alas, I must admit that they simply never reached a conclusion for one reason or another and simply faded away. Perhaps interest waned due to the length of time between various game turns, or in some cases key players were unable to participate, or moved out of the locality. But this is not all bad, as the campaigns, while active, were very enjoyable and the battles generated were exciting and always different. It was important in the course of these battles to keep the context of the overall campaign in mind and the preservation of one's forces and objectives. Perhaps, when some players met with serious reverses they also became less enthusiastic for the campaign. But with the right group of individuals, and those willing to role play and become involved in the historical outcome of the campaign, these factors should not prove to be the undoing of the campaign in and of itself. There do not have to be winners and losers in any particular campaign, although that is quite possible. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. IX No. 1 Back to Courier List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 1989 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com