Hook's Farm

I didn't mean to go almost three months without a game, but I undertook several 1/1 scale terrain projects (including five straight weekends re-grading and landscaping my front yard), so the toys had to wait.  I did a lot of homecasting over the summer, so my 54mm shiny toy soldier armies look much more uniform than two or three years ago. Adding limber teams and brigade command groups were a big leap in terms of what I wanted aesthetically.  

I thought about commencing a map-based campaign involving a c.1897 invasion of the Sussex coast in England by the French 3rd Republic, using the early 20th century rules (but without the "Pinned" rules) from Developing The Portable Wargame.  I made a map board using a period atlas, and made counters.  But, flipping through Developing The Portable Wargame, in the back matter there is a gridded map for the Hook's Farm fight from Wells' Little Wars.  The Sussex campaign abruptly was put on hold and a simple series of three games was sketched out using maps derived from Wells and Featherstone's War Games.

French brigade command at start of play.

British command are recorded for posterity.

My only changes to the map were to turn the "hovel" into a ruined cottage, and to run a road through the middle of the board past Firely Church. I used my random deployment system for English Civil War games to determine starting positions, which probably gave a slight advantage to the French as they would clearly be the first to the top of the hill and would probably be able to occupy all the buildings before the British.

Positions at game start. Buildings from left to right on the hill are Firely Church, the ruined hovel, the cottage, and then Hook's Farm.

Both sides were equal in numbers and disposition: six infantry companies of ten men each, two machine guns each, and two field guns each, plus brigade command.

French brigade command is first atop the ridge and surveys the British from Firely church.

The French won the toss and sure enough were able to move up to right behind the ridge on the first move.

French approach the ruined hovel, British foot artillery on the move in the distance.

British brigade command makes initial moves.

Royal Foot Artillery deploying to the British right.

The French were then able to unlimber artillery by Firely Church and position a Hotchkiss machine gun on the ridge as well.  These in addition to some rifle fire were able to destroy a still-limbered British foot artillery gun.  Now stuck in the open, flat land in front the ridge, the British had little choice but to try and push the French off the ridge, and a push in the center by infantry supported by Maxim machine guns units did succeed in forcing the French infantry to fall back into the ruined hovel.

The British advance in the center.

French still getting into position on their right flank.

French artillery at Firely Church.

On the opposite flank, a company of French infantry supported by a Hotchkiss and a field piece now moved up and around Hook's Farm.

French at Hook's Farmhouse.

French firing from Hook's Farm.

Continuing their advance, British infantry including the Irish Guards assaulted the French at Hook's Farm but made little progress...

Attack on Hook's Farm house underway.

French defending the farm house.

In the center, two British companies were able to get to the top of the ridge.

British command assesses the situation as infantry crests the ridge in the center.

The attack in the center underway.

Then things started to go a little pear-shaped.  At the farm house, the French infantry not only repulsed the Irish Guards but pursued them down off the ridge.

Irish Guards pushed a great distance back from Hook's farmhouse.

In the center the French mounted a counter-attack.

French counter-attack in the center.

And to the left of Firely Church, French Tirailleurs, supported by a Hotchkiss gun, were able to position themselves in the woods and stall the advance by the British right flank.

French Tirailleurs in the woods by Firely Church.

The two French artillery pieces (versus the single British piece) were able to play havoc on the British, and the French succeeded in pushing the British off the ridge in the center. A British assault on the Tirailleurs in the wood completely failed and the British right fell back from the ridge entirely under fire from French machine guns, artillery, and rifle fire.

The French retake the ridge in the center.

The British had taken too many casualties in the initial taking of the center, so after falling back, they found themselves exhausted, and unable to mount a second attack.  After some additional desultory long-range artillery and rifle fire, the British withdrew entirely.

"They have the ridge, sir."

"We have the ridge, sir!"

Although I paired these British and French Belle Epoque armies with the Developing The Portable Wargame rules before, this was the first time I allowed the field artillery to use indirect fire.  While this certainly allowed for the guns to be used more, it was not as over-powered as I feared. This was also the first game to see the use of machine guns, and while they proved effective at holding positions or pushing infantry back, I felt like they were not overpowered, either.

Defeated commanders are recorded for posterity.

MEANWHILE, the victorious French march on from Hook's Farm...

 

"Where next?"

AND ELSEWHERE, MILES AWAY...

Scouting the lay of the land.

"We could bottle them in if we hold that bridge."

"What're these heights called?" "Green Ridge, sir."

Book Notes: Barbarians and Romans: A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation (by Walter Goffart)

I read this book because it was recommended in the bibliography presented in Guy Hasall's Worlds of Arthur.  

Goffart had studied Late Roman and Early Medieval tax law and the basic query of this book is that despite the "fall" of the Western Empire and its division into the "barbarian" kingdoms of the Lombards, Visigoths, Franks etc., a clear continuity in taxation runs through this transition, and the Roman origins remain evident and in place. 

Goffart almost exhaustively breaks down the idea of massive, multiple waves of coordinated and organized invasions of "Germanic" peoples overrunning and carving up the Western Empire.  Rather, these invasions are uncoordinated and quite separate from each other. Many of these people had previously existed, often for a long time, adjacent to the Empire on its frontier - they interacted with and knew who Romans were and, perhaps more importantly, what life in the Empire had to offer.  Due to pressures from other tribes or other factors, occasionally "large enough to matter" masses of barbarians would successfully cross the (fortified) frontier penetrate into the mainly civilian lands beyond. Maybe there would be some fighting, but in many occasions the Empire deemed it easier to take in the invaders as military auxiliaries.  

To this Goffart is focused on the process of how the empire legalistically handled this "accommodation."  The answer was to basically assign a portion of a given landowner's tax liability to a given barbarian or barbarians.  Because that tax income would usually be used for defense of the empire, and because the accommodated barbarians provide military service, one can see how this somewhat cleverly does very little to upset the status quo for the Empire.  Tax liability is not increased but the same level of defense is still provided.  One can see how early medieval feudal structures might grow out of this.

I do not recommend this book for casual reading. Goffart is very much doing the academic historian's labor of assembling and presenting his probative evidence.  The first, second, sixth (discussion of the granting of hospitalitas) , and final chapters are probably most instructive, with the middle five focusing on specific case studies for 5th century Italy, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Lombards, respectively. 

The granting of hospitalitas in chapter 6 and indeed the whole book is at the heart of the "accommodation."  Older Roman military law required hospitalitas in a billeting of troops sense.  Goffart argues that earlier historians have mistaken the granting of hospitalitas to barbarians as either the outright reallocation of land from Roman owners to new barbarian owners, or the creation of a sort of early feudal lord-serf relationship. This interpretation of course fits very neatly into a "conquering invaders" narrative.  Goffart's more nuanced view is that above tax reallocation in exchange for service, which is considerably less dramatic, and, more importantly, does much to keep the source of authority with the Empire (the tax allocation is given in exchange for service - the implication is that it can be taken away), albeit over time these tax allotments will devolve and reconsolidate into the early medieval states.

Somewhere in Yorkshire - Pike & Shotte Porch Game

In spite of a forecast of a 99-degree high, I set up my new, wider, sunshade umbrella and  played another game of Pike & Shotte on my porch with my longtime opponent Gabe.  

Royalist foot.

I again used the force randomizer from my earlier Portable Pike & Shot Wargame battle maker, this time creating a war-in-the-north scenario (thus placing it somewhere in Yorkshire, probably in the west riding).  I have also acquired the To Kill A King supplement by Warlord Games, so pulled suggestions or elements from that into the set-up as well.  The randomizer gave the Royalists two battalias of Whitecoat foot and one regular (recall that per prior game, I am usig combined units of pike and shot with the 'pike company' rule).  Per To Kill A King I split both the Whitecoat battalias into 'small' units for a total of four units of Whitecoats instead of two. Parliament ended up with three units of regular foot, and both sides had 1 commanded shot, a medium gun, a light gun, and five cavalry. The roundheads were commanded by Thomas Fairfax himself using stats from To Kill A King.  Because Parliament was outnumbered, they received 12" inches of earthworks (based on a points calculation to make both sides even) which could placed along the halfway mark of the table, with artillery deployed therein with some infantry in support.

I then dealed out six terrain tiles as shown above, and placed terrain accordingly, as seen below.

I then diced for deployment using my battle maker.  Gabe placed his earthwork atop the hill near the center of the field, directly in front of the mass of royalist Whitecoat foot, and put his falconet light gun and one foot unit in to defend it. 

Initial set-up on Royalist left. The four small units of Whitecoat foot are at bottom, directly across from some Parliament foot in the earthwork.

This game used the same 'Exhausted Army' rules as the prior game.  So if at the beginning of a turn, an army had "lost" 1/3 or more of its units ("lost" being defined as having left the table, or being shaken), then it was "exhausted" and basically teeters on the edge of breaking entirely.  Both armies can be "exhausted."  When half or more of one army's units become "lost," that army breaks, has lost the battle, and the game is over.  The most notable detriment to an exhausted army is that the morale rating (i.e. saving throw) for all units is reduced to a 6 only - this obviously makes the ability of the opponent to push the exhausted army to half or more units as lost much easier. Because the Royalists had 11 units (not counting artillery), their exhaustion point was four units.  Fairfax had only 9 units, so his exhaustion point was three units lost.

Initial set-up looking at Royalist right. The three units of Parliament cavalry are deployed in front of the foot.  The opposing command of three Royalist cavalry are deployed behind the woods.

The flow of gameplay was as follows:  Fairfax advanced his cavalry on the Parliament left.  The Royalists attempted to position their opposing cavalry on the Royalist right to set up a charge.  Instead, they blundered and charged instead. 

Initial setup viewed from Parliament left. From this view you can see the cavalry battalias on the opposite end of the table (two units vs two units). You can also better see the Royalist advantage in number of foot units.

The Parliament cavalry offered closing fire and cost the Royalists a casualty.  The Royalists lost the subsequent melee and fell back.  The Royalists advanced the Whitecoat infantry closer to the earthwork so as to all be able to fire muskets upon the earthwork.  The combined 8 shooting dice did manage to cost the Parliament defenders one stamina. 

A fresh Parliament foot unit moves up to cover the flank of the earthwork.

Earthwork defenders.

Back on the Parliament left, the Parliamentarian cavalry charged in again, and won the melee.  The Royalists rolled snake eyes on their break test (!) and fled the field.  The supporting unit of Royalist cavalry rolled a 3 on its break test and also fled.  On the other side of the field, the Royalist cavalry on the Royalist right attacked its opposing Parliament cavalry, won the melee and pushed them back, and then made a mandatory follow-up due to their galloper rule (Northern horse was rash, being decedents of old Border Reiver families).  On the follow up they lost the melee and... rolled a 4 or less on their break test and fled the field.   

Getting close to end-game. Parliament is massing its infantry in the center.  The Whitecoat attack on the earthwork can be see to the left. 

The Parliament cavalry then charged what was left of the Royalist cavalry, and although one Parliament squadron was broken, the Royalist left now had no cavalry remaining, and but one squadron remaining on the right.  While all of this was going on, one company of Whitecoat infantry had become shaken from musketry and artillery fire from the earthwork.  This equated four "lost" units, so the Royalist army was now close to breaking entirely (which makes sense seeing as the foot in the center had watched the cavalry on the left break and run almost immediately and seen the cavalry on the right push back the Parliamentarians at first, only to be completely destroyed).

However, two the Whitecoats companies of foot (the other two were both 'shaken' now) were able to mount a melee assault on the earthwork.  After one round it was a draw so they remained 'locked in.'  The remaining, non-Whitecoat, Royalist infantry company advanced in the center, and although it took heavy musketry fire, kept rolling 6s on its saves, keeping it (and the entire army) in the game.

The Royalists were able to cause a second Parliament unit to become 'lost,' and for a second it seemed like they might be able to cause Fairfax's army to also become exhausted. 

However, on the second round of melee, the Whitecoat attack on the earthwork fell back. 

And then the remainder of the Parliament foot in the center combined to attack the red-jacket Royalist foot, and given the 6 saving throw, were able to break that unit and win the game.

The decisive attack in the center by the Parliament foot.

This was a really quite enjoyable game. The exhaustion/break point rules worked well (again) in creating a tense end game situation.  The larger Royalist army was counter balanced nicely by the earthwork given to Parliament.  It is also probably worth mentioning that having a stand-alone army general (i.e., not attached to his own battalia) who can issue orders to battalia units who already failed an order issued by its battalia commander is of immense value in making the game move along.

Playing outside is also nice, despite the heat. I look forward to more outdoor games, but late summer plans might conspire to prevent any more games until September.  

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.