Spanish and Portuguese Military History,
Wargaming, and other stuff
Macedonians, Romans, Celts and all that. I have chosen to end the period with the sack of Rome (476 AD). Sub-categories: Rise of Rome, Fall of Rome.
Big Base DBA (also known as Big Base De Bellis Antiquitatis or BBDBA) allows fast games with a small number of playing pieces and lots of figures. Big Base DBA requires few modifications from the standard DBA rules.
Inspired by Philip Sabin’s Analysis of Ancient Warfare in Lost Battles I’ve drifted further away from normal DBA than you need to, but I’ll explain why as I go along. Mostly it affects basing.
Last year my (then) seven year old daughter asked me to explain wargaming to her. This made me recall “Steven’s Rules” – a set of wargaming rules that my father published in Slingshot back in 1971. This is a very simple set of rules that a seven year old boy (me) could play with his Airfix plastic Ancient Britons and Romans. If you’ve got a seven year old boy around the house you might find these useful.
It has been a year since my Confessions of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian so definitely time for the 2016 update. I figured that, by sharing what I’m working on (far too much) and where I was up to with it (not far enough), I’d feel bad enough about my lack of progress to limit my work in progress and get some projects finished. Well, it worked, but only partly. I still worked on seven projects this year and finished none.
The fifth game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign will occur in 448 AD, 2 game years after the last battle. Chris Harrod rolled Roman and I got Visigoth. Despite misgivings I have chosen Basic Impetus as the rules.
Basic Impetus has army lists but, even after I reformatted them, I don’t like them. So I tweaked the two that we are intending to use. Okay, I only made two small changes to troop types, but those changes stem from mistakes that get me quite het up.
I’m thinking of using Basic Impetus for the next game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign. The good news is that the army lists for the Fall of Rome period are freely available at Vol 7. Rome and Empire and Vol 8. Fall of Rome. The bad news is I don’t like them. Firstly, I can’t read them because of all the abbreviations, for example, “FP” does not leap out at me as “Heavy Infantry”. Secondly, the format of the table is counter intuitive for me; I want to know who the troops are first before seeing how they are classified. Thirdly, I disagree with some of the army lists. In this post I’ll content myself with addressing the things about the format that annoy me. In a subsequent post I’ll revise the army lists.
I’m thinking of using Basic Impetus for the next game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign. The good news is that the army lists for the Fall of Rome period are freely available at Vol 7. Rome and Empire and Vol 8. Fall of Rome. The bad news is I don’t understand them.
In DBA 2.2 the Sea People warriors are classified as Blades. I’m not sure that is right. Truth to tell I’m not sure it is wrong either. But I do think it worth poking a stick at.
Chris Harrod and I christened my new Hittite army – one of Biblical armies – against New Kingdom Egyptian. It was Big Base DBA. Chris took the Hittites and I was Pharaoh.
One of the things that really impresses me about Paul Ward of Matakishi’s Tea House is his focus. He chooses a new project, plans the project, does the project, finishes it, and moves on.
I’m a bit more scatter gun myself despite the fact that at work I encourage teams to limit work in progress. I start with a focus and get a lot done but then often wander off on a tangent when something else comes up that sparks my interest. I let myself do that because this is my hobby, not my job. A hobby shouldn’t really be a chore, it should be fun.
However, I have now realised I might be trying to do too much. I’ve got a lot of unfinished projects on the go. Too many. So I thought I’d share what I’m working on and where I’m up to with it. Maybe the list will make me feel bad enough to limit my work in progress and get some projects finished.
The fourth game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign occurred in 446 AD, 29 peaceful game years after the last battle. Chris Harrod rolled Suevi and I got Vandal. The rules were the draft version of Red Spear, Black Crow from Morningstar Productions.
The summary is: Interesting rules, violent battle which could have gone either way, but eventual victory for the Vandals.
It is 417 AD in our Fall of Hispania Campaign, four game years since our last battle. I rolled the Visigoths again but this time Chris Harrod got Late Roman. The rules were Dux Bellorum.
The summary is: Being new to the rules I assumed the hill was difficult terrain, deployed accordingly, realised too late I was wrong, and then watched as Chris rolled over my hastily improvised battle line.
Chris Harrod and I finally got around to playing another game of the Fall of Hispania Campaign based on these campaign rules. Four game years have passed since the first game so the nominal campaign date is 413 AD. Tragically it has also been four real years since we played the first game. Chris rolled Vandals and I got Visigoths. The rules were Big Base DBA.
The summary is: Short game with the Visigoth wedges smashing through the Vandal shieldwall.
I really like the analyse of Ancient Warfare in Lost Battles by Philip Sabin. So I’ve written up what captured my attention.
DBx and FOG are wrong. The gardingi were personal military retainers of the Visigothic king. They were wealthy and led their own retainers into battle. Given they were wealthy, and a military elite, they probably fought mounted. And in an army where even some slaves wore armour, it is beyond belief that these palatine officials were unarmoured.
It bugs me when rules writers introduce arbitrary distinctions between troop types and armies. From what I’ve read there was little difference between the Germanic tribes operating in western europe during the migration period leading to the Fall of Rome. I’m interested in the Early Visigothic, Early Vandal and Suevi because they operated in Spain and Portugal, either passing through or settling permanently. The DBA army lists for these armies, II/65, II/66 and II/72c respectively, highlight the issue for me as they differ in ways that are inexplicable to me. DBA is not alone as other rule systems also distinguish these armies in various ways. It is all too much for me. Too made up by the list writers. So here is my blended army list for a generic Western Germanic horde, whether Visigothic, Vandal or Suevi.