This document is a set of notes on using 'Principles of War' (POW) to fight the South American Wars of Liberation, a series of campaigns fought in modern Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela in the decade following the Battle of Waterloo. They are written for use with the original 19th century 'Principles of War' set, but conversion for use with the Napoleonic set should not be difficult.
These notes are based on personal interpretations of the troop classifications in the rules, and are open to discussion. The rating of troops is based upon their relative performance with respect to other troops in the same wars, or even the same battle, rather than assessing them against similar troops in other time periods and geographical locations. Thus, troops that may only be regulars relative to European contemporaries may rate as elite when compared to other South American formations and will be described as such.
I have not yet created any generic army lists, as I plan to refight actual battles. However, the creation of such lists may be an interesting exercise, if only to provide a basis for which to classify troops for individual battles or for made-up actions.
Finally, it should be noted that the British troops employed in these wars were very highly regarded, and performed exceptionally. Their high rating should therefore not be seen as reflecting the author's own national bias!
Command seems to have been generally competent, so the majority of officers should be rated as Average. Bolivar and San Martin merit a Good rating. A couple of Spanish army commanders (e.g. Osorio) may rate as Poor. Special rules may be required for some Royalist officers to reflect a lack of faith in their cause; the Royalist commander at Carabobo seems to have fought solely for the honour of it, rather than because he believed he could win, and Osorio deserted his army at Maipo when he believed the day to be lost. Internal rivalries should not be dismissed on either side.
Troop Representation
Most troops are regulars, although some gaucho formations may rate Irregular Horse status. In Argentina, the actions in which troops of this nature are involved are probably too small to represent under the rules anyway, but some of the earlier Venezeulan campaigns featured similar troops in larger numbers Indeed, Republican infantry could be represented as Skirmish Foot at this stage, as they seem to have operated more as large guerilla formations than regular armies.
There are a number of battles that can be fought using these rules, but the number of troops involved varies from 1000 a side to about 10,000 a side. In general, however, armies tended to fight in two or three ‘divisions’ regardless of the size of the force. As there is no precise figure scale in POW, I intend to try and keep the number of units relatively constant from one game to another, and assume that the figure scale varies.
The size of units in these wars was very variable and presents something of a problem in 'Principles of War'. For example, although the standard infantry unit was generally termed a 'battalion' it could vary in size varied from 100 to 800 men, and this variation could be seen by units within the same battle. Although some of this variation can be dealt with by assuming it is factored into the random unit strengths, it is wiser to adopt some sort of 'figure scale', and assume each unit represents roughly the same number of men. This will give infantry battalions made up of between one and four units. In his articles on the Maximilian Adventure in 'Wargames Illustrated', Richard Clarke offered a rule for battalion integrity to allow such units to operate as more of a whole, and this could easily be adopted here.
In a larger battle a single unit may represent a whole battalion, and the size variation dealt with by adjusting the unit's initial starting strength.
Those players who use fixed unit strengths (thus, in my opinion, losing one of the most interesting features of the game) will be able to set them to whatever level is required.
The primary thing to consider in determining how troops are to be represented in game terms is to make sure that there are neither too few nor too many units in a command. As I stated above, a three or four division structure seems to have been consistent regardless of how large the army was, and this fits into 'Principles of War' very well, giving a C-in-C and up to three subordinate officers.
The presence of artillery in battles is variable, with some armies having none, even in major actions. Where used it seems to have been used in small batteries, sometimes as few as 2 guns.
Cavalry is more of a problem, as it seems to have often been used in squadron strength units alongside regiments. This gives unit sizes ranging from 50 to 500 men in the same battle, although the average is towards the lower end of this range. One option is to split the largest units down in the same way as for infantry. I have always assumed that in 'Principles of War' a cavalry unit represents a smaller number of men than an infantry unit; say half to two-thirds the nominal strength. Another solution is to assume that a cavalry unit represents a small regiment or a single squadron, but to significantly reduce the base strength for units representing squadrons. This may not work, and it may be easier to combine squadrons to form amalgamated cavalry units for game purposes. Another possibility would be to give the units a low strength, but give them a morale bonus, so that they have a higher staying power than fighting strength. There are rules for squadron sized units in some of the army lists, where they are represented by single stands, but I have shied away from these, as they reduce the number of figures on the table, and there are few enough figures around in some of the battles as it is!
In general, the troop representation will vary from battle to battle; a strength of the scenario game approach. The aim will be to field 10-25 units per army, regardless of the actual numbers represented. In theory this should require some adjustment to the ground scale, but in practice this should not be necessary.
POW rates regular infantry as Militia, Regular or Elite. The majority of troops seem to perform as Regulars and should have a base strength of 6. A few veteran Spanish units and the British Legion should rate as Elite and have a base strength of 8. No troops seem to rate Militia status in their own right, but some Regulars may be downgraded to such to represent significant pre-battle exhaustion e.g. the Army of the Andes prior to Chacabuco.
Experienced troops should be rated Steadfast. This would include the British Legion, the Rifle Battalion and veteran Argentinean units in the later stages of the Chilean campaign. In general, Elite troops are good, but may have off-days, whilst Steadfast troops are consistent performers. The Spanish seem to be brittle enough not to rate any Steadfast troops, but there does not seem to be a significant difference in performance between colonial troops and regulars to justify rating the colonials as Militia.
I am uncertain as to whether to rate the Rifles as Elite or Steadfast or both. One battalion of them seems to have been made up of mainly Venezuelan troops with British officers and NCOs, whilst the other consisted of British troops. Accounts are unclear as to which unit was actually involved in any given battle, and there were frequent reorganisations in any event. Rating them as both Elite and Steadfast may be a little extreme. Making them Steadfast regulars would seem best; they would be consistently good, without being overpowering. Rating them by their performance in each battle is probably the best approach, however; in at least one engagement they seemed to fulfil the requirements of Mountaineer status.
POW allows certain infantry to be rated as Light Infantry if they have specific training in this respect. This rating allows them to ignore the effects of most rough terrain, and gives them a bonus when shot at. Only the Rifle Battalion seems to merit this; the Spanish had a number of light battalions, but they seem to be used in the same role as line units.
Both sides occasionally formed amalgamated battalions, made up of the light and grenadier companies of other battalions. These could be rated as Elite or Steadfast according to performance. Note that since both light and grenadier companies were combined to make up these formations, it could be assumed that there was no difference in role for these troops, just a perceived elite status.
All infantry except the Rifle Battalions will be armed with smoothbore muskets (SB). The Rifles will have early Muzzle Loading Rifles (MLR). These fire as MLR but are limited to effective range (8").
Spanish cavalry seems to have been predominately colonial and was usually outclassed by the opposition. It would probably best be rated as Militia, with some Regular units. Republican cavalry generally seems to be better quality and should be rated as Regular, with the Argentinean Horse Grenadiers being Elite. All of these classifications should be modified to represent the privations of campaigning.
If using squadrons as the base unit then the starting strengths should be downgraded or squadrons combined into larger groups.
Cavalry will be armed with Miscellaneous Weapons (MW) or Lance (La) and will not have Mounted Infantry training. Whether a unit is lance armed or not is problematical. There are some dedicated lancer units, but other units seem to have been issued them on a campaign by campaign basis. Some units designated as Hussars certainly carried lances. Assume any unit with 'Lancer' in the title is armed with lance; for other battles, allow a certain number of units to be designated as such, or roll for it.
Cavalry seems to have been used both extensively and effectively, despite many of the battles taking place in the Andes. How this is likely to work in game terms is unknown.
Artillery definitely seems to be the minor arm in relation to infantry and cavalry. There certainly doesn't seem to be a lot of it used. The nature of the terrain and the relative lack of impact on battles would suggest that all artillery should be rated as Light, and indeed most guns mentioned seem to be 6 or 4pdrs. In this period all guns would be Smoothbores. Units should have a base strength of 2 or 4 depending on how many guns are represented and how they were deployed. This does tend to make them brittle, and a morale bonus of some sort may be required in order to prevent the guns up and running at the slightest reverse. A suggestion would be to give them a +1 for each flank in contact with a friendly unit, making them less vulnerable if used in a close support role.
As described above, armies seem to have been organised into divisions with between 1 and 3 infantry battalions, 1 and 3 regiments/squadrons of cavalry and 2 to 6 guns. In larger battles, the cavalry could be fielded in a separate division, but in most cases divisions were mixed. In 'Principles of War' this makes the issuing of orders to such commands a tricky thing.
As with most battles, terrain was influential. In Chile and Peru assume steep hills with plenty of broken ground, which is generally only accessible to foot. Areas of low brush could be rated as cultivated land, as this slightly impedes movement, but is passable to all troops. Broken ground can be combined with hills to make them really tricky, and Pichincha features a wooded volcano-side.
In Venezuela and Colombia there will perhaps be fewer hills, and those less steep, similar quantities of broken ground, more brush and some woods (jungle). One description of the battlefield of Carabobo suggests that the area around the Royalist position was good cavalry country, and Venezuela had its equivalent of the Argentinean gauchos, suggesting that open plains are also a possibility.
In both areas, ravines are frequently mentioned; these can be classed as gullies or created by the close proximity of rocky hills
A number of battles involved forcing a stream crossing, and the description of these battles suggests that they are best classed as gullies or dongas rather than streams. This is because it does not appear to be the water that made them difficult to cross, but the topography of the banks. Built up areas are uncommon. The two main Chilean battles featured farms as strongpoints, and the battlefield of Picincha would include the outskirts of Quito, but otherwise, human habitation seems to be under-represented on these battlefields.