Every army throughout military history has been controlled and affected to varying degrees by those interrelated factors which have governed the fighting ability of soldiers since the beginning of time. Coordinated, the sum total of these qualities made an army the good, bad or indifferent force revealed by history. For wargaming purposes, these qualities are evaluated on a chart, each being given a points value that is totaled to provide a Fighting Assessment Figure for each army. By allocating a points value of `Above Average' - 3 points; `Average' - 2 points; `Below Average' - 1 point, to indicate specific superiority or inferiority in essential factors, Fighting Assessment charts are intended as a guide to the formulation or adaptation of rules controlling warfare of the period. As an example, take a typical Fighting Assessment Chart - that of the Peninsular War of 1808-1814. The British overall commanders Wellington, Graham and Beresford were all first-class men, while their French counterparts Joseph, Jourdan, Junot and Massena must be rated second-class. The British subordinate commanders Pakenham, Hill, Picton, Cole, Alten and Hope were also first-class, while history indicates that the French subordinates Soult, Marmont, Ney, Bonnet, Clausel, Suchet, Gazan, D'Erlon, Reille, Foy and Murat should be rated second-class. The two armies are both considered to be first-class in composition, with French efficiency balanced by the superb British Light Division, their weak cavalry and the fact that part of Wellington's force were Portuguese and Spanish. When supported by the British, the Portuguese and the best Spanish troops are classified as equal to their British comrades. Results make it reasonable to give Wellington's men a first-class morale rating with the invariably defeated French (also beset by guerrillas), given a second-class valuation. First-class tactical systems, formations and speed of maneuvering must be granted to the British, while the French, so frequently out-maneuvered by Wellington, are second-class. The arms and equipment of both sides are first-class, but by comparison the weapon-handling of the French is second-class as opposed to the firstclass British (probably due to the Light Division). All these varying factors add up to a Fighting Assessment total of 33 for Wellington and his men against 26 for their French opponents, whose points total suffers when they are operating in areas of Spanish guerrilla activity. Each campaign can have its Fighting Assessment Chart detailing comparative values for the principal military attributes of the antagonists, classified under the following headings: (a) Commander (b) Subordinate Commanders A marked feature of many of the campaigns of the period was the degree of equality between opponents, so that victory went to the side with the most talented or competent commander. The respective totals on the Fighting Assessment Chart for the operations in Germany during the Second Coalition of 1799 reflect the fact that both armies were remarkably equal but that Jourdan commanding the French was at best an `Average' commander, whereas the Austrian commander, Archduke Charles, was certainly `Above Average'. The grading of commanders and their subordinates does not necessarily indicate that the competence and morale of the man n the ranks (including junior officers) was the same as that of his commanders, although his performance was greatly affected by the morale and ability of those leaders. COMPOSITION OF ARMY This is an attempt to represent the `balance' of a force - whether it has reasonable proportions of infantry, cavalry and artillery, plus whether or not that force is adequate for the role it is called upon to play. For example, Wellington's only reverse, at the Siege of Burgos, occurred mainly because of his lack of sufficient heavy siege artillery. It also considers whether a force is adequate for the role it is called upon to play - i.e. a force strong in cavalry and lacking artillery could hardly be considered adequate to defend a fortified position. MERCENARIES For centuries professional soldiers, unemployed when their particular war came to an end, have sold their services and fought for the commander who paid them best. Usually banded together, mercenaries were a feature of Ancient warfare but probably reached their peak during the early days of gunpowder wars when Swiss pikemen and German Landsknechts slaughtered each other with their similar style of ferocious fighting. Their activities were at a peak during the advent of gunpowder weapons. However, they were very much present even as late as the end of the 18th century when Hessians were employed by the British in North America. Skillful professionals who usually fought well for the side that was paying them, they had a tendency to refuse to fight if unpaid or to defect at some critical stage of a campaign. The condottieri of the Italian City States (but never the Swiss pikemen) employed a highly personalized system of warfare that enabled them to reach a decision without excessive risk and without losing valuable professional soldiers. The conflict might be decided by mutual arrangement after a dashing charge that routed one side without many blows being struck, or after maneuvers that out-flanked or surrounded their opponents, forcing a bloodless retreat. Thus, whilst being given the benefit of being skillful professional fighters, mercenaries must also be penalized because of their perfidious habits. TRAINING Those exceptional occasions such as the American Revolution when an ill-trained army of civilians, swept along by patriotic fervor, overcame trained and disciplined opponents, should not obscure the fact that the best trained armies are mot likely to win. They react better and more rapidly to orders, have a greater resistance to stress, and obey orders without question because training has rid them of the habit of questioning their superiors. DISCIPLINE This has a bearing on the previous paragraph in that a badly trained army is usually a badly disciplined force. All other things being equal, a force that works under tight control, both by the commander upon the men and the men upon themselves, is likely to perform better than a rabble who wander off in search of loot or food and go home when it is harvest time. When, in 1776, American patriots defeated disciplined British redcoats, their actions were guided by George Washington, an exceptional commander; no doubt even he despaired at Valley Forge and on other occasions! An example of the triumph of discipline and training over patriotism and courage is Cumberland's victory over the Jacobites at Culloden in 1746.  MORALE Morale is the `character' of soldiers as expressed in their reaction to stress and strain, and it is the factor which determines the specific point at which an army or unit is no longer capable of carrying out its duties and withdraws from the battle, either in good order or as a fleeing mob. A series of defeats will gravely lower the standards of morale of a force, while the presence of a battlefield of an outstanding leader, such as Napoleon, can severely affect the morale of his opponents. An army carried along on the tide of victory and led by a popular and trusted commander has such a high standard of morale that they can withstand reverses or losses that would normally mean defeat. Wellington's army in the Peninsular is an excellent example of this. RELIGIOUS FERVOR Many of the major wars of history occurred for religious reasons which, closely akin to morale, is one of the strongest motivating forces. When an army imbued with religious belief to the point of fanaticism is commanded by an exceptional leader, enemy forces can rarely stand before them. Jan Ziska and his Hussites immediately spring to mind. TACTICAL SYSTEM Tactics is the battlefield handling of soldiers using methods and formations which their commander hopes will prove superior to those employed by the enemy. Here, we seek to assess and classify battlefield tactics employed by the army under review. TACTICAL FORMATIONS Wellington's use of infantry in line covered by riflemen to defeat French column attacks was a first-class tactical formation. On the other hand, during the Napoleonic Wars there were numerous instances of French column attacks being highly successful against opponents less steady than the British infantryman. Frederick's oblique order at Leuthen was so devastatingly successful as to be graded first class and the Spanish tercios of the early 16th century reigned supreme for nearly 150 years, until overthrown at Rocroi in 1643. Success came to intelligently develop tactical innovations - until the enemy took them a stage further or reasoned out new formations of their own. SPEED OF MANEUVERING A prime reason for the success of Frederick's Prussians was that they were trained to move with a machine-like precision, producing a speed of movement and battlefield maneuvers that enabled them to out-march and out-maneuver the enemy in every tactical aspect. Speed of maneuvering is affected by the standard of training and discipline of both soldiers and the formations of which they are part, aided by quick-thinking leaders working to efficient tactical systems. One reason for the success of the early French Revolutionary armies was that they marched faster, and, in fact, throughout the Napoleonic Wars, the French armies marched faster than the Austrian, Prussian and Russian armies who were slower to maneuver and take up position - besides frequently being surprised to find the French far closer than they had anticipated. ARMS AND EQUIPMENT There was surprisingly little technical improvement in both hand-weapons and artillery during the period late 18th - early 19th; in fact, it was only from the time of the rifled hand-weapon (the Baker rifle) onwards that the infantryman was armed with a weapon superior in accuracy, range and rate of fire t the longbow used at Crecy in 1346. Even the famous Brown Bess musket did not fire much faster or more accurately than the handguns used by the Spanish some 200 to 250 years earlier - although at close range it was a deadly weapon, its inaccuracy made it necessary for soldiers to fire in ordered volleys. The mode of employment of artillery varied considerably during the Napoleonic Wars by such methods as Napoleon's massed batteries in his later campaigns. But the cannon itself did not really improve greatly until the last part of the 19th century, when grooved, breechloading guns were introduced. With the weapons remaining more or less constant, those occasions on which one army had a marked advantage in this aspect over their opponents are recorded and should be reflected on the wargames table. Such an example is the American frontiersmen's long rifle, proven in Indian Wars and a vastly superior weapon to the smooth-bore musket of the British Regular. The replacement of the fragile wooden ramrod by one of iron gave the 18th century Prussians considerable superiority in rate of musket fire, and should be considered in rules for this period. Another example is the Crimean War when the Allies had the Minie and the Enfield rifle, while the Russians were still using the old smooth-bore muskets. WEAPON HANDLING With the smooth-bore musket, all infantry were theoretically equal, but some (such as the Light Division) were more equal than others! Rules must be so formulated as to make this fact evident on table-top battlefields. A predominant reason for the success of the American patriots over the British during the War of the American Revolution was the manner in which backwoodsmen (such as Morgan's) so efficiently handled the weapon to which they were accustomed. Their accuracy and rate of fire far surpassed anything that could be achieved by the Regulars. SPECIAL FACTORS These are so easy to find when studying military history that great selectivity is necessary and they should only be included where they had a material effect upon the course of the battle. For example, in the wars with Austria, the Prussians were so plagued by hordes of Croats and Pandours that in 1745 Frederick had to leave half his Prussian army behind to deal with Austrian and Hungarian Irregulars while he marched into Bohemia after the Battle of Hohenfriedberg. At the Battle of Kolin in 1757, Croatian Pandours harassed the solid Prussian columns so that they were split into three diverging groups and defeated in detail. Special factors should only be included where they had a material effect upon the course of the operations. For example, in the later battles of 1807 during the Wars of the Third Coalition, the French massed artillery were highly effective and should be given a bonus; while it should be marked that the Russians were better suited to the cold climate and their Cossacks scouted better than the French cavalry. During the Peninsular War the French army were plagued by guerrillas, harassing their flanks and cutting their lines of communications, which should lower their points score. All these factors have to count in a tangible manner because they are vital when matching one army against another in a table-top campaign. They should be graded so as to indicate clearly the standards of the army under review, thus: Above Average 3 points Average 2 points Below Average 1 point By allocating a points value to indicate particular superiority of inferiority in essential factors, Fighting Assessment Charts are intended as a guide to the formulation or adaptation of rules controlling the specific campaign. The majority of wargames rules place a very strong emphasis on morale, usually arriving at the morale state of a formation by adding or subtracting factors (such as `disordered', `unsupported', etc.) and then adding to that total a dice throw, representing the fluctuations of fortune. It is simplicity itself to ally that method to the morale rating shown on Fighting Assessment Charts -- where morale is first class, and I to the morale score, where second class, take no action, and where third class, deduct 1. Each Fighting Assessment Chart should reveal sufficient reason for one army to be victorious and the other to be beaten. Thus when wargaming, if rules are accurate and produce authenticity, then the side that was defeated in real life should again lose, unless their ranks are weighted by giving them the additional strength indicated by disparities in the respective Fighting Assessment Figures. In conjunction with the grading of a commander as `Above Average', `Average', or `Below Average', a Fighting Assessment Figure enables the wargamer to obtain a balanced idea of two forces if they are to be reasonably matched. For example, an army with a Fighting Assessment Figure of, say, 35 would overwhelm an army numerically equal but with a Fighting Assessment Figure of 25. With the aid of Fighting Assessment Figures, it is possible to work out the respective numerical strengths in two armies for them to be sufficiently well matched so as to give a balanced and enjoyable wargame. The numerical superiority allowing a lower-rated force need not necessarily consist of increased numbers of figures. It can be worked out in points representing each battalion of infantry, squadron of cavalry or piece of artillery at the rate of infantry regiments at 50 points each, squadrons of cavalry at 45 points and guns at 15 points. This means that an army, although lowly rated on a Fighting Assessment Chart, may be known to be strong in artillery so that their guns are increased to bring the weaker force up to some degree of parity with their stronger opponents. Thus, the points difference may be made up, either: (a) to an historically realistic choice; or (b) to the wargamer's personal preference, taking terrain and circumstances into consideration. Compare the total figure-valuation of two armies - a French army with a Fighting Assessment Figure of 33 is opposing an Austrian army with a Figure of 22, so that the French are one-third superior to the Austrians and the latter, to present a balanced opposition, will need to be one-third stronger, i.e. a ratio of 3:2; or the valuation of the forces can be assessed as a percentage, as follows. A French force with a Fighting Assessment Figure of 33 encounters an Austrian army with 28 -- 15% difference. Thus, a balanced Austrian army should be 15% stronger than the French, so a French army of 300 men can take on an Austrian army of 345 men. A refinement which might be considered in the Fighting Assessment Charts is the inclusion of a Battle Effectiveness Factor the point as which an army or a unit is so reduced by casualties that it is no longer capable of handling its assigned duties and will withdraw from combat. This is probably the reason why most battles end before one side or the other is completely wiped out, being exemplified by the defeat of the Spaniards at Rocroi in 1643. A Battle Effectiveness Factor will vary with the type of unit, so that Guards will have a lower factor (i.e. be able to take more casualties) than will Line, Militia or an irregular force. By this means, all units taking part in a battle should be graded beforehand, allowing `unequal' wargaming by allocating to one force a greater number of the lowest Battle Effectiveness Factors balanced by some irregular units with a high factor, while the opposing army is formed entirely of Line regiments with an average Battle Effectiveness Factor. A Fighting Assessment Figure enables a singular facet of wargaming in the Ancient and Medieval periods to be employed with greater understanding and interest. The aspect under consideration, seemingly peculiar to wargaming in Ancient and Medieval periods, lies in the manner in which it is accepted that battles can take place between armies of widely diverging periods - the Persians and the Romans clash or the armies may contain a mixture of differing periods. Perhaps this is due to a mental telescoping of the centuries B.C. and A.D. and it is not something that seems to take place in other periods - no one takes on a Napoleonic force with a Marlburian army for example. By using Fighting Assessment Figures, it is made much easier to work out the comparative fighting values of armies who lived perhaps two of three centuries apart so that they can engage in tabletop warfare without it appearing anomalous, incongruous or unworkable. The Roman army with a Fighting Assessment Figure of 55 would massacre an army of its own size made up of Britons with a Fighting Assessment Figure of 16. In this case it can be seen that the fighting quality of the Roman soldier is about double that of the Briton, an historical fact which many systems of rules claiming authenticity must realistically simulate, as do the Ancient rules of the Ancient War Games Research Group. The point at issue lies in the manner in which it is worked out - exactly how many more Britons are needed to form an army that can battle with a reasonable chance against a Roman force, so making for an enjoyable war game. In addition, such factors must be taken into consideration as balancing up those numbers with commanders of superior, average, or inferior qualities. In this respect the Fighting Assessment Figure of each army may be used as a total and in comparison with other totals or else, by means of some formula, one Fighting Assessment Figure must be balanced against that of a possible opponent so as to give an `odds' figure, i.e. how many Britons can one Roman legionary take on? Back to MWAN # 133 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2005 by 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