In the commentary of my last wargame report, wherein Pompey secured a victory - but just barely - over the forces sent against him, mention was made of two or three "issues" with regard to the rule system used. In a brief comparative analysis of a few other rule sets, mention was also made of the simplicity and consequently appeal, of the game move sequence presented in Fire and Fury, a very well written and popular set of rules for The American Civil War. On further review, an admission was made with respect to the potential problems of adapting concepts and rules from a horse & musket period to a period bound by horse and bow, as well as spear, sword, catapult, chariot and lumbering elephant.
To be sure, it would not have been prudent to launch into another topic at the very end of a wargame report. However, the question or questions were raised, the subject matter was "placed on the table" and, however unintentionally, an idea was born for a future submission to these familiar pages. The aforementioned rule book was pulled from its file cabinet and studied. Numerous other texts and periodicals were also reviewed. Throughout, more than several pages of notebook paper were covered with cryptic notes, incomplete sentences, rough sketches and schematics. The following narrative is a transcription of these notes and sketches and, does not represent a finished draft, by any stretch of the imagination. The following presentation is more rightly titled, "a work in progress." In overview, it represents the attempt of one enthusiast to adapt the concepts and rules of a horse & musket set of rules to a period some 1800 years earlier; to a period when spear, shield, sword and sweat were the arbiters on the field of battle. Adapting the alliterative ring of the title for the horse & musket rules, I am calling this "work in progress," COHORTS & COURAGE.
WHEN INTERESTED IN ROME ...
Where to begin then? Though the Fire & Fury rule booklet was right there and I had the red pen in hand to make notes in the margins, it seemed that a better or at least more familiar place to start would be with organization. Having just come off a bloody Roman v Roman contest and having just completed the final novel in that wonderfully rich series by Ms. McCullough, it seemed an obvious choice to start my "research" with Rome.
In addition to the American Civil War rules book, I reached for Wargame Tactics - a small text but one that has had no small impact upon my interest in wargaming - penned by an elder of of the hobby, Charles Grant. In Chapter 6 of this work, Mr. Grant considers the rise of Rome and in the following chapter, provides an exciting account of a wargame wherein a legion faces a number of bands of marauding German tribesmen. In a number of previous submissions to this newsletter, I have used historical battles as a foundation for my "ideas." In one sense, this approach is not original. Though not an historical engagement, the scenario described by Mr. Grant in Chapter 7 of his book was adopted as a foundation for this present piece. And while his narrative concerned the action of just one legion and some auxiliary units, it seemed suitable for adoption and adaptation.
In terms of organization, Mr. Grant briefly describes the changes in legion composition toward the end of Chapter 6. "These Marian Reforms, as they were called, entailed the organization of the legion into ten cohorts of some six hundred men each (except for the first, which was twice the strength of the others.)" (51) A more detailed explanation is found in a detailed schematic with explanatory sidebar on page 153 of WARFARE in the CLASSICAL WORLD. "The Roman Army after Marius" shows a facsimile view of a maniple (one can see the soldiers with sword and shield at the ready), as well as more traditional depiction of individual cohorts, the legion and that same legion deployed with the rest of the army. A wealth of information is provided in the text of the sidebar with respect to organization:
- The legion thus came to consist of 10 cohorts each of 3 maniples of two centuries of around 80 men, giving a total of c4,800. Standardisation also did away with the cohort organized into three lines. Instead, each of the lines (acies) consisted of a series of cohorts. The front line consisted of 4 cohorts, arranged 10 wide by 8 deep (c240 yds, 220m front) the remaining 2 lines of 3 cohorts each were arranged 12 wide by 6 deep giving a similar frontage.(153)
Adapting the representation used in Fire and Fury, one might advance the following: a basic cohort consist of eight stands, each stand representing a block of infantry 16 across by 4 deep. One of the eight stands would be designated as the command stand of the cohort, containing the senior centurion, standard, trumpeters and other aides as well as supporting rankers. Borrowing the stand dimensions of this same rules set, a single Roman cohort would occupy a frontage of approximately 4 inches, to a depth of some 1.5 inches. The First Cohort of the legion then, would occupy roughly twice that area, but this would depend on formation and strength. (Please see Schematic 1.)
Unfortunately, as always with representation(s) of scale, problems arise. Accepting a 16 man frontage with a depth of 4 ranks, one can depict the historical formation of the first line of cohorts in a Marian legion. As stated above in the extended quote, "The front line consisted of 4 cohorts, arranged 10 wide by 8 deep ..." The historical accuracy cannot be maintained however, in the successive cohorts. Here, the depth was just 6 ranks and this is just over that depth represented by one stand and just under the depth represented by two stands placed one behind the other. This problem is deemed "acceptable" however, and even playable as well as historical, in that a "universal" stand of infantry (cavalry has yet to be discussed) of 4 ranks allows the depiction of skirmish lines (4 ranks deep), cohorts (8 ranks deep), hoplite phalanxes (8 to 12 ranks deep) and finally, pikemen (16 ranks deep, perhaps even more). Admittedly, the artificial or even arbitrary designation that one stand equals a block of troops 16 across by 4 deep creates a uniform strength throughout the cohorts of a legion. And yet, it is a starting point. It also seems a "workable solution" with respect to adapting the concepts of Fire & Fury to the Ancient Period
In addition to the basics of unit representation, one of the major concepts of Fire & Fury is the rating of unit effectiveness. That is, brigades are assigned a level of effectiveness (an ability to move and fight) based on their experience or training. These levels are: Fresh, Worn and Spent. In concert, there are just three basic ratings allowed for troops of the American Civil War: Crack, Veteran and Green. Accordingly, the troops with a Crack rating can take more punishment (casualties) than can a Green unit before descending from effectiveness rating of Fresh to Worn to Spent. The effectiveness rule or idea is simple enough and so, is adopted in full for the present project. In contrast, personally, I am not so sure that just three ratings for experience and training would suffice for the type of troops found on a battlefield in Germania or Judea, circa 58 BC. It seems that the Fire & Fury rules "build in" morale considerations to the effectiveness ratings of the troops. This is all well and good in that the system is streamlined and thus, simpler. However, can this "minimalist" system truly reflect the fighting ability of newly raised legions, who have undergone training but have not been in battle? Phrased another way, during the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar, Pompey fielded a large number of veteran troops. However, based on my reading and understanding, a lot of the time these troops were of poor morale. How then, to reflect this using the mechanics put forth in Fire and Fury?
As mentioned, this is very much a "work in progress." One idea that could address this perceived problem is to expand the categories of troop types. Here, I am not referencing Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Super Heavy Infantry, Medium Cavalry or Camels. What I would suggest is increasing the troop ratings to six possible categories as opposed to just three. The issue of morale still remains, but I think this might be addressed - in part - by careful review of the points or levels of stand strength at which the unit reaches the Worn and Spent statuses.
On additional review of Version 1.1 of DE BELLIS MULTITUDINIS and Vis Bellica, let me offer the following categories for troop types / effectiveness ratings: Levy, Trained - 1, Trained - 2, Veteran, Elite and Guard. Now, this increase in types may be seen by some as only complicating matters. Then again, I think the classifications not too cumbersome and they do serve to better represent the difference(s) between, for example, Persian light infantry/spear men (Levy) and well-trained, well-fed and rested Roman legionaries, who might be classed as Trained-2. Again, the question of morale would be addressed by the specific review of loss steps or levels at which the unit becomes Worn and then, degrades to Spent.
NOT EVERYONE WAS A LEGIONARY ...
To a degree, the basic stand depicting a block of troops 16 across by 4 deep will work for most formations and for most armies. Here again, I'm thinking of regular troops, like Greek Hoplites, the African infantry of the Carthaginians and, the vaunted pikemen of the Macedonian phalanx. However, what about the other kinds of troops? How can a "universal stand" be applied to units of horse, to barbarian tribes, to chariots and to the tank of the Ancient battlefield, the elephant?
Right away, it is obvious that the basic block "rule" or representation of a 64 man force (frontage of 16 and depth of 4) cannot be applied across all troop types. To take the extreme example, the one inch by three-quarters inch stand (the dimensions of a basic infantry stand in the Fire & Fury rules) could not indicate a mass of 64 pachyderms. This total in this space (ground scale) is simply ridiculous. Even if placed shoulder to shoulder, I should think that 16 elephants easily take up a greater frontage than 16 men in chain mail and helmets with shields, pila and swords do. The same problem remains for other troop types, though on a graduated scale.
I cannot but get a little ahead of myself with respect to the adaptation of these horse & musket rules, and so in terms of this kind of quandary, the emphasis has to be placed on combat value of the stand. Scale and historical accuracy are important, but will come in a close second to this consideration. That much said and admitted, for good or ill, one might again turn to the Roman army / legion as a building block.
Turning back to that same page in CLASSICAL WARFARE, one reads that the frontage of the four cohorts in a "basic" legion spanned some 240 yards. Working from the figure of 512 men in each cohort, excepting the First which is at double-strength, one can state that 64 men would take up approximately 60 yards. (Under this present version, the "average" cohort is represented as a block of 8 stands, each stand being 16 men across and 4 deep, so the cohort works out to be 64 men along the front and 8 deep.) Now, the frontage does figure out nicely and evenly, but an immediate problem arises with the doublestrength First Cohort. Unless this unit is deployed in greater depth - with reserves perhaps - then the line will extend for about 120 yards. A possible approach / solution to this would be to represent the First Cohort as not quite twice the strength of the other cohorts. Instead of 16 stands (twice the normal 8), perhaps 15 stands arranged in three ranks of five stands would serve just as well? Or, perhaps 12 stands might suffice, deployed in a longer line of six stands, but at the same depth of the other cohorts? With respect to supporting units, such as auxiliaries and the like, it appears that the 16 x 4 building block will work well. Again, while there may be problems noted with scale, the general idea of fighting ability (long range if missile troops) addresses this.
Some in fact, were folks from Gaul (or Germania if you prefer).
What of the enemy? In the Charles Grant narrative, the experienced Romans are challenged by some upstart Germanic tribesmen. Can these "barbarians" be represented in a similar manner?
For sake of consistency and simplicity, I think the tribesmen have to be represented on stands just like the Roman heavy infantry. However, the figures may be depicted in such a way as to depict a more open or "mass like" formation. That is to suggest, the Gauls or Germans don't have to be lined up in a straight line, all armed with similar weapons and wearing clothes or armor of the exact same type.
In his excellent article, "The Ancient Germans: Wild Tribes of the North," Adrian Garbett provides a wealth of information about the history, composition and tactics of the tribes that fought both against and with Rome. (Wargames Illustrated, September 2000: pages 29-33.) While there is no specific narration about orders of battles or the make up of units, war bands or however the elements of their battle line were defined (if at all), he does hint at certain levels within the tribe. For example, there is the warlord or chieftain with his retinue of warriors; there are "just plain" tribal warriors; and the rest of the tribal combatants are filled out by some cavalry and very light infantry or youths - these being armed with javelins or perhaps bows and even slings. (32) Under the subheading of `The Warlords,' he does report:
- In battle the warlord and his retinue would form up with their tribal warriors behind them. The Romans describe the formation of a German army as a cuneus (wedge), it would be natural for the keenest and best equipped warriors to stand ahead of the mass ... (30)
Then, with respect to battlefield tactics, Mr. Garbett notes that the Germans, "When facing a Roman army the instinct was to attack." (31) This is all very well and good, but again, how to depict this on the wargames table?
While a mass of some five or even 20 thousand ferocious-looking warriors facing a Roman legion or two appeals, questions of command and control come into play as well as simply the time required to move the number of stands making up this potential tidal wave of tribal spear men, swords men, axe men or club-armed men. Thinking that it might prove prudent to have the elements of a tribal host roughly equal in size to a cohort, I decided (and it must be admitted that it was arbitrary) on 10 or 15 stands for the "masses" of warriors. For the lighter units or missile troops and for the cavalry arm, one could allow for units as small as six stands, on up to 10 or perhaps 12 stands. The figure of 10 or 15 stands per unit or element of the tribe, gives the wargamer a certain degree of flexibility with respect to deploying the Germans in their wedge formation. (Please see Schematic 2 for additional details.) I should think, though I have not yet play tested this adaptation, that these numbers will provide a fighting chance for the Germans. For, as Garbett also notes, "As soon as the Early Imperial Roman army was reorganized it became almost impossible for a German army to defeat Legions frontally ..." (31)
Thus far, the emphasis or concentration of my effort to adapt Fire & Fury has centered around the period of Rome's imperial expansion into the lands north and west of Italy. This is the simple product of rereading those two chapters in Mr. Grant's text. The subjects of consistency and simplicity as well as command and control have been mentioned, and so, I think that I will limit my adaptation to this particular focus: Roman legion versus Germanic host.
This is not to suggest that I'm going to ignore the effect of phalanx, elephant or chariot on the Ancient battlefield. It is however, to admit that I believe my hands and wargaming brain have a plate that is full enough already. Attention on this matter - Romans versus Germans - will allow me to get a basic revision down on paper. After a play test or two, and after rethinking an approach and rule revision or two (or three), then I can worry about what to do with phalanxes, elephants and chariots.
Briefly, at one point during the early stages of this project, strong consideration was given to adapting concepts from The Sword & The Flame Colonial Era rules to the Ancient Period. The perceived spectacle of a mass of 50 odd tribesmen on a larger movement tray very much appealed. The smaller tray of well ordered and identical legion infantry facing them, had a similar attraction. But then, after a few days thinking, this approach seemed not quite right for the kind and size of battle that I was interested in recreating.
A RETURN TO THE RULES AND REVISION OF SAME ...
Having established some "control" over the questions of organization, scale and representation, one can turn to the other heart (or brain, if organization is considered the heart, but let us not get lost in analogies of anatomy) of the wargame: the rules. In a previous article, I did mention the perceived simplicity of the game move sequence for Fire and Fury. Though broken down into three general segments as well (compared to the Vis Bellica sequence), these horse & musket rules deal more efficiently and effectively with Movement, Missile Fire and Melee. Morale, instead of an entirely separate process or procedure, is integrated into each segment. More importantly, this integration is not done in an overly complicated way. Furthermore, this design allows for quick adaptation to the Ancient Period.
As stated in the subtitle of this current endeavor, this is a narrative of an attempt at adaptation. Contrasted to previous rules (whether adapted, adopted or home grown), this project will not be presented in numeric format. What I mean to do is trace my thinking and reasoning throughout this project. The rules from which this effort is adapted are not presented in numeric sequence, strictly speaking. To reiterate, there are three (3) general phases of the game move sequence with sub phases integral to each. My general approach then, will be similar: I will take the three general phases and adapt them to the period under consideration. For the sake of format and simplicity, I will compile revised and or new tables under the general title of "Schematic 3." 1 thank the reader in advance for his patience.
One can simply replace the Union name with that of Roman/Romans and for the Confederate player turn, simply insert Non-Roman or in this specific case, German/Germans. (If these rules revisions succeed and other combatants are brought into the fray, then perhaps the traditional Blue and Red nomenclature can be used.)
In the 1st phase of the Roman turn then, brigades or units/elements will be moved as well as leaders. With respect to machines of war (ballista and catapults and such), I think for the time being, these can be left out of the process. However, if pressed for a viewpoint, I would think that these devices might be attached to a unit instead of left to operate on their own. Then again, with the heavier stone throwing engines, perhaps it is better to have them operate independently. Given that the wargame from which this idea originated contained no type of "artillery," this consideration can be left on the shelf for now. The more pressing concerns are those of movement and maneuver as well as the role of and depiction of leaders.
Based on my admittedly limited reading, it seems that the Roman legion - and elements of same - enjoyed a marked degree of command and control. In the separate cohorts, one finds a fair number of centurions - the equivalent of modern day NCOs. At higher levels, one finds prefects, tribunes and legates. Then of course, there is the commanding general or consul of the whole army/force. Comparing this kind of command structure to the Germanic tribes for example, I think one would have a difficult time of finding a similar organization. So again, how does or should one represent the leadership in the legion? And how too, does one / should one determine the manner in which the cohorts and legion move'?
One of the key and more interesting concepts of Fire & Fury is the maneuver table. Each units rolls against the table to see if it might move and maneuver on any given turn. In terms of taking a lot of the control out of the hands of the all-seeing and all-knowing wargamer, this kind of concept is applauded and welcomed. But, based again on my limited reading of Ancient history and the military contests of that time, did not objects (units) set in motion tend to stay in motion until combat was joined?
I mean, to take an extreme example, it seems ridiculous to consider Alexander leading his Companions into the Granicus only to turn around and withdraw or falter, yards away from the Persian host. (As might happen if he were to roll very poorly on the "good order effects" section of the maneuver table.) Then again, is this not one reason for playing wargames on the table top? That things could have gone another way, and with perhaps entirely different results? In the Grant narrative, the opposing forces are "given" written orders by their player/commanders and these are followed under the watchful eye of an umpire. With the exception of required morale rolls, the plans unfold pretty much without interference. Written orders are intuited in the Fire & Fury rules, but preference is given to Murphy's Law in regard to these orders being carried out in a timely and correct manner. I should think Murphy's Law applicable throughout history, so it seems prudent and simple enough to retain the maneuver table for this adaptation. It also seems prudent to review the modifiers presently listed and revise them to better reflect the Ancient battlefield.
As the effectiveness ratings are being kept for this adaptation, the modifiers for "fresh" and "spent" troops remain in place. Although, I am given pause about the "fresh" rating, for if a unit fights in a melee for a turn or two but does not take casualties, would that unit still be "fresh?" Or, am I just splitting semantic hairs on this point? I think the positive modifier for being in column formation may be thrown out. The "tricky" part is the revision of the modifiers for command elements.
Looking again at the composition of the Roman cohort and legion, there is a command stand for each individual cohort. As related, this stand represents the senior centurion and other elements like the standard, trumpeter(s), drummer(s), etc. For the German counterpart, some similar organization might exist in that there is a commander (warlord) with some kind of standard and musician(s). Now, in the Fire & Fury rules, there are just two occasions where commanders may be subject to the adverse effects of combat. The one necessitates rolling a 0 on a 1d10 during musketry, and then rolling an additional 1d10 to find the result The other is an extreme result in melee, and here the leader or command stands are taken (captured). In the general exchange of musketry or shell fire, this command stand is always the last part of the unit to be removed. This is simply a provision of the rules.
As stated on page 20, "The only brigade commanders that may become casualties are the exceptional brigade commanders." For this revision, it seems to make sense to remove this kind of "protection" from the command element/stand. Given the nature of combat in this period and the perceived position of these leaders in the lines, it appears reasonable to make them more vulnerable to the unpredictable nature of missile fire and melee. (This idea will be discussed more in a later section.)
Upon reflection, it seems that I am concentrating too much on "things" Roman. But then, I have more resources and research on them and their command structure than I do with respect to the Germanic tribes, the Parthians or Picts. As this adaptation is very much a "work in progress," would it be "unfair" to assign a typical Roman legion one legate, two tribunes and three prefects in addition to the 10 centurion commands? This provides six additional and higher-level commands for the legion. Let me suggest that the command radius for these officers be 6 inches, 9 inches and 12 inches, respectively.
Let me also suggest that, on average, the command bonus afforded by these ranks be + 1, +2 and +3. Of course, specific ratings could be assigned for a scenario. If Caesar were present, he might be given a command radius of 16 inches and a modifier of +5. If a lesser Legate were in command of the Legion, he might be designated with a -2 modifier. (Better then, that he not be attached to any one cohort!) In general though, one could very well expect that a "fresh" legion would be a body that could move almost at will across any field of battle. Turning to the Germans, in addition to the overall commander or chieftain on the field, one might expect two or three subordinates in addition to the war band commands. However, there would be no comparable structure along the lines of the Romans. Command and control then, would be fairly problematic for the barbarian tribes. It occurs to me just now, that the "disorder effects" side of the maneuver table might also be used for rolling movement and maneuver after the loss of an integral command stand.
In summary then, the maneuver table from Fire & Fury is used as it stands. The modifier for column formation is taken away and the command influence is recorded per scenario and per higher-level command. Finally, units that have lost their command stands will roll under the "disorder effects" side of the table until a replacement command is provided.
Replacing leaders (or command stands) is the first sub-step of phase 1 of the adapted game move sequence. Instead of conjuring up new replacement leaders from thin air, replacement leaders will have to come from those already on the table / field. For example, if the Prefect commanding the Roman right wing of cavalry is felled in combat, the General might send his Tribune to take charge of the flank. Similarly, if the warlord of a band of spear men falls with a pila in his chest, then the sub-general for that part of the field may have to step into his place. Until then, the war band operates as a disordered unit. With regards to the other sub-steps listed on page 20 of Fire and Fury, one need only cross out "and batteries." The command radius of higher-level commanders has already been suggested. Of course, this radius is negated if the leader is attached to a unit. Movement allowance will be covered in a subsequent paragraph or related table.
Turning now to a consideration of infantry and cavalry formations, a quick review of the horse & musket rules shows that there are just four that are recognized. There is Line, Supported Line, Field Column and March Column. (23-24) To a degree, these formations can be adopted for use in the Ancient period. To a degree as well, formations have been illustrated in Schematics I and 2. The "wedge" would be something new or different of course. On reflection, unless it is a meeting engagement or ambush scenario, the specifics (advantages or disadvantages) of field or march columns seem unnecessary to list. Given again, that one stand represents a block of troops, 16 men across by 4 ranks deep, combat - whether by missile or in melee - would be "limited" to these first ranks. This is not to suggest that deeper formations won't have any effect or advantage, they will. But it is within the first ranks where the battle will be decided.
In brief overview (the process will be discussed more in later sections), combat values will be totaled for the first rank of stands involved. This point total will be modified by a number of factors, to include depth and number of stands in the formation, and then a combat die will be rolled and compared to the defender's number. It's all very similar to the Fire & Fury procedure. For example, a block of Macedonian pikemen, numbering five stands in front with a depth of four stands (20 stands total), would have a base combat value of: 4 for each stand of pikemen in front line =20 + 2 for each stand of pikemen in the second line = 10 + 1 for each stand in successive ranks, up to a depth of five(5) ranks = 5 and 5 for 10. The total base combat value? 20 + 10 + 10 = 40 points.
Again, this is just an example and the project remains very much a "work in progress." The multiple modifiers on the Fire & Fury charge table will have to be revised. The more difficult issue will be assigning fire point values and melee point values to the variety of infantry, cavalry and special troops which make up an Ancients period army. Fortunately, the assignment of movement rates for these troops is not as complex.
In the time of the American Civil War, infantry was infantry. It was that simple. Certainly, there may have been distinctive or even gaudily uniformed regiments, but they all got around the various theaters and battlefields by foot. Correspondingly and sensibly, there is just one movement rate given for this troop type in the Fire & Fury rules. In contrast, one might advance something on the order of six different kinds of infantry for the period of warfare under present consideration.
In addition to the standard divisions of Light Infantry (LI), Medium Infantry (MI) and Heavy Infantry (HI), one can suggest subcategories of Light-Medium and Light-Heavy Infantry (LMI and LHI) as well as the very heavily armored, Extra-Heavy Infantry (EHI). Are there to be six separate movement rates for these kinds of troops then? For the mounted arm, will there be an additional six ratings? Here, we can list Light Cavalry (LC), Medium and Heavy Horse (MC and HC), as well as the heavily armored cataphract (EHC). The special units of Chariot and Elephant (Ch and E) making up the final two mounted categories; bringing the movement table total to a potentially overwhelming and complicating 12.
While not much can be done with assimilating the mounted arm into like categories (Light Cavalry does move faster than Heavy Cavalry), the infantry arm can be reduced by half to just three divisions or ratings. Here, I am perhaps committing a rules (or is it historical sin?) by suggesting that Light Infantry is Light Infantry, irrespective of its hyphenated designation. The same might be argued for putting Medium Infantry and Heavy Infantry "together." I stipulate to these perceived transgressions. The decision is made in the attempt to maintain some kind of simplicity within this adaptation. Borrowing the 12 inch movement rate from the Fire & Fury rules then, I say that this is the allowance for infantry types designated at Medium or Heavy. Four inches are added on either side, depending on the classification of Light or Extra-Heavy. That is to state: Light Infantry, regardless of class, can move up to 16 inches per game turn, and Extra-Heavy Infantry may advance at the blistering rate of 8 inches per turn.
Adding the horse into this mix, let me suggest that EHC will move at the same speed of Medium of Heavy Infantry; that is, at 12 inches per turn. Moving down the weight scale to the "flighty" Light Cavalry, the movement rate is more generous. Applying the same four inch increment then, Heavy Cavalry moves at 16 inches, Medium Horse at 20 inches and Light Cavalry at a dizzying rate of 24 inches per turn. Again, I feel I should stress that this is a "work in progress" and that these movement allowances may not hold to play testing nor even to the proofing and editing of this draft. (Note: Chariots and Elephants are left "out" as the scenario I'm interested in reconstructing, did not have these particular troop types.)
In marked contrast to the battlefield of 1862, on the much earlier fields of valor, the order of the troops played an important role. That is to remark, one did not see the phalanx of Macedonian pikemen advance in skirmish order. Nor does one read accounts of Cretan archers or mercenary slingers advancing into battle in dense blocks, some 20 men across and 16 ranks deep. The Vis Bellica rules add to the total movement rate for those troops in a more dispersed or open formation, but I don't think I will adopt a similar philosophy. I think it may be just taken or "assumed" (yes, I know that is a dangerous thing to do) that the Light Infantry will be in skirmish order while the heavier types like legionaries and hoplites, will be in denser formations. This understanding is built into the proposed movement rates.
The concern about order and density of formation is more important with respect to combat process and determination. There is one area however, where order and density of formation do have an effect on movement. On page 31 of the Fire & Fury rules, "passage-of-lines" is detailed. In brief, this rule states that friendly brigades(units) may pass through each other at the cost of three inches from their respective movement allowance or rate. There is no distinction made about cavalry passing through foot or vice versa. Additionally, there is no comment made about the potentially disordering effects of movement or maneuver. While I can applaud this rule process for its clarity and simplicity, it seems evident that the process may not be so straightforward when the Ancient period is considered. To be sure, the basic idea remains the same: friendly forces may "pass through" or inter penetrate each other. The consequences to movement allowance and order/organization are a little more involved.
For example, let us suppose that on some field during the Second Punic War, Hannibal's African infantry are "run into" by some friendly cavalry or even some elephants. Let us also suppose that the retreating units have not had the best in a recent combat and need to put some distance between themselves and the enemy - the Romans. The cavalry may "bounce" off the presumed ordered ranks of the African mercenaries, but there is a chance that some of the horsemen may push their way into the formation and out the other side, as this is the most direct line of escape. The elephants, on the other hand, would probably not "bounce" off the front of the spear men. In addition to the negative impact on movement rate, I should think it's reasonable to note the disorder that the situation would produce. As a result of the melee, the cavalry and elephants are most likely in disorder. It is the African phalanx that concerns me more. The "mixing" of desperate and possibly panicked cavalrymen and elephants would certainly disrupt the formation. Even if the incident was not a result of combat, it seems to me that moving one body into and through another body of formed troops would produce a degree of disorganization, of disorder.
The "more involved" aspect with regard to Ancients, stems from the original or preferred deployment of the units in question. In the above example, the African infantry are in close order. Though their training might entertain certain maneuvers and discipline, the progress of another unit of African infantry through these same ranks would undoubtedly result in some confusion or disorder. Open order units, such as legionaries (on occasion) and lighter armed foot troops like some bowmen or auxiliaries, would not produce as much a problem for their heavier and closer order cousins. However, I still think that this type of inter penetration or maneuvering would cause some degree of disorder.
In review, it is a "tricky" issue. And I will admit that perhaps I am complicating matters by looking too hard at the question. I do believe however, that it is an important consideration. So, close order infantry are disordered (and lose movement) when "mixed" with friendly close and open order troops. Open order troops are disordered as well, when having to negotiate their way through heavy troops, but will only pay a penalty on movement when moving through friendly units that are in open order. The light troops - skirmish order units - are the most flexible of all. These troops are, in certain respects, in disorder already (meaning there is no real formation involved) and so, may move into and through friendly units at will, without adverse impact.
Horses add another layer to this "involvement." And yet, it seems to me, that if the situation is one between friendly mounted units, then the same general rules apply. That is to remark, skirmishing cavalry can canter around or through the cataphracts with no penalty to either body. It is only when a unit of cataphracts has to move into and through another unit of cataphracts -- both are friendly -- that disorder will result. Turning to the "mix" of friendly cavalry and infantry forces, one may suggest the following guidelines: Close Order Horse (usually Heavy Cavalry) will disorder and be disordered by friendly close order and open order infantry; Open Order Horse (maybe Heavy or Medium Cavalry) will also disorder and be disordered by friendly close order and open order infantry; and Skirmish Order Horse (almost always Light Cavalry) may move through and about any friendly units without disordering effects. These troops will pay a movement penalty, however.
Some readers will complain that I am only making this adaptation more complex with the above "quibbles" about inter penetration of friendly units and the apparent degrees of disorder that may be found on the field. The presumed complaints are recorded, but I should like to remind those same readers that this is, after all, a "work in progress." (I've used this phrase as a kind of rationalization thus far, though I don't mean to cover my lack of skill with regard to rule writing / adaptation with a "blanket excuse.") These same readers may also complain when I attempt to make a distinction between disorder as a result of fighting and disorder as a result of movement or terrain. "Disorder is disorder is disorder," I can imagine them commenting.
And I agree. But only up to a point. The maneuver table in the Fire & Fury rules caters just to that condition or status of troops that have been disordered as a result of combat. This process or determination excludes those instances where troops / units may become disordered as a result of friendly units moving through, or in cases where the terrain is not "comfortable" for close order formations. For example, a cohort of legionaries trying to negotiate a dense forest in western Germania. For another example, a phalanx of pikemen trying to cross a swollen river -- carrying their great shields and pikes over their heads.
It would follow then, and yes, it is at the "cost" of another table in the rules adaptation, that a second `disorder effects' table be added to the general table for movement and maneuver. This necessary addition to prevent those same legionaries or pikemen from rolling very low on the present table and thus breaking as a result of the poor footing or difficult terrain. The worst result would be that the unit in question remains in disorder; perhaps it would retreat half a move as well? The best, obviously, is that officers are immediately able to get the men back into line and facing in the right direction.
There is a distinction then, between units disordered in combat and those disordered by inter penetration and or terrain. While some enthusiasts will find the measure clutters the wargame table, this distinction may be best indicated through colored markers. Let us posit that blue represents disorder from combat and green represents disorder from noncombat situations. Though no play test has been gamed, it occurs to me that it would be possible for a unit to be disordered by terrain or movement and then "earn" a disorder marker as a result of combat. Once again, I can hear the low chanting: "Disorder is disorder is disorder." Well, yes and no. There is a marked difference between troops lumbering about in heavy vegetation the rank being thrown into disorder and those same troops enduring a shower of arrows, with men falling dead and wounded as a result.
The subsequent tables (Small Arms, Charge) in Fire & Fury list a penalty modifier for units that are disordered. Initially, defining this penalty as "terrain disorder" and "combat disorder" - with graduated modifiers - seemed appropriate. Disorder as a result of combat was judged more "problematic" than that subsequent to inter penetration and or terrain. On review however, this revision seems to complicate the process. Disorder is disorder, after all. And so, the penalty modifier will remain at a minus 1 for melee and in fire combat, the attacking/shooting unit will halve its stands or points. I do maintain though, that there is a difference between the kinds of disorder and that this difference is best addressed through the establishment of a second "disorder effects" table. This additional table having to do with inter penetration and the effects of terrain, it remains now to take a closer look at the effects of terrain on infantry, cavalry and other troop types and formations.
Essentially, the terrain types in the Fire & Fury rules are "basic" or "open" and "rough." This simple division appeals and yet, such broad strokes of the terrain type "brush" will not suffice for this adaptation. Therefore, in what some may view as a contradictory move, the terrain types and descriptions will be adopted in full from page 21 of Vis Bellica (section 4, `The Battlefield'). Additionally, the applicable paragraphs of 7.4.3 `Movement,' will be adopted. Here, I am referencing especially, "All Close Order troops and all Cavalry and Chariots are marked as disordered if they end their movement within Difficult or Impassable terrain." (41) Rules "lawyers" may key on the word `end' in that sentence and so, let us add the following note, to the effect that: "Close order troops, Cavalry and Chariots will be marked as disordered if one-third of more of the unit has to negotiate Difficult or Impassable terrain during any movement phase." For those same "lawyers," the word `negotiate' means to move into, through or across the terrain piece.
The adoption of pieces from Vis Bellica continues with the assessment of penalties on movement through different terrain types. It is not my intention to copy/borrow the full move distances/terrain table from the player aid sheet, however. For one thing, I plan on revising the move distances (decrease them a little I think), and for another I am going to get rid of the "separate" movement rates for troops in rough or worse terrain and simply list a negative modifier to the base move. Splitting hairs? Perhaps ...but when I can reduce four (4) columns on a table to just one (1) and then add a few items to the modifier side, it's a trade I'm willing to make. For example, for rough and then difficult terrain types, I might declare that LI troops will take a -1 inch and then -2 inch modifier. For the terrain that is declared "impassable" or "impossible" (it's written both ways in Vis Bellica), it seems to me that the adjective speaks for itself and that no troop types should be allowed access or egress. In general then, the movement cost is doubled for the more difficult terrain type.
That is, "difficult" costs more than just plain "rough" terrain. I am thinking too, that mounted units will pay even more for crossing into this type of terrain. Finally, I am seriously considering eliminating the additional inches provided for troops in "other than" close order and for those charging. It seems to me that most of these "advantages" would be factored into the basic movement rate of the unit. With respect to modifiers in combat situations, I will return to the adaptation of the horse & musket rules at hand. That is to comment, instead of drawing on the Vis Bellica table (wherein no distinction is made for the missile protection afforded by the varying kinds of woods, or for units in built-upareas for that matter), I will be amending the modifiers found within the Fire & Fury tables.
Finishing up this "section" then, we have yet to consider: retreating units; the passage-oflines; formation changes; and, the removal of status markers.
The Fire & Fury rules are very clear (and simple) on what happens when units retreat. (Page 29) Again, for the limited purpose of this adaptation, one can ignore the sentence about artillery. With regard to the passage-of-lines exposition on a subsequent page, I think that a lot of this has already been discussed above. (See previous ideas about inter penetration, cost to movement and disordering effects.) The cost of three (3) inches for moving through another friendly unit seems fair enough. However, instead of not allowing units to end a turn intermingled with another friendly organization, I will allow this to reflect those rare circumstances when a passage-of-lines was being tried and was "interrupted" by a watchful or lucky enemy force. With respect to formation changes, well, as indicated with Schematics 1 and 2, there is little variance from the cohort organization and "masses" or Germanic warriors. Phrased another way, I"m not so sure that it is important to note that a unit is in line or column or testudo formation, as it is to note whether it is in skirmish order, open order or close order. Based on this division then, I am also not so sure if the instance of a unit "changing" from close order to skirmish order - for example - will be that prevalent as to require additional rules.
The formation and or deployment as well as identity and ability of a unit or formation will be indicated with an ID "tag." The current status of same will be indicated by the presence or absence of a marker. It has already been suggested that units in disorder are designated by blue or green markers. Reviewing the movement and maneuver table in Fire & Fury as well as the figure showing specific markers for the horse and musket period (page 6, figure 2), the only other status marker that must be adapted or adopted is that for "breakthrough." Staying with the primary colors, it seems appropriate to choose red for this particular marker. On the disorder side of the movement and maneuver table, there are words like "shaken" and "broken," but these are essentially synonyms for the state of disorder of that particular unit or formation. In review then: a unit is either in ordered formation or it is not. And if it is not, then the unit may be in disorder because of terrain or movement, or, because of combat. The "breakthrough" marker is awarded only to units engaged in melee. Markers indicating effectiveness (fresh, worn and spent) are not required as this is determined by a simple count of stands remaining against information provided on the ID "tag."
The second in the three phases of the Fire & Fury game move sequence is Musketry & Cannonade. Obviously, the title cannot be adopted for use in the Ancient period. The procedural aspects however, and to a large part the fire combat table, can be readily adapted.
In brief, a 10-sided die will still be thrown, fire points and modifiers will be determined and casualties and/or disorder will most likely result. Infantry and cavalry stands will not share similar armament, however. Legion infantry will have the short sword and pila; Indian medium infantry will have a great bow and two-handed sword; Parthian light horse will have the composite bow, and Peltasts will have a selection of javelins. It seems prudent then, to list the range and fire points by weapon type as opposed to stand of infantry, cavalry or artillery. (Again, for the limited purpose of this scenario, I am not going to concern myself with deciding on ranges and points for ballista, scorpions, catapults and the like.) It also seems prudent to base the "whole" off the infantry stand. That is to remark that, instead of a separate "consideration" for cavalry stands with bows, javelins, etc., a modifier will simply be applied to the equation.
Based on my reading, it seems reasonable to reduce the effectiveness of any missile fire being issued from horseback. Therefore, mounted elements or stands will generally fire with half the effect of their more sure-footed comrades.
These weapon types, ranges and modifiers are more easily displayed in table form. What I can "amend" here in this paragraph is simply the following:
- l. the ammunition rule is taken out;
2. all references to artillery in the effects table are ignored; and
3. reinforcing the vulnerability of leaders, a roll of an 8, 9 or 0 on the initial roll of the 1d10, results in a subsequent leader casualty roll.
The colorful Fallen Leader Table in Fire & Fury is kept as is, with the understanding that there can be no sniper on the field and that other suggestions of small arms fire, etc. should be revised to provide a more shield and sword "flavor." In review of this table though, the leader of a unit (or higher-echelon command) is subject to enemy fire and will either fall dead or narrowly miss that fate. Please note that this same table makes reference to a "replacement" appearing after one full turn. As discussed above, the process is not so simple. "Replacement" leaders or commanders will only come from an existing number already present on the field. My thinking here again, is to try and reflect the importance of a command element; to try and reflect the limited supply of the same.
Previously, mention was made of the different armament(s) for each kind of troop. The legion infantry were part of that "for example" list. While the pilum is a missile weapon, evidence from a number of sources (particularly from Davis Hanson, who I've quoted in previous submissions) shows that the cohort would launch pila just prior to engagement in hand-to hand combat. Therefore, the pila was not truly a missile weapon in the sense that it was used to inflict casualties from a distance.
One may rightly suggest or call the weapon a kind of extension of the cohort "arm" - a precursor to the shield and short sword. Therefore, the impact of the pila volley (or volleys) will be determined on the Charge Table / Melee Table and not, on the Musketry & Cannonade Table. The supposition here is that the legion infantry are on the offensive and showering the enemy formation prior to charging home. What if the situation is reversed? That is to ask, what if a cohort is standing in place behind a half-completed section of camp wall or has turned from a road march column to face an issuing horde of barbarians? It seems to me not unreasonable to provide an equal if not nearly equal modifier to Roman legionary infantry "on the defense." Again, these "rules" have not been play tested, so their final format is not set. I am curious though, to see how the Romans do fare against the Germans in the planned contest.
Before moving to the final segment of the game move sequence and looking at how the melee process will be adapted from horse & musket to horse & spear, a basic example of missilry is in order. A unit of Roman auxiliary archers (LMI in 00, 8 stands strong and in good order) fires a volley at or into a mass of German tribesmen in a wood line. The distance from unit front edge to unit front edge is 12.5 inches. A stand of bows is normally worth two fire factor points, but since the archers are within the long range band the fire factor is reduced to one. Eight stands x I fire factor equals 8 points. Then Germans are in a wood line and most are carrying shields. The result of a I d 10 will be reduced by two, to account for these conditions. Let us say that the roll is a 7. Using the existing table in the Fire & Fury rules, 8 fire factors with a 7 roll (-2 for conditions) yields a result of 5.
This result is found under lively fire and so the Germans are marked as disordered. This is separate and distinct from the disorder they may already have, with respect to terrain. No stands are removed as casualties.
The third and final phase in the three phases of the Fire & Fury game move sequence is the Charge phase or move and resolution of close combats/melees. Unlike the second phase, there is no problem in adopting the title. There are no serious problems either, in adapting the procedure, modifiers and effects "table." The only "tricky" part is deciding the combat value of the stands involved.
Compared to the "universal" troop types battling across fields in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, there are a number of troop types in Italian Gaul and lands north and west of this province. For example, if one takes the types or kinds of infantry that may be present: LI, MI, HI and EHI, one might suggest that each stand of LI be "worth" one (1) point; the MI valued at two (2) points, and so on until the very solid EHI is reached.
These stalwarts would perhaps have a melee strength of four (4) points per stand. A unit of EHI numbering 10 stands, would have a potential combat value of 40 points, then. Perhaps a similar approach could be be adopted for the mounted arm? Again, there are four "accepted" classes: LC, MC, HC and EHC. A similar ranking by point values - that was used for the infantry - can be argued here. Then again, one could also suggest two values for mounted units: one value for cavalry v. cavalry combats and the other for cavalry against infantry combats. This is to ask, is a stand of LC - given a value of two (2) points, for example - equal in combat value to a stand of MI? To be sure, being on horseback and armed with light weapons and no shield or armor per se, proclaims a certain value. But, when put up against a stand of mercenary pikemen with long pike and large shield, is there a comparable value?
As with the missile fire phase, a 1 d 10 is rolled for each unit involved in close combat and modifiers are added or subtracted to this result. Per the rules in Fire and Fury, the defender's total is subtracted from the attacker's total. A positive difference means that the attacker has won the round; a negative difference means that the defender has repulsed the attacker. And, per the rules from which this Ancients "version" is adapted, the greater the difference, the greater the defeat for either side. Having provided a cursory example for the resolution of missile fire/combat, it makes sense to provide a similar example for hand-to-hand combat.
The contest is this: a cohort of legion infantry advancing into melee with a dour-looking bunch of Germans. The cohort is rated as HI and in CO, armed with pila, sword and shield. The unit numbers 8 stands in two ranks of four. If, as outlined above, one assigns a combat value of three (3) points for each stand of HI, then the front rank of the cohort will total 12 points, with an additional four (4) points for the supporting stands. The working total then, is 16 points. With respect to modifiers to this base, let us suggest that the cohort commander is experienced (+1); that the cohort is "fresh" (+2); that the cohort is in CO which gives them a +1 over the OO tribesmen; and that, with the charge and initial volley of pila before contact, the cohort will gain an additional +2 modifier.
Adding these modifiers together, one arrives at a +6 modifier to the ld10 roll. To continue the example, let us say that the Roman player rolls a 7 on the die. The total score for the cohort in this close combat is 13.
Turning to the Germanic side of this imaginary contest, the war band numbers some 10 stands in wedge formation. The barbarians are classed as MI and in OO, armed with shield, spear and sword. At two (2) points per stand of MI, the Germans would count six (6) points in the first ranks (special allowance for the wedge formation: on the attack, the first three ranks count), plus the supporting seven stands at one (1) point each. This gives the war band a combat total of 13 points. Compared to the Roman score/total, the odds are even - no side is outnumbered by the other. With respect to the modifiers to the German 1d10 roll, let us also assume that the leader of this band is very good (+1); that these warriors are "fresh" (+2); and, that this war band is in situ on the crest of a slight hill (+1 to defender). The die roll of the German commander/player will be increased by +4, then. Following the process to its conclusion, let us say that the Germans rolled poorly on their 1d10, securing just a 3. The Germans would have a total score of 7 versus the Roman result of 13 and so, would lose the combat by six (6) points. Consulting the effects portion of the Charge Table, the war band is Driven Back.
FINAL THOUGHTS...
Time and again, I have made reference to the fact that this project is very much a "work in progress." Given unlimited resources of time, table space, figures and available play testers, not to mention someone who could type for me while I concentrated on other activities, this narrative and the revision of Fire & Fury for the Ancients period would have been some where between 10 and 100 times better. Of course, I do not possess the luxuries listed. I make do with what I have and with what I can assemble, however halfhazard it may seem. This is not to admit that I take a cavalier approach to the adaptation and revision of rules. This is not to admit that I am willing to settle for something sub-par with respect to the simulation of conflict on the Ancient battlefield. It is to admit that the sets of rules tried, while good in their own right and providing hours of wargaming interest, have left me wanting in one or more respects. It is also to admit that I am human, and am prone to shortcomings if not out right failure. In retrospect, I should have done the "smart thing" and conducted a play test (or even a few) before submitting this narrative. By not doing so, it does seem that I am placing the cart before the horse. And yet, this idea turned into project, turned into eventual wargame, turned into wargame report and then finally, into a submission for review and possible publication in these same pages, provides a starting point.
It is somewhat ironic, that this far into 2004 - a year declared to have the personal theme of "Ancients" - I would just now arrive at a starting point. But only somewhat, as my intention through this year was not the revision of one set of rules so I could wargame contests set almost 2,000 years earlier. My intention was to focus on the Ancient period in general. In the main, I have taken historical battles and tried to reconstruct them on the tabletop with widely accepted rules. This is not an original concept, certainly. And where I have departed from this practice, I have been just as unoriginal. One could very well argue then, that this has been my theme in 2004. COHORTS & COURAGE supports the contention, for it is an adaptation of the well known and well researched and written Fire & Fury rules for The American Civil War. And, the idea grew from a notion to recreate a wargame wherein a Roman legion faced German war bands, described by Charles Grant in Wargame Tactics.
Back to MWAN # 131 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Legio X
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