Holiday Gaming

DBA, Game Reports

Over the last couple of weeks the wargames table has bent under the weight of little miniatures as multiple armies have sort victory and glory. What follows is a summary of a series games played over the holiday period between my son and I during his extended visit.

Our first games centred around the Dacian Wars using a pair of armies my son had painted recently. The Dacians (II/52) in DBA comprise a mix of fast moving foot (6 x 3Wb and  1 x 3Bd) with a useful number of supporting light troops (2 x Ps). These are backed by a number of cavalry including an option of a small number of Sarmatian cavalry (3Kn). Opposing them were the Early Imperial Romans (II/56) who comprise a mix of heavy infantry (4Bd) and medium infantry (4Ax). These are supplemented by several mounted stands as well as bolt shooters – should that be selected. The games were surprisingly close – suggesting the matched pair can produce balanced games.

But what of the games? Given they were played first few details remain. However, when I commanded the Romans (two of the four games) I made notable use of roads.

The second game with the Dacians in the left foreground.

On one occasion a flanking column (above) created a degree of unease for the Dacians, though the threat was countered with considerable skill and the Romans suffered defeat. Despite this, in the final battle (below) a rapid advance by the Roman centre, comprising cavalry initially, caught the Dacians unprepared – their deployment having been constrained by terrain. After a determined battle, where the Romans held the initaive throughout, the Dacians finally collapsed.  

The Roman cavalry surge forward in the final Dacian Wars battle.

Across four games the Dacians secured victory in three battles, while the Romans achieved a single paltry victory. While the games were balanced I was a little surprised the Romans didn’t win more games. Why, well at least on the surface the Romans seemed to be more balanced. That said with a higher aggression they always found themselves invading and thus the Dacians were selecting terrain. Unlike some players I always consider a low aggression a useful benefit, especially when the armies are asymetric. In the end we both won two games and lost two.

Our next series of games were set in the Wars of the Roses which is a period my son and I often play. Indeed, he makes a point of bringing a Wars of the Roses army south each year where they are faced by my own veterans. In all we would fight six battles from this period – spread over several days. For the purposes of this description I fielded Yorkists (IV/83a) while my son the Lancastrians – also IV/83a.

The Battle of Figsby with Yorkists on the left.

Both armies of course contain a core of bill (4Bd) and bow (4Bw). However, a trend quickly developed where the Yorkist king would fight mounted (3Kn) and was supported by a body of currours (Cv). In all but one battle the Yorkists deployed Irish kern (3Ax). The kern would always be found on one wing where they could contest terrain.

A view of the Lancastrians at Figsby.

The Lancastrians in contrast tended to draw in troops from different sources. The Lancastrian commander would almost always deploy on foot (4Bd) while a number of additional men-at-arms would fight mounted (3Kn) or dismounted (4Bd) as the situation required. On occasion European mercenaries would be employed, these were armed with handguns (Ps).

The Yorkist centre at the Battle of Figsby.

I am a strong believer in the benefits of such light troops but when they were deployed in our games they had little effect. That siad in at least one game I would have found a double move on occasion useful. In one battle a group of border horse (LH) would replace Lancastian currours.

The Second Battle of Wakefield with the Yorkists on the left.

Across the campaign, which comprised six battles as mentioned previously, the Lancastrians secured two victories. At the Battle of Figsby, as well as three other engagements, Edward secured stunning victories – or so the bards record. Though in truth the Second Battle of Wakefield was almost a Lancastrian victory – following a bold flanking movement by Lancastrian currours around an area of boggy ground. From this position they threatened the Yorkist rear. However, the threat was contained and the main Lancastrian army duly defeated. With four defeats across the six hard fought battles, the Lancastrian cause was shattered. Now only remanents of the Young Pretender’s armies escaped to France. These Wars of the Roses battles were truely outstanding, with the tension palpable in each.

Our final engagement was a Punic Wars encounter between the Carthaginians (II/32a) and Polybian Romans (II/33). My son selected to command the Carthaginians who were subsequently determined to be defending. The battle was fought near the coast where a wood created a significant obstacle. Apart from a road the battlefield was otherwise open.

The Punic Wars battle, viewed from the Carthaginian lines.

As expected the Punic horse were massed opposite the Roman right and the lighter Punic foot placed opposite the Roman left. The Romans were determined to extend their own right in an effort to counter the Punic mounted. Such redeployments take time and the Carthaginians pressed forward at pace.

However, Roman cunning was on display and Roman light troops slowed the advancing Carthaginians while their heavy foot pressed the Punic centre. The battle would swing back and forth as each commander sought even a minor advantage. However, the Punic commander slowly gained the initiative and as Roman reserves dwindled, defeat was unavoidable. It was, without doubt, a dramatic (if slow) defeat for the Romans.

So ended our holiday gaming. In all eleven games were played with each providing a most enjoyable encounter. We are both looking forward to repeating the exercise next year.

Lincoln DBA – Spring ’25

Competitions & Game Days, DBA

Greek cunning, Roman resolve and English desperation were all on display as seven locals gathered for an informal evening of DBA using 15mm miniatures here in New Zealand. The format was simple, allowing players to change armies throughout the evening. This allowed historical opponents to be fielded or alternatetively players to field one of their own armies. Further, there were no defined rounds, players simply moving between opponents as they became free. With seven players attending there were three tables in play throughout.

So what were the armies deployed? There were nine army lists in use though some armies were duplicated. Those marked with an asterisk denoting more than one army of the same type was in play simultaneously.

  • II/5d Thessalian 448-278 BC
  • II/19c Seleucid 204-167 BC
  • II/27a Pyrrhic 300-281 BC
  • II/33 Polybian Roman 275-202 BC *
  • II/78b  Late Imperial Roman (Eastern) 307-408 AD
  • II/83 Later Visogoths 419-720 AD
  • IV/43c Hungarian 1397-1526 AD
  • IV/62c English 1415-1422 AD
  • IV/83a Wars of the Roses 1455-1485 AD *

Below, a few photos of the games being played with photos taken intermittently as time permitted. Click on the photos to display a larger image.

Polybian Romans engaged against Pyrrhius of Epirus.

Above, one of the early games found Richard using Polybian Romans against Pyrrhus of Epirus, no doubt after the army had landed to provide assisantance to Tarentum. Details of this battle are unclear, with ancient historians failing to record details of the determined struggle in Southern Italia.

Thessalian Greeks engaged against Late Imperial Romans.

Above, Colin’s Thessalian Greeks engaged against Jim’s Late Imperial Romans (Eastern) who among other things deployed two stands of cataphracts – no disastrous follow-ups for them. The Greeks were designated as the defender while the plough was sodden after recent rains. The terrain seems relatively open though I suspect the hill on the left is classed as difficult going.

Who will be king? A Wars of the Roses battle underway.

There were at least three Wars of the Roses battles. In part becasue Keith A was fielding a new matched pair. Above his Lancastrians are engaged against my own Yorkists (foreground). The Yorkists are of course veterans of many campaigns. With reference to the photo above the troops on the right were generally unengaged while those in the centre were heavily engaged. Indeed, the archers forming the Lancastrian centre were decimated while the Lancastrian levy (7Hd) struggled to deploy.

Hundred Years War English clash with Hungarians.

In the above photo the Colin’s Hundred Years War English can be seen engaged against Robin’s Hungarians. The large field in the top left was again classed as rough due to recent rain. This was Colin’s second game as a defender when his fields had become sodden. The game was also notable as the first outing of the Hungarians who included two stands of massed German cavalry deployed in deep formations (6Kn). A defining moment of the battle was however when the English men-at-arms (3Kn) were caught by Hungarian horse archers (LH).

Romans (foreground) engage the Seleucids.

Above, my Polybian Romans engage the Seleucids commanded by Jim. The Seleucid left was withdrawn and the main clash occured in the centre and on the Roman left. As was expected the dense ranks of the phalngites pressed the Roman infantry of the centre with each side gaining momentum only to be pushed back with little gain. Below, another view of the battle.

The Seleucid pike phalanx prior to its commitment.

The cunning plan by the Roman commander to counter the enemy elephants and schythed chariot unravelled. Soon the velites were driven in by Seleucid light infantry allowing Seleucid heavy cavalry to engage Roman heavy infantry and cavalry. Alas, another Roman army was defeated, no doubt resulting in outrage in Rome!

So ended an excellent evening of DBA which seemed well recieved by all involved with comments indicating a few more such evenings are needed.

An Evening of DBA

Competitions & Game Days, DBA, Game Reports

A little over a week ago six players ventured out on what can only be described as a cold Autumn evening here in New Zealand for a selection of DBA games. In all eight games were played using a range of armies some of which had not graced a table before. The armies taking the field were as follows:

  • II/5b Later Hoplite Greek Athenian
  • II/5d Later Hoplite Greek Thessalian
  • II/7 Achaemenid Persian
  • II/19c Later Seleucid
  • II/33 Polybian Roman
  • III/40a Norse Viking
  • III/24b Anglo-Saxon

Games were generally against historical opponents, or those of relatively adjacent periods.

For those familiar with the DBA army lists may recognise that two of the above armies include, or have an option to include, scythed chariots. Specifically the Persians and Seleucids. While I didn’t witness these games, having my hands full with my own encounters, I understand that the scythed chariots had some success, especially in one game. Perhaps they will grace the table in future action at which time I capture them on film.

I did however manage a few photos of a nearby game between the Romans and the Thessalian Greeks. Here Richard and Colin were locked in deadly combat across two games.

A general view of the Thessalians & Romans during their first battle.

The above photo captures a more general view of the first game with the Greek horse massed on the left opposite the less numerous Roman and Italian cavalry. In contrast the photo below captures a portion of the line with a focus on the Thessalian shields which are, I feel, rather striking.

The Thessalian shields on display.

For my part I managed two games, the first running well over time. I was commanding Robin’s Anglo-Saxons against his recently completed Vikings. These two armies I found to be remarkably balanced historical pair.

A general view as the Anglo-Saxons & Vikings clash.

The early Vikings generally use foot rated as 3Bd to represent their hird. Fast moving and lethal the hird provide a lethal combination. The Viking general and huscarls are represented by a single 4Bd. Slower but more resilent they provide an interesting variation. In contrast the Anglo-Saxons foot is rated either as hird (4Bd) of select fyrd (4Sp). An option, but not one that was available, was the great fyrd (7Hd) which represented by troops of less quality but more numerous.

Unsurprisingly the solid vs fast interactions produced an interesting dynamic with the lines breaking up. In both games I massed the Anglo-Saxon hird in the centre with the select fyrd divided between each flank. In both a small reserve proved valuable, though in the second it was less numerous due to the Viking moves against the flanks.

A view from the perspective of the Anglo-Saxons.

The result was a two hard fought victories for the Anglo-Saxons. The first in particular being particularly hard fought. In a subsequent game Viking ascendency was reclaimed with victory to the Norsemen. No doubt this will only encourage future Viking raiders. Of course that’s all for another day…

Campaigns in Iberia

Battles in Hispania, Campaigns, DBA, Game Reports, II/11 Gallic, II/32a Later Carthaginian, II/33 Polybian Roman, II/39a Iberian

In a recent series of battles the peaceful peoples of Iberia would be subjected to a series of invasions by not one but three peoples. Specifically the Gauls, Carthaginians and Romans, all of which were commanded by one player with the battles fought in sequence. Alas, only scattered fragments of the various battles survive.

The Invasion of the Gauls:

The first significant incursion happened in the Spring of 229 BCE when the Volcae Arecomici, a confederation of tribes who inhabited the area between the Rhône and the Hérault rivers, crossed the mountains that acted as a natural barrier to Iberia. The Gauls under Vitalstatistix were eventually confronted by the Iberians commanded by Indibilus who drew up his army on a generally open battlefield though the Gallic left would be disrupted by a series of steep and rocky hills.

The Gauls divided their cavalry between both wings with a higher number deployed on their left. Around noon, soon after both armies were fully deployed, a number of Iberian caetrati were thrown forward to disrupt the Gallic left. Securing a portion of the high ground the caetrati now threatened the Gallic infantry and hampered the deployment of the Gallic mounted. Soon Iberian cavalry reinforced the Iberian right further slowing the Celtic advance before falling back in what some sources claim was a ruse. As the Iberian mounted retired the Gallic cavalry and chariots advanced and began to expand. Yet now the Iberian horse advanced again. Simultaneously a number of caetrati moved from the high ground to support the Iberian attack.

The Iberian attack with Iberian cavalry reinforced by caetrati.

Only the determination of the Gallic mounted overcame Indibilus’ cunning ploys and forced the Iberians back. Slowly the Gallic commander gained the advantage until eventually the Iberian right was in disarray. With it the Iberian centre was unhinged. Finally, with casualties mounting, the Iberians were forced to retire.

The following year that the Gauls invaded yet again, no doubt encouraged by their previous success. The resourceful Indibilus, having rebuilt his Iberian army, deployed in echelon his right and centre forward, his left withdrawn.

The Iberian right & centre with the left withdrawn in the distance.

Again the Gallic left was disrupted by a series of rocky hills. However this time the Gallic commander secured the high ground with infantry before advancing his mounted through a narrow defile and expanding on the open plain beyond. The advance of the Gallic foot in the centre and right was however delayed due to the broken ground. When battle was joined on the Iberian right the scutarii fought with considerable determination, particularly against the Gallic mounted. Indeed, on several occasions the Gallic mounted were forced back.

The Gallic line is disjointed and is already under pressure from the Iberians.

Slowly the Iberians gained the advantage and as they did Gallic casualties mounted. Eventually, the Vitalstatistix, at the head of a number of chariots was overcome. Once news of his loss was known the fragile Gallic host broke in rout. This tragic defeat ended Gallic incursions, at least for several years.

Carthaginian Expansion:

To the west the Carthaginians held a portion of the Iberian coastal areas. On several occasions they expanded their influence in to the interior. Now, in 227 BCE the Carthaginians pressed north once again determined to increase their control of the Iberian hinterland. The Punic force comprised a significant number of Libyan and African forces supplemented by various Iberian and Gallic mercenaries. Of note was the use some 40 elephants with which the Punic commander, Hasdrubal the Fair, intended to dislodge the Iberian line. Some sources indicate he was more concerned that with a greater mounted component the Iberians would avoid the open plain.

The Iberian right centre was open with rocky hills on the left and left centre while a large wooded area dominated the Punic right. With the Punic pachyderms deployed in the open centre the Iberian commander intended to draw these forward while fighting defensively on the left. Soon a number of caetrati were thrown forward. Soon a proportion of Punic elephants were drawn forward.

The general situation with the Iberians in the foreground.

A surprise Punic attack against the Iberian left gained some advantage. However, the timely commitment of Iberian reserves stabilised the situation. Instead, fighting now moved to the wooded forest that marked the Punic left. Here Gallic mercenaries were heavily engaged.

The battle against the Punic left as Iberian scutarii initially attack.

The Iberian attacks here continued, despite the commitments of Punic reserves, until the scutarii finally gained success. With his left flank collapsing Hasdrubal the Fair was forced to retire, his hopes of Punic hegemony in disarray.

The Romans Arrive:

In 226 BCE Rome and Carthage agreed the Ebro Treaty. Despite this Roman interest in Iberia was growing. In 220 BCE a Roman expedition under Lucius Veturius Philo was dispatched to operate north of the Ebro. Commanding the Iberians was none other than Indibilus, who it will be recalled had been engaged against the Gauls a few years prior. Two battles desperate battles would be fought.

The Iberian centre comprising the bulk of the scutarii.

The first was in the summer when Philo deployed his legions, bolstered by Spanish mercenaries, against the Iberians. The field selected by Indibilus was broken by rocky hills and woods. The Iberian left was anchored by a rocky hill his right by a large wood.

The general situation viewed from the Roman perspective.

But on the extreme Iberian right the battlefield was open and it was here that Lucius Veturius Philo decided to advance. Indibilus was soon on the defensive and reacting to the consul’s advance. It was not long before the Iberian right was under significant pressure. Unable to reinforce the struggling Iberian lines Indibilus army began to disintegrated. Rome it seemed, was victorious.

Fortunately, Indibilus was able to make good his losses and by late Summer of 220 BCE once again took the field to oppose the Romans. Alas, Lucius Veturius Philo outmanoeuvred Indibilus whose army faced the Romans in the open with only one large wood on his centre right. The situation seemed hopeless with the Iberian centre particularly vulnerable. Clearly Indibilus needed to press the Roman left or risk imminent defeat.

The Battle of Cissa, Summer of 220 BCE with the Iberians advancing from the top left.

The Iberian right advanced with boldly and began to press the Roman left. With the Iberian right advancing and the left withdrawn the Roman line was stretched. As such what Roman reserves available had been committed.

Expecting his centre to collapse at any moment Indibilus’ attacks were desperate. Yet reports arrived that the scutarii, while giving ground, were holding. Indeed, the fighting was so desperate that the scutarii were being forced back almost to their camp. Yet, so overstretched were the Romans that a final push against the Roman left caused it to buckle. News that the Roman left was breaking now rippled through the Roman lines like panic among a gaggle of geese. Lucius Veturius Philo, accepting defeat, fled the field. What excuse he would present for the failures was unknown.

Summary:

So ended a series of battles in Iberia. In what had become a fascinating series of five engagements the Iberians had suffered two defeats while securing three narrow victories. One can’t but wonder if the Romans especially will be contemplating further expeditions in the coming months. Only time will tell…