One Bridge, Two Fords, Three Battles, and about 2,500 Years  

Within the pages of the May 1991 issue of Miniature Wargames (Number 96), there is an excellent, in my opinion, little (i.e., two-page) piece written by one Jason Monaghan. The title of this submission is, “VAPNARTAK: Dark Ages scenarios with a difference!” The engaging article started on an ironic and slightly humorous note, as the gentleman - in his own words, “no great fan of wargames competitions” - was tasked with organizing just such an event. Fortunately, Jason rose to the occasion, developing, as the title informs, a number of “Dark Ages scenarios with a difference.” A good portion of the short article was given to three clear and simple sketches of the tabletops used for the tournament. (His team won by the way, which also qualifies as a type of irony. The gentleman was subsequently subjected to some friendly ribbing because of this outcome. Anyway.) My interest was in the first predetermined tabletop, the one featuring a symmetrical landscape graced by a river, a bridge, two other crossing points, and essentially identical pairs of wooded areas as well as two smallish gentle hills. Instead of purchasing and then learning the WRG 6th Edition rules and then building suitable Dark Age armies (in my mind, quite the Herculean as well as potentially costly task), I thought I would see how the TRIUMPH! rules performed within this adopted setting. Instead of forces that were limited to the several centuries of this focused historical period, I thought it might prove entertaining to open up the time frame a little (actually, quite a lot), as long as the opposing armies remained historically matched. For an extended example, my tabletop would see no colorful albeit fantastical clash between New Kingdom Egyptians and Samurai (as Jason also referenced), but could possibly bear witness to a much more plausible contest, such as one between Philistines and Early Hebrews. 

Preparations

To the extent that my limited talents permitted, I fabricated a replica of ‘The Crossings’ (this was the name given to the terrain set up by Jason) on my smaller tabletop. The unnatural but interesting symmetrical design was completed fairly quickly and with function foremost in mind. The finished landscape was made more suspect by the right angles of the river as it flowed away from the patches of woods. This comparatively low aesthetic appeal would probably be judged as significantly lacking if not insulting by a substantial majority of ancient wargamers.  

Rather than tinker with the depiction of troop types, I decided to utilize the 40mm-wide bases explained in the rules. (The other two scales or options are 60mm and 80mm.) This would mean each movement unit or MU would be 20mm, which would mean that Horse Bow and similar types could gallop up to 160mm (approximately 6.3 inches) in a turn, if they had the command points to do so. As there were three crossings in total, it seemed appropriate if not logical to draft armies that were approximately 144 points strong (i.e., three roughly equal commands of around 48 points each). 

Deciding on which pairs of armies to use for these scenarios took a little more time, as there were quite a number of them (in the neighborhood of 600) to consider. After a suitable period of back and forth, of making changes, or being distracted by a new and even shinier army, the following matched pairs were selected: A) Sea Peoples vs Hittites - circa 1180 BCE, B) Gauls vs Samnites - circa 215 BCE, and C) Teutonic Order vs Mongols - circa 1310 CE. These pairings were chosen from the extensive but also compact army lists provided in the De Bellis Antiquitatis rules (Version 1.1, March 1995). The TRIUMPH! versions of these six armies were then found on http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com.

After these decisions were made, an additional period of time was spent debating how best to approach these planned contests as a solo wargamer. On the one end of the scenario design spectrum, it occurred to me that I could simply set up the matched pairs and play. Way over on the other side of that multifaceted spectrum, I thought about creating a few tables that would essentially take effective control out of my hands, especially with regard to deployment and where the main as well as secondary effort (if there even was one) would be made. While an interesting process, I worried that some odd die rolls might result in unusual scenarios wherein an army concentrated its strength in one sector but then launched an all-out attack against an objective that was quite distant. Then again, depending on the detail of the table(s) and the scores of the various die rolls, there might be scenarios wherein both sides were content to sit and wait on the other, or secure the nearest objective and then go on the defensive, refusing to attack any enemy unit or formation. On thinking about it further, I wondered if there was a middle ground. What if a d6 was rolled and this result determined how many objectives needed to be captured by each army? I thought that the simple procedure (no table needed, really) would basically guarantee movement and engagement for each scenario. Someone once said or wrote, “The proof is in the pudding.” (Distracted, I briefly researched this phrase. Evidently, it originated in early seventeenth century England.) Anyway, with the added goal of confirming or rejecting this taste-oriented idiom, I set up the first of three planned scenarios. 

The First Battle 

As this engagement will set the tone - more or less - for the other two pieces in this simple and figurative puzzle of a blog post, it seems prudent to explain or at least introduce the format I intend to employ in communicating what transpired on my niche-within-a-niche tabletop. From what I have been able to gather, it appears that diagrams or maps with captions are easier to digest (and to produce) than page after page of text which sometimes results in slings and arrows being directed my way by critics as well as pedants of various stature. So I am going to, or try to describe what happened during each battle with two or perhaps three maps and their captions. Some additional non-caption text may be included, if it is deemed necessary for providing more color, details, or further explanation. Anyway, without further ado, let us part the waters as it were, and get to the biblical period contest wherein Hittites met Sea Peoples on an unusually symmetrical field of battle. 

As indicated (at least I hope so) by these comparatively basic visuals, this first scenario was a rather drawn out as well as back and forth affair. The Hittite left collapsed quickly, especially after the unfortunate loss of their commander. In the center of the field, they were able to secure the bridge with their Chariot squadrons, although not without some cost. The Hittites were also able to demoralize the enemy center and then push some reinforcing foot units over that same bridge. The contest on the Hittite right was a “near run thing” as the familiar saying goes. This attritional engagement finally saw the demoralization of the Sea Peoples contingent when a unit of Raiders was shattered by the supported charge of the leader of the Hittites’ right wing. With two commands demoralized and in full retreat, the battlefield and the day was awarded to the Hittites. 

Brief Remarks 

On immediate reflection, I should like to reiterate my deployment mistake(s). I should have copied Jason’s directions or narrative better and permitted the opposing armies to arrange their respective commands within the established deployment zones. This approach would have lessened the total time of the contest from approximately 195 minutes to somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 minutes. Then again, drafting a ‘house rule’ that permitted three of four uses of a march move would have speeded up the movement portion of this first engagement and lessened the time required by a certain amount. 

The three distinct commands available in GRAND TRIUMPH! games would seem to lend themselves very well to a scenario such as this, where there are three sectors and each has an objective. However, based on my experience and again, upon immediate reflection and review, it appears that this large battle devolved into three smaller contests almost from the start. If rate of movement was a problem because of the composition of the various commands and the often poor command die rolls, then offering support to a neighboring command would have proven just as challenging. To be sure, it is very probable that I erred in planning for this battle. Perhaps I should have let the more distant ford alone and focused more on the bridge in the center. Perhaps I should have taken more care with the composition of my respective commands. For example, an all-Chariot contingent could have made much better time, crossed the bridge quicker, and with their mobility, would have likely proven very tough against the Raider formations of the Sea Peoples. Perhaps a reader or two will weigh in with their own thoughts or constructive criticisms regarding both my strategy and tactics. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I find myself questioning the choice of rules and indeed scenario design already. I am wondering if this kind of symmetrical field of battle is too oriented to the Dark Ages or some other, slightly more modern period, say the ECW or even the SYW and the AWI. However, the original idea was to play three games, so I think this goal needs to be met before I can confirm these early concerns or seriously consider experimenting, and contemplate the making of some changes. On the positive side, this most recent game has given me a little more experience with the TRIUMPH! rules and the latest amendments/updates. It has also produced a situation or two which I took to the ‘grand high council’ of the WGC Forum for advice and clarification. The turn around time has always been impressive, and their experience and knowledge of the rules has always been extensive and appreciated. 

The Second Battle 

Shortly after the morale collapse of the Gallic right, the barbarian formations on the left of the symmetrical battlefield suffered a sequence of reverses (6 vs 1 or 6 vs 2 melee rolls) which saw their numbers reduced, their lines penetrated, and their determination to continue the fight very much impacted. Recognizing that the loss of another unit would result in both flanks being demoralized, the Gallic commander decided to concede the contest. On brief review, it appeared that the only positive he could take back to his tribal council was that they had not allowed the Samnites to capture the bridge (well - during the contest anyway), or allowed the enemy formations to occupy any ground on the Gallic side of this crossing point. Then again, not a single Gaul managed to set foot on the Samnite side of this structure. 

Brief Remarks 

In this scenario, the Samnites occupied the same table edge as the Hittites. While the Samnites also emerged as victorious by demoralizing two enemy commands, the way in which they achieved this was a little different. In no particular order, the Samnite left was not quickly demoralized while most of its units were still in column. Instead, the Gauls in this sector were slowly ground down and then made victims by two very bad command rolls when they were demoralized. On the other side of the field, the contest was more back and forth until, surprisingly, the Samnites decided to come off the slight advantage of the gentle hill and attack. This boldness or foolishness resulted in the destruction of three enemy formations, which pushed the Gallic contingent in this region very near its demoralization tipping point. Ironically, for all the fighting on the bridge, for all the pushing and being pushed back, neither side suffered any unit casualties. If play had been continued for six or seven more turns, I imagine that the Samnite left would have eventually put a lot of pressure on the Gallic center, which may have given the Samnites struggling to get across the bridge an opportunity or two. 

The non-result of the contest in the center gave me pause on a few occasions to consider the melee values of the troops involved and the terrain classification of the bridge. Without question, given that the manmade structure is something of a ‘chokepoint’ and can only permit the passage of one unit at a time, or a column of troops, it presents quite a challenge to force the enemy back in order to gain a toehold and then expand the bridgehead so that supporting units can come across. Technically, I suppose I should have penalized the Gallic Warriors for being close order foot and engaged with Samnite Raiders (open order foot) on or immediately around the bridge. Typically, in this kind of situation, a minus 2 is applied to the combat factor, which would have given Warriors with rear support a combat factor of 2 (3 plus 1 minus 2) versus 4 for the Raiders. Given the presumed narrow width of the bridge, and presuming that the first and maybe second or third ranks of these figurative formations would be involved in the melee, this rather severe penalty seemed unwarranted, if not unfair. On further reflection, I have very little experience when it comes to fighting on or over bridges in my ancient and or medieval scenarios. Additionally, I confess to not being aware of any ancient or medieval battle that was centered around the possession of a bridge. (I shall have to attempt to rectify this lack of knowledge.) 

In summary, as with the first engagement, this second scenario saw victory gained through the demoralization of the enemy rather than won by the possession of the identified crossing points. This second scenario also saw similar plans being used by the involved armies. Having three commands or “divisions,” each side assigned one to a particular objective and the battle, or three smaller but related battles, developed as a result. Would this prospective pattern repeat itself in the final contest? 

The Third Battle 

Over the course of the next three turns (7 through 9), the Mongols continued to exert pressure on the cramped and crowded foothold the Order had on the far ford, or the one nearest to them - on their left. The contest in the center also continued to be a back and forth affair, with small gains being made by each side and then erased by the enemy in their turn. The right wing of the Teutonic army was left alone, aside from a single or rogue unit of Horse Bow that ate up many of the command points for this particular group. Nothing came of this minor threat, however. The local commander of the Order pushed his foot and Knights forward. His aim was the far ford, held by two units of Mongols. 

Making judicious use of command rolls, making sure to “close the door on” (i.e., flank) frontally engaged enemy formations, and benefitting from a little bit of luck, the Knights around the bridge were able to disperse another unit of Horse Bow, which took the Mongol center to its determined demoralization point. Almost at the same time, the right wing of the Mongol army was demoralized when a unit of Light Foot was able to fall on the flank of an occupied unit of Horse Bow. 

Even though one ford was in their possession and they had two units on the other side of the bridge and two units crossing the structure, the Mongol general sensed that the battle was lost. Two of his commands were not in the right frame of mind to continue the fight. Rather than risk adding injury to insult, he ordered his men to retreat, leaving the field and the three crossing points in the hands of the Europeans. 

Brief Remarks 

In stark contrast to the pervious scenarios, this contest featured plenty of mounted troops. To that end, one side fielded much heavier and more “close and engage” troopers, while the other side deployed much lighter and more suited to “shoot and scoot” troopers. Given the higher movement rates of these kinds of cavalry, it was not at all surprising to see that battle was joined sooner and that the wargame lasted approximately 132 minutes. Another difference between this contest and the earlier battles, was the plan drawn up by the Mongols. Instead of arranging their three commands to contest and or control the three crossing points, a small detachment was assigned to the near ford on their left. The group of four Horse Bow units occupied the attention of three-times as many enemy units. Ironically, there was not a lot of fighting in this sector. 

Like the other scenarios, this engagement was also decided when one side reached that tipping point of having two commands demoralized by losses. There was a bit of irony here as well, for it seemed that a more mobile force would have had the advantage. This almost proved to be the case at the distant ford, when the fast-moving Mongols essentially caught the Order negotiating the river crossing. However, as related, a number of variables conspired to prevent the Mongols from destroying every enemy unit that made it across the ford, or forcing the enemy column to rapidly retrace its steps in the face of so many horse archer types. 

As with the earlier engagements, the center of the tabletop proved to be the main attraction. However, rather than wrestling for control of the bridge while actually on the bridge, the Mongols and the Teutonic Order fought on the westerners’ side of the structure. Though outclassed, the Mongol cavalry were almost able to ride rings around the lumbering Teutonic Knights. But almost does not make a significant difference in many things, especially with regard to wargames. 

Commentary & Critique 

These solo engagements mark my second visit to the specific if also symmetrical landscape originally designed by Jason. In the first half of 2004, I set up a Vis Bellica wargame featuring Normans and Saxons. The subsequent report (approximately 7,000 words and 2 maps) was submitted to MWAN Magazine, and was published in the May/June issue (Number 129). Technically, I suppose this most recent trip should be labeled my third tour of Jason’s rather clever idea, as I employed the ARMATI rules to see if Saxons or Vikings would capture more plunder. This contest was held on a different fictional battlefield - one dotted with herds of animals, wagons, and houses that were subject to looting and being put to the torch. The reader will probably not be surprised to find that the narrative of this experiment and experience appeared in the pages of the March/April 2004 issue of MWAN Magazine. 

In summary, there are chronological gaps between these wargaming events or periods of particular interest. From 1991 to 2004 is 13 years, and there are a little more than two decades between 2004 and the present day. It occurs to me, turning to what little I know about actuarial tables and such, that this may very well be the last time I conduct a figurative walking tour of ‘The Crossings.’ Retreating from thoughts heavily tinted with the color palette espoused by Kübler-Ross, it also occurred to me during the selection of this old magazine article and development of the inspired-by-project, that I appear to look back more than I look forward with regard to my wargaming projects and pursuits. I suppose this might simply be a result of my age, as there are more years behind me than there are in front of me. Adjusting the tone to something a bit lighter than the topic of mortality, it occurs to me that my return to and reuse of Jason’s scenario suggests a certain lack of originality on my part. On further review, it does appear that the majority of my wargaming projects are derived from the work of others. Then again, I wonder how many ancient wargamers have employed TRIUMPH! or another set of rules to do friendly battle on terrain very similar to that designed by Jason?

In the January/February 2015 issue of Slingshot (Number 298), Steven Neate treated readers to “The Battle of Dunnichen 685 - using Dux Bellorum Rules.” In the introductory paragraph, the accomplished gentleman admitted to a “weird and whacky” approach to rulebooks. (Rest assured, nothing like Michael Palin dressed as a wig and suspender-wearing parliamentary candidate in a Python sketch from way back when.) Steven stated the following: “I believe a rule set is only tested when you attempt to stretch it, even to break it.” Now then, there is a wargaming camp where I believe that I would or could feel very much at home. Anyway, based on my subjective assessment, I think the TRIUMPH! rules did a fair job of handling these three scenarios played over the same terrain. Therefore, I can correct my first impression and confirm that there does appear to be some kind of “proof within the pudding.” This is a qualified statement, however. While the three games were completed, and while I appeared to become more adept with each scenario, it seems that there is still room for improvement. For example, securing a crossing point does not really matter if the usual victory conditions are applied. That is to explain, a demoralized and retreating force cannot hold on to a bridgehead or a ford located deep on an enemy’s flank sector. For another and perhaps more obvious example, a set of rules oriented on linear formations and evidence-based examples of ancient or medieval battles, cannot “shine” as brightly as when its melee or missile phases are confined to single unit contests or local battles that are slightly larger. 

With the perspective of about 30 hours since the table was cleared and things were put away, I find myself wondering how pike armies would have fared but also rather glad that I did not attempt to discover how they might have performed. In fact, since those first seeds of doubt started to grow in the latter stages of the first contest, I have been thinking that Hail Caesar or some other set of rules might be worth a trial on this terrain. Overall, and referring to that figurative rubric I sometimes use, it seems that this cumulative effort might merit a B-minus or high-C. Harsh grading policies aside, I am walking away from this tabletop with a little more experience at playing TRIUMPH!; I am getting used to the recent amendments and how they affect the game, and I am thinking - though not yet entirely convinced - that I might have given an idea (albeit borrowed) to a reader or two for their next tabletop battle.  

Pondering Permutations of Paraetacene

Unless I am very much mistaken, the first issue of Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients) to include an article about the 317 BCE battle of Paraetacene (or Paraitakene if you prefer), was the March 2004 issue - Number 233. Starting on page 13 and continuing to page 21, a learned fellow by the name of Scott Robertson provided readers with “The Campaign and Battle of Paraetacene 317 BC.” (The drawings accompanying this well-written piece were done by one Leroy Simpson.) Anyway, in search of a bit of redemption after a disappointing solo scenario was discontinued and dismantled after just four turns of play (more about this frustrating experience and perceived if not actual failure later .  . . maybe), I remained focused on or preoccupied with staging some sort of Successor contest on my tabletop. Given the unfortunate turn of recent events, the thinking was to produce a generalized or multi-subject blog post instead of one of my usual wargame reports. This approach would save me the embarrassment as well as associated “trauma” of a possible second disaster. Out of curiosity, I decided to compare and contrast Scott’s order of battle interpretation, specifically the left wing of Eumenes’ line, with the interpretation provided by the prolific and well-established Society member Duncan Head. In the July/August 2018 issue of Slingshot (Number 319), this veteran ancients wargamer offered readers an engaging narrative titled, “Paraetacene Writ Large with DBMM.”

To my slight surprise but also measurable sense of relief, it was found that the two orders of battle (the former drafted for use with Warhammer Ancient Battles and the latter drawn up for use with DBMM - obviously) were essentially identical. Scott’s list was heavily footnoted, which was helpful. Duncan’s list did not contain footnotes, but specified what troop type and number of elements should be used to represent the various contingents on this wing. The only difference and possible point of contention was with regard to the number of pachyderms deployed as an angled or curved screen for this particular flank. As my intention was not to refight the historical battle but merely to contemplate using the excellent work of others as a kind of foundational template, I was not worried about finding the correct answer to the weighty question of how many elephants were in the sector or with preparing an argument to defend my position on the subject. What I was more interested in, was how I might use the excellent information gathered and produced by Scott and Duncan (as well as others) to develop ideas and orders of battle for tabletop scenarios that would be comparable to Paraetacene. For example, how would I go about developing an ARMATI (2nd Edition) scenario based on this historical engagement? For another example, what would a Hail Caesar treatment of this contest look like, and how would it play? For a third and final example, as the list of rulebooks available for wargaming in this extensive period is quite long (and this is objectively a good thing, even if the variety can be a little overwhelming to those new to the hobby), how would the TRIUMPH! rules and associated free army lists handle a similar struggle of this size or even larger between competing Successor generals?  

Before proceeding, I should like to acknowledge that Paraetacene was the historical engagement selected for Battle Day 2018, the annual event (debuting in 2004) hosted by The Society of Ancients. In the “rush to research” this blog post, I read or at least scanned multiple Battle Day reports submitted by those who were fortunate to be in attendance. I read and then read again, the Battle Pack provided by the inestimable Richard Lockwood in the January/February 2018 issue of Slingshot. I also reviewed the recap or round up offered by Adam Hayes in a discussion thread on the Society’s Forum. I studied the analysis and remarks provided by Professor Philip Sabin in his engaging book, LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. I spent quite a bit of time poring over the text and pictures of Mark Fry’s blog post about the day. (Please see https://despertaferres.com/2018/04/13/society-of-ancients-batteday-2018-paraetacene-317b-c/) In a perfect world, I should very much have liked to either participate in the refights that employed ARMATI, or Hail Caesar, or L’Art de la Guerre (ADLG), and would have very much appreciated as well as enjoyed reading the detailed reports resulting from these reconstructions. How did these game organizers depict the left wing of the army of Eumenes anyway? For that matter, how did these game organizers assemble and deploy the other contingents that were present on that so-very-long-ago day? Having some time on my hands, and again, trying to replace or simply erase the memory of that unsatisfactory scenario, I thought I might make an attempt or two (or even three) at drafting my own orders of battle for a contest that was comparable to Paraetacene. 

______________________________

Unpacking the Pachyderms 

For the sake of experimentation, I decided to increase the reported (and debated) number of elephants covering the Eumenid left wing by a factor of 1.5. This would give me approximately 60 animals. (If one accepts the excerpt from Tactics 9, then it is possible that there would be a phalanx-commander (phalangarches) in charge of these elephants. See page 33 of Professor Brian Campbell’s Greek and Roman Military Writers - Selected Readings.) This multiplication presented something of a challenge, as none of the rulebooks mentioned contains or establishes a model or number of models equals actual elephant(s) scale. As a test (not verified by actual wargaming or corroborated by others), I thought I might determine that elephant stands in the ARMATI rules represented 12 of these wrinkly-skinned and floppy-eared animals. To depict the increased number of 60 pachyderms then, I would have to prepare five stands or units. Rather liking what I read in the May 2010 issue of Slingshot (Number 270), I thought I would borrow the excellent ideas of Phil Halewood and Martin Charlesworth. These experienced ARMATI player-generals and rule tamperers combined an elephant stand or unit with a skirmishers or light infantry stand or unit, which represented the “protective cloud or screen” of light troops that work in tandem with a group of elephants. On a related point or points, I also found the changes pertaining to ‘elephants vs phalanxes’ and ‘elephants vs cavalry’ intriguing. In fact, I confess to being rather tempted to set up a fictional battle featuring double-size armies (Epic Unit Sizes of course), and try out these various elephant amendments. I also think it would be interesting to try out their ideas about command and control. (‘Moderate sigh’ - Add yet another “task” to my figurative, long, and ever-changing wargaming list . . .) 

To be certain, it has been some time since I last staged a Hail Caesar scenario on my non-traditional tabletop. That admitted, and after reviewing the ‘useful rules’ regarding elephants, phalanxes, as well as pikes, and after looking over the appropriate army lists in the Biblical & Classical Supplement, I am thinking that four models or stands of elephants (so a scale of 1:15) might be workable for the screen covering the left wing of Eumenes’ deployment. I have not decided if these elephants should be organized into a divisional command, assigned to other divisions, or treated as their own commands. There are, I allow, decent arguments to be made for each position. 

While I have some experience with the TRIUMPH! rules, I do not have very much when it comes to employing the ‘Elephant Screen’ Battle Card. Based on a quick review of that particular Battle Card, it seems that an amendment could be drafted that permitted friendly elephants to work with cavalry. Then again, there could be an argument established for preparing four or five bases/stands (either a 1:15 or 1:12 representative scale), and then “smothering” these animals with additional stands of skirmishers. (However, there might be a small problem with indicating the commander of these mixed troop types.) In my limited opinion, this particular set of rules presents a number of interesting challenges of problems when it comes to staging and refighting historical battles. In the past, Rod Cain has been very active with regard to producing YouTube shorts and tutorials about these rules. He has refought Hastings and Hattin on impressive tables, and posted educational and well-received videos of these wargames. I wonder as well as hope, if at some point in the not-too-distant future, the knowledgeable gentleman and staunch advocate/champion for TRIUMPH! will post a video about Paraetacene, or perhaps Raphia, or perhaps Magnesia, or maybe even Cunaxa, which is the historical contest to be refought at Battle Day 2026. 

Here Comes the Cavalry

Deferring to Duncan’s material, it was noted that approximately 1,700 horse on this left wing were categorized or classed as LH (light horse). A group of around 1,550 were classed as Cv (cavalry), and a sub-set of about 150 men were categorized as Kn (knights).  There were additional characteristics or qualities listed, such as (O) for “ordinary” or Irregular and Regular, but none of this “chrome” is all that helpful when deciding how to represent these formations or regiments with the TRIUMPH! rules and lists. A quick check of https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home (these were then copied and pasted for possible future reference or use) informed that I would have just two cavalry troop types to choose from if or when assuming the role of Eumenes. The first type was Knights, further identified or described as “xystophoroi.” The second type was Javelin Cavalry, which were “Persian or Thracian horsemen armed with javelins.” Operating under this army list constraint, it would appear that a prospective player-general could prepare and deploy one to three bases of Knights. My apologies, I should have prefaced this paragraph be explaining that TRIUMPH! does not have a representative figure or ground scale. (Rod has posted a brief video explaining this decision or approach.) The remainder of the mounted contingents on this wing would be Javelin Cavalry. At this point in the project or thinking, I confess that I am not sure exactly how many bases or stands there should be to represent the Arachosians. Then again, as stated previously, my intention here is not to refight the historical battle. My general aim is to figure out how I might set up and play a better Successor scenario, and which set of rules would help me accomplish that desired end. Although this troop type is not included on either the Antigonid or Eumenes list, I am toying with the idea of allowing Elite Cavalry, Horse Bow, and even Bad Horse to be a part of this scenario, that is, if the final decision is made to use the TRIUMPH! rules.

Moving to the ARMATI rules, a review of the Eumenid army list on page H of the spiral-bound booklet informed that there were two types of HC or heavy cavalry available, along with a generic type of LC or light cavalry. Unlike TRIUMPH!, the ARMATI rules provide an approximate figure or unit scale. For as much as I have thought about it, it occurs to me that I could depict the cavalry on this wing with six or seven units, stands or bases. On further review, I might be able to double that number, so that the cavalry from East Iran would be depicted with three stands or units of heavy cavalry. The representation of Eudamos and his agema is another one of those challenges to be overcome or problems to be solved. The ARMATI rules do allow for the designation of veteran units, so maybe the agema and the advance bodyguard could be integrated with a line unit. It is something to think about. Again, as I am not planning a traditional refight of this battle, it would be quite simple to inflate the listed strength of the various contingents to somewhere in the region of 1,000 to 1,500 men each. 

With its three unit sizes of Standard, Large, and Small, the Hail Caesar rules appear to be a better fit for addressing the questions of how to represent the cavalry contingents on the left wing of the army under the overall command of Eumenes. At first read-through, I think Stasander’s formation could easily be depicted as a Large unit, while the majority of the other units would be of Standard size. The agema and its advance guard could be combined into a Standard unit, or both formations could be depicted as Small units. Without a doubt, the Hail Caesar ‘useful rules’ offer the most opportunity to dress up the otherwise basic or bland units found in the TRIUMPH! and ARMATI books.

The Silver Shields, and Other Poor, Bloody Pikemen & Hoplites

As my point of reference for a possible adaptation to my own tabletop, I looked at the center of the army of Eumenes, at least as interpreted by Scott in early 2004 and then by Duncan some 14 years later. For all intents and purposes, these provided orders of battle were identical. The difference was that the first was developed for use with the Alexander the Great Supplement for WAB, while Duncan’s commands were designed for DBMM. In addition to a fair number of skirmishers and a similar number of elephants to troops of pachyderms positioned as a screen on the left, it appears that the Eumenid center was composed of approximately 17,000 heavy infantry (pikemen and hoplites), divided into four distinct contingents or divisions. Again, it is not my intention to stage a refight of this historical battle. This has been done previously and to great effect by traditional wargamers possessed of a lot more talent and experience than yours truly. Anyway, if I were to increase the strength of each identified contingent by 2,000 men, then the strength of the center of this revised army under Eumenes would add up to around 25,000 heavy infantry. Establishing a basic unit strength of 1,000 allows one to depict this center with 25 units or formations. While an unusual number, preparing these for either an ARMATI scenario or a Hail Caesar scenario would present no real challenge or difficulty. At the risk of revealing which way I am leaning (at least in the idea stage, it remains to be seen if these developing ideas will be executed), I find that there is a certain appeal to having characterful units as well as commanders of various abilities when employing the Hail Caesar rules. For example, a mental list for the ‘special rules’ pertaining to the Silver Shields has at least four and perhaps as many as seven characteristics. That is certainly a lot of character and color/colour. At the same time, however, I feel that it should be noted that I am not a big fan of rolling a handful of six-sided dice to hit in a melee round and then rolling another handful or partial handful to save. That admitted, my general point is that recreating a version of the Eumenid center would be a relatively simple and quick task if using ARMATI or Hail Caesar. 

In studying the order of battle established by Duncan, it was noted that there were three classes or types of pikemen fighting for Eumenes. From worst to best, these were Inferior, Ordinary, and Superior. Reviewing the Antigonid and Eumenes army lists for possible use in a TRIUMPH! treatment of this battle or one rather like it, it was noted that while the description of the units or stands of Pikes was different, their combat factors and rear support bonus in certain situations remained the same. This seems like an opportunity for a scenario special rule or two. A TRIUMPH! contest would also, as I believe I have mentioned, require the establishment of a temporary unit scale or something similar. If I elect to proceed with the idea of there being 25,000 heavy infantry in my center when or if I set up a version of this battle, how many bases or units of Pikes will I prepare and deploy? Would 25 be sufficient? Would 50 be too many? This latter number would allow all the Pikes to receive support in melee. Then again, I could substitute 8 or 16 stands of Spears (i.e., Hoplites), so the number of Pikes would be revised to 17 or 34. Much to think about here. If I followed the same approach when putting together the center of the Antigonid army, then its adjusted strength would be in the neighborhood of 36,000 men. This would require 36 bases or stands at one representative scale, 48 at another, and 72 at a third ratio.   

Distracted by Asclepiodotus

Studying the diagrams, drawings, and explanatory text at the top of pages 72-73 in the 1980 Salamander book Warfare in the Classical World, it occurred to me that it would be possible to model a syntagma on my tabletop with a square piece of colored poster board measuring 16 centimeters - or approximately 6 inches - on a side. This counter or playing piece would represent the 256 men in this basic unit of a pike phalanx arranged in 16 ranks of 16, with each solider occupying a frontage of approximately 1.8 meters and a similar depth. If I adapt and apply the 3 “A’s” originally promoted by the respected and prolific Society of Ancients member Anthony Clipsom (with regard to terrain) to this specific representation, then it is rather evident that a colored piece of poster board is much more of an abstraction than a painted and based unit of, let us say, of 24 or 36 pikemen in 25/28mm scale. Obviously, there can be no real comparison of the aesthetic value of these two depictions. The three-dimensional representation, complete with flocking, perhaps a casualty or two, and maybe an identification tag attached to its 4mm-thick base, would win every time. At first, the heavier and correspondingly much more expensive to produce model would appear to be the more authentic of the two. The casual passerby and or the invested player-general could readily see that this was a formation or unit of pikemen, arranged in a certain way on that aforementioned movement tray. However, what is the figure-to-man ratio being utilized in this depiction? Also, what is the ground scale? Is there a plausible historical match between the two? Is this relationship even possible when using traditional miniatures? Returning to the wargamer-friendly (and perhaps a little bit frustrating) information found on pages 72-73 of Warfare, it appears that the inexpensive, functional, and simple representation of the syntagma is the more authentic one. In fact, it would not require that much more time, effort, or financial investment to fabricate a second model of this basic unit. This representative counter would show the syntagma and its 256 men in battle formation, that is, in close order. This model would also be a square, but its dimensions would be 8 centimeters by 8 centimeters, representing a formation with a footprint of 14.4 meters by 14.4 meters.  

I think it is fair to suggest that many if not most ancient wargamers would agree that this method of representation is more accurate, and so more historical. However, this historical accuracy is achieved at the cost of appearance and so, offers little to no subjective appeal. It does not need to be stated that many, if not most, ancient wargamers prefer to play with toys of various scales, and would hesitate if not turn their collective noses up at the very idea of playing with more accurate but significantly less attractive colored pieces of poster board. 

Seeking a possible compromise, I shifted my focus from strict adherence to ground scale to how many real men or ancient soldiers might be represented by a single figure or model. To be certain, 256 is a very specific and therefore potentially difficult number to work with, but if one were to establish or suggest a representative scale of 1:16, then it would be possible to build a model syntagma with 16 figures, arranged in 4 ranks of 4. (Each of these miniatures would represent a group of pikemen in a 4-by-4 formation.) On the afternoon of 02 August, I visited the WoFun site and discovered that the Armoured Phalangites v1 were on sale for 19 US dollars per pack. For this price (shipping and the cost of bases not included), I could secure 42 figurines “at the 28mm scale” or 84 figurines “at the 18mm scale.” Opting for the smaller figurines, it was determined that I could assemble five syntagmata of pikemen for use on my tabletop. Now then, these 16-figure syntagmata would have to be perfectly square units, and the dimensions of their four sides would be the equivalent of the ground scale or footprint for each pikeman described in the explanatory text. Just for the sake of example, let us say that one side of this square base or stand measures 2.5 inches. Figuring that these 18mm pikemen would be deployed in close order, then the 2.5 inches represents 14.4 meters, approximately. This would mean that our actual ground scale, or the ground scale for any tabletop battle that might feature this syntagma and its friends, would be 1 inch represents 5.76 meters. While this ground scale might be historically accurate, it is also very problematic because it is so specific. My hunch is that this scale or standard raises more questions than it provides answers. For instance, how will other troop types such as light infantry, elephants, and cavalry be depicted with this ground scale? Adding to these inescapable challenges, how will other troop types be depicted using that figure scale of 1:16? Can that established figure scale be applied, with satisfactory results, to formations of Roman legionaries, Greek peltasts, Persian cavalry, and Gallic warriors? And then, there are the numerous decisions to be made and tested with regard to movement rates, missile ranges, command reach, and so forth.  

Turning my attention to the five formations or battle deployments illustrated on page 73, the “straight” and “oblique” were familiar. (The “oblique” was at a much sharper angle than I have seen on a tabletop, however, but fine.) In my fairly long experience as an ancients wargamer, I have neither employed nor have I seen reports of 6mm, 15mm, or 25/28mm pike phalanxes in “squares,” “crescents,” or “wedges” being used on a tabletop. Are we missing something by not employing these formations? Or, is it a case of the rules we play at war with not being capable of handling these kinds of formations, of the rule designers deciding to focus on the more commonly employed “straight” lines of battle and occasional “oblique” deployment? 

While typing and revising this section, I spent an interesting 10-15 minutes figuring out how much it would cost, approximately, to build at a 1-to-1 scale, a model of the ancient author’s ideal phalanx, said formation being composed of 64 syntagmata. My math produced a number very close to 3,700 US dollars, assuming the sale price was still valid. If not, then the cost of this ideal phalanx would rise to around 4,500 US dollars. To be clear, these basic calculations were made using the referenced WoFun product. 

I have no doubt that the initial or final price tag for a traditional 15mm model of this ideal phalanx at a 1-to-1 scale would make one’s jaw drop, eyes bulge, and breath catch. However, it would make for a truly impressive sight. (Simon Miller comes close to such a representation here: https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2018/11/magnesia-phalanx.html)

On a more serious and less “sticker shock” note, while revising this section, I recalled reading something in one of my preferred hobby texts. In Chapter 2 of Wargame Tactics, Charles Grant announces in the first sentence, “If we are to achieve anything like realism in wargame tactics one factor which is clearly of paramount importance is the matter of scale.” While this early and well-regarded ambassador of the hobby was concerned with terrain, the intent or principle can also be applied to representational figure scale, which the gentleman proceeded to consider and discuss on page 14 and for the rest of the chapter. In so far as I have been able to (or remember to), I try to emulate this respected figure by ‘working backwards’ from the “starting point of a constant ground scale.” Admittedly, as I tried to convey above, this can prove challenging. To reiterate: While a ground scale of 1 centimeter equals .9 meters might solve the problem of depicting an accurate model of a syntagma, this ground scale has a ripple or tsunami effect on other aspects of the rules, regardless of the number of amendments that might be made. 

What’s Next? 

Courtesy of the indefatigable, prolific, and near-to-celebrity-status Simon Miller, I am in possession of a detailed scenario packet which explains how an interested individual or group might go about refighting the monumental contest of Raphia, 217 BCE. Counting the squares on the provided map, it was noted that this playing surface measured 18 by 8. (The bordering high ground, dunes and escarpments, were not used in my calculation.) If I set up my larger tabletop, I can stage a To The Strongest! scenario on a fictional or quasi-historical field measuring 29 by 8 squares. In other words, I have plenty of room and could, if desired, refight or attempt to refight the battle of Raphia. Given my attention and repeated reference to the earlier contest of Paraetacene, I do not think it would pose too much of a problem to stage a refight of this engagement on my tabletop, in my usual albeit unconventional way. However, as stated repeatedly, that is not my ultimate goal. 

Digging through an assortment of electronic folders and files going way back to 2016, it occurs to me that I could draft opposing orders of battles using the ‘Generic Successor’ list contained within the Kingdoms of the East catalog. Then again, I could also try something with the standard Ptolemaic and Seleucid match up. Having recently secured the latest version of the QRS for these rules and another update of corrections and notes, I confess that I am tempted to try and put together a large if also fictional solo scenario. The main advantage over employing other sets of rules, such as ARMATI, Hail Caesar, or even TRIUMPH! would be that I would not have to roll any dice. Additionally, I would not have to use any rulers of similar measuring sticks, or worry about wheeling angles and similar miscellanea. 

Remarks

For about an hour early on a recent Sunday morning, I seriously considered filing this draft of an unplanned blog post into a “previous drafts folder” and starting over again. For this newest version (it would be number 16 if we are keeping track and or being transparent, at least in this specific regard), I was thinking about beginning with a focused look at the Argyraspides at Paraetacene, and contemplating how this contingent might be depicted and or represented with six or seven different sets of rules and their associated army lists. From that exercise, I would transition into the section or discussion of my “findings” or thoughts about the syntagma, at least as provided on pages 72-73 of Warfare. After that, well . . . I had not gotten beyond that point in my mental outline. However and fortunately, instead of taking that figurative fork in the road, I decided to take another look at the current draft. I revised as I went over each paragraph, section and page, and somehow managed to convince myself that this version was “good enough” for my next blog post. 

Although I have wargamed parts of Paraetacene before, in working on this “paper,” I confess that I find myself attracted to the idea of refighting the historical battle again, or at least an interpretation of it. For example, it would be a very simple matter to copy the excellent work done by Simon Watson and his colleagues, and reported on in the pages of Slingshot. (Please see, if you are able, “Paraitakene with Tactica 2,” in the September/October 2018 issue, Number 320.) And although I estimate that it would require as many dice or die rolls, I also find myself drawn to some kind of Hail Caesar adaptation of this engagement. If further evidence of my sometimes indecisive mindset is needed, then I offer the following: I have also been toying with the idea of staging a fictional, large, and perhaps if not probably played-with-scenario-special-rules Successor battle using TRIUMPH! or GRAND TRIUMPH!  

In going back over the content and format of this blog post, it occurs to me that the “analysis” of a particular wing of the historical battle, and consideration of how to portray the elephants, cavalry, and heavy infantry present could be seen as distractions to my main interest or focus, the information provided by Asclepiodotus with regard to the composition and performance of the syntagma and its larger parent formation. On further reflection and review, it occurs to me that I may have spent too much time on this concern or these concerns, as it seems rather unlikely if not improbable that we would be able to achieve general agreement on this subject matter let alone agreement on the best or most efficient and effective way(s) to recreate and represent this particular formation on a tabletop. 

At the end of his engaging report, Simon offered this summary assessment of his time spent at two shows with his chums, presenting an interpretation of Paraetacene: “It had good playability with an historical ‘feel’ and was fun to play.” Before I admit to being somewhat envious of the gentleman in this particular regard, I am given to wonder if these three benchmarks are sufficient for evaluating a wargame, or if additional categories are required for what would have to be an admittedly subjective rubric. Referencing the three sets of rules considered in this post, I have varying levels of experience with all three, and can therefore comment on the “playability and fun” of each. However, the “historical ‘feel’” presents - perhaps - something resembling a minefield or maybe a fog-shrouded moor. Maybe I am just too preoccupied with the syntagma as explained by Asclepiodotus? Anyway, conveniently and or ironically enough, Simon’s brief assessment serves as a nice transition to a very brief description of that disappointing and dismantled scenario mentioned in the introductory paragraph. For the sake of expediency, it was copied and pasted from one of the earlier drafts of this improvised post, and then edited. Here is the revised and shortened “analysis”:

Once again (one would think that the lesson would eventually sink in, that I 

would learn or remember - but no), I had bitten off more than I could chew. The 

first clue should have been the orders of battle. Each “model” army added up to 

approximately 8,000 points. The second hint should have been the number of 

rule amendments, of which there were 10. The third “red flag” should have been 

the deployments. Instead of placing light troops next to the opposing phalanxes, 

these peltasts and similar types had to be positioned behind the cavalry wings, as 

I had run out of table space, even though I was using unit dimensions that had 

been reduced by 50 percent. I suppose I could take an optimistic view and remark 

that I was able to play four turns before the solo project collapsed under its own 

weight, but that strikes me as a hollow kind of spin. I should have seen these 

problems. I should have known. After all, these rules - at least in my inexpert 

opinion - do require a lot of dice rolling and have certain other qualities that I 

have not been able to fully embrace.

Working backwards from Simon’s evaluation then, this scenario was not fun. (To be fair, I did rather enjoy the “research” and preparation for it.) I suppose there was a degree of “historical feel” in that the opposing armies and their respective compositions were correct for the general setting, but this suggestion or interpretation collapsed, at least for me, under the weight of the various problems I had with regard to playability. For as much as I have thought about this, and I stipulate that an amount of time has been spent mulling it over and trying to figure out where things went wrong, it is rather discouraging to note that the rules in question have been thoroughly play-tested, were written by an accomplished and respected rules designer, and have, as one might expect, a small but dedicated following. 

If or when I make another attempt at a large and fictional contest between two armies, I hope the shadow of this particular experience does not have any effect or influence on that new project.