The Battle of Nájera, fought on the 3rd of April 1367, was the last great battle in the prestigious career of Edward, the Black Prince. While not his final campaign, that dubious honour belongs to the siege and sack of the city of Limoges in 1370, it was his final field battle and great victory. While the battle itself was a resounding success for Edward, the 1367 campaign and its aftermath was overall a complete disaster, which achieved little in the long term and likely lead to the Black Prince’s death and the resumption of the Hundred Years War during a period of marked French ascendancy. Because of this contrast between the success on the day and the disaster over the longer term I think the Battle of Nájera is an interesting lens through which we can explore how medieval warfare is often represented in wargaming and how that perspective can unintentionally distort our understanding of the past.
Initial deployment - the Franco-Castilian forces have been deployed in an orderly fashion. Tragically for them, the English will be arriving from the right and not the bottom of the map.
Nájera is also the largest scenario in the original Men of Iron, with an estimated play time of three hours, and includes the largest single army in the series’ first entry. This scenario was also one of the more flawed representations of medieval history I’ve encountered in my time with the Men of Iron series. I am particularly dubious about Berg’s interpretation of the history of Castile and its relationship with the tactics of the rest of western Europe. Flawed does not mean uninteresting, though, and there is a lot to both Nájera, the battle, and Nájera, the Men of Iron scenario, to talk about!
The English begin arriving and the vanguard immediately makes a dent in the Franco-Castilian flank. Being attacked from the side is not a good time in Men of Iron.
Before analysing the tactical elements of Nájera, and how Richard Berg has chosen to represent them in Men of Iron, it is worth considering Nájera in its wider context. The Battle of Nájera was a result of one of the Hundred Years War’s many proxy wars which took place in territories bordering France. The most famous of these is probably the extensive civil war fought on the peninsula of Brittany throughout much of fourteenth century, but comparably important was the fight over control of the Kingdom of Castile in northern Iberia. For much of the Hundred Years War Castile had been a staunch French ally, providing naval support and occasionally, as in the Battle of Winchelsea in 1350, engaging in naval clashes with the English. However, when King Peter II, known as “The Cruel”, came to his majority in the 1350s he showed himself to be receptive to English overtures of a potential alliance. Castile was strategically important as it bordered the English held Duchy of Aquitaine on the south and was key to control of the Bay of Biscay off the western coast of France. With much of Aquitaine’s wealth coming from the wine trade with England, all of which passed through the Bay, securing control of this area was of great potential value to the English. A friendly Castile could also pose a risk to French control in the south of the kingdom.
I decided that the genitors might be something of a lost cause and chose to move the pikemen first to make a front to oppose the English. Du Guesclin’s Battle has also pivoted. New battle lines have been drawn, even if they still leave a lot to be desired for the Franco-Castilians.
Unfortunately for the English, Peter was not a very good king. From the mid-1350s and through most of the 1360s he fought an extensive war with the neighbouring Kingdom of Aragon, during which he proved to be a remarkably incompetent commander. Finally, in 1366 the Castilian nobility decided they were tired of his wars and his cruelty and deposed him in favour of his illegitimate half-brother Henry of Trastámera. Peter fled north to Aquitaine where he was accepted into the court of The Black Prince, who was Duke of Aquitaine and ruled the region largely independent of his father King Edward III. Peter convinced the prince that if he invaded Castile and put Peter back on his throne the Castilian king would cover all the costs of the expedition.
The main host of the English army has now arrived and some holes are beginning to appear in the Franco-Castilian lines.
Some context on the broader Hundred Years War is useful here. The decisive English victory of Poitiers in 1356, at which the French king Jean II was captured, had lead to the signing of the Treaty of Brétigny in 1360. This treaty ceded large parts of south-west France to the English king in exchange for Edward III renouncing his claim to the title King of France. It also forced the French king to pay an enormous ransom for his freedom. This was probably the closest the Hundred Years War came to a peaceful conclusion and it also means that in 1366 the French and English were technically at peace. This uneasy peace made it possible for the Black Prince to travel south from his Duchy and campaign in Iberia without risking a French invasion. Meanwhile, while the French could not send an army directly to oppose Edward without risking breaking the treaty, they supplied French mercenary companies for Henry of Trastámera to hire and the noted captain and later Constable of France Bertrand du Guesclin traveled to Castile to support the usurper king.
The Franco-Castilians strike back, beginning to turn the English right flank but du Guesclin’s attack has stalled out into something of a brutal slog.
On the 3rd of April 1367 the Black Prince delivered a decisive defeat to the Franco-Castilian army. He captured Bertrand du Guesclin but Henry of Trastámera escaped and fled to the court of the French King Charles V, son of the king who had been captured at Poitiers. On its face this was a significant victory for the Black Prince, another in the string of victories that marked his military career. That is often how it is represented, particularly in English language historiography. However, the bigger picture is much less flattering. Firstly, Peter II refused to pay Edward back for his expenses - whether he even could afford to is a topic of some debate - and the prince was forced to raise taxation on his duchy to cover the costs. These high taxes to cover the debt would cause unrest in the duchy which would eventually give Charles V the pretense he needed to reopen the Hundred Years War with a once again free Bertrand du Guesclin leading the French to a string of dramatic victories which reclaimed much of the territory lost as part of the Treaty of Brétigny. Secondly, it was probably on this campaign that the Black Prince caught whatever wasting disease that would eventually kill him. While he would not die for another decade, he was so ill that he had to give up on military campaigning after 1370 and even by then he was often carried on a litter rather than riding his horse. Lastly, Nájera didn’t even bring much long term benefit to Anglo-Castilian relations. Bertrand du Guesclin would lead an invasion of Castile with Henry of Trastámera in 1369 and would defeat Peter II at The Battle of Montiel. While Peter would escape, later that year he would be murdered by Henry and Trastámera would secure the throne for himself.
The English bring up another Battle to shore up their right flank and punch a substantial dent in the middle of the Franco-Castilian lines.
While I generally enjoy hex and counter wargaming and have obviously spent a considerable amount of time with Men of Iron specifically, I think this tactical level focus can obscure the actual history of the period. When we examine Nájera within the context of the scenarios included in Men of Iron it is just yet another English victory, showing off their superior tactics and commanders. It isn’t possible to include the elements that made the Nájera campaign an utter disaster for the English in a game of this scale. The disproportionate number of tactical games about medieval warfare creates a narrow lens through which the period is viewed and I think the flaws are most apparent when it comes to battles like Nájera, where the final result of the conflict clashes so dramatically with what happened in April 1367. One possible way to try and counteract this would have been to include a scenario of the Battle of Montiel - while not covering all of the reasons why Nájera ended up being a disaster, at least by showing that two years later Peter was ousted by Henry and du Guesclin it could give players more context. It would also have the advantage of making use of the Castilian counters again - it does feel a little weird that there’s a ton of counters that are just used for this one battle and no others.
The genitors finally get involved to underwhelming results. You may also notice at this point that the three Franco-Castilian battles in the left have not activated at all, which is pretty classic Men of Iron for scenarios with this many Battles.
But enough about the history, what do I think of the scenario itself? To cut a long story short, I’m not really a fan of the Nájera scenario in Men of Iron but I also didn’t exactly dislike it. My main issues with Nájera relate to its length, balance, and several historical interpretations Berg has chosen to make for this scenario.
The English continue to push forward. While the Franco-Castilians have managed to inflict some casualties they are badly outmatched.
Let’s start with length and balance, because that’s a nice simple opener and they’re closely intertwined. Nájera is the longest battle in the initial Men of Iron game with an estimated play time of around three hours. That’s not unreasonable for a wargame, but by most metrics that’s a pretty long chunk of time to spend on something (especially if, like me, you have a small child you have to look after). That’s not totally off putting, I’m excited to try longer scenarios in Arquebus for example, but the default scenario of Nájera also lacks even the barest shred of balance. That’s pretty classic Berg, aiming for historical reality rather than balance and Nájera was a major victory for the English, but as the Castilian player spending three hours losing a scenario quite badly isn’t very appealing. As a solitaire experience it is less frustrating, but with how one-sided the scenario is I kind of would have preferred it to be smaller and shorter. Something more on the scale of the Agincourt scenario, for example. It’s not like the forces at Nájera were all that big, so it’s kind of weird that this and not Falkirk or Crécy is the big scenario in the box. I would say that if you are playing Nájera with a friend, switch straight to one of the alternative set ups that helps the Castilians and makes it more of a game - don’t play the default scenario unless one of you is prepared to just be ground under an Anglo-Gascon bootheel.
Henry of Trastámera finally gets involved in the battle, but his contribution is minimal and things have already turned decisively against him.
My other main issue with Nájera comes down to Berg’s view of the history of the battle and how its applied in the game. These are two similar but subtly distinct objections - one is just in how Berg represents the battle and the other is ignoring my own feelings about that interpretation, did I think it was fun?
I think my core objection to Berg’s interpretation is in how he portrays Castile as a kingdom completely divorced from the military practices of France and England. I’m not entirely sure where he got this idea, but it’s quite an old fashioned representation of Iberian warfare. In particular he highlights the idea that since the Castilians had been actively pursuing the Reconquista against the Moors that they would be used to fighting an entirely different kind of enemy and weren’t used to the practices that were standard elsewhere. While differences in geography, politics, economy and any number of other factors would make Iberian warfare distinct from French warfare, which in turn was distinct from Central European warfare, Iberia was far from cut off from the rest of Europe. The whole point of the Nájera campaign was a competition between France and England for Castilian support in the Hundred Years War. Crusaders frequently crossed the Pyrenees to join in the fighting in Iberia. This is before we even address the issue that a significant portion of the Castilian army was probably drawn from Free Company mercenaries who until the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360 had been fighting in France. Also for the decade preceding Nájera the Castilians had been mostly fighting their fellow Christians the Aragonese, not the Muslims in the south of the peninsula. The level of asymmetry in the types of troops used by the two sides as presented in Nájera is extreme and I don’t think warranted by the history.
The flight track disparity is brutal - the Castilians were pushed over the limit by the dice roll but there was no coming back even if they had been luckier.
Historical quibbles aside, did I enjoy playing Berg’s alternative interpretation? If I’m honest, not really, and it all comes down to one unit: genitors (alternatively known as jinetes). The genitors are a form of light cavalry armed with a javelin and the Castilians have piles of them in this scenario. I already kind of struggle with managing the large numbers of light cavalry Infidel sometimes throws at me and this was so much worse for a few reasons. Firstly, the genitors only get one shot before they have to retreat and “reload”, and if they are attacked while out of ammunition they give their opponent a +2 DRM to their combat. This adds so much extra rules bloat and book-keeping to the scenario and all for the benefit of a frankly pretty terrible unit. The map is also quite cramped, so you get none of the benefit of that light cavalry movement, and it all just meant that I did my best to ignore the genitors and relied more on other units. However, ignoring a huge portion of the Castilian army doesn’t really make for a very fun experience.
The final game state when the Castilians fled the field, losing the battle but ultimately winning the war.
Overall, while I didn’t particularly enjoy playing Nájera I can’t say that I hated my time with it either. I think if it was a smaller scenario that played faster I would be more inclined to revisit and try one of the alternative set ups, but given how much of Men of Iron I have still haven’t played I don’t necessarily see myself setting up Nájera again anytime soon. That’s a bit of a shame, because I suspect the alternative deployment rules make for a much more interesting and engaging battle. However, my dislike for the genitors and my interest in playing more Blood and Roses and Arquebus mean that I’ll probably leave it up to others to determine what the best way to play Nájera is!