The Osprey’s by Gabrielle Esposito have proven their worth already and I have hardly started!
These samplers will be detailed in a subsequent post.
I have just finished the first part of a trilogy written by George Macaulay Trevelyan. Trevelyan was an enthusiastic supporter of Garibaldi so these 1200 odd pages (the three books) are a tribute to the man who sits centre stage when it comes to the wars of the italian unification.
I have previously written about the red book in this post.
https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2234
In May 1848 Garibaldi was sailing from Montevideo in Uruguay, heading for Italy, the land not yet a Kingdom!
In my previous post I dwelt on his South American experiences which probably made his military capability so powerful.
I don’t think you will find a better wargamers guide – heres hoping volumes 2 and 3 are of the same mould. The book may be 114 years old but you will find precious little wargamer books on the subject of Garibaldi. In fact it seems there are not that many military history books either. There are a lot of books about the politics of the “Risorgimento” which it seems is very much a live debate even today.
Gabriele Esposito has written a fine Osprey about the Italian Wars of Unification. In fact he has two: Part 1 covering Sardinia/Piedmont plus the two Sicilies while part 2 covers Papal States, Minor States and Volunteers.
They are Men-at-Arms series Nos 512 ansd 520.
This particular unit is based for my preferred rulesets by Neil Thomas and Piquet Field of Battle.
With only 12 figures for a battalion they may not be to some people’s liking. Equally they are 1/72 and plastic so 28mm metal fans will have no joy here.
I am quite taken with MAA 520 because it is not just the colour plates that offer so much opportunity and variety. Often in the past Ospreys offered little on uniforms beyond the text for the plates – much of the other text dwelling on potted histories and organisation. These MAA’s offer lots of uniform detail. The black and white plates are very relevant (not always the case in Ospreys), well chosen and in the case of volunteers lots of choice.
I have discovered that there was an English battalion of volunteers in the Sicily campaign of 1860 during the Second War of Unification. It was followed by an English Legion which saw no action. They were all part of the Brigade or Brigata named Dunne after its English Commander.
Plate H1 showing an english volunteer of Brigata Dunne also figures on the front cover of MAA 520.
I used Strelets 1877 Russians in summer dress as they offered the nearest thing to this figure in my view. You might say – well there are plenty of ACW figures that would fill the gap. Well I did look and somehow none looked the part when compared with Strelets 1877 Russians.
Plastic Solder Review complained about the missing bayonets which applies here as well.
I can live with that – 1/72 plastics is often about compromise. I am pleased with the result. In this case Guiseppe Ravas’ illustration made the job easy.
Well having started with some Sardinians and then moving onto Austrians I got distracted by some Garibaldi figures I bought plus some more Sardinians.
These guys are not on the pedestal as they are stuck in a queue on the painting table.
And now they have been bounced by some Neapolitans acting like Frenchmen! I never realised quite what variety existed post Napoleonic era.
Next up are my first attempt to deal with riflemen or sharpshooters in the Austrian Empire armies. Better known as Jagers or Feld Jagers or the ultimate Kaiser Jagers.
Waterloo1815 did not do this figure type so I found the nearest thing which was the Hat Napoleonic Austrian Landwehr.
This quite unexpected trip into post Napoleonic periods has meant I am quite prepared to compromise and these chaps work at 3 feet distance with shrubberies! I am definitely warming to the Piquet 4 base battalions which also do nicely for Neil Thomas rulesets as well. And the 3 figures per base feels ok in this mid 19th century era.
I have included a mounted officer from the Line Battalions which are still on the paint table.
My Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) see the grip of the former Holy Roman Empire, now the Austro-Hungarian Empire loosened and then effectively removed. Some consider the period to be 1848 to 1866. Others take a more broader approach of 1815 to 1870.
So Waterloo1815 Bersaglieri should be called something other than Italian for 1859. Strelets call their Bersaglieri Sardinian and are shown in the Crimean War (1854) section by Plastic Soldier Review.
Whichever period you settle on, two dates are signficant. 1848 and 1859. In 1848 it was a last hurrah for the Austrians while in 1859 it was the last hurrah for the 2nd French Empire under Napoleon III. As usual the “Italians” provided the battleground and a lot of suffering.
Thats why 1870 is the best date to view Italian unification when the French were effectively removed from the peninsula as the Prussians marched on Paris.
During the period 1815 to 1870 the Austrian army infantry uniforms changed from all white with tails, gaiters and helmets or shakoes to white kittels with blue trousers, maybe short gaiters and kepi’s plus greatcoats.
The Osprey Nos 323 and 329 Austrian Army 1836-1866 give you the infantry and cavalry but sadly no artillery. Both authored by Darko Pavlovic these pair are an excellent reference book to get started in this period.
First up are my Austrian Artillery who are made by Waterloo1815 in 1/72 and present in 1859 era uniforms and kit. Plastic Soldier Review was not impressed picking out detail errors plus deciding “the look” was all wrong.
Once you get beyond the Napoleonic period though, apart from the Amercian Civil War, it is like tumbleweed blowing across the painting desk until you arrive at World War 1!
And Plastic Soldier Review comes up short on ideas for the 1859 Franco-Austro-Italian wars anyway. Just 10 sets on offer.
Having opted for 1/72 and essentially 24mm high = six foot tall real humans, I have made this my problem.
Dolphins a problem? For the solo wargamer though it is an opportunity – CHANCE CARD – Austrian foundries supply miscast barrel dolphins leading to breakages in handling. D6 for number of batteries unavailable at start of campaign!
In previous posts I have set out my thoughts on figure choice and especially the tricky issue of scale figure height.
metallic normans in the south at 1/72
Given that 28mm scale which is relatively new could not establish some fixed limits then I think the rule is always “if you like it go with it”.
Back to these Austrian Artillerists. They will do for me and as it happens I quite like the quirky design style with their tall kepi’s balanced on their moustachieoed heads.
Now where are those Infantry?
In my last post I mentioned some pesky Bersaglieri – so here they are. 1848/1859 and all that………..
My own preference these days is to have command bases even where the rules don’t require them. Impetus rules tempted me away from the rigidity of DBA and with its larger bases plus the variable figure poses offered by 1/72 I really like the combination.
Yes these chaps are the slightly maligned Lucky Toys which stand at almost 26mm high.
In build along with some Piedmont Line Infantry and Red Shirts, so you know what is coming down the line sometime……..
Read the Plastic Soldier Review, be horrified and then pay about £4 for 30 odd figures which you have to build yourself just like Perry plastics!
These Bersaglieri are meant to represent Piedmontese/Sardinians in summer dress (white trousers) and will work from the 1840’s to 1870ish.
I paint the bases in burnt umber followed by a yellow ochre heavy dry brush and finish with a pale yellow highlight. I prefer the clumps of grass which to my mind looks right even though Lombardy can look just like the bright green fields of England on its day.
Artists license as they say.
Back in 2008 Richard Clarke of Too Fat Lardies published Sharp Practice. I had always considered this black powder ruleset very Napoleonic. Yet it is for black powder wars and these ran well into the 19th Century.
Enter George Macaulay Trevelyan (GMT) who a mere 100 years before Sharp Practice wrote a trilogy on Guiseppe Garibaldi hero of the Wars of Italian Unification (WotIU).
This little post is not about my current interest in WotIU. We must travel back to the 1830’s and sail to South America. Uruguay to be more accurate.
The War for Rio Grande do Sol was fought out between Uruguay and Brazil. Later Uruguay fought Argentina along the rivers that fed the Rio de la Plata.
Garibaldi fled Piedmontese execution in 1836, having failed to cause rebellion in its navy, served in both these wars and became a local hero by 1848.
In the process he developed his expertise in warfare, leading bands of highly motivated and very mobile forces. This experience would serve him well on his return to Italy.
I am not sure how you might acquire the GMT trilogy – I got mine from Paul Meekins Military books. There are a few other more modern Garibaldi biographies.
In the introduction to Richard Clarkes Sharp Practice the author makes it clear the rules aim to relive the exploits of 19th century literary heroes. GMT hero worships Garibaldi not least because of his political leanings – a true revolutionary of the people. GMT adds a lot of praise and enrichment to the story shall we say.
Contemporary accounts and later biographies recount small naval actions with Garibaldi being shot on deck and his wife Anita Riberas also being shot as she fought with him. Lagoons, amphibious assaults, cattle rustling (the key cash crop), sieges, river gorges, forests, upland ridgeways, prairie, pampas, arroyas (wooded streams) and canadas (ground dips deep enough to hide your forces in!), not to mention lancer cavalry fighting musket armed soldiers.
In fact the Risorgimento continues to be fought over as a literary subject in itself. I have enjoyed Lucy Riall’s book which injects some 21st century objectivity into it all. Lucy has also authored a book about Garibaldi, that might be a good starting point for using Sharp Practice in a different way.
So my offering today is to the jaded “Richard Sharpe” player – cast way those green jackets and take on the slaughterhouse cloth of Monte Video* and march or should I say ride with Garibaldi across the uplands of the Rio Grande do Sol, grossly outnumbered yet most often victorious: And he lived to tell his tales.
*the famous italian red shirts apparently started life as a very cheap industrial clothing for Garibaldis Italian Legion in Monte Video.
In my last post I talked about Neil Thomas and his simple rulesets. For my Virtul VAP21 wargame I have chsoen his rules “Wargaming 19th Century Europe 1815-1878”. A snappy title!
The rules come with some scenarios. I used No1 the pitched battle.
Map 1 was as per the ruleset and objectives of victory the same.
North is up the page and Oldtown is objective B to the left where a north south road leaves town and crosses the river. Objective C is the other town where an east west road crosses and railway at Newtown. No railway tracks – so my excuse is the contractor has laid the track bed but no tracks. Objective A is the hill to the south of the two towns and roughly midway between them. A wood is located in the south east corner.
The defenders ended up with the following diced up
- 5 infantry units 4 average quality and one elite
- 1 skirmisher unit average
- 1 elite cavalry unit
- 3 artillery units
The attackers ended up with
- 8 infantry units 7 average and 1 elite
- 1 skirmisher unit average
- 2 elite cavalry units
- 2 artillery units
Prebattle events were used resulting in “bogged down” for the defender – they lost 1 artillery unit and 1 average infantry unit wandering around looking for a way to march to the gunfire. Maybe it was to march away from the gunfire?
The attackers had the benefit of”Flank March” which meant 2 average infantry units and 1 elite cavalry unit set off to outflank the enemies position.
Both commanders were average so cancelled each other out.
With 15 turns it was simply a case of defender A holding two of the three objectives at the end of turn 15.
I used written rules. A luxury a solo player can enjoy as part of this type of game. This approach allowed me to disassociate myself from both sides. A fog of war was added because I was always writing the orders for the next move +1. So sometimes my anticipated view failed to materialise and my orders which could only be altered by yet another round of orders might seem strange indeed.
Let battle commence – no narrative today folks. Its dawn and attacker Monarch B swoops on objective B – Oldtown.
The attacking elite cavalry attack the hill allowing the defenders right flank infantry to march towards the gaping hole in the defending army centre. The attackers centre columns split to tackle the infantry on the hill and on the enemy left flank.
Add to this the serried ranks of yet more flank attackers and the Defender General knows his position is now untenable and he must retreat.
Victory to the attackers!
It is turn 13 and the attacking General despite his heavy losses has already secured two of his three objectives. The third will soon be his through his flanking troops advance. He does not realise that as night falls they will gain the hill without a fight.
The game was most enjoyable with events quickly evolving in unexpected ways. Confusion in the centre where no clear battle lines appeared felt plausible. The requirement to write rules ahead of each turn meant units could not simply react to the most obvious opportunity.
And it created some narrative
- The famous charge of the defenders elite cavalry destroying all the enemy artillery, driving off their skirmishers and nearly capturing the enemy commander!
- The stoic defence of old town by the elite attackers infantry
- The frustrated defenders elite infantry struggling in the woods near Newtown
- The repulse of the Attackers elite cavalry by the Defenders rearguard watched by the commanding general
And while the setting of objectives was mechanical they did not become the sole issue and in fact the defenders position was turned as intended by the attackers flank attack.
In that sense the rules scenario plus the pre-battle options made the game sufficiently complex despite uncomplicated and relatively small armies being used.
So all in all a very nice scenario. Thank you Neil Thomas.
Now where are those white kittel coated Austrians?
I guess I have become an accidental acolyte for Neil Thomas. Why?
In wargames rules terms we live in an era where there are “gazillions” of rules. There are probably AI engines knocking them out these days: I am of the view that wargaming is the multi billion dollar hobby that includes every online gaming app from fortnite to defend the cauliflower patch from aliens (ok I made one up). Miniatures is just an oxbow lake in this mighty river of gaming. And this particular oxbow lake is up to its ears in rulesets for miniatures gaming and seems to love it.
So who needs another ruleset and especially one that is so “retro”?
I do.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward and just sometimes you can go back and rework an idea using more recent thinking to go somewhere else instead.
I like Neil Thomas rules because there is a hint of Donald Featherstone in his thinking. He is quite direct in his writing – this is useful – and his approach is to apply the right amount of abstraction.
It is quite interesting to reread Donald Featherstone occasionally. For example one of his books is ladled with “scale” as in movement, time and distance: yet Donald says at one point he would rather just approximate matters so he can get on with the game – a battle. The book is his offering on Wargame Campaigns!?
This is my key to Neil Thomas. He wants you to play games and specifically battles. That is his endpoint, the outcome desired.
Neil’s book “Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878” delivers battles using miniatures. It starts at the end result and is designed to give you a game in a space – typically 6’x4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m and very often less.
Neil presents his take on the various elements that defined the era and then puts all these into a neat package of rules that are brief and to the point.
The rules mechanisms are familiar to those who have his other rules to hand. Not too many and simplicity is the order of the day.
I think the important thing about his rules are what he leaves out – which of course you need to fill in – so abstraction is all.
Neil normally achieves a balanced asbtraction in his rules. They feel right to me. So did I like these rules?
A qualified YES, I have only used them once after several rereads of the book itself.
Both paintings are to be found in the excellent Hull City Ferens Art Gallery: Go visit when lock down ends.
The rules come with scenarios and cover all the key changes in weapons and fighting that occurred from the demise of Napoleon to the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. His rules are so abstract or rather to the point, that technology changes like the railway and telegraph get little mention. Actually covering this periods scope in itself is quite a feat – a bit like a ruleset mixing Napoleonic, AWI and most of the Seven Years War yet along with significant weapon/technology changes.
In 2020 I was at the Lance and Longbow Society stand where Lithuanians and Poles were fighting it out with the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Tannenburg (1410). There were live opponents that day.
For Virtual VAP 2021 I have time warped to around 1850 to play a solo battle.
My latest project is about the Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU). The outlier campaign is 1848 when the world also first saw Garibaldi play a signficant role in the peninsula.
By 1859/60 Garibaldi was ready for a star role leading 1000 red shirts driving out the Two Sicily’s Kingdom troops from Sicily in short order. I have already discovered some new aspects in my expanded reading on this fascinating period: That Naval muscle helped him was a surprise. And there seems a varied range of battle situations with the red shirts not having it all their own way.
The real wars seem to be fascinating. I normally like to fight with “imagination” forces which offer freedom to generate many battles and situations without the confines of “well that happened next”.
My WotIU armies are still “under the brush” so to speak. This means my game is populated with what is to hand. And the protaganists are the elusive “Empire” and “Kingdom”.
Back to the rules. I chose to start with the early period set – 1815 to about 1850. Smoothbore muskets and cannon. So pretty much Napoleonic era kit.
I had bought the “e book” as a limited dip in the water for a new period. I struggle with using rules in this format even though it is quicker to flick the pages!
So I wrote out on two sides of A5 the rules that seemed to matter.
When you look at them they amount to about a quarter page on movement, a quarter on firing and half on close combat plus a bit on morale.
So the usual fare then from Neil. Neil likes his saving throws and uses this double dicing to achieve some of his flavour/depth or granularity. So even though for solo play it seems avoidable this step provides a bit of subtle ebb and flow.
Both the Empire and the Kingdom fielded “Monarchist” armies.
I will run through the resulting battle in my next post.
The Wargaming Erratic 