Being an Interpretation of an Italian Wars Waterloo . . .
Inspiration:
Selected portions of Chapter 3 - 'The Business of War in Europe, 1000-1600,' reread (though it's been quite awhile) in The Pursuit of Power - Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000, written by William H. McNeill, and published in 1982.
Rules: GRAND TRIUMPH! [Rough Draft - Version 0.2 / October 2017]
In the interest of transparency, I also looked at Advanced Armati as well as L'Art de la Guerre or ADLG (3rd Edition) and the related 'Early Renaissance I' and or fifteenth century army lists contained therein.
Note: I did not become aware of several modifications/updates to the TRIUMPH! rules until the battle was underway. As a result, none of these changes/updates were incorporated in this wargame.
Table Size:
For this solo project (aren't they all . . .), I would use the majority of my basic or smaller tabletop, marking out a 72-inch by 36-inch battlefield. (This allowed me a bit of space along the edges to place dice, rulers, a rules reminder note card, reinforcements and so forth.)
Terrain:
In broad terms and as might be deduced from the title, my 'model' battlefield was based on - rather than bore a strong resemblance to - the landscape of Waterloo on that decisive day in June 1815. The 6 by 3-foot tabletop was 'decorated' to represent my interpretation of the map found on pages 124-125 in THE FACE OF BATTLE: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo & The Somme, by John Keegan. I also referenced the diagram provided in the collection of maps between pages 64 and 65, in WATERLOO - NEW PERSPECTIVES: The Great Battle Reappraised, by David Hamilton-Williams.
Opposing Armies:
Looking over the cornucopia of periods and lists available for free at https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home, I focused on the 'Plate and Handgonne' menu, and chose Later Italian Condotta (1363 to 1495 AD), Early Swiss (1240 to 1424 AD), and French Ordonnance (1445 to 1480 AD).
The plan (such as it was) would see the Condotta take the place of the Anglo-Allied formations, while the Early Swiss (admittedly, an anachronistic participant) would substitute for the Prussians. The French Ordonnance would (bien sur) assume the role of their progeny.
Even though I purposely set up a comparatively small tabletop, I drafted and prepared armies that added up to more than the usual 144-point total for a traditional GRAND TRIUMPH! wargame. The Italian and French forces would be fairly large - in the neighborhood of 300 points. The Swiss would bring about 100 points to the fictional field.
Deployments:
Taking advantage of the natural terrain, the Italian formations arranged plenty of troops on the three largish gentle hills. These commands or groups contained a variety of units, ranging from Artillery (i.e., bombards and the like) to Elite Foot (i.e., dismounted Condottieri elmeti) to Pavisiers (i.e., Militia pavisiers & crossbowmen) to Light Spear (i.e., Mercenary pikemen). Supporting 'divisions' on the flanks mustered quite a bit of horseflesh, with the right wing consisting of Horse Bow (i.e., Hungarians), Javelin Cavalry (i.e., Stradiots), and Knights (i.e., Condottieri elmeti). The center reserve contained these types and more (i.e., several stands of Horde or armed peasants), and was arranged so that its left-most units protected the Carroccio.
In a questionable attempt to replicate at least a portion of the famous 1815 engagement, a good number of the various formations of the French Ordonnance army were deployed within bombard range (8 MUs or 16 centimeters) of the enemy lines.
In broad overview, the French leader placed two commands on the left. These groups were refused, as one formation faced the large villa along with its garden plots and orchard. The other was positioned in the gap between the distant hills occupied by the enemy. The right side of the line was closer to the Italian positions. In fact, in this sector, both sides were within bombard range of each other. The French general (most likely a prince or king, though he remains anonymous for this scenario) commanded a central reserve of veteran Knights, who were supported by several stands of Ordonnance archers. Two additional commands were still on the march, trying to get to the battlefield in order to assist in the overall plan or, if things took a turn for the worse, then these units could form some kind of rearguard.
Summary:
The French right earned 'first blood' honors or honours on the day when a decent artillery salvo knocked out some Italian Raiders (i.e., sword & buckler types). This wing also did well in pushing the opposing enemy command to its demoralization point, but these troops were damaged and exhausted in the process, eventually becoming demoralized as well. The Condotta had a reserve command in this sector and were expecting Swiss reinforcements to arrive at some point. The French did not have any additional troops available to shore up this sector. However, there were rumors of reserve commands marching towards the sound of battle.
The central sector proved to be a stalemate. Here, the French were hampered by a likely to be judged poor deployment as well as by lackluster command dice and equally unimpressive combat rolls. With the right wing in tatters and strong enemy formations still in position, it seemed that any additional advances/attacks would have a low probability of success.
On their left, the French were frustrated by some enemy archers defending the large villa and its surrounding grounds (i.e., orchard and walled garden). Unfortunately, command and combat dice were average to poor here as well. The French situation was not helped by some annoying enemy Bad Horse (i.e., mounted crossbowmen) who were able to dispatch a unit of Knights and then turn their attention on some slow-moving Bow Levy.
At the end of Turn 9, a subjective survey of the tabletop was conducted. The French position was pretty bad and their chances of turning things around appeared rather slim. Instead of pressing the attack and risking the Swiss arrival which would roll over and roll through what very little remained of their right, the French general ordered a withdrawal to reorganize, refit, and to reconsider his original plan. Later that same figurative evening, the veteran commander and his subordinates discussed the options that might be afforded by not making a frontal attack against an enemy deployed on pretty good defensive terrain.
The related blog post (another diagram-heavy or oriented account) can be viewed here: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Capture%20the%20Carroccio%21
Evaluation:
Even though I was able to fit this scenario onto a smaller tabletop and the functional terrain served its purpose well enough, on review, I think I should have set up the larger playing surface and adjusted the terrain accordingly. I should have taken the time to mark the crest lines on the gentle hills so that there would be no question as to when a defender had the 'uphill' melee advantage. I should have taken care to make sure that units occupying buildings or buildings and gardens, etc., would receive some kind of benefit from being in and fighting from such terrain. In summary, if I was going to garrison a fifteenth century Hougoumont with a stand of archers, then I should have drafted some scenario rules about their ability to launch arrows from this feature, and what the enemy could do to push them out of it or destroy them within the borders of the structure and its grounds.
Play testing would have helped me to see the readily-apparent-to-others challenges with regard to the initial strength of the Italian positions, the question of the Swiss arrival, and the estimated time table for the French reinforcements. While the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules are expressly for games featuring approximately 144 points per side, the procedures for command and combat can, I believe, handle much larger contests. Though I have not seen it done yet on the YouTube channels managed by Rod or 'Roundie,' or on another blog, I imagine that armies adding up to 288 (6 commands) or 432 points (9 commands) could be deployed, provided one had the figures or other representation, space, and of course, sufficient time in which to fight such an unusually massive battle to its rules-determined conclusion.
Although somewhat constrained by the size of the table and the 'complexity' of the terrain, I think my deployments were reasonable as well as fairly historical. Here again though, I suppose I could have saved myself some time and trouble on the French left, had I bothered to test and then draft some scenario rules about employing artillery (even they were bombards) against enemy units in what is generally classified as 'difficult terrain.' On further reflection, I wondered if I should have prepared and deployed more Bow Levy for the French side and these used these slow-moving units as a kind of 'first wave' of cannon and arrow fodder. Their progress and likely destruction would be followed by a second line of Heavy Foot and perhaps a third line of Knights. More thinking about it led me to consider modifying the 'charge through' Battle Card, so that all troop types, not just Skirmishers, could advance through Artillery stands. This adjustment would have allowed me to arrange the French units out of range, but position the guns forward. Then again, this different deployment might have resulted in some counter-battery fire scenario rules.
As explained above, the French were often subjected to poor command dice and equally poor combat rolls. Having Artillery within a group requires a roll of at least 2 on a d6. The command is hamstrung or may be forced to separate into smaller formations when a 1 is rolled. (There were a couple of turns when more than half of the French groups secured a result of 1 on their command dice.) Attempts to engage and dislodge the enemy proved quite problematic as well. As an example, during one turn, three French units were able to attack an enemy unit of Bow Levy. Even though the enemy formation was overlapped on its right and left, it managed to roll a 6. (A 16 percent chance, if I recall.) This score easily beat the French roll of 2 (which was then added to its combat factor), which resulted in the main French unit being pushed back. (Sacre bleu! Or perhaps an under-the-breath Merde would be more situationally appropriate.)
Understanding that handgunners were relatively new on the battlefield at the time of this fictional contest, I was still struck by the abstract way in which their abilities were depicted. Then again, it could simply be a matter of recalling how the these particular units are treated in other sets of rules and not focusing enough on the wargame at hand. To an extent, this 'difficulty' could also be applied to the Artillery present on the tabletop. It seems to me that 'open order' might be a better category for this type of stand, and that something like counter-battery fire should be allowed. The unintentional comparison and contrast with other sets of rules was also done while moving the various units and groups around this tabletop. The TRIUMPH! rules certainly permit more flexibility and range of motion. Sometimes, the situation also develops into an odd or unusual occurrence. In another part of the field during another turn of play, I recall a French unit being attacked from behind. The formation managed to survive the melee. (The combat was a tie.) In the French portion of the game turn, a command pip was dedicated to this unfortunate unit. It was able to turn around and present its front to the enemy, thereby making the subsequent melee a little more even. Again, based on my experience with other sets of rules, this permission seems rather strange. I do not have a prepared list of historical instances, but common sense would seem to suggest that if a unit was engaged from the rear, then that unit would be lucky to stand and fight in its current orientation. It seems that such a unit would be more likely to break and run away from attackers coming at it from such an unexpected direction.
Although nothing like a rubric was prepared for grading this scenario, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to give myself 'low marks' or perhaps even an 'incomplete.'
However, I think the general idea has merit. I think it may be worth exploring how other eighteenth or nineteenth century battles might be adapted for play in earlier time periods. To be sure, careful attention needs to be paid to the execution of the idea. This most recent example, while admittedly rushed through its production and potentially embarrassing in its presentation - serves, I think - as a 'teachable moment.' In fact, I find myself contemplating another try at it, but perhaps with a different set of rules, or at least that required careful attention to scenario special rules and other matters. On the other hand, I wonder what could be done with Blenheim, Shiloh, or even Gettysburg, if these great battles were time traveled to the mid or late fifteenth century, or perhaps all the way back to the eleventh or even ninth century.
Other Items that may or may not be of Interest:
> Camps are often used TRIUMPH! tabletops. With the notable and period-appropriate exception of the Carroccio, there were no established encampments on this attempted reconstruction of an Italian-themed Waterloo.
> At no point during this abbreviated contest was the Carroccio under threat of attack or capture.
> Additional inspiration and or more accepted and expected presentations of what an Italian Wars wargame should look like can be seen by clicking on the following links. (My guess is that many of you may already be aware of these accomplished bloggers/sites.)
https://valleyboyinnz.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/the-italian-wars-collection-so-far/
https://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.com/2019/12/lets-play-italian-wars-furioso-style.html
https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2024/08/italian-wars-cerignola-revisited-with.html
https://www.carryingsonupthedale.com/2024/10/marignano-refought.html
https://wabcorner.blogspot.com/2025/05/old-glory-italian-wars-swiss-pikemen-wip.html
Great idea Chris. I have often done it to set up Friday evening games to disguise the scenario, often borrowing from 18th and 19th century battles, but also using ancient period battles for other ancient periods (like the Early Bronze Age).
Your approach to learn from your trial, modify, go again, but also try the same with a different ruleset is of great interest to me.