Wargaming the Barbarian Kingdoms (6th and 7th century) - Part 3, Franks under Merovingian Rule

The Franks, of course, are those Germanic tribes that were in the area previously called Gaul, and soon to become called France.  In the period we are looking at, for wargaming, they are ruled by the Merovingians, and the style of warfare during this time and for these peoples is definitely a telltale version of the tribal type infantry army, replacing the remnants of anything the Romans left during the last stages of antiquity - but starting to get a little more organized as the political units of the day get larger and more sophisticated.

Brief history of the people and period:
The Merovingian dynasty properly started towards the end of the 5th century, in 481.  That year is significant because Childeric, who had ruled the Merovingian tribe, among several tribes of the Franks, was succeeded in 481 by his son, Clovis I - and it was Clovis (Chlodowig) who united all of Gaul under Merovingian rule.   This will last until the year 751 (just outside our period, in the middle of the 8th century), when Pepin deposed the last Merovingian king, and established the Carolingian dynasty.

During the reign of Clovis, the original territory he recieved from his father (Austrasia), was added to by his military victories at battles such as Soisson (the Gauls of Neustria, defeated in 486), and Vouille (the Visigoths of Aquitaine, north of the Iberian peninsula, in 507).  By the end of his reign, the kingdom of France was pretty large, indeed.

From Wikipedia article on Merovingian dynasty

Clovis left the kingdom to his four sons, who defeated Burgundy in 532 at the battle of Autun, then captured the defeated Burgundian king (Godomar) in 534, and annexed Burgundy.  At this point, the only lands that could be called Frankish (German) that were outside the control of the Merovingian monarchs were Saxony and Frisia in the north, the Spanish Marches, Gascony, and Septimania (and Provence) in the south, the holdout german kingdoms of Bavaria, Carinthia and Lombardy in the southeast.  All those territories would come under Frankish rule, but not until the Carolingians began their expansion.

A couple of interesting cultural and historical factors from this period.  The Muslim conquest would reach southern Europe for some time (end of the 6th century, roughly), so the tribes in the south and west that the Merovingians had troubles with were other German, Gothic and related successors to the failed Roman period.  The Lombards, distinctively, retained their paganism in this period.  Clovis himself (first king of the Merovingians) is considered to be the last of the Pagan kings of the Franks, because after his victories over the Alemani (in 496 and 506), he converted to Christianity, and his people (who hadn't already) followed suit.

One of the aspects of Clovis' conversion is that he (under influence of his wife) adopted Catholicism, rather than the Arianism that was prevalent among the Goths, Vandals and Burgundians. This gave him (after the Alemani) something of a religious reason for subjugating his enemies. In addition it made the remaining Roman population loyal to him.

Around the period of 540 or so, for a few years, there was a bad outbreak of Bubonic Plague, although this wouldn't be as devastating as the later Medieval outbreak in the 14th century would be (because of fewer large population concentrations) it would be bad enough, and since it hit the agricultural areas hardest, it would have had a huge impact on this post-antiquity economy - which would have kept military forces necessarily small for almost all the belligerents we are talking about.
Wargaming the Merovingians

Merovingian Re-enactor

Let's start out by taking a look at the DBA army list for the Merovingians.  If we are talking about the period from 481 to 751, this covers a couple of DBA lists.

First,Early Franks, up until roughly 496 (corresponding, roughly, to the major unification under Clovis I with his defeat of the Alemani, and eventually setting up his capital at Paris) and then the Middle Franks.

The Early Franks (II/72d) in DBA really reflect the post antiquity tribal quality of the warfare.  The army consists of one element of cavalry, and ten elements of warband, and one element of psiloi.  The cavalry element is the general - representing a Frankish leader and his comitatus.  The warbands are the tribal warriors (round shields, and spear and ax - or the), and the psiloi would be maybe slingers or throwers of the angon javelin.

Their Alemani (II/72b) enemies (fought Clovis in 496 and 506) were similar - one cavalry element, seven warband elements, one psiloi - and the difference is that the Alemani had much better quality archery, so they receive three elements of bow, in addition to the psiloi element that might represent slingers or angon throwers.

In both cases, the general and his comitatus can choose to fight dismounted (especially useful in the many forested areas of the region), in which case the cavalry element becomes another warband.

The Middle Frankish list (III/5) covers the Merovingian Franks from the war with the Alemani up until the dominance of the Carolingian Mayers of the Palace (639).  This list (III/5) has two variants, corresponding roughly to the North and East, or Austrasian and Burgundian area (III/5a), and the South and West, or Neustria, Provence, and Aquitaine areas (III/5b).
The first of these (III/5a) contains:  the general is either a Cavalry or Knight element, and there is an additional mounted element which can also be Cavalry or Knight.  There are  six elements of warband, and then three elements which may choose to be warband, or may be upgraded to spear, and finally one element of psiloi.

The second of these (III/5b) contains: the same mounted elements as above (the general, and an additional element, each of which can be cavalry or knights), six elements of spear, again three additional elements which may be spear, or warband, and one element of psiloi.

Here we see the growing sophistication of the armies, as the mounted troops become much more effective as knights (introduction of new equipment such as the stirrup, and better armor).  As the region gives way from dense forests to more and more agricultural land, the troops can find more uses to fight in a tighter formation - hence the spear elements (also representing the greater training available under rulers of larger armed forces).  In the south, more spears than warbands represents the terrain, as well as exposure to the Goths and other enemies.

For miniatures - Baueda makes some excellent figures for the Carolingians, and they are promising Merovingian figures any day now.

The Essex figures are quite gorgeous, but their "Early Franks" seem to be from a much earlier period (the era of the Roman Frankish Federates).  However, their Saxon, Frisian, Suevi and Bavarian line is just about perfect.  Here are some pictures of the figures from that line.

Essex SXA1

Essex SXA4

Essex SXA2

Old Glory 15s makes a very nice range of Carolingians - and the infantry, at least (and truly, most of the cavalry) is useable for at 15mm Merovingian army.

In 28mm, one of the companies that is supporting a lot of Dark Ages gaming in recent years, is of course Gripping Beast.  As usually, they have a great offering for this period, and they would make a great army for a wargamer.

Okay, so what is the compelling reason to wargame the Franks under Clovis (and his successors)?  Three reasons, immediately that I can think of.  First - if you are a fan of late antiquity/early medieval wargaming, and want to explore the earliest history of what would become Medieval France.  Second, because of the interesting foes that the Merovingians fought against.  And Third, the most practical reason - you can represent a Merovingian army pretty easily with a a reasonable collection of Dark Ages infantry and some cavalry.  Mounted Saxons work well.  You could use Normans in a pinch, although your opponent is likely to call foul on the shields...  Still, this gives you a new set of armies, history, and foes to explore with your dark ages infantry figures (hairy men, round shields, chainmail, and a variety of fierce weapons).

Wargaming the Barbarian Kingdoms (6th and 7th century) - Part 2, Visigoths

Visigoths - originally, as Feoderati under the Romans, they established area of rule in Gaul and Spain. The early (but exciting) campaigns of Alaric I predate the period considered here.  In 507, however, the Franks, under Clovis I beat the Goths (under Alaric II) at the Battle of Vouille  Visigoth rule in Gaul was at an end, but the Frank's were established as a kingdom that would give us Charlemagne, France, Germany, and a lot of different kinds of cheese.

The Visigoths, however, survived the loss of Gaul.  They had a kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, or Hispania).  There, they survived (and in harmony with the rest of Christendom after converting from Arianism in 589) until being overrun by the Moors (Berbers and Arabs up from North Africa) in about the year 711 or 712 (the Mozarbic Chronicle of 741, written in Latin, is unclear).  That was the Battle of Guadalete between King Roderic of the Goths, and Tariq ibn Ziyad.

Battle of Guadalete

So, for about two hundred years, there was a gothic kingdom in Spain. It gave us a lot of interesting Gothic architecture and early cathedrals, but not a lot of details on military practices.

Tariq Ibn Ziyad

Looking at what wargames have to offer on the Western Goths is interesting.  Again, turning to the original DBA list (as a conceptual distillation of the 1982 WRG army lists, and benefitting from eight years of further research and debate) we see that there is an infantry core of five elements. These can be either spear, or warband, or a mix of warband and auxilia - depending on which allies or sources you prefer. But that establishes a solid infantry battle line, supported by two units of skirmishers (Psiloi), and finally a solid mounted contingent of four units of four Cavalry units, and a Knight (general) unit.  

King Roderic

This could easily represent the army of Roderic, at the battle of Guadalete.  There, his solid infantry line was a match for the Moors, but he lost because his right cavalry wing under a disgruntled commander abandoned the field allowing the numerous, but lighter, Moorish cavalry to flank the infantry line.  Legend replaces the commander with Count Julian, who turned traitor because his daughter was raped at Roderic's court, but this (while a great medieval narrative) is unsubstantiated.

Visigothic Warriors - from a later English sculpting method.

Refighting Guadalete as a decisive battle that ended Christian rule in western Spain, until the Reconquista, is a worthy war gaming goal, but the lack of other major foes makes the prospect of building a large Visigothic army seem like a futile enterprise.  It is, however, a great example of a balanced army from the Barbarian Kingdoms era.  There are, of course, lots of Possible match ups against sixth century foes, such as Byzantines, Ostrogoths, or even early Andalusians from the other parts of Spain.

For figures, standard dark age infantry (metal conic helms, round shields, and either sword, spear, or bow) make the battle line and Psiloi easy to model. Likewise, the cavalry (cloaks, metal helms, round shields) are readily available. The older Minifigs heavy barbarian horse and heavy barbarian infantry are nearly perfect, as well as many modern manufacturers.

A nice set of pictures of a painted army is here.

is here.

More on Arthur

I have found a nice blog, by Guy Halsall, on his wargaming activities. Dr. Halsall is an academic that makes a fine study of sixth century history, and starting back in the late 1990s he combined his history pursuits with his wargaming and published a series on King Arthur.  Much of the series found its way into Wargames Illustrated, all of it is on his blog.

Halsall goes on to complete a lengthy, and excellent (once he moves away from the touchy subject of Morris) series on both Arthur and the wargaming of Arthur inspired scenarios.  He has a nice introduction to campaigning, here giving a set of simple mapless rules (but with excellent scenario generator guidelines), and also a set of map based campaign (more detailed, naturally) rules. He discusses lists and rules (as I had done earlier here  but while I chose to compare lists against each other, he is comparing them to what he projects to be proper warfare for the period, based on his scholarly research).  In his discussion of rules, he gives kudos to Dan Mersey (Glutter of Ravens) and to Simon McDowall (Goths, Huns and Romans), both of which I highly regard.

In short, a great article series. Halsall's historical work is top drawer, and even his criticism of Morris is well placed (he takes down one of my favorites, John Morris, for writing history that is more of the "enjoyable narrative" rather than the "rigorous scholarship" type of work).  I am forced to agree with his criticism, even if I have a strong fondness for The Age of Arthur. 


For me, as a wargamer, I am perfectly fine with a strong narrative version of a potential historical Arthur.  It was not an especially literate time, so the lack of much literary evidence doesn't bother me - and an actual King Arthur is not necessary to me as much as a potential Arthur that is consistent with what we do know about the history. 

I find very appealing the notion of an Arthur-like figure in the sixth century keeping alive the spark of Romano-civilization against the inevitable sweep back into Germanic paganism.  And so it follows that I would want my wargaming to be based on that idea. It is my world view, and my sense of myth and legend of the West.

So, I will stick with Morris, and Arthur, warts and all.  And still enjoy the great work of Guy Halsall, as well.

 

Medieval Periods - Middle Dark Ages (6th and 7th centuries)

Following on my first article about wargaming in the various sub periods of the Medieval Age, I would like to address what I am here referring to as the middle Dark Ages.  For me, this is roughly the 6th and 7th centuries, so definitely in a Post (Western) Roman setting, but one where the rise of new entities and the rise of Byzantium provide rich war gaming possibilities. As with the first article, I remain focused on Europe.

As far as I know, there is no common reference to this period, at least as a period distinct from either the earlier dark ages, or the later dark ages.  If anything, the earlier dark ages, and this period (I am thinking of approximately the 6th and 7th centuries) are part of what is usually referred to as Late Antiquity, although that really stretches back further than I wanted to (Late Antiquity is usually 300-700 AD).

But here I am talking about the 6th and 7th centuries.  In the early period (5th century, into the Age of Arthur.  To me that is the interesting activity going on in that period (from a European perspective) for wargaming.  In this period, there are really three things going on that provide for good wargaming.  As I see them these are:
beginning of the 6th), I covered the

1. Consolidation of the Barbarian/Germanic Kingdoms
2. Muslim Conquest (starting in the 7th century, but lasting into the 8th)
3. Byzantium Ascendency, starting with Justinian in the 6th century 

As with the other Medieval periods, although infantry is still a very common component of armies of this period, the strength of cavalry is one of the hallmarks of many Medieval military systems (at least for me). That was the reason why I thought of the Romano-British as an example of a very early Medieval army (even though, it is extremely Roman, and infantry heavy, in flavor).

So, from a wargaming perspective (although just the history of this period, leaving aside gaming for an instant, is itself completely fascinating) here is what I see for the three periods.  I think I might list things like miniatures rules, board games, and army lists for each in separate posts.

Barbarian Kingdoms

These are large groups of (mostly) Germanic people's, or confederacies of people's, that were occupying lands in or on the border of the (former) Western Roman territories. They either had been invited to settle and become feoderates by the Romans, or else migrated in on their own, or (as in the case of Theoderic) would be contracted to come in by the Eastern Emperors. Because there are lots of clashes, both with remnants of the Western empire, and with other barbarian kingdoms, there is a lot of wargaming potential here.  Some of the people's I am thinking of (although there are many, many others):

• Ostrogoths - the Eastern Goths, mostly in and around Italy
• Visigoths - the Western (or Bright) Goths, mostly in and around the Iberian lands, filling the space previously occupied by Vandals and Suevi
• Franks - Extremely successful on both sides of the Danube, and against other tribes/confederacies, this period includes the Merovingians.
• Saxons - As in the earlier period, this may also include related peoples such as the Jutes and Angles, both in Britain (which is now becoming, finally, Angle-land, or England) and back in Europe.  On the British Isles, the series of struggling Kingdoms form the Heptarchy, although rarely is it exactly seven kingdoms.
• And non-Germanics from the East - Alans, Avars, Huns, etc. 

There are a lot of miniature wargaming possibilities here, but also some board gaming titles as well.  Right away, I am reminded of Barbarian, Kingdom and Empire, as well as Catan: Struggle for Rome (a great game, but maybe not a wargame?).  Possibly Rise and Fall  but possibly not (and it is very similar to the already mentioned BKE).  A game I used to play quite a bit is the area control game, Attila.

Muslim Conquest

Starting in the early part of the seventh century, the armies of the Prophet and his successors provide a history that is ripe with opportunities for Wargamers who want to recreate the battles of this period.  This is divided up into an early expansion period, starting with the battle of Bedr, in 624 (two years after the flight of the Prophet to Medina) and ending in 661 when Muawiya Uthman had the Prophet's son in law (Ali) killed in the civil war for succession.  Muawiya then formed the first Caliphate.  

The armies of Islam, with roots in a popular religious undertaking, necessarily had a lot of simple (but effective) foot elements, but also (and increasingly as time went on) both a professional infantry core and large amounts of mounted troops developed.  The Arab cavalry favored the Lance, although there are some Persian elements that use the bow.  This is, tactically, a very interesting army.

It clashed, of course, with many of the other armies described in this article, so a Wargamer seeking to develop a collection for this period, would have a lot of scenario possibilities if he were to include the elements that make up this army. A very useful collection of essential troops, that would serve for representing this army over many centuries, would be a decent sized collection of Arab spear, Arab archers, and Lance armed Arab horse. As the conquest settles into an imperial mode in the later part of this period (starting with the establishment of the caliphate) other troops can be added in, representing absorbed people's. This includes horse archers among other things, and even extends to elephants.

One of the more interesting enemies of the Arab Conquest, of course, is the Sassanid Persians.  This fantastic army will be described in a later article on the Arab Conquest.

Board wargames about this period are rare, and I am only aware of a few. There was a Canadian Papercut games.  More recently, there was, in Freng from Griffon Games, a good looking design called Au Nom d'ALLAH that covers the expansion period from 632-732 AD.  Finally, and this is the one most accessible I think (from the preview material), is the title Apocalypse in the East  from Against the Odds magazine, to be published in 2017. It is about the ten year struggle between the first Caliphate and the Byzantines. Victory Point Games is working up an excellent solitaire, called The First Jihad which should be published soon.
Simulations game back in the early 1980s called Jihad, but I don't think it has a following any longer. More recently, three titles come to mind. There was a game in 2007 called Caliphate, that was never quite finished, but is available as a free print and play download from 

Byzantium

As the surviving successor to Rome, the empire in the east begins this period with an army very much in the tradition of the old Legion system of the Western army.  However, starting under Justinian, and coming full circle under Maurice, the army transforms into something different - the Byzantine army, which is very much more reliant on cavalry.  This will last throughout the period covered by this article, but will eventually give way to the feudal Thematic system (still cavalry dominant, but structured and supplied very differently).

A nice overview and description of the army under Maurice (the Maurikian Byzantine Army) is provided on this DBA page - it talks about DBA army elements for this army, but also gives a nice short history about the various components.  Some very interesting fighting by the Byzantines, in this period, takes place in the Balkan peninsula, as well as else where, and against some of the other armies described in this article.  Other enemies for the Byzantines exist as well.

Options for boardgame Wargamers might include a number of titles, such as Justinian from GMT or Byzantium from Martin Wallace. There are some other traditional wargames that touch on Byzantine warfare, but I'll mention them in a later article, as they cover later Byzantine history.  In addition to board wargames, there are even a number of other strategy games in this theme, that may or may not warrant the name "wargame".  Some examples might be Justinian from Mayfair (a Byzantine politics game) or Constantinopolis (Trade in Byzantium in the 7th century).

That is my start for this topic, but I think I will develop some information about army lists, and tactics, and possible scenarios/campaigns for each of these separately.  Each of these three focus areas has lots of great personalities, will have strong links to the previous and the succeeding historical periods (and armies), and present loads of interesting wargaming possibilities.

Note: Since writing this article, I started on a series of articles talking about wargaming the Barbarian Kingdoms.  Here they are, so far:
Ostrogoths
Visigoths

Sub Roman British Army in Wargaming (Early Dark Ages part 2)

Continuing the discussion on Early Dark Ages Britain, and wargaming in the earlier part of that period.

The above is a simple statement, but it begs the question as to how one decides to define what the Dark Ages are . . . but presumably that period between the end of Antiquity, and the beginning of the proper Middle Ages, or Medieval Period.  Of course any definition that is itself based on non-specific terms opens up further labeling cans-of-worms, but it generally works out to about 400AD until about 1000AD, more or less.  Rather than putting a year on it, I think it is more useful (both here in wargaming, and also in my history studies) to consider identifiable periods.  It is still an abstract way to define a time period in history, but it gives some definition to the reader.  So, for the Gaming with Chuck discussion, the Dark Ages in Britain is roughly from the end of the Roman presence in the Isles, until the coming of the Normans.  And further dividing that, into an early Dark Ages, which runs from the end of the Romans, until the time of Alfred the Great, and the later period, from Alfred until the Normans (including the majority of the Viking age). - Gaming with Chuck HQ

Looking at this period, as we saw in the prior article, a major military force to consider are the various British kingdoms that inherited from the Roman traditions, and fought against (and absorbed, in some cases) a variety of invading peoples.  This article will take a look at the army list representations of the Sub-Roman British in a variety of different "generic" rulesets.  By that, I mean the rules that cater for a broad variety of ancient and/or medieval history, but that provide for specific army lists for military organizations within that period of history.

These are referred to as the Sub-Roman British, or sometimes (more rarely) the Post-Roman British.  Taking a look at the WRG Army List, Book 2, listing from 1982, we see that army number 82 is:

Sub-Roman British
425 AD to 945 AD

• C-in-C mounted on horse equipped as heaviest cavalry type present (or on foot as Light-Heavy Infantry, with Javelin or Long Thrusting Spear and Shield). 1 per army.
• Personal/Army Standard to accompany C-in-C. Up to 1.
• (a variety of different Ally-Generals, both British and others - Saxon, Irish, Visigoth, Franks)
• Religious Group of Massed Praying Monks. Up to 1.
• Cavalry, (Heavy Cavalry) Regular D, or Irregular B, Javelin and Shield. 14-44.
• Upgrade Cavalry to Regular A. Up to 4.
• Upgrade Regular A or Irregular B Cavalry to Extra Heavy Cavalry.  Up to 4.
• Light Cavalry, (Light Cavalry) Irregular C, Javelin and Shield. Up to 10.
• Spearmen, (Light-Medium Infantry) Regular D or Irregular C, all Javelin or all Long Thrusting Spear. 48-150.
• Archers, (Light-Medium Infantry, or Light Infantry) Regular D or Irregular C, Bow. Up to 36.
• Saxon Mercenary Warriors, (Medium Infantry) Irregular B, Javelin and Shield. 9 to 99.
• Irish Mercenary Warriors, (Light Medium Infantry) Irregular C, Javelin and Shield. 6 to 34.
• Upgrade Irish Mercenaries to Irregular B. All or none.
• Visigoth Nobles, (Heavy Infantry) Irregular B, Javelin and Shield. 4 to 10.
• Visigoth Spearmen, (Medium Infantry) Irregular C, Javelin and Shield. 5 to 20.
• Visigoth Archers, (Medium Infantry, or Light Infantry) Irregular C, Bow. 5 to 10.
• Frankish Cavalry, (Medium Cavalry), Irregular B, Javelin and Shield. Up to 19.
• Upgrade Frankish Cavalry to Heavy Cavalry. Up to 9.
• Frankish Spearmen, (Medium Infantry) Irregular C, Javelin and Shield. Up to 49.
• Upgrade Frankish Spearmen to Irregular B Heavy Infantry. Up to 9.

The army is interesting, and of course the minimums of the various Mercenary groups and Allied groups (Saxons, Irish, Visigoths and Franks) only apply if any of that nationality are used..

Ignoring the Mercenary and Allied troops for a minute, the core of the army are the actual Britons -
Cavalry (light and heavy), Spearmen, and Archers.  This will be followed throughout the other army lists, and while it is probably true (enough) it also seems somewhat generic for an army of this time period and place.  With what historical evidence that exists, this is probably enough.

The text that goes along with the list is interesting.  It reads as follows:

This list covers British and Breton armies from the rise to power of Vortigern until the absorption of the last remaining British lowland kingdom, Strathclyde.  I assume that earlier armies still follow the Late Imperial Roman pattern, that the Welsh diverge early on because of their mountain environment, and that the Bretons assimilate close to the French military system after the mid-9th century.  All these points are of course susceptible of being questioned.  I have relied mainly on near-contemporary literary evidence, and reluctantly discarded the reconstructions of historical fiction from Geoffrey of Monmouth onwards.  1,000 praying monks appeared at a battle in 614 AD, and were attacked first by a pagan opponent who decided that those who invoked the gods against him could not fairly claim the privileges of non-combatants.  Saxons were hired by Vortigern in the 5th century, Irish and a homeless Visigothic fleet in the 6th, and Franks possibly in the 9th.  The option to use 4 "Regular A" cavalry in attendance on the C-in-C represents a 100-strong "round table" for an Arthur or similar personality.  They cannot be used together with praying monks.  Surviving literature proves conclusively that cavalry were armed with javelins and usually wore mail.  Horse armour was used throughout the period by some of the Bretons of Armorica, so its use in Britain during the 6th century cannot be ruled out.  "Regular D" cavalry represents surviving units of the Dux's northern border army, and "Regular D" infantry other of his units and militia raised by the southern lowland cities.  No regulars can be used after the 6th century.  LTS (long thrusting spear) had probably replaced JLS (javelin/light spear) as the standard British infantry weapon by the end of the 5th century, and was to remain that of the north Welsh and southern Scotland throughout the medieval period.  The use of LB (longbow) by south Welsh archers was a later development.

Some interesting comments here.

First, referring Geoffrey of Monmouth as 'historical fiction'.  I am still chewing on that comment, 30 years after first reading it.  I get that some of Geoffrey is fantastic, but then again so is Livy and Polybius - not to mention Herodotus, the father of lies.  Geoffrey is propaganda, trying to create a history that exemplifies a British, but not English, origin - and he is prone to the fantastic, but he at least attempts to stay with known sequences of events and sources.  And if you accept Geoffrey's sources as history for some things, why not others?  Especially where he agrees with Gildas, Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, Wace, and others? So, I am willing to think of him as non-rigorous history, but not quite historical fiction.

Second, within little statements, huge history is hiding - such as the statement about using the Saxons in the 5th century, because 'Saxons were hired by Vortigern'.  Of course, Big V hired the two Saxon leaders, Horsa and Hengist, and from them we get the militarized arrival of the Saxons coming to establish lands and kingdoms for themselves, eventually creating the Anglo Saxon people.  But, at least for a while, the Romanized Britons held out against the Saxons, first Vortigern against the mutinying Saxon mercenaries, then Arthur against the encroaching Saxon immigrants/invasion.

Moving on to another view by WRG, we see in DBA (looking at my original 1990 copy), army number 82 (retaining the numbering system from the earlier army list books) is in residence.  Using the DBA element system, for a 12-element army, we see the following.

3x 3CV (Cavalry)
1x 3Kn or 2LH (Knights, or Light Horse)
4x 3Ax (Auxilia)
2x 3Ax, or 2x 3/4Wb (Auxilia or Warband)
2x 2Ps (Psiloi).

The general of the army would be one of the CV stands (unless the knight is used?).  The 3 CV stands represent the British cavalry, of course.  The option of 3Kn, or 2LH is either Knights (Visigoth or Scottish mounted), or Light Horse (the British light cavalry).  The Knights option is also for players who envision an Arthur, and his knights or comitatus, as heavier armed (or simply elite) cavalry compared to other specimens of the period.

Moving ahead to other interpretations, we can look at the army as presented in Bob Bryant's excellent Might of Arms rules.  They have armies based on the earlier WRG army books, and other sources, but rather than giving figure counts, they give numbers of stands per unit type.  They give (again, stretching the point up to 945AD, to include the last remaining British kingdom at Strathclyde - in practical terms. the British were done as a force roughly around 580AD or so) the army's details as the following:
Medium Cavalry (C morale) 6-24 stands
Light Cavalry, Javelin (C morale) 0-12 stands
Subheavy Infantry (C morale) 0-12 stands
Medium Infantry (C morale) 24-102 stands
Skirmish Infantry, Javelin (C morale) 0-12 stands
Skirmish Infantry, Bow (C morale) 0-6 stands

The Subheavy Infantry here represent either Frankish or Saxon allies (Horsa and Hengist again?).  Options exist to convert up to two units (using the recommended unit size of 3 cav or 6 foot stands) of Medium Cavalry to Heavy Cavalry, also the option to convert up to two units of cavalry (either Medium, or the upgraded Heavy) to B morale.  Again, the Knights of Arthur, or some Dux' comitatus is the inspiration here, it seems.

Terry Gore's most excellent rules, Medieval Warfare, offer up an Arthurian Britons army (mid 5th to mid 6th century).  This does not go on to cover the surviving Britons, but focuses on the main event.  It is interesting, and of course the units are different here from some of the other rulesets, but here is the army list:

8-24 stands Cambrogi (Heavy Cav, Warriors, Jav or Spear and Shield)
4-16 stands Light Cavalry (Skirmishing Cav, Warriors, Jav and Shield)
24-72 stands Spearmen (Lightly Armored Infantry, Poor, Jav or Spear and Shield)
6-24 stands Archers (Lightly Armored Infantry, Poor, Bow)
0-16 stands Saxon Ally (Unarmored Infantry, Warrior or Warband, Spear and Shield)
6-18 stands Skirmishers (Skirmishing Infantry, Warriors, Javelin or Bow and Shield)
0-6 ships

• These rules give some more tactical details - for instance, they allow the Spearmen and the Archers to form mixed units.
• Once again, the Cambrogi can upgrade to Veterans if they like.
• Equally, the Cambrogi can upgrade to Full Mail Cavalry, Elite Morale, Lance and Shield (Arthurian cavalry according to just about everyone from Geoffrey on down the line to John Boorman).
• Options to upgrade the training and morale of the spearmen and archers exist.

 The writer of the list (it appears in the rulebook, as published by Foundry) refers to the Heavy Cavalry as Cambrogi - which he defines as "Literally, fellow countryment.  British warriors who supported the remnants of the Roman leaders.  Well armed and armoured as well as loyal followers and trusted fighters, they often served as personal bodyguards."

Taking a look at a recent element based (in the same vein as DBA and Armati, where you can either move elements singly or as groups) ruleset, L'Art De La Guerre comes to us from Herve Caille in France.  A very nice English translation is available, and it is a lovely book with lots of data, rules, and ideas for games in it.  The Sub Roman British are available here, as army number #101 - Romano-British.  Again, the army stretches from early 5th century (407AD, in this case) on up to the year 945AD.  The army list gives the option for doing an Arthurian list, with the de rigeur option of upgrading the cavalry, in that case.

• Britons Horsemen (may be medium or heavy cavalry) 4-8 units
• Scouts on Pony (light cavalry with javelin, mediocre) 0-2 units
• Spearmen (medium or heavy spearmen, may be mediocre) 8-24 units
• Saxon Mercenaries before 442AD (heavy swordsmen, impetuous; may be elite) 0-2 units
• Irish Mercenaries before 580AD (medium swordsmen) 0-4 units
• Bowmen (light infantry with bow) 0-2 units
• Light Infantry with Javelin 0-2 units
• Christian Martyrs before 664AD (levy, mediocre, expendable) 0-1 units
• Fortifications 0-8 units
• Arthurian Elite Cavalry 475 to 539AD (Replace Horsemen with heavy cavalry, impact, elite) 0-4 units

An interesting army, carrying on much of a muchness with the others (spearmen, archers, light and heavy horse, allies), but this one introduces the idea of fortifications.  Camelot?  The Christian Martyrs represent great flavor, but little tactical usefulness that I can think of.  If they were a religious standard, that might be more useful.  A player can choose allies from Western Romans, Saxons, Welsh or Vikings in different periods.  If sticking to the strictly Arthurian slice as defined here (475-539) then only the Welsh are available, the others being either earlier or later historical allies.

Some interest creeps in with the Shock of Impact army list, written for the Romano-British Successor (Army 48, page 27 in the army list book), for the Shock of Impact rules from Tabletop Games.  These army lists give you two ways to construct an army.  First, the typical method, where you employ a set of points with unit types, minimums and maximums.  The second is by means of a set of percentage dice, to determine an army of so-many units.  That is interesting for our study here. 

• Automatic, Army General (Heavy Cavalry)
• 01-17 Heavy Cavalry (HC, spear javelin, shield)
• 18-34 Retainer Cavalry (MC, spear, javelin, shield)
• 35-37 Pict/Scot Cavalry (MC, spear shield)
• 28-40 Pict/Scot Cavalry (LC, javelin, shield)
• 41-52 Pict Javelinmen (LI, javelin, shield)
• 53-58 Pict Archers (LI, bow)
• 59-76 Pict/Scot/Saxon Infantry (MI, spear, shield)
• 77-100 British Spearman (MI, spear shield)

The interesting thing here, of course, is the commonality of Picts.  The Saxons are present, of course.  The army list allows you to upgrade (of course) the army general and the Heavy Cavalry to regular troops.  The British Spearman are, in the army list, of higher morale than the Picts/Scots/Saxons.  Considering that the Saxons are professional mercenaries, I find that encouraging for the depiction of the British from these authors.

Another interesting thing about these rules, compared to the others covered already, is that these really focus on the period of the 5th and 6th century.  It makes no pretense to cover the periods that stretch up into the 10th century with the dubious hangers-on at Strathclyde, etc.

Returning back to an army list that covers the gamut from 410AD to 945AD, the excellent rules by Neil Thomas (Ancient and Medieval Wargaming, 2007) cover the Romano-British Army.  Here we see four troop types, with a variation in number of units the player chooses

• Cavalry (HC, medium armor, elite) 2-4 units
• Roman Remnants (DAI, medium armor, average) 0-2 units
• Militia (DAI, light armour, levy) 2-4 units
• Archers (LI, bow, light armour, average) 0-2 units

As usual, the option to upgrade the cavalry (again, as Knights of the Round Table, Comitatus, descendants of Sarmatians, etc - it isn't clear, but bows to the scant history and rich legend) exists, making up to one unit of Cavalry into Knight Cavalry (HC, heavy armour, elite), with some extra hand-to-hand combat capabilities on turns that they charge.  The army does not permit the Roman Remnant past the end of the 6th century, but they are allowed to fight using a shield wall technique.

I have long been a fan of Neil Thomas' simple rules, and the Dark Ages variant that this list supports is no exception.  Easy to teach, easy to play, and it gives appropriate results - great for a newcomer.  With this army list, someone interested in either the historical period, or a plausible historical Arthur could get playing very quickly.  Mr. Thomas again disparages the excellent (but, sadly, not-so-very-exacting in the historicity department) Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Finally, a look at an army list that provides for some more options than most of the lists (the most options, so far, being on the original 5th/6th edition WRG army lists, but most of the variation there came from listing different allied armies separately - Saxons, Irish, Visigoths and Franks.  But this last ruleset I am covering here is De Bellis Multitudinis.  In Book 2 (500BC to 476AD) of the army list collection, using the June 1993 version here as reference, we see the following Sub-Roman British army (407AD to 945AD), which is army number 81 on page 71:

• C-in-C, Regular Cavalry or Irregular Cavalry
• British ally general, Reg Cavalry or Irregular Cavalry; 0-3
• Cavalry Reg Cavalry or Irregular Cavalry; 8-15
• Light Cavalry on Hill Ponies - Irregular Light Horse; 0-5
• Pedyts - Regular Auxilia or Irregular Spear; 36-120
• Archers - Regular Bow, or Irregular Psiloi; 0-8

And that is it, for the basic army.  As with Shock of Impact, the option exists for the General(s) and the Cavalry to be either regular or irregular, depending on the player view of the situation.  But, there is a long list of other elements that can be added in for various sub-periods and special cases of the army. 

Before 425 AD, Late Imperial Roman allies are available
429 AD, Saxon mercenaries and longboats are available (Horse and Hengist ride again)
430-441 AD, Saxon Allies
475-539 AD, Arthur properly done, with Cavalry and General upgraded to Regular Knights
507-550 AD, Visigothic fleet and crew, shipwrecked and part of the army
Mainland Britain before 580 AD, Irish Mercenary (or Votadini foot)
Armorica before 580 AD, Alan Mercenaries (from Alan army list in Book 2)
Prior to 664 AD, Praying Monks (irregular horde)
After 790 AD, Viking Allies (from Norse army list in Book 3)

This is, at it's heart, very much apace with the other armies listed here, but the historical detail given with the list options, and in the book text, make for a very nice snapshot of the history of the British from the 5th century until their disappearance.  The Praying Monks are back, which is a good thing.  How a single stand of them could make a difference, I don't know, but they would be a fun addition to the army.

Not the Arthur being discussed here

This is the wrap up of this article on the general representation of the army. The agreement is on fair (mediocre) quality infantry, and better quality cavalry.  Under a cavalry commander, such as an Arthur like figure, the cavalry can be improved.  This is a pretty good representation, but there are some rulesets that go a little deeper, especially for this time period. The next article will take a look at some Arthur specific rulesets (and modules) including:

• Song of Arthur and Merlin
• Dux Bellorum
• The Age of Arthur (for Warhammer Ancient Battles)

I could include the SAGA supplement on the Sub-Roman British, and also the excellent Glutter of Ravens.  The former, I will leave off, because I have an article just on SAGA planned for the next period after this - the age of Vikings.  The latter, I will leave off, because the author (Dan Mersey) is already covered in two other rulesets by him (Song of Arthur and Merlin, and Dux Bellorum), which are currently much more accessible to gamers than the former (but still excellent) Glutter of Ravens.

---

For grins and giggles, see the BBC documentary on "historical" Arthur from Francis Pryor.  I enjoy Francis, but he certainly does seem to be attracted to out-of-the-mainstream theories about pre-Roman, Roman, and Post-Roman Britain.  Here is the first part of a three part video on facebook that presents his documentary on the Arthur topic.

There are two more parts of this video, also.
Part 2 - https://youtu.be/N_tMiA1KBPM
Part 3 - https://youtu.be/8iksrDIQWUA

There are of course many other "documentaries" on Arthur to be found on Youtube and elsewhere, some are more or less dreadful, and others might be useful, but as in the first article in this series, nothing (for narrative) beats John Morris. Although even he (rightfully so) has his critics.

Medieval Periods - Early Dark Ages (5th century)

Early Dark Ages Wargaming
You say 'Sub-Roman' I say 'Arthurian'

A very interesting time for study and gaming in British military history is the period of the various kingdoms and migrations/invasions that took place between the 5th and 9th centuries, AD.  The armies are small, much of the surviving historical matter (which is, admittedly, very little) is steeped in legend as much as in fact, and Dark Ages Briton is a nice compact area for any sort of strategic study in warfare or wargaming.  That applies also to campaigns, linking together tactical studies and games.  Especially miniature wargaming.

For a wargamer this is a rich time to investigate this period of history.  There are, of course, many great miniatures and wargaming rules available for miniature gaming play (some covered in this article).  But there is also a load of great modern fiction and television that covers the period.  There is the excellent series (The Last Kingdom) of historical fiction from Bernard Cornwell.  There is even a BBC series based on the same novels.  A really fun young adult novel from the last century is The Dragon and the Raven, written by the fantastic author of such things, G.A. Henty (excellent review here at Vintage Books).  A terrific list of fiction from the period (modern, and less-than-modern), along with historical resources, is on this page about King Arthur available at Abe Books.  Much more is available, if you look for historical fiction in the Anglo-Saxon period, or even moving up into the early Viking Age.

There is, of course, the temptation to immediately jump to the historical archetypes for King Arthur - a sub-roman Briton, perhaps a descendant of a Roman soldier, or himself trained as a Roman soldier, or cavalry officer, with a small but well trained band of warriors, that has an unduly large effect on the local political/military situation.  But there are also other interesting historical events during these centuries - the arrival of the Saxons.  The generation of the first Christian kingdoms.  The (almost) loss of the Christian culture to the Germanic.  The rise of Alfred the Great as king of the West Saxons.  The burning of cakes in a swamp cottage.  Eventually the establishment of the Danelaw.

I'd like to take a look at the first part of this period, the Arthurian period, in the rest of this article (covering the later part of the period in the future).  Roughly that is the 5th and 6th centuries, AD.  I am assuming this period for Arthur, and not the earlier possibility for Lucius Artorius Castus (probably 2nd or 3rd century AD) as the historical figure.  That Arthur, of course, was an incredible soldier and deserves to be remembered to both history and legend, if even half of the inscriptions about him are correct, but as I am focusing on this period in Britain, any references to Arthur will be to this possible post-Roman Arthur.

A fantastic amount history on the period exists from lots and lots of different authors.  John Morris (The Age of Arthur) is a favorite, as is Leslie Alcock (Arthur's Britain).  Geofrey Ashe, although later on the field, also gives a good tilt with The Discovery of King Arthur, incorporating more modern evidence.  Ashe actually predates Morris (the 73 version) and Alcock (71) with The Quest for Arthur's Britain (1968).

Uniquely wonderful work by Angus McBride - from Osprey

There are many more, a short list starts on the Abe Books community page on the Age of Arthur (referenced earlier, for the fiction listed there).  A nice introduction to the period from an academic viewpoint is available here from Mark Gardner.  If you have access, the Great Courses title King Arthur: History and Legend from Prof. Dorsey Armstrong is quite excellent, and covers such modern topics as Hollywood treatments, and even Monty Python (along with a great survey of all the historical literature - Monmouth through Mallory, and many others beside).

Dorsey Armstrong lecture series - Excellent!

 Of the list of resources above, the introduction to the wider period by Gardner, and the Morris and Alcock books are properly Sub-Roman British history, the others are peculiarly Arthurian (albeit with one foot firmly in history, in all cases).  A most excellent survey of serious historical works on Sub-Roman Britain can be found in the article by Snyder at the Vortigern Studies website.


Online there is a fantastic historical resource available from History File that has an interactive map of the various kingdoms of this period, each providing a resources page with notable leaders and historic events of those kingdoms.

There is an extremely useful Fashion of the Centuries website with a history of Anglo Saxon costume (both civilian and military) from 460AD to 1066AD.

A lot has been written on Arthur, and whether or not he existed, was he just a prototype of an actual warrior, just a fiction?  I am going to concentrate here, on the version that a lot of Arthurian scholars might say is the best chance of being close to a historic personage.  This is the Arthur of the 5th/6th century - not the Arthur we find in the later Romance fictions (such as the excellent works all after Geoffrey of Monmouth - including Chretien De Troyes, Mallory, and later authors).  A reasonable web resource is a series of articles written by Barry Jacobsen and published on his military history website The Deadliest Blogger (a corrected, and reordered, version of the series is on Scout, linked below).  The articles are accompanied by loads of images and paintings from things like Osprey manuals, and other sources, but the information is sound, and of interest to a potential gamer interested in this period.

The Age of Arthur (in 21 parts) - Part One starts here
The end of Roman Rule in Britain
Vortigern's struggle for power
The Defense of Roman Britannia
The Armies of Vortigern and Hengist
The Saxon Terror
Ambrosius Aurelianus
Shadow in the East
Britain Stands Alone
Origins of Arthur
Possible Origins of Arthur
Cerdic the Saxon
The Lindsey Campaign
Arthur's Northern Campaign
War to the Knives
The City of the Legion
Dux Bellorum
Revolt in the North
The Hill of Agned
A Gathering of Wolves
Arthur Returns South
The Battle of Badon Hill

This is a fun to read series, and has a lot of valuable references in it.  One of the things that the author, Jacobsen, does here is cover (in reasonable detail, given how much evidence we have available) the 12 battles of Arthur, as recorded by Nennius, the Welsh Monk responsible for writing History of the Britons, at around the year 828 AD.  He covers Arthur with surprising detail, given that earlier Arthur references were mostly in folklore and settled into the mythology of a variety of peoples.  Nennius relates Arthur's battles to specific places, and describes (somewhat detailed) the effect it had on the Saxon leadership.  Whether or not these battles were actually fought (and won) by a war leader (Dux Bellorum, or simply Dux) named Arthur is not as important, for the wargamer, as the fact that they are descriptions of plausible Dark Ages battles.  The book was written in the height of, or even the late, Dark Ages, but the battles described certainly go back to the first century or so after the departure of Roman authority in the isles.  The twelve battles, as described by Nennius, are:
1. Battle at the River Glein
2., 3., 4., and 5. The Campaign in Lindsey
6. The River Bassas
7. The Celyddon (Caledonian) Forest
8. Guinnion Fort
9. The City of the Legion
10. The River Tribuit
11. Agned Hill
12. Badon Hill


For a wargamer of the period interested in the geography of Britain, there is a nice article describing the sites mentioned in the Nennius account, online, as the 28 Cities of Britain by David Nash Ford.  Using that information, along with the descriptions of Arthur's 12 battles would make for a nice set of wargaming scenarios.


A lot of gaming resources are available for this period, but one that I have always enjoyed (and made use of a few times) is the Diplomacy Variant known as Bretwalda (or, specifically, Bretwalda-2).  This is a variant map and some additional rules for the British Isles (including Ireland) starting in the year 620.  The kingdoms involved are:

• Dalriada
• East Anglia
• Gwynedd
• Kernow
• Leinster
• Mercia
• Northumbria
• Pictland
• Wessex 

Years ago we ran a fantasy campaign of "Hordes of the Things" set on that map, with special rules for Merlin and a Dragon (non player units that roamed the map, randomly, and affected armies).  There was also a possibility of a great sea serpent swallowing up any fleet that remained at sea over a turn.

Earlier on Gaming with Chuck, the most excellent supplement for Warhammer Historical Battles that covers this period was covered, the Age of Arthur.  It is a great book, with historical armies for the period, tons of evocative art and pictures of perfectly painted miniatures, and a great selection of scenarios.

Sometimes it seems as if Daniel Mersey is keeping the dream alive for early medieval wargaming these days - first he had Glutter of Ravens (Arthurian rules and information from Outpost Wargame Services), then it was Dux Bellorum (Arthurian rules and lists,etc, from Osprey), and these days it is Lion Rampant (general medieval from Osprey) and Dragon Rampant (fantasy heir to the previous).  Great games, all of them, and Daniel (as an archaeologist, I believe) is well suited in his medieval knowledge, and certainly in his Arthurian knowledge.  Not pictured below, he is author author of Song of Arthur and Merlin from Ganesha Games.  Answers and discussions about Dan Mersey games can be found at the Dux Rampant forums.

In recent years, the ruleset Saga has really taken off, and it covers the expanded Viking age, including some of the period in discussion here.  With the supplements, they tend towards the later part of the period - solidly in the Viking Age, and beyond (1066 is not the end for these rules . . .).  Extremely popular.  Lots of great websites and resources for Saga, but the fan run Tapestry is a great spot for info.  One of the things that has made Saga more interesting (to me) for this period is the recent supplement, Aetius and Arthur, covering the Sub-Roman (Arthurian) period of Britain.  Excellent...

Finally, there are (in the miniatures category) the wide, wide variety of general miniatures rules that cover this period.  This goes back to the earliest days (Grant, Featherstone, Bath) and on up through WRG, many others, and today's offerings such as Warrior, DBM, DBA, Art De La Guerre, Field of Glory and many others.  Some have been reviewed on this blog, and I have long been a fan of Might of Arms.  The Hail Caesar rules (Rick Priestley) are extremely popular, and Warlord is doing a great job of supporting the rules with fantastic figures - both metal and plastic.  Their army book covering Late Antiquity to Early Medieval is a perfect companion for battles from this time period. The Warlord website has loads of information and articles about the rules, armies, painting, etc.

These days, I am also very much a fan of the (the late) Terry Gore rules - especially the reprint that Foundry did a few years back, "Medieval Warfare".  These start in the year 450AD (the same year that the other set from Terry Gore - "Ancient Warfare" - ends).  Army lists are included, and the Foundry version (not surprisingly) has great art internally.  The cover is a bit garish, but hey - it catches your attention!

Because of their interest in the period, and because of the fantastic figures they have come out with support for Tomahawk Studios and SAGA, the miniatures manufacturer Gripping Beast has a ton of great figures for this time period (Dark Ages).  They have recently come out with their own set of big battle rules, that look pretty good, but I have not read them or played them yet.  They are called Swordpoint, by Martin Gibbins. Wargames Illustrated has posted a great video introduction to the rules.  Well worth watching, if you think they might serve for this period.

Lots more can be done, and this article should be followed up with a second on the Later Dark Ages.  A separate article on the boardgames covering this time period is also warranted, but this is an introductory piece, and I wanted to share some images and links that I have had lurking around in my bookmarks list.  I hope they are useful.

Push of Pike - historical notes about the Pike

As a topic that got spurred on by all my late medieval and Renaissance wargaming activities lately, I did some reading about the lengthy catalyst of RMAs - the Pike. (RMAs are Revolutions in Military Affairs, and if you have never heard the name Michael Roberts, or of his first attacker, and later defender Geoffrey Parker, then you have been spared a great deal of historian's argument).

'Bad War' by Hans Holbein

There is a great article on the Push of Pikes, their employ, their length, etc - in an article called The push of pike in the 14th Century, from earlier this year (February 2016).  It is from a blog on historical topics, including such things as costume from different periods.  One of the gems of the article is the widespread basis for quotes and references.  Here is a great quote that is made, about a captain (Hynrick van Gemen) telling his men how to employ the Pike (presumably they were not veteran soldiers), during a battle protecting Münster from an invasion in 1407.

Gy menne, de nyn harnsch anne en hebben, gy solt achter uns beharnscheden gaen, und wyket nycht und schuwet uns und steket myt den peyken under de iseren hode.
"You men, who have no armour on you, you shall go behind our armoured (men) and will not move nor fear and you will stab with the pikes underneath the iron hats (in the faces of the enemy)."

But, of course, there is a lot of debate over whether or not there was ever a Push of Pike type engagement, where two pike formations actually engaged each other.  Lots of opinion on the internet, including an interesting discussion by a fellow that runs a blog called Swords and Socialism, where he reduces a pike-to-pike encounter as having three stages: Prodding (attempting to reach, and stab, without being stabbed), Pushing (when the blocks become locked, and it is a scrum, or shoving match, both bodies of men effectively having gotten "under" the pikes), and Panic (where one side or the other loses their cool, and departs the encounter).  I don't know how authoritative this is, or is it just a gleaning of information from other popular sources?

A video I uncovered also addresses the issue, and the presented supposes that pikes never actually faced pikes, just sort of had a machismo showdown until one side or the other fled (usually whichever side was not, in order, either (1) Swiss, (2) Landsknechts, (3) Spaniards, (4) Anyone else).


This fellow (his youtube channel goes by the name of Lindybeige) may have a point.  Now, a historian that was interested in finding out just how a pike formation worked, was Hans Delbrück, who in the research for his History of the Art of War, actually took men out in the field, gave them pikes, drilled them, and made notes as to how they behaved.  Equally, Charles Oman with his Art of War in the Sixteenth Century, is also quite influential, and does his homework.

One thing is certain, and that is starting with the Scots in their fight against the English, in the 14th century, and going on up until the last elements of pikes were removed from the musketry units in the Great Northern War of the early 18th century, one of the key formations of infantry power on the battlefield was the pike.  Was it defensive?  Was it offensive?  There are many opinions, all by people who have no first hand experience.

In the piece of artwork at the top of this posting, Holbein (who is responsible for fantastic portraits of Erasmus, Thomas More, Henry VIII and a couple of other chaps you may have heard of) does a drawing called "bad war" which was between Swiss pikemen and German Landsknechte.  Both had a reputation for being efficient, well trained, and ruthless, and were foes of each other (the two biggest kids on the block).  Since the Italian Wars, and moving on from there into the 16th century, they were often employed against each other, and the concept of a bad war (as illustrated by Holbein) is one where neither pike block will swerve, and the pikes and doppelsoldners with their two handed swords, halberds, and worse will chew into each other, in an extremely bloody scrum.

Landsknechte

The Spanish were certainly avowed fans of the Pike, as seen throughout the 80 years war and others, with their much celebrated Tercio formation.  Fans of warfare from this period could do much worse than to track down and see the film Alatriste (with Viggo Mortenson in the title role), about a Spanish unit that is fated to fight the French at the battle of Rocroi.

Spanish at Rocroi - by Augusto Ferrer-Delmau

A list of push-of-pike engagements includes a lot of the seminal battles of the 16th century.  According to wikipedia, this list includes:

Arbedo (1422) - Milan vs. the Swiss
Ravenna (1512) - Duchy of Ferrara (and France) vs. Papal States (and Spain)
Novara (1513) - Venice (with France) vs Milan (with Swiss)
Pavia (1525) - France vs. Charles V (HRE Emperor, who is also Charles I of Spain)
Ceresole (1544) - France vs. HRE in the Italian Wars
Langside (1568) - Moray vs. Mary, Queen of Scots
Santo Domingo (1586) - the only battle listed in the New World
Zutphen (1586)
Nieuwpoort (1600) - Look at this map of the battle - zoom in and look at the detail!
Benburb  (1646) - Irish (Owen Roe O'Neill) vs Scots Covenanters and English Colonists

This does not include any battles from the English Civil War (unless you include Benburb, which I won't), nor from the Thirty Years War (such as the battle of Lutzen).  It does include four of the major conflicts of the Italian Wars (Ravenna, Novara, Pavia, and Ceresole).

Wargamers, of course, want to get the history correct (when they can).  But, whether the clash of pike-on-pike resulted in a mutual stabbing affair, a crushing scrum, or a macho staring contest until one side or the other departed - it doesn't matter. The rulesets will tell you which of the figures are dead (or no longer able to function in combat), and which are due rewards for behavior (by winning a "combat").  Regardless of what this means in real life, the fact that the pike was the main weapon of massed infantry formations (including the elite formations of the day - the pike blocks of the Swiss Cantons), and that it was extremely effective vs. musketry formations and cavalry formations, and that it was vulnerable to artillery fire, and that it would occasionally be asked to go head to head, and toe to toe, with an enemy pike formation.  It is a part of military history, and so the push of pike clash has earned a place in our historical wargames.