Page 1 of 3

Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2022 10:51 pm
by Texus Maximus
European Bronze Age vs, Urnfield Culture

My son-in-law and I played two battles of Triumph! on Saturday using my 15mm Early North European Bronze Age and Urnfield Culture armies. The setting was southern England in 1300 B.C. I designed the Early North European Bronze Age army to represent the Bell Beaker Culture that greatly expanded Stonehenge, so for simplicity I will refer to the army as “Bell Beaker” in this report.

The Forces

The Bell Beaker army had eighteen stands of Bow Levy, including the general. They also had four stands of Skirmishers. My son-in-law commanded the Bell Beaker culture army.

The Urnfield Culture forces were three Elite Foot including the general, eight Light Foot, two Skirmishers, one Horde, and one Bad Horse. They also had the Fortifications battle card. I commanded the Urnfield Culture.

The Battlefield


There were six pieces of terrain; four woods and two marshes. Most were along the edges, but one marsh and one wood was in the center of the battlefield and slowed the Urnfield Culture advance.

Image

The Urnfield Culture was the Invader and had the tactical advantage. Their deployment area is on the right in the photograph.

The Stonehenge model and the barrow model are on the board to set the scene and have no effect.

Both camps were centered on the baselines.

Before the Battle

Image

A great stag is uneasy, hearing the sounds of armies approaching.

Deployment

The Bell Beaker forces were spread across the battlefield in small groups, with the general in the center.

The Urnfield Culture forces were organized in three sections: Light Foot and some skirmishers on their left facing the marsh, Elite Foot in the center between the marsh and woods, and more Light Foot and Bad Horse on the right facing the woods. The Horde was left in front of the camp.

Initial Forces Arrayed

Image

Image

Closeups of Deployment

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image



Image

Image

Image

The Battle.


Image
Urnfield Culture troops advance through the marsh on the Urnfield left flank.

Image
Another view.

Image
Light Foot nearing the edge of the swamp.


Image
Bell Beaker troops advancing.

Image
The troops move forward to challenge the Light Foot coming through the marsh.

Image
The Bell Beaker general and camp.

Image
Another view.

Image
The slow-moving Horde was left at the camp.

Image
Skirmishers enter the woods on the Urnfield right flank.

Image
Urnfield Culture nobles prepare to deploy.

Image
The invaders are broken up by the terrain, but the defenders don't have any fast-moving troops to exploit it.

Image
The Bell Beaker left wing stretches off into the distance. They were unable to move fast enough to join the battle.

Image
The Bell Beaker left flank.

Image
View from the Bell Beaker camp.

Image
Another view.

Image
A closer view from the camp.

Image
The Urnfield Culture nobles deploy into line of battle.

Image
Bell Beaker forces advance in the center.

Image
Contact is imminent.

Image
Bell Beaker troops also attack in the woods in the center,

Image
Bell Beaker troops attack in front of the marsh.

Image
Another view.

Image
Contact in the center is imminent.

Image
The Urnfield Culture forces on the right flank are prepared to hold off the Bell Beaker left wing but never come into contact.

Image
The Urnfield Nobles attack.

Image
The Bell Beaker folk have some success near the marsh, killing some Light Foot and driving back the others.

Image
Another view.

Image
The Bow Levy have no chance against the Elite Foot.

Image
Death of the Bell Beaker general.

Image
Another view.

Image
Some troops are stil fighting but the cause is lost.

Image
The Bell Beaker center is gone and the invaders advance on the camp as the battle ends.

Conclusion.

This battle was a clear victory for the Urnfield Culture, having lost only a single stand of Light Foot. We expected it to be so, and agreed beforehand that we would play two battles and switch sides the second time. The Bow Levy move so slowly that it was almost impossible to follow up on any local successes, or bring their larger numbers to bear.

We had another great time with this game. It took us about an hour from start to finish, including some time to look up rules questions.

Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2022 6:20 am
by skc
Nice report of a unique prehistorical period. Stunning paintwork and photos Paul. (to play against such artwork, one does not mind losing!) Thankyou.

Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:28 am
by randycollins6@me.com
    A great battle report with many excellent photos! Thanks for posting Paul. Hope you are well.

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2022 2:53 pm
    by Brummbär
    Nice - thanks!!!

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:17 am
    by Texus Maximus
    Second Battle

    We switched sides and played again. This time my son-in-law commanded the Urnfield Culture and I commanded the Bell Beaker folk. The Urnfield Culture was again the invader and had the tactical advantage.

    There were four pieces of terrain, with a wood and a marsh towards the center.

    The Bell Beaker plan was to deploy in two ranks, hoping to draw the enemy into their ranks after the front line units were inevitably destroyed,

    The Urnfield plan was to lead with the Light Foot followed by the Bad Horse and Elite Foot in a second rank.

    Image
    Overview of the battle.

    Image
    View from the Urnfield ramparts.

    Image
    Overview of the masses of Bow Levy.

    Image
    Another angle.

    Image
    The armies approach and prepare for contact.

    Image
    The Bad Horse element is well-positioned as a reserve.

    Image
    A huge stag bursts from the woods and flees the battle!

    Image
    One problem with Bow Levy; they are too slow to "close the door" and cut off enemy retreat.

    Image
    The Bell Beaker general is victorious, for the moment.

    Image
    Some inconclusive shoving back and forth.

    Image
    An abortive attempt by the left flank to enter the battle.

    Image
    The high-water mark for the Bell Beaker folk.

    Image
    The mounted reserve moves into the gap.

    Image
    Light Foot pursue their defeated foe from the front rank and run into a Bell Beaker trap and are destroyed.

    Image
    A problem plaguing my son-in-law: consistent low rolls.

    Image
    No more advances in the center.

    Image
    The Light Foot and Skirmishers advance into the woods and crush the Bell Beaker Skirmishers.

    Image
    The losses mount quickly.

    Image
    The battle ends with a victory for my son-in-law.

    Conclusion
    Two Light Foot were the only casualties for my son-in-law despite the different tactics used for the Bell Beaker folk.

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:37 am
    by Bill Hupp
    Great battle reports Paul. Lovely figures and great pictures of some very interesting armies.

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:21 am
    by RogerCooper
    Shouldn't the Urnfeild Culture (proto-Celts) have chariots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture#Chariots

    Image

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:53 pm
    by David Kuijt
    RogerCooper wrote:
    Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:21 am
    Shouldn't the Urnfeild Culture (proto-Celts) have chariots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture#Chariots

    Image
    Those seem to be wagons, not approaching the culture of elite military forces using ranged fire from massed chariots. Four wheeled toy wagons (and in some cases six-wheeled, or otherwise peculiar, like 3 wheels in the same axle) speaks to understanding of the wheel technology, not of chariots as military combat units. At best they would get a single stand of Battle Taxi. Their Celtic successors (La Tene cultures first, later Gallic and Galatians and Ancient British and Sctos-Irish) all get small amounts of battle taxi.

    If you become aware of any examples of significant groups of elite warriors with chariots as war equipment (including real-sized chariots and horses buried with chieftains) please let me know, though. That might support an addition of 0-1 Battle Taxi as an option. At this point we posit the introduction of chariot use (battle taxi, to be precise in Triumph terms) at 800 BC, when we transition to the La Tene and Hallstat list.

    As an aside, I'll mention that the Inca culture had toys with wheels. But they were never used beyond toys.

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:32 pm
    by RogerCooper
    Agreed, at best 1 unit of Battle Taxi. But they could look really cool.

    In general, for European prehistory, the Indo-European invaders must have had a considerable military advantage over the old European cultures, to achieve the conquests of almost all of Europe.

    Re: Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

    Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2022 12:29 pm
    by David Kuijt
    RogerCooper wrote:
    Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:32 pm
    Agreed, at best 1 unit of Battle Taxi. But they could look really cool.
    So true!
    RogerCooper wrote:
    Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:32 pm
    In general, for European prehistory, the Indo-European invaders must have had a considerable military advantage over the old European cultures, to achieve the conquests of almost all of Europe.
    I'm not sure I agree. Military advantages might win battles (although there are other factors), they rarely win campaigns, and almost never win wars. "Amateurs focus on tactics, professionals focus on logistics." Supply and morale and all sorts of other factors are much more important than military advantages. I've heard gamers use a similar argument wanting to give the Mongols all sorts of special rules and combat values -- ignoring the fact that the Mongols were using the same weapons as had been used by herding tribal peoples in the steppe from the Scythians through the 19th century. They didn't win because of weapons, they won because of organization, planning, intelligence (spying) and logistics. Take away that stuff, and they were the same as all the other Horsebow peoples.

    As a separate issue, "conquest" isn't an accurate picture of how cultures spread during prehistory. Archaeologists are very careful to avoid that view. Cultures are classified based upon the spread of burial practices, agricultural techniques, flint-knapping techniques, diet, living conditions, copper mining, trade, and so on -- all of which spreads without warfare as well as with it. If a technological change (copper or bronze working, for example) spreads across Europe in a few centuries, that rarely supports the idea that massed conquest of one culture by another occurred. And European populations during the early copper age were very disperse, and the Indo-Europeans were migrating, not expanding in military conquest.

    Thanks for the discussion; I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this sort of thing.