Slingshot 366

The Sep/Oct issue of the journal of the Society of Ancients includes my account of refighting Charles Grant's Battle of the Apocryphal Well

It also has the editor pondering on what the magazine should concentrate on, history or wargaming.

Inevitably, the answer must be both, but, at least from my perspective, the emphasis should be on the latter, as the former can nearly always be found elsewhere.

On another personal note, I was pleased to see coverage of WoFun's plastic flats, used by Steven Neate in place of counters for the boardgame Commands & Colors (I must get round to buying it), much as I have used the Transylvanian firm's figures for refighting battles from Mike Lambo's Battles Of Napoleonic Europe.

In short, it probably will not surprise anyone to learn I found this latest issue of Slingshot to be full of interesting articles, and I read every one from start to finish.

A Tale Of Two Titles

I PLAN to refight the original Battle of Megiddo, ie the one fought at some point in the 15th century BC between Egypt and a rebellious Canaanite coalition.

It can probably truly lay claim to be the first battle in history where there is enough evidence to reconstruct a convincing outline of what happened, why it happened, and how it happened.

All our evidence comes from inscriptions ordered by the victor, Pharoah Thutmose III, and to understand them I have bought two books, both called The Battle Of Megiddo.

 

A contrast in size, but an even bigger contrast in quality

The larger book has a completely inappropriate cover, but otherwise is a reasonably faithful reproduction by Leopold Classic Library of Harold Nelson's 1913 dissertation for his doctorate from Chicago University, written after visits to the battlefield and surrounding lands in 1909 and 1912.

I write "reasonably faithful" as, although the book includes photographs, admittedly of varying quality, it omits Nelson's maps

Fortunately, informative maps, based on Nelson's work, can be found online, and are a handy aid while reading the book, which makes for a gripping account.

Jack Whittaker's book, on the other hand, which came out this year, has not a single illustration between the covers, contains no index or bibliography, and makes no attempt at estimating the numbers involved in the battle, or how they may have lined up.

Instead we are 'treated' - hardly the right word - to endless cliches, waffle and repetition, so much so that I gave up in disgust when he moved on the from the battle to the subsequent siege of the city of Megiddo.

If I had only bought the second book, I would have learnt no more about the battle than I already knew before I began reading, but Nelson's book is, thankfully, altogether a different story, and very much a pleasure.

Latest Chariots

10mm from Tenth Legion (formerly Magister Militum) - painted as Mitanni, but could equaly be Syrian, Canaanite, etc

Land Ahoy!

THE North-West Passage By Land is one of those wonderful books where my only regret when reading it was that it eventually ended.

Fortunately there were some 400 pages before that happened, and I enjoyed every one of them.

The first edition, published in June 1865, was quickly followed by two more editions before the year was out.

Its subtitle, although clumsy (a sign of the times), summarises the book well: Being The Narrative Of An Expedition From The Atlantic To The Pacific, Undertaken With The View Of Exploring A Route Across The Continent To British Columbia Through British Territory, By One Of The Northern Passes In The Rocky Mountains.

This is a 2021 reprint by Alpha Editions, which specialises in making available out-of-print books that would slip under most potential readers' radar 

The authors are the eldest son of an earl, William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam (Viscount Wilton), and medical student Walter Cheadle, who teamed up to cross North America in 1862.

Their exciting adventures, and the skilful way they present them, have inspired me to book a two-week walking holiday in the Canadian Rockies next year, which will include going to some of the places visited in the book, which contains exactly the mix of travel and history that I find so fascinating.

Summing Up Hunters' Ridge

ANOTHER incredibly exciting battle, and a real nailbiting finish.

For two turns running, the AI needed a roll of anything but 4 or 6 to advance a unit of falxmen onto the ridge, and so win the battle.

But both times, the die landed as a 4, meaning I survived, and so now lead the AI 4-0.

However, after rereading the rules, I have just realised I should not have allowed my commander (and his entourage) to make a charge-attack in turn XI - such attacks are only available to cavalry.

Clearly, this made a difference to the details of the battle, but did it change the outcome?

I suspect my mounted troops would have been able to hold the ridge against the sole Dacian unit concerned ... but I cannot be sure.

It is unfortunate when rule mistakes are made, but at least I can say they are honest mistakes, and sometimes they benefit the AI - after all, there was the scenario not so long ago when I started with one less unit than I should have had!

Hunters' Ridge - Turn XII

Nothing changed in the attack phase last turn, and suddenly I am just a turn from victory, provided I can stop any Dacians ascending the ridge 

The start-of-turn-event die is a 6, which gives me another ballista attack. Again, it cannot be used against the meleeing cavalry or the falxmen in trees, so I have to shoot at the left-flank warriors, but I roll 6, one short of the minimum needed.

Three Dacian archer units advance, but the forward unit on the Dacian left is happy where it is as it has my commander in its sights.

There is no point in moving my cavalry, but I move my commander off the ridge, so he cannot be shot at.

The Dacian cavalry by the pond enter it, and have to immediately halt (mounted troops always stop on entering a water or tree hex).

My forward Praetorians remain where they are. There is no point in moving them as the outcome of the battle depends on whether the forward falxmen on the Dacian right clamber onto the ridge (note that the Dacian cavalry, even if it should execute a successful attack in the attack phase, would not then ascend the ridge as Dacian cavalry never advance in such circumstances).

So it all comes down to the falxmen at the foot of the ridge. A die is rolled, and it lands as a 4, which, as last turn, only allows diagonal movement, which is not possible for the unit, so, against incredible odds, or so it seems to me, I have won.

Hunters' Ridge - Turn XI: Attack Phase

The forward archers on the Dacian left have a shot at my commander

They need 9+, and there is a +1 modifier for being on lower ground. The dice total 5.

The right-flank Dacian cavalry attack the Praetorians straight ahead, needing 8+. There are +1 modifiers for being on lower ground and for attacking from rocky ground. The dice total 7.

My middle Praetorians counterattack, needing 8+, but with -1s for being on higher ground and for having comrades in contact with the same enemy unit. However, I roll 4.

My rearward Praetorians similarly attack the same cavalry, but with a +1 for attacking from rocky ground. I roll 5.

Hunters' Ridge - Turn XI

All depends on the forward falxmen on the Dacian left

The start-of-turn-event die is a 6. This allows me a ballista shot at the furthest-forward enemy unit, but one condition is it cannot be engaged in combat, so that rules out the cavalry, and another is that it cannot be in trees, so that rules out the dangerous falxmen. Instead I have to shoot at the warriors on the other flank, needing 7+ with no modifiers, any hit sending the enemy fleeing three hexes. I successfully roll 8.

The forward archers on the Dacian right advance diagonally right, but the other archers stay still, including the forward ones on the Dacian left, who have my cavalry in range and line-of-sight.

My cavalry fall back diagonally left two hexes.

The Dacian cavalry in the shallow pond advance to the foot of the ridge, where they are met by my commander, who charge-attacks them, needing 8+, with a -1 modifier for being on higher ground. I roll 7, causing the Dacians to retreat two hexes, and so out of the water.

My unengaged Praetorians advance diagonally left.

The falxmen at the foot of the ridge roll a 4, but, fortunately for me, that mandates advancing diagonally left, which they cannot do, so they do not mount the ridge.

The falxmen on the Dacian left advance, as do the warriors next to them.

The situation on the Roman left is still desperate, but the Dacians are running out of time

Hunters' Ridge - Turn X: Attack Phase

This could end in tears

The Dacian left-flank forward archers shoot at my cavalry (friends do not block line-of-sight). They need 9+, and there is a +1 modifier for being on lower ground, but a -1 for the falxmen also being in contact with my men. The dice total 8 - one short.

My horsemen attack the falxmen, needing 7+. There is a -1 for being on higher ground, but a +1 for attacking from rocky ground. I roll 8, forcing the enemy to fall back two hexes. I do not let my cavalry occupy the vacated hex.

The right-flank Dacian cavalry attack my extreme-left Praetorians, needing 8+, but with +1s for being on lower ground and for attacking from rocky ground, which is just as well as the dice total 9.

My Praetorians in the trees attack the falxmen they are engaged with, needing 7+. There is a -1 for high ground, and I roll 10, easily routing the Dacian unit. Again, I do not let my men advance.

The forward Praetorians on the left attack the Dacian cavalry, needing 8+, but with -1s for being on higher ground and for having comrades also in contact with the horsemen. However, I roll 3.

Finally, my other unit of Praetorians similarly attacks the same cavalrymen, but this time with a +1 for attacking from rocky ground. I roll 4.

I am holding on for now, but there is nothing to stop the furthest-forward falxmen from ascending the ridge next turn, and so winning the battle for the AI

Hunters' Ridge - Turn X

This could be the last turn

The start-of-turn-event die is a 4, which lets me move an unengaged unit that is in command range and on foot. I move my central Praetorians along the ridge to their left.

None of the Dacian archers moves.

My cavalry advance two hexes diagonally right, and charge-attack the falxmen at the foot of the ridge, needing 7+. There is a -1 modifier for being on higher ground, but a +1 for attacking from rocky ground. I roll 5.

The right-flank Dacian cavalry advance a hex and charge attack my extreme-left Praetorians, needing 8+, but there are +1 modifiers for being on lower ground and for attacking from rocky ground. The dice total 7.

My commander falls back diagonally right to put him in command range of the Roman cavalry, as I do not want them advancing off the ridge if they defeat the falxmen in the attack phase.

All three unengaged units of falxmen advance, putting two of them at the foot of the ridge, and a unit of warriors also reaches the ridge.

The thin red line is in danger of having multiple holes punched through it