Agricola vs Calgacus: Interpreting Tacitus, Modeling Mons Graupius - Part 1

[Chris]

According to one translation of Tacitus, the initial stage of the battle of Mons Graupius ". . . began with distant fighting. The Britons with equal steadiness and skill used their  huge swords and small shields to avoid or to parry the missiles of our soldiers, while they themselves poured on us a dense shower of darts . . ." [1] If I were interested in refighting this historical battle on my table top using Armati 2nd Edition rules (and I confess that I am - at least ever since stumbling across a post to TMP by an accom-plished if also anonymous  wargamer from Nottinghamshire [2]), how would I model this reported situation? Should I even attempt to model this situation? There is no reference to the Briton or Caledonian tribes having a screen of skirmishers. Indeed, it would be rather unusual to have skirmishers armed with "huge swords and small shields." Perhaps it would be justifiable and or sufficient to increase the "Missile Fire Protection" rating of the barbarian warbands to +2 from +1? As warbands in Armati 2nd Edition are typically armed with "Various" weapons, weapons used in melee only, perhaps I should add javelins or darts to this collection of swords, axes, and spears in order to give them the ability to produce "a dense shower" of missiles? If I make these changes, should I also require a certain number of turns for this apparently one-sided exchange? That is to ask: Should the Britons/Caledonians be allowed two, three, or even four volleys at the Roman auxiliaries before Agricola orders his Batavian and Tungrian cohorts forward? Considering this initial stage of the contest from the other side, the receiving end of the "torrent of missiles," should hits against the auxiliary cohorts be treated as actual casualties, or should they be categorized as fatigue? The answers to these several questions depend on what kind of experience I am after on my table top. If my intention is to produce "an historical exercise," such as the kind mentioned by Donald Featherstone in Battle Notes for Wargamers, then I have to answer in a certain way. If, however, I want to try and find a balance - admittedly subjective - between exercise and "wargame played for its own sake," then my answers will have to be different. [3] Now then, if I were also interested in staging Hail Caesar, Impetvs, and To the Strongest! versions of this historic battle (and again, due to the "work" of that gentleman from Nottinghamshire, I confess that I am), then a similar series of questions would need to be asked and answered.

Later on in the engagement, according to another translation of the account provided by Tacitus, "The battle had anything but the appearance of a cavalry action, for men and horses were carried along in confusion together, while chariots, destitute of guidance, and terrified horses without drivers, dashed as panic urged them, sideways, or in direct collision against the ranks." [4] Staying with the Armati 2nd Edition rules - my preferred set for those readers who do not know this already - I can pose another group of questions with regard to portraying this development on my "miniature" field of battle. How will I know when a chariot no longer has a driver? How do I determine the direction in which the panicked horses and empty chariot will travel and how far will they move? What will the melee value or capability of these "units" be? Or, will contact with friends and or foe simply produce a state of disorder? At the risk of making the game more complicated with the additional of yet another scenario specific rule, should I allow for a couple of degrees of disorder? For example, the effect of a driverless chariot "crashing" into a formation might cause the impacted unit to become "un-dressed" - such as happens after making a complex move. This state results in a negative melee modifier until the "un-dressed" unit is rallied. Then again, the effect might be negligible. Would it be unreasonable to allow for the possibility of a more serious degree of disorder? Along those same lines, should cavalry units struck by a panicked chariot suffer a greater degree of disorder than infantry units, or should it be the other way round? And again, if the idea or long-term goal (I am thinking at least four to five months) is to stage four separate refights of this historical battle using the previously listed sets of rules, these questions about driverless chariots would have to addressed.

The concerns about the initial missile exchange and the subsequent effects of chariots running hither and yon on a chaotic battlefield are valid and I would suggest, are integral to an effective reconstruction of the battle of Mons Graupius. Of more importance, to be sure, however, is accurately modeling the nature of the ground as well as the numbers and composition of the opposing armies. [5]

Terrain
Tacitus informs the interested wargamer that the Caledonian tribesmen had gathered and were still mustering at the Grampian Hills. With respect to deployment, the ancient authority explains that the barbarians ". . . were ranged upon the rising grounds, so that their first line stood upon the plain, the rest, as if linked together, rose above one another upon the ascent." There is no explanation as to how many warriors were in that first line, however. There is a brief mention or description of the "inequalities of the ground" with regard to the difficulties experienced by the charioteers when the two lines of infantry came together. In the closing stages of the battle, when the Romans were rounding up prisoners and or slaughtering the wounded and those hardy souls who still resisted, Tacitus refers to some wooded areas or terrain, which required the Roman cavalry to dismount and work in conjunction with their infantry counterparts. [6]
In summary, there is some indication of the nature of the ground but by no means are there wargamer-friendly details. Tacitus, unfortunately, did not provide a map along with his graphic narrative. Fortunately, Professor Duncan B. Campbell, provides two rather detailed and colourful maps in Mons Graupius AD 83 - Rome's battle at the edge of the world. [7] In the course of my research, I found a diagram for a DBA scenario. [8] Interestingly, this map extended or positioned the hill or ridge line very close to the Roman left flank. In this representation, there did not seem to be a lot of room for the Caledonian warriors and followers to deploy on the slopes.

Taking these various sources into consideration, I decided to place a very large and multi-level hill on one long-edge of my six by four-foot table. I placed wooded areas along the flanks of this hill or ridge line, filling up the open space on that same long edge. There were a few wooded areas positioned on the ridge line itself. I also positioned some patches of scrub and or rough ground on the geographical feature. Several more patches of scrub and rough ground were arranged on the plain before the slopes of Mons Graupius. Even though this landscaping was essentially guesswork and the overall aesthetic appeal was minimal, the positioned terrain was functional. It had the advantage of being inexpensive as well, being prepared from appropriately colored sheets of foam and felt purchased at a local crafts store as well as from the various bits and pieces I had on hand.

Troops
Close inspection of the wargamer-friendly diagram found on page 134 of Professor Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman Army At War 100 BC - AD 200 suggests that there were approximately 3,000 legionaries present on the field of Mons Graupius. [9] In contrast, Professor Duncan Campbell explains on page 63 of his Osprey book: "We know that, when he arrived at Mons Graupius, he deployed 8,000 auxiliary infantry and 5,000 cavalry; the size of his legionary force remains unknown, but we may legitimately infer that it broadly matched the auxiliary infantry." A number of other sources remark that the exact number of legionaries held in reserve cannot be verified. [10] The only information provided by Tacitus is that "the legions were drawn up in front of the intrenched camp . . ." [11] With regard to the number of Caledonian warriors present on that fateful day, one translation of Tacitus informs that, "More than 30,000 armed men were now to be seen, and still there were pressing in all the youth of the country, with all whose old age was yet hale and vigorous, men renowned in war and bearing each decorations of his own." [12]

Just as I considered various rule amendments to portray the ineffectiveness of Roman javelins as well as the impact of driverless chariots careening into friendly and enemy formations, now I had to consider how to model the numbers of men, horses, and chariots on the ancient field of battle. Ideally, I would have liked to manufacture or prepare just two armies for use throughout this planned project. Given the differences in the selected sets of rules, however, it seemed that I would have to build eight separate armies for the four planned or projected engagements. Thinking that it made sense to work in alphabetical order, I started, fortunately as it worked out, with my preferred set of rules, Armati 2nd Edition.

The Armati Adaptation
Establishing a very approximate unit to fighting men scale of 1 to 500, I prepared 10 units of cavalry, 16 units of auxiliaries, and 10 units of legionaries to advance on the orders of General Agricola. As I could find no campaign-specific Roman army in either the back pages of the rule book or within the "Age of Empires" (Tournament Armies) section of Warflute, I decided to mix and match units from both the Imperial Roman 27 BC to 117 AD list and the Provincial Garrison Romans 100 BC to 100 AD list for my purposes. The final version of my order of battle contained the following:

02 units of LC [light cavalry - auxiliaries] non-key FV 2[0]0 +1 javelins
06 units of HC [heavy cavalry - Roman and auxiliaries] key FV 4[0]0 +1 various
02 units of HC [heavy cavalry - Roman and auxiliaries] key FV 5[0]0 +1 spears and swords
08 units of LHI [light-heavy infantry - auxiliaries] key FV 4[1]2 +1 pila/javelins and swords
08 units of FT [heavy infantry - auxiliaries] key FV 5[2]1 +2 pila/javelins and swords
02 units of COH [heavy infantry - legionaries] key FV 7[2]2 +2 pila and swords
04 units of FT [heavy infantry - legionaries] key FV 7[2]2 +2  pila and swords
04 units of FT [heavy infantry - legionaries] key FV 6[2]1 +2 pila and swords

Notes -
1. I went back and forth on the composition of the auxiliary infantry, finally deciding to split them evenly between low-grade legionaries and light-heavy infantry. As previously related, source material mentioned that Roman missiles had no effect on the barbarians in the initial stages of the battle, so I gave javelins to all of the auxiliary foot formations. Source material also mentioned that the three cohorts of Batavians and two cohorts of Tungrians ordered to advance and attack were veteran units, so it would not be incorrect to classify a portion of the auxiliary formations as veterans. The categorization or promotion to veteran would give both the LHI and FT formations slightly higher unit breakpoints. Interestingly, Professor Campbell's translation of Tacitus has four - not three - cohorts of Batavians moving forward along with the Tungrians.
2. Given that this was a historical engagement, and given that I was going to play this wargame solo (as I do the vast majority of my wargames), I believe I was within my "rights" to tinker with the stated limits on heavy and light division control points as well as the initiative rating for the whole force. After thinking about this for a while and again, re-reading the source material, I gave Governor Agricola 5 light division control points and 12 heavy division control points. With regard to initiative, I split the difference between the two Warflute lists and granted the Roman army an initiative rating of 5. Turning to the army breakpoint, I felt that the destruction of a third of his force, or the loss of 13 key units, would be an appropriate tipping point for the Romans.
3. Somewhat constrained by my six by four-foot playing surface, I decided to reduce the metric footprint of each prepared unit by 45 percent. In this way, the 22 units forming the Roman first line (16 units of auxiliary foot and 6 units of cavalry) would not take up 176 uninterrupted centimeters of the table top. By employing units 55 percent of their Epic Scale size, the first line of auxiliary infantry and cavalry would occupy approximately 100 centimeters of my table. There would be enough room to spread out a bit; there would also be room to maneuver.

Just as there was no campaign-specific Roman army list for this battle, there was no Caledonian list to be found in either the rule book or in the Warflute "catalogue." Again, I went back and forth, this time between the British and Pictish army lists in the rule book. As neither really "felt" right, I took a second and third look at Warflute. Given that the various tribes indigenous to Britannia might be said to be similar in fighting style and perhaps even appearance, I thought it would be possible to use the Ancient British Tribal Army 400 BC to 80 AD list. Employing the same approximate unit scale used for the Roman force, I drafted the following order of battle for the Caledonians and their compatriots:

03 units of MCh [medium chariots - nobility/champions] key FV 4[1]0 +1 various/javelins
08 units of LCh [light chariots] non-key FV 3[1]0 +1 various/javelins
02 units of LC [light cavalry] non-key FV 1[0]0 +1 various/javelins
06 units of Veteran WB [warband] key FV 5[1]2 +1 various
18 units of WB [warband] key FV 4[1]2 +1 various/javelins
24 units of WB [warband] key FV 4[1]2 +1 various
12 units of FT ["Mob" - the equivalent of levy] non-key 3[0]0 +0 various

Notes -
1. Both medium and light chariots were given javelins in addition to various weapons so that they could shower the Romans with missiles from a relatively safe distance. Hits from these "volleys" would not cause actual damage but would result in fatigue markers being placed on targeted units. Once these units reached their unit breakpoint in fatigue markers, the next javelin volley that struck home would produce a casualty.
2. At first, I did not have any light cavalry on the Caledonian side of the field. Then, after re-reading the translations and looking back over 'The Battle' chapter of the Osprey Book, I decided to include a couple of these units. These formations also had javelins in addition to various weaponry; the note about chariot-delivered javelins applies here.
3. Instead of a higher unit breakpoint, I gave the half-dozen units of veteran warriors a higher frontal fighting value. All of the warbands on the Briton/Caledonian side of the table top had a unit breakpoint of 3.
4. The warbands equipped with javelins would also score fatigue if and when their volleys found a target.
5. Briton/Caledonian "mob" units moved as heavy infantry and had 2 unit breakpoints.
6. With regard to command and control, I figured that I would allow each light chariot  unit to operate on its own, so these "missile delivery platforms" would require 8 light division control points. The light cavalry formations (scouts, essentially) were also given their own control points, so the Caledonians had a total of 10 light division control points.
7. I took a different approach with the medium chariots and added them in with the gathered mass of tribal warriors as well as mob elements. These 63 units would have to share just 9 heavy division control points.
8. This confederacy of Caledonians would have an initiative rating of 4. The point at which this collection of warriors would break and run away was determined to be 20 key units.