Book Notes: Worlds of Arthur: Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages (by Guy Halsall)

Halsall's prose is very easy to read and this book seems aimed slightly more at the general public than the academic market. There are no footnotes or citations, and some of the drier probative text required in most academic books where the author has to show their work is mostly absent. In the latter instance there is little need to show probative work, because Halsall isn't really doing original research here - this is more a bibliographic overview and critique of the historical basis for a historical King Arthur.

Worlds of Arthur starts with an overview of how written and archeological sources have previously been strung together to create what is understood as the historical Arthur. Wargamers who have dabbled in Arthurian (or Subroman or Romano-British or Late Roman - choose your label) wargaming will no doubt be familiar with this version of Arthur.  

Halsall then moves to a closer examination of those same sources. The written sources are rather quickly exposed as suspect, either because (1) the "sources" almost immediate start having problems with being written years after the events they describe, even centuries, (2) the author's intent is sometimes contrary to recording things factual, and (3) Arthurian-believers have basically cherry-picked the best supporting evidence and ignore what doesn't fit.

Now, many "Arthurian" wargame rulesets will actually state that a historical Arthur did not likely exist, but what's more problematic is the manner in which the imagined historical setting of a "historical Arthur" is doubtful.  This is the stuff of the ignored "pleas of the Britons" and the building of forts along the "Saxon Shore" that builds up an image of a Roman Britain in crisis falling before a invasion/migration of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. This storyline is is the prerequisite for a Briton warlord, like Arthur, to fight at Mount Badon.

Halsall notes the D-Day inferences of images like this. 

Accordingly, the balance of the book is an assessment of the historical setting of 5th and 6th century Britain and northern Europe.  Was there a massive violent invasion of entire peoples into Britain? No, not really. Were professional Roman troops drained out of Britain to Gaul (and beyond) in the service of usurper generals-turned-emperors? Yes.  Were these drained garrisons re-manned with "barbarian" troops (refugees, really, to use a modern context) who would gladly take the stability of regular meals and shelter in a government-supplied fort?  Certainly seems so. 

There is also a somewhat deep dive into what it means to find "grave goods" in a "Saxon" grave.  What does it really mean that some graves have swords and jewelry etc. in them and others do not? The older, traditional interpretation is that graves with treasure are pagan Saxons/Angles/Jutes, and the graves without are Christian Romano-Britons.  Halsall, convincingly, I think, breaks down this interpretation based on grave locations and dating. What made more of an impression on me was the idea that grave goods represent a society/locality that is unstable/destabilized.  In a stable community, leadership will be stable, because life is good.  When a community is in crisis and unstable, leadership and status will also be unstable, because the community will question its leadership.  Accordingly, in a community in crisis, when a community leader dies, his or her heirs will include grave goods as a way of showing and asserting through display of symbols of wealth and power that leadership should continue in them.  This may not seem like a particularly earth-shattering conclusion, but the idea of unstable or destabilized communities needing to make conspicuous displays of power has really stuck with me and I've found it a useful way to look to at early and pre-modern history outside of late roman Britain.

The ending sections of the book work to frame "Arthurian" Britain in the wider context of the Western Empire at the time (usurper emperors and the steady influx of "barbarian" troops, for example).  This fits more with Halsall's specialty which is the Western Empire.

If I taught a 'Intro to History' class, I would probably assign this book, mainly for the excellent analysis of the written sources, and secondly for the analysis of archeological sources.  Halsall's analysis of the written material is the practice of history at work: not only a critical reading of the source as a whole (no cherry picking) but also contextualizing the writer and their aims as much as possible.  The archeological material was illuminating because I am not familiar with how archeology can support or undermine written sources.  In the context of the late Roman period, where written sources are few and usually incomplete, archeological evidence can be critical determining veracity of written sources.

Finally, there is an excellent bibliography, from which I chose several books which I purchase and read.  Because they (mostly) deal with the same specific subject matter, I sometimes have trouble remembering which book said what, and hence the reason for these notes.

This book is easily found for sale online and at low cost. Recommended.

Somewhere in Cornwall - Pike & Shotte Porch Game

Two weeks ago I purchased two eight-foot folding tables. When unfolded and set next to each other they make a eight by five gaming table. Last weekend I set this up on my porch and hosted the first multi-player game at home in two and a half years.  We played an English Civil War game using Warlord Games' Pike & Shotte rules, which I have not used/played since 2017.

Parliament starting positions.

For force determination I used a slightly weighted variant of the force randomizer from my Portable Pike & Shotte Wargame campaign system (weighted in that it was trying to get as many units on table as possible so that all four players had a nice mass of troops), with deployment and terrain also determined with that toolkit.

 

Cornish foot on the Royalist side.

That same force randomizer was used to create unit variety between the two armies.  I used the Hopton-and-Waller in Cornwall-and-the-South early war lists, and Parliament ended up with two units of Curaissier cavalry (i.e. Haselrig's Lobsters, who turned out to be quite effective with their 3+ morale), offset by half their infantry being "freshly raised" Train'd Bands.  Half the Royalist infantry was Cornish Foot (with 'Stubborn' rule) but they had no Train'd Band infantry and they had an extra unit of commanded shotte.  Parliament also had three guns (two medium, one light) to the Royalists' two (one medium, one light). 

Starting positions, Royalists on the left, Parliament on the right.

I also modified the "broken battalia" rule from Pike & Shotte to mirror the Exhaustion Point/Break Point rule from The Portable Pike & Shotte Wargame.  Instead of individual battalias (each side had four) reaching break points, the entire army was deemed to be "exhausted" when one third or more of its units were "lost" (as defined under 'broken battalia' rule).  The negative consequences of this were then applied to entire army (most notably, all units morale became 6+) until one side lost 50% of more of its starting units, at which point it broke entirely and the game was over.

Royalist guns lining up shots.

So this 'Exhausted Army' rule was the first experiment being tried out.  The other was using infantry blocks that had pike and shot models in a single unit and using the 'pike company' rule and disregarding 'hedgehog' entirely.  This was also based on my positive experience with the 'battalia' units in Portable Pike & Shotte Wargame, which I felt gave a more realistic result than multiple units of 'musketeers' running around by themselves.

Royalist Cornish Foot (white jackets) have taken up position behind the hill in the center.

And the result did feel more realistic, I think.  The ebb and flow of the game (at least as I saw it) was that Haselrig's Lobsters threw back the Royalist cavalry on the Royalist right.  Meanwhile the Royalist infantry on the opposite flank threw back an attack by the Parliament cavalry.   

Royalist left taking a commanding position atop the long ridge. 

The Cornish foot attempted to crest the hill in the center, but the Parliament Train'd Bands held their ground, and the Cornish Foot was then flanked by some of Haselrig's Lobsters. On the Royalist left, the foot advanced in good order, delivering several volleys of musketry.  Both sides became exhausted at the end of a Parliament turn.

This is after the game ended. One of the two Cornish Foot companies has been broken, but the solid line of infantry on Royalist right has delivered the game winning round of shooting. 

The situation was that either the Royalists would win the game on their turn (by using shooting to push two or more Parliament units into 'lost' status) or would not and then Parliament would almost certainly win instead. The Royalists then did in fact cause three more Parliament units to become shaken and therefore 'lost,' and the Parliament army broke and the game was over.

Royalist commanded shot.

Overall, an enjoyable game played in a slightly-too-hot sun. Everyone arrived at about 11:00 and we were completely done a little after 2:00.  This included quite a bit of rules-looking-up as we figured out various minutiae. 

Parliament infantry. I think I need to rebase my command stands to 40mm square bases so they can integrate with my infantry better.

The combined pike/shot infantry blocks, the randomized deployment/terrain/armies, and the 'army exhaustion' rule all also worked very well (good to know that positives in one ruleset can be ported to another).  Also, the two eight-foot folding tables made an ideally sized game board. I shall have to make a custom 8x5 flocked mat for it to realize its full potential. 

I also think I would like to generally "touch up" the bases of almost this entire collection. The majority use my earlier basing method of beach sand with some flock applied (with sand painted dark brown or not).

A big mass of Parliament Trained Band foot. By contrast, some of the musketeers in the center of the photo use my more recent basing method - kitty litter then painted a "dried dirt light brown" with flock and tufts applied.  This lighter/brighter basing color scheme causes the minis to "visually pop" off the base better, I think. 

These blue-jackets are Warlord Games plastics.  Over half the pikes have snapped and been replaced with steel wire at this point. 

The two units of Haselrig's Lobsters can be seen in the center here.

It wasn't a factor in the game, but the Royalist cavalry on the Royalist right flank did rally and eventually start to move to reenter the fray. You can see them on right edge of the photo by the edge of the woods.

Here is the full text of the 'Exhaustion Point' ending-the-game rule, which is a modified version of the 'broken battalias' rule.

EXHAUSTION POINT:

If at the start of any side's turn, more than one-third of the total infantry or cavalry units in an army are lost then the whole army is deemed to be 'exhausted'. All the remaining units in the army are then obliged to follow the rules for exhausted armies as described shortly. Once an army is exhausted it remains exhausted for the rest of the game - it cannot recover.

A unit is considered 'lost' for the purposes of calculating army morale if:

• It has been removed from the battlefield because it has been destroyed, or

• It has left the battlefield either deliberately or otherwise, or

• It is 'shaken' at the start of the turn (ie, if it has suffered casualties equal to its stamina)

Ignore artillery pieces when working out whether an army is exhausted, although artillery pieces will be affected by the rules for exhausted armies along with the other units. The exception to this is where artillery forms the majority of units in a battalia, such as a 'grande battery', where guns are counted along with any infantry or cavalry.

When an army loses more than half its units, it has broken and the game is over.

UNITS IN EXHAUSTED ARMIES:

The following rules apply to units from exhausted armies:

• Units that have already left the table, or which leave the table from that point on, cannot return and arc deemed to be out of the battle for good. 
• Units that are shaken cannot be rallied even if they are allowed to recover by means of some special rule. Once shaken, units remain shaken. 
• Units that are disordered remain disordered from turn to turn. Units that have a 'save' against disorder or a special rule that normally allows them to recover can do so. 
• Shaken units are allowed to make a single 'retire' move in the command phase instead of using their initiative or receiving an order. They can do this even if disordered - in which case it is the only move they are allowed to make. Retiring units must attempt to withdraw from the fighting in the most practical way possible. Artillery crew that retire in such circumstances are deemed to abandon their guns. 
• Shaken units within 12" of the enemy and not already engaged in combat must retire as described above unless occupying buildings or other defendable position, or ordered infantry block formations in which case they can hold their ground instead. Infantry units that are hopelessly surrounded and unable to retire remain in place. 
• Unshaken units in an exhausted armies can be given orders normally, but will have their morale reduced to 6+ for the remainder of the game. If they become shaken or disordered they will follow the above rules for shaken/ disordered troops in an exhausted army.