Three Tours of
“the Camel’s House”
The plan, rather ambitious in scope if not arguably more foolish in concept, was to stage three solo-refights of the 331 BC battle of Gaugamela. Thinking that a ready-made scenario would be a good starting point, a way to ease myself into this comparatively challenging and likely long-term project (similar efforts attempted in the past - not specifically oriented to Gaugamela - have “crashed and burned” either shortly after launch, after an apparently successful first stage, or even halfway through the mission), I decided to copy the orders of battle provided by Matthew Bennett and his associates in the Armati report of Battle Day Gaugamela, published in the November 2004 issue of Slingshot (Number 237). [In my view, the appreciated readers of this post - a mere handful in comparison to other blogs and understandably so - would benefit from securing this particular issue, as it contains not only a wealth of information about the orders of battle for Gaugamela (i.e., the Battle Pack), but contains nine battle reports written in various styles, describing how nine different sets of rules handled this objectively massive engagement. Those readers (the approximate equivalent of a modern army platoon) would benefit even more by purchasing the Slingshot Memory Stick, which holds over 300 pdf issues of The Journal of the Society of Ancients, spanning its debut in the fall of 1965 to the end of the 2020 calendar year. Perhaps the greatest and most assuredly mutual benefit would be for these same readers to become active and or contributing members of The Society of Ancients. For additional information, please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/. Ignore the words between these brackets if you already are a subscribing member to The Society.] Anyway, “commercial” over, for the second visit to this ancient and well-known battlefield, I would use the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules and army lists available for free at Meshwesh (please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home). With regard to drafting the orders of battle, I would rely on the scenario developed by Luke Ueda-Sarson (please see http://lukeuedasarson.com/Gaugamela.html). [In a message dated 12 August 2023, Rod Kane [sp?], a ‘Grand Master’ on the WGC Forum, explained that he was planning to do Alexander’s three major battles against the Persian Empire. There was no timeline provided however, only the adapted lamentation which read: “so many battles, so little time.” I did wonder though, how Rod would choose to reconstruct Gaugamela. On the Triumph! YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMiqEZjn1w43ZN1ox_JXWw/videos) there are a couple of videos demonstrating how the historical battles of Hastings and Hattin were refought with these rules. In my opinion, they were very good if not excellent videos. Obviously and speaking for myself, I think it would be very interesting to see how Gaugamela could or would be staged with these rules.] The third tour of “the camel’s house” would see me employing Simon Miller’s card-driven and popular To The Strongest! rules. My model armies would be selected from the appropriate army lists (also secured at no cost) as I studied the wealth of information provided in the Battle Pack created for The Society of Ancients inaugural Battle Day (see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/42-battle-day-2004-gaugamela-331-bc).
Essentially, I was - or am - going to attempt a mini-Battle Day. This is not a wholly original idea, to be sure, as many other wargamers have refought the same battle (again, not specifically Gaugamela) numerous times while changing rules between scenarios and or adjusting this or that aspect to see what might happen. Even though I would be using three different rulebooks, their accompanying army lists, and two main sources for determining the orders of battle, the one constant in these interpretations would be the look of my tabletop. In Chapter Three of his excellent book, CARNAGE AND CULTURE - Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, Professor Victor Davis Hanson remarks on page 70: “This time Darius had picked his ground well. There were few hills. Alexander could use neither river nor the sea to protect his flanks. Darius’s subjects had cleared the plain for the easy onslaught of his scythed chariots.” A couple of pages later, this accomplished and prolific historian explains: “Mesopotamia was a good enough place to fight. Both armies had ample provisions and plenty of water. The weather was dry and mild in early fall, and there was enough flat ground to accommodate thousands of killers.” Another accomplished, prolific, and respected academic makes similar observations in his excellent 2007 book, LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. In the section wherein Professor Philip Sabin analyzes the surviving narratives of ancient authors and examines what happened at Gaugamela (pages 136-139), he reinforces that the “ground was specially leveled for the Persian chariots,” and that, for purposes of reconstructing the contest with his well-researched set of rules, “there is no reason to have any terrain features on the tabletop, nor does the examination of the possible modern site suggest any.” The description or advice to game organizers provided in the Battle Pack is the most succinct. It reads: “There is no terrain as the battlefield was flat.” This potentially thorny issue of terrain - at least when it comes to reconstructing and refighting ancient battles on a tabletop with miniatures or other representative models - would not be an issue for me and the three planned tours. All of my mental energy and other resources could therefore be dedicated to drafting the orders of battle, preparing the troops, playing the wargames, and preparing the reports. As to format, given that I am intending to make three trips to and around a figurative battlefield of Gaugamela, it seems logical enough to produce three chapters, wherein I make an attempt to briefly describe my experiences. (I can just picture a number of readers familiar with this blog saying a brief prayer in hope of brevity or perhaps rolling their eyes at that previous sentence.) Commentary, remarks, questions and other miscellaneous thoughts are “organized” into a fourth chapter. Given that this section will be looking back on three wargames as well as perhaps looking at other related topics, it will likely be the longest with regard to word count. The fifth and final chapter contains, however randomly assembled and then listed, suggested source materials for reading, viewing, and or listening. Without further explanation or preamble then, I invite interested readers to accompany me on this rather ambitious if also, as I mentioned at the outset, arguably if not equally foolish grand tour.
Chapter 1: The Armati Adventure
Ideally, I should like to create a few appendices wherein I provide detailed orders of battle for these planned refights. After several meetings with myself, it was decided (by a narrow vote of 4 to 3) that this was too similar to a Herculean task and besides, would take up more than a few electronic pages as well as deprive readers and other interested individuals from the engagement and enjoyment of developing their own orders of battle. A compromise was worked out. For each refight, I am going to list the order of battle for Alexander’s command. This information should be sufficient in so far as it offers a glimpse into the rules, in addition to providing clues about how the command of this always courageous and often temperamental leader would look or might look like on a tabletop. Anyway, here is Division A or The Macedonian Right Wing for the Armati refight. To reiterate, the following partial order of battle is adopted from the 2004 Battle Day report penned by Matthew Bennett. The original orders of battle were the products of the combined genius of Mark Fry and Roy Boss, two long-standing members of The Society of Ancients, both accomplished and well-regarded gentlemen, who are very experienced player-generals of these rules.
Division A - The Right Wing / commanded by Alexander
Note: The Macedonians have an Initiative Rating of 6, and Alexander provides a +1 melee modifier.
> Breakpoint of this command is 6 key units [k]; the control ratings are 4 for heavy divisions and 3 for light divisions.
[600] 1 x HC[k] (Mercenary Cavalry) 4[0]0 +1 Spears
[500] 1 x LC (Prodromoi) 3[0]0 +1 Xyston
[500] 1 x LC (Greeks, etc.) 2[0]0 +1 Various
[1,000] 2 x SI (Agrianians) 3[2]1 +2 Javelins
[500] 1 x SI (Macedonians/Greeks) 2[1]1 +2 Bows
[1,000] 2 x LI (Illyrians) 4[1]2 +2 Javelins
[2,000] 2 x HC[k] (Companions) 5[1]0 +1 Xyston
[500] 1 x SI (Cretans) 2[1]1 +2 Bows
[3,000] 2 x PH[k] (Hypaspists) 8[2]3 +2 Spears
[6,700] 4 x FT[k] (Greeks) 6[1]1 +2 Spears
In this iteration, Alexander’s right wing contains 17 units and represents 16,400 men. The two units of Hypaspists are the most powerful in this specific order of battle, each having a frontal fighting value of 8, a flank/rear fighting value of 2, a “special circumstances” fighting value of 3, a protection factor of+2 (against slings and arrows and so forth), and 4 unit breakpoints, which is the highest rating except for designated veteran units, which can have up to 5 unit breakpoints when they are heavy infantry formations.
_______________________________________
To the extent that I was able to follow the deployment map provided in the Battle Pack, I arranged my “model” Persians and their subject tribes on my tabletop. After checking things over to make sure that I had not committed any small or significantly stupid errors, I measured the approximate frontage occupied by the main divisions. The right wing had a footprint of 28 inches; the center took up just 8 inches of space, and the frontage of the left wing was 23 inches. The Persian center was rather congested, as the main line troops of King Darius were screened by a few elephants, some cavalry, and squadrons of scythed chariots. These various units were themselves screened by a cloud of skirmishers. Behind King Darius, there was another, even larger cloud of skirmishers, which in turn, screened a very large mass of levy troops.
As for the Macedonians, the left-most unit of Parmenio’s command or wing was set 6 inches in from the table edge. As this veteran officer had more command and control allowance, he positioned his infantry and mercenary horse in the first line; his Thessalian cavalry was held in immediate reserve. The center of the Macedonian line was next, after a bit of a gap. The phalanx was arranged in a kind of a stair step formation (ascending from left to right), with two battalions of pikemen to each step. The Greek heavy infantry were deployed in reserve. Alexander placed his Hypaspists close to the top step of the phalanx. Next, he drew up his Companions. The rest of the line consisted of light infantry and the rest of the cavalry. The Greek troops were positioned as a second line, behind the light infantry and skirmishers. From Parmenio’s left to Alexander’s right, the Macedonian line stretched for 49 inches. Parmenio’s formations accounted for 12.5 inches, while the phalanx had a footprint of 13 inches. Alexander’s wing (overlapping the center by just a bit) had a frontage of 23 inches.
Approximately 1,200 words of notes were compiled during the 11 turns that were played over the course of five days. While I could spruce up those notes and still meet my goal of no more than 1,200 words per battle report, I thought I would try to reduce that word count in addition to reviewing and revising that somewhat hastily typed collection of remarks. For this first report then, I should like to attempt the following structure or perspective: How things developed on the Persian right, then on the Macedonian right, and finally, how things unfolded in the center.
Both Mazaios and Parmenio appeared eager to engage, though the latter was severely outnumbered in the cavalry arm. A unit of Macedonian light horsemen was checked by some Parthians, but some heavier Greek cavalry were able to punch a hole in the long thin line of Persian light horse. Arrow volleys were loosed by the numerous Persian light horse and melees continued to be fought as the Persian heavy cavalry under Mazaios were stymied by the attention of the capable Thracian light infantry. Watching things progress, Parmenio started shifting his very good Thessalian squadrons to the left. Contact with the enemy was almost immediate, and the Thessalians were given a bloody nose, but Parmenio survived this first round of fighting. The struggle between the Thracian light infantry and Persian horsemen swung back and forth, with losses piling up on both sides. In one desperate round of melee, Mazaios fell mortally wounded. Parmenio rallied his Thessalians and turned the tide in that local contest. In another part of this sector, the Persian light cavalry were hamstrung by poor command and control and found themselves assailed by formed ranks of Achaians. These melees did not go at all well for the usually nimble Persian troopers. Eventually, and due mainly to the valiant efforts of Parmenio and his Thessalians, the Persian right wing was broken and forced from the field.
After delaying their general advance for a bit, the Persian wing under Bessus moved forward to engage Alexander’s command. Just like the contest on the other side of the large and flat plain, the Macedonians could not hope to match the numbers of enemy cavalry arranged against them. In fact, a unit of Greek mercenary horse was the first to be routed when subjected to arrow volleys and then repeated charges. This formation was followed by two units of Greek heavy infantry, who did not manage to hold firm in the face of a rather foolish/lucky frontal attack by several units of Persian cavalry led by Bessus. The Macedonian cause was helped a little by the always present command and control challenges of the Persians. In this sector, units of Bactrian heavy cavalry spent more time trying to wheel and then reorder their lines than they did in contact with any Macedonian formations. These challenges were not helped by a pesky unit of Prodromoi which charged into the flank of the Bactrians while they were reorganizing. The Greek light horse was then charged from behind by an exhausted unit of Persians. The Prodromoi fought well, but were eventually destroyed by the weight of this combined attack. In the local battle involving Bessus, the surviving Greek infantry and some nearby skirmishers bled the Persians. The Persian wing commander would survive, but three-fourths of his formation would not make it back to camp that evening.
The skirmisher screen of King Darius succeeded in annoying and hurting, though only slightly, the Macedonian phalanx and veteran heavy cavalry. These light troops were disposable however, and were soon dispersed by the ordered ranks of Hypaspists and pikemen. The scythed chariots wheeled into action next, only to prove completely ineffective against these same bodies of troops. Meanwhile, Alexander and his cavalry had engaged the Indian cavalry and small group of elephants forward of the main line of King Darius. To Alexander’s embarrassment, his Companions were repulsed by the Indians. The tide of this contest shifted back in Macedon’s favor when the Hypaspists joined the fight. The Persian elephants and their supporting cavalry were soon broken. While this was going on, Darius ordered his good quality foot forward. On the center-left of the Macedonian advance, some Persian heavy cavalry were caught flat-footed by a unit of the phalanx. In the confusion that ensued, half of the Persian horsemen were destroyed, while the other half were able to make their escape. Persian light horse harassed the measured advance of the main phalanx, making sure to evade just far enough away to keep out of danger but close enough to continue throwing javelins. After breaking the elephants and poor-quality cavalry, Alexander ordered his center to rest and reform before engaging the infantry of the Persian center. This completed, they moved forward again. The pikemen were able to catch those harassing light cavalry and make them pay . . . dearly. Alexander’s Companions were subjected to arrow volleys from some Mardian archers which resulted in one unit of his veteran cavalrymen breaking. Even so, the Macedonians continued to press forward. The Hypaspists and units of the phalanx were finally able to make contact with the Greek infantry, other foot, and Kinsmen cavalry under King Darius. The surviving Companions were fatigued and weakened, but managed to fight on against the Mardians. The experience and pressure of the Hypaspists proved too much for the Persian cavalry and infantry. After some very hard fighting, the Kinsmen cavalry unit was routed and King Darius III found himself pierced by three or possibly four pike points. Alexander, or rather, the Hypaspists had won the day. However, the victory was certainly not as decisive as the one reported in the ancient sources. The aged veteran Parmenio had turned in a much better command performance as well.
Chapter 2: Gaugamela with GRAND TRIUMPH!
Studying the conjecture offered by Luke Ueda-Sarson for the DBM model or depiction of Alexander’s command on that fateful fall day in 331 BC, I counted 54 bases, stands or elements. At the proposed scale of 250 men per element, Alexander’s miniature command added up to approximately 13,500 men. How does one portray these infantry and cavalry with a set of rules that establishes no troop ratio or unit scale? After mulling over possible approaches to answering this question, I decided to establish a very approximate unit scale of 1:500. In broad overview, I was doubling the DBM scale which would reduce the number of units I needed to prepare by 50 percent. The following order of battle is the one that I am going to use in the planned tabletop engagement.
The Macedonian Right Wing (i.e., Alexander’s Command)
05 units of Knights (i.e., Companions) / 20 points
> Alexander embedded with one of these stands
02 units of Javelin Cavalry (i.e., Prodromoi) / 08 points
06 units of Raiders (i.e., Hypaspists) / 24 points
04 units of Light Foot (i.e., Peloponnesian mercenaries) / 12 points
04 units of Heavy Foot (i.e., Peloponnesian mercenaries) / 12 points
05 units of Skirmishers (i.e., the Agrianians and other assorted missile troops) / 15 points
Notes:
- This wing contains 26 units and is valued at 91 points.
- This wing is demoralized when it has lost 36 points worth of stands/troops.
- Alexander, being a very good leader, will confer a +1 modifier to his command rolls. This wing will have between 2 and 7 command points or pips each turn Alexander is on the field.
- Alexander will have a +2 melee modifier. Furthermore, he will be allowed to roll two six-sided dice and use the higher score when resolving any combat in which he is engaged.
_______________________________________
Some deployment testing was done prior to determining exactly how I would arrange the various troops on my tabletop. In fact, this testing was completed during the latter turns of the Armati refight. Anyway, after getting some data about the possible Persian footprints, I thought I should approach this “problem” from the Macedonian side of my model battlefield. On the too hot and humid evening of 19 June, testing and notes suggested that the Macedonian army would have a frontage of approximately 86 inches. I wondered if I could consolidate Alexander’s command. I wondered the same thing about Parmenio’s formations. Even if I was able to make adjustments here and there, I did not want the Macedonian frontage to be equal to the Persian footprint. Everything that I have read, looked at, or listened to about this significant engagement explained that the Persian deployment was wider than the defensive/offensive posture or partially-collapsed/slanted box-like formation employed by Alexander.
Shifting my attention to King Darius and his host, I reviewed the various measurements and scribbled notes made while playing with this or that sector of the battle line. For the Persian right wing, I decided to try “option 2,” which would see a line of cavalry stretching for about 32 inches. A supporting line, not as long and containing some foot units, would be arranged about 6-10 MUs (movement units) to the rear. Though I liked the look of a “stacked” Persian center, I decided to extend this line from around 14.5 inches to about 26 inches. The Persian left wing, under one of the tested options, filled approximately 39 inches of tabletop. So, added all together and allowing for very small gaps between sectors, the frontage occupied by King Darius III and his army was around 97 inches. For this second refight, I would definitely need to set up my larger table.
Something curious happened when I checked the finished Persian deployments against the “plans” worked out a few days prior. Though the numerous cavalry bases/stands/units of Mazaios were very near to the right short-edge of my extended tabletop, the footprint of this command was only 29 inches. The center of the Persian line had a frontage of 22 inches, and the left wing under Bessos - after a last-minute adjustment - stretched for 33.5 inches. Somehow, I had managed to reduce the original estimate of the Persian frontage by about 10 inches. The several commands or divisions of the Macedonian army were deployed approximately four Horse Bow moves (8 MU x 2 cm per MU x 4 = 64 cm) across the flat and featureless plain. Parmenio’s wing was “indented” about 9 inches from the table edge. The aged veteran’s command had a frontage of around 18 inches. The Macedonian left-center and right-center had footprints of 14.5 and 15 inches, respectively. Alexander’s right wing was the most extended, with a total frontage of 26 inches. The host of King Darius occupied a space roughly 12 inches longer than the outnumbered Macedonians.
Initially, a three-part structure for the following report or summary was planned. The action on the Persian right would be described and or discussed, and then the same would be done for the Macedonian right. The contest in the center would be covered last and mutually, as opposed to from just one perspective. Interestingly and surprisingly, the wargame was over so quickly that this intended approach could not be realized.
It would not be an embellishment to state that two very large and powerful waves of Persian cavalry (accompanied by some seaweed patches or perhaps a smack of jellyfish - meaning scythed chariots) rolled - almost simultaneously - into the small beach house formations (or maybe sand castles is more appropriate) of the Macedonian right and left wings. Some of these targeted units were simply obliterated. Others held on for a round of melee or two, but eventually succumbed as the surging water found its way around a flank or came in from behind while the Macedonians who were still standing continued to fight to their front. On the Macedonian right wing, the Prodromoi and skirmishers were quickly inundated and out of the fight. The Hypaspists weathered the first couple of waves, but tired and completely soaked, saw two of their units collapse under the pressure of a third Persian attack. A very similar story or statement could be related regarding Alexander’s Companions. The young and courageous commander was in the thick of the fighting, leading his group of veteran horsemen and dealing out destruction to every challenger. But he was not an army of one; Alexander could not hope to carry on the battle against such numbers of Persian cavalry and supporting troops. Indeed, while Alexander and his Companions were routing some Persian reinforcements who had joined the confusing melee, the enemy succeeded in driving the Macedonian right wing past its morale tipping point.
On the other side of the table, Parmenio’s contingent had a similar experience. To their credit, his formations held their ground against the first and second wave. However and again, the irresistible force of the Persian ocean would not be denied. Parmenio’s left wing began to spring significant leaks because of all this pressure. The aged and veteran commander led his Thessalian cavalry over to the left to deny the Persians a chance to envelop his formations, only to meet his untimely end under a hail of arrows from a unit of Hyrkanian light cavalry. With the death of their leader and the loss of a few more units to Persian water damage, the heart went out of the Macedonian left wing. With two commands demoralized; with one leader unhorsed, lying face down and not moving, and with Alexander in grave danger of being isolated and then overwhelmed, the refight was called as a quick and fairly decisive win for King Darius III.
Chapter 3: “Third Time’s a Charm” with To the Strongest!
For this final interpretation (at least with regard to this current project)of Gaugamela, I relied upon the wealth of wargamer-friendly information provided in the Battle Pack. In the interest of conserving a bit of space as well as in avoiding any additional arthritis-related-to-typing pain, a count of the various contingents in this formation informed that there were 11 identified bodies of troops. The overall strength of this command was 16,300 men. Closer examination suggested that a scale of around 500 infantry or cavalry per unit might work. However, this approach would have resulted in 13 units of mercenary infantry, so a revision was needed. The variety of troop types provided within To The Strongest! provided a workable solution. In brief, the 3,000 Hypaspists could be depicted with three deep units of veteran infantry, each unit being worth three victory medals. The formations of light cavalry and light infantry or skirmishers could be depicted as small units, each worth a single victory medal but carrying multiple ammunition markers (i.e., missiles such as javelins or sling stones). As I have done for the previous two chapters, below, please see my final-but-always-subject-to-correction- and-improvement order of battle for Alexander’s command, the Macedonian Right Wing. The format of this order of battle is similar to that used by Simon Miller in his excellent Raphia scenario. (Please see https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/products/tts-for-king-and-parliament-raphia-scenario.)
Division A - The Right Wing / commanded by Alexander
01 unit of Greek mercenary cavalry / cavalry, javelin; save 7+; cost 09; ammo x 2; 2 VM
01 unit of Makedonian Prodromoi / light cavalry - veteran, lance; save 6+; cost 06; 1 VM
01 unit of Paionian Prodromoi / light cavalry, lance; save 7+; cost 05; 1 VM
01 unit of Agrianians / light infantry - veteran, javelin; save 6+; cost 05; ammo x 3; 1 VM
01 unit of Makedonian archers / light infantry other, bow; save 8+; cost 04; ammo x 3; 1 VM
02 units of Illyrian javelinmen / light infantry, javelins; save 7+; cost 04; ammo x 2; 1 VM
03 units of Companions / cavalry - veteran, lance; save 6+; cost 11; 2 VM
> Alexander / great leader; save 3+; cost 10; 10 VM [note new rule in Even Stronger! V12]
01 unit of Kretan archers / light infantry other - veteran, bow; save 7+; cost 06; ammo x 4; 1 VM
01 unit of Agrianians / light infantry - veteran, javelin; save 6+; cost 05; ammo x 3; 1 VM
03 units of Hypaspists / pike - veteran, deep; save 6+; cost 16; 3 VM
04 units of Mercenaries / hoplites, deep; save 6+; cost 12; 3 VM
03 units of Mercenaries / javelinmen; save 7+; cost 07; ammo x 2; 2 VM
In this iteration, Alexander’s right wing contains 22 units and represents 16,300 men, as noted above. Alexander’s value in terms of victory medals is perhaps a little too high, but was based on my reading of the various histories I was able to secure as well as my assessments regarding his importance to his subordinates and army. This command or wing becomes demoralized (an old rule used in conjunction with the newer rout rules) when it has lost 21 VMs. According to my sums, Alexander is leading 208 points worth of troops. As a final note or remark, Simon suggested the number of miniatures (at a scale of 1:100) that would be needed for his Raphia scenario. Just for fun, I established a figure scale of 1:40 for possible use in this order of battle. For just one example, the Companions could be modeled with three units and 48 figures, giving each potential wedge formation of elite heavy cavalry a strength of 16.
_______________________________________
As the line between June and July began to blur, further preparations were made for this third and “final” refight. As noted previously, terrain was not a concern. Instead of marking full boxes or intersection points on a single color cloth, I thought I would cannibalize some bits and pieces from my “terrain bureau” and fabricate an inexpensive as well as functional “chessboard” (or “checkerboard”) for this version of Gaugamela. After some additional scribbling and figuring, it was decided that each square in this admittedly abstract model of a battlefield would measure 3 inches on a side. The final version of the grid employed for this interpretation of the classic 331 BC engagement measured 42 squares by 10 squares.
With regard to the opposing armies, it seems unnecessary to review the basic deployment and general composition of each command or wing. The Persian host contained quite a lot of cavalry, a small core of decent foot troops, and then an apparent multitude of very poor quality levy. Wanting to focus on the actual fighting as opposed to the spectacle of such reported numbers, I did not build any “blocks” of Persian levy. For the scythed chariots, I established a representative unit scale of 1:50 and so, had several bases of these unique vehicles. I went back and forth about whether to depict the handful of elephants with the army of King Darius, finally deciding not to place them on my much smaller and significantly dust-free battlefield. I mulled over following the rules-as-written for victory determination as well. After another close vote, it was decided to adapt the “an army is broken when” rules from the Armati refight. In very broad overview, both the Macedonians and Persians would lose if two of their three commands became demoralized. The Macedonians could also score a win by eliminating King Darius. If Alexander found himself on the wrong end of an enemy spear, sword, or missile(s), his demise would not result in an automatic loss for the Macedonians. The death of the young commander would be a huge embarrassment, however, and would, obviously, also change how history unfolded after 331 BC.
Varying a little from the “established” three-part structure of the previous summaries, I thought I would save the reader some time (and save myself some additional typing) by describing the action in the center of the tabletop with a diagram. With regard to reporting the action on the left and right, I would attempt to further condense the hastily typed notes that were cobbled together over the course of 10 turns.
While Parmenio succeeded in moving a portion of his command first (via a group move), the various formations in his contingent were soon on their collective back feet. Working in tandem, a unit of Persian cavalry rode along side some scythed chariots and wrecked a group of Odryssian light cavalry. This partnership then rolled into some Thessalian horse next, with the scythed chariots doing great execution. In what seemed a matter of minutes, Parmenio’s command had lost 4 VMs and the Persians were flowing around the far left side of the Greek/Macedonian line. Getting back into the fight, the men under Parmenio redoubled their efforts and scored a few disorders on the enemy. Mazaios was embedded with one of the damaged Persian cavalry units, but he was only frightened by the combat; he survived without a scratch.
Command and control issues plagued both sides as the contest developed in this sector. The Persians finally managed to get their flanking movements coordinated. The scythed chariots continued to be a force - targeting, catching, and wiping out an enemy unit of light infantry. Nearby, some Kappadokian horsemen charged into the flank of a unit of Thessalians and disordered their ranks. Unfortunately, Parmenio was with this unit, and in the confused melee he caught a spear in his midsection which resulted in a very serious wound. As a result, the Parmenio piece was removed the simple chessboard. The Macedonian left wing was now leaderless and just 3 VMs away from being labeled as demoralized. Although dismayed by this development, the Greek heavy infantry decided to keep pushing forward, sweeping the Persian cavalry back toward their starting edge. This was a “cat and mouse” affair. This local situation was not impacted, at least not yet, by the numerous Persian units hovering in and around the left-rear of the former Parmenio’s sector.
Over on the right wing of the Macedonian deployment, the battle started rather poorly and perhaps signaled general misfortune when a unit of skirmishers drew an Ace. The Macedonians recovered, but only somewhat, as command and control proved something of a challenge. The numerous Persian formations, under Bessos, were also having problems. For the first several turns in this sector, movement took precedence over melee and interestingly, Alexander’s left advanced with his Companions outpacing the Hypaspists. On his right, the Persians started sweeping the enemy light troops back to the very edge of the tabletop. Both commanders seemed to lose sight of the “big picture” and focused only on their immediate surroundings. More games of “cat and mouse” or “evade until you cannot” were played on the far right of Alexander’s position. The commander of the Macedonians raced ahead with his Companions to engage any enemy unit that would stand. His progress and record of success was mixed, however. The supporting Hypaspists soon found their advance blocked by some stubborn Persian cavalry. The enemy horsemen ganged up on one unit of these veterans and whittled it down to a third of its original strength. Oddly, the reserve Greek infantry in Alexander’s contingent had barely moved while other units galloped to and fro in this sector, leaving figurative clouds of dust in their respective wakes. After 10 complete turns, the honors in this region of the large and flat field were fairly even: the Macedonians had taken 8 Persian VMs while the Persians had secured 6 VMs from Alexander.
Chapter 4: Commentary & Remarks
There were a few minor “oh no” moments when setting up the Armati refight. As I was using the orders of battle provided by Mark and Roy in conjunction with the Battle Pack deployment map and notes, I managed to confuse and or scare myself a little. For just one example, the Battle Pack informs that there were some 3,000 cavalry and 100 scythed chariots in front of the Persian left wing. Rechecking the Fry/Boss orders of battle, I did not see any entry for 100 scythed chariots or for the advanced formation of 3,000 horse. I also found it curious to see that the 3,000 Armenians/Kappadokians stationed in advance of the right wing were represented with just one stand or key unit of HC. The suggested troop ratio at the top of the orders of battle provides: HC c. 1000:1. I found it equally curious to note that 8,000 Bactrians in the Left Wing were depicted by just 4 units of HC.
In this first refight of Gaugamela, history was repeated but it certainly was not replicated. Alexander did not move many of his formations obliquely to the right, forcing the Persians to follow him. Parmenio was not nearly obliterated and so, there was no “rescue ride” executed by a frustrated and fuming Alexander. I was okay with the fact that none of this happened. Indeed, on general review, it appears that my refight had several points in common with the previous refights played by Mark, Roy, and Matt as well as by the accomplished and polite gentlemen of the Canadian club who wargamed the Armati scenario a couple of years after the Battle Day triumvirate. Reviewing my notes from this first solo refight, I was not all that surprised to see that Alexander and his Macedonians dictated the tempo of the engagement. Through a combination of very good army initiative, high die rolls, and a few turns wherein the Persians elected to evade, the Alexandrian Macedonians won the move option every turn. As a result, they were able to dictate the melee direction. Having more than a few years of experience with the Armati rules, I think this first contest went rather well. However, I will have to wait until the next refight is completed before I can start to subjectively rank the scenarios.
Having long ago become acclimated or immunized to the absence of painted and based miniatures on my tabletop, I did not think twice about the lack of traditional figures in this first interpretation or copy-cat scenario. I freely admit, however, that a refight with 15mm or 28mm models would certainly have “looked pretty,” but harbor some doubt that the presence of hundreds of miniatures (painted to a wargames-standard or better) would have influenced how competently, or conversely, how poorly I commanded each army. I also doubt that the presence of IMPETVS-inspired diorama bases would have affected the final result. Anyway, the colored counters employed were half the size of the dimensions given for 15mm Epic Scale Units, and movement rates and missile ranges were measured using the provided 25mm Intro Scale ruler found in the rulebook. This interesting hybrid did not result in any confusion or produce any problems. It felt very familiar to mark the engaged units with break point damage and or fatigue. It felt as familiar to mark those units performing complex moves as disordered or unformed. Given my comparatively long history with Armati, I can confidently report that fun was had; I was engaged, and that there was a degree of that sometimes elusive historical feel present during the wargame. To be certain, at times, I was frustrated as one of the Macedonian commanders, because there were just so many Persians on the battlefield. I was more often frustrated in the role of a Persian general or as King Darius III, due to the rather limited command and control abilities of this host. Trying to move and or wheel divisions of three or more units of Persian cavalry was a challenge. Wanting to move and or wheel units that are not fighting but are still part of a formed division is not an option when the army initiative rating is down to zero. With regard to possible improvements, well, I think I would make sure to designate veteran units in each army. The outnumbered Macedonians certainly could have used an extra unit breakpoint on a few occasions. Also, I think I might draft an amendment to the break-off rules. Through a tactical blunder and again, problems with command and control, the Persians saw two units of heavy cavalry subjected to the pointed attention of a unit of Macedonian pikemen - from the wrong way, no less. Strict adherence to the rules as written did not allow the Persian heavy cavalry simply to run away from the enemy pikemen. This struck me as somewhat odd, since the horsemen were already pointed in that direction. As this interesting local circumstance played out, the main body of the phalanx marched past the one-sided melee. Ironically, the left most unit of this phalanx was itself attacked from behind by the surviving unit of Persian cavalry. I also did some thinking about what to do with broken commands. I wondered if the units still on the tabletop should be permitted to keep fighting but with a negative modifier. I wondered if friendly formations in an area or sector where the enemy was broken should be given a free move to rest and reorganize.
Finally, a brief accounting of casualties seems in order. In this first refight, the Persians lost a sub-general and saw his command broken before their king was killed in combat. The Persian left wing was on its last legs as well, having lost 4 key units. The light troops of this army also suffered terrible losses. On the other side of the table, Alexander’s command suffered the most. This wing of the Macedonian army lost 5 key units. The Companion cavalry had an especially deadly day in “the camel’s house,” as the surviving unit was exhausted and had only a third of its original strength still on horseback. The wing under Parmenio lost a single key unit. The Macedonian center took some damage from the Persian skirmishers and more during the latter-stage melees, but did not suffer the loss of any key units in this refight.
_________________________________
In comparison to the Armati interpretation, the superior numbers (but not overall quality) of the Persian cavalry were quite visible on the GRAND TRIUMPH! tabletop, if again, they were not represented in the traditional (i.e., universally accepted) manner. After the unexpected developments of the fourth and fifth turns, I wondered and worried if I had given the Persians too many cavalry units, if I had made a large mistake by trying to establish a unit scale for a set of rules that has proven itself without bothering to determine said convention. I recalled reading scholarly interpretations wherein a figure of 40,000 Persian cavalry was mentioned. Accepting a cavalry strength of approximately 7,000 for Alexander, this gives the Persians an advantage of 6 to 1, essentially. Even if the Persian strength is reduced by half (it seems reasonable to presume that not every mounted Persian was able to get into the fighting on that day in 331 BC), the numbers still provide an advantage of approximately 3 to 1 in favor of King Darius. How is this depicted on the tabletop when using the TRIUMPH! rules? It seems appropriate as well as historical to allow the Persians three-times as many cavalry stands/units as Alexander. But then, should the numerous stands be of various types, or should they all be classed as Bad Horse in order to give the Macedonians more of a fighting chance? Then again, should the numerical superiority be ignored in favor of play/game balance? I would offer that these are interesting and perennial questions for any historical wargamer. Acknowledging the “problem area(s)” of trying to figure out a realistic unit scale when using these rules, this challenge pales in comparison to what happens on a tabletop when the dice simply do not favor you, do not favor one side.
Ironically, even though Alexander was given a boosted command ability, his command dice were frequently terrible. In contrast, he did very well when engaged by the enemy. In fact, I worried that I might have injected Alexander with too strong a dose of melee steroids. A Companion unit (i.e., Knights) has a melee factor of +4 versus enemy mounted. This factor was increased to +6 when Alexander’s unit was fighting. Per my scenario rules, Alexander was permitted to roll 2d6 and pick the higher score to add to his melee factor. In his final combat before the decision was made to call the game, Alexander’s unit of Companions was attacked from the flank and rear by enemy Javelin Cavalry. As his command was demoralized and his unit was being attacked from two different directions, his modified melee factor was +3. The enemy cavalry was at +2, but could “shatter” the Companions by outscoring them. When all the dice rolling was done, Alexander barely escaped with an 8-7 victory. Exciting? To be certain. But how many times could the impetuous young man pull this off?
Shifting my attention to the performance of the Persian scythed chariots, I think their combined performance on this tabletop was marginally better than their recorded performance in the actual battle. I also think that my tinkering with the Battle Card rules worked fairly well. For just one example, I fabricated representative units of these unique vehicles and deployed them in advance of but still in contact with the Persian formations. This method created an admittedly primitive picture, but it did remind me of where these squadrons were, and their placement did mirror - for the most part - my understanding of the historical sources. Anyway, these amendments are not perfect, but I think they afforded me a little more leeway and enjoyment. In fact, I might even go out on a limb and suggest that my tinkering provided a more historical representation, but this would be a subjective assessment of course. [Sidebar: The refight was interrupted for approximately 36 hours while I did some Slingshot Index “research” on the scythed chariot. It was interesting to study, compare and contrast the findings, arguments and rule amendments advanced by a variety of more experienced wargamers and authors. While annotating the various pieces and rereading the Battle Card notes, I started thinking about perhaps writing a “focus piece” on these unusual vehicles.]
Reviewing the numbers for both armies, it was noted that I provided Alexander with 94 units and depicted the host of King Darius with 115 stands. Simple math informs a difference of 21 units or stands, which amounts to a normal army under the rules. In terms of points, Alexander was outnumbered by 85, which is close to the point value of two normal armies under these rules. However, it must be remembered that this “model” Persian host contained a fair number of Bad Horse stands, units of Horde, as well as stands of Light Foot, Skirmishers, and Bow Levy. Alexander definitely had the advantage in terms of quality. Over the course of a handful of turns, however, he and his men simply did not have the luck.
With regard to historical feel, I think this interpretation provided that. While the refight did not result in a repeat of history, it certainly reinforced for me what it may have been like to face such a “strong” enemy force. Having completed two interpretations, I can now rank the solo wargames. Well . . . I do have a history with Armati, so my loyalty is there. However, in terms of difference, in terms of unexpected developments, I think I may have to give the TRIUMPH! refight a slight edge. Neither set of rules is especially complex, though this does not guarantee mistake-proof wargames. This second refight certainly allowed for more commander interaction as well as less restrictive movement. Light troops and heavy troops could work together, too, meaning that they could be a part of the same formation. They were not segregated into their own divisions.
Given the brevity of this refight, I considered “re-racking” the armies and playing it a second (technically third) time. I also thought about checking in with the veterans on the TRIUMPH! forums about one or two points; reviewing and revising the Persian army lists; reviewing and revising my scenario rules regarding scythed chariots, and perhaps tinkering with a few more things. However, not wishing to distract myself from the task at hand (that “new” scythed chariot “paper” still appeals), I made a mental note to wargame this historical battle with GRAND TRIUMPH! again at some future date.
_________________________________
Approximately 24 hours after completing the first draft of remarks for the To The Strongest! refight (which were typed within 24 hours of the tenth turn being played and a decision being made to halt the contest), those comments, observations and opinions - adding up to around 900 words - were cut and pasted to a blank document for possible reference. After thinking things over for an interval, a second draft was begun. Amending my usual format, such as it is, I thought I would start with an improvised table wherein I would subjectively rank my experience with this mini-Battle Day.
Category Armati TRIUMPH! To the Strongest!
Aesthetics 3.0 3.5 4.5
Historical Feel 3.5 3.5 4.0
Playability 5.0 5.0 4.5
Other 4.0 3.5 4.0
Historical Accuracy 4.0 4.0 4.5
Average Score 3.9 3.9 4.3
Notes:
- The refights or rules were scored with a 0.0 through 5.0 (0.0 being the lowest possible score or opinion) in the five current categories.
- Admittedly, “aesthetics” is a very unusual category given my long-standing approach to historical wargaming. However, I would respectfully suggest that in the right hands, a lot can be done with colored cardstock and other materials from a local crafts store. Another way of looking at this improvised category is how much imagination or suspension of belief is required to picture a traditional tabletop, or the battle scene(s) from a Hollywood movie or streaming service production? I gave TtS! top marks here, as I thought the “checkerboard” terrain (as opposed to gridded squares) added a certain something to the proceedings.
- Historical Feel is another subjective category. I readily confess that I do not have a concrete and vetted definition available and ready for small talk at dinner parties, but to paraphrase a former justice of the US Supreme Court: “I know it when I feel it.”
- All three refights were quite playable, meaning that the rules were complete, comparatively simple, and supported by plenty of examples as well as online communities. I marked down TtS! because I found it a little harder to play solo. I used small containers filled with numbered “poker chips” (the smaller ones), and found myself taking a fair number of steps back and forth as the action developed in the various sectors. The latest edition of Even Stronger! was helpful, but it would have been nice to have all of the items necessary for ease of play contained in a single QRS. I tried making my own, but found it lacking. That is my entirely fault, however, and not the rules.
- The category of “Other” is a kind of catch-all category. I suppose one could include a variety of “intangibles” under this umbrella.
- The last category of Historical Accuracy concerns how easy was it to depict the opposing armies, and directly related to that, how accurate were the model forces deployed on the tabletop? I borrowed the orders of battle for the Armati refight and have already mentioned questions about apparent missing troops from the accepted orders of battle. Unit scale and troop types also presented a few challenges in the second refight, as I also think I mentioned. Simon’s rules came out on top in this category, as I think I was able to recreate the most accurate model armies with his rules and free army lists.
Even though the subjective scoring indicates that the refight using To The Strongest! earned the highest rating, that was not how I felt from about he fifth or sixth turn. Setting aside the results of this improvised table, I would rank the refights in the following order: 1) the GRAND TRIUMPH! game, 2) the Armati game, and “winning the bronze,” To The Strongest! As might be expected or imagined, there was a noticeable level of fatigue in the final scenario, and the pretend battle was quite large for a single individual to manage. While there is a certain level of disappointment in not having arrived at an official conclusion for this third refight, that negative or criticism is countered by the “argument” that 10 turns were played and that an eventual or expected outcome could be reasonably inferred based on the state of the tabletop. I cannot help but wonder how things might have gone if I had staged the To The Strongest! refight first. Borrowing a page from Jeff Jonas, I also wonder if I might have enjoyed my time with these rules more if I had divided the battle into three smaller actions? With these innovative and popular rules, it seems that refighting the Macedonian right, the Macedonian left, and then the center would be completely feasible and very likely quite engaging and enjoyable. Anticipating the arguments from the other side about this approach, it seems that it would be possible to draw up some scenario rules that could govern the interaction between units in different sectors of the battlefield/tabletop.
Shifting course from the larger picture and the “what ifs” to a more focused consideration of the refight, I would like to conclude these specific remarks with a few observations.
On reflection, it appears that about half of the present scythed chariots performed well on this tabletop. The vehicles working against Parmenio had a target-rich environment and enjoyed good fortune with regard to resolving their charges into contact. As I recall, the scythed chariots in the center failed to make any impression against the phalanx units. Over on the left, the scythed chariots never came close to any of the fighting. Indeed, in some regards, it seems safe to suggest that these vehicles were an afterthought. As both armies advanced, my attention and focus was given to cavalry and infantry formations, and trying to exert better command and control.
With the exceptions of some success against Krateros, blocking the Hypaspists, and “herding” enemy light troops or skirmishers on the Macedonian far right, there was very little interaction between formed cavalry and formed infantry formations. If memory serves, most of the contest witnessed “dash in and throw or loose missile attacks” by Persian horsemen or “let’s get out of the way of these deep blocks of heavy infantry with pointy sticks” moves. With the mutual problems of command and control and the eventual dispersion of organized lines of battle, there were plenty of opportunities for Persian cavalry to fall on the flank or even rear of enemy units. However, these kinds of moves and attacks would have required better command and control. If a unit is too far away from its commander, it becomes rather more difficult to order said unit around. This attention can impact the ability of other units closer to the formation commander and closer to the enemy. I grant that I should probably have anticipated these command and control issues from the outset. I should have divided the larger commands/wings of both sides into more manageable maneuver units. This common sense approach or answer raises another question, however. Where does one draw the line, or how does one separate the various Macedonian and Persian units into smaller commands? Finding the right balance on this point can be tricky. As I reflect on this topic and other related items, I find myself thinking about making another try at Gaugamela with To The Strongest! For this “redemption” refight, I think I would break the historical battle down into three separate scenarios.
_________________________________
Initially, it was not my intention to refight the historical battle of Gaugamela three times, using a different set of rules for each tabletop engagement. Looking over the various sections of “Miscellaneous Musings,” it appears that a degree of causality could be traced to the mention of or thinking about 96-points per side scenario(s) involving Alexandrian Macedonians and Late Achaemenid Persians. Anyway, this present project adds to my meager history with the well-known battle.
Starting with the most recent effort first, I was appropriately humbled to see that “Going Back to Gaugamela” had been accepted by the editor and subsequently published in the September/October 2020 issue (Number 332) of Slingshot. This interpretation saw me using the 3rd Edition ADLG rules for the contest between Alexander and Darius. While “researching” an unrelated topic, I stumbled upon additional evidence in the ‘Battle Reports’ sub forum of The Society of Ancients website. Evidently, on 12 February of 2020 - so within that same year, I posted something titled “Mazaeus, Parmenio, and Tactica II.” If my solo wargaming memory was foggy with respect to this partial treatment of the historical action, then it had completely forgotten a much earlier effort. About 13 years ago, I secured an inter-library loan copy of the Marsden text and wargamed a version of the battle on the basement floor. If any readers are interested, the report of that initial undertaking can be read here: https://lonewarriorswa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Misc.-Hahn-Gaugamela.pdf.
The current editor of Slingshot was kind enough to include my thoughts on Magnesia, specifically the history of wargaming Magnesia, in the September/October 2023 issue (Number 348). I am not saying that I would drop everything in order to repeat that “process” with Gaugamela, but speaking again and only for myself, I think a history of wargaming Gaugamela would make an interesting read. Was that model three-page report offered by Alan Angus and Andy Mummery the first published wargame report about Gaugamela? Their effort was made approximately 10 years after the appearance of the Marsden text. Had no other historical wargamer or like-minded group attempted an earlier interpretation of this battle? Admittedly, the decade of 1965-1975 was quite early in the hobby, but I still wonder if somebody somewhere tried their luck and or tested their skill by modeling Gaugamela on a tabletop.
Along that same general line, I wonder if anyone or if any group has attempted to refight Gaugamela using Tactica II? I see that the appropriate army lists are included in the spiral-bound rulebook. I wonder what an interpretation of the entire engagement might look like with these rules? I would be interested in reading about how others have approached or thought about approaching Gaugamela with Tactica II. In fact, I find myself rather tempted by the idea. Such a project might make a nice addition to the fractional effort posted in February of 2020.
Chapter 5: Suggested Sources
I grant that this final section, this last chapter, is arguably unnecessary, as one could type “battle of Gaugamela,” “wargaming Gaugamela,” “Gaugamela wargame,” or other key terms into a preferred search engine and then spend a lot of time or just a little sifting and sorting through the myriad results for those nuggets of gold and or precious gems containing relevant and valuable information. That much admitted, let me shift the focus a bit and start this working list of suggested sources with the items that I had in my possession.
In no particular order then, let me suggest pages 81-83 of Warfare in the Classical World as a possible starting point. There is a rather wargamer-friendly deployment diagram on the top half of page 81. This page also provides a decent order of battle as well as a summary of the engagement. The next page offers a nice color illustration of a Companion cavalryman along with some paragraphs about cavalry formations. Most of page 83 is dedicated to a more detailed explanation of the battle than found on page 81. In CARNAGE AND CULTURE - Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, Chapter 3 - “Decisive Battle: Gaugamela, October 1, 331 B.C.” offers 38 pages of very interesting reading. There is a map of the contest on page 67. This diagram differs quite a bit from the one found in Warfare. The three-page treatment by Professor Philip Sabin had already been referenced, but this analysis of and reference to the ancient sources merits a second if not third and fourth look. In fact, one would not go wrong in reading the entire chapter this academic dedicates to the battles of Alexander the Great.
Searching the Index of my Slingshot Memory Stick, I found, printed, read and annotated several articles/reports about Gaugamela. In Issue 57 (July 1974), Alan Angus and Andy Mummery authored the first Gaugamela battle report to appear in the pages of the august journal. Their account took just three pages, and one of those consisted of two diagrams or maps showing initial and final positions. (Would that I were able to distill my battle report writing to three pages . . . heavy sigh.) Over 20 years later, Peter Hall looked at the campaign of Gaugamela in Issue 187 (September 1996), and then Jeff Jonas offered a Warhammer Ancient Battles scenario for the Macedonian right flank in Issue 216 (July 2001). As mentioned in the introduction, the November 2004 issue of Slingshot (Number 237) contained the results of the First Battle Day event. Issue 245 provided a single page report of a refight conducted by a group of Canadian wargamers, using the Armati orders of battle provided in the Battle Day issue. This summary reinforced the good as well as historical experience enjoyed by accomplished player-generals when using these rules.
Several engaging as well as attractive blog posts were discovered while searching for source material. Here are the links to blogs/sites that are, in my opinion, well worth a visit:
> https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2014/12/battle-of-gaugamela-331-bc-using.html
> https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2016/10/another-days-wargaming.html
> https://potanswar.blogspot.com/2021/07/age-of-hannibal-battle-of-gaugamela-in.html#google_vignette
>http://nikharwood.pbworks.com/w/page/7825408/2mm%20Gaugamlea:%20Warmaster%20Ancients
>https://splendidlittlewars.blogspot.com/2016/01/gaugamela-light-using-adlg.html
> https://tabletopmatrixwargames689972109.wordpress.com/2024/03/25/blog-44-gaugamela-331-bc/
Although not a wargaming blog, I found this related advertisement. It caters specifically to those historical wargamers who are not sure about investing in traditional figures. Please see https://wofungames.com/blogs/blog/meg-pacto-sets-gaugamela-331bce.
Turning to the “old school” as well as the “newer school” scholarship on the battle and period, one would not be faulted or wrong to seek out a copy of E. W. Marsden’s 1964 text, The Campaign of Gaugamela. Here is a selection of papers found in another online search for additional source material. Readers may find one or more of these titles of interest.
> https://academia.edu/36818229/The_battle_of_Gaugamela_and_Integrated_Warfare
> https://academia.edu/36998039/GAUGMELA_331_BC_The_triumph_of_tactics
> Redefining Darius: A New Perspective on the Battle of Gaugamela, authored by John Patchen of Baker University, and dated 12 December 2014.
> Chapter 10 - The Battle of Gaugamela (Part II), authored by Kathleen D. Tooney and dated 26 June 2020.
> ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN ERBIL - The Military Battle of Gaugamela 331 B.C. / The Political Victory at Arbela, authored by Andreas P. Parpas, with foreword dated 20 August 2014.
One could also conduct a search for “books on/about Gaugamela” and then do some more sifting and sorting before making a selection or selections.
And finally, from the several engaging and educational podcast options available, I would highly recommend ‘Alexander the Great’s Greatest Victory’ on The Ancients Podcast. This is Episode 141 and it is approximately 80 minutes long. It aired on 09 October 2021.
