ANTIOCHUS III vs PTOLEMY IV

While this present effort marks my third visit to the well known 217 BC battlefield, it is my first attempt at a solo refight of Raphia using amended Tactica II rules. Guessing that a majority of the readers of this post will have a working knowledge of the historical engagement or at least be familiar with the name, I shall skip the “potted history” portion wherein events leading up to the battle are reviewed and dive right into a presentation of my interpretation of the orders of battle.

The Seleucid Army

Right Wing

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
Antiochus placed sixty of his elephants under the command of his foster-brother Philip in front of his right wing . . .  82.8	8 Indian elephant “models” deployed as a screen. Each “model” represents 8 actual animals. These pachyderms will have attached SI/LI supports.	48	336
Behind the elephants he posted two thousand horse under Antipater and two thousand more at an angle with them.  82.9	Employing a “figure” to actual infantry/cavalryman scale of 1:50, Antipater’s cavalry contingent numbered 80 “figures.” This “division” contained: 14 HC - I (Agema) FV 5-6 / Guard / Lances [7x2] 16 HC - I (Companions) FV 5-6 / Elite / Lances [8x2] 14 HC - I (Line Cavalry) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Lances [7x2] 12 HC - I (Line Cavalry) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Lances [6x2]  12 HC - I (Line Cavalry) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Lances [6x2] 12 LC (Tarantines) FV 3-6 / Veterans / Javelins [6x2]	80	636
Next to the cavalry facing the front, he placed the Cretans . . .  82.10 / Antiochus had also fifteen hundred Cretans under Eurylochus and a thousand Neocretans under Zelys of Gortyna.  79.10	These 2,500 light troops, a mix of archers and javelinmen, I suggest, were assigned as escorts to the 60 elephants commanded by Philip. These Cretans and Neocretans did not form a part of my “miniature” Seleucid right wing.	N/A	150
. . . then the mercenaries from Greece . . .  82.10 / Hippolochus the Thessalian commanded the mercenaries from Greece, five thousand in number.  79.9	36 PH (Hoplites) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Spear [9x4] 32 PH (Hoplites) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Spear [8x4] 32 PH (Hoplites) FV 5-6 / Average / Spear [8x4]	100	568
. . . and next to these the five thousand armed in the Macedonian fashion under the command of Byttacus the Macedonian.  82.10 / These consisted of Daae, Carmanians, and Cilicians, light-armed troops about five thousand in number organized and commanded by Byttacus the Macedonian.  79.3	36 PH (Phalangites) FV 4-6 / Average / Pike [9x4] 32 PH (Phalangites) FV 4-6 /Average / Pike [8x4] 32 PH (Phalangites) FV 4-6 / Average / Pike [8x4]	100	500

Notes:

1. Antiochus III is present on this wing, attached to his Agema or Guard Horse. 
2. There are 328 massed figures on this flank, with an estimated point value of about 2,200. 

The Center

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
Both of them placed the phalanxes of the picked troops armed in the Macedonian fashion confronting each other in the centre.  82.2 / Under Theodotus the Aetolian . . . was a force of ten thousand selected from every part of the kingdom and armed in the Macedonian manner, most of them with silver shields.  79.4	5 units of 40 “figures” each- 3 units of PH (Argyraspides) FV 5-6 / Guard / Pikes [10x4] 2 units of PH (Argyraspides) FV 5-6 / Elite / Pikes [10x4]	200	1,920
The phalanx was about twenty thousand strong and was under the command of Nicarchus and Theodotus surnamed Hemiolius.  79.5	8 units of 50 “figures” each-  5 units of PH (Phalangites) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Pikes [10x5] 3 units of PH (Greco-Bactrians) FV 5-6 / Average / Pikes [10x5]	400	3,050

Notes:

1. The strength of the Seleucid center is 600 “figures” and is valued at around 5,000 points. 

Left Wing

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
On his extreme left wing he posted two thousand horse under the command of Themison . . .   82.11	10 HC - I (Line Cavalry) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Lances [5x2] 10 HC (Greeks) / FV 4-6 / Average / Javelins [5x2] 10 HC (Greeks) / FV 4-6 / Militia Grade / Javelins [5x2] 10 LC (Tarantines) / FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [5x2]	40	220
. . . next to these the Cardacian and Lydian javelineers . . .  82.11 / With these were five hundred Lydian javelineers and a thousand Cardaces under Lysimachus the Gaul.  79.11	30 LI (Peltasts) / FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [10x3]	30	120
. . . then three thousand light-armed troops under Menedemus . . .  82.11 / There were Agrianian and Persian bowmen and slingers to the number of two thousand, and with them two thousand Thracians, all under the command of Menedemus of Alabanda.  79.6	The 2,000 archers and slingers were assigned as elephant escorts. See below, please. The Thracian contingent is depicted with 2 units of 20 “figures"- 20 LI (Thracian Peltasts) / FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [10x2]	40	160
. . . after these the Cissians, Medes, and Carmanians . . .  82.12 / Aspasianus the Mede had under him a force of about five thousand Medes, Cissians, Cadusians, and Carmanians.  79.7	5 units of 18 “figures”-  18 LI (Mercenary Archers/Peltasts) FV 3-6 / Average / Bows & Javelins [6x3]	90	450
. . . and finally, in contact with the phalanx, the Arabs and the neighbouring tribes.  82.12 / The Arabs and neighbouring tribes numbered about ten thousand and were commanded by Zabdibelus.  79.8	5 units of 40 “figures” each- 3 units of FT (Arabs) FV 4-6 / Average / Spears [10x4] 1 units of FT (Arabs) FV 3-6 / Militia Grade / Various & Javelins [10x4] 1 unit of FT (Arabs) FV 3-6 / Militia Grade / Various & Bows [10x4]	200	600
His remaining elephants he placed in front of his left wing under the command of Myicus, one of the young men who had been brought up at court.  82.13	5 Indian elephant “models” deployed as a screen. This screen will have the support of 2,000 archers and slingers from the command of Menedemus.	30	210

Notes:

1. The left wing of this army contains 430 massed figures. Its value is estimated at around 1,800 points.

Having “worked out” the contingents in the army of Antiochus III, I turned my attention to the assembled forces under Ptolemy IV.

The Ptolemaic Army

Right Wing

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
On the extreme right wing was Echecrates with his cavalry . . .  82.5 /It was Echecrates the Thessalian who trained most admirably the cavalry from Greece and all the mercenary cavalry . . .  65.6	Approximately 2,000 heavy horse, depicted with 40 “figures” —  3 units of 10 HC (Greeks/Mercenaries) FV 4-6 / Veterans / Javelins [5x2] 1 unit of 10 LC (Tarantines) / FV 3-6 / Veterans / Javelins [5x2]	40	220
. . . on his left stood Gauls and Thracians . . .  82.5 / . . . and they had also collected a force of Thracians and Gauls, about four thousand of them from among settlers in Egypt and their descendants, and two thousand lately raised elsewhere. These were commanded by Dionysius the Thracian.  65.10	Dividing this contingent evenly between troop types, there are 60 Gauls and 60 Thracians-  2 units of 30 WB - I (Gauls or Galatians) FV 4-6 / Veterans / Various [10x3] 3 units of 20 LI (Thracian Peltasts) FV 3-6 / Veterans / Javelins [10x2]	120	630
. . . and next to them was Phoxidas with his Greek mercenaries in immediate contact with the Egyptian phalanx.  82.6 /. . . and the mercenaries, numbering eight thousand, under that of Phoxidas.  65.4	160 HI “figures” - 3 units of 40 HI (Hoplites) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Spears [10x4] 1 unit of 40 HI (Hoplites) FV 5-6 / Average / Spears [10x4]	160	1,080
Of the elephants . . . the remaining thirty-three in front of the mercenary cavalry on the right wing.  82.7	4 African elephant “models” deployed as a screen. Each “model” represents 8 actual animals. Evidently, these pachyderms have NO attached SI/LI supports.	16	120

Notes:

1. There are 336 massed figures on Ptolemaic right wing. These formations have a combined points value of around 2,000. 

Center

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
. . . Ptolemy the son of Thraseas, and Andromachus of Aspendus exercised together in one body the phalanx . . . the phalanx twenty-five thousand strong being under the command of Andromachus and Ptolemy . . .   65.3-4	500 “figures” organized into 10 units of pikemen: 7 units of 50 PH (Macedonians) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Pikes [10x5] 3 units of 50 PH (Macedonians) FV 5-6 / Average / Pikes [10x5]	500	3,350
The total native Egyptian force consisted of about twenty thousand heavy-armed men, and was commanded by Sosibius . . .  65.9	400 “figures” organized into 5 units of pikemen: 3 units of PH (Egyptians) FV 4-6 / Average / Pikes [8x10] 2 units of PH (Egyptians) FV 4-6 / Militia Grade / Pikes 8x10]	400	1,840

Notes:

1. The center of Ptolemy’s army contained 900 “figures” in the phalanx(es) and these formations were estimated to be worth approximately 5,200 points. 

Left Wing

Information from Polybius:  Histories, Book V	Amended Tactica II Representation	Massed Figures	Estimated Points Value
Polycrates with his cavalry held the extreme left wing . . .  82.3 /Polycrates undertook the training of the cavalry of the guard, about seven hundred strong, and the Libyan and native Egyptian horse; all of whom, numbering about three thousand, were under his command.  65.5	2,300 horsemen, depicted with 46 “figures"- 3 units of 12 HC - I (Klerouchoi) FV 5-6 / Veterans / Lances [6x2] 1 unit of 10 LC (Tarantines) FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [5x2]	48	336
. . . between him and the phalanx stood first the Cretans . . .  82.4 / . . . and Cnopias of Allaria too was second to none in the attention he paid to the force under him composed of three thousand Cretans, one thousand being Neocretans whom he placed under the command of Philo of Cnossus.  65.7	These 60 “figures” are designated as escorts or supports to the 40 elephants placed on this wing. Please see below.	N/A	180
. . . next the cavalry, then the royal guard . . .  82.4 / Eurylochus of Magnesia commanded a body of about three thousand men known as the Royal Guard . . . 65.2	The 700 cavalry are modeled with 14 “figures"- 14 HC - I (Agema) FV 5-6 / Guard / Lances [7x2] The Royal Guard is represented by 60 “figures"- 60 PH (Agema) FV 5-6 / Guard / Pikes [12x5]	74	670
. . . then the peltasts under Socrates . . .  82.4 /Socrates the Boeotian had under him two thousand peltasts . . .  65.2	2 units of 20 LI (Peltasts) FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [10x2]	40	160
. . . these latter being next to those Libyans who were armed in the Macedonian manner.  82.4 / They also armed in the Macedonian fashion three thousand Libyans under the command of Ammonius of Barce.  65.8	60 “figures” organized 2 units of 30-  30 PH (Libyans) FV 4-6 / Average / Pikes [10x3]	60	300
Of the elephants forty were posted on the left where Ptolemy himself was about to fight . . .  82.7	5 African elephant “models” deployed as a screen. Each “model” represents 8 actual animals. These pachyderms will have attached SI/LI supports.	20	150

Notes:

1. Ptolemy III will be in the immediate vicinity of the Guard cavalry and foot. While he is the supreme commander of the army, it could be said that he has a more urgent role on the left wing.
2. On this wing, there are 242 massed unit figures. The calculated value of this wing is about 1,800 points. 

The Rule Changes: A Summary

Turning next to a consideration of the rule mechanics and procedures, perhaps it would be simplest to offer a “work in progress” list of changes made to the rules-as written? On second thought, I think I will just go through the Tactica II QRS subject by subject and briefly note what, if any, amendments or variants have been incorporated. 

Sequence of Play: Substituted the game move sequence used in Armati 2nd Edition. To reduce the omnipotent command and control, I also adapted a card-activation system. In brief overview, for each turn, an army could move some, but not all of its component parts.

Movement/Movement Capabilities: Substituted the movement rates used in Armati 2nd Edition, however, given the scale of the units and “figures,” inches were converted to centimeters. 

Skirmish & Evade: no changes

Command Radius/Army General: Substituting rules from IMPETVS. Army and division leaders will have a command radius based on rating. They will also have a melee  and morale modifier. They will have a figure value as well. 

Obligatory Charges & Complex Maneuvers: no changes

Unit Breakpoints: Adding three additional classes or categories of troops. Adjusting the percentage of losses that will cause a unit to break as well.  

Control Tests/Disorder: Generally the same, although there are a few more classes of troops, so the modifiers have been adjusted.

Broken Units/Timing of Breaks: Essentially the same, but have doubled the ‘rout path’ to the rear of the disintegrated unit/formation.

Breakthrough/Pursuit: no changes

Missile Fire/Protected Targets: Missile ranges from the Armati 2nd Edition rules are adopted. No other changes to procedures of prohibitions. Missile Storms and Missile Halts are still possible. 

Melee/Impetus/Depth Advantage: Incorporating fatigue points or markers into these procedures and determinations. For each turn of melee, a participating unit will receive a fatigue marker. Each marker will subtract a d6 from the unit’s melee roll. The fatigue limit is 4 markers. Fatigue can be removed by breaking off from the contest, rallying and resting. 

Given the unusual number of massed “figures” present and the equally unusual number of points involved, I made a few changes to the established victory conditions. Instead of a whole army approach, I divided each force into three large divisions or sectors: a left, a center, and a right. I set the breaking point at 40% for the flanks and at 35% for the center. For example, the Ptolemaic right would quit the field when it had lost the equivalent of 135 massed unit figures. The Seleucid phalanx would run away when it had suffered 210 massed unit figure casualties.

Any situation that was not covered sufficiently by the above changes would be addressed during the course of the wargame. As this was a solo project, I was not overly concerned about a disagreement, let alone a fight breaking out over a particular interpretation or experimental procedure. 

Setting the Table

Modeling the terrain of this ancient battlefield posed no challenge whatsoever. I simply declared the short edges of my combined tabletop to be impassable ground. (Evidently, on the Ptolemaic left, there was a stretch of high dunes, and on the Seleucid left, there was an escarpment of limestone.) To break up the monochromatic effect of a bare wood (particle board) playing surface, I cut out a variety of shapes using suitably colored felt and specialty paper purchased from a local crafts store. These “patches” or shapes were randomly placed across my “model” battlefield. These assorted pieces did not represent any kind of terrain feature. These assorted pieces would not interfere with movement, missile exchanges, or give either side an advantage in melee. They were simply decoration, acceptable for one on a very limited wargaming budget. 

In arranging the opposing “miniature” armies, I followed the deployment diagram found on page 93 of Warfare in the Classical World. The single change made was the shifting of the Silver Shields to the right of the Seleucid line. The “regular” phalangites stood in the center of the larger formation, while the Arab tribes were stationed on their immediate left. Additionally, instead of positioning the elephants in front of cavalry formations (as indicated in Chapter 82 of the ancient narrative), I shifted the pachyderms a bit to allow the cavalry an open avenue. The elephants were situated as screens to foot units; the elephants were deployed so that they faced their enemy counterparts. Polybius also mentioned that half of the cavalry under Antipater were deployed “at an angle” to the rest of the cavalry on the Seleucid right. No further details are given, unfortunately. Unable to decide upon the angle of deployment, I placed all of the cavalry under Antipater in a straight line. Antiochus brought up the rear, riding with his Agema or Guard Horse. 

Setting up the table . . . The Seleucid side. The contingents commanded by Aspasianus and Zabdibelus are visible. The top of the frame shows a portion of the Seleucid phalanx. One of the elephant stands under the command of Myicus is also in the photo. The enemy formations have yet to be deployed. A general impression of the functional and inexpensive terrain pieces can be made. The command cards are ready (red for Seleucids and blue for Ptolemaics), as is the repurposed holiday card box I use for dice rolling. (This keeps the various colored cubes from “flying” all over the place.) 

A close up of the Seleucid right wing, showing the cavalry of Antipater and the Agema under the direction of Antiochus III. (The white rectangles on the unit counters indicate the breaking point of the unit.)

A partial view of the completed arrangement of the “armies” taken from the Seleucid right/Ptolemaic left. The opposing screens of elephants are plainly visible. The supporting infantry formations are apparent as well. The cavalry wings are out of frame but portion of the large phalanxes can be seen. 

The Refight: A Summary

Opposing units of light cavalry hurled the first missiles and recorded the first casualties of the two-dimensional engagement over on the Seleucid left wing. This initial action developed into a fairly large cavalry contest, as the formations of Themison and Echecrates charged and counter-charged. Despite fighting bravely, the Seleucid cavalry was routed and Themison found himself captured by some pursuing enemy light horse. Themison took some measure of satisfaction in the fact that the cavalry units of Echecrates were severely weakened by these melees and would play no further role in the larger engagement. Even so, the light infantry under Lysimachus wheeled to the left in order to keep an eye on these Ptolemaic cavalry remnants. 

The Seleucid elephants under Myicus were able to handle their Ptolemaic counterparts easily and quickly enough, though some casualties were suffered. A subsequent advance on the enemy foot resulted in the destruction and or dispersal of the Seleucid pachyderms. The men under Menedemus and Aspasianus moved up to engage the enemy light infantry and hoplites. The arrow volleys from the Seleucid foot scored some hits against the Gauls or Galatians and other formations, but did little to stop the eventual charge(s) made by the enemy line. The Arab contingent under Zabdibelus was also involved in events on this wing. The barbarians under Dionysius and the mercenary hoplites led by Phoxidas proved too much for the Seleucid foot, and after a few rounds of melee, the Seleucid left was forced to flee. The cavalry under Echecrates, rendered impotent as a result of previous fighting, and the victorious infantry being too slow, there was really nothing the Ptolemaic forces could do to assist in other parts of the larger battlefield. 

Over on the “Kings’ wing,” where Ptolemy faced Antiochus, the Seleucid elephants swatted aside the Ptolemaic elephants with very little loss. Trumpeting loudly and increasing their lumbering pace, the victorious pachyderms charged into the waiting lines of Royal Guard, light infantry, and “Macedonians” under Ammonius. While these chaotic melees were taking place, the cavalry of Polycrates and Antipater clashed. In a reversal of what happened on the other wing, the Seleucid horsemen were able to defeat their enemy counterparts. (Antiochus and his guard regiment played no part in this. In fact, they remained in reserve and trotted off to the right with the plan of swinging far around the enemy flank.) After a prolonged struggle which saw a few of Philip’s elephants wheeling about and rejoining the fight, most of the Seleucid pachyderms were put down. After seeing the destruction of Socrates’ infantry and Polycrates’ cavalry, Ptolemy abandoned his guard formations and began moving over to the center. The unit commander of the guard cavalry threw caution to the wind and ordered a charge into the larger numbers of Seleucid cavalry. For a few minutes, his men did rather well. However, when some Seleucid Companions joined the swirling melee, the fight became one-sided and the guards were broken. Soon after this, the morale of the Ptolemaic left plummeted and the remaining units turned about and ran away.  

Due to their comparatively slow speed and due to the randomness of the command and control card deck, the opposing phalanxes did not meet until the seventh turn of the refight. The Egyptian contingent was especially late to this “party.” For the next eight turns, the fight between the phalanxes raged, expanding as the Silver Shields joined the scrum and the Egyptians eventually arrived. The “back and forth” and “push of pike” required dozens of handfuls of dice which produced losses, but no episodes of catastrophic casualties. Fatigue markers blossomed on each of the involved units. The accumulation of these indicators had an impact on the number of dice each fighting unit could roll. Eventually, however, the scales of the phalanx battle started to tip toward the Seleucids. Ptolemy’s formation suffered the loss of two units and Andromachus lost one. The majority of the Ptolemaic formations were very close to their determined break points. This situation stood in stark contrast to the Seleucid phalanx, which was in better shape even though several units had suffered quite a few losses in this attritional melee. 

A review of the tabletop was made after 15 turns of play. The forces of Ptolemy had won on their right, but were unable to take advantage of this local victory. The Seleucids had won on their right and were slowly, inevitably, shifting and wheeling formations to expand upon this local victory. The phalanxes of Byttacus and the damaged cavalry under the command of Antipater were getting set for a flanking move. In the center, the contest between the opposing phalanxes was being won, albeit at some cost, by the Seleucids. Based on this objective as well as subjective assessment, a pyrrhic victory was awarded to Antiochus III.

Taken from the Ptolemaic right during the early stages of the battle/wargame. The cavalry of Echecrates is nearing the cavalry of Themison. At the top of the picture, the smaller screens of elephants are moving toward each other as well. 

Another view of the Ptolemaic right wing/Seleucid left wing, showing the initial stages of melee between the opposing cavalry formations. (If one looks closely, the red markers indicate losses. The purple fatigue markers have yet to be placed on the involved units.) The elephants are also very close to making contact. The playing cards are from the “command and control” deck, which is used to determine the formations that may move or remain in place during a turn. 

A closer look at the contest between Echecrates and Themison. The blue dice indicate melee hits/kills scored by the Seleucids; the white dice indicate kills scored by the Ptolemaic cavalry. 

Another look at the Seleucid right, showing the cavalry of Antipater, the elephants of Philip, and the infantry commanded by Hippolochus and Byttacus, respectively. 

In a near repeat of the historical narrative, the more numerous and larger Seleucid elephants advance on the smaller Ptolemaic pachyderms. The infantry and cavalry of both sides are staying out of this fight. The elephants of both sides are being escorted by “clouds” of friendly skirmishers. 

After routing the Ptolemaic elephants (again, very similar to the reported progress of the battle), Philip’s nellies advance on the Ptolemaic infantry formations. Contact is made with the light troops under Socrates and the heavier foot commanded by Ammonius. The Ptolemaic Royal Guard is about to be hit. The red markers track losses; the purple markers indicate fatigue. The yellow d6 indicates disorder and the green d6 indicates impetus. 

After routing the Ptolemaic elephants, Philip’s pachyderms follow up with advances into the lines of enemy foot. The Royal Guard is heavily engaged (no pun intended); the light infantry of Socrates is broken, and the “Macedonians” under Ammonius are attacked as well. The Seleucid elephants being to suffer the consequences, however, of successive melees as the animals become fatigued. 

The Ptolemaic left wing, or what remains of it . . . The Royal Guard has managed to whittle away at the elephants, even though one troop is still in contact. The Agema of Ptolemy sacrifices itself against the more numerous Seleucid horse. Ptolemy abandoned this sector a turn or two earlier, riding to seek refuge with his phalanx. Antiochus III and his fresh unit of guard cavalry can be seen in the upper right of the frame. This unit would not see any combat at all during the scenario. 

The status of the field on the Seleucid left, where the Arab contingents are about to be engaged by the hoplites commanded by Phoxidas. Archery from the light infantry under Aspasianus and those few Arabs armed with bows has inflicted a few casualties on the Greek mercenaries, but these losses will not stop the eventual melees. Over to the right of the frame, at the top, the slow approach of the very deep Egyptian phalanx can be seen.

A view from the other side of the Seleucid left, showing the ongoing melee(s) between opposing formations. The contingents under Zabdibelus and Aspasianus are engaged with hoplites and Gauls/Galatians. As might be imagined, light infantry and foot are not doing that well against phalanx and warband types. 

The far right of the Ptolemaic line, showing the survivors of the cavalry contest facing off against the massed light infantry of Lysimachus. Two of the Ptolemaic cavalry formations are over their determined break point, but have survived by making successful “Fates Rolls.” Echecrates decided not to attack, as he figured any melee would further weaken his already decimated formation. 

Taken from the Seleucid right/Ptolemaic left looking down the length of the battlefield. The Silver Shields have just made contact with several units of enemy phalanx. At the bottom of the frame, two units of Philip’s elephants have wheeled about (the move produced the yellow dice markers for disorder) so that they can rejoin the action in this sector. The command of Ammonius is facing the phalangites under Byttacus while being threatened by possible elephant attack from behind. 

A close up of the Egyptian contingent. Two units of the Seleucid phalanx under the command of Theodotus have advanced and engaged the deep if poorly trained Egyptian infantry in melee. The right side of the Egyptian formation faces off agains the Arabs. One of the units has been “missile halted” [red die] by effective archery fire. 

This picture was taken from above and slightly to the right of the Ptolemaic center. Most of the engaged units are exhausted by the prolonged “push of pike” (note the several purple fatigue markers on each unit counter). Casualties are mounting (the red markers), but have not reached a critical level as of yet. 

Comments & Evaluation

In December of 2021, history was reversed on my admittedly unattractive and non-traditional tabletop. On further review, I was rather pleased that my refight followed the general course of the actual engagement, with a flank being won by each side and then the final decision being made by the phalanxes. However, as related above, in my reconstruction, the Seleucid phalanx, though battered and bloodied, stood victorious on the arid and nondescript plain. To be sure, there can be no comparison made between the losses suffered by my “miniature” armies and the casualty lists reported by Polybius. I did note, however, that my elephants took a bit of a bashing as opposed to their historical counterparts. (I am still trying to figure out how Ptolemy lost most of his elephants through capture. As he won the field, I would imagine that he was able to retrieve most of his captured elephants.) I have not completed any calculations on this point, but I would expect that the “casualties” — meaning actual numbers of “figures” lost — on each side were approximately or very approximately equal. 

How did the rule amendments work? Broadly speaking, I think the rule amendments worked fairly well. That said, there is still much tinkering or “work” to be done. For example, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of involvement by the various commanders. The vast majority of these personalities stood behind the fighting line and elected not to participate in any melee or even try to encourage their men. Antiochus and Ptolemy never came to blows. I was also disappointed by the fatigue rules. While realistic and worthwhile, and least in my opinion, tacking these on to a dice-intensive melee process only served to prolong the combats, especially between large phalanxes. Half way through the fighting in the center, I looked up something in Wargame Tactics and found mention of a house rule regarding the length of infantry and cavalry contests when there is no clear winner, and the number of turns these kinds of formations have to rest and reorganize once they have pulled back from a drawn close combat. Although it was too late to incorporate this into the present action, I filed this borrowed idea away for possible future use. 

Shifting from the narrow assessment of rule amendments and sub-phases of the game turn to the broader assessment of meeting Donald Featherstone’s common sense guidelines about how to refight a historical battle realistically, I think this recently completed effort would receive a passing grade. For as much as we know about the location, terrain, and troop types involved, I would suggest that my refight was fairly realistic. In fact, I would argue that this third visit to the ancient battlefield of Raphia marks my best effort yet, even if it was not played to an “official conclusion” and even if it was still miles from being a traditional historical miniature wargame.

To be certain, it is too soon to start thinking about making a return to Raphia. However, I confess that I am curious about how a To The Strongest! scenario would play. I also wonder how a Triumph! refight of the historical battle would play and how it would look. My first impression is that it would be easier to play these wargames to a proper conclusion. (With To The Strongest!, there would be no dice used. With Triumph!, combat would require just a single die for each unit involved.) In fact, I’ve already done some sketching and thinking about using To The Strongest! It seems that it would be possible to “model” the engagement on my 6.5 by 3.75 feet tabletop. 

Sources

Obviously, typing “battle of Raphia” into an online search engine will produce quite a few results in very little time. Here are four links for readers to investigate and or peruse: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raphia

http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/antica/Raphia/Raphia_eng.html

http://turningpointsoftheancientworld.com/index.php/2018/08/25/battle-raphia/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23036555

Typing “wargame of Raphia” or “Raphia wargame” into that same online search engine produces a fair number of returns as well. Several of these are links to videos, and more than a few are links to boardgame treatments of the battle. As one might expect, the indefatigable and prolific Simon Miller features prominently in the field of returned results. See, for example, https://www.beastsofwar.com/liveblogentry/fancy-playing-out-the-battle-of-raphia/. 

As indicated by the provided orders of battle, I used the narrative account written by Polybius as my primary source. I paid particular attention to Chapters 65 and 79-86. Please see: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/polybius/5*.html.

I also looked through my electronic collection of back issues of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients. I confess that I was somewhat surprised to find only three articles about the battle in this archive. Issue 69 (as I type this line, subscribing members are currently awaiting the arrival of Issue 338) included a report on the refight held during the fifth annual western US convention. Issues 95 and 96 contained two engaging and thought-provoking articles written by John Boehm. His analysis of the reported orders of battle was especially interesting. 

A few other sources would include the half-page in Warfare in the Classical World as well as my two previous and admittedly very amateur efforts which appeared in the October 2013 issue of Wargames Illustrated and the May 08, 2021, entry to this blog, respectively. Another, more traditional if also “free set up” refight of Raphia was published in the pages of the June 2014 issue of Wargames Illustrated. In addition, I also consulted the four-page scenario brief prepared by Simon Miller. (Please see: https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/products/tts-for-king-and-parliament-raphia-scenario.)

With regard to tinkering with the rules, I studied the ideas advanced by the team of Phil Halewood and Martin Charlesworth in the May 2010 issue of Slingshot. I also reviewed my own efforts. (Please see “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering,” posted to this blog on June 19, 2021.) There was also an exchange of posts and emails with the more accomplished and experienced members of the Tactica II Forum. Thank you, gentlemen, for your advice, constructive criticism, and time. It was greatly appreciated.