Spartans vs Vikings - Part 1

[Chris]

Gents,

Here is the opening paragraph of my latest solo scenario or experiment:

Drawing inspiration from a "stumbled across" discussion thread on The Miniatures Page (TMP) - Ancients Discussion Board or Forum, I decided to embark upon a long-term solo project wherein I would conduct a number of experiments based on the suggested hypothetical. [1] The "work in progress" plan (more of an hastily scribbled outline, really) was to stage six battles between the identified-in-the-title ahistorical opponents using six different sets of rules. These scenarios would not be "controlled experiments" in the sense that point values or sizes of the opposing forces would be equal, the terrain would be identical for the planned half dozen engagements, and I would be wearing a lab coat while taking copious notes on a clipboard. These scenarios would, for lack of a better description, provide a kind of "wargaming filler," giving me something to do between more serious as well as historical, if admittedly non-traditional projects. In the initial draft of this long-term project, a single post, one containing details and narratives of all six experiments as well as an evaluation of the entire effort was considered. Legitimate concerns about the required stamina, both on the part of this amateur author/wargamer as well as the reader resulted in the revision of this original plan. It seemed a much better idea, a more prudent course, to tackle the project a little bit at a time. In other words, six short or medium-length reports would be drafted, edited and posted over the course of around six months (perhaps longer) instead of a single epic post. With this approach, it was believed that a suitable level of interest could be maintained by both parties. Without further preamble then, let me move right along to the first counterfactual contest between the armies of "King Leonidas" and "Ivar the Boneless," wherein I employ the Armati 2nd Edition rules.

If you would like to read more, please visit https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/ and look for Spartans vs Vikings - Part 1.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Chris

[Chris]

Well on my way to matching the stats of "Portraying the Poeni" 

[Erpingham]

Well on my way to matching the stats of "Portraying the Poeni" 

What would you like us to comment on, Chris?  Without knowing the rules, I'm not sure whether the Viking army is portrayed well or not.  Certainly, your sources' confusion of "Hindmen" and "hirdmen" doesn't bode well (it's hirđmen or hirdmen, hirđ meaning household).  And I do wish rank and file Vikings didn't get called bondi, unless they are a bunch of farmers.  If they've gone a-viking, the best word is drengr or drengs - fighters, adventurers, gang of lads.  Whether berserkers existed and whether the term by the time of the army list meant more than "tough guy" or "person with a violent personality disorder" is another question .

The other thing I thought of was how the rules might distinguish between a hoplite phalanx and a shieldwall.  In a way, they are both solid spear forces.  Spartiates might have advantages in training and discipline but the ordinary militia-grade hoplites not so much. 

[RichT]

I know it can be frustrating spending a lot of time writing something and it being met with a resounding silence. But that, sadly, is life.

Some comments in no particular order.

Your note 2 - yes, perioikoi is correct, 'around-dwellers', inferior-status (socially and politically) inhabitants of small towns and villages around Sparta proper.

"Peltasts and Ekdromoi formed a light infantry 'bookend' on the far left of the larger formation" - I don't know anything about Armati army lists (or are these from Matthew Bennett's article which I'm afraid I don't remember?) but having separate units (as I assume these are) of ekdromoi, and having them be LHI (presumably) is a bit odd. Ekdromoi, as the name suggests ('out-runners') are members of the phalanx proper, generally the younger age classes, tasked with chasing off skirmishers etc. They aren't a separate troop type and don't form separate units. How they could best be represented in wargame terms I don't know (needless to say, I would abstract them out in the combat results).

Shieldwall and phalanx - yes, to my mind a shieldwall IS a phalanx, and vice versa. Perhaps one in particularly close order, but then what wargame rules worry about changes in order? I feel this is a case of the rule writers picking out a word from historical accounts and writing special rules for it, without reflecting that it may just be another word for something already covered. Of course wargamers like this sort of thing, since it means flavour, and chrome, and makes armies distinct (and who is to say they are wrong? Though I think they are).

More discussion of some of these points can be found in my latest book.  

[Erpingham]

Shieldwall and phalanx - yes, to my mind a shieldwall IS a phalanx, and vice versa.

The rather obvious comment is probably about degrees of abstraction.  Shieldwalls and hoplite phalanxes are fundamentally similar, with apparent detail differences.  For example, while a shieldwall is basically spear armed, it does feature more diversity of equipment - long swords, big knives, throwing spears, axes, bows.  This probably reflected a different individual fighting style.   But , on the scale Chris is fighting, not sufficiently different to make different troop types.  What would be different were the more intangible, like the morale and skill elements.  A band of hirdmen might well edge a bunch of militia hoplites in terms of professional competence and group cohesion, in the same way a shipload of drengs may struggle against veteran Spartiates.

[RichT]

Yes indeed. Are minor differences of equipment (assuming they are minor, but I think they are) enough to warrant different rules treatment? And if so how about minor differences in drill, training, doctrine, 'quality' (with all that encompasses) etc. The traditional wargame approach is to zero in on all these equipment differences and either ignore other sorts of difference, or rather grudgingly bundle them into a morale class or equivalent.

And then, in devil's advocate mode, perhaps Spartiates weren't all they are cracked up to be - they lost plenty of times and their reputation was as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as anything.

[dwkay57]

As Rich T observes Chris, I wouldn't be too downbeat about the lack of comments on your reports. I know from my site stats that most of my reports posted there get viewed (a bit) but even less is received in feedback.

I do skim read most reports but unless they are of something that interests me I don't usually comment. Haven't had chance to read your latest one yet but as it features Spartans I probably will, if I get time (even being retired doesn't seem to release that much extra time).

[Chris]

On January 20, at about quarter past 11, I posted a reply (self deprecating and "reinforced" with two emojis) to my own announcement of a recent addition to my blog. This remark ( or apparent cry for attention/recognition as in "Mom/Dad, look what I just did!"  [sidebar: in some circles, the hobby is viewed as grown men playing with toys, and there are those who practice this pastime who readily admit it . . . I turned to page 55 of Henry Hyde's COMPENDIUM and checked on the black and white spread from London Illustrated Gazette from January of 1913 (109 years ago!) Showing three English gentlemen playing at war on the floor of a large room. They are, of course, dressed rather smartly, in suit coats, white shirts, ties and vests. I made a connection to a naval game observed at a convention years ago, where player-admirals, all rather portly, were very casually dressed. A few even had knee-pads to assist in their movement around the ocean floor.] Anyway.

About 4 hours after my reply, Anthony C. inquired (exasperated and with an eye roll, I am guessing) as to what I was looking for or what I wanted. After this scolding, he proceeded to discuss and lament problems regarding the classification of Vikings in the army list I used for my ahistorical scenario. He also advances thoughtful positions on berserkers, rules, and the difference and or definition of phalanx and shieldwall.

At the risk of "poking the bear" again , it seems that the comments were there, but were not, for a variety of reasons, delivered.

Rich T. weighs in as well, commiserating and placing my very small "tragedy"  ::)into a larger and philosophical context. Again, it appears that my self-deprecating reply to my own post and recognition that more often than not, battle reports will go unacknowledged while perhaps being read or at least looked at. The gentleman then launches into a couple of comments as well as a plug for his book. So again, it seems that the comments or opinions were there, but there were not "made real" or communicated to others until a "complaint" or again, childlike announcement ("Hey, look what I did! Praise me!") was made.

A very brief conversation ensued wherein the differences in troop types and the way the troops are or might be modeled with various rules were discussed.

The paucity of stats regarding my posted battle reports got me to thinking and checking some numbers.

Going back to May 08 of 2021, I posted about Raphia being refought with ADLG. While this earned a respectable 532 views, it generated just a single reply. Surveying the subsequent posts up to and including the latest about Spartans and Vikings, I have managed to "publish" 14 "reports" on a variety of subjects/topics. The number of views for this dozen plus two efforts adds up to 6,775 views, if my sums are correct. The number of replies? By my calculation, 44. Four of the posts had (and as of today, 22 January) still have, zero replies. If I do more math, then it seems that I "average" about 484 views and generate approximately 3 replies per post.

Looking a little closer at the stats offered by The Society Forums, I noted that 'Battle Reports' was not among the Top 10 Topics [by replies]. With the possible exception of "The Battle of Chalons AD 451," 'Battle Reports' was not among the Top 10 Topics [by Views]. 'Battle Reports' was not even among the Top 10 Boards.

On a separate but perhaps related issue or point, it seems that out of a membership of just over 700, just 10 members are recorded as the Top Topic Starters (with Holly being miles ahead of anyone!). If my math on this point is correct, then .014 percent of the membership (Side note: One of the Top Ten passed away and another has "disappeared" which has thrown quite an unfortunate wrench into Slingshot production.) What percent of the membership are active visitors to the Forum or forums and what percent of those will actually take the time to post a reply to an ongoing discussion or topic started, in all likelihood, by Holly?

To be certain, I have not checked into the more general and specific stats with each of these 14 posts. Now that I know that 'Battle Reports' does not generate the interest that it seems it should - is not one of the 'tenets' of The Society to share ancient and medieval wargaming efforts?- I will not concern myself with the number of views and replies, but simply on the creative outlet and process of writing about wargaming. (Tangential thought: If a wargamer doesn't write about or blog and include photos of a wargame, did it actually happen?  )

At one time, I used to contribute to Slingshot. A former editor, concerned about "dominance" from a certain writer, essentially told me that my material could no longer be used. This development impressed me as the very definition of ironic. It appears that my postings to the 'Battle Reports' forum have reached or have passed a tipping point. If that is in fact the case, I will continue to write but be more selective with my posts.

This brings up another subject, which I believe I've mentioned previously: the relationship between wargaming and writing. The two have been "married" for so many years on my tabletop that I seriously wonder if I could stage a game and not write about it. Referring to another post in another forum, it appears that this is the "school" which I belong to . . .

That question and observation aside, let me end another early morning rambling with an apology  to Anthony for annoying or exasperating him and for to the general membership for committing the faux pas of being the first to my own post.


Cheers and good gaming,
Chris

[Erpingham]

an apology  to Anthony for annoying or exasperating him

You didn't exasperate me.  I like to discuss wargames topics but, if I'm honest Chris, it can be difficult to be clear what you'd particularly like us to respond too.   I do read your blog posts, as it happens - you'll see me on your followers list - but our gaming styles are pretty different, so I don't comment much on them.  In this case, knowing nothing about the rules used, I commented on the only thing I knew anything about - Vikings. 

Thinking about it some more, I might have commented on your terrain selection mechanism.  I like the idea of assembling a collection of historical battlefields (or modern interpretations thereof) but you demonstrated the weakness of random selection by deciding the original selection was inappropriate for the two infantry armies and dicing again.  Are you OK with over ruling yourself or have you developed a classification system to pre-assess the type of battle each terrain suits before you dice?

I have some comments on your comments on the forum but I'll need to have another look at the stats first.

[Erpingham]

While this earned a respectable 532 views, it generated just a single reply.

You need to take into account the forum structure here.  We have basically two levels of access - members and guests.  Guests have a restricted access to what topics they can see.  Battle Reports they can see, so much of the readership of posts there may be guests, who can't reply.  An undetermined proportion of guests are bots crawling about and they seem to randomly access posts.  So I'm afraid the 532 views may not be all it seems.  Looking at member only boards, and simply from observation on the beat, most posts with no replies attract about 25 views in the first 48 hours then a slow trickle afterwards.  To get genuine views, you need to encourage engagement e.g. with questions, controversial observations or bad puns.

On a separate but perhaps related issue or point, it seems that out of a membership of just over 700, just 10 members are recorded as the Top Topic Starters (with Holly being miles ahead of anyone!). If my math on this point is correct, then .014 percent of the membership (Side note: One of the Top Ten passed away and another has "disappeared" which has thrown quite an unfortunate wrench into Slingshot production.) What percent of the membership are active visitors to the Forum or forums and what percent of those will actually take the time to post a reply to an ongoing discussion or topic started, in all likelihood, by Holly?

There is a bit of confusion here.  The stats heading is Top 10 Topic Starters, so there will only be 10.  The disappeared member you identify is happily back with us but you have missed the other member who has left the society - Mark Watson- who was the committees original lead for the forum and worked very hard to generate traffic.  He left in 2014.

Unfortunately, I don't have the analytical tools to say how many people are regular visitors.  Just from who I see out on the beat, maybe 50 are around regularly (several times a week), a larger group more occassionally.   Most regulars comment at least occassionally, though for some it is very rare.

One final point on whether reports of battles are popular, the third in the list of top 10 topics by replies (a more reliable guide than views, because it isn't affected by guests) is "What was the last game you played" on 1881.   The top three are all what I'd call "regular updates", basically news of member's activities.

[dwkay57]

Read through the report Chris, and as others have typed, I didn't consider the individual melee outcomes were too far off what I would either historically or from my own rules.
Both deployments seemed to match what I would have done to represent historical accuracy on that battlefield. I have used that site for at least one of my solo battles, with some Greeks, and it was interesting to see it used in similar circumstances.

I was not surprised the Thessalians performed badly in support of Spartans as I'm not sure they were ever on that friendlier terms. If I was to give my Thessalians to my Spartans as an ally for a battle (I must try that at some point) they would be treated as "reluctant" or "forced" and so likely to go home at a convenient opportunity should the situation appear to be getting suspect. Happy to have a longer discussion with you (or others) about the representation of a Spartan army as I think they were constrained to a certain size and then had to rely on allies (but I know nothing he types in a Torquay influenced Spanish accent).

In terms of people reading reports, I suppose -as I think we've discussed before - is what you are looking for and am interested in. I'm looking for a narrative of the battle that I can follow. So photos from the same angle and notation pointing out who is doing what to who(m) makes it easier, especially with armies I'm not familiar with.

[RichT]

I believe the usual reckoning for blogs and forums is that lurkers outnumber posters about 100 to 1. So your stats, Chris, are not atypical. (In fact this forum may have a relatively high proportion of posters). Research has been done on how to convert lurkers to posters, but nobody has a magic solution, needless to say.

If generating replies is the objective, then controversial topics are the key (though we may all be a bit burned out on the usual controversies), but like chasing 'likes' on other media, what's the point? This meta discussion seems to have generated more activity than all the actual reports! I would recommend not worrying about this sort of thing.

If anyone wants to talk about Spartan armies, I'm game.

[Erpingham]

If anyone wants to talk about Spartan armies, I'm game.

As such a discussion would be elsewhere on the forum and probably not feature Vikings, can I take the opportunity to observe that Vikings would have appreciated the Spartan wit - laconic, dry, tough .  The "fighting in the shade" reposte would be much appreciated, with its air of doomed heroics, I feel.

[RichT]

Greeks and Vikings had a lot in common. They were both seaborne raiders, traders and settlers, setting out from a mountainous homeland to ravage or conquer the shorelines of their local sea, or to sell their swords to the more civilised kingdoms they encountered. We know Greeks better in their more settled period, as if we knew Vikings by Norman cathedrals rather than as hairy sackers of monasteries.

[Jim Webster]

I believe the usual reckoning for blogs and forums is that lurkers outnumber posters about 100 to 1.

Certainly with wargames blogs. I'd say the figure was spot on for them