A "Quick and Dirty" Trebia

[Chris]

Here's hoping that this AAR garners at least one more reply than my last submission!


Even though I lacked the treasure and time to put on a proper wargame refight of Trebia (see http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2011/09/big-time-trebbia.html for an awe-inspiring and speech-robbing example of how it should be done and what is, perhaps, what all ancient enthusiasts aspire to), to say nothing of the talent required to successfully stage such a struggle, I could put together a "quick and dirty" version of the first major battle of The Second Punic War on my tabletop.

For this current project, I used Rick Priestley's colorful and popular HAIL CAESAR rules.  I took full advantage of the "permission" granted on page 174, wherein he states, "it would be possible to play with card counters or wooden blocks were one so minded."
To be sure, this mind set or approach is not readily accepted by the majority. As a long-standing solo wargamer who enjoys writing about his wargaming pursuits (but not yet blogging about them) as opposed to worrying about the shield patterns for a particular cohort or the color of buttons on French uniforms in 1743, for example, my focus is more on the play of the game, and the fun of success and/or failure of commanding "miniature" troops. In sum, I am more concerned with the science than with the art of our chosen hobby. I do understand, however, that these two integral aspects are much intertwined and so, are quite difficult if not impossible to separate. I also took some license with the recommended frontages for smaller models listed in the table at the bottom of the same page. After doing some calculations, based on my reading of sources found in the library (personal and local) and on the Internet, I established a standard unit frontage of 70mm. While unit depths are not as significant, I thought it appropriate to create 2-rank or skirmisher stands with a 20mm depth. Three-rank and 4-rank units would have depths of 30mm and 40mm, respectively. Cavalry units would measure 30mm from front to back. Elephants would measure 35mm from front to back. Division commands would be represented by 20mm square stands while army commanders would occupy 30-square millimeters of tabletop.

HAIL CAESAR, unlike ARMATI, IMPETVS, or other sets of rules for ancient wargaming, does not have a "unit equals this many actual soldiers" scale. This does not prevent enjoyable scenarios from being created and played, however. The purposeful lack of a unit scale does not prevent or prohibit the interested wargamer from establishing his own unit scale, should he feel it necessary or helpful. For this try at Trebia, a very approximate scale of 1 unit represents 1,000 troops was established. In this way, for example, the estimated 16,000 Romans (in 4 legions) could be represented by 16 units or stands, each legion consisting of 4 units or stands.

On page 7 of the Biblical & Classical Army Lists supplement, general guidelines for  army size are presented. The lists for Carthaginians and Republican Romans are found on pages 52-54. Once again, adjustments were made to the guidelines and information provided on the lists. For this current project, the number of recommended divisions and the number of units within the division were increased. In some cases, especially for the Romans and their Allies, the unit stats were adjusted.

Starting on the Roman left, there was a small division containing just 2 units of Allied medium cavalry. To their immediate right were 3 divisions of Allied infantry. These were organized after the Roman fashion; there was a line of Hastati, a second line of Principes, and a reserve of Triarii. The number of units in these three lines was 4, 4, and  2. The center of the Roman army numbered 16 units of heavy infantry. The first division contained 7 units of Hastati. (I decided to break down the Roman force into lines instead of its component legions.) The second line contained 6 units of Principes, and the third line contained 3 units of Triarii. The Roman right was essentially a mirror-image of the Roman left. There were 10 units of Allied infantry organized in three lines. There were 2 units of Roman horse stationed on the flank. The slight difference was the inclusion of a small division of Cenomani warriors (3 units of Gallic warriors) between the Allied contingent and the Roman cavalry. The predominantly infantry army of Tiberius Sempronius Longus was screened by a division of 6 units of velites. In sum, 13 divisions containing 39 units would play host to Hannibal's invading army.

The Carthaginians would employ 7 divisions on my flat and essentially featureless tabletop. Five units of cavalry (1 light and 4 medium) would form the left wing. A similar formation would  be arranged on the right. The center would be held by a largish division containing 8 units of Gallic/Celtic warriors supported by 2 units of Libyan veterans with long spears. Between the wings and warriors would be two identical "bookends." These combined divisions contained 2 more units of Libyan heavy infantry (not veterans though) as well as 3 units of Spanish medium infantry. Each of these formations would also have a single elephant stand deployed to its front. (Sources report about 40 of these animals were present on that fateful day.) A separate division of  8 units (4 of slingers - 2 of these being marksmen - and 4 units of Spanish light infantry) would form the screen across the front of Hannibal's outnumbered army. The hidden force under the command of Mago would have 1 unit of veteran light cavalry and 1 unit of veteran light infantry.

There are two ways to play HAIL CAESAR. It can be played as it is written (the acronym used on various forums is RAW, meaning Rules As Written), or it can be played with a number (small to large) of amendments, modifications, and house rules. To use a culinary analogy, HAIL CAESAR could be viewed as a terrific basic recipe. Individual players (chefs) can adjust the recipe to suit their personal tastes. When I used to belong to the Yahoo HAIL CAESAR Forum (I canceled my account after the surprise and in my opinion disastrous format change which resulted in my not being able to read or send electronic mail), I had the good fortune of "meeting" a Mr. Twineham and learning about as well as contributing a few notes to his Mutford House Rules. Tempting as it is to utilize these spices in the present effort, I am going to refrain from changing the original recipe drastically. A couple of scenario-specific adjustments do have to be made, however. The first concerns the overall condition of the Roman and Allied formations. The second concerns the springing of Mago's ambush.

The ancient sources make reference to the miserable condition of the Roman and Allied troops on the day of battle. The troops under Tiberius were hungry, tired, and cold. Evidence also suggests that they were not that well trained. Based on this evidence, it  seems reasonable to lower the Clash and Sustained values of all units in the Roman consular army. It also seems reasonable to demand that any break test that is passed by Roman or Allied units be re-rolled. (Thanks to "Big Al" on the Warlord Games HAIL CAESAR Forum for helping me to clarify my thinking on this particular point.) As for the arrival of Mago's hidden force, I think the simple approach is often the best. Therefore, once the second line of the Roman legions are engaged (front line fighting or as supports), Mago's force will appear in the Carthaginian phase of the turn, 2 cavalry moves from the center of the Roman rear.

A "QUICK AND DIRTY" SUMMARY
Ten turns were completed between October 26 and November 03. I estimate that I spent between 5 and 6 hours total playing Hannibal, Tiberius, and their various subordinates. I did not really get a chance to play Mago as the game was called almost immediately after he made his appearance on the field. The Carthaginians won the field (how could they not?) so history was repeated. It was not a complete rerun of the historical engagement, however.

The contest between the skirmishers was rather one sided. The Carthaginian slingers and javelin-armed troops took full advantage of the greater reach of half of their units and much better dice throwing. In the matter of a few turns, the Roman velites were seeking cover behind the heavy infantry of the first line of the legions. These men then came under the attention of sling stones and hurled light javelins. By the time the skirmishers of Hannibal were forced to hide behind their heavier brothers, the Roman Hastati formations had been subjected to a harassing fire and had taken a few losses.

The cavalry engagements on each flank did not go exactly like the historical battle. On the Roman left, the Italian horse were overwhelmed by the superior numbers of Gallic cavalry. A flanking move could not be executed, however, as the Triarii of the reserve line wheeled to face the mounted threat. Unwilling to throw themselves onto the long spears of formed troops, the barbarian horsemen settled in for a staring contest while the Spanish and Libyan troops took control of the local fighting. Over on the Carthaginian left, the Spanish cavalry did not have as much success against the Roman   horse. In fact, their light cavalry was routed and the Romans proved rather stubborn. There was a brief moment when it was thought that some Roman cavalry might be able to take the Carthaginian battle line in the flank. As the dice would have it, however, the Roman commander blundered while trying to rally one shaken unit. The blunder turned into a precipitous retreat which nearby squadrons of Spanish cavalry could not resist. A swift attack on the rear of the retreating Roman cavalry spelled the end of that division.

The identical contingents of Spanish and Libyan infantry had a fairly difficult time with the Italian troops blocking their advance. The melees tilted one way and then the other in both sectors. The elephants attacking the Roman/Italian right were killed or routed. The elephants on the Carthaginian right survived the day but were significantly less in number. Eventually, at the cost of a couple of units of Spanish and two shaken units of Libyan phalanx, two divisions of Italian allies were broken and other units were pushed back with loss.

In the center, the Roman Hastati did manage to force the Carthaginian skirmishers to evade, but were caught flat-footed by the rush of more than several Gallic warbands. The ferocity of this attack broke a number of heavy infantry units. In the confusion that followed, the disordered Romans found themselves fighting on multiple fronts. Hannibal increased the pressure on the enemy front line and his warbands succeeded in breaking the will and spirit of the cold and fatigued Romans. The Carthaginians sorted themselves out and then proceeded to advance on the second line of Roman infantry. These more experienced troops were armed with long spears and had the support of the now-reformed Velites. Once again, the impetus of the warbands carried the moment as three units of Roman heavy infantry cracked and broke under the pressure. (Again, the dice rolling for the warbands was very good; the Roman dice were only average to awful.)

As the Gallic warbands and supporting phalanx of veteran Libyans were chewing up the second Roman line, Mago's ambush was sprung. A unit of light cavalry and light infantry was placed in the left-rear of the Roman position. These "cream of the army" troops did not get an opportunity to participate in the fighting, however. A survey of the tabletop at this point determined that even though victory conditions had not been met according to the  rules-as-written, it would be essentially pointless to continue with the exercise. A quick count of routed units revealed a significant advantage for Hannibal. In point of fact, not a single Carthaginian command had been broken. On the Roman side of the field, the current total of broken divisions was 6.

EVALUATION
In any miniature reconstruction of Trebia, the odds are - indeed, they have to be in order for any historical accuracy to be achieved - well and truly stacked against the Romans. The obvious questions then, are: Why would anyone want to refight Trebia, and why would anyone even consider taking on the role of Tiberius?

On one level, I guess it could be called "intellectual," I find that I gain a better understanding of military history if I am able to "touch" it or "walk it through" as opposed to just read about it. On another level, I guess it could be called "emotional" or "personal," there is a certain satisfaction to be had from researching - however amateurishly - and then setting up a wargame - even if crudely done by accepted standards - and then fulfilling that particular want or desire of seeing if it could be done.

Trebia is one of those "line 'em up and roll the dice" kind of engagements. (One could suggest that a lot of battles in the ancient world were like this.) Excepting the  numbers of Carthaginian cavalry on the flanks, there is not a lot of room for a battle of maneuver. As just described, Hannibal's mounted arm had a fairly tough slog on both flanks. The Gallic horsemen suffered especially. The Spanish cavalry were lucky that the Roman troopers blundered. A division of enemy medium cavalry ranging about on his left flank could have caused serious problems for Hannibal.

Overall, I think this was a pretty good treatment of Trebia. (Note that I did not type "excellent" or "perfect.") The arrangement of the Roman and Italian formations into divisions of troop type was a good decision, I think. Had I gone with a legion arrangement, the number of commands on the one side of the field would have increased by quite a bit. I think that the "condition" modifiers for all of the troops under Tiberius were appropriate. The requirement of  re-rolling a successful break test often hurt the Roman cause, but again, this seems quite accurate given the history of the actual battle. Of course, there were a few bumps in the road (meaning that I still struggled with some areas of the rules), but in general, I think things went smoothly. It is tempting, I confess, to consider replaying the battle using many of the Mutford House rule amendments. Would this produce an even better experience? Would this afford the Romans a better chance at snatching victory from the almost certain jaws of defeat? The only way to find out the answers to these questions is to set up the field again. While I debate the merits of that, I might also mention that I am toying with the idea of staging a replay using a different set of rules. I doubt that Trebia would make the list of contenders for a future Society of Ancients Battle Day, but there is nothing preventing me from conducting my own Battle Day event. As I have never done anything like that before, the idea does have a certain appeal. Let me see . . . I could do an ARMATI version, an IMPETVS version, and maybe even a Might of Arms, Fields of Glory, or Ager Proelii version of the first major battle of The Second Punic War. Perhaps I could even consider playing it as a "standard" wargame? In that case, as the Roman in charge, I would make certain that my troops were well fed and rested. I would also make sure that Hannibal's men had to cross the icy river and attack.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks for this, Chris.

The problems encountered by the Carthaginian cavalry may well related to the Carthaginian skirmishers sticking around to shoot up the hastati - historically, as soon as the heavy infantry on both sides got rolling, the light troops got well away from between the armies.  The velites rejoined their component maniples (they formed the last two ranks of hastati, principes and triarii maniples, a process that is a pain to simlate on the wargames table) while the Carthaginian skirmishers dropped back through their own heavy foot, split, half reassembled on each flank and helped to shoot the Roman cavalry to pieces.

Historically the Romans in the centre, being cold and tired but not shot up by the Carthaginian skirmishers, still had enough skill, stamina and technique to break through the Carthaginian centre, although having done this they were not at all clear what to do next, so just marched off the field (Sempronius claiming a success on this basis until news of the actual losses got out).

Keeping the Carthaginian skirmishers in the centre once the velites had had enough thus seems to have been a factor in the game that altered the historical outcome - in fact it altered it rather favourably for the Carthaginians.  Given the traditional resistance of legionaries to missiles, the shooting against them in the game may have been a bit too effective.

The elephants are definitely too vulnerable, although this is usual in most wargame systems.  If we look at the Metaurus (207 BC), where Hasdrubal had ten elephants and they spent most of the battle between both armies and apparently taking shooting from both as they plunged hither and yon into each throughout much of the battle, six died and four were captured.  Elephants took a LOT of killing, but under most sets of wargame rules Hasdrubal's pachyderms would all have been dead in a single turn.  As it happens, Hannibal did lose all but one of his elephants at the Trebia, but this was considered to be from the effects of cold and exposure rather than anything the Romans managed to do (notwithstanding Livy's hopeful description of elephants being driven off by javelin hits in "the soft part under the tail").

Anyway, an excellent report, Chris, and I confess to being of a similar mind in that I regard figures and pretty terrain as optional extras while the rules, deployments and unit/command actions are my sine qua non of wargaming.

Keep up the good work.

[aligern]

At least you got an historical result. I like the logic that, in the real battle, The Romans must have been degraded in some way for the Gauls and Spaniards to have been able to defeat them frontally. However, many would debate whether that degradation was caused by the weather, being attacked in the rear or by the effect of skirmishers. The weather affects both sides, though the Romans had waded the freezing river. I would think that Romans with their large curved shields should be almost invulnerable to skirmishers. therefore I. wonder if you are allowing sufficient impact to the cavalry rear attacks. Given that Hannibal moved his skirmishers to help defeat the Roman cavalry and thus enable his army to flank the opponent I suspect that the big difference between the armies is the flank and rear pressure that Hannibal engineers.
I am a great believer that the big influence on decisions whether by generals, politicians or car purchasers is their recent experience and that historically one can work out some of the plans for battles from the next battles the general plans. So, at Cannae Hannibal arranged for his Spanish and Celtic troops to be interspersed in cohorts and deployed forward so that they would last longer and for the Africans , who could beat Romans frontally, to be able to apply direct pressure to the flank and cavalry again to deliver a rear attack.  Thus I worry when the Celts in your re-creation break Roman units with fierce charges. That all seems to me to be repeating the 'fierce Celts with impetus' heresy, but I suppose that is hard-wired into the rules.
It is a nice report, but, given it's length, why not make it or perhaps the next mega effort, a Slingshot article with a couple of diagrams and an extended discussion on why Hannibal won and the interesting choices that you made i.e. that the dispirited condition of the legions was probably the most significant factor in their defeat versus the view that it is more to do with Hannibal's brilliantly planned phased battle with each arm carrying out its role in sequence, where the weather and hunger and the river are just an added element in wearing down those fearsome legionaries.
Roy

[Chris]

The comments and additional information are much appreciated, gentlemen. Thanks for taking the time.

On reflection, it was rather a large-ish game to tackle  by myself. And I  would not be surprised if an occasional mistake was made (meaning I forgot in the heat of battle) with regard to adding or subtracting this  modifier or that modifier.

With specific regard to the warband impetus issue, HC typically allows these standard units 9 dice in the first round of  melee. The Roman units had just 5 dice. Units that charge get a bonus, so they have a better chance of hitting the enemy. There is the option of  Romans (or other Heavy Infantry) of closing ranks to make saving rolls better, but this  was not always utilized.
Perhaps it  was an unconscious application of the fatigue rule?

I will indeed consider researching and preparing something for  the more scholarly SLINGSHOT. I did have something appear in the journal a few years back, but I think it  was more luck than talent. Anyway, it is  something to put on my "wargaming to do list" for 2014.

Thanks again to all who read and responded.

Chris

[aligern]

Chris, you have the talent.
Roy