RAPHIA REVISITED

This effort marks my fourth visit to the well known if also apparently flat and featureless plain where the large armies of Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV met and did battle in 217 BC. [1] Instead of recreating the full battle, I thought it might prove interesting as well as engaging and entertaining (hopefully) to focus on just a portion of the larger contest. For this project, I would attempt to reconstruct a realistic staging of the fight between the Seleucid right wing under the personal direction of Antiochus III and the Ptolemaic left wing under the overall command of Ptolemy IV. The rules chosen for this “reduced Raphia” were Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II. [2] 

Parsing Polybius

Writing in V. 82, the ancient author explains how the wings of Ptolemy’s army were arranged: “Polycrates, with the cavalry under his command, occupied the left, and between him and phalanx were Cretans standing close by the horsemen; next [to] them came the royal guard; then the peltasts under Socrates, adjoining the Libyans armed in the Macedonian fashion.” With regard to the pachyderms, Polybius informs: “Of the elephants forty were on the left wing, where Ptolemy was to be in person during the battle . . .” 

There is no more specific information provided about the positioning of the pachyderms. Were they deployed as a screen? If so, how much space was there between each animal? Were they grouped into “packets” or units of some type? Who was in command? Were there escorting “companies” of skirmishers? [3] 

Additional wargamer-friendly information is provided in V. 65. In this chapter, one finds that, “Eurylochus of Magnesia commanded about three thousand men of what were called in the royal armies the Agema, or Guard; Socrates of Boeotia had two thousand light-armed troops under him.” With regard to mounted troops, the ancient authority states: “The cavalry, again, attached to the court, amounting to seven hundred, as well as that which was obtained from Libya on enlisted in the country, were being trained by Polycrates, and were under his personal command; amounting in all to about three thousand men.” Shifting back to the infantry side of this wing, evidently Cnopias of Allaria “commanded all the Cretans, who numbered three thousand, and among them a thousand Neo-Cretans, over whom he had set Philo of Cnossus.” The last block or group of foot consisted of “three thousand Libyans armed in the Macedonian fashion, who were commanded by Ammonius of Barce.” 

To help me understand and make sense of this detailed description (were there 3,000 or 4,000 Cretans, for example), I reviewed the analytical commentary offered by Professor Sabin. To give me another perspective, I read and annotated a couple of engaging and informative articles written by John Boehm. [4] 

Looking across the flat and comparatively featureless arid plain, Polybius, writing in V. 82, informs: “Antiochus also placed sixty of his elephants commanded by this foster-brother Philip in front of his right wing, on which he was to be present personally, to fight opposite Ptolemy.” The description continues with “two thousand cavalry commanded by Antipater being stationed behind these elephants and two thousand more at right angles to them.” The rest of this formation consists of infantry, as the ancient writer explains: “In line with the cavalry he placed the Cretans, and next [to] them the Greek mercenaries; with the latter he mixed two thousand of these armed in the Macedonian fashion under the command of the Macedonian Byttacus.” 

To be certain, two thousand cavalry placed at right angles to another group of two thousand horse raised my eyebrows. What exactly is meant by that phrasing? The combination of Greek mercenaries and Macedonians under Byttacus also gave me pause. How many men were there, then, in this formation? Also, what exactly is meant by “armed in the Macedonian fashion”? 

Turning back to Chapter 79 of Polybius’s account, it was found that, “Byttacus the Macedonian had the charge and command of about five thousand light-armed Daae, Carmani, and Cilicians.” There were also “five thousand mercenaries from Greece who were led by Hippolochus of Thessaly.” In terms of light troops or perhaps skirmishers, there were “fifteen hundred Cretans who came with Eurylochus, and a thousand Neo-Cretans commanded by Zelys of Gortyna.” Evidently, there were an additional “five hundred javelin-men of Lydia” attached to or working with the Neo-Cretan contingent. In terms of cavalry numbers on this wing, in this sector of the field, Antiochus could count on “four thousand horse commanded by his nephew Antipater.” 

Were the full five thousand men under Byttacus in line with the Greek mercenaries? If not, where did the other three thousand infantry go? The Lydian javelineers, though only five hundred strong, are something of a question mark as well. Which wing were they on? In the larger scheme of things, does their placement really matter?

Orders of Battle: An Interpretation

Instead of addressing the Ptolemaic formations first, as I did in the previous section, I want to try and tackle the Seleucid units first. I will begin by making a comment or two about the excellent work done by John Boehm.

In studying the diagram of his refight (there were 10 player-generals involved!), from left to right as I look at it, the deployment is: Horse Guards, Cretans, Dahae & Etc., and Greeks. The elephants (a unit of just 3 models as the approximate scale used was 1:20) are positioned in front of the juncture between the Cretans and the Dahae & Etc. (As for the other 2,000 cavalry on this wing, they are not at a right angle, but are deployed to “refuse the right.” These horsemen are or appear to be deployed at a 45-degree angle off the right-rear corner of the Horse Guards. 

In V. 82, Polybius states that the “60 elephants of Antiochus were stationed in front of the two thousand cavalry commanded by Antipater.” Then, in V. 84, Polybius informs that, “the Greek mercenaries stationed near the phalanx, and behind the elephants, charged Ptolemy’s peltasts and made them give ground . . .” So, instead of concentrating the pachyderms on the same frontage as that occupied by 2,000 cavalry, in say, 6 or 8 ranks, it appears that the elephants screening this wing were distributed across the Horse Guards, Cretans, Dahae & Etc., and the Greek Mercenaries. After considering a number of options and sketching out a similar number of plans and then throwing them away, I decided to start with the Seleucid elephants. 

The Tactica II rules do not provide a figure or unit scale for elephants. [5] This is not a critique; it is a factual statement, an observation. For the sake of a hypothetical, if I established a figure scale where 1 model elephant equalled 1 actual animal, then obviously, I would need 60 models on my tabletop to represent the 60 elephants in front of the right wing of Antiochus’s army. If I opted to use 15mm figures/elephants, then my bases or stands would have to be 40 mm by 40 mm, as per the table on page 1 of the rules. If these pachyderms were deployed as or in a screen, then per the ’Elephant Screen Deployment’ paragraph on page 49 of the rules, I would have to leave gaps or spaces between each base or stand. Simple math informed that I would need a playing surface approximately 15.5 feet in length in order to fit all these elephants. [6] As my extended wargames table was only 10.5 feet long, I had to do some refiguring. I had to tinker with the initial figure/unit scale. 

If each 15 mm scale elephant base (40 x 40 mm per the table on page 1) represented 2 actual elephants, then I would only need half of the footprint calculated above. A line of elephants roughly 7.75 feet long will easily fit on a 10.5 foot tabletop. Playing around a little more, I decided that I could reduce this footprint slightly by deploying 30 of the elephants as a screen and 30 of the elephants as massed units. [7] 

Screen A - 

05 stands of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 6 figures

Screen B - 

05 stands of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 6 figures

Screen C - 

05 stands of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at  FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 6 figures

Group D - 

01 stand of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 18 figures

Group E - 

01 stand of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 18 figures

Group F - 

01 stand of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 18 figures

Group G - 

01 stand of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 18 figures

Group H - 

01 stand of EL [impetus] / Indian each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 18 figures

Note: 

Philip is the division commander for the massed elephants (Groups D to H). In the Tactica II rules, division commanders are essentially decorative. They serve primarily as a reference point for movement of division formations; they do not fight. [8] It might be possible to attach or embed Philip with one of the elephant groups. One might also consider giving him some sort of combat ability or morale influence. [9]

Group I - Horse Guards

02 units of Companions - HC [impetus] units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 / FV 5-6; EL; lances

Group J - Cretans & Neo-Cretans

04 units of Light Infantry Archers - LI / units are 16 figures in 2 ranks of 8 / FV 3-6; V; bows

Group K - Asiatics (Dahae, Carmani, and Cilicians)

05 units of Light Infantry - LI /units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 / FV 3-6; MG; various & bows

Group L - Greek Mercenaries

03 units of “Hoplites” - FT / units are 33 figures in 3 ranks of 11 / FV 4-6; V; spears & various

Group M - Median Cavalry

02 units of HC [impetus] units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 / FV 4-6; V; spears & various

Notes: 

1. The “approximate figure scale” I established for this scenario was 1:37 for cavalry and infantry, so just a little off the suggested range or window provided on page 1 of the rules. 
2. Antiochus III will also be stationed with or near the Horse Guards. He is the Army General and as such was given a value of 20 figures instead of the usual 10, as per the ‘Consequences’ paragraph on page 6.
3. Antipater is the division commander of the 4 units of cavalry.
4. Eurylochus is the division commander of the Cretans. Zelys could be embedded with one of the units, but he will not count for command and control. 
5. Byttacus the Macedonian is the division commander of the Asiatics.
6. Hippolochus is the division commander of the Greek Mercenaries.

With regard to the value and breaking point of this wing, after doing some math and double-checking, I arrived at the following figures:

Value of all the units on the Seleucid right wing / 3,649 points

Determined Breaking Point of this formation / 293 [half of the 586 massed figures counted]

These calculations are subject to correction and revision, of course. 

On the other side of my extended tabletop, I would arranged the Ptolemaic formations and units. To be consistent, I will start with the African elephants employed by Ptolemy IV. 

Screen 1 - 

03 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 4 figures

Screen 2 - 

04 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 4 figures

Screen 3 - 

03 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 / 4 figures

Group 4 - 

02 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 2 / 8 figures

Group 5 - 

03 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 12 figures

Group 6 - 

02 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 2 / 8 figures

Group 7 - 

03 stands of EL [impetus] / African each stand at FV 5-6; V; Various 3d6 x 3 / 12 figures

Note: 

I could not find any name of an officer or commander for the elephants positioned in front of the Ptolemaic left wing. I did promote an anonymous individual to division commander and embedded him with one of the larger elephant units. 

Group 8 - Libyan Cavalry

03 units of Citizens - HC / units are 21 figures in 3 ranks of 7 / FV 4-6; MG; various

Group 9 - Cavalry attached to the Court

01 unit of Agema - HC [impetus] unit is 18 figures in 2 ranks of 9 / FV 5-6; EL; lances

Group 10 - Cretans & Neo-Cretans

03 units of Light Infantry Archers - LI / units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 / FV 3-6; V; bows

Group 11 - Royal Guard

03 units of Agema - PH / units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 /FV 5-6; 2 V, 1 EL; long spears

Group 12 - Peltasts

02 units of Light Infantry - LI / units are 27 figures in 3 ranks of 9 / FV 3-6; V; javelins

Group 13 - Libyans

02 units of PH / units are 40 figures in 4 ranks of 10 / FV 4-6; MG; pikes

Notes: 

1. Ptolemy IV will be placed with or near the Agema. He is the Army General. To make things interesting, I assigned him a value of 30 figures. 
2. Polycrates is the division commander of all the cavalry on this wing.
3. Cnopias of Allaria is the division commander of the Cretans & Neo-Cretans.
4. Eurylochus of Magnesia is the division commander of the Royal Guard formation.
5. Socrates of Boeotia is the division commander of the Peltasts.
6. Ammonius of Barce is the division commander of the Libyan infantry. 

Value of all the units on the Ptolemaic left wing / 2,611 points

Determined Breaking Point of this formation / 229 [half of the 457 massed figures counted]

These calculations are also subject to correction and revision, of course. 

Deployments

Map 1 shows how I deployed the opposing wings for battle. For this solo scenario, I went against Polybius as well as the more modern authors/wargamers. The other two thousand Seleucid cavalry were not deployed “at right angles” to the Horse Guards of Antiochus III. The Seleucid elephant screen was lined up with these cavalry formations and stretched quite a distance to the left. The massed elephants were drawn up in a line a little closer to the Asiatics and Greek Mercenaries. 

A - Seleucid Cavalry & Horse Guards (the Guards being a darker purple)

B - Cretans and Neo-Cretans

C - Asiatics

D - Greek Mercenaries

E - Elephant Screen (3 groups of 5 “models,” representing 3 groups of 10 animals)

F - Massed Elephants (5 “squadrons” of 3 “models,” representing 5 “squadrons” of 6 animals)

In order to match the footprint of the Seleucid formations, the units under Ptolemy IV were spread out a bit more. They were still within the command radius of their respective leaders, but the gaps or spacing between the various units were more apparent. A similar approach was taken with the African elephants. The animals making up the screen were spaced out per the rules, but the gaps between segments of the screen were wider compared to the Seleucid screen. The massed units of African elephants also had more space between their component “squadrons.” 

1 - Libyan Cavalry

2 - Agema

3 - Cretans & Neo-Cretans

4 - Royal Guard

5 - Peltasts

6 - Libyan Infantry

7 - Elephant Screen (3 groups of 3, 4, and 3 “models,” representing 20 animals in all)

8 - Massed Elephants (4 “squadrons” of 2, 3, 2, and 3 “models,” representing 20 animals in all)

Picture A—A view of the general set up. The Seleucid “army” is on the right; the Ptolemaic “army” is on the left. The elephant “squadrons” and screens of both sides can be seen arranged in front of the opposing lines. 

Picture B—Another shot of the general set up, taken over the approximate center of the Seleucid deployment. The Cretans/Neo-Cretans and Asiatics are shown, as are the Indian elephants arranged in front of them. Across the flat and featureless terrain, the African elephants and supporting Ptolemaic formations wait for the battle/scenario to begin. 

 

How It Played: A Turn-by-Turn Account

In the November/December 2020 issue of Slingshot, Simon Watson has an excellent article titled, “How To Use Elephants in Tactica 2.” The first half is a learned discourse on elephants in India in addition to an examination of Arrian’s narrative of the contest at Hydaspes. The second half of the piece is a description of a friendly wargame (loosely based on Hydaspes) played by Simon and his veteran colleagues. Initially, I thought I might copy his format of dividing the report into three main sections (i.e., Early Phases, CRUNCH Phase!, and Later Stages), but then I thought it might be more beneficial to offer a turn-by-turn account, similar to what Rick Priestley provides in the colorful half-dozen scenarios in the back of his Hail Caesar rules. 

Turn 1:

Ptolemy rolled a 6 and Antiochus rolled a 4, so Ptolemy grabbed the initiative and ordered all of his formations, except for the cavalry, to move forward. One the elephant screen commanders briefly considered angling his pachyderms so that the smelly animals might interfere with the larger numbers of Seleucid cavalry, but then decided to follow his fellow officers and make a direct advance. Antiochus, trusting in the more numerous elephants on his side of the field, ordered a simple and straightforward advance as well. This movement did not include the Greek Mercenaries on the left end of the line; these troops stayed put. Antipater, a bit worried about following the elephant screen too closely, ordered the 4 units of horse under his command to wheel right and move toward the small open space on the Ptolemaic left flank. 

Turn 2:

In V. 84, Polybius offers a wonderful description of the contest between the opposing lines of elephants. In fact, I could not help but be reminded of or think of a medieval jousting tournament while reading and annotating this particular chapter. Anyhow, to reflect the reluctance of the African elephants to go “tusk-to-tusk” with the Indian elephants, I tacked on a few scenario rules. First, once the Ptolemaic elephants came within 8 inches (the Command Threat Zone or CZT) of their counterparts, each stand would have to take a control test. Ideally, this testing would happen before the dice were thrown to see which side gained the move option for that turn. However, I could also see this test being taken during the course of a turn. If the testing unit failed to roll a 7 or better on 2d6, then that stand or unit would be marked as disordered. Next, those African elephants which failed the control test would have to make an additional roll, this time using a single six-sided die. If the result of this second roll was 1 or 2, then the African elephant stand would panic, turn 180 degrees, and run away (i.e., conduct a full move). Based on the description provided by the ancient author, African elephants would not be able to claim impetus if engaged with Indian elephants. (If fighting any other unit of the Seleucid side of the table, then the normal elephant melee rules and so forth would apply.) 

After a tied move option roll, the Seleucids took possession of the initiative with a second roll of 6 to 2. (The modified score, subtracting 2 from the Ptolemaic die, would have been 6 to 0.) It would qualify as an understatement to say that the dice were not kind to Ptolemy’s African elephants on this game turn. Out of 14 stands, 10 failed their control tests and were marked disordered. Of these disordered stands, half failed the second test and panicked. These stampeding pachyderms collided with 3 friendly infantry formations, producing immediate disorder in these ranks. (Two of the impacted units were in the Cretan formation and one unit was in the Royal Guards.) The cavalry division under Polycrates was also threatened. To prevent a disaster, one of the units of Libyan horse wheeled quickly to the left to avoid the pair of pachyderms heading in their direction. On the other flank of this formation, the Agema had to execute a complex move to avoid being run into by another pair of frightened/maddened elephants. In the ensuing melees, the larger Indian elephants enjoyed the advantage of impetus (double the number of dice) in several instances. As a result, the African elephants suffered more casualties in the jousting between the various crews. The single positive on Ptolemy’s side of the field was the large unit of elephants that did not become disordered or panic. It was attacked by two units of Indian elephants and suffered tremendous losses. However, it passed its Fates Test and kept fighting, even though it was a skeleton of its original strength. In other respects, there was not a lot of other movement on the table. The Seleucids did continue to move their cavalry to the right, and they did bring the Greek Mercenaries forward so that the line of foot contingents was now restored.

A review of the elephant section(s) of the rules did not specify, aside from disorder, what happens after friendly elephants rout into friendly formations. I briefly considered letting the mixed units remain as they were, but on second thought, wondered if the elephants might have forced their way through to continue running away from the enemy elephants. Of course, the friendly foot or cavalry formations would still be disordered and have to take a turn to reorganize their ranks. I doubted very much that panicked elephants could be brought back under control of their drivers/crew and returned to the battle. 

In summary and knowing full well that it was only the end of the second turn, this limited wargame appeared to be repeating the narrative account provided by Polybius. 

Turn 3:

Ptolemy won the move option, but already, his choices were quite limited. Over on his left, he could not move the one cavalry unit as it had galloped out of the way of the panicked elephants in this sector. Now, it was beyond the command radius of Polycrates. Indeed, it was all the he and Polycrates could do to keep the majority of horsemen in place as scared pachyderms trundled down the left and right sides of the skittish formation. To the right of his cavalry, the Cretans were on the receiving end of a few Indian elephants that did not find “dancing partners” in the line of African animals. Eurylochus ordered two-thirds of the Royal Guard to advance into the oncoming enemy elephants, and that was it. On the Seleucid side of the table, they started by wheeling their cavalry again so as to restore the line. These several units were further to the right, but still holding back as the elephant engagement was continuing. The Cretans remained in place, but the Asiatics and Greek Mercenaries advanced, following the dust clouds and trumpeting of the Indian elephants. Having won the melee direction roll, Antiochus started on his left, where the last African elephant in that nearly destroyed group was facing many times its number. The animal was quickly dispatched and pursuing Seleucid beasts moved toward the Libyan phalanx and the neighboring peltasts. In the other elephant contests raging up and down the line, the Seleucids maintained their advantage, inflicting more losses and even managing to kill a pair. The African pachyderms, though disordered (i.e., disheartened) and wounded, continued to battle their foes. As for the newer melees between Seleucid elephants and enemy infantry units, these first rounds of combat were rather bloody. The Ptolemaic foot took quite a few casualties but the lines remained firm. In fact, a unit of the Royal Guard was able to skewer a pair of the animals. Their shouts of local victory were heard a few units away.  

A quick survey of the field showed the problem(s) Ptolemy IV faced. Four of his formations (not including the various elephants) were disordered and either fighting or about to be engaged, and four of his units (not all the same as those that were disordered) had taken some losses. Not a single one of the Seleucid formations, neither cavalry nor infantry, had suffered any casualties. 

Picture C—The opposing elephant screens approach each other, while the supporting infantry follow at a respectable distance. The Seleucid cavalry wheels to the right with the intention of developing a flank attack against the Ptolemaic left. The eventual and ongoing pachyderm melee would prevent this flank attack from taking place. 

Picture D—A bit out of focus, but the early stages of the elephant engagement is recorded in this photo. The long line of Seleucid elephants appears ready to overwhelm the African animals and then collide with the Ptolemaic infantry. The yellow markers indicate units that are disordered. The black markers indicate elephant units that have panicked as per the scenario rules. In one instance, panicking elephants have disordered a unit of the Royal Guard. 

Picture E—A close up of the elephant melee on the Seleucid left. One of the Indian units has impetus (the small green marker); the other unit did not secure the impetus advantage. Per the scenario rules, the African elephants could not have impetus. The dice show the result of a brutal round of melee. The Seleucid elephants suffered 3 casualties; the Ptolemaic elephants took 11 kills. Miraculously, the almost-destroyed unit of elephants passed its Fates Test roll. 

Picture F—The battle develops in the approximate center of the field/table, as the Indian elephants begin to find Ptolemaic infantry targets. Again, the yellow markers indicate disorder; the black markers indicate panic. The small green markers represent impetus. The red dots are used to track losses on the various units. The counters are “designed” so that casualties can be easily recorded. 

Picture G—After the elephant battle, many of the Indian elephant formations walked or charged into the exposed Ptolemaic infantry units and in one section of the table, a few Ptolemaic cavalry units. The white marker behind the one Indian elephant unit was from a “missile halt” result scored by the peltasts and their javelin volley the previous turn. There is a gap in the Royal Guard formation as one-third of their strength has been routed after fighting with some Indian pachyderms.   

Turn 4:

Antiochus won the move option, again. Given that many units were already engaged in close combat, not a lot of time was spent moving or wheeling units on both sides. A volley of javelins was actually thrown this turn, the first of the battle/scenario, and these pointed missiles landed with some effect on an approaching unit of Indian elephants. The peltasts under Socrates had scored a missile halt against the enemy pachyderms and their crews. Despite this minor moral victory, the contest continued to favor the Seleucid formations. 

After the dice dust settled, there were only 3 African elephant stands left on the tabletop. Those animals that had panicked at the smell and sound of their Indian counterparts were so near the Ptolemaic table edge as to count as “off the board.” These frightened animals had no chance of recovering. In a series of melees, the Indian elephants inflicted more damage, hamstringing and or killing more of Ptolemy’s nellies. Free of interference, many of the Indian animals walked forward to crash into the waiting and justifiably worried infantry and cavalry formations. Starting on the Ptolemaic right, the Libyan foot weathered this elephantine storm, but at some cost. The unit of peltasts next to the formation that had forced the enemy elephants to stop, albeit temporarily, also took some losses in a melee pitting man and animal against man. The Royal Guard formations, under Eurylochus, were in something of a bad way. Two of the units were disordered; two had taken casualties, and all three were facing elephants. Fresh Seleucid infantry were following close behind the pachyderms, so it looked like the end might be near for the men of the Guard. Over on the far left of Ptolemy’s line, the cavalry of Polycrates was in something of a state. The Agema had shifted or wheeled previously to avoid rampaging elephants (friend and foe), but was no caught in a no-win situation. Indian elephants were bearing down on their flank, and there was not sufficient room to maneuver as the Cretans were fighting nearby. One unit of the Libyan cavalry contingent had been run into by a pair of enemy elephants. The initial melee was not so bloody. It appeared both sides were content to stand off a bit and jab long pikes or throw spears at each other. The horses shied away from the pachyderms, and the elephants seemed a little reluctant to advance into the ranks of cavalry. 

An accounting was done at the conclusion of this turn. If my sums are correct, 7 African elephants exited the battlefield stage in a state of panic. That is the equivalent of 28 massed figures. Ten African elephants were lost in combat, so that adds 40 massed figures to the casualty list. To this, a unit of Cretan/Neo-Cretan light infantry must be added. This formation contained 27 massed figures. Ptolemy IV had suffered 95 casualties thus far. In stark contrast, the Seleucids had lost just 2 Indian elephants, the equivalent of 12 massed figures. It was further noted that of the 13 cavalry or infantry units on Ptolemy’s side of the table, 8 had suffered losses. Reinforcing the contrast already stated, not a single unit of infantry or cavalry on the Seleucid side of the table had taken any casualties. In fact, not a single unit of Seleucid cavalry or infantry had seen any close fighting. 

Turn 5:

Antiochus won the move option roll with a definitive 6 to 1. He also secured the ability to determine the melee direction. In summary, if the result was not already fairly obvious, in this turn, the troops (well, the elephants, actually) under the overall command of Antiochus, were able to “close the trunk” on Ptolemy’s left wing formations. 

Surveying the table from Seleucid right to left, it was noted that the cavalry of both sides finally came to blows. A unit of Medians was charged (in desperation, it should be remarked) by a unit of Libyans. The first round of melee went in favor of the Seleucid horsemen. Two units of Ptolemaic cavalry were occupied with segments of the Indian elephant screen. The Libyan troopers fought stubbornly; the Agema saw fate and fortune smile upon them, as they were taken in the flank by a pair of the smelly animals. This melee was hard fought as well. The dice gods were kind to the Agema, and let them stay on the table for another round. However, in the middle of Ptolemy’s line, a unit of Royal Guard finally “gave up the ghost” after a fairly long fight with some elephants. Fortunately, their friends to either flank were not demoralized when this unit broke and ran. A similar situation developed over on the Ptolemaic right (Seleucid left), when the outer unit of Libyan infantry collapsed after the largish unit of Indian elephants plowed into it a second time. (The pachyderms secured what is called an “impetus inroad” and so, were able to roll double the usual number of dice again.) The Libyan foot soldiers were scattered and or trampled by the powerful elephants. The neighboring unit of Libyans stayed in the fight, barely batting an eye at the rout taking place to their immediate right. 

Map 2 shows the status of the field/table at this point in the contest. There would not be a Map 3 nor even a Turn 6, as the elimination of 67 more massed figures from Ptolemy’s roster against the loss of just a single elephant screen stand (6 figures) reinforced just how one-sided this scenario had become, and confirmed—for all intents and purposes—that Ptolemy had no hope of turning the tide of battle on this particular wing. In fact, when last seen, he was riding hard in the direction of what remained of his Royal Guard formation. Though what he would do on arrival was anyone’s guess. His aides and subordinates were following in his wake while keeping a nervous eye on the various Indian elephants that were lumbering about.  

Comments & Remarks

After a problematic first attempt at this section (the draft was a little over 1,700 words in length), I decided to refer to and rely on the original report produced by John Boehm and the original narrative provided by Polybius. 

This experiment or scenario bore little resemblance to the course of the miniature wargame played by John and his colleagues. For just one extended example, on my tabletop, the African elephants did not wheel slightly right and engage the Dahae and Greek Mercenaries, and the Royal Guard formations did not join in this attack, focusing their numbers and fighting ability on the engaged Mercenaries, which resulted in the rout of these Seleucid troops. My reduced-in-size refight of Raphia was slightly different from John Boehm’s set up as well. On the Seleucid side of the field, the Median cavalry were deployed in line with the Horse Guards; they were not arranged at “right angles to them.” The elephants on both sides were spread across the entire frontage of the respective wings; they were not concentrated in a small unit in front of just a section of the larger line of battle. On Ptolemy’s side of my model representation, the Agema cavalry were a part of the line; they were not positioned as a reserve. The Libyan infantry, though depicted and deployed as phalanx units, were not considered a part of the larger Ptolemaic phalanx composed of Egyptian and Macedonian troops. 

Turning to the ancient narrative, I noted a little more similarity between my scenario and the record of how the actual battle progressed, or may have progressed. Polybius describes, rather colorfully, the “pushing and shoving” contests between the opposing lines, the opposing species of elephants. Even though Ptolemy’s guard unit did not “give way before the rush of animals” in my refight, it was discomforted by the various units of disordered and panicked pachyderms. Its ability to move and melee was sharply reduced. While Antiochus did try to get his cavalry around the right side of the elephant advance so that he could charge the enemy horse, this move never came to complete fruition. There was only the single contact between a unit of each side, and this occurred late in the abbreviated scenario. The Greek Mercenaries under Antiochus were not able to “charge Ptolemy’s peltasts and make them give ground,” as the Indian elephants prevented any substantial involvement or engagement of opposing formations of cavalry and infantry. In my refight, “Ptolemy’s whole left wing did not begin to give way before the enemy,” but it was certainly roughly handled. For all intents and purposes, the African elephants were wiped off the table, and several units of his left wing were made to pay a steep price if not routed when engaged by the victorious Indian elephants. In summary, this staging was primarily an elephant engagement. The other units and troop types were just “window dressing.” 

Given the one-sided nature of the historical battle, at least as reported and restricted to the contest between the Seleucid right and Ptolemaic left, the initial impression is that my refight was historical, was realistic. To these adjectives, I might also add predictable. Additionally, it was interesting to research and prepare. I was also engaged by the research and preparation, as well as by the development of scenario special rules. During the solo wargame and on reflection, however, I can report that I was not all that entertained. This scenario was not a chore; it was not the equivalent of going to the dentist, but neither was it like a well attended birthday party or settling in to watch a good movie with a friend or two. There was a sense of satisfaction in the setting up and the determined result, but there was little about the playing of it that I can say that I truly enjoyed. This assessment might be the product of the rules that were used and their familiar dice-heavy nature along with other “problems” such as the order of the game move sequence. I think more of the “depressed” mood (for lack of a better description) stemmed from the timing of the wargame. This modified version of Raphia was played as the old year was ending and the new year was standing in the wings, waiting to make its grand entrance. For me at least, this week or so between the Christmas holiday(s) and the start of the New Year has always proved rather challenging and difficult. Anyway. 

This experiment with a portion of Raphia was an interpretation of the information found in the ancient source material combined with interpretations offered by several other more accomplished individuals. The aforementioned first draft of this section included a long sub-section of “debate,” wherein the negatives of the wargame were listed and then countered or refuted by positives. I do not want to go into great detail here, as it would be time consuming for both the reader and this writer. It would also be rather subjective. I can report, however, that a portion of this debate was concerned with the accuracy of the figure scale employed as well as with questions about the frontages that would be involved with or required for elephant screens containing 60 and 40 animals, respectively, in addition to the correct or proper frontage for the other identified formations. Another issue or item of concern or interpretation was the complete lack of skirmishers or supporting light infantry with each elephant screen. 

Even though I was not as entertained as I would have liked to have been by this scenario, I do not think that the project was a complete waste of time. I have, I think, a better understanding of Raphia, and especially of the contest between Antiochus and Ptolemy on that one wing of the larger engagement. I have a greater appreciation and, I would hope, understanding of the Tactica II rules, especially with regard to how elephants are depicted and used. I also have a greater appreciation, it should go without saying, really, of how challenging it is, depending on the historical battle selected, to “realistically reconstruct” ancient warfare in “miniature” on my tabletop. 

A check of this second draft of a conclusion informs that I have cut about 700 words from my original effort. I am done with Raphia for now, but not for good. Perhaps at some point, I will entertain a solo Battle Day of Raphia. It occurs to me that this battle might be a good test of the recently purchased Strength & Honour rules. As I type this second-to-last sentence, I have all of 2023 to consider this idea. If the ambitious project of a solo Battle Day comes to pass (three refights seems appropriate, but four might be better), if it is realized, I have no doubt that I will use a lot more than 1,700 words.

Notes

1. My first trip to Raphia was made in 2013. My first Raphia report was submitted to the editor of Wargames illustrated® and accepted. “Wrestling with Raphia: Being the Account of One Wargamer’s Attempt to Pin Down Polybius,” was published in the October 2013 of that colorful monthly magazine. In a review of the issue on TMP, one individual was not happy with the quality of the report. Nick Hughes (TMP name “ubercommando”) made his opinion rather clear when he typed or lodged the following complaint(s): AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH! A problematic article; it starts with the author describing his failed attempts to design a wargame scenario of the battle of Raphia and it ends with a description of the game he eventually ran. What is missing is the historical background to the battle. I don't know the battle, I'm hazy about the history of it and that era. I could have done with learning more to see if I too could play the game. Not only that, the author never goes into detail about how and why his previous attempts to get a game of Raphia successfully done. I'm now going to launch a plea to article writers and editors to not assume we readers know what you're talking about when describing a specific battle or war. Not only that, a write up of a game which consists of "Dave rolled 2 sixes and forced Neil's Parthians to retire…meanwhile Dave's mate Tony charged his elephants at the enemy centre". I'm sure you had a fun time, but I don't know who Dave, Tony and Neil are and unless you relate your gaming experience to the historical battle you're recreating, you're not hooking me into your article. So if you describe how Dave departed from his real life counterpart in the actual battle, then you've described how it happened and how changing the tactic worked out in the game. Rant over. My second tour of the ancient battlefield took place in 2018. “Another Reconstruction of Raphia” was a battle report approximately 6,500 words in length with 3 maps, that was submitted to the editor of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. I estimated that this piece would appear in the March/April 2019 issue of the long-running publication. I was sorely mistaken. Ironically, this submission and several others were turned down by a new editor who expressed a concern about one writer becoming too dominant in the pages of Slingshot. Lesson(s) learned, the refused battle report was posted to my blog in early May  2021. This time, the comments and remarks were kinder. One reader, “Backpackbrewer,” wrote: “nice report . . . highly detailed and yet very entertaining and readable.” Another commenter, “Dave 8365,” offered this short compliment: “Great article!” The third journey to Raphia was posted to this blog on December 19, 2021. This was an attempt to refight the entire battle using modified Tactica II rules. As is often the case, this posted report generated no comments or feedback. In the original version of this footnote, I overlooked this December 2021 Raphia project. Based on this error, I made an estimation of the frequency with which I seem to drift back to Raphia for one reason or another. Anyway, if one accepts the numbers recorded by Polybius, then Raphia witnessed a contest between approximately 132,000 foot, 11,000 horse, and 175 elephants. (Just out of curiosity, I did some quick division and, if these totals are accepted, then there was 1 elephant for every 817 infantry or cavalry on the field that day in 217 BC.)  With regard to the landscape of Raphia, I could find no mention of terrain features  in Polybius (Histories, V. 79-86 / please see https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D79) that impacted the course of the battle. In his academic analysis of the engagement, Professor Philip Sabin remarks on the “highly speculative” suggestions of some researchers about the nature of the landscape and notes that, “there are no clear grounds for including any terrain features on our board . . .” (Please see pages 157-160 as well as pages 26 and 52, in LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World.) In one of his many excellent and eye-catching posts, Simon Miller imagines “a lot of sand and scrub.” His colleague in wargaming, Jeff Jonas, suggests that there were “limestone outcrops and cacti” at Raphia. (Please see the second paragraph in https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2016/04/raphia-and-other-battles.html)
2. As with every other set of Ancient and Medieval wargaming rules, this spiral-bound set has its advocates and supporters as well as its detractors. (There is also a large contingent “sitting in the middle.”) There are a number of comments on TMP about Tactica II. Please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=498024, http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=496099, and http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=518670 There is also a small but dedicated Forum, Please see https://groups.io/g/Tactica
3. In his narrative account of Paraetacene (or Paraitacene) 317/316 BC, Diodorus Siculus informs that the opposing elephant screens were “chock full of skirmishers.” For just one example, in XIX 28.2, he writes: “In front of the whole phalanx he placed forty elephants, filling the spaces between them with light armed soldiers.” Please see https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/19B*.html#21
4. In the May and July 1991 issues of Slingshot, Parts 1 and 2 of “A Rematch At Raphia” were published. In Part 1, John offered orders of battle and a refight report using WRG 6th Edition rules. In Part 2, the gentleman provided “arguments” supporting his decisions about the orders of battle that were employed in the miniature refight. 
5. Under Section 1.1 (Game Scales), it reads: “. . . TACTICA scales are approximately as follows: one Figure equals 40-60 soldiers depending upon troop type, density, tactical operating area, and unit size . . .” There is an approximate ground and time scale offered as well, but nothing about chariots, elephants, or artillery, as one can sometimes find in other sets of rules. 
6. The equation was: 60 elephants times 4 centimeters per base plus 59 intervals times 4 centimeters per space equals 476 centimeters, which translates into 187 inches or approximatley 15.5 feet. 
7. For the screen, I would have 15 elephants bases times 4 centimeters per base plus 14 intervals times 4 centimeters per space. This would give me 116 centimeters, or about 46 inches. For the massed units of elephants, I would need 5 units (representing 6 actual animals), each having a frontage of 12 centimeters, so another 60 centimeters, or roughly 24 inches. My “model” line of Seleucid elephants would stretch for around 72 inches then. 
8. Under Section 3.3.2 (Division Command Radius) on page 8, the rules state: “Division Commanders are used as “markers” about which the fighting units they command operate.” Further, “They may not be killed . . .They are simply abstractions.”
9. The second bullet point under Section 2.11.1 (Abilities of the General) reads, in part: “For scenario play, a General’s abilities may vary.” To clarify, Army Generals are a different category from Division Commanders, but it occurred to me, it seemed realistic or plausible that Division Commanders could be given Army General attributes. Under Section 2.11.3 (Loss of the General), Generals involved in melees where his side loses 3 casualties has to roll a d6 to determine his fate. I changed the “bad result” from 6 to a 1. Rolls of 2-6 would mean that the leader escaped harm. Finally, under Section 7.4.2 (Attached Generals), “Generals attached to and fighting with friendly units add 2 melee dice to a designated melee area.” For this scenario, I thought it might be interesting to allow 1 to 4 melee dice to be used by the various commanders.