Mazaeus, Parmenio, and Tactica II

[Chris]

In Slingshot 216, Jeff Jonas offered "The Right Flank at Gaugamela: A Scenario of Warhammer Ancient Battles". This three-page effort appeared approximately four years before accounts of the inaugural Battle Day Event were published in this august journal. [1] My guess is that Jeff looked at Alexander's daring and dangerous move to extend the Persian left, thereby thinning the enemy centre so as to make it more vulnerable to a concentrated strike by his Companion cavalry supported by hypaspists and phalangites. [2] Inspired by this precedent of considering just a portion of a significant historical battle as well as taking advantage of a current interest [3] in the final engagement between Alexander and King Darius III [4], in early February, I decided to stage a solo wargame of two-thirds of Gaugamela using Arty Conliffe's Tactica II rules and report on my experience.

Orders of Battle - A Brief Look
I started with the Macedonian pikemen, phalangites, or pezetairoi. According to the information provided in the Battle Pack (http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/42-battle-day-2004-gaugamela-331-bc), there were 9,000 of these heavy infantry on the field. Establishing an approximate figure scale of 1 miniature represented 40 real men, I built six formations of Macedonian phalangites for my planned refight. [5] Adhering to the details provided in the Macedonian (Philip-Alexander) army list found on page L7 of the spiral-bound rulebook, these phalanx infantry (PH) had a fighting value (FV) of 5-6, a quality rating of veteran (V), and were, of course, armed with pikes. Shifting to the left wing under Parmenio, the 2,000 Thessalian cavalry were depicted in 4 units of 12 "figures" arranged in 2 ranks of 6. Consulting the army list on page L7, three of these formations were rated as elite (EL), and one was rated as veteran. All the Thessalian regiments had a fighting value of 5-6 and were armed with javelins, which gave them a missile range of 9 inches.

Turning my attention to the Persian side of the field, even though elephants are not found on the Persian (Later) army list found on page L8, I elected to model the 15 elephants with a single base or stand. These Indian pachyderms (as opposed to the smaller African variety) would be designated a screen instead of a massed formation. Establishing a similar model scale for the scythed chariots present on the historical field, I prepared 3 of these deadly vehicles to screen the centre of the Persian line. Another unit of three scythed chariots was made for the screening troops in front of the right wing. For the Greek mercenaries in the pay of the Persian king, I fabricated a 2 units containing 24 "figures" each. These hoplites (PH) were organized in 3 ranks of 8. The Greeks had a fighting value of 5-6, a quality rating of veteran (V), and were carrying spears. Turning to the more numerous cavalry formations, I initially thought that I would depict the Sacesian cavalry contingent with a single unit containing 24 "figures" arranged in 3 ranks of 8. After doing a bit of number crunching, I decided to field these cavalry (and similar formations) as 2 units of 12 "figures" each. Each unit would have 6 "miniatures" in 2 ranks. These horsemen would have a fighting value of 4-6, a quality rating of militia grade (MG), and would carry javelins. I would build 4 units of Sakai light cavalry. Each unit would have 12 "figures" deployed  in 2 ranks of 6. These cavalry would have a fighting value of 3-6 (or 4-6 when in operating as skirmishers), a quality rating of veteran, and be armed with the bow as well as quite a few arrows. 

Terrain
After completing all the "work" of preparing the opposing orders of battle, landscaping my tabletop was a mini-vacation. I unfolded the tan cloth I use when setting up wargames or battles that take place in a desert-like or arid climate, and spread this over my bare plywood playing surface. The wrinkles were smoothed and, that was it. I had my finished model battlefield in the space of a minute or two.

Adjustments
To fit the opposing forces on my smallish table, I reduced the stated dimensions for 15mm figures by 50 percent. Normally, a 15mm scale phalanx having 48 figures will have a frontage of 12 cm and a depth of 6 cm. On my model battlefield, a 48-figure phalanx deployed in 4 ranks of 12 would have a frontage of 6 cm and a depth of 3 cm. In conjunction with this modification, I decided to make use of the metric side of a standard ruler for measuring movement rates and missile ranges.

In order to accurately model some of the units present, I had to modify, if only slightly, the provided formation frontages. For example, a normal or traditional unit of heavy cavalry has a minimum frontage of 6 figures and a minimum depth of 2 ranks. For this interpretation, there were a few regiments that had 10 figures arranged in 2 ranks of 5.

Deployment - Another Brief Look
The Macedonian line of battle looked rather small compared to that of the opposing Persian host. From the right short edge (standing on the Macedonian side of the table), the phalanx and Parmenio's wing combined to occupy a footprint measuring about 53 inches (135 cm) long. Perdiccas and his pals were positioned across from the Mardian archers and Indian cavalry. Half of the Greek allies were arranged across from King Darius III, so they faced the Kinsmen cavalry and some Greek hoplites in the pay of the Persian ruler. The other half of the reported 12,000 Greek allies and or mercenary infantry were placed as a reserve behind these leading formations. Across the flat and prepared-for-chariots plain, the centre and right wing of the Persian host stretched for approximately 66 inches (168 cm). There was a packet of elephants screening the Mardian archers. These pachyderms were accompanied by a squadron of scythed chariots. Way over on the other end of the Persian line, another squadron of scythed chariots was drawn up for battle. To the right of these potentially deadly vehicles were the heavy cavalry regiments of the contingents from Armenia and Kappadokia (Cappadocia).

Summary of the Contest
The majority of the fighting took place on the Macedonian right and centre. In these sectors, the phalanx and its allied counterpart advanced steadily against the line commanded by King Darius III. A forlorn hope of elephants and scythed chariots caused some damage, but nothing too great or disordering. The hedge of pikes continued its methodical advance. The Greek hoplites in the employ of the King of Kings moved forward to meet the more numerous threat. They were joined by the Royal Guard ("Apple-Bearers"). These combats took longer and saw more casualties on both sides, but in the end, the Persian foot could not hold back the Macedonian phalanx. The Mardian archers loosed a few volleys and then were struck and routed. The cavalry contingents in this sector stared in awe and horror at the advancing wall of sarissas. Fortunately, the Kinsmen regiments and King Darius III were able to escape. The Indian cavalry was not as lucky. Perhaps the two bright spots in this sector were the stubborn action of the Royal Guard infantry and a unit of hired Greek hoplites. The mercenaries actually routed an enemy unit and broke through the Macedonian line. Their local victory was of no significance, however.

In the centre of the featureless field, the Thessalians had their hands full with the numerous enemy contingents facing them. Parmenio divided his heavy cavalry and these two formations launched attacks on the Sacesians, Hyrcanians, Albanians, and others. The Thessalians had a little help from the mercenary cavalry to their left. While the several melees were costly (many a Thessalian fell), the Persian contingents were overcome and broken. The mercenary cavalry had its hands full trying to contain the Sakai light cavalry. This was very much a "cat and mouse game" within the larger wargame. The Sakai would evade and loose arrows, then wheel back around and advance to loose another volley. The mercenary cavalry and or mercenary foot could not catch them.

Over on the Persian right, the Parthians also participated in this "cat and mouse game". They did not have as much success, however. To be certain, their numerous volleys of arrows annoyed and blooded the enemy infantry assigned to watch them, but at one point in the "pursuit" the Parthians found their evasion route blocked by a column of friendly heavy cavalry that was slowly making its way across the field to the engaged Persian left. Prevented from escaping, two units of Parthians were caught from behind and wiped out.

Further to the right, the Armenians and Kappadokians did not see any action at all really, as they spent the entire battle trying to work their way around the Macedonian left and left rear. To a degree they were successful, but in this slow process, they essentially took themselves out of the engagement. Ten fresh and full-strength units of cavalry were still moving towards the dust clouds to their left or front when, in Game Turn 8, no fewer than 5 Persian units were defeated and routed. This development put the final nail in King Darius's coffin, even though he would live to fight another day. 

Assessment
In rather sharp contrast to the mini-Battle Day experiment with the Macedonian left wing at Gaugamela, this tabletop contest resulted in a win for Parmenio and his comrades. [6] The King of Kings and his contingents could not stand up to the advance of the phalanx and its supporting elements. The Thessalian cavalry managed to break its opponents. The numerous contingents on the Persian right never really got into the action in this reconstruction. They spent all of their time trying to move around the Macedonian left or into the Macedonian left rear.

This recently completed solo wargame was not a proper Tactica II battle. The opposing armies did not contain the same number of points [7]; I did not divide my table into three deployment zones; there were more than three divisions in each army/force, and I did not use deployment maps or use a screen. This recently completed solo wargame was not a proper historical miniature wargame as not a single painted and based model figure of any scale (2mm - 54mm) was employed. The only point of comparison between this effort and Simon Watson's excellent and picture-laden report of Paraitakene (please see the September/October 2018 issue of Slingshot) would be the rules used. As long as I am mentioning Society members, I believe that Gordon Lawrence might approve of this map exercise or boardgame reconstruction of a fraction of Gaugamela. [8]

What went right? Well, over the course of a number of evenings and or weekend afternoons, I was engaged and entertained by the process of moving and "fighting" with a variety of colourful formations on a rather plain but accurate-looking tabletop. Throughout the eight turns played, I was able to gain more experience with the rules. There are some procedures that are becoming second nature (almost), and there are some procedures for which I had to have the open rulebook in hand or next to me to make sure I do things correctly. (I think we all have been there at some point or another.) I also think that the appearance, at least from a certain perspective, was fairly correct. The phalanx did face the Persian king and his contingents; the mercenary troops did face the numerous enemy light cavalry units, and there were no Macedonians lined up across from the Armenians and their friends. Based on the information in the Battle Pack, I believe that I got most of the unit qualities correct. Of the four types available in Tactica II, I used militia grade and veteran primarily. There were one or two elite units. There were no legendary formations on my tabletop. In the previous experiments with a portion of Gaugamela, there was a special scenario rule for the return of Alexander and his Companions. (Though he did make it back to Parmenio's wing, his contribution did not prevent the Persians from winning.) In this recently completed solo wargame, I did not draft any special rule(s) for the return of Alexander. Given the way things turned out, I do not believe Alexander would have been needed. Again, it seems a very tall order for the King of Kings and his eclectic collection of contingents to be able to stand up to a veteran Macedonian phalanx on flat ground.

Where is there room for improvement or better understanding? Well, in no particular order, I would start with the determination of the move option. In this "miniature" battle, the initiative went back and forth each turn. As the game progressed, I found myself thinking about the initiative ratings used in Armati 2nd Edition and about how one side could, conceivably, hold the initiative for a few turns, thus dictating the tempo of the engagement. The 50 scythed chariots on the Persian left did some damage to the phalanx they attacked, but the vehicles were dispatched easily enough. Over on the other side of the field, a unit of Macedonian or Allied light infantry met with near disaster, losing 11 of its 24 figure strength in one round. After some hard fighting, the chariots were destroyed. Here, I could not help but think about the morale impact of losing nearly half of your men in a single melee round. I could also not help but think about the rampage rules found in Simon Miller's To The Strongest! Somewhat related to that morale issue, I found it somewhat strange that the Parthian light cavalry (massed formations, not skirmishers) would not have an impact on the Persian heavier horse just behind them. As a result of poor planning, the Parthians found themselves sandwiched between enemy infantry and friendly heavy horse. I do not believe that massed light horse can interpenetrate massed heavy horse, so caught between the two, half of the Parthians went down in defeat. I was a little surprised that such a chaotic melee and result would not have had some impact on the friendly heavy horse. I also wondered if the winning infantry could have broken through and made contact with the flank of the now exposed heavy cavalry. Given the constraints of infantry operating against heavy cavalry, however, I followed the written rules on this point. Perhaps I should have rolled a d6 in this situation? Somewhat related to this concern or question was an episode involving the Thessalians and the contingents arranged against them. At one point, some Albanian cavalry were waiting to enter the melee, but the angle was slightly off and the constraints of being in the combat threat zone (CZT) prevented these horsemen form wheeling ever so slightly to be able to make the charge. So, they sat on their mounts, watching as their friends were defeated in detail. Distantly related to this question was the movement rate of the cavalry. As related in the summary, many Persian cavalry regiments were left out of the action as they tried to move from the right flank to the centre or to the left. The adjusted movement rate of 12 cm per turn was not enough to allow them to participate. Early on then, I was thinking about the command and movement process used in Hail Caesar. If divisional commanders were given more of an active role and units had a chance to move 36 cm instead of just 12 cm a turn, then the cavalry units under the command of Mazaeus might have had more of an impact on the course of the battle.
Anyway.

To reiterate, the recently completed wargame engaged and entertained. It also provided food for thought, as the saying goes, with respect to generating questions or making me think about the pros and cons of conforming when it comes to melee, as well as wondering about the ease of making flank attacks on the wargames table. In these respects then, the experiment might be called a qualified success. The commentary and or criticism offered by readers of this post will either support or argue against this conclusion.


Notes
1. In Slingshot 237, a veritable Roman senate of Society members offered reports on the proceedings of that premiere Battle Day at Bletchley. Staying with the analogy, proconsul Duncan Head answered Battle Day questions in the same issue. Provincial governors Rick Stevens and Chris Leach provided their brief interpretation of Gaugamela in Slingshot 245.
2. Not having a copy of Slingshot 216 readily available, on January 22, 2020, I posted a question, a request for clarification, to the correct discussion thread on the Society's Forum. As of February 05, this post had been viewed 25 times but no clarification or response had been offered. Further evidence, I gather, that I really need to scrape together the necessary funds required for the purchase of the Golden Years of Slingshot DVD or recently added Memory Stick.
3. "Going Back to Gaugamela", a 3,500 word (approximately) wargame report of my refight using L'Art de la Guerre (ADLG), was accepted by our esteemed editor on January 26, 2020.
This related project was started in the first week of February.
4. I am using the spelling found on page 81 of Warfare in the Classical World and in Chapter 3 of  Professor Victor Davis Hanson's excellent book, Carnage and Culture - Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, as opposed to the spelling for "the King of Kings" offered in the Gaugamela Battle Pack. Please see http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day/42-battle-day-2004-gaugamela-331-bc.
5. According to the additional information provided in the Battle Pack, "Krateros commanded the left most taxis and the left of the infantry . . . Koinos may have commanded the right of the infantry and if represented is initially deployed with the right most taxis". In the wargamer-friendly diagram found on page 81 of Warfare, the Macedonian phalanx is deployed in echelon. Looking at it from the Persian perspective, and starting on the left, the taxis commanders are identified as follows: Coenus, Perdiccas, Meleager, Polysperchon, Simmias, and Craterus. Even though unit commanders do not play a part in the Tactica II rules, I thought it would add some colour to identify the half-dozen formations of pikemen by their reported leaders.
6. Drawing inspiration from my own work with Gaugamela, I decided to stage a few refights of the action on the Macedonian left, where Parmenio faced Mazaeus. Using Armati 2nd Edition, Tactica II, and To The Strongest!, I played three solo wargames (well, almost three - the To The Strongest! battle was dismantled after about seven turns), had typed almost 9,000 words of narrative and was planning to submit the resulting article (the working title was: The Parmenio Project), when I changed my mind. The Persians rewrote history in the first two contests, and were well on their way to winning the third.
7. I did not calculate the exact number of points fielded on my table, though it is a safe bet that the Macedonians had quite a few more than the Persians. With regard to massed figures and army breakpoints, Parmenio and his associates had 714 massed figures, which translated to a morale tipping point of 357. On the Persian side of the model field, I believe their massed figure total was around 500, which gave Mazaeus and King Darius III a breakpoint of approximately 250, quite a bit less than their enemy.
8. In "The Play's The Thing", (Slingshot 327) he offers a compliment on my amateur efforts. I thank the gentleman for his kind remark. (An email was sent, but I am not sure that it got through, Perhaps it was classified as SPAM? Anyway.) Then, in "Wargaming My Way" (Slingshot 328), while I could identify with some points of his gaming approach and "career", I got the impression that my figure-less approach was anathema. That accepted and acknowledged, as Gordon concluded: "Vive la difference!"

[Imperial Dave]

What a great post Chris and the level of detail was greatly appreciated by myself

[RichT]

Yes interesting piece Chris. I have a question about the Macedonians present - you only mention (unless I've not read carefully enough) Foot Companions, allied hoplites and Thessalians, though you later mention 'the mercenary troops' and 'a unit of Macedonian or Allied light infantry' so I guess you did include the Macedonian flank guards. How did you position these - straight lines, angled lines, columns? Lots of options have been proposed over the years. Did their positioning have any impact on how they were used (eg were they able to charge out against encircling Persian cavalry or was it all face to face encounters)?

[simonw]

Excellent piece Chris. My, you have been busy! I'm glad that you found the Tactica 2 game interesting and fun. When dealing with a specific 'reconstruction' like you have, there is usually a need to introduce some scenario special rules because of the way that Tactica 2 is designed really for 'matched pick-up games'. Nevertheless, it seems to have worked pretty well.

A couple of points regarding the rules:
a. Wheeling is permitted if there are troops within a units CTZ IF there are intervening  'friends' in a position such as to prevent contact with the enemy by a straight ahead move. I don't know if this would have affected the situation of your Albanian Horse.
b.'Heavy' cavalry with javelins do not get to use them in the missile (shooting) phase, only as melee weapons.
c. The routing of the Parthian Light Cavalry will not affect 'Heavy Units' in Tactica 2 as you say and this can appear to be a little anomalous in certain situations (such as the 'sandwich' you describe). I suppose that their simple 'disappearance' is akin to what happens to many 'Light Troops' in many historical accounts of ancient battles (e.g. the 35,000 Helots at Plataea etc.). I suppose that they can be considered to have been 'dispersed' and to have fled; possibly through the gaps between the squadrons of Heavy Persian Horse. What actually happened in ancient battles in such situations is often unclear unless a 'disaster' was actually caused.
d. We have (when we use Scythed Chariots which is not that often) experimented with the equivalent of the Elephant Screen rules when using Scythed Chariots. This seems to work well. I think that Arty Conliffe is considering 'publishing' such an option in the not too distant future (perhaps on the Tactica 2 user group site).

I look forward to hearing about your next projects.

Again; an excellent and interesting report!
Cheers
Simon

[Chris]

Dave - thanks for taking the time to read and for the kind remark. Much appreciated. 

Richard - thanks as well for your time and comments. My apologies for not being specific enough in my narrative. I did take turn by turn notes but condensed these for the narrative. Anyway. To your question.
Following the Battle Pack, the troops in question were the 4500 Achaian and other mercenaries. I deployed these in a line extending to the left. As described, it was much shorter than the Persian horse opposite. These foot spent most of the wargame dealing with the Sakai and Parthian light cavalry (they were subjected to numerous volleys of arrows). The far left of the line "caught" the group of scythed chariots but was missed by the Armenian and Cappadocian cavalry, as these units were focused on getting around and into the rear.

On further reflection, I suppose I should have wheeled the Persian cavalry on this side of the table to attack the isolated Achaians and mercenaries from the rear as well as from the front. This might have addressed the large difference in routed massed figures between the two sides. Wheeling or complex moves in Tactica II take time. It is an adjustment compared to rules such as ADLG or Hail Caesar, for example.

According to Hanson, Parmenio extended the line and tried to "shove off" the enveloping Persian units. This sideways movement is not permitted in Tactica II. What I did was sort of spread the line by incremental wheels and threaten the light cavalry. As I advanced, this increased the distance between my foot units and the Armenians and Cappadocians who were focused, as I said, getting around the Macedonian left rear.

This cavalry "problem" reminds me of the situation encountered when refighting Cannae: How does one get Hannibal's cavalry around the rear of the Romans to join with the other flank?

Thanks again Gents, for reading and responding.

Cheers,
Chris

[Chris]

Simon - Was hoping to "hear" from you on this report. Thanks very much for your comments.

Point taken regarding the incorporation of scenario special rules. Shall keep this in mind.

It is evidently and embarrassingly obvious that I need to reread the rules. I did not see the sentence(s) pertaining to the wheeling allowed in CTZ. Yes, that may have made a difference. However, given as the Albanians were MG and facing V or  EL Thessalians . . .
HC with javelins cannot "shoot" - Noted. I was probably confusing this with To The Strongest! This is a bug that I shall fix.
At least I got something right re the smashed Parthians . . . still wonder about the breakthrough of the winning infantry contacting the exposed flanks of the nearby Persian horse. Again, it certainly seems to have been a confusing and chaotic situation on the table.
Interesting though re the screen of scythed chariots . . . I have another battle set up wherein scythed chariots are present. I will see how they do in this game before tinkering.

Thanks again. Apologies to former and future readers for the amateur mistakes. Shall try to improve with the next report.

Cheers,
Chris

[Mark G]

I can answer your how did Hannibal send his cavalry around at Cannes, question.

You simply need a bigger table which starts the battle near the middle.

Assuming your Romans cavalry performs historically poorly, you should then have to space for the movement.
The time question assuming your battle won't end with a swift rules based victory condition

[Chris]

Thanks Mark. I guess I should have clarified that my Cannae cavalry question was more rhetorical than a search for an answer(s).

For the present, a larger playing surface is out of the question. I do suppose, though, that I could shrink the unit footprints and start the scenario in mid-battle.

Something to think about.

Cheers,
Chris