BOUDICCA vs PAULINUS

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

The TRIUMPH! / GRAND TRIUMPH! rules were used for these 3 scenarios/refights of The Battle of Watling Street.

An invitation is extended to those with the interest and time.

Here is the link:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Boudicca%20vs%20Paulinus


Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

Thanks Chris.  I found your discussion comparing your various versions of the game and how you went about setting up the scenario interesting.  Not being a Romanist, I can't really say much on the historical accuracy of the refight, though it did remind me of reading George Shipway's Imperial Governor in my teens  . 

[Jon Freitag]

Thanks Chris.  I found your discussion comparing your various versions of the game and how you went about setting up the scenario interesting. 

Interesting, Anthony?

Chris' efforts are fascinating tour de forces in game preparation, execution, and post-game analysis.  Readers skimming over or bypassing Chris' works are missing out on a thought-provoking exercise, always.

[Erpingham]

Interesting, Anthony?

Interesting is a compliment, albeit less demonstrative 

[Jon Freitag]

Gentlemen,

The TRIUMPH! / GRAND TRIUMPH! rules were used for these 3 scenarios/refights of The Battle of Watling Street.

An invitation is extended to those with the interest and time.

Here is the link:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Boudicca%20vs%20Paulinus


Cheers,
Chris

Superb effort, once again, Chris!  Well done.

For readers skimming through Chris' detailed trio of battle accounts, stop skimming upon reaching Comments.  From there on, read carefully and you will be justly rewarded for your efforts.
Chris ties his experience with refighting this battle back to the discussion on waging historical refights in an earlier thread here and on the Palouse Wargaming Journal.  Fascinating stuff. 

If I could pick out but one nugget from this essay for critique, Chris suggests that a historical battle brought to the game table is not a historical refight unless the historical outcome is duplicated.  For the wargamer undertaking such historical recreations, always remember that the historical outcome was a singular data point along a distribution of possible outcomes.  Perhaps the historical outcome was the most likely result.  Perhaps not.  For me, this is why we replay historical battles.  Curiosity. And perhaps validation.

[Jon Freitag]

Interesting, Anthony?

Interesting is a compliment, albeit less demonstrative 

I understand.  To me, it is akin to saying, nice paint job...

[Erpingham]

Interesting, Anthony?

Interesting is a compliment, albeit less demonstrative 

I understand.  To me, it is akin to saying, nice paint job...

Understood.  Damning with faint praise and all that.  But I usually mean it at face value, unless part of a pseudo-Chinese proverb about the times.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Chris.  I found your discussion comparing your various versions of the game and how you went about setting up the scenario interesting. 

Interesting, Anthony?

Chris' efforts are fascinating tour de forces in game preparation, execution, and post-game analysis.  Readers skimming over or bypassing Chris' works are missing out on a thought-provoking exercise, always.

Absolutely. The in depth analysis is fascinating

[dwkay57]

I have the same reference book as Chris but when I re-created the battlefield, I had the woods closing in on the Roman flanks, as the ground rose, instead of opening up as Chris had. I felt this more matched the map in that book and that of another map in a different reference book. It would also give the Romans more security on their flanks if they were faced with such high numbers of opposition. This may explain why the Romans increasingly struggled with each re-fight.

Interesting stuff!

[dwkay57]

Chris' other dilemmas about the composition of the British forces is interesting and might depend on how much impact you think 20 years of Roman rule had on the tribes of south-eastern England. Potentially the warrior culture might be lessening - so more peasants and less chariots - and the degree of tribal groupings might be affected making it into more of a very big mob made up of small gangs.

[Chris]

David,

Thanks for taking the time to read and remark.

As I stated, this might make an interesting choice for a future Battle Day.

Did your reconstruction follow history or was history reversed?

I did find a YouTube video/graphic that showed a "choke point" well before the Roman position, but as the "cartoon" or schematic unfolded, it appeared that the Britons were able to get around the flanks of the Roman line. Curiouser and curiouser.

Fair points, I think, re the quality of the Britons.

I am not sure or convinced about the elevated ground though. Tacitus has the Romans advancing into contact. So why leave the higher ground? Then again, there is also mention made of the tribal warriors "walking." Not sure if this is due to terrain or due to the fact of having to face a line of legionaries?

Thanks again.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

Both of the maps in my different reference books are very similar - which suggest they might come from the same source. As well as showing a contour line around the Roman position both show another contour line behind the Britons close to the River Anker / Watling Street. This could indicate the ground was rising towards the Romans and may help resolve your concerns.