66 AD - Rebellion in Judaea

Protest against excessive tax measures brought Judaeans to the point of rebellion.  The Roman governor Gessius Florus issued orders for the various garrisons to suppress the insurrections in their districts. A vexillation of one legion encountered a number of rebels gathering across a river. 

The standard game was played and using the battlefield cards, the random selection produced a battlefield with a road intersecting a river and difficult hills to one flank.

 

Rome moved first to quickly seize the bridge forcing the defending Zealots back. More legionnaires supported the assault with the ballistae rendering support fire.

The rebels countered by crossing the river hoping to put the Romans off balance. Anticipating this, Rome sent reserve cavalry and auxilia to deal with the threat. This scattered the rebel skirmishers, but did not deter a second column from pressing forward.

The Zealots, forced further back allowed Rome to expand their foothold across the river. Reserve legionnaires engaged nearby enemy regulars sending them recoiling. On the Roman right, auxilia units threatened to cross the river, holding enemy units to hold their position across the river. 

Roman drill overcame enemy resilience to earn a narrow victory, 4-3. 

Finding a common strategy among rebel leaders proved difficult during the early stages of the revolt. One such faction encountered the approach of a Roman column. Seeking the shelter of nearby hills, the rebels deployed for battle. 

Advancing in two columns, cavalry on the Roman right would pin the enemy left, while the main column would assault the enemy formed at the base of the hills. 

Rebel formations withdrew to higher ground giving Rome no other option than to follow. Rome approached the enemy in two columns, the left supported by archers and the right by ballistae, their missile fire kept the rebels dancing. Roman equites on the right caught rebel troops before they could reach cover in the hills.

In an attempt to catch Rome off-balance, the rebels launched suicidal attacks against isolated units. This failed leaving the rebels no option but to flee the field. 

Observation.

Both were close games and could easily have ended with a rebel victory. The Zealots (3Wb) made little impression on the legionnaires and found themselves consistently pushed back in both games.

The Jewish Revolt is not a tournament winner, but can make a legato’s life a miserable one.

Al-Andalus invade the kingdom of Castile

Invading Castile, the Arab-Berber army of al-Andalus met the Iberians on an open plain, to one side a small hamlet and opposite a forest line.

Castile placed its infantry on the flanks and positioned all the cavalry in centre, aimed at the heart of the Arab line. To counter, Arab and Berber spearmen supported by archers would meet the main threat while Berber light horse would probe the enemy’s flanks looking for weaknesses.

Castiles’ first wave floundered, failing to make any impression on the Berber ranks. Survivors regrouped behind their infantry allowing a second wave of knights to make their attack.

The Castilians, fully engaged with the Andalusian infantry became aware of the precarious situation as both flanks collapsed as Berber light horse and skirmishers overpowered the Castilian infantry, handing al-Andalus a convincing victory, 8-2.

Seeking revenge, both armies found themselves on the same battlefield but with deployment areas reversed. Learning from its mistake in the initial contest, cavalry and light horse were posted to the extreme flank to support their infantry leaving the Castilian knights to form the army’s entire centre.

This had the desired effect as the Castilian cavalry on the right bested the Berber light horse, leaving the infantry to put the Berber skirmishers to flight. Events on the Castilian left developed similarly, but with less drama, this left the Castilian nobles free to vent their rage on the line of Berber spear.

With cries of ‘Santiago’, infantry of the Arab center fell in quick succession forcing the emir to call for a retreat. Castile had its revenge, 9-2.

Observation

Cavalry and light horse that formed part of the initial wave in game one, no longer weakened the main assault in game two. The change in deployment ensured Castile a decisive victory.

Scots Common put to the test.

Painting projects completed I took an opportunity to test the Scots Common army against the IV/21c Anglo Irish. The Scots were the attacker in all six games with the method of deployment changing after two games. The standard deployment, collision course variant and alternative deployment system offered the Scots some interesting tactical challenges.

To speed terrain setup, cards for each category were designed so each test game made use of a different board. The cards are a time saver, each have compulsory terrain with an assortment of other options, some lacked o road or waterway giving the attacker choice of base side before a terrain piece is placed.   

Standard Deployment

Scottish schiltrons faced the Anglo bow and bill leaving the highland archers and rabble to deal with the Irish kerns. The distance separating the Scottish wings was covered by the mounted elements of nobles and light horse. Casualties fell heavily on both sides with the Scots claiming a narrow victory.

Test two both sides formed contiguous lines, the Scots were less adventurous this time. The Scots launched both wings hoping for a quick victory. The Anglo-Irish right collapsed against the schiltrons as did the Highlanders supported by their nobles, leading to a crushing victory.  

Collision Course

Both sides needed four turns to deploy for battle and a further two to close the distance between. The schiltrons made short work of the Irish kerns on the Anglo right while the Highlanders occupied the Anglo bow and bill while covering the schiltron open flank to deliver another convincing victory.  

Test four, the Anglo Irish were quick to form a battle array and move on the less prepared Scots. The schiltrons losing half their number and the Highlanders broken brought the Anglo Irish their first victory.

Alternative Deployment  

Test five saw the alternate deployment of the army’s three battles. A portion of schiltrons formed the vanguard proving useful in negating the Anglo left flanking attempt. This left the remaining schiltrons together with the cavalry to overwhelm the Anglo centre giving the Scots another solid victory.    

In the final test, the Scots took time to align their vanguard and main battle into one group. This left the Highlanders the unenviable duty to occupy the Anglo advance. Losing its archers in short tempo, the Scots quickly compensated crushing the Anglo vanguard.

Observations

Our boards are 80cm x 80cm or 20BW x 20BW, a cavalry army’s dream field or a nightmare for a pike heavy army. To be effective, the schiltrons needed a supporting element, shortening their battle line. To compensate, the Scots opened the distance between groups. This is deceptive as supporting cavalry could cover the distance to foil the threat of flanking the pike; in theory at least.

The collision course games were useful to bring elements together to form useful groups, such as the Highland archers, rabble and skirmishers. Forming the rear guard, they would appear later but move quickly to engage the enemy. This left the vanguard of four pike and a second group of two pike and two knights (CinC) to form a strong battle line.

The final deployment method offered the defender some compensation in the placement of troops, the second or third placement of a group can counter an attacker’s positioning of his troops.

The next step is to test the Scots against the marcher lords of northern England.

A Late Roman Civil War

Both sided deployed in a similar manner, legions in centre flanked by auxilia and a strong cavalry wing on one flank. The East are on the right of the photo, recognisable by their cataphract cavalry and artillery.

The East advanced its right centre and cavalry wing against the Roman left flank.

The Roman left soon found itself engulfed by cataphracts support by light horse.

To counter the threat, led by the Roman sub-general, Roman reserve cavalry attempted to stem the tide.

To counter the threat to its left flank, Rome attacked the Eastern left in an attempt to stabilise the battle. Unfortunately, the Roman left collapsed forcing the West to flee the field.

A second battle

Exchanging deployment zones, both armies tightened their formations and prepared for a second clash of arms.

The West, employing a similar tactic hoped to overwhelm the East’s left flank while advancing infantry supported the effort. Meanwhile, a similar cavalry action was taking place on Rome’s left.

The initial cavalry battle on the East’s left, exhausted, no longer presented a threat. Rome’s hope of a victory was further diminished as Eastern cavalry crushed its left and prepared to do the same to Rome’s centre. Another victory for the East.

Deployment variation, Late Medieval era

We enjoy historical match-ups and found the Collision Course variant for deployment has become a welcome addition. The variant allows us to create encounter battles such as Montlhéry (1465) or Fornovo (1495). Players organise their armies in three equal size columns, of which one has marched on the board followed by the lead element of the second. Off table, the third column enters with the proper pip score, an uncertainty for which an opponent can exploit.

The late medieval period is our current interest and this past week we tested an alternative method to deploy our armies. The three columns organised for the collision course variant are now labelled the vanward, mainward and rearward. The three parts would no longer march on the table, but are placed within the deployment zone with players alternating the placement of their groups. The defender placed the vanward first, followed by the attacker placing his; the sequence continued until all groups and mobile baggage were on the board.   

 Alternative Deployment

This offered an interesting alternative to the two deployment systems. The defender placing his vanward anywhere in his deployment zone, this need not be placed on the traditional right of the army. The attacker can select a position opposite the enemy vanward or elsewhere within his deployment zone. The sequence continues until all three groups and mobile baggage are on the board. 

Two points, each element within the group must be in full edge contact with another, forming a column one element wide or a line four elements wide or any combination of the two. Secondly, groups may not be closer than 1BW at the start of the game. On a player’s first bound, further formation changes are done by expending pips.   

Allies form a separate group of three elements giving a player the option to increase one of his remaining groups. Depending on their quality, allies may form the vanward of the army 

Further thoughts.

Last year, I developed a dozen scenarios for the mid-17^th century that could be played randomly and outcomes would generate a rating for both players. The rating influenced subsequent encounters developing nicely into a campaign without the use of maps. Something similar can be designed for the mid-15^th century.

French Ordonnance L-R, vanward, mainward + mobile baggage, rearward.

Burgundian Ordonnance L-R, vanward, mainward + mobile baggage, rearward.

Burgundian vanward

French vanward

Burgundian mainward + mobile baggage.

French mainward + mobile baggage.

Burgundian rearward.

French rearward.

Ready for battle, Burgundy moves first.