Montebello 1859 – The Refight As A “Bloody Big Battle“

The first clash of arms between the Allies (Sardinia and France) and the Habsburg Empire during the Italian War of 1859 took place on 20^th May near the town of Montebello in Lombardy. An Austrian corps under Count Stadion conducted a reconnaissance in force and clashed with an aggressively led French division under General Forey.

Historically the French captured Montebello and the numerically superior Austrians, led to believe they had encountered the French main force by their adversaries’ aggression, retreated from the field.

As a “Bloody Big Battles” game the Montebello scenario is set for 7 game turns, each representing 30 minutes in a battle that lasted from 14:30 to 18:00. The scenario features some interesting special rules to simulate the historical situation and still provide for a balanced game. Due to the decidedly passive, if not lethargic, behaviour of several Austrian commanders in the vicinity, the Allies could drive away a much larger force. However, this was only possible because the aggressive French advance and determined attack overwhelmed and bluffed the Austrians. At a ratio of 500 men/12 guns per base the scenario places a high quality force of 18 allied bases (including 2 cavalry and 1 artillery) against a numerically superior Austrian force of 25 Bases (including 1 artillery), who are more mixed in terms of quality and morale. But, importantly, the Austrians can receive potential reinforcements of a further 23 bases, which would boost their numbers to become virtually unstoppable. This can however be prevented by the French player, who denies the Austrian player to dice for reinforcements in any turn that he attacks at least one Austrian unit. This puts pressure on the French player to behave historically aggressive.

The French troops are all classed as “aggressive” and the Austrians are all “passive” in rules terms.

The victory conditions are very straightforward, the 4 towns Montebello, Cascina Nuova, Genestrello and Foliarina must be occupied. If the Allied player holds at least 3 of these objectives after Turn 7 he wins, if he holds less than 2, the Austrian player wins. If the Allies hold 2 objectives by the end, the game is a draw.

Scenario Map

The Battlefield

The Austrians are coming

Close-up infantry and artillery approaching Montebello

We used historical deployment as given in the scenario for our game. The Austrians got to deploy first, the French got the first move.

The French player placed a small force of Italian cavalry on the Casteggio Road a short distance behind Montebello and advanced a brigade of French infantry, the 84^th Ligne, quickly in road column towards Montebello, deploying in line after crossing the river.

The Austrian division Schaafsgottsche entered the board at the beginning of Turn 1 in column along the Casteggio road and diced for half moves. The Austrian player used this result to advance on the road towards Montebello for half a turn and then deploy the troops into line.  Since there were no French attacks in the first round, the Austrian player could dice for reinforcements and an additional artillery smoothbore battery arrived in the Casteggio road, joining Schaafsgottsche.

Names and victory Points

The second round started with the arrival of the French C-in-C, Gen. Forey, accompanied by a subordinate commander, gen. Beuret, and a second French infantry brigade (74^th Ligne) as well as a rifled battery on the Casteggio Road on the French table edge. These troops advanced in march column towards Montebello. Then followed a valiant, or rather reckless, frontal assault by the Italian cavalry on the Austrian lines, which ended in disaster, as the Italians took crippling casualties in close combat, removing them from play.

The Austrians received numerous reinforcements in the shape of division Paumgarten, entering the board also on the Casteggio road, but for dicing only half moves a “traffic jam” prevented Paumgartens second unit (3^rd Regt.) from entering the table. The Austrians also could not dice for further reinforcements, due to the sacrificial Italian cavalry charge. The Austrian player deployed his now very numerous force in echelon, taking Montebello (and the first Austrian victory point) and advancing on the French north of the town.

In Turn 3 the final French reinforcements arrived, once again in march columns on the Casteggio road: the subordinate commander Gen. Blanchard with two units of French infantry, the 98^th and 91^st Ligne. The French player once again resumed the offensive. The 84^th Ligne charged Schaafsgottsches lines, pushing back the 39^th Regt. and accompanying Jägers. Both sides were disrupted by this. The 74^th Ligne crossed the river and deployed in line of battle, while the French battery unlimbered on their bank of the river. The 98^th Ligne advanced in column up to the bridge, securing Genestrello and the first allied victory point in the process, while the 91^st left the Casteggio road and took Cascina Nuova, collecting another victory point for the allies.

The Austrian player received the unit from Paumgarten’s division that had been stuck off-table on the blocked road. These troops were sent to Foliarina, which they reached still in march column, giving the second victory point to the Austrians. Meanwhile Schaafsgottsche’s reserves, a big unit of raw troops (40^th Regt.), were sent in with Schaafsgottsche’s first line to counter-attack the French in depth, succeeding in driving back the French in disruption and securing their original position. Now Paumgarten’s remaining troops were deployed in line as reserves. The artillery unit that had been diced on the table was brought up the hill next to the town of Montebello and took a suitable firing position to support the Austrians below in the valley.

In Turn 4 both sides aimed for a consolidation; the French once again resumed the offensive. The French infantry at Montebello formed in depth and attacked unsuccessfully, only the troops still in column on the bridge received heavy casualties through defensive fire from the Austrian artillery on the hill and were stopped in their tracks. The 91^st Ligne left Cascina Nuova and advanced towards the river.

The Austrians brought their reserves forward and had now everything apart from 1 unit aligned in two “wings” and two lines next to Montebello. The troops in Foliarina diced for half a move only and used it to deploy in line of battle.

In Turn 5 the 91^st Ligne crossed the river and joined a massed French attack, which pushed back the first line of the Austrian right wing at Montebello.

An Austrian counter-attack took massive casualties and was thrown back almost to their table edge. The break-through move by the victorious French against the second Austrian line was however  pushed back with heavy loss.

Finally the battered Austrian troops thrown back earlier in the battle rallied and marched into Montebello, as everything was now in place for an all-out attack by the French.

Now events quickly became increasingly dramatic. The sixth round started with the French attacking the massed Austrian center. This proved to be almost fateful, as the effective offensive fire in combination with the dispersed and fragile as well as low on ammunition status of some of the units in the massed Austrian left wing entirely routed both lines on the Austrian left and created a huge gap through which the victorious French promptly struck in their breakthrough move, took Montebello and destroyed its garrison as well as the guns next to the town. As things stood right then, the French had won the battle.

The Austrians desperately rallied and re-aligned their remaining troops for a counter-attack. The Austrian right wing attacked and gained some ground, while the troops at Foliarina were sent across the river with a full move in the direction of Cascina Nuova. These troops faced no French opposition, the victory point there could only be defended by potentially unfriendly movement dice on Turn 7.

In the last turn the French player prepared to defend what had been won the previous turn. And according to French philosophy in this game, attack is always the best means of defense. The troops from Montebello charged downhill, where the rallied Austrians were aligned for a last-ditch effort to win back the town and the decisive victory point. This time, however, the French were forced back by heavy defensive fire. Throughout the battle, the Austrian infantry had successfully simulated their historical counterparts by “shooting like pigs” (as a contemporary stereotype went), but now they made up for it. Another French attack on what remained of the Austrian right wing north of the town also failed. The French player knew that he was helpless regarding the victory point at stake in Cascina Nuova.

The Austrian player rolled for movement- and indeed, Paumgarten’s troops reached Cascina Nuova, making sure that the outcome of the game would be at least a draw. Suddenly the situation had turned completely around and victory was possible for the Austrians- if Montebello could be re-taken. Schaafsgottsche’s raw troops, who had just before discovered their marksmanship, attacked, but this time they shot badly. There were no more massive casualties on either side, but they were beaten back. Montebello remained in French hands and the game ended after Turn 7 as a draw.

Our game was actually a lot bloodier than the historical battle, in which a few hundred French and ca. 1,500 Austrian casualties occurred. In our refight each player lost 8 bases (each including 1 artillery), which means both sides lost each around 3,500 troops and a dozen guns.  

I would like to thank my worthy opponent for a friendly, fair and fun game. He played the French with unfaltering optimism in the face of superior numbers and in a fittingly aggressive style. Our conclusions after the game are that in this era, before the use of modern breechloaders, the decision must be sought in close combat, ideally prepared by “softening up” the opponent in one spot with artillery and rifle fire. Lucky and unlucky dice did play their part, but the decisive results always occurred when factors were stacked significantly in one side’s favour (fragile, low on ammunition, disrupted etc.).

Situation at the end of the game

   

Return to Cloyd’s Mountain – Wargaming in 1864 with Johnny Reb II

A few weeks ago I dusted off some regiments from our 15mm Johnny Reb collection, set up the table and invited a few friends for a trip down memory lane.

The Battle of Cloyd’s Mountain, which took place on May 9^th, 1864, was the very first ACW tabletop game we played, many years ago, with completely painted armies in 15mm. This was the result of a coordinated group effort that quickly produced the regiments needed. Our first club project! Before we had gamed with Johnny Reb for a few years, using more-or-less painted 1/72^nd plastic figures.

While the first time around the scenario was based on our own research, I used the scenario published by Scott Mingus in Charge! Magazine (No. 19) this time. The scenario is very well researched and balanced and was great fun to play, although the special rule never applied that anyone started accidental fires in the undergrowth.

The table was 3’X4’. I laid out the rough and broken terrain of southwestern Virginia in styrofoam, which was then covered with a green felt cloth and some model trees, lichen and flock. The roads were sand, fences, houses etc. scale models.

 A heavily outnumbered Confederate force, led by Brigadier General Albert G. Jenkins defends the formidable high ground to block off a Union attack on the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad. The Northern forces, led by Brigadier General George Crook have to break through in order to win. Historically it was a hard-fought battle, with the Southerners initially successful in fending off the Yankees, but turning to a rebel rout and successful Union Breakthrough after the death of General Jenkins.

In our game the deployment was historical. The Yankees attacked first on their left flank, where the rebel line appeared weakest. The dismounted Kentucky Cavalry that held the Confederate right flank decided to push the Yankees back down the slopes in a wild charge, but they were beaten back. A Union counter-charge then broke the Kentuckians and turned the Confederate flank, now defended by a mere handful of homeguard militia. Meanwhile the artillery batteries dueled with each other to little effect from mountain to mountain over the valley and the main union force waded the narrow but steep and rapid Back Creek stream.

Along the fences and hasty works that protected the Confederate center a series of desperate firefights broke out, with great casualties on both sides. Historically accurate this included Brigadier General Jenkins, who fell from his horse mortally wounded. Not so historically accurate was the equally spectacular death of the Union commander, Brigadier General Crook!

 While the Union right flank crumbled after taking heavy casualties, the strong reinforcements on the Union left finally overwhelmed the home guard, drove back the rebel center and occupied the important ground (in terms of victory points) in the rebel deployment zone.

 So after 6 rounds the game produced a surprisingly historical outcome and despite a brave struggle the Confederate player shared his historical counterpart’s fate in defeat.

New Project: Hundred Years War and Warhammer Bretonnians (WIP)

Hello!




Our recent test game of Lion Rampant was so entertaining that I decided to find additional medieval retinues to play with. But how could I start something like this without adding further to the great pile of so-far-unused-lead in the basement? But wait... the solution is clear: I shall kill two birds with one Stone!
I have a box with old Citadel Bretonnian miniatures which I have so far never got around to paint up and use in a fantasy game. These guys are meant to form a 3rd or 4th Edition WHFB army and there are enough of them to field two matching retinues for the HYW in Lion Rampant. A quick glance at the army lists tells me I merely need 42 footmen for the English and 18 cavalry plus 24 infantry for the French.


This should not be a problem at all; and I will only have to add a wizard, a more "fantastical" army banner and one or two bombards to finally get my fantasy army going as well. Excellent!

Lion Rampant explicitly does not insist on the use of "official" army lists, and this suits me well. However, since I have not yet done any research on the HYW, and it nicely fits the collection of figures in my box, I will use the Sample Retinues in the rules booklet as my guide. These are the lists I shall work with:



 Later English

• 1 Foot Men-at-Arms (incl. Leader) @ 6Points
• 2 Expert Archers @ 12 Points
• 1 Expert Foot Serjeants @6 Points

French

• 2 Mounted Men-at-Arms (incl. Leader) @ 12 Points
• 1 Mounted Serjeants @ 4 Points
• 1 Foot Serjeants @ 4 Points
• 1 Crossbowmen @ 4 Points

I have all the figures I need. They are all wonderful minis designed by the brilliant Alan and Michael Perry. Only my French Mounted Serjeants carry bows in place oflLances, but in LR I feel this detail is negligible and Warhammer games my "Chasseurs de la Mort" will be armed with bows.


 These are the miniatures:

Only a handfull of the models have been added from Wargames Foundry's medieval range, most are old Citadel originals. I will have to strip the paint from one or two models but the rest are all either in mint condition or undercoated. This is a great starting point for my work!


The blister packs show how old some of the figures are!


In the next part I will write about my ideas concerning coats-of-arms and colour schemes for the models.


Yogsothoth

The Last Battle

Father Tilly Scenario and Battle Report

Wevelinghoven, June 14^th, 1648

The war was already in its 30^th year, but the end was in sight. For three years the Empire had been negotiating with Sweden and France in Osnabrück and Münster, recently the emperor had come under increasing pressure to make final concessions, after the main Imperial-Bavarian army had been all but destroyed at Zusmarshausen on 17^th May.

 

 

But it was not the end, yet, at least here in the Westphalian and Rhenish theatre of war. At dawn of the 14^th June (the 4^th by Protestant reckoning) an imperial army of 7000 under Wilhelm de Lamboy, which had been recruited by the Elector of Cologne, approached the camp of a numerically inferior Hessian force under Johann Geyso, which had threatened the neutral princedom of Jülich-Berg and was now retreating towards Neuss.

 

 

The day before Lamboy had already tried to outmaneuver Geyso and attempted to cut the Hessians off from all supplies and escape routes. The Hessians had simply retreated to their fortified camp on the right bank of the Erft river, close to Wevelinghoven, near Grevenbroich. Lamboy’s men were exhausted from the marches, as they now approached the camp to force a Hessian surrender with their comparatively strong artillery. To their great surprise and dismay the Hessian force had marched out of their camp during the night and were already waiting for the Imperials, well rested and drawn up in full order of battle.

 

 

Lamboy’s troops went from march column into battle formations and at around 5 o’clock in the morning a sharp battle ensued which lasted for more than 5 hours, raging back and forth until eventually the left wing of the imperial army gave way and the Hessian formations rolled up the imperial line towards the river. A Little more than 4000 Hessian soldiers, with a mere 163 admitted casualties, thoroughly defeated the last imperial force of note in the Rhineland. Lamboy’s army was badly mauled, losing around 1000 killed (a significant number of whom drowned in the Erft while attempting to flee the battlefield) and 1500 prisoners, as well as many flags and all cannon.

 

 

This drastic defeat promptly increased the pressure on the Empire at the negotiations in Westphalia even further.

 

 

The little-known Battle of Wevelinghoven was discovered for us by Mad Dog during his research in local history. It is regarded as the “last battle of the Thirty Years War”, which is correct referring to Germany, at least more fitting for this battle than the previously mentioned Battle of Zusmarshausen, almost a month earlier, which is often labelled the war’s final battle by historians. However, the Swedish capture of the “Little Side” of Prague on 26^th July and the Habsburg defeat at Lens on 20^th August should not be forgotten as probably influential in bringing the war to an end.

 

 

How could the nominally superior imperial force be so clearly defeated at Wevelinghoven? We decided to find this out by re-fighting the battle on the tabletop. Especially because the size of the battle lends itself very well to transforming it into a wargame and, last but not least, because it is a matter of local history for us, we were keen to explore this topic further.   

 

 

The choice of rules was an easy decision, because we had long wanted to try out the current edition of “Father Tilly“, this was now the chance to do so. Although this set of rules aims at the 28mm market we decided to use 15mm figures, to better suit the size of table we had in mind. The scale of the rules has one miniature represent 50 soldiers, using a combination of multi- and single-based figures for taking away casualties. The system used is more flexible than the widespread “elements” of other rules in representing the changing make-up and size of units throughout the course of the war. In addition to that we generally favour “period-specific” rulesets (like “Johnny Reb”) which cover a comparatively small historical timespan.
The scale of the simulation was changed to 1 figure = 35 men, to make the rather small infantry units look more like actual "regiments".
The historical battlefield is only about one mile across.

 

 

The first step taken to start this project was to actually visit and photograph the battlefield. Then we used a combination of old and modern maps and recreated the battlefield as precisely as possible on a regular 8’ X 4’ wargames table using Styrofoam and a green felt cloth, with the river Erft, houses, hedges, trees etc. placed on top.

 

 

The Hessian force was represented by Mad Dog’s Swedes, using Testudo Miniatures (painting by himself and Fernando Enterprises), with new commanders sporting some Hessian banners, the Imperials were represented by my own imperial army, using Donnington miniatures (painting by myself and Phantasos Studio), which was specifically put together to represent a very late war force.

 

 

The trickiest challenge was to produce army lists for this scenario which would be both playable and historically realistic. The battle raged for 5 hours after all, this means that the armies must have been of a comparable effective strength. The imperials enjoyed numerical superiority but still lost the battle. The high imperial casualty rate is probably mainly a result of the pursuit after the battle.

 

 

We saw two different ways to produce a balanced pair of armies for the scenario: a high quality Hessian army and an, in terms of quality, significantly inferior imperial force both adding up to a similar points value or two armies of similar quality with a significantly more expensive imperial army in terms of points costs, which would then be balanced out by counting the Imperials as “exhausted/in bad supply” and giving them a strongly reduced “army breakpoint”. For our first game we chose the first option.

 

 

With a look at the sources it is realistic to assume the imperial army was exhausted. Lamboy had set out in Cologne on June 12^th, “under great rejoicing of the people” (the source does not say if this public bliss resulted from the expectation of great victories or rather from being rid of the burden to feed the army).  His cavalry, which, at this time, provided the main “punch” of an army, had ridden all the way over land. The infantry, artillery and baggage were shipped on the Rhine for part of their way. On the 13^th the whole army had continued to march all day, trying to cut off the Hessians, who rested in their fortified camp in the meantime. At least the imperial cavalry, if not the whole army, must have been so tired by this maneuvering that a significant disadvantage against the well-rested Hessians can be suggested.

 

 

A qualitative superiority on the part of the Hessian forces is also very realistic and probable. Lamboy’s troops from Electoral Cologne were all very young regiments without traditions and with not much experience, some of which had recently suffered setbacks. The forces of electoral Cologne had been almost wiped out at Krefeld-Hüls in 1642 and were reconstructed later. Lamboy had continued recruiting in the Rhineland until a few weeks before the battle. In any case, very few if any of the imperial units present can be considered veterans. 
In contrast, the army of French-allied Hesse-Kassel included many hardened veterans. Landgravine Amalia Elisabeth had inherited a well-organized, well-equipped and professional little army from her husband, Landgrave Wilhelm V., who had been placed under the imperial ban for his French alliance. Most of the Hessian regiments at Wevelinghoven had been created already in 1631-33, following the Swedish model. In addition most of them had repeatedly participated in victorious battles in recent years. Practically all Hessian units at Wevelinghoven were veterans of the victorious Battle of Alerheim (or Second Nördlingen).

 

 

Another important factor in designing the scenario was of course the assessment of the commanders. Johann von Geyso was a professional and capable officer, whose advice had been trusted already by Wilhelm V. Under Landgravine Amalia Elisabeth he held supreme command. Geyso defended Dorsten against Hatzfeld in 1641, surrendering the city under honourable conditions. His late arrival played an important part in winning the Battle of Alerheim in 1645 and the year after he captured Marburg. In 1648 he was entrusted with the Hessian war effort in Westphalia and the Rhineland.

 

 

Geyso’s local opponent was Wilhelm or Guillaume de Lamboy. Lamboy was from a Walloon family and fought in the war right from the start. First he served in Bohemia, at Lützen he commanded a cavalry regiment and was wounded and taken prisoner there. After being exchanged some time later he continued his career, first as one of Wallenstein’s followers, then he deserted him and was made a baron by the emperor as a reward. His siege of Hanau failed in 1636, in 1640 he won the Battle of Arras. Two years later he was soundly defeated by the French at Krefeld-Hüls, where he was again taken prisoner and exchanged once more in 1643.

 

Johann von Geyso

 

Wilhelm de Lamboy

 

We found it justifiable to classify Geyso as a normal, regular commander, Lamboy however was graded as “poor”. This might be a little bit harsh, regarding that Geyso did not exploit his victory and Lamboy was even able to liberate Paderborn with his remaining troops, but, on the whole, Lamboy’s record looks clearly much more negative than Geyso’s. Lamboy’s strengths lay more in recruitment and organization of armies than in actually leading them on the field. And, last but not least, it is reported that even the Elector of Cologne, the patient and mild Archbishop Ferdinand, called him “a foreigner, who will lead us all to ruin with his bravado and nonchalance.”

These considerations led to the following army lists (compiled by Mad Dog) :

Army: Hesse-Kassel 14.06.1648

Comander: Generalleutnant Johann von Geyso

Generals: Obrist Groot, Obrist Sprewitz

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

1

Obrist Groot

Normal

-

-

Av 16“

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

A

Leibreg. CR

Trotter

Vet

Hv A

12

Pistol

120

B

Groot

Trotter

Vet

A

10

Pistol

90

C

Bethur

Trotter

Vet

A

6

Pistol

54

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

2

Gen.Ltn. Geyso

Normal

Av

Good

Av 16”

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

D

Würtenberg

Regiment

Vet

-

14

p/S*

152

E

Alefeld

Regiment

Reg

-

12

p/S*

112

F

Bethur

Regiment

Vet

-

14

p/S*

152

G

Tüngen

Regiment

Vet

-

12

p/S

96

H

Breul

Regiment

Vet

-

12

p/S

96

* Battalion Gun

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

3

Obrist Sprewitz

Normal

-

-

Av 16“

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

I

Ketteler

Trotter

Reg

A

10

Carbine

70

K

Sprewitz

Trotter

Reg

A

12

Carbine

84

L

Dragoons

Trotter

Vet

-

6

Carbine

48

M

Shot Det.

Regiment

Vet

-

6

Musket

48

Total: 1122 Points

 

Army: Electorate Cologne 14.06.1648

Comander: Generalfeldzeugmeister Wilhelm von Lamboy

Generals: Herzog v.Holstein, Gen.Major Sparr

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

1

Herzog von Holstein

normal

-

-

Av  16“

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

A

Holstein CR

Trotter

Reg

Hv A

12

Pistol

96

B

Heyden CR

Trotter

Reg

Hv A

12

Pistol

96

C

Sauery

Trotter

Reg

A

12

Pistol

84

D

Burg

Trotter

Cons

A

12

Pistol

60

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

2

Gen. Lamboy

Normal

Poor

Poor

Av 16”

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

E

Plettenberg

Regiment

Reg

-

12

p/S

108

F

Amman IR

Regiment

Reg

-

12

p/S*

148

G

Lamp IR

Regiment

Reg

-

12

p/S*

112

H

Lamboy IR

Regiment

Reg

-

12

p/S*

112

I

Holzapfel IR

Regiment

Cons

-

12

p/S

48

K

Schrot IR

Regiment

Cons

-

12

p/S

48

L

Ley IR

Regiment

Cons

-

12

p/S

48

* Battalion Gun

Nr.

Hv Artillery

Strength

Cost

Q

Demi-Cannon

3

80

R

Culvertin

3

70

Nr.

Name

Personality

Tactics

Strategy

Command

3

Gen.Major Sparr

Cautios

-

-

Av 16“

Nr.

Type

Formation

Grade

Armour

Strength

Weapon

Cost

M

Fuchs

Trotter

Reg

A

12

Carbine

84

N

Osnabruck

Trotter

Reg

A

12

Carbine

84

O

Woldemar

Trotter

Cons

A

12

Pistol

60

P

Fürstenberg

Trotter

Cons

A

12

Pistol

60

Total: 1326 Points

 

It is noteworthy that at this late date the percentage of cavalry was usually very high in armies. The Hessians had left their artillery in camp, so the Hessian player gets no cannon. The imperial cannon are represented by one heavy and one medium gun. In both armies some infantry regiments have regimental guns. The names of the units, the order of battle and even the precise figures for casualties have come down to us in a print by Jacobus van Deijl from the year 1649, which is available at the digital archive of Marburg University.

http://www.digam.net/dokument.php?ID=2467&PHPSESSID=3adf552bc0689f974e2c07cd33530b0b

 

 

The battle took place on a flat, mostly untended plain by the Erft river. On the right bank of the Erft was the little village of Wevelinghoven, here the left Hessian flank and the right imperial flank respectively rested. There was a shallow rise of the ground in the direction of the Hessian camp, behind Wevelinghoven, on the same bank of the river. When we visited the battlefield, we discovered that this must have been a very small rise indeed, the ground appears almost completely flat. The whole battlefield was therefore classified as open ground, the only exceptions being the river Erft itself, the village of Wevelinghoven and the surrounding gardens and hedges, and the wood on the extreme left flank of the imperial line or, respectively, the extreme right flank of the Hessians.

The deployment was historical, with, respectively, the strong cavalry on the wings and the infantry in the centre. Due to their numerical superiority the Imperials were able to form a strong second line, while the Hessians kept only a minimal mounted reserve on each wing and no infantry reserves at all. The strongest units in both armies were respectively placed on the right wing, as tradition demanded.

 Here our scenario map (drawn by Mad Dog):

 

 

This is a view of the armies on the tabletop:

 

The Hessians won the initiative for the first turn and advanced quickly with their whole force, while the Imperials only cautiously advanced with their cavalry, while the infantry held their positions, guarding the artillery which was unlimbered and began to sporadically fire at the Hessians.

The Hessians kept the initiative also for the second turn and continued their advance at full speed, while the imperial cavalry rode against them, with the infantry following more cautiously. Slowly the first mounted units now came into charge distance of each other and the first (mainly ineffectual) salvoes were exchanged with carbines and arquebuses. The Hessian commanded shot unit entered the village and, using the cover of fences and hedges, started to move around the imperial flank.

The start of the third turn saw the first attacks by Hessian cavalry on both wings, the first notable casualties were caused by pistols, arquebuses and melee when cavalry charged and counter-charged.

 

Several mounted units broke through each other, causing some chaos on the wings. Despite this mayhem the infantry remained stationary.

 

 

In the fourth turn the first imperial line on the left wing was shattered, while the Imperials, who had won the initiative for the first time, managed to drive back the Hessian horse on their right wing with their strongest cuirassiers, causing significant casualties in the process. A Hessian infantry regiment was meanwhile badly hit by the artillery, which was the first success for the imperial cannon during the battle (in Father Tilly a heavy gun fires only every other turn, a medium gun every turn).

In the fifth turn the imperial left wing was almost overwhelmed when several regiments were broken or destroyed, but the conscripts in the last line managed to hang on by the skin of their teeth and prevented a Hessian flank attack on the infantry. In the centre of the battle-line the infantry units began to move into close range, starting a murderous firefight with muskets and regimental guns.

On the imperial right wing the cuirassiers destroyed the first Hessian line, pushed back the reserves and began to move into position to attack the infantry.

In turn six the massive fighting on all fronts continued, the imperial left wing was now practically broken, as was the Hessian left wing. Both victorious cavalry wings were however so exhausted that they could not yet exploit the advantage. Meanwhile the fighting in the centre produced further significant casualties, so that   both armies simultaneously reached the first critical casualty mark (10% of the figures in each army killed), which means in Father Tilly that they would now have a penalty in morale tests required for charging.

 

Sadly, for reasons of time, we had to stop the battle here, however we regarded the outcome as historically convincing. At this late stage in the war and regarding the comparatively high numbers of casualties (both armies suffered approximately the same number killed as historically the Imperials) it can be assumed that both armies withdrew from the field.

In comparison to the historical course of the battle it should be stressed that the imperial left wing was in both cases the weak point, were the first Hessian breakthrough started. The battle was won here historically and it was also very close in our simulation. With a little bit of luck in our game the Hessians could have achieved the decisive breakthrough here, too. The historical catastrophe was prevented by the Imperials with a skilful use of their reserves.

Completely different to the historical outcome was the result on the other wing, the imperial right managed to break through and threaten the Hessian centre. This complete reversal of historical events might have been due to a too optimistic Hessian advance on this wing. It is probable that the Hessians could have simply waited and blocked the imperial right wing, while waiting for the imperial left wing to crumble. This could have produced a very historical result.

Another factor could have been that the Imperials simply ignored the detached musketeers in the village, historically imperial regiments entered the village to drive them out, weakening the main battle line and leading to many deaths at the end of the battle, when fleeing imperial mercenaries drowned in the Erft while attempting to escape from the village as the imperial line was rolled up from the left.

Our simulation turned out to be a race against time, the question was who could be the first to exploit the advantage respectively gained on the right wing.

 

Both armies were evenly matched and the scenario produced a fair, closely fought and tense game. This is a great compliment to the rules and also fits the historical situation very well, in which the battle raged indecisively for about five hours.

Our approach to adjusting the army lists to produce a balanced game obviously worked well, however, even during the game there was a discussion if we should perhaps use scenario rules based on fatigue and supply, rather than differing quality of units, to make the armies equally strong. This will definitely be a point to consider for future games with this scenario.

 

 

Our conclusion regarding the rules is very positive. The two most important factors are that Father Tilly rules are very playable and easy to learn, producing an entertaining game without too much book-keeping. At the same time the rules create a very realistic, historically accurate atmosphere. Units behave as they should during this period and the visual result is very pleasing, units on the table top look strikingly similar to what one would expect from the contemporary prints and engravings. In addition there is a charming level of detail, providing yet more “period-flair” and excitement, especially the event-cards that can be played to take a direct effect on the game (e.g. the card with the Tilly-quote “My men are no nuns”, which causes an enemy unit to plunder a nearby farm rather than fight) or can be expended to gain additional initiative points or other advantages.

 

 

The basing of our armies is on one inch square bases, with respectively two cavalry or four infantry figures. We also use individually mounted figures on single bases for taking away figure losses. (“Kills” or hits on a unit are marked by casualty figures available from Donnington Miniatures; four kills are necessary to remove one figure). The advantage of this system is that practically any historical unit size can be correctly represented on the table top.

Father Tilly allows the late regiments (such as here at Wevelinghoven) of ca. 600 men represented by 12 figures just like Tilly’s earlier tercios of 3000 men, represented by 60 figures. Even smaller units (like commanded shot) can be represented.

 

 Lamboy, the "nonchalant foreigner", and his army 
 

 

Please pay attention to the beautiful late imperial flags…

 

The scenario would of course also lend itself well to adaptation for other rules, the popular FOG Renaissance for example, but this would require many more figures due to the different basing.

 

Yogsothoth

 

Sources:

Excellent background reading about this period is offered by William P. Guthrie, The Later Thirty Years War. From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia, Westport, Conncticut/London 2003, who provides a detailed study of the late phase of the war.

Highly recommended as an overview of the whole war, its causes and consequences is Peter H. Wilson, Europe's Tragedy. A History of the Thirty Years War, London 2009.

As an introduction to the imperial Forces of this period there are two volumes in Osprey's Men-at-Arms Series, MAA 457 Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years' War (1) Infantry and Artillery and MAA 462 Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years' War (2) Cavalry, both by Vladimir Brnardic with illustrations by Darko Pavlovic.

A good description of the army of Hesse-Kassel during this period can be found in David Wright's article "Development of the Army of Hesse-Cassel during the Thirty Years War" in Arquebusier XXIX/I.

Very useful materials concerning this period can be found in the "Musket & Pike Series" games by GMT Games. These boardgames include a wealth of excellent research, the basic rules and the "playbooks" of the relevant games (the late Thirty Years War is covered by "Under the Lily Banners" and "Sweden Fights On") can be downloaded freely from the company's website (www.gmtgames.com). 

http://www.digam.net/dokument.php?ID=2467&PHPSESSID=3adf552bc0689f974e2c07cd33530b0b

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_bei_Wevelinghoven

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Eigentliche_Abbildung_de%C3%9F_in_Anno_1648._den_14./4_Tag_Junij_vorgangenen_harten_Treffens_bey_Greuenbruch_im_G%C3%BClicher_Landt

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/ADB:Lamboy,_Wilhelm_Graf_von

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_von_Geyso

The battlefield today:

View from the centre of the battlefield towards Northeast

View from the imperial deployment area towards Southwest

The Erft valley

The river Erft