AN ITCH FOR ISSUS

At the end of the first paragraph of “Good Work Done by Greeks,” Kenneth Clark informs the curious and or interested reader that circumstances finally and fortuitously combined, thus permitting him “to refight the battle of Issus, which had been his ambition for longer than he could remember.” The long-unrealized reconstruction was apparently a solo effort and played with “rules first formalized in the 1970s, but which had gone through a number of editions.” The four-page battle report, published in the January 1993 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients, was, in my opinion, quite an enjoyable read. Like Mr. Clark (the formal title is used out of respect and not to signal a certain attitude or tone on my part; I have not had the pleasure of either meeting or communicating with him), I am, have been, and or most easily identify as a solo wargamer. However, unlike the gentleman and fellow ancients enthusiast, refighting Alexander’s first clash with King Darius III has not been on my “bucket list” of long-standing miniature wargaming ambitions. (In fact and I suppose some might think it just a little bit sad, but I do not have a wargaming “bucket list.”) My interest in making a second visit to this particular Persian plain only developed about three weeks ago. [1] My interest in staging another refight of Issus is fleeting or perhaps I should say temporary (like the vast majority of my projects), and will pass once the narrative of my experiment and experience has been sufficiently documented, thoroughly edited, and then posted to what could be described as a “niche within a niche within a niche” blog. [2] Anyway, during an early morning walk in the first days of October, as thoughts drifted around in my head much like the contents of a shaken snow globe, an idea suddenly formed. What if I refought the 333 BC battle of Issus but “flipped the script”? That is to say, what if I inverted Issus? What kind of wargame would result? Would it even be possible? In the interest of transparency, of full-disclosure, at least in this particular context, prior to that almost daily perambulation in early October, I was aware of the agenda for the 2022 Society Conference. [3] So, it would be reasonable to assume that the scheduled “workshop on the Battle of Issus and 15 mm refight,” might have been one of those tiny fake snowflakes floating around in my head along with myriad other and very often unrelated concerns, ideas, thoughts, and questions. 

Source Materials

Having “given birth” to this unplanned notion, it seemed prudent to re-educate and re-familiarize myself with the history of Issus. A crash-course of study was thrown together, and it would be fair to say that I immersed myself in books, magazine articles, as well as the ever-present and ever-helpful (well, most of the time) Internet. In no particular order and with no particular format, the following is a “bullet-point” list of sources I studied, annotated, and referenced while mentally walking back and forth across the plain of Issus as well as camping out there for a few days. 

> The Introduction to Battle Notes for Wargamers, written by Donald Featherstone and published in 1974. Though nearly 50 years old, I think this small volume is timeless and a welcomed addition to any historical wargamer’s library. Indeed, I have often relied upon the common sense guidelines or instructions found at the bottom of page 10. This well-known and venerated individual, this veritable “Founding Father” of the hobby explained: “To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appears the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces.” 

> Page 80 of Warfare in the Classical World. The interested reader will find three diagrams of the 333 BC Battle of Issus, wargamer-friendly orders of battle, and a three-paragraph synopsis or summary of the engagement. 

> The July 2015 Issue of WARGAMES illustrated®. The theme is “Alexander the Great: God of War.” In a sense, this is Simon MacDowall’s issue. He wrote three articles, the first of which covered the armies and battles of Alexander the Great. A brief portion of this well-written article discussed the Battle of Issus as well as referenced the ongoing debate/discussion about the Kardakes (or Cardaces). While the theme was Alexander, the issue also focused on The Society of Ancients Battle Day for 2015, where Hydaspes (326 BC) was staged on over a dozen tabletops with player-generals using a dozen different sets of rules. There were a variety of other articles too, but my attention and focus was centered on those about Alexander.

> LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, written by Professor Philip Sabin. The accomplished academic and long-standing member of The Society of Ancients examines Issus on pages 133-136 of this well-written and thought-provoking text. There is a suggested map or table layout for this second battle of Alexander’s conquest as well. In addition to offering his analysis and critique of the ancient sources for battles stretching across eight eras of ancient history, Professor Sabin includes a complete set of innovative wargame rules. (See Aaron Bell’s excellent blog for descriptions of games using these particular rules. For just one example, here is his refight of Pharsalus: https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2022/05/pharsalus-with-sp.html.)

> Back Issues of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. A search of the Index for the key word “Issus” turned up four results. In chronological order, these are/were: “The Issus Campaign,” by Peter Tickler, published in Number 65 (May 1976); “The Generalship of Darius III [Issus campaign],” by Bramwell Adams, published in Number 84 (July 1979); “Good Work Done by Greeks [Issus refought],” by Kenneth Clark, published in Number 165 (January 1993), and “Issus: The Empire Strikes Back,” by Patrick Waterson, published in Number 270 (May 2010). I scanned the first two articles for information; as previously related, I enjoyed reading Kenneth’s account of how he went about staging his interpretation of Issus, and at the risk of sounding like a sycophant or worse, I doubt I would tire of reading Patrick’s analysis and rather convincing arguments. As a general rule, I do not like reading my submissions once they have been accepted and published, so I am not including my article, “Choices and Compromises: An Interpretation of Issus,” which appeared in Number 302 (September/October 2015). 

> The “dissertation” authored by Jeff Jonas. Please see https://ancientbattles.com/Issus/Issus.htm. In my history as a solo wargamer (somewhere north of 30 years), I have a little bit of experience, maybe two or three years in total, with WAB (Warhammer Ancient Battles). To be certain, my largest battles with these rules did not begin to approach the 10 by 6-foot tabletop and large numbers of miniatures required for Issus on a grand WAB scale. I wonder if there is a record somewhere of this wargame? It seems to me that pictures of this Issus refight would compete with the spectacular presentations typically provided by Simon Miller. (See, for just one example of his hobby artistry: https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2016/11/magnesia-at-crisis_6.html.) Hmmm, I wonder if in some way or ways, WAB might be seen as an ancestor or precursor to Simon’s popular, dice as well as rulers-free, ancient and medieval wargaming rules? (I have not met this widely known hobby celebrity in person, but have communicated with him via email on more than several occasions, so I do not feel awkward about addressing the often Hawaiian shirt-wearing gentleman by his first name.) 

> The research completed and made available by Luke Ueda-Sarson. Please see http://lukeuedasarson.com/GranicusNotes.html. 

I was a little surprised to not find a lot of material about wargaming Issus on the Internet. I stumbled across a couple of Issus boardgames and a YouTube video about the battle, but there was very little uncovered about actual and previous attempts to refight this battle in miniature.  (In fact, I had some trouble with my search engine, as typing “wargame Issus” was often  interpreted as or autocorrected to “wargame issues.” Obviously, that is a whole other topic!) Anyhow, I wonder if this apparent lack of material is because Issus is the middle battle of Alexander’s “triple play” in winning Persia and as such, might be viewed or treated as the “stereotypical” middle child? Then again, the easier or likelier answer is that I probably did not look carefully enough, hard enough, or long enough for additional evidence of Issus. 

Iterations of Issus

In this section, I am going to follow a similar “format.” Ideally, I should like to proceed in some sort of alphabetical order, but I fear or think that this list will better resemble a jumble of colored post-its notes stuck on a cubicle divider or office wall, where each square contains writing that looks suspiciously like it was done by an actual chicken using a fine point Sharpie. 

> It would present no great challenge, at least in my opinion, to prepare and play Issus using the wealth of information provided by “Dekelia.” Please see https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=728. Instead of using a 4 by 3-foot “battle mat,” I could make use of my larger 6.5 by 3.75 foot table. While this would be a derivative effort, it would give me an excellent opportunity to increase my level of comfort and competence with the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. 

> A larger table, this time my 10.5 by 3.75 foot playing surface, could be employed for a rerun of my attempt to refight Issus with Armati 2nd Edition. With the experience gained in the seven years that have elapsed and with a close review and considered revision of orders of battle and scenario-specific rules, this option might be worth pursuing. 

> It might be entertaining and interesting to attempt a Hail Caesar version of Issus. To be certain, some amendments would have to be drafted to reflect the reportedly unusually deep Persian formations. I would have to consider how I might employ the three unit size classifications if this “rules road” was taken. 

> The idea of attempting Issus with my somewhat worn 3rd Edition copy of L’Art de la Guerre (ADLG) has a certain appeal. Depending on which source or sources I wanted to follow, it seems that I could more accurately represent the large numbers of Persian troops. However, I might have to tinker with the classification of Cardaces provided in the Late Achaemenid Persian army list. (It seems that I could designate half or all of them as mixed units, containing bowmen as well as spearmen.) If I were to pursue this particular course of action, I would definitely make use of the detailed orders of battle provided in the excellent WAB scenario put together by Jeff Jonas. (Again, please see https://ancientbattles.com/Issus/Issus.htm.) I would also try to develop a decent Macedonian order of battle by comparing and contrasting Jeff’s work with the information found on page 80 of Warfare in the Classical World. 

> It would also present no great problem to replicate the Tactica II scenario found here: http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/p/scenarios-500-250-bce.html (scroll down a ways . . . Issus is between Cunaxa, 401 BCE and Hydaspes, 326 BCE). Again, I would probably tinker with the suggested orders of battle. It occurs to me that it might be possible to stage three separate but related scenarios in a refight of Issus. I could wargame the contest between the Persian cavalry and Parmenio’s command; I could wargame the desperate fighting between the phalanx and the Greek mercenaries, and I could wargame the battle-winning combined-arms attack made by Alexander and his men. 

> In a similar fashion, I could probably use Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules to refight Issus. I could develop some sort of representative scenario that was not strictly based on the reported numbers present. I could also divide a TtS! treatment into three parts, just as I am thinking about doing with Tactica II. 

> If I decided to embark on a course of intensive study and play-testing, I could refight Issus using Professor Sabin’s LOST BATTLES rules system. I estimate that this “post graduate course” would take me about three or four months. Along this same line, I could devote the time and energy to learn another set of rules. Please see http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2014/11/battle-of-issus-333-bc-using-ancient.html. While this gentleman’s work is impressive as well as interesting, I am not sure that I would be satisfied with what might be called a “minimalist” refight of Issus. As a third option, I recall reading something about refighting Gaugamela with DBA. I recall something about the unusually large orders of battle (i.e., numbers of elements) for this DBA wargame. It seems to me that these rules could be employed to refight Issus. 

> As mentioned in the first part of this post/report, I could “flip the script” and reverse the roles, positions, and tactics of the involved armies. This counterfactual could be staged with any one of the rulesets mentioned. 

> One of the last colorful and hard to read post-it notes posits a wargame with a laser-like focus on the reported action(s) of Alexander. (Then again, perhaps the post-it is simply a grocery or “things to do” list . . . I cannot really be sure.) This would not be a skirmish-level game, but it would be tactical and probably involve even more role-playing or similar mechanics. The general idea is that the Macedonian player (i.e., Alexander) has the goal of breaking through the Persian lines and reaching King Darius III. The Persian player (either Darius himself or the commander of three thousand Persian guard cavalry, would be tasked with stopping and if possible, killing the brash as well as brave Alexander. 

> Having recently purchased Mark Backhouse’s Strength & Honour rules, I am wondering if I could tinker with these in order to produce a reasonable refight of Issus. In my opinion, the You Tube episodes or tutorials about how to build terrain, armies, and play an actual game with these rules, are educational as well as engaging, and excellent overall. With such tiny figures or other form of representation, I would have no problem at all fitting Issus or even Gaugamela on my smaller tabletop. There just has to be a supplement developed for battles taking place between 400 BC and 250 BC. 

> On page 5 of the May 2010 issue of Slingshot, Patrick Waterson, dissecting the Persian numbers and estimated frontages these formations would have required, observed: “Such depth is remarkable, and lends weight to the criticism that Darius would have done better to fight in the open where he could make better use of his numbers.” On reading this sentence, I wondered if it might be possible to stage this counterfactual on my tabletop. Again, the choice of rules would be fairly wide-open, but I confess that I am leaning toward GRAND TRIUMPH! On reading this sentence, I could not help but imagine this battle that never took place as a rehearsal of or even as a replacement for the 331 BC engagement at Gaugamela. 

A Peak into the “Process”

The first sentence of Battle Notes for Wargamers reads: “The idea of refighting the famous battles of history, reproducing Waterloo, Gettysburg, Alamein, etc, [sic] on the wargames table, is a most attractive proposition.” I do not disagree. How could I? Well, given my decade-long passion for the pre-gunpowder period (3000 BC - 1500 AD), I would probably revise this sentence to include Raphia, Zama, Hastings, and Pavia, just to name four additional famous battles. [8] In fact, I might be so bold as to update this introduction by adding the following sentence: “To be able to write reports about refighting the famous battles of history and submit them to magazines catering to the hobby or post them to a blog is a most satisfying if also sometimes frustrating process.”  

Taking a few lines to explain my “process” was most definitely not part of the plan when I started, or rather, stumbled into this project. However, as I allowed readers a brief glimpse “behind the curtain” in the previous two sections wherein I attempted to make sense of my thinking and approach(es), it seemed acceptable to offer this additional description. 

This current effort is the ninth draft of this present project. Over the past week or so, I have begun and then abandoned, for one reason or another (or for several reasons), eight previous “drafts.” I have typed a little over 10,000 electronic words to get to this point. (The smallest draft had around 900 words; the largest draft contained approximately 3,700 words before “work” came to a “screeching, hair-pulling, and walking away from my computer muttering some rather colorful words” stop.) At the risk of getting too far off track, my “formula” or “procedure” is a “top to bottom” one. I start with an idea, obviously. Sometimes it is barely formed and sometimes it is as solid as stone. More often than not, as in this instance, it is derived from and or inspired by the excellent wargaming work of others. Once I have settled on an idea, I develop a title. Usually, this is short in length as well as alliterative, though I understand that some folks do not appreciate this device or other forms of word play. (When I submitted material to the colorful monthly magazines and other less commercial or well-supported publications, I had a little more freedom with respect to title length.) From there, it is a “simple” matter of crafting or drafting an introduction, sections on terrain and orders of battle, rules, rule amendments, a summary of the engagement, and then a final paragraph or two or three for comments and evaluation. On occasion or if I feel it is necessary, I will also include notes, and a “Suggested Reading / Viewing” section. On rare occasions, I will provide an Appendix or two.

To reiterate: I whole-heartedly agree with Donald Featherstone’s opening statement. However, as I continue to journey down this road of historical wargaming, I have found that writing about refighting historical battles, or battles between historical opponents, and even contests between armies that would never meet on a field due to chronological or geographical constraints, is what appeals the most to me. [4]   

Choices and Compromises: Something like a Sequel

To the extent that the following list qualifies as a formal plan of action, these are the key aspects or elements that I wanted to include in my ahistorical refight:

—I would stay with the original idea of “flipping the script.” Alexander and his army would be on the opposite side of the Pinarus and would “play defense.” 

—I wanted to employ large numbers of units instead of pared down forces so that points, if utilized, would not be comparable. At the same time, however, I wanted to avoid setting up and staging a one-sided slaughter. I wondered and worried if this possible (probable?) result could be avoided.

—I wanted to make use of the personalities and leaders mentioned by name in the various accounts and wargame refights that were studied. However, I did not want to complicate matters by developing a detailed table of leadership categories and related abilities and modifiers.

—To the extent that I was able, I wanted to model, if in a necessarily abstract and functional way, the terrain analysis and arguments found in Patrick Waterson’s excellent article.

For this present and second Issus project, I would employ the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. Even though these rules do not establish a strict figure or unit scale, or ground scale for that matter, I estimated that I might be able to get away with a single unit of Persians (regardless of troop type) representing 1,000 men, while a single unit of Macedonians would represent around 700 men. Instead of “reinventing the wheel,” I would employ most if not all of the scenario notes established by “Dekelia.” (Again, please see https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=728.) I might add two or three of my own amendments as well. In this specific regard, I am thinking about the morale and or quality of the Persian host and command and control issues. Turning briefly to a consideration of terrain, well, again, I wanted to focus on simplicity as opposed to complexity. So, a portion of my depiction of the Pinarus would not have any impact on movement, unit organization, or fighting ability. The majority of my “model” river would have a slight impact on a unit’s ability to engage the enemy. [5]  

Having decided what rules to use and the approximate unit scales, I turned to the playing surface size and a broad outline of the orders of battle. In order to avoid a crowded model battlefield and “fiddly” formations and or units, I opted to set up my 10.5 by 3.75 feet table. 

With respect to the opposing armies, I started with Alexander and his Macedonians. My orders of battle would be a mix of the information found in the consulted sources. [6]

Macedonian OOB (work in progress)

03 units of Hypaspists

18 units of Pike Phalanx

08 units of Corinth League troops

06 units of Veteran Mercenaries

08 units of Skirmishers

04 units of Peltasts

10 units of Cavalry

There would be a total of 57 units in the Macedonian Army. This would give Alexander a force with an approximate strength of 40,000 men.

Persian OOB (work in progress)

60 units of Kardakes

30 units of Greek Mercenaries

30 units of Persian Cavalry

20 units of Light Troops/Skirmishers

30 units of Asiatic Levies (optional)

There would be a total of 140 or 170 units in the Persian host. Therefore, the King of Kings would have somewhere between 140,000 and 170,000 men on the field. The Persians would outnumber the Macedonians by 3 to 1, if not by a greater margin. Then again, the Macedonians did have more good quality troops, but would these cavalry and infantry be enough to hold against or even turn back the enemy tide?

 

Issus Reimagined

The Look of the Landscape—

To add some additional color, contrast, and visual interest (a subjective consideration to be certain) to a 39-square foot (approximately) tabletop covered with a large sheet of green felt, I placed 12 irregularly shaped pieces of specialty paper, light weight cloth, as well as foam sheets with “terrain feature” designs on them around my model battlefield. [7] None of these pieces represented actual or designated terrain such as a hill, marshy ground, or a patch of scrub. Again, they were employed to interrupt the monochromatic effect of the large felt “blanket.” 

My inexpensive representation of the Pinarus began on the Macedonian right, 20 inches from their long-edge baseline. This watercourse meandered across the length of the table, exiting (or entering, as it ran from the mountains to the Gulf) around 13 inches from the short-edge that would define the Macedonian left. [8]

Deployments (ahistorical, obviously)—

In this version of Issus, the Macedonians were on the defensive, so Alexander’s army was the first to deploy. Having cut off the Persian line of communication and supply, and as they had been in place for a few days, this made sense or at least it was my rationale for the order of deployment. 

Using a “broad brush” approach and hoping that the planned maps and pictures will further clarify the following, here is how the Macedonians prepared for the coming battle. On the right flank, the sector closest to the Gulf, Parmenio deployed his small cavalry contingent. He was assisted by several units of peltasts as well as some Light Foot, under the overall command of Attalos. The first large body of Macedonians included the Hypaspists and three “battalions” of the phalanx, deployed in depth (that is to explain, three sub-units of pikemen lined up behind each other). There were three units of skirmishers providing a screen. This formation was led by Nicanor.  Moving left, there was a bit of a gap in the line, and then the other three “battalions” of the phalanx. This time, the pikemen were spread thin; the phalanx was only eight ranks deep. The formation had a “screen” of three units of skirmishers. Alexander and his Companions were part of the command. The brash and often brilliant general held his excellent cavalrymen in reserve. Continuing left, a line of Veteran Mercenaries formed up between this second phalanx and the hoplites and other infantry of the Corinth League. The left-most position in Alexander’s arrangement was held by two units of cavalry. These horsemen were a part of the Corinth League command. [9]

Taken from above the center of the Macedonian side, during the set up phase of the wargame. (The stacks of Persian units can be seen on the upper right of frame.) It is a bit out of focus (apologies), but this photo does show the Macedonian phalanx deployed in two halves. The 8-rank deep line is on the left, commanded as well as supported by Alexander. There is definitely a bit of a gap before one gets to the “proper” phalanx commanded by Nicanor. 

A glimpse of the Persian side after the commands were determined and the troops were arranged. The Mercenary Greek contingent starts on the lower left corner and extends across. A three-unit deep formation or command of Kardaces can be seen to the right of the Greeks. Most of one of the formations of massed levies and similar troops can be seen deployed very close to the edge of the tabletop. Playing aids consist of various colored dice, a standard ruler, a cheat sheet, the QRS, and a plain piece of balsa wood used for checking on command distance. 

A close up of the Persian left wing, showing the cavalry command of Nabarzanes. Another group of horsemen form a supporting corps or line. The green “dots” on the first line units designate these units as part of a single command. The unmarked units in the second line are also a part of a separate, single command. Depending on how the battle/wargame goes, these divisions of Persian cavalry may become demoralized. 

A better (in focus) view of the right-half of the Macedonian phalanx, showing the skirmisher screen, the three “battalions” of pikemen arranged in depth, and the formation of Hypaspists protecting their right flank. 

A survey of the Persian side of the table revealed the following arrangements. On the left flank, closest to the Gulf of Issus, the good cavalry under Nabarzanes and the not-as-good cavalry led by an unnamed satrap deployed. To their right was a large formation of Kardakes (Light Foot) and skirmishers. The first division or block of Kardakes (Heavy Foot with Bow Support) was next in line. The Greek Mercenaries and their light troops were responsible for the center. To their right was the second group of Kardakes (Heavy Foot). The Persian right flank or wing had a formation of Kardakes (Light Foot) and skirmishers supported by a variety of cavalry. This sector was under the overall command of Rheomithres. King Darius III stood in his ornate chariot, accompanied by a small formation of guard cavalry. The commander of this massive army would move forward rather well protected by the large formation of Greek Mercenaries. Two fairly long lines of massed levy were deployed well to the rear. These comparatively poor quality troops were drawn up behind the first block of Kardakes (Light Foot) and extended all the way to the left-edge of the second group of Kardakes (Heavy Foot). The combined footprint of these levies was around 56 inches of tabletop. [10]

Summary of the Contest—

On the Persian right wing, Rheomithres had problems attacking a comparatively lightly defended Macedonian left. The Paeonians, their (light) lance-armed friends, and the troops of the Corinth League proved more stubborn than scared. In fact, the Paeonians and their friends launched a couple of spoiling attacks across the Pinarus, which served to delay if not weaken the larger Persian formation. By the end of Turn 8, Rheomithres had lost 18 points worth of troops against a determined morale breakpoint of 20.5 points. 

In the center-right of the field, from the Persian perspective, the “division” of Kardakes and Greek Mercenaries also had a difficult time making any real progress. While the Kardakes were able to get some units across the Pinarus, the combats with the enemy veteran troops were indecisive. Nearly all of the light foot and light spear formations screening the Greek Mercenary heavy foot (hoplites) were lost in a series of attacks across the river. These peltasts and other types could not make any sort of impression against the static line of enemy heavy foot and Macedonian pikemen. At the close of Turn 9, the Greek Mercenaries had lost 27 points out of a calculated morale breakpoint of 30 points. 

Looking at the left-center of the Persian advance and attack, the first command of Kardakes lost 2 units of heavy foot in trying to come to grips with enemy pikemen and heavy cavalry (i.e., Companions). The neighboring formation of lighter Kardakes suffered the loss of 5 units of skirmishers and 1 unit of light foot. 

The first combat of the wargame. Parmenio could not quite reach the advancing Persian horsemen, but the peltasts (belonging to another command as these units have yellow “dots” or markers) splash across the Pinarus and engage the enemy cavalry. Unfortunately, the first melee results in the peltasts being pushed back. 

On the opposite side of the field, the Paeonians and their friends appear to have thrown caution to the wind as they have elected to charge into a large formation of Persian foot. Even though outnumbered and overlapped, the Paeonians manage (just barely, the score was 3 to 2) to force the skirmishers to fall back. 

Parmenio, though greatly outnumbered, is able, with a bit of an assist from peltasts in Attalos’ division, to give Nabarzanes and his Persian horsemen a “headache.” The Thracians prove stubborn; the peltasts prove problematic (to the Persian efforts), and the Greek cavalry and grooms manage to keep the Horse Bow of the second Persian corps frustrated. The various dice show the result of this melee. The Thracians start with 2 instead of 3, as they are overlapped on their left. They roll a 3, which gives them a 5. The cavalry under Nabarzanes would normally have a modifier of 4, but as Parmenio’s squadron in on their left, the Persians have a 3. Rolling 2d6 and taking the lower score, Nabarzanes secures a drawn combat agains the Thracians. (Spoiler alert: The regiments under Nabarzanes would soon become demoralized.) [On further review, I should have made the Thracian’s white die a 1, as they start with a 2 and then go down 1 for being overlapped. The actual result would have been a “fall back” for the Thracians. While embarrassing, I do not think this error had a significant impact on the outcome of the scenario.] 

The Macedonian skirmishers contested the crossing, but were forced to evade in the face of superior numbers. As the Kardakes waded across the river and negotiated the northern bank, two “battalions” of the phalanx advanced with pikes leveled. White dice show the combat modifier and colored dice show the melee roll. In this first contest between the heavy infantry of both side, the Macedonians stand their ground. (Note: The Persian white die should be a 4. I forgot to add in the bow support. The equation should have been: +4 for heavy foot, +1 for bow support, -1 fighting across the river = 4.) [Sidebar: The 2 red dice showing 6s mark the start of the 2nd sector of my table, the sector where the river becomes more of an obstacle.]

The initial wave or attack by the Greek Mercenary light troops experiences some challenges in trying to gain a foothold on the opposite side of the Pinarus. The Veteran Mercenaries, holding the ground between the phalanx and the Corinth League troops, doles out some punishment to the enemy. 

The fates of battle turn against one unit of the “battalion” under Perdikkas, and the Greek Light Foot, even though attacking across the river and into a hedgerow of leveled pikes, succeed in forcing the phalangites to fall back. (Those pikemen will never hear the end of that!) 

Roughly two-thirds of the Kardakes (Heavy Foot) in this sector are across the Pinarus. The remaining third is attempting to dislodge 3 “battalions” of the phalanx under the overall command of Nicanor, and not doing very well in the effort. 

Coming to the far left of the Persian line, the cavalry commands of Nabarzanes and another officer (anonymous) were roughly handled and then broken by the combined efforts of Parmenio and Attalos. The outnumbered Thessalians and Thracians fought very well. But it could be argued that the groomsmen did even more to stem the Persian tide on this part of the battlefield. The light troops under Attalos helped to break the first line of Persian horse; they were the main reason the second line of Persians also faltered and then turned tail. The local victory was costly, however, as the veteran Parmenio perished in one of the swirling melees. 

Parmenio perishes. After his greatly outnumbered command had done yeomen’s work against the Persian cavalry along the coastline, the dice gods turn against the experienced general and his Thessalian troopers. Fortunately or coincidentally, at around the same time Parmenio was speared from his horse, both groups of Persian cavalry had reached their determined demoralization point.

Uncharacteristically, Alexander, positioned behind the lines, orders 2 units of Companions to charge a block of Persian foot. Overlapped and with a poor die roll, the veteran cavalry units are forced to give ground. 

In the next round of fighting, one unit of Companions has redeemed itself by breaking a unit of Kardakes. They elect not to pursue (allowed with scenario rule) so they can support their neighbors. Once again though, the dice gods do not smile upon the Companions. In a matter of moments, Alexander has two-thirds of his very good cavalry left. [On further review, the Persian white die should have been a 2, as the unit was overlapped. The final result of the melee still had the “Kardakes” doubling the Companions, however.]

Taken from above the Macedonian center, approximately, and showing the clash of Kardakes with the phalangites under Amyntas.  The white dice show the combat value or modifier and the colored dice show the combat roll. (This was one of those exceedingly rare occasions when the Persians rolled 2 sixes.) 

The soggy slog along the front held by formations of the Corinth League. Thousands of Kardakes are pushing their way across the Pinarus, but on reaching the opposite bank, they usually find themselves being pushed back by a solid line of Heavy Foot (aka hoplites). 

Even with his +2 melee modifier and the support of friends, Alexander is still having poor luck against the disjointed units of Kardakes that have made it across the Pinarus and are advancing against a thinly held Macedonian line of defense. 

Another example of the hard-fighting taking place along the Corinth sector. Here, an outnumbered unit of Light Spear is able to resist three-times as many Persian infantry. 

Surveying the state of the table at the end of nine turns of play, it was noted that the Persian left wing was non-existent. Their right wing was in full retreat. The strong contingent of Greek Mercenaries was still on the Persian side of the Pinarus, and their morale was nearing a tipping point, as almost all of their screening peltasts and other types littered the opposite bank or were half-submerged and still in the blood-tinged water. 

In terms of numbers and points, the Persians and their mercenaries had lost 39 units valued at approximately 127 points. In contrast, Alexander’s force had lost just 11 units. These formations had a point value of 39. Reviewing the “Marked Difference in Morale” scenario rule, the decision was made to call a halt to the contest, and award the victory (albeit not a very exciting one) to Alexander and his outnumbered Macedonians. 

Comments, Critique, & Evaluation

In the second to last paragraph of his report, Kenneth Clark summarizes: “Though the Greek mercenaries had triumphed in the centre . . . Darius had lost his entire right wing to the Thessalians . . . and had himself been routed at the head of his bodyguard horse.” In the first sentence of his final paragraph, he states, “I was surprised how close to the possible real events the refight had come.” 

As I was not refighting the historical battle, it does not seem justified or proper to compare and contrast these two efforts, or to infer what Kenneth thought and felt overall besides the aforementioned surprise. However, the gentleman’s conclusion does give me an opening for my own subjective assessment. I expect that it might annoy readers if I suggested or maintained that, in large part, I tried to adhere to the history of this engagement. I think it a coincidence that the Persian cavalry in my counterfactual were roughly handled and then routed by the Thessalians under Parmenio. I also think it unfortunate that the Greek Mercenaries on my tabletop never got “stuck in,” and Alexander never came anywhere near King Darius. Let me table the last two items for the moment so that I can turn my focus to a review of the scenario specific rules employed for this “what if” wargame. 

I made use of all three of the amendments developed by “Dekelia.” I found the ability to switch command dice beneficial even though Alexander and his contingent were more static than dynamic in this contest. The +2 melee modifier for Alexander’s leadership and fighting ability did not result in “knife through butter” charges of the Companions, but certainly did save Alexander from becoming “toast” a few times. The “Hold the Line” variant also worked rather well, though I think I might increase the number of times it can be used as well as create a marker or some sort or use coins to remind myself of how many of these “orders” I have left. 

With regard to my scenario specific rules, well, generally speaking, I thought they were OK. If I refight this imaginary battle again (and that’s a sizable “if”), I think I will straighten out the Pinarus; it will consist of three simple line segments instead of a dozen or so smaller and varying-in-angles segments. There were several times during the wargame where formations or units had to slide or adjust to the functional and lacking in visual-appeal terrain feature. This was a little problematic. There was never an occasion when I had to use the “Darius Runs” rule, and Alexander survived all of his combats. (I may tinker with this so that a separate die roll has to be made when his unit is engaged as opposed to waiting for the entire unit to be broken.) The rules governing the Persian melee ability and their units armed with or having bow support worked rather well, in my opinion. The adjustment of unit dimensions so that I could use a standard ruler also worked pretty good, though the units of heavy foot and pike were still a little “fiddly” at times. Finally, I think the modification to the morale rules worked well. However, as the solo wargame progressed, I detected an area that could use a bit of work, that could perhaps benefit from a little more tinkering.

When setting up the Persian foot formations, I made a point to screen these with a line of skirmishers. I figured this deployment was fairly historical and not just a subconscious indicator that I want to play a Napoleonic battle at some point in the next few months. Anyway, as the opposing armies approached, the skirmishers started taking casualties. This was especially apparent in the center, where the Greek Mercenary hoplites were preceded by a mix of Light Foot and Light Spear. The destruction of these units chipped away at the revised morale levels of the various Persian formations so that it became dangerous to commit the heavier troops, the units whose function was to engage in toe-to-toe melees. Reflecting on this “issue,” it seems that I could have simply withdrawn the Persian skirmishers to avoid accumulating points toward a morale break. Alternatively, I could have revised the point value of skirmisher stands/units that are destroyed or routed. (In the Armati and Tactica II rules, skirmishers are non-key units or do not count toward the “massed figures” breaking point of an army.) In the center of my battlefield, I found myself getting a little frustrated by the fact that I could not commit the Greek Mercenary heavy foot. Why? Their screening friends were in the way and were still trying to gain a foot-hold on the other side of the river. Even though these units were Open Order troops, they could not fall back through the heavy foot units, and the heavy foot units could not advance through or simply push them aside. (Again, I thought about my various experiences with other rule sets on this particular topic.) In the end or at the declared end of the scenario, two-thirds of the Greeks fighting for King Darius III never saw any action. 

On a somewhat related point, the massed Persian levy formations never saw any action either. In fact, they only moved two or three times during the entire wargame. I was not hugely disappointed by this. Indeed, I could have saved myself the hour of “work” required to prepare these troops, and not deploy them on the table. (Sidebar: During final preparations and during the wargame, it often crossed my mind that I could have “played the rules” and not the game or spirit by using these levy troops as ancient “cannon fodder.” I am not entirely sure they would have had any impact on Alexander’s formations. It seems that dealing with the massed Persian levy might have tired the Macedonians a bit, but there are no fatigue rules in TRIUMPH! Then again, I could have used the levy as a distraction, so that I could deliver my real attack on a certain section of the defensive line.) 

Was the counterfactual wargame fun? Did I learn anything? Did I gather more evidence to argue in favor of changing the understood historical record for tabletop entertainment? What went well, or what did I think went well, and what did not go so well? Before I attempt to address each of these questions directly, I want to take a sentence or three and evaluate (subjectively, of course) how I did with respect to my previously stated goals or objectives. (Please see the first part of the ‘Choices and Compromises’ section.)

—Alexander and his army were positioned on the other side of the Pinarus and they did “play defense” throughout the course of the wargame. The exceptions here would be the daring action of the Paeonians on the left wing and the “delaying action” fought by Parmenio and Attalos on the right wing. To be sure, however, it felt rather odd to assume the role of Alexander and then sit back and wait for the situation to develop.

—A large number of units was employed. There was no one-sided slaughter on my tabletop. I confess to being a little surprised by this, but more relieved. Then again, it might be mentioned that the light troops of the Greek Mercenaries employed by King Darius III were essentially slaughtered when they tried to get across the Pinarus.

—The identified leaders were represented on my tabletop. The majority of them did not take an active part in the battle, however. The exceptions to this “rule” are Parmenio and Alexander. Parmenio was KIA on the right wing; Alexander had what might be called a “rather off day” as he oversaw things in the center.

—Overall and again, subjectively, I think the terrain was functional and that the impact of the Pinarus on movement and melee was sufficient and so, playable. 

Now to the several questions. Yes, fun was had. I was engaged and entertained, though I confess that I was not completely thrilled with the scenario. To be honest, the last couple of turns dragged a little, and seemed more “logistical” than anything else. As with many other projects, I found myself more interested and invested in the early stages, in the planning and in the setting up, in the thinking about options and so forth. The initial turns also held a high level of appeal, but eventually, the “excitement” wore off.  

As for gaining additional knowledge, well, I think I did, or would like to think that I did. Even though I was familiar with the historical battle, I learned more about Issus during this second “tour.” I learned more about how to look at historical sources and the respective arguments of modern scholars. I learned more about my limits with respect to staging and playing large historical or based-on-history battles on my tabletop. To be certain, I know that bigger is not always better. (A full-grown grizzly visiting your campsite instead of a cub, a blister on your foot, and a three-page credit card statement are just a few examples that come to mind where bigger is definitely not better.) To be sure, I learned that I have a lot of work to do if I want to improve my overall satisfaction with projects similar to this.   

With regard to gathering additional evidence so that more or better arguments can be made about the value of staging counterfactuals, well, again, this is rather subjective. One either likes or accepts counterfactuals as a part of the larger hobby or one does not. There is probably a gray area in between those two ends of the spectrum. At least I would hope that there is a little gray area. As I type this paragraph, I am thinking about the battles of Gaugamela and The Granicus. Oddly enough, I am not sure counterfactuals of these two engagements would work, would be worth investigating and staging. Then again, perhaps I have not given these ideas enough thought?

At the risk of appearing to “pat myself on the back,” I would suggest that this counterfactual and all its moving parts went well or well enough. The research was made easier by the “giants” who wrestled with the topic before me. The staging was inexpensive due to the simple representation of the various units as well as of the terrain. The rules selected for this “refight” were not overwhelmed by the size of the contest. They were also flexible enough to allow for approximate unit scales as well as a number of scenario special rules or amendments. That said, there were a couple of areas where I thought things could have gone better or been addressed more realistically. Based on the above and working without an official and thoroughly tested rubric, I would venture that my “grade” for this effort would be (or should be) a 78 out of a possible 100. Perhaps some readers will agree. Then again, perhaps there will be a few who “argue” for a slightly higher score while another and I would imagine larger as well as more vocal group press the case for a lower score, somewhere in the range of 63-67. 

What else? Well, coincidentally, Slingshot 341 arrived in my PO Box as I was finishing up this experiment. Inside the July/August 2022 issue was a lengthy article by Jens Peter Kruz. In the conclusion to “Refighting Adrianople 378 AD with DBMM,” he states: 

Because even a refight of a battle cannot completely ignore the historical situation at the 

outset, let alone twist it completely around—otherwise it would be no longer a valid 

simulation, considering the sources and their rational interpretation, but a free scenario 

that is only remotely reminiscent of the historical model on which it is based.

My “original” idea or intention was to “flip the historical script” of Issus. To use Jens’ words, I “twisted Issus completely around,” and in so doing, produced a “free scenario.” The passage reminded me of Donald Featherstone’s common sense advice about refighting historical battles. As might be expected, there is debate about the exact location of this battle. There is even more debate about the numbers and types of troops present, especially on the Persian side. In his often read and often referenced for this particular project, Patrick Waterson’s excellent article about Issus asked and answered if “the battle could be made to work.” His analysis and arguments are quite convincing, in my opinion. As I did not attempt to refight the historical battle, I cannot say for certain if a wargame of the battle can be made to work. Evidence found on the Internet leads me to believe that it can, in fact, be made to work. However, in each of these stagings or reconstructions, interpretations were made and the reported numbers were tinkered with. I am not saying that this is bad or wrong. I am simply remarking that this seems to be what we do in this hobby. The arrival of Slingshot 341 also coincided with some news about the Issus agenda at the recently completed Society Conference. [11]

This seems like an appropriate place to refer back to the title chosen for this narrative. I can report, with a certain degree of satisfaction— not a great degree of satisfaction—that I have scratched my itch for Issus. I wonder which historical battle, idea, scenario, or other topic will “irritate” me next?

Appendix A: Fairly Detailed Orders of Battle

Nearly every refight I studied divided the opposing armies into three or four smaller commands, corps, or divisions. In the following orders of battle, I do not adhere to this historical practice. The following lists are more detailed than the “broad brush” orders of battle provided in the body of the post. They are also still a work in progress and may be subjected to further adjustment and tinkering. As of the end of October 2022, this is what I have:

Macedonian OOB

03 units of Hypaspists / 02 units of Raiders; 01 unit of Elite Foot / Nicanor commander

18 units of Pike Phalanx / 6 “battalions” with 03 units each; “battalion” commanders are: Craterus, Coenus, Perdikkas, Amyntas, Meleager, and Ptolemy. The phalanx under Coenus is rated as “elite” Pike and therefore, gets a +1 modifier to its melee value. 

08 units of Corinth League troops / 06 units of Heavy Foot; 01 unit of Light Foot; 01 unit of Light Spear 

06 units of Veteran Mercenaries / 03 units of Heavy Foot; 03 units of Light Foot

08 units of Skirmishers / 06 units of Skirmishers; 02 units of Light Foot / Attalos commander or with a unit of Light Foot

04 units of Peltasts / 04 units of Light Spear

10 units of Cavalry / 03 units of Knights (Companions - Alexander commanding); 02 units of Elite Cavalry (Thessalians - Parmenio commanding); 03 units of Javelin Cavalry (Thracians, Paeonians, and Lancers); 02 units of Bad Horse (Greek Cavalry and Mounted Grooms)

Persian OOB

60 units of Kardakes / 36 units of Heavy Foot with Bow Support Battle Card; 24 units of Light Foot

30 units of Greek Mercenaries / 20 units of Heavy Foot; 05 units of Light Spear; 05 units of Light Foot

30 units of Persian Cavalry / 01 unit of Chariots; 09 units of Elite Cavalry; 10 units of Bad Horse; 06 units of Javelin Cavalry; 04 units of Horse Bow

20 units of Light Troops/Skirmishers - 16 units of Skirmishers; 04 units of Bow Levy

30 units of Asiatic Levies / 20 units of Horde; 10 units of Rabble

There are several named commanders, King Darius III being the most obvious and recognized.

The Persian command structure was developed or put in place for my refight. Nabarzanes was on the left wing, leading the cavalry along the coastline. Rheomithres was on the opposite side of the field, commanding a mixed force of infantry and cavalry. Thymondas was in charge of the Greek Mercenaries. For other leaders, I simply noted “anonymous satrap” on the unit base or counter.  

Appendix B: Scenario Specific Rules Employed and or Tested

Inspired by the work of “Dekelia,” and after a suitable period of thinking and tinkering, I drafted a number of amendments to add to a short but impressive list. In no particular order and in a “work-still-in-progress” format, here is what I came up with for play-testing during the planned refight:

> A River Runs Through It

In the Coastal Plain sector of the tabletop, the Pinarus does not impact movement, melee, or line of sight. For the rest of the tabletop, it costs an extra command point for units or groups to cross the Pinarus. Further, their movement rate is halved. If units moving across the Pinarus engage enemy formations, they will enjoy a melee modifier of -1.

> The Arrian Effect (also known as Darius Runs, or even “Code Brown”)

If Alexander moves to within 4 MUs of Darius, the Persian commander must immediately roll a 1d6. On a result of 1-2, Darius is overcome with fear and he makes an immediate rout move, urging his chariot on with all speed and not concerned if his retinue keeps pace. Further, his stand/unit is marked as demoralized, and any Persian unit within 12 MUs of the King of Kings is also marked demoralized. This rule is applied each turn Alexander is within striking distance of Darius. 

> Big Man Down

If Alexander is killed, he counts as 12 points toward the Macedonian morale breakpoint. Furthermore, Macedonian units within 6 MU of this history-altering disaster will immediately become demoralized.

> Improving the Odds

All Persian units will roll 2d6 in melee situations and use the lower result/score to determine the outcome of the combat. Greek Mercenaries in the employ of the King of Kings will roll normally during rounds of hand-to-hand fighting.

> Arrows, Alexander! Thousands of ‘Em!

Persian Kardakes, at least those designated as Heavy Infantry, will benefit from the Supporting Bow/Bowmen Battle Card. When fighting to their front, units of Kardakes receive a +1 melee modifier versus any formation/unit type in the Macedonian army.  

> Tinker, Tailor, Etc.

Instead of building units to the specifications listed in the rules, I decided to fabricate my formations with a universal frontage of 50 mm. The depth, depending on troop type, would correspond to this adjustment. For example: Light Foot units would measure 50 mm by 25 mm; Heavy Foot units would measure 50 mm by 17.5 mm, and Javelin Cavalry units would measure 50 mm by 35 mm. This modification would result in a Movement Unit or MU being 1 inch long. Movement rates, missile ranges, and command reach could be measured, easily, with a standard ruler. 

 > A Marked Difference in Morale

The Macedonians will have an Army Morale Breakpoint. They will not have separate command morale breakpoints. Based on my figures, Alexander will have 57 units worth 182 points. Instead of having to lose 91 points before his army “runs away,” I am going to suggest a breakpoint of 75 points or just over 40 percent of the total Macedonian strength. 

The Persians will retain separate command breakpoints as well as the overall army breakpoint. 

For individual Persian commands, the tipping point will be 25 percent instead of 33 percent. So, if a Persian Satrap has 48 points of units under his command, these troops will lose heard and become demoralized when 12 points have been destroyed/routed. With regard to the Persian army, its morale breakpoint will be 33 percent instead of 50 percent. Again, based on my rough calculations, the Persian host (minus the Greek Mercenaries) adds up to approximately 406 points. So, when 135 points worth of Persian units have been destroyed or routed, the army dissolves.

The Greek Mercenaries in the pay of Darius III will abide by the rules-as-written. Greek commands will become demoralized when they have lost a third of their original strength. 

Notes

1. My first visit to Issus took place in 2015, when I was 50. It was a “working vacation”—not a mid-life crisis kind of situation wherein I shopped for a Porsche, bought a new wardrobe, considered doing something about my receding hairline, or pursued a 23-year old blonde, brunette or redhead— during which I was able to produce “Choices and Compromises: An Interpretation of Issus.” This report was included in the September/October 2015 issue of Slingshot, through the courtesy and generosity of the excellent and kind Editor at that time, Dr. Paul Innes. Again, in the interest of transparency, my amateur effort was, in large part, inspired by “Issus: The Empire Strikes Back,” an excellent and much more academic or even legal in structure article written by the inestimable Patrick Waterson. “Issus: The Empire Strikes Back” appeared in the May 2010 issue. 
2. Even though it has been seven years since I last looked across the Pinarus, I wondered if the points raised in Big Lee’s recent post regarding the pros and cons of refighting the same battle over and over or with some other rate of frequency applied. Please see the well-known gentleman’s October 16, 2022, video post at https://www.blmablog.com/. (Sidebar: Based on almost a decade of experience in ancient wargaming and military history, it occurs to me that Simon MacDowall and Simon Miller, two other well-known names in the hobby, could justifiably be called experts with regard to refighting the same historical battle again and again. They do it in spectacular fashion, too. In my opinion, these two gentlemen are standard-bearers if not standard-setters for members of the larger hobby.) 
3. Please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/conference. If I may be permitted to adapt the poetry of Robert Browning: “Oh to be in Cambridge, now that the annual Conference is here.” (Sidebar: A request for additional information about the “workshop” on Issus and the planned refight generated approximately two dozen views but did not, unfortunately, produce any replies. Perhaps the political turmoil regarding the short-term Prime Minister or lesser concerns of daily life got in the way. Perhaps the organizer(s) and or a participant in the “workshop” and planned refight will post something about this particular agenda item on his blog or to a forum or forums.)
4. In terms of wargaming topics, ideally, I should like to be able to write as well as the following individuals: Charles Grant, Sr., (the well-known wargamer who wrote Wargame Tactics—another must-have text for any self-respecting historical wargamer’s library), Patrick Waterson, John Graham-Leigh, Duncan Head, Rick Priestley, James Roach, Jeff Jonas, and Simon MacDowall. Turning to the broader topics of history, historical research and historical fiction, these are the talented and accomplished writers I would like to emulate: Professor Philip Sabin, Professor Victor Davis Hanson, Sir John Keegan, Colleen McCullough, David McCullough (no relation to the former), and Rick Atkinson. To be sure, there are at least a dozen more names that I could add to either list, but as the saying so aptly notes: “Comparison is the thief of joy.” 
5. On pages 133-134 of his analysis, Professor Philip Sabin cites the narrative account of one of the ancient authorities. “Arrian (Anab. II.10-11) confirms that the river had steep banks and that these broke the formation of the phalanx, but he describes both sides’ cavalry charging across the stream without apparent hindrance.”  
6. I compared and contrasted the numbers and types found on page 80 of Warfare with the wealth of information provided by Jeff Jonas. The comments and considerations of Patrick and Professor Sabin were also reviewed. 
7. In “Issus: The Empire Strikes Back,” Patrick argues or divides the historical battlefield into four sectors. Starting at the shore and moving left down the Persian line, the first sector or zone extends for 500 yards. The next two sectors each have frontages running to around 850 yards. The final zone of the battlefield covers about 600 yards of ground. I am not trying to recreate the entire field of Issus. I am not trying to stage a refight of the historical battle. My focus is on Sector 1 and Sector 2. Instead of a frontage of 1,350 yards, I have “rounded up” to an even 1,500 yards. For my counterfactual refight, the coastal plain will be 42 inches in length, and the frontage of Sector 2 will be 84 inches. 
8. Yes, yes . . . Technically Pavia falls outside of the larger time span and is one of those engagements featuring arquebusiers as well as artillery, but then there were also battles fought in the fifteenth century that saw the employment of gunpowder weapons. The Battle of Bosworth (1485) springs almost immediately to mind. The Battle of Morat or Murten (1476) is another engagement that saw a fair number of artillery pieces on the field.  
9. Looking back through the previous attempts to wargame Issus and the scholarly articles, it seems that my representation—of the terrain—compared to that found in “Caliban’s” Tactica II scenario. (Please see http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/p/scenarios-500-250-bce.html.) The finished model of my battlefield was not as complex, nor was it as visually attractive as those prepared by “Dekelia” and Jeff Jonas. (Again, please see https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=728 and https://ancientbattles.com/Issus/Issus.htm.) As I based my depiction of the ancient battlefield on Patrick Waterson’s well-written article, my Pinarus was approximately 15 yards wide. (This dimension was determined by estimating the frontage of the first two sectors described by Patrick and then dividing by the length, in inches, of my table, to arrive at a very rough ground scale.) 
10. As I considered multiple options for the Macedonian deployment before settling on this one, I could not help but wonder if I was setting myself up for failure. Ten-plus feet of table is a lot of ground to cover with slightly less than 60 units. I worried about Parmenio and the likelihood that Persian numbers would prevail. I also worried about how to deploy the phalanx, finally settling on a compromise where half of the pikemen would be deployed so as to earn the melee modifier for being deep, and the other half being deployed in an eight-deep line so that I could cover some ground and perhaps make the Persian attackers think twice. 
11. Referencing the approximate ground scale established in Note 7, the Persian levy troops would have had a frontage of approximately 675 yards, the rough equivalent of 7 American football fields. 
12. The calculations and reasonings completed by Patrick Waterson in his article seemed acceptable to me, though having the Persian cavalry on the right deployed to a depth of 120 ranks (give or take) and formations in the main infantry line deployed to a depth of 70 ranks does give one pause. Courtesy of Roy Boss and Nick Harbud, experienced “senators” within the various discussion threads on The Society of Ancients Forum, I have a brief report on Issus at the Conference as well as link to the Google Streetview of the Payas. Roy explained that there was not traditional refight. The miniatures were used for a kind of “commander’s walk” over an ancient battlefield. He said that the group around this table were “very knowledgeable about the engagement” and that the host, Richard Lockwood, “had done some good research.” Roy came away with several conclusions that I would agree with. My guess is that were Patrick still with us and had he been present at the recently concluded Conference, the discussion about Issus would have been even more learned as well as livelier. My second guess is that those who were fortunate enough to be present would have probably rolled their eyes on hearing about my plans to refight a version of the historical battle.