IMPOSSIBLE HISTORY WITH IMPETVS

[Chris]

IMPOSSIBLE HISTORY WITH IMPETVS
CHAPTER ONE OF AN INTENDED FOUR: A VIKING RAID ON ATHENS

Intrigued and then inspired by a post discovered on the IMPETVS forum wherein a Vikings versus Early Macedonians battle was referenced, I decided to ring out the old year and ring in the new by setting up four impossible battles using Lorenzo Sartori's colorful and popular IMPETVS rules and Extra IMPETVS supplements [1]. The armies in each imaginary battle would contain 360 points (including the cost of general and command structure) and would be organized into a single command [2]. The first engagement, as indicated by the chapter title, would see an Athenian army (circa 4th century BCE) defending the city-state from a fairly large group of very lost Vikings. The second fantastic battle would involve Classical Indians and 100 Years War English. For the third impossible encounter, Early Imperial Romans would face 11th century Normans. The final scenario would be a predominantly cavalry affair, wherein Later Sarmatians would ride into battle against Seljuk Turks.

The "problem" of terrain selection and placement was addressed by some simple prep work. Six battlefield maps were drawn up and assigned a number from 1 to 6. These fields of honor ranged from the very simple (a completely flat and featureless plain) to the rather more complex or busy landscape (a few woods, a few hills - some gentle and some steep, a village, villa or temple, and a section of coastline). The roll of a 1d6 determined which map would be reproduced on my 6 x 4-foot tabletop.

The "problem" of army deployment was resolved in a similar manner. The defending army was determined as per the rules (Paragraph 3.3 on page 19), but the specific deployment was decided by rolling 2d6. Using 15mm scale "miniatures,"  the deployment area measured approximately 158 by 31 centimeters on a 6 x 4-foot playing surface [3]. This space was divided into three equal sectors, designated as the left, center, and right. Instead of drawing up a map of command deployment, the roll of 2d6 would determine how many units/stands would populate each sector of an army's deployment area.

Die Roll      Left            Center         Right
2         25%            25%            50%
3         50%            25%            25%
4         33%            33%            33%
5         20%            40%            40%
6         40%            40%            20%
7-8         10%            80%            10%
9         10%            30%            60%
10         60%            30%            10%
11         75%            25%            0%
12         0%            25%            75%

If one were going to command a Galatian army of 25 stands, for example, on a deployment roll of 3, there would be 13 units stationed in the left sector, 6 units would be deployed in the center, and 6 units would be placed on the right flank. The exact composition and arrangement of these determined numbers would be left to the player commander (i.e., me). If 4 was the result of the deployment roll, then there would be 8 units on the left and right, and 9 units in the center.

TESTIKLES VERSUS RAGNOR OF THE NORTH: A SUMMARY
The Athenian army, under the command of an expert general by the name of Testikles (pronounced Tes-ti-kleez), was drafted from List 2 of Volume 2 (bottom of page 6, Extra IMPETVS 4) and included the following: 1 unit of medium cavalry, 1 unit of light cavalry, 4 units of peltasts, 2 units of slingers, 1 unit of skirmishers with javelins, and 5 large units of hoplites. The last 5 points of army allowance was spent on a roll of destiny. The Viking army was drafted from page 25 of Extra IMPETVS 2 and numbered 23 units. Led by the fierce veteran Ragnor (also an expert general), there was a single stand of Guard Huscarls (or Housecarls), a large unit of Veteran Huscarls, 4 large units of Huscarls, and 13 units of expendable Hird. In addition, there were 2 units of skirmishing archers as well as 2 units of skirmishing javelins.

Battlefield Number 2 was selected by the impartial 1d6 and a second roll determined that the Vikings would occupy the North or top long-edge of the playing surface. A portion of their left flank would be taken up by two large woods (each 25 cm x 20 cm). A two-tiered hill (the first level classed as gentle slope and measuring 25 cm x 10 cm; the second level categorized as steep and wooded, measuring 12 cm x 8 cm) almost touched the large wood. There was an identical hill over on the Viking right. The left flank of the Greek side of the table was decorated with an angled stretched of coastline. There were two steep hills (each measuring 15 cm x 8 cm) very close to the water's edge. There was approximately 60 centimeters of open space in the center of the field, between the two large hills.

The Athenian Testikles rolled a 6 for his deployment, so 40% of his army would line up in the left sector, 40% would line up in the center, and the remaining 20% would deploy on the right. Ragnor rolled a 4, so his large raiding party would deploy equally across three sectors.

As for initial deployment, the Athenians placed their camp behind their left flank. The formations assigned to this sector of the field included the medium cavalry, two units of peltasts, and two units of skirmishers (slingers and javelin men). The hoplites were arranged in the center of the field, in a single group of five large units. A single unit of slingers was just to the right of the phalanx wherein Testikles took up position. The right flank of the Athenian army was covered by two more units of peltasts and a unit of light cavalry.

Ragnor matched Testikles by forming up his guard, veteran, and other Huscarls in a single group. (The Viking commander was positioned on the right of this fierce-looking formation.) Two units of skirmishers screened parts of this line. Six units of Hird were stationed on the left flank, organized into two lines of three units each. A small unit of javelin-armed skirmishers ranged in front of these troops. The Hird on the right flank were also arranged in two lines (the first had four units while the second line had three) and had a unit of skirmishing bowmen to their front.

For the first several turns of the battle, the Athenians held the initiative. The peltasts and skirmishers pushed forward on both flanks with the intention of occupying the hills and woods. On the right flank, the Greeks accomplished this with some effect. At one point, the light cavalry hurled javelins into the packed ranks of a unit of Hird and caused a number of casualties. These volleys were followed by a pell-mell charge which destroyed the Viking infantry. Enemy numbers were too great on this flank, however, and eventually, the Athenians found themselves forced to give ground. The peltasts gave a fairly good account of themselves, however, giving a couple of Viking units slightly bloody noses. At the end of the battle, only the Greek light cavalry  remained, facing four units of Viking Hird.

On the Viking right flank, the Greek medium cavalry did not have as much of an impact. It appeared as if the unit commander could not decide what he wanted to do. At one point, he ordered his troopers to withdraw and then spent a few turns trying to rally off the disorder this movement caused. When a group of Hird approached too close for comfort, the medium horse charged home only to bounce off the wall of warriors. No casualties were caused by this action but both main units were disordered by the contact. The peltasts, slingers, and javelin-armed skirmishers also did well on this flank. One unit of Hird was broken by a constant barrage of sling stones. The peltasts worked well with the skirmishers and caused fits of frustration for Ragnor, as his Guard Huscarls suffered terribly form several volleys of javelins and a surprisingly powerful charge from the Athenian light infantry. The timely arrival of a unit of  Hird, which charged the already engaged peltasts, rescued Ragnor's men from an embarrassing defeat. Even so, Ragnor was forced to retreat with a select few comrades when his unit was broken by another effective volley of javelins from the lurking Greek skirmishers.

The center of the field, of course, witnessed the most significant action of the day. On the plain between the two hills, the opposing formations of hoplites and Huscarls advanced toward each other. Screening skirmishers did little in the way of causing casualties but did break up the groups into smaller bodies by inflicting disorder on this or that large unit. When just over 10 centimeters separated the enemy formations, the Vikings formed a shieldwall and dared the Athenians to attack. The invitation was forcibly accepted. To the dismay of Testikles, his hoplite phalanx was repulsed with some loss. Some sections of the shieldwall had been disordered by the first round of melee and elected to pursue their discouraged foe and for a time, the contest went back and forth. Eventually, numbers and die rolls (for both combat and initiative) turned the tide in Ragnor's favor. Coincidentally, on the same turn as his unit was sent packing by effective javelin fire, the large unit under the direct command of Testikles was broken in melee. The Athenian made use of his roll of destiny and saved himself and the lives of his men, albeit temporarily, as another Viking push proved too much and another 6 turned up on the cohesion test rolled by Testikles. The required roll was made on the 'Capture or Death of a Commander' Table, and the worst possible result was indicated. Testikles was killed in the middle of the desperate melee. On the loss of their commanding general, the Athenian army was broken.

A quick accounting determined that except for this significant development, the battle had been a very close and bloody engagement. The Vikings had lost 14 of the 21 points permitted before their army reached its breaking point. The Athenians had also lost 14 points, but their determined breaking point was 16. 

EVALUATION
Using a die to determine the landscape of the table and dice to determine the deployment of the opposing forces allowed me to spend more time and mental energy on plans and playing, so I think this is a pretty good pre-battle process. While the drafted armies do not always divide neatly into the percentage categories, this is not an insurmountable obstacle. With regards to deployment, I was a little embarrassed to discover that I didn't follow my own rules during the set up. It turns out that the Athenians and Vikings were only 45 centimeters apart instead of 60. On further review, I think I am going to make this standard, as it speeds up the initial turns a bit.

As the Athenian, I knew I was outnumbered from the start. I thought it might be prudent to control the flanks with my light troops, cavalry, and the terrain, while my hoplites (with long spears) dealt with the hairy Huscarls. This was a calculated risk, which, as the brief summary shows, resulted in my defeat. As Ragnor, I wanted to use my superior numbers but had some trouble bringing all this weight to bear. Due to my slow advance, I let the enemy secure key terrain. This caused me some problems and quite a few casualties. In the center at least, the formation of a shieldwall prevented me from being smashed to pieces by the better disciplined hoplites. I confess to being a bit taken aback when my Guard Huscarls were so roughly and apparently easily handled by the enemy skirmishers and light infantry. Fortunately, my veteran Huscarls survived the battle and would be promoted to Guard, to fill in the many empty positions in the former unit.

This experiment in "Impossible History" (or perhaps it should be Twisted History?) was, in many respects, a learning module. I am, even after several wargames, still very much a recruit when it comes to the processes and mechanics of IMPETVS. However, I do think that I'm farther along then I was in the first month I had the rules. I do believe that I will be even more experienced and intelligent in my play by the time the other three wargames are finished. Ultimately, I would like to put that experience to use setting up and playing a couple of historical battles. Having engaged in a fair share of these contests using ARMATI and Hail Caesar (excellent rule sets in their own right), I am interested to see how an action like Mons Graupius, Bibracte, or perhaps even Trebia, plays and plays out using IMPETVS.


Notes
[1] The message was posted by a Gaius Cassius (apparently a Canadian of the Patrician class from a very august family) at 1:28 p.m. on February 26, 2013.

[2] Initially, I toyed with the idea of using 2 commands in each army. The larger formation would  have 240 points and be under the army general. His subordinate, possibly more capable, would control 120 points. After thinking some more about the pros and cons, I decided these splits produced army "divisions" that were entirely too fragile.

[3] The word miniatures is placed in quotation marks because I do not use traditional miniatures for my wargaming.  I use my MacBook to create two-dimensional IMPETVS units. These unit templates are then saved as PDFs and then printed in color on white cardstock at a local office supply store. The cardstock counters and then reinforced with cardboard backing and once the tabletop is set up, I am ready to play. With these 15mm counters, I can include all the important information on the counter. Flipping through the rule book or consulting the official amendments is greatly minimized. The use of red, yellow, or green markers lets me know at a glance the status of a unit. In my experience, I have found this approach to be financially feasible, flexible, and quite functional. Granted, pictures of my "miniature" battles will never grace the cover of an international magazine catering to the hobby, nor will they appear in the pages of an issue. [The editors of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED seem more inclusive or at least open in their attitude toward contributors. See the February 2012 issue of the magazine for my report, "A Hot Time in Ligny."] As my wargaming goals revolve around the appreciation, study, and understanding of military history as well as having fun without spending a small fortune, I am quite satisfied with this "counter-ary" approach to miniature wargaming. 

If there are any readers interested in seeing a photograph or three of what my table looks like during a game, please send a PM and I will respond as soon as I am able. Thank you.

[Jim Webster]

Hi Chris
It strikes me that if you'd called one side Galatian and the other side Aetolian, it doesn't sound too unhistorical, in result at any rate.
The Greek light troops do significant damage and the Hoplites probably better somewhere where they have the edge of being uphill, or at least have to be attacked

Jim

[Chris]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for taking the time to read and to post a reply.

Your observation is well taken.

FWIW, have recently moved on to an equally implausible scenario wherein EIR are facing 11th century Normans.

There is about to be a rather large collision in one sector of the field. I wonder who will be left standing, the legionary infantry or the impetuous milites?

Regards,

Chris

[Jim Webster]

Not all that improbable, check Arrian's 'Order of battle against the Alans' :-)

http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/Sources/ektaxis.html

Jim

[Chris]

Thanks very much for the link, Jim.

Early in this year, I experimented with Arrian's deployment versus the Alans courtesy of the description found in Goldsworthy's book, The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200, pages 136 and 141.

The translation and other research has been copied and pasted to my computer library.

Thanks again.

Chris