In early November, as "research" for a possible submission to Slingshot, I built three Hussite armies using the list found on page 18 of the Early Renaissance section of the Advanced Armati rule book. The main force was double-sized and included 100 points of bonus units. It had a break point of 10 key units. The formations commanded by two subordinate generals were also double-sized and included 80 points and 60 points of bonus units respectively. The break point for the larger of these two formations was 11 key units. The break point for the smaller formation was 9 key units.
The opposing army, or armies as there were three distinct formations just like the Hussites, were Indo-Bactrian in origin, and were drafted from page 6 of the Age of Empires section. In terms of size and points, they were the approximate equal of the Hussite forces. The largest contingent, led by an anonymous king, had a break point of 13 key units. The second largest contingent, led by a brother of this nameless king, had a break point of 12 key units. The smallest force of Indo-Bactrians, led by a distant cousin of the aforementioned brother, had a break point of 11 key units.
Rather than use the terrain placement rules and terrain selections provided by the Advanced Armati rules, I decided to landscape my table top so that it bore a resemblance to the historic field of Mantinea, 362 BC. (Please see: http://lukeuedasarson.com/Mantinea.html, http://asmalltowninlaconia.tripod.com/ASmallTowninLaconia/battle/mantinea_362.html, or page 65 of Warfare in the Classical World.) Given the choice of ground, I decided to deploy the Hussites in front of the woods and cast the Indo-Bactrians in the role of the Theban aggressors.
In order to expedite this "research" as well as significantly limit its cost, the various units were fabricated out of coloured cardstock and mounted on corrugated cardboard bases. In order to fit the armies on my smallish playing surface, I used 15 mm Intro Scale unit dimensions, described on page 1 of the original Armati rules. Instead of using the corresponding scale ruler, I decided to employ the 25 mm Intro Scale ruler.
Deployments
The Hussites arranged their many wagons (there were 43 units in all - 9 were equipped with light artillery) as a "cork" between the two ridges and in front of the woods. There were a few units of skirmishers positioned immediately in front of some of the wagons. The Hussite cavalry was placed behind the main defensive line as a mobile reserve. Deciding that the ridges were gentle slopes and not choked with scrub or patches of rough ground, several units of HC (Orebites) were stationed on the wings.
Just over 30 inches away (as the modified rulers measured), the Indo-Bactrian king arranged his army. The first line was composed of three divisions of foot archers. The second line included a mix of pikemen and elephants. On the left and in the centre, the pikemen were deployed deep, while on the right, they were not deployed in depth. On the left and in the centre, the elephants were screened with light infantry. Cavalry units were held in reserve. On the far left of the army, there were a couple of unit of light horse. The were skirmishers, light infantry, and light cavalry on the extreme right wing. These troops were supported by heavier horse.
Summary
Given the nature of the scenario or experiment, the burden was placed squarely on the shoulders of the Indo-Bactrians. Even though the Hussites held the initiative for three of the first four turns of the wargame, their opponents did the vast majority of the moving. Only on the wings of their long formation were the Hussites active.
Once the Indo-Bactrian foot archers were in range, volleys of arrows were launched at the line of war wagons. With a protection value of +3, these volleys, as might be imagined, had very little effect. One of the forward Hussite skirmisher units was broken by this hail storm of arrows, however. Return fire from Hussite light cannon made more noise than caused damage, but the occasional hit was scored. The advance and arrow barrage continued. (The Indo-Bactrians had 29 units of archers engaging 28 wagons; 9 of these transports had light cannons and crews.) Once the Indo-Bactrian line came within range of the various missile weapons of the wagon crews, casualties started to mount in the foot archer formations.
While this "fire fight" was taking place, the Indo-Bactrians attempted to press an advantage on either flank. Initially, their light infantry did well against the enemy cavalry, but as these melees progressed, the tide turned in favour of the Hussite units. After another volley of arrows had been sent flying, without much effect again, the foot archers withdrew to make way for the phalanx and elephants. This new formation took some losses when Hussite light cannon and handgunners opened fire. The elephants and pikemen advanced into melee with the long line of war wagons.
The general action raged all along the line. Due to poor dice rolling, the Indo-Bactrians suffered more than their wagon-riding enemy. However, at certain points in the wagon barrier, the Indo-Bactrians had some success. At the end of Game Turn 9, ten units of elephants had been destroyed or routed, leaving only 6 on the table top. Four of these units were exhausted, so they would fight less effectively against the war wagon crews. The Hussites had 6 units of wagons on the verge of being destroyed. They had lost a couple of wagons prior to Turn 9. Their defensive line remained intact, however.
Looking over the field, it appeared evident that the Hussites had won (or would win) the day. While some slight pressure was being placed on their extreme right and left, there was not much that light infantry, light cavalry, or even elephants could do against war wagons that had been positioned and garrisoned with variously-armed soldiers. The Indo-Bactrian right and centre formations had been rather hurt. The foot archers of all three divisions were resting and reorganising, but it appeared (based on the initial phases of the engagement) that these troops would not be able to tilt the balance back in favour of the king and his blood relatives.
Thoughts
In terms of aesthetic appeal, this scenario would fall somewhere on the far left of the subjective spectrum. It was two-dimensional. It was essentially a map exercise using rules designed for historical miniature wargaming. The far right of this spectrum would be occupied by the artistic presentations created by James Roach, Keith McNelly, and Simon Miller, to name just a few of the personalities in the field of ancient wargaming.
In terms of historical accuracy, this scenario would not even be considered by the committee responsible for reviewing such efforts. The Indo-Bactrian army list is found in the "Age of Empires" section of the Armati rulebook, while the Hussite list is found in the Early Renaissance section. There are then, according to this army list catalogue, 2 historical periods separating the two forces. One could also consider geographical distance.
Looking at this experiment from a rules perspective, I considered tinkering with the missile drop off provision. The Indo-Bactrian archers letting fly at long range could have had a minus 1 modifier. However, this would have given the Hussite wagons and crews a protection factor of +4, so I did not go through with it. I did adjust the rules when it came to interpenetration. Typically, pikemen and elephants cannot advance through a line of archers. I allowed this to happen in this scenario. Technically, the bowmen launched a few volleys, did not do very well, and then withdrew between the assumed gaps in the phalanx and "divisions" of elephants.
Of more interest, at least to me, was modeling the interaction between elephants and war wagons. Under the selected rules, war wagons have a fighting value of 6 to their front. They also have an inherent missile capability, reaching out to a range of 12 inches. This missile capability lumps together crossbows, handguns, and so forth. I could not help but wonder, having recently read and enjoyed Patrick Waterson's article on the training of elephants for war, how Indo-Bactrian elephants would have reacted to this kind of attention. I wondered if the protection factor of +1 should have been applied to these animals when they were being fired upon by crossbows and primitive firearms.
On the other hand, I also wondered what the peasant crews of these Hussite war wagons would have thought when the enemy pachyderms lumbered into view. My guess is that they would have been more than a little taken aback. If the horse were still harnessed to the war wagons, my guess is that these animals would not have tolerated the appearance and smell of the elephants. The same assessment would apply to the formed Hussite cavalry.
In the prolonged melee between phalanx, pachyderm, and war wagon crews, I wondered if any of the elephants would have been goaded into ramming or pushing the wagons out of the way. In his article, Patrick referenced ancient source material wherein elephants were described as "trampling, tossing, seizing, and goring", so I wondered if the animals would have "attacked" the wooden walls of the wagons and how that might have gone.
In a post about Issue 320, Andreas Johansson wondered if there were any historical instances of elephants facing war wagons. In an exchange of emails, he also wondered about the origin(s) of bonuses or penalties with respect to combat between elephants and war wagons. Based on my very limited research (I am thinking about securing a copy of WRG 1st edition), it appears that elephants could tackle war wagons. Based on the very limited experience of the scenario just completed, it would appear that elephants have a difficult time breaking the wooden walls of a wagon barrier and routing the semi-armoured peasants and soldiers who man these walls.
I wonder whether the Turks in the renaissance era would have encountered elephants in Persia or India or somewhere like that?
That would give the matchup with more playable armies
The nearest I think we get to a historical elephants vs war wagons engagement is the First Battle of Panipat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Panipat), somewhat thinly covered in Wikipedia. It was more of an elephants vs field defences incorporating wagons arrangement, although the melee aspect was not really tested because the Moghuls' (or Mughals') artillery put the wind up the Indian elephants which accordingly left early and without regard to the presence of friendly troops on their escape route.
Elephants v. wagons = Asculum (Pyrrhus v. Romans), according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus:
Dionysius of Halicarnassus xx.1
"Outside the line they [Romans] stationed the light-armed troops and the waggons, three hundred in number, which they had got ready for the battle against the elephants. These waggons had upright beams on which were mounted movable traverse poles that could be swung round as quick as thought in any direction one might wish, and on the ends of the poles there were either tridents or swordlike spikes or scythes all of iron; or again they had cranes that hurled down heavy grappling-irons. Many of the poles had attached to them and projecting in front of the waggons fire-bearing grapnels wrapped in tow that had been liberally daubed with pitch, which men standing on the waggons were to set afire as soon as they came near the elephants and then rain blows with them upon the trunks and faces of the beasts. Furthermore, standing on the waggons, which were four-wheeled, were many also of the light-armed troops — bowmen, hurlers of stones and slingers who threw iron caltrops; and on the ground beside the waggons there were still more men."
xx.2
"When the king [Pyrrhus] had ordered the elephants seem [sic] to be led up to the part of the line that was in difficulties, the Romans mounted on the pole-bearing waggons, upon learning of the approach of the beasts, drove to meet them. At first they checked the onrush of the beasts, smiting them with their engines and turning the fire-bearing grapnels into their eyes. Then, when the men stationed in their towers no longer drove the beasts forward, but hurled their spears down from above, and the light-armed troops cut through the wattled screens surrounding the waggons and hamstrung the oxen, the men at the machines, leaping down from their cars, fled for refuge to the nearest infantry and caused great confusion among them."
Thanks for the reference Richard. Aaron Bell had suggested this ancient author and account as well in a brief exchange.
Given the description of the Roman wagons and weaponry, I could not help but think of the Roman naval counter to Carthaginian ships . . . the corvus, where the long pole (bridge) with a spike would swing down and capture the enemy ship, thus allowing an infantry fight to develop on the water.
I wonder if this is the origin point of rules regarding contests between elephants and war wagons?
Cheers,
Chris
Quote from: Chris on November 09, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
I wonder if this is the origin point of rules regarding contests between elephants and war wagons?
If so, it might be worth considering exactly what will be classed as 'war wagons'. ;)
QuoteI wonder if this is the origin point of rules regarding contests between elephants and war wagons?
Aren't they a natural consequence of a global, multi-millenial rule set? Such a set has to allow for the interaction between any two of its troop types, even if historically the two types never met.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 10, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
Aren't they a natural consequence of a global, multi-millenial rule set? Such a set has to allow for the interaction between any two of its troop types, even if historically the two types never met.
It does not, however, have to have special exceptions that
only apply in elephant-v.-war-wagon combats, which e.g. DBX and ADLG do have.
In DBX, the Roman anti-elephant carts are "War-Wagons Exceptional", which are excepted(!) from the special exception for normal War-Wagons v. elephants, so I don't think it can be a case of the Roman tail wagging the Hussite dog here.