A BIGGER BATTLE AT BEHISTUN

In Chapter 9 of his excellent book Wargame Tactics (1979), Charles Grant provides an engaging and entertaining account of a fictional sixth century engagement between Byzantines and Sassanid Persians. As a way of introducing the narrative, Mr. Grant admits his preference for Byzantines, and argues for deploying them in large units (30 infantry with spears and large shields, supported by 15 archers), as the visual spectacle often makes up for their poor performance on the model battlefield. With respect to rules and orders of battle, it appears that some version of WRG is being employed, as the two experienced player-generals are assisted by an umpire (perhaps Mr. Grant himself?) as well as two ‘scorers.’ The opposing armies seem to be fairly sizable in that the Byzantines bring 250 foot and 160 horse (presumably 25/28mm figures) to the contest, while the Sassanids muster 125 cavalry, 350 infantry, and 6 elephants carrying missile-armed crews in their attached towers. The landscape for this engagement appears to be rather simple. On one side of the 9 by 7-foot tabletop there is a largish tongue of ridge or two-tiered hill, upon which sits the abandoned ruins of a castle named Behistun. There are two smallish woods on the other side of the plain, and there is also a slight loop of fordable river. The vast majority of the battlefield is open and unencumbered by fields, scrub, steep hills, buildings, or other terrain features. Using this scenario and its narrative as a source of inspiration, In October of  2021, I decided to stage a version of this battle.

The contrasts between my wargame and the one played by Mr. Grant’s colleagues some 40 years ago are numerous as well as significant. First and foremost, I would not be employing any painted and based miniatures. Were this “founding father” or very important figure in the hobby still with us, I can imagine him turning up his nose (in a classically polite English manner) and or rolling his eyes at this “method” of historical wargaming, especially when his beloved Byzantines are involved. Second, I would be using the Tactica II rules instead of a version of WRG. There would not be five people around the tabletop, there would be only one. This was a solo wargame project. As the provided army lists for Byzantines and Sassanids (Later) in the selected rules are rather different from the “lists” included with the original battle report, my opposing armies would not contain the exact same troop types. However, my armies would be substantially larger than those used in the latter years of the 1970s. In fact, I would endeavor to field forces that would add up to 10,000 points on each side. With regard to terrain, to the extent that I was able, I would recreate the look of the original battlefield on my 10.5 by 3.75-feet playing surface. 

Orders of Battle, Deployments, and Plans

The Byzantine army, under the overall command of Belisarius (this historical name borrowed from Mr. Grant’s scenario), contained 12 divisions. The vast majority of these were cavalry; only one division consisted of infantry or Skutatoi. There were 8 “battalions” of foot in this division. There were 4 divisions of Hun light cavalry, each having 5 “regiments.” There were 3 divisions of other light cavalry, adding 20 more “regiments” to the army’s total. The heavy cavalry contingent was represented by 4 divisions of horse. These formations added 27 largish “regiments” (each containing 27 “figures” arranged in 3 rows of 9) to the assembly of troops. The majority of these formations were Kavallarioi. There were also a few units of Boukellarioi and Optimates. 

Crunching the numbers for Belisarius, it was found that his army contained 1,435 “miniatures.” The vast majority of these were mounted; only 288 “figures” were infantry. The point value of his force was calculated at 9,954. Applying the approximate figure scale provided in Section 1.1 of the rules, the Byzantine army had a strength in the range of 57,400 to 86,100 men. Again, only a fraction of these numbers were infantry. 

On the other side of the adopted and fictional battlefield, the Sassanids (under the command of Chosroes—this name also borrowed from Mr. Grant’s narrative) assembled an infantry “corps” numbering 20 units of Levy Foot, 3 units of light infantry, all reinforced by 4 units of elephants, which added up to 13 pachyderms carrying towers and crews of archers. The cavalry component of this force included 9 units of light cavalry (Chionites, etc.), 8 units of Arab light cavalry, and 10 additional units of Persian light horse. Of heavy cavalry formations, there were a total of 23; two of these “regiments” were Immortals. In terms of divisional organization, there were 3 divisions of infantry, 5 divisions of light cavalry, and 3 divisions of heavy horse. In terms of numbers, Chosroes would lead the equivalent of 1,997 “figures” into battle. (Using the same approximate figure scale, the Persians mustered between 79,880 and 119,820 infantry and cavalry for the contest. There was no representative scale provided for the elephants. They were, however, worth 6 “figures” each.) The value of the Sassanid army was determined to be exactly 10,000 points. 

Deployments

Section 3.0 of the rules explains how opposing player-generals or teams of player-generals may deploy their forces for battle. One method involves the creation of a basic map; the other method requires the use of a “blind” or screen running the length of the tabletop. If this second method is employed, then both armies may deploy at the same time, but they will not be able to see how, exactly, the enemy is being arranged for the coming engagement. 

As a “veteran” solo wargamer, neither method appealed and the setting up of a screen seemed nonsensical. After thinking it over for a few minutes, I decided to let a d6 determine how each army would be arranged for battle. As each army was rather different (the Byzantines did not have any elephants in their roster), I quickly drafted two tables. 

Byzantine Deployment

d6 result Arrangement

1 Skutatoi on the right wing; heavy cavalry stacked in the center and 

screened by some light cavalry; the vast majority of light cavalry 

                        (Huns) on the left wing

2 Skutatoi held in reserve in the center; screened by a division of heavy 

cavalry; wings consist of heavy cavalry screened by light cavalry (Huns 

on the right)

3 Skutatoi held in reserve in the center; screened by 2 divisions of heavy 

horse and a division of light cavalry; rest of the heavy cavalry on the 

right, screened by another group of light horse; majority of light cavalry 

on the left wing

4 Skutatoi on the left, positioned in front; reserve of heavy cavalry 

                        division; center contains majority of heavy cavalry screened by 1 

                        division of light horse; the right wing is all light cavalry

5 Skutatoi on the left, in reserve and screened by 2 divisions of light horse;

heavy horse split evenly between center and right; both sectors 

                        screened by light cavalry (Huns on the right wing)

6 Huns spread across entire line of battle; reinforced by Byzantine light 

cavalry; Skutatoi in the center; heavy cavalry divided between the 

right and left wings

Sassanid Persian Deployment

d6 result Arrangement

1 Infantry and elephant squadrons spread across left, right, and center, 

                        but in reserve; heavy cavalry spread across sectors as well, and all light 

cavalry positioned as a screen for the army (Arab contingent on the left 

wing)

2 Infantry and elephants concentrated on the right; heavy cavalry 

                        “stacked” in the center, and light cavalry on the left wing

3 Infantry and elephants concentrated on the left, heavy cavalry 

                        “stacked” in the center, and light cavalry on the right wing

4 Two infantry divisions (with elephants) forward in the center; an 

                        infantry division (with elephants) placed in reserve on the right; 

                        majority of heavy horse in reserve in the center; one division of heavy 

                        horse and one of light cavalry deployed on the right wing; remainder of 

                        cavalry posted to the left wing

5 Infantry and elephants deployed as a central reserve; 3 light cavalry 

divisions placed as a screen for these units; heavy cavalry and rest of 

                        the light horse divided evenly between the wings

6 All heavy cavalry posted on the right wing, screened by a single 

                        division of light horse; 2 infantry divisions positioned in the center, 

                        slightly forward; rest of mounted troops on left wing, reinforced by 

                        infantry and elephants

The dice were rolled and the blue d6 determined that the Byzantines would deploy as stated for a result of 5. The Sassanid d6 (a plain white cube) informed that their arrangement would follow the directions listed in 4. 

In more detail, Belisarius placed all of his Hun light cavalry on this right wing. Three divisions were arranged in a line; the fourth division was placed behind the right-most formation. Both of these units were quite close to the banks of the easily fordable river. Two divisions of heavy cavalry (one contained 8 “regiments” and the other 6) supported the Huns in this sector. The center of the Byzantine line consisted of two more divisions of heavy cavalry (another 14 “regiments”), but only the right division was screened by 7 “regiments” of light cavalry armed with javelins. Eight “battalions” of Skutatoi (spearmen supported by archers) were posted on the left, several moves distant from the ruins of Behistun Castle. These infantry formations were screened by two divisions of light cavalry (13 “regiments”) armed with javelins.

Drawn up against the Byzantine left wing, the Sassanid commander positioned a division of light cavalry on his far right. There was a division of heavy cavalry deployed to the left of this formation. The cavalry in this sector was supported by a division of foot containing 6 units of Levy, a “battalion” of light infantry, and two squadrons of elephants (a total of 5 “models”). Two more divisions of foot were arranged in the center of the Persian line of battle. There were quite a few units of Levy, two more formations of light infantry, and two large squadrons of elephants (4 “models” each). These rather deep infantry formations were reinforced by two very strong divisions of heavy cavalry. All together, there were 16 “regiments” of Clibanarii and Immortals arrayed for the engagement. The Sassanid left wing was divided by a terrain feature. Four divisions of light horse, one of which contained a number of Arab “regiments,” were split evenly by a medium-sized woods. These Persians and Arabs would face the Huns and their supports.

Taken from above the Byzantine right and Persian left before the battle commenced. The strength of the Huns can be seen (the brown/tan counters), and the opposing Persian formations, separated by the woods, are also visible. (The Arb contingent is on the lower right.) The “attached” unit rosters behind each unit/formation can also be seen. 

Taken from behind the Persian center, this picture shows the deployment of the deep Levy foot formations supported by the elephants and light infantry. At the bottom of the photo, the massed “regiments” of Sassanid heavy cavalry are visible.

Based on these determined-by-a-die-roll dispositions, it seemed that the best plan for Belisarius was to advance and attack with his wings while fighting a holding action in the center. The contest on the left would be difficult; the attack on the right would be more successful (hopefully) and allow for a flank attack against the enemy center. As Chosroes surveyed the field of battle, he worried about his left wing but determined to push forward with all haste and strength in the center and on the right. The Sassanid commander figured that it would probably be a battle of attrition, but believed that his army could make the Byzantines bleed more. 

Rule Adjustments & Notes

The dimensions for a 25mm cavalry figure base are listed in Section 1.2 of the rules. This scale of miniature stands or rides on a base measuring 20mm by 40mm. (Of course, this suggested size may be adjusted due to variations in actual figure size, depending on the company or manufacturer where the purchase or purchases were made.) A unit of 27 HC (heavy cavalry), arranged in 3 ranks of 9 miniatures, would have a footprint of (approximately) 180mm by 120mm. In order to maximize the available playing surface, I reduced this area by a third, and then reduced it by another third. My revised “25mm cavalry unit” would have a footprint measuring 6 cm across by 4 cm deep. Similar calculations were made for heavy infantry, light infantry, light cavalry, and elephants. 

Rather than apply the same math to a standard ruler (a standard ruler—the inches side—is used for 25/28mm Tactica II games), I decided to substitute centimeters for inches and retain the listed ranges for missiles and movement rates for the various types of troops. Infantry and cavalry armed with bows would be able to “reach out and touch someone” at a distance of 15 cm; elephants and pikemen could advance at a speed of 8 cm per turn. 

Initially, and based on previous experience (however limited compared to other players of Tactica II), I had some concerns about command radius. Specifically, I was worried that my division commanders (per Section 3.2.2 of the rules, these leaders are simply “markers” and play no significant role in the miniature battle—or other representation of ancient warfare—save to indicate the position of the “abstract” command structure of a group of units) would not have sufficient reach for the various units in their commands. A quick test was conducted for my largish division of Byzantine Skutatoi. I was rather relieved to find that my two-dimensional division commander would be able to issue orders to the 8 “regiments” of foot within his formation. 

Under Section 2.9 (Unit Kills) on page 4 of the rulebook, suggestions are offered regarding how to keep track of casualties in massed units. After considering a number of options, I decided to use a “following roster” method. Instead of marking the losses directly on to the unit stand or counter, there would be a small unit-specific roster “attached” to the unit stand. This roster would be updated each time the unit was targeted by missiles or engaged in a melee. 

With respect to marking the operational status of each unit, I decided it would be easier to use colored d6s rather than create specific status markers. A red d6 would indicate missile halt; a yellow d6 would indicate disorder, and a green d6 would indicate an impetus bonus. 

How It Played

As opposed to a summary for every three or four turns played, I thought I would attempt to imitate the excellent Paraitakene Report prepared by Simon Watson of the TRADESTONE Wargames Club in Glasgow. (Simon is also a long-standing, respected, and contributing member of The Society of Ancients.) The 16-page PDF (posted to the Tactica Forum in the latter months of 2020) included an introduction and review of the basic mechanics of the rules, orders of battle formatted as tables, a turn-by-turn narrative supported by numerous as well as stunning color photographs of the action, and a brief analysis and commentary. My narrative will not contain a brief about the rules. The orders of battle have already been detailed or summarized. While I will include pictures, they will not be comparable (at all) to the visuals provided by Simon. Like the veteran player of Tactica II, I shall attempt an analysis. Failing that, I will at least offer comments and remarks about how the experience/experiment went. Without further delay then, let us begin . . . 

Turn 1: Belisarius won the move option roll (5 to 3) and decided to “open the dance” by moving first. Given the distance between the opposing formations, there was no evade phase; no missiles were exchanged and no melees were initiated. The Sassanids responded in kind, moving their cavalry, infantry, and pachyderms forward across the rather lush plain. [1]

Turn 2: Chosroes secured the initiative this turn with a roll of 4 against 2, which was modified to 4 against 0. His army was able to make another move and force the Byzantines to react or respond. On the right, the Huns elected to remain in place except for the middle division in the front line. This group wheeled or angled to its left, as the patch of woods acted as a kind of barrier. In the exchange of missiles between the Arabs and Huns, the former were quite outmatched. In fact, it appeared that their hurled javelins were scared of the enemy horses and riders. The contest between the Huns and Chionites was more even, with men from both sides falling off their mounts. In the center of the large field, javelins from Byzantine light cavalry rained down on Sassanid Levy foot as well as light infantry. One deep unit of poorly trained spearmen was forced to halt, rather discomforted by the effect of the volley. Over on the Persian right wing, the Clibanarii troopers drew and loosed a volley against the approaching line of enemy light horse. These arrows had more impact, albeit not devastating, compared to the javelins thrown by the Byzantines. 

In the shadows of the castle ruins (an admittedly primitive representation of a terrain feature), opposing lines of cavalry advance towards each other. 

Turn 3: The Byzantines won the move option and immediately decided to evade the light cavalry formations (over on the left wing) that were staring at some rapidly approaching Persian heavy horse. The retreating light troopers took some casualties from the arrow volleys, but these losses were judged better than being squashed and scattered in close combat with Clibanarii. Nearby, some Byzantine heavy cavalry loosed arrows on deep formations of Persian Levy. One unit was halted and there were a smattering of casualties in other formations. This was the extent of missile exchange as many contacts had been made up and down the length of the battle line. 

Chosroes won the melee direction die roll and decided to start on his right wing. Opposing light cavalry units waged a desperate and bloody fight north of the ruins of Behistun Castle (the far left flank of the Byzantine position). Light cavalry attempted (perhaps foolishly) to make a dent in the massed Persian foot in the center of the plain. Over on the Sassanid left, Chionites and Arabs were engaged by numerous units of Huns. The efforts of the Byzantine light horse in the center were to no effect; three units were broken on a thick wall of spears. Moving over to the right, it was a fairly even contest between the Huns and Chionites. Further to the right, near the banks of the river, the Arabs were roughly handled by the Huns, losing several units. To be fair, most of these routs were the result of poor control tests (i.e., morale rolls) instead of units reaching their actual breaking point due to losses.

Byzantine light horse engage the Persians in the center of the field. The red die marks the one unit of Levy that has been “missile halted” by an effective volley of javelins.  

Turn 4: The dice gods smiled on Belisarius this turn, as he won both the move option or initiative as well as the melee direction roll. He started on his left wing, turning his evading light cavalry around so that they would not be charged from the rear. This maneuver did them no good, however, as the charging Clibanarii wiped them out to a unit, just as a field laborer might cut down wheat with a scythe. Two units of Sassanid horse pursued the survivors and ran right into the waiting lines of Skutatoi. Over on the nearby hill, the light cavalry divisions beat each other senseless; their formations were ragged and the losses were rather high. 

In the center of the field, several “regiments” of Byzantine heavy cavalry made contact with the ponderous formations of Persian foot. These initial contests favored the horsemen but Belisarius worried about their stamina. A unit of Optimates crashed into some Sassanid light infantry and nearly destroyed them. The finishing blows were made by a neighboring unit of Byzantine cavalry. Their lances blooded, the Optimates did not control their mounts and careened into a supporting unit of enemy elephants. In the chaotic light cavalry combats over on the Byzantine right wing, the Huns continued to do well even if they took many casualties. In terms of reserves available, Belisarius had quite the advantage in this sector. The Persians had just one division of light horse compared to a fresh division of Huns and two divisions of Byzantine heavy horse. 

In terms of losses, thus far, the Byzantines had suffered 170 “massed unit” casualties. All of these were from light cavalry formations. The Sassanids recorded 122 “massed unit” kills in comparison. These losses were from light cavalry, Arabs, as well as some light infantry. 

The battle heats up on the Persian center-left as the Huns and Sassanid light horse engage in melee. The yellow dice indicate units that are in disorder, either by morale results or because of a complex move. The attached unit rosters show the casualties for each unit.  

Turn 5: Having won the move option for two turns in a row, the Byzantines had a minus 4 modifier on this turn. The Sassanids secured the initiative. They would also determine the melee direction. Over in the shadow the castle ruins, the division of Persian foot and elephants slowly approached the gentle slopes of the hill. Forward and to the left, the rest of the Clibanarii joined their eager brothers in a charge against the Skutatoi. (One “regiment” did not have quite enough speed (it started about 14 cm away from the enemy line) and was halted by a well-timed volley of arrows. The initial round of combat was costly for both sides. In the center of the field, attrition was the order of the day. The Byzantine heavy cavalry hacked and slashed at the Persian Levy; the poorly trained but deployed in depth infantry jabbed and stabbed the charging horsemen. Scores of men fell on both sides. The Sassanid elephants were engaged as well. This melee was chaotic, as one might imagine. On the Sassanid left wing, the Huns were starting to fall in larger numbers and then rout, but the damage had been done. The Arabs were essentially eliminated and the Chionite light cavalry had been hurt badly. There were five units of fresh Persian light cavalry between the river and the woods, but these troopers faced a fresh division of Hun light horse as well as the supporting Byzantine heavies. In summary, the Sassanid left was in trouble. 

Taken from high above the center, this picture shows the Byzantine heavy horse charging into the Persian foot. The action between the light cavalry near the woods continues. The strength of the reserves of both armies can also be seen. The vast majority of these “regiments” or units would not see action in the battle, however.

Turn 6: Belisarius took back the move option this turn. He also determined the order of the melees, of which there were plenty. Of missile fire, there was little. Most of this took place on the Byzantine right, as Huns engaged Persian light cavalry with a series of volleys. Very few losses were inflicted. Over on the left wing, the Skutatoi continued their bloody struggle with the Sassanid Clibanarii. On a local level, this did not look very good as casualties were mounting and there was an enemy “regiment” poised to make a flank charge against the right end of the infantry line. In the center, a bloody battle of attrition was being fought. The Byzantine heavy horse were cutting huge holes in the massed ranks of the Persian Levy foot, but they were taking some losses as well. While one formation of Sassanid infantry was broken and another of light infantry was finally routed, the enemy line still held. A squadron of elephants remained uncommitted and there were quite a few “regiments” of Persian heavy horse waiting for their turn. The Byzantine right wing saw little in the way of close combat. The Huns, both those that had been fighting for a while and those that were fresh, focused on archery. However, as stated previously, these arrows had little effect. 

The contest on the Sassanid right wherein Clibanarii and Skutatoi engage in a series of desperate melees. The Byzantines have no reserves. The Persians have Levy and elephants as well as some light cavalry to call upon. Again, the progress of the melees can be seen on the attached unit rosters. Note also the single Persian “regiment” poised on the exposed right flank of the Byzantine infantry line. 

Turn 7: Belisarius, due to a very good die roll, was able to keep the initiative this turn. However, he lost the melee direction determination. Once again, there was very little in the way of missile exchanges as both sides, all along the front, were heavily engaged. Starting on the Sassanid far left, their Persian light horse were able to despatch the tired and wounded Huns. There was another division of these savage warriors in close proximity, however. In the center, the Byzantine heavy cavalry were being dragged down by large numbers of Persian Levy. Over on the left of this local contest, the Sassanids managed to rip a hole in the enemy line. Being untrained troops, of course the Persian infantry chased the surviving cavalry. In other places along the line, the blood-letting continued. The Levy had more men to spare than the Byzantines. Over on the Persian right wing, a unit of Clibanarii managed to get a good angle and fall on the exposed right flank of the Skutatoi. The targeted “battalion” was trampled to pieces. [2] Though shaken by this development, the infantry line held, but would fight desperately. Masses of Persian foot (more untrained troops) were advancing down from the slopes of Behistun Hill. The Byzantine infantry, despite one or two attempts at supporting rear attacks by friendly light cavalry against the Clibanarii, were between a big rock and a very hard place. 

This picture shows the developing contest between the Huns and Persians between the river loop and wooded area. The Persian light horse were the last troops available on this flank or wing. The Huns were reinforced by Byzantine heavy cavalry, but these “regiments” did not take part in this local contest. 

Turn 8: Having held the move option for the previous two turns, it was almost inevitable that the pendulum of initiative would swing back to the Sassanid side of the field. While Chosroes did win the move option, there were not that many unengaged formations that could be moved. The Persian light horse on his left wing had moved into contact with the last of the Huns. The center of the field could be called a slaughter house as hundreds of Byzantines and Persians had been killed or wounded there. In fact, it appeared that the Byzantine heavy cavalry was losing the battle of attrition to the Levy. The Persians did not have a total advantage, however, as on their center-left, the Byzantines and Huns had started turning this local flank. The large reserve of Sassanid heavy horse was not under any immediate threat, however. Over on the Persian right wing, a unit of Clibanarii was riding down the enemy line, attacking a succession of infantry units in the flank. As the foot were focused on fighting the Sassanids to their front, the flank attack or charge came as quite a shock. [3] Six “battalions” out of an original eight remained on the field. This command was not only being bled by combats against Persian horse, but it was also close to being attacked by a formation of Sassanid Levy, elephants, and light infantry. 

A brief halt was called so that casualties could be calculated. After double checking the math, it was noted that both sides were almost equal in the damage each had suffered: the Sassanids had lost 460 “figures” while the Byzantines had lost 480 “figures.” Some additional checking was done, and it was determined that the breaking point for the army of Belisarius was 718 “figures.” At the end of Turn 8, the Byzantines were over halfway there, having taken 67% of their army break point. The Sassanids, by contrast, were not quite halfway there, having lost 46% of their army break point. [4]

The fight in the center continues . . . The yellow dice mark those units that are disordered and will suffer a penalty in subsequent melees. The unit rosters show the status of each unit, and a small gap or hole is apparent in the Byzantine line on the right. 

Turn 9: Even though Chosroes had a minus 2 modifier on the move option roll, a result of 6 was no match for the awful roll of 1 made by the Byzantines. The Sassanids retained the initiative. There was not a lot of movement, however, as melees were still raging up and down the line. Over on the Persian right, a wave of Persian troops began approaching the sand castle-like line of Skutatoi. On the flanks of the reserve formations waiting in the center of the field, the end units were wheeled nearly 90 degrees to prevent possible flanking attacks by Hun cavalry on one side and one or two rogue Byzantine “regiments” on the other side. Movement by the Byzantine formations was just as limited. On the center-right, a few units moved forward a little, but there were no sweeping advances. 

Belisarius won the melee direction roll and decided to start on his right wing. The contest between the Persian light horse and the last division of the Huns was quite desperate. When the dust settled for this round of melee, each side had lost 2 units. The surviving Sassanid formations were closer to the river, but it was hardly expected that these few squadrons would be able to cause any kind of trouble on this flank. The battle in the center was a different story. 

Another view of the center of the battlefield taken late in the engagement. This picture shows the cumulative effect of a battle of attrition. Many of the “regiments” of Byzantine heavy horse have been broken; the various units of Levy and elephants are moving forward into the vacated space. On the lower right of the picture, two units of Persian horse have wheeled (complex move or about face) in order to address a perceived threat from some Byzantine cavalry. 

Due to the presence of elephants and the seemingly inexhaustible supply of Levy foot to be thrown into a veritable meat grinder, the Byzantine heavy horse were very hard pressed. In fact, in several instances, they were broken by the strain of long close combats. Eight units of Sassanid infantry and some elephants were advancing into the heart of the Byzantine deployment. These various formations faced no real or organized opposition. Over on the left wing, a very desperate engagement saw the collapse of another unit of Skutatoi as another flank charge unhinged the line. The neighboring unit was disheartened by this rout but remained in place and delivered a severe blow to the Sassanid heavy horse it was fighting. The broken Persian cavalrymen took along a unit of Levy in their flight. Despite this local victory or at least delay of the inevitable, things looked rather grim in this sector. The Byzantines were outnumbered and they seemed to have no answer for the rampaging unit of Persian heavy horse that was falling upon exposed flank after exposed flank. 

This picture shows the state of the Byzantine center-right at the end of the engagement. Some Huns are trying to turn the Sassanid flank, while Byzantine heavy horse move up in support. Space and other limitations prevent Belisarius from capitalizing on this local advantage. At the top of the frame, two units of Levy have broken through the line and a unit of Byzantine horse is disordered as it fights for its life against more Levy and elephants. 

Another intermission was called to tabulate the additional losses. After checking my sums a second time, it was determined that the Byzantines had lost another 110 “figures” against the Sassanid total of 95. The army of Belisarius was well on its way to breaking, having lost 590 out of 718 “figures.” To be certain, the Sassanids were bleeding, but they had more “figures” to spare or spend. At  the end of this turn, Chosroes had 444 “figures” in his “bank account” versus Belisarius, who had only 128 “figures.” This disparity, as well as an assessment of the state of the field which showed that the Persians would win their right and the center while losing their left, informed the decision to end the battle and declare a rather Pyrrhic victory for the Sassanid Persians.   

Evaluation

Reviewing the original plans developed by the opposing generals (me, in both cases, though wearing a different outfit and riding a different horse—figuratively, of course), it appeared that the Sassanid commander followed through better and was, therefore, more successful in the engagement. To be certain, his army was damaged (the numbers of “figures” lost make that argument), but he could absorb more punishment than the formations commanded by Belisarius. The Byzantines advanced too quickly in the center, were hamstrung by poor dice rolls on the left, and on their right wing, their heavy horse was essentially immobilized by the prolonged combat between the Huns and the Persian light horse. 

Acknowledging the unusual size of this tabletop contest, two questions arose. [5] First, was the scenario too big for a solo wargamer? Second, was the scenario too large for Tactica II? Having played nine turns over the course of a number of days, and having reached an estimated or logical conclusion based on the condition of the armies and the state of the field, I do not think the scenario was too much for a single player-general to handle. Were there mistakes made and some small details missed? Of course there were. However, I think these imperfections or situations often occur in large games between teams of player-generals. As far as I can tell, none of my mistakes regarding rule interpretations directly impacted the course or outcome of the wargame. As nine turns were completed and a “decision” was reached, it follows that the fictional battle was not too much for the Tactica II rules.  Then again, looking at the tabletop now, a day or so after the engagement was halted, I could not help but notice that about 30 units  never saw any action (missile fire or melee) on the model battlefield. In addition to these general positives, I gained more experience with the rules, so the time and resources invested in the project were not wasted. However, as with any wargaming project—and especially those set up on my table, there were some perceived negatives. 

Purists, traditionalists and or “old school” historical miniature wargamers will object to, take issue with, or simply dismiss my approach as it does not present the hobby in its best visual aspects. I stipulate to this observation readily as I have done on numerous previous occasions. While a great degree of visual appeal was sacrificed in order to build comparatively massive armies for use on my tabletop, a historical wargame, albeit a solo one, was still played over the course of several days. I was engaged, entertained, and educated by the experience and experiment.

This recently completed big battle has me thinking more about the role of division commanders and how these leaders are abstracted in Tactica II. I will have to do some research, but it seems to me that leaders and officers played a rather important role on the ancient battlefield. Depending on my findings, I might tinker with the rules as written on this point. In fact, I recall one turn of the just-finished battle when two units of Byzantine heavy cavalry made a pursuit move after winning a melee and were in a position to turn and flank a part of the Sassanid line. Unfortunately, these cavalry units were now outside of the range or radius of their figurative division commander. As a result, the cavalry was unable to move. This struck me as slightly unrealistic. It seemed to me, and perhaps I am reaching here, that any average cavalry “regiment” commander would recognize the situation and would not have to wait for orders from higher-up to launch a flanking attack. 

The light cavalry contests on both flanks of my battlefield were rather lengthy but also rather bloody affairs. I wondered if I was mistaken to not have deployed some of the formations as skirmishers. I also wondered if I should develop interpenetration rules for light cavalry units or adjust the fighting quality of the Huns so that they were a little better than average light cavalry. At the same time, I wondered if I should have made the opposing lines of light cavalry just stand off and launch arrow volleys at each other instead of joining in melee, as “massed unit” light cavalry seems especially vulnerable in close combat in Tactica II.

Finally, as the engagement unfolded and both sides became fully involved (at least those units in the front line), I wondered about the stamina of the opposing formations. The Byzantine cavalry certainly outclassed the Persian Levy, but in protracted melees, it was the heavy cavalry who were defeated and broken. This unfortunate result despite melee rounds wherein the horse inflicted 5, 6 or more “kills” against the deep infantry compared to the 0 or 1 “kills” they suffered. Because of previous experience with another set of rules written by Arty Conliffe, I wondered if I could incorporate some kind of fatigue rule(s) in the framework of Tactica II. Then again, I recall reading narratives written by Charles Grant, wherein he talks about his house rules that provide for “enforced cavalry retirement and rest” after two or three rounds of melee. 

In summary, this very large Tactica II scenario was, in my opinion, a good wargame and a good experience. To be sure, I am still rate as a “rookie” with the rules, and perhaps I did go overboard with respect to the size of the solo contest, but it did work. Instead of being discouraged by the scenario and the rules, I find myself encouraged. Even as the big battle at Behistun started winding down, I found myself drawing up rough plans for the next Tactica II engagement. While I would attempt to stage something similar in size, the armies involved would be different. As I drafted and revised these work-in-progress orders of battle, I continued to debate the efficacy, playability and realism of several proposed rule amendments. 

Notes

1. Out of simple curiosity, I timed how long the movement of the arranged units (i.e., counters) took. I started on the left of the Byzantines and moved over to the right. I then started on the right of Persian deployment and moved over to the left. It took me approximately 19 minutes to move all the units and their roster cards. This time would decrease, obviously, as formations came into contact and melees were initiated. Ideally, I should have liked to stage this fictional battle on desert-like terrain. However, attempts to secure the proper cloth and stay within budget proved unsuccessful. This Battle of Behistun would take place on greener ground than one might associate with the regions and terrain of Byzantium and or Sassanid Persia.
2. During this game turn, I mistakenly followed the melee direction from one side of the field to another instead of resolving the flank attacks or combats first. That error aside, I was confused by the procedure, at least as it relates to pursuit and its effects. After wiping out the unfortunate unit of Byzantine infantry (the Sassanid horse rolled 18 dice and many of these scored “kills”), the “regiment” pursued into the next unit of enemy foot. The Byzantine infantry had passed its rout path check, but according to the rules (Section 7.7), a unit hit in the flank by a heavy unit is automatically disordered. In melees, disordered units can only roll half of their allotted dice. In Section 9.6, which covers ‘Pursuit Movement,’ a paragraph refers to new melees being resolved in the following turn. After several reviews of this section, I could find nothing specifically addressing my tabletop circumstance. So, I played it normally, meaning that the Byzantine foot were not considered disordered until the next turn. I admit that this may have been an error on my part. 
3. My inexperience with the rules will be evident in this note. Several times during the seventh and eighth turns of play, I ran into situations where a friendly unit (disordered from a previous turn) had a neighboring unit break and rout. In checking the rules and the QRS, I could not find an explicit statement regarding the fate of disordered units that fail a control test in this specific circumstance. I noted the point about disordered units being outscored in a melee area, but again, saw nothing about my particular question. Something to ask on the Tactica Forum, I suppose. 
4. The casualties suffered by both sides were essentially equal. However, the Byzantines were 20 percentage points ahead of the Sassanids in this deadly category. The Persians outnumbered the Byzantines in total points and in total “figures.” Consequently, the Persians had a higher army break point. At this stage of the contest, it could be remarked that the Sassanids were winning. This struck me as interesting as well as a little odd, given my amateur study of ancient military history. Broadly speaking, it seems that the victors on an ancient battlefield suffered comparatively few losses when the casualties of the losing army were added up. Broadly speaking, it could be asserted that a victorious army might lose around 10 percent of its strength, whereas the losing army would suffer three or four times as many dead and wounded if not greater losses. 
5. In the last week of October 2021, I posted an inquiry to the Tactica II Forum, asking about the largest game members had played with the rules. I received several answers, but based on this small sample, there were no reports of games exceeding 5,000 points per side.