1848 Mincio Campaign - Battlefield at Goito

After tackling the crossing at Valeggio of the main army, now it’s time tackle the crossing at Goito, which historically was more challenging for the Piedmontese. Again, some tweaking of the actual terrain will be needed, because the area around Goito is very flat.

I will use Grant’s original first tabletop teaser (Bridge Demolition) as a basis because it represents the historical situation well. Austrians are defending and trying to blow up the bridge in order to slow down the Piedmontese. As I told here, however, the Piedmontese actually arrive earlier than historical, forcing the Austrian Brigade under Wohlgemuth to try to contest the advance more than historical.

In order to scale down the teaser to OHW-like map dimensions and army size, I decided to roughly halve the forces involved, which still keeps the original 1:1.5 defender/attacker ration. The Austrians will have 4 units, the Piedmontese 6, which is a common OHW scenario size, plus I will add one unit to each side. Therefore force ratio will be 5:7. OoB will be as follows (using Neil Thomas’ Wargaming 19^th Century Europe rules):

Defenders: Austrian Army – Brigade Wohlgemuth from I Corps

(Army Quality: Good)

Radetzky Hussars: 1 Cavalry unit (Average)

Kaiser Jagers: 1 Skirmisher unit (Elite, Smoothbore Musket)

Oguliner Grenz IR: 2 Infantry Units (Average, Smoothbore Musket, Close Order)

Artillery: 1 Artillery Unit (Average)

Ludwig Freiherr von Wohlgemuth

Attackers: Piedmontese/Sardinian Army – 1^st Division (General D’Arvillars) from I Corps

(Army Quality: Good)

Aosta Cavalleria: 1 Cavalry unit (Elite)

Bersaglieri: 1 Skirmisher unit (Fanatical, Smoothbore Musket)

Regina Brigade (9th and 10th regiments): 4 Infantry units (Average, Smoothbore Musket, Close Order)

Artillery: 1 Artillery Unit (Average)

General Federico Millet D'Arvillars

Some notes on the OoB:

The basis for the Order of Battle for this scenario is taken from the historical order of battle of the units involved, adapted for play balance. Unit quality is based on Neil Thomas' army lists, amended as described below following my judgement.

Sardinian/Piedmontese cavalry proved to be equal or superior to the vaunted Austrian cavalry in many occasions, and this was recognized by their opponents too, something that was later confirmed by their performance during the 2nd Independence War in 1859. In 1848 however their good quality and élan was hindered by the poor use the Piedmontese command made of the cavalry as a whole. The two heavy cavalry divisions were mainly held in reserve for "decisive blows" that never materialized, and as a result were underutilized. Rest of the cavalry too proved good when engaged but rarely used successfully at the strategic level - something that was corrected after the war.

The Aosta Cavalleria regiment can therefore be equated to a dragoon cavalry regiment, with Elite status due to its élan and quality. The Radetzky Hussars, on the other side, are rated Average and not Elite as in the rulebook, because I feel it's more realistic of their actual performance during the war.

The Austrians get a boost in skirmisher quality however: the Jagers performed well in most engagements and while they weren't as "fanatical" as the Bersaglieri, in my opinion they were still good enough to warrant an Elite rating. The Bersaglieri fought at the Bridge of Goito for the first time in their history, and their legend started here. They were supplemented by the small Griffini Legion (Lombard Volunteers of very good quality) and the Real Navi (marines) small battalion of 300 men. I include all these in the Bersaglieri unit.

Regarding line infantry, the Sardinians would have a major advantage over the Austrians in numbers but the need to quickly strike at the Austrians before they could blow up the bridge means they may not have time to muster the full division. Therefore only Regina Brigade of D'Arvillars' 1st Division is represented, with 4 units that roughly equate to its two regiments (9th and 10th). The Austrians have the Oguliners Grenz IR, and here I have 2 units of them roughly representing their two battalions, which is more than historical because I feel that Wohlgemuth, being closely pressed by the Piedmontese, would keep his forces united. Regarding unit quality, the Regina brigade was noted as being some of the best troops in the Piedmontese army, but they still don't warrant more than an Average rating, as do the Oguliners.

I note Army Quality in case someone wants to use the optional command rules from Neil Thomas’ Wargaming 19^th Century Europe rules. During the historical battle, both sides proved to be competent and professional, and neither proved to be superior to the other in pure generalship. Neither Wohlgemuth nor D'Arvillars showed superior generalship during the campaign, but the small engagement also means they could easily keep control of their forces in such a compressed area, justifying a "good" rating for both forces. Players willing to reduce this can make both as "Average", which may hurt the Piedmontese more than the Austrians in play balance terms due to their need to strike fast, so do this only if you feel the attackers would otherwise be too strong.

The Battlefield:

The original map from Grant's Teaser looks fairly good already, and I used it as a basis for my scenario. At first I  decided to include a road (mentioned but not shown in Grant's map) that forks so it can connect both attackers' entry points A and B, reducing the hills to only one - the real battlefield being mostly flat with some small heights roughly there. The result was this one:

I liked it but after checking the historical map from the Habsburg 2nd Military Survey, I noted the road doesn't fork where I thought.

The roads link a bit farther than the town. So I revised the map to look more like the historical one:

Historically, Piedmontese troops converged on Goito from the road, but then in the end deployed in a half circle while their point units attacked the town and bridge. I will keep the original teaser random entry to add some uncertainty to the scenario. The two possible entry points of the attackers are the road (entry point "A") and a point slightly to the right of the hill (entry point "B") which roughly corresponds to what Grant states in his teaser and fits the historical scenario well. I will roll for random reinforcement arrival as in the teaser.

Initial deployment will see the Austrians all deployed on map, on both sides of the river, while a single Piedmontese cavalry unit will be on the hill. Rest will get to the battlefield from turn 1 onwards, depending on die roll. The Piedmontese have 14 turns to reach the Bridge. if They can't cross the bridge by that turn, on turn 15 I start rolling for the explosion, using Grant's table from the teaser.

Stay connected because the battle report will follow soon!

Plastic 1/72 miniatures

I love 15mm for wargaming, I’ve used them a lot for years for DBA, DBM and Fields of Glory, mainly thanks to my brother’s large collection (and my limited one). I still have lots of them unpainted, especially Essex Byzantines, Turks, Arabs, Macedonians, Persians, Classical Greek and even a bag of Old Glory SYW Austrians. But being married and with 2 twin kids means I have to cut a bit on hobby expenses, therefore I’ve turned to 1/72 plastic minis. I have a lot of them since childhood, mainly Esci, but also a few old Airfix and Atlantic, and more recent Revell and Italeri (I also had one box of Zvezda Cossacks, but I can’t find them anymore). They are mainly Napoleonics, but also several WWII and a few ACW, TYW and other periods.

They have now become my go-to scale, due to the fact I already have many, their cheapness (I can more easily afford a new set from time to time) and also generally good quality and increasing number of available sets. Quality varies between sets and between producers (see PlasticSoldiers Review, an excellent resource), but overall I’m pleased and willing to pass over errors – after all, my main aim is to play!

Lately I’ve (re)started painting them too. I never had a great hand, even if I was still able to produce some passable work. Now, with fewer time and worse eyes and hand, I’ve stuck to Bruce Quarrie's famous quote:

“But do, please do, make some effort to paint them. Even if your hand isn't as steady as you would like, it isn't so much to ask of anybody a black shako (hat), red or blue jacket, and gray or white trousers, with perhaps a touch of pink for face and hands, and black shoes and musket – is it? If painted in batches of a dozen or so at a time, doing all the hats first, then all the jackets, and so on, it does not take long, and the result in terms of tabletop appearance well justifies the slight effort”

Quarrie, Bruce, Napoleonic Wargaming  (Patrick Stephens, 1974, p.6)

So yes, I’m just going with basic colors (mainly Vallejo) and reducing details to a minimum and painting in batches of 24 at a time (2 bases as I use them). I've seen that around 20-25 figures at a time are something I can easily adapt to – not too many that I get bored by painting a single color, but not too few that I'm eager to paint more and can't. In addition I also found a trusty help in something I’ve bought some years ago and never opened until now: the Army Painter Quickshade. Even a basic, plain paintjob like I do gets a considerable boost with it, and results have been really satisfying.

1813-1815 Prussians (Revell)

IR9 with Leibfahne (right), IR10 (left), mounted officer

I have a general-purpose Strong Tone, even if for Austrians or others with white uniforms maybe a Soft Tone would be better – unfortunately one can is already quite expensive and therefore I think I'll stick with the Strong tone only, at least for now. At first I thought about giving a matte finish with a spray, but I’ve so far chosen otherwise: the lucid effect QS gives may look a bit strange, but it really makes colors shine and emerge, which I like.

Ok, if you really look at them close-up, you’ll notice several errors and a few points where I’ve been sloppy. But from the tabletop, at “wargame distance”, they look great. Bruce Quarrie was right, you don't need a great paintjob to create a visually-pleasing game. And so far, it's all I'm looking for.

Moreover, this has renewed my enthusiasm with painting minis, and that is a good result by itself. As practice increases, maybe my technique may even improve a bit.

1848 Mincio Campaign - Battlefield at Valeggio

I played the first scenario of the campaign using a pre-existing scenario (n.5, Bridgehead, from One-Hour Wargames). It worked fine and it was fun. But what if I want a more realistic battlefield?

In the Habsburg 2nd Military Survey map, Valeggio is this one:

Valeggio sul Mincio and Borghetto

I’ve been there 2 times with my wife, for romantic weekends: Borghetto is a lovely place and the Parco Giardino Sigurtà, full of flowers in spring, is a nearby attraction (by the way, inside the Giardino there’s a place marked as the one where Napoleon III and Franz Joseph met after Solferino).

The bridge over the Mincio was built in the XIV century and was massive, because it was intended as being a sort of dam too, but it never really worked as expected. In addition, the French blew it up in 1701. A simpler, wooden bridge was rebuilt between the two remaining older “blocks”, still existing in 1848 (now it’s made of iron).

Il Ponte Visconteo, the bridge over the Mincio at Valeggio,
seen from Borghetto. You can see the remnants of
the XIV century structure.

Another ford is possible at nearby Borghetto, but what maps fail to show is that the two places aren’t at the same height. Borghetto is lower and water current is fast. Likely there was a small wooden bridge there (there's a bridge even now and a pontoon bridge could be possible) but it would be very narrow and the current has to be kept in mind. In addition the position is exposed because of the nearby dominating hills that separate Valeggio itself from the river. Then you would have to make a steep rise to reach the top of the hills. The bigger bridge (called “Ponte Visconteo”, “ponte” being the Italian for “bridge”) is higher and makes it easier to reach the hills and the town. There’ s an old ruined castle (it was ruined in 1848 too) in front of it, but not really a strongpoint that can block the path of attackers. 

The castle (Castello Scaligero) looking at the bridge
over the Mincio. Borghetto is the town on the left across
the river. In 1848 it was smaller.

Another view of the castle, showing the hillside. Valeggio is
on the right, Borghetto on the left (remember they were
smaller in 1848)

Then, after Valeggio, there’s nothing. 

Larger view of the area around Valeggio

It’s almost all flat up to Verona, with only some hills in the north, but they affect the area at Monzambano farther north more than they would do for any battle at Valeggio. In other words the bridge, the hills around Valeggio and Valeggio itself are the only features that would influence a battle. Regarding woods, you can see the area between the bridge and the hills is now wooded, but the map doesn't really show this unless we assume the slopes had wood. The area around the river could be at least partially marshy... depending on how you interpret the "greenish" color there.

I'm not sure if the attacking Piedmontese tried to cross at the main bridge or the smaller Borghetto one. I didn't check the direct sources, and Embree's Radetzky's Marches mentions Borghetto only - but doesn't mention the two bridges or say which one was used; it just mentions a wooden bridge. The Ponte Visconteo would be better, more direct but, possibly, offer less cover. At the same time the bridge at Borghetto would be smaller but would require a steep rise later. The account of 3 Piedmontese soldiers being trapped on the Western side of the river for the night after the Austrians had shelled the bridge may imply it was the one at Borghetto (because they found refuge in the village buildings) but in theory they could have been likewise able to get there from the other bridge too. Anyway, in my scenario it wouldn't matter much: the Piedmontese have taken the bridge and occupied the hills and are trying to protect the bridgehead from attacking Austrians. The bridge itself would be less relevant as whoever owns the village of Valeggio and especially the hills at the end would actually win.

A simplified map (OHW-style) for a “Bridgehead at Valeggio” scenario could be like this (total size 90cm x 90cm - or 3'x3'):

From the South (as in the historical map)

From the West

From the East

The area of Valeggio is the one roughly within the buildings, and the hills should be impassable for cavalry. Artillery on the hills can fire above the town. It can be a very strong position for defenders, even if, if they are few at start, they may be unable to defend it all and therefore be vulnerable to a determined attack. As in OHW scenario 5, attackers' arrival should be randomized between the two roads and the south (or only between the two roads but this may make it easier for the defenders to concentrate). Play balance may need some adjustment.

If you really want to add some more terrain, add some woods just near Valeggio. They don't look particularly heavy, so maybe they would just be another help to the defenders, which may skew play balance even more. We can assume they are there but have no influence on play.

Regarding OoBs, randomizing is fine, but likely both sides would have skirmishers.

One final historical note: at first glance the hills between Valeggio and the river look like a formidable position for defenders trying to cross. Why didn’t Radetzky try a stronger defence? He limited his troops to a token delaying action. The problem is that Valeggio is effectively in the middle of the Mincio valley and, as noted, has no relevant heights or defensive terrain behind it up to Verona.

General Mario Broglia,
CO of Sardinian 3rd Division

Yes, a reinforced Austrian position could block the advancing Piedmontese attackers (General Broglia’s 3^rd Division, II Corps) but the Piedmontese were trying to cross north at Monzambano (a much harder defense) and south at Goito too. Therefore the Piedmontese could cross elsewhere and then try to trap the Austrians (at least a brigade, possibly more). If the Austrians then tried to disengage to reach Verona, they could be caught in the open plain and destroyed by the superior-number Piedmontese.

In order to fully protect all three crossings instead, Radetzky would have had to stop his race to Verona, divide his forces across 3 non-mutually-supporting locations not knowing beforehand where the enemy would strike and hope he could hold all three. If one or two fell he would risk isolation of at least one of his forces and possibly severe losses if somehow the Piedmontese managed to cut his retreat lines to Verona – which was exactly what he wanted to avoid by marching full speed to the fortress. So, given that he may have had to retire to Verona anyway, it made sense to go there immediately, and just leave token forces to blow up the bridges and delay the advance. In the end, it proved to be the right thing to do.