James Gillray, published by Hannah Humphrey; hand-coloured etching, 25 November 1796National Portrait Gallery, London (Creative Commons)
Having a bit of a lull in wargaming activity/content hereabouts, I thought I'd post a piece I wrote for our club's newsletter. So it's a bit of a read (apologies): think of it as a magazine piece in terms of read, if you will, as opposed to a blog post. So if you have the time and the inclination, settle in with a cuppa' (or a dram) and take it for what it's worth. In it, I hope to share a bit of research and provide some practical tools/ideas for better gaming. I hope it provides, if nothing else, a bit of a diversion worthy of the time needed to read it. Without further ado, here 'tis (as usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX).
BATTLE GAMES
The bulk of our gaming tends to be in the battle-game genre, games that are bounded by the physical framework of a table, played in the temporal span of an evening, have action that is divided into a finite number of turns--usually in a single day of battle--and are adjudicated at the conclusion of one or more of the former. Requiring little to no preparation on the part of players, and no investment on the part of the host once completed, these are the most efficient kinds of games to present--of which convention and game night games are a perfect example. This is not to suggest that these games are simplistic, easy to design, or unsatisfying to play. However, when we want to go beyond these boundaries, we turn to another gaming genre: the campaign.
CAMPAIGNS
There are many variations on the campaign theme, running from simple linked-battles to complex, refereed kriegspiels. This piece will not attempt to address the broad topic of campaigns. Instead, it will focus on the horse and musket map campaign, and one of the most central--and vexing – components to deal with: organizing and marching units across the map. In any campaign system, I think it is safe to say that not only are we looking for mechanisms that are functional, but also that are grounded in history. In short, we want the campaign experience to be consistent with our understanding of the era.
THE HORSE AND MUSKET CAMPAIGN
In the horse and musket era, particularly pre-Napoleonic, we're talking about replicating the coordination of movement and logistics for armies consisting of tens of thousands of soldiers organized into dozens of units of horse, foot, and guns. And doing so in a time when there was only quill and paper to record and reproduce orders, no means of disseminating information other than face-to-face or courier, and no means of tracking or reporting the progress of march elements in anything near real time. And yet, horse and musket armies routinely conducted significant marches and arrived at their destinations in time, ready to concentrate for battle. How did they do it? Let’s take a look at the below march tables from 1743 and see what we can glean to inform our approach.
List of the March of the Austrian Army in Bavaria, 1743
From The UK Royal Trust: King George III's Military Map Collection;
Brown and red ink on paper; 22.3 x 37.0 cm (sheet); RCIN 728107 (click link to view full sized version) Click to Enlarge.
Source text accompanying the above.
"A list of places along the route taken in Bavaria for the Austrian army marching in three columns in July 1743. War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48).
"The list for each marching column has five headings: the names of the generals, the infantry regiments, cavalry regiments, dates and places of stopping points on the march, the bread and foraging for each day. The first column of 20,000 men was commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine; the second column of 20,000 men by General Thungen, the third column (no strength given) General de Hohenembs." (See the citation above the image to go to the source).
ANALYSIS
I translated and recast each of the columns into a contemporary format. In the original and in the updated versions, you read the tables vertically and not across (as it might seem at a glance). Here is the single document broken down into three parts, side by side with the contemporary format. You may need to expand to see more clearly. A pdf with the updated tables can be found at the following link. Column 1
Column 3
Although the above is broken into bits for ease of comparison, keep in mind that this is a single document, in tabular format, that conveys all the key information that would be needed for a wide range of users involved in the operation, from regimental commanders to quartermasters. And even more importantly, it shows us how, in an era before word processing, copy machines, or even typewriters, orders could be compiled in an easy to reproduce format. This single sheet of paper could be hand-copied in short order, and every stakeholder could be provided one. Let's take a further dive into what is here.
1. Task Organization. Immediately, one can see that the army is organized into three numbered columns. The internal composition of each is presented in hierarchical order. Most prominent are the lists of line regiments, divided into infantry and cavalry. Listing the number of regiments at the bottom of each column may seem redundant, but it provides a quick reference for those who may be more concerned with numbers than the actual unit identities. Having the total at the bottom also serves as a check against error when reproducing the list by hand (in the same way that writing the amount on a check in roman numerals and again in longhand provides an internal proofing mechanism). Attachments (support, administrative, and non-regimental elements) are in the space at the bottom. This format accounts for the entire force, providing a format to include even esoteric elements like “Prussian Volunteers.”
2. Command. Each column commander is named, with the remaining commanders accounted for in the lists of generals. The fact that Gen. Thungen and Gen. Hohenembs are double listed as commanding the Second and Third Columns (respectively) and are also listed as the first generals in the Third and Second Columns suggests that the generals lists may reflect other relationships as well (which may be known in the army). In this case it likely seems that these two generals were detailed from their “usual” places to command these columns, perhaps due to seniority.
3. March Routes and Times. Each table serves as a stand-alone reference for its column. You can see that each column is moving on a different route, which is easily indexed by date and place. These routes are in “connect the dots” format (what we would refer to as point-to-point, with towns being the points). Complete maps were in short supply, but routes between towns were well known, and roads were defined by the towns they connected. Thus, these directions could have been followed as is. However, during this era, strip maps were routinely produced, which would provide a perfect graphic tool to use in conjunction with these march tables. (More on this point in the later part of this piece).
4. Logistics. The requirements necessary to sustain each force, per day, have been worked out and listed. Although units of measure are not specified for bread, oats, and hay, it is very likely that these would have been commonly understood and therefore not bothered with given the shorthand nature of the table (most likely loaves, bushels, and bales, respectively). Combine this with the march column and t provides key planning information for quartermasters. They would be able to know not only what was needed for the march, but where and when.
5. Force Optimization. Taking a step back, we can see that the army was divided into two equal columns (The First and Second), each of 20,000 men and approximately the same mix and number of regiments. We may infer that these are not accidental and would represent an optimum force size and mix given the routes involved, as well as leveraging standardization to the extent that two of the columns would be equivalent, simplifying support planning. The Third Column is smaller, and probably represents the remainder. Thus, we can glean how an army was task organized for a march, the suggestion being that columns would be balanced.
How Might We Use This Information to Shape Our Horse and Musket Campaigns?
James Gillray, 1799. From the Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University
1. Maps. We see that horse and musket armies were what we would today call “road bound.” This is often characterized as some sort of failure of vision on the part of commanders of the era. Instead, it was the reality of both travel and navigation in that time. As has been shown in the source, military operations were defined by the road network, and navigation was defined by a path through key points (i.e., towns). Granted, some roads might be little more than tracks, and some towns might not amount to much more than a few hovels, but that does not change the paradigm. This is actually good news. It means that we do not have to go through the elaborate procedure of creating campaign maps (particularly hex maps) covered with terrain and the (often) equally elaborate schemes for moving units into and across terrain as opposed to on roads (or routes).
Instead, a more easily produced point-to-point map would both be more historically accurate and a better tool for managing movement. Major and minor routes could still be differentiated, as well as key terrain. Happily, for those who don't want to come up with their own, there are ready-made point-to-point maps that could be used. And I'll show you a few...
Wargame Maps
Napoleon (4th Ed) (Columbia Games) Detail of Napoleon Map
One of the best, and most recognizable, is the Columbia Games Napoleon block game map. This map is designed with equal distances between points, so they also work to regulate movement like squares on a board (in the game, infantry moves one town per turn, cavalry, two--but your use may vary). In addition, it shows the cockpit of Europe, which could be used for any number of campaigns. It can be downloaded from the Columbia Games site. For a more grand campaign, something like Histo Games Friedrich map could serve. For something a bit more abstract, but entirely functional, the venerable GDW Soldier King map would suit as a hybrid route/area campaign map.
Period or Other Maps
Even better, a period or similar map could be used with little or no modification provided that it showed a road network linking locations. One would only need to come up with march rates (4km per hour would work), and a number of hours of march per day (6 to 8 would be reasonable). If two or more elements were on the same route, they would not move together in a “stack” but be separated. Rather than trying to track these by physical length, manage them using a time table, with subsequent elements hitting points on the shared route a number of hours or days (depending on the campaign clock) after others. Which leads me to my next point.
2. Organization and Orders. The best way to replicate the process in our campaign would be to use the same tools as they did in the period. To enable this, I’ve taken the format and modified it for a miniatures campaign. One of these would be filled out per element for a specified time (perhaps by week).
You can
download a version of this for your use.
Explanation: I’ve renamed the “Generals” column to be more open ended in order to list subordinate commanders as well as provide space for command notes (command points, for instance, might find their way here). In the regiments lists, I’ve added a space to enumerate battalions and squadrons. In the command section, instead of the number of troops, you would provide the size of the force expressed in game terms (strength points or some other metric). For the march route, I’ve added a “turn” column; however, this could be replaced by days, dates, or some other unit of time, depending on the campaign clock. On the right, I generalized the forage column to leave space for notes concerning the march (again, depending on the campaign system). Finally, at the bottom I’ve added a space for contingencies, notes, and other information.
CONCLUSION
Although I don't have the numbers, counting the two iterations of my game, attendance was such that it floated eight viable games, with something between 4 and 6 per table (I think AJ's E Brigadier game may have had 8). Attendance in the morning session was higher than the afternoon, but all games ran. Many among the guests were new to historical miniatures gaming, one who had been invited by a club member later told him, "I can't believe how much I liked that historical gaming!" Of course, club members were in attendance as well and had a fine day out, too. It's always good to get together to game in the club, but it was also a great experience to meet others who came to play. We'll be reprising the open game day again next year. If you're in our neck of the woods, watch for it. 
