1848 Mincio Campaign

The Barolo Campaign (see my flowchart here) is a good abstraction of the battles across the Mincio river at the start of the 1^st Italian Independence War and can be used as a basis for a campaign on that.

General Eusebio Bava
CO of Sardinian I Corps

If we consider side A (Empire in the campaign description) to be the Piedmontese/Sardinians and side B (Electorate) to be Radetzky’s Austrians, then Peschiera is the fortress to be besieged by side A if it wins. We can easily see the Southern thrust in the campaign as being Eusebio Bava’s I Corps attack at Goito: in the campaign we have the attackers trying to cross a bridge before it’s blown up by the defenders, which is exactly what happened in history, with Bava’s forces attacking the bridge at Goito while the Austrians were trying to destroy it.

The main army instead would represent represent II Corps (General Ettore De Sonnaz) and Reserve Division, all under King Charles Albert, which crossed different bridges farther north. The final battle that determines if/how the siege happens would be Pastrengo. Peschiera’s real position (north of all these bridges, instead of between the two forces as depicted in the campaign) doesn’t affect the campaign flow, so it’s not an issue.

History of course is not always good for wargaming, which usually calls for scenarios that are more challenging – and/or more playable – than reality. This is no exception. After Bava’s victory at the battle of the bridge of Goito, very little actual combat happened until the battle of Pastrengo, aside from some very small skirmishes. While Bava was crossing the Mincio at Goito, De Sonnaz was doing the same at Valeggio and Monzambano but he was mostly unopposed.

General Ettore De Sonnaz
CO of Sardinian II Corps

Radetzky had retired behind the walls of Verona fortress and even the battle at Goito was just a delaying action – he had moved quickly and didn’t need to risk a battle. Protecting Peschiera from a siege wasn’t his primary need and it actually pinned the Piedmontese. He risked battle (and a limited one) only when he sent troops to protect his lines of communications to the Tyrol at Pastrengo. Even battle at the bridge of Goito is difficult to represent with historical accuracy on the wargaming table: the Austrians had almost finished wiring the bridge when the Piedmontese attacked and the bridge blew up very soon – it didn’t blow up completely, but badly enough to make it impossible to cross under fire. The two sides then fired at each other across the river for some hours until the Austrians retreated due to Piedmontese artillery fire, the Bersaglieri crossed and a new pontoon bridge was set up. Unless you want to have a game that just sees units firing at each other across the impassable river without maneuver, it doesn’t really make for an interesting game, unless you allow the Piedmontese to have more time before the bridge is destroyed.

In order to get a more interesting wargaming campaign I think we need to alter history just a bit. Let’s imagine Charles Albert was not as hesitant in declaring war to Austria and actually had invaded Lombardy 1-2 days before what he really did, launching his forward brigades full speed ahead trying to catch Radetzky before he got behind the protection of the Quadrilatero (as an aside, this single idea could create more ideas for scenarios based on Piedmontese troops battling the retreating Austrians in Lombardy, before they cross the Mincio).

Due to this, the Austrians are able to maintain only a slight advantage over their Piedmontese chasers. Radetzky fears behind caught in the open plain just short of Verona if he lets the Piedmontese cross the Mincio unchecked, so he detaches part of his army to block the bridges, destroy them if possible, and anyway delay the enemy advance. Hopefully the delaying troops will be able to blow up the bridges and then reach their comrades behind the safety of the walls of Verona fortress.

General Michele Bes

Unfortunately for them, General Michele Bes, one of the best Piedmontese Brigade Commanders and the first to cross into Lombardy, has just taken the bridge at Valeggio before the Austrians could reinforce it. Austrian troops are closing in on Bes positions and hope they can repulse him back before the rest of the II Corps can reinforce the bridgehead (this would bring us to campaign scenario 2: bridgehead, which starts the main army attack across the river).

Meanwhile at Goito, south of Valeggio, Wohlgemuth brigade (Austrians) is trying to blow up the bridge but D'Arvillars’ 1^st Division of Bava’s I Corps (Piedmontese) has arrived earlier than expected and the wiring isn’t ready yet. It will be a race against time for each side (this would create the premise for campaign scenario 1: bridge destruction).

Now I just have to start playing it.

The Barolo Campaign

I recently found Bluebear Jeff’s page about ladder-style mini-campaigns submitted by various wargamers. It’s a collection of interesting ideas on linking different scenarios in order to generate a campaign narrative where each battle result determines the next scenario to be played (and sometimes affects its conditions). One of the most interesting ones is the Barolo Campaign by Peter Douglas.

I was attracted to it at first due to its name (“Barolo” is an Italian high-quality red wine) and because most of the locations in the campaign have Italian-styled names (the only exception is Montferrat, which in Italian should be Monferrato and is a region, not a city as in the campaign description). What’s it about? In short, two countries in mid-XVIII century are at war. Their border is marked by a river, the Barolo, and country B (Electorate) has a fortress city, Montferrat, that lies on one side of it. Country A (Empire) wants to besiege and take control of Montferrat, but has to cross the river first in order to lay effective siege lines. Country B of course tries to stop it from happening.

The campaign ladder is an example of the creativity you can use in designing such campaigns: A tries to cross the river at two different locations  (one with main army, one with a secondary force), and what happens at both locations contributes to the final outcome. Such ladder is a bit convoluted, and the campaign flow is not so easy to follow just by reading the instructions. Therefore I’ve drawn a flowchart that should make it easier to grasp it while reading and playing. It really shows the campaign creator’s sklls at designing it.

Barolo Campaign flowchart

There are a couple of instances where the text isn’t completely clear and I had to use my own judgement to interpret it: 

1. If A has lost scenario 1 and then has to fight scenario 4 and wins, what happens next? I assumed A would then go on as if he won scenario 1, meaning he presses on the attack. It makes sense, but a line at scenario 2 hints that it may not be necessarily so and that if A wins scenario 4 you get the same result as having won scenario 5 regarding what happens at La Morra.
2. If A loses scenario 2 but has won scenario 4 or 5 (this is the line that I refer to above), it says the main army regroups and continues the attack south, joining forces with the southern thrust at scenario 9. But what happens next? If A then wins, it says winning troops reinforce at either scenario 7 or 8 (the two possible versions of the final battle), but because of the above conditions, there’s no force at either 7 or 8 anymore! So which one is to be played? I’m still unsure about this and leave it to individual players to decide. Personally I’d play scenario 7 (and not scenario 8) because that’s a worse final scenario for A (after all, he got there in this way exactly because he previously lost!). Still, alternative interpretations would be good!

I’ll try to reach to the author about these 2 points in order to get what he meant.

Anyway, regardless of the above interpretations, the campaign sees a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 8 scenarios to be played – enough for an engaging and fun experience no matter the results. It can easily fit Napoleonics and/or XIX century narratives (possibly also XVII century). Being centered on operations across/near a river, I realized it could be a good basis for a 1848 1^st Italian War of Independence campaign across the river Mincio, or a 1849 campaign across the Ticino. I’ll talk about it in a future post.