Consul vs King

[Chris]

Magnesia refight with TRIUMPH!

Gents,

Following, please find a link to a blog post wherein I offer another interpretation of this classic ancient battle using the TRIUMPH! rules.

>>https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Consul%20vs%20King


Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

See you around/in the forums.

Cheers,

Chris

[Keraunos]

Magnesia refight with TRIUMPH!

Gents,

Following, please find a link to a blog post wherein I offer another interpretation of this classic ancient battle using the TRIUMPH! rules.

>>https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Consul%20vs%20King


Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

See you around/in the forums.

Cheers,

Chris

Arab camels = Bad Horse.  Interesting.  Again, are we talking wargames or offerings in French restaurants?

[Imperial Dave]

Magnesia refight with TRIUMPH!

Gents,

Following, please find a link to a blog post wherein I offer another interpretation of this classic ancient battle using the TRIUMPH! rules.

>>https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Consul%20vs%20King


Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

See you around/in the forums.

Cheers,

Chris

Arab camels = Bad Horse.  Interesting.  Again, are we talking wargames or offerings in French restaurants?

if youve ever seen one close up I can confirm that camels are indeed bad horse. They spit and try to chew your face on occasion

[dwkay57]

The lack of extensive melees in the centre between the heavy infantry seemed unusual. Did you identify a particular reason for this Chris, such as cautious orders by the commanders?

[Mark G]

Interesting work there Chris.

[Chris]

Gentlemen (i.e., David and Mark G.),

Apologies for the delay in responding to your questions and comments.

First up, David K. and the note about the lack of melees between the strengths of the "miniature" armies employed.

Admittedly, this is an unusual occurrence in an ancients wargame let alone historical battle, such as the one attempted. Upon reflection and a brief review of the blog post itself, I think the reason(s) for this were or I would suggest that they are as follows: 1) the attrition on the Roman right and Seleucid left, which provided a bit of an advantage to the Seleucids, which would have eventually seen cavalry descending on a vulnerable Roman heavy infantry flank. 2) the preponderance of skirmishers between the opposing bodies of heavier foot. (On further review, this seemed an error or oversight on my part.) And 3) the estimation that a contest between legionaries and pikemen would have been even more protracted, as explained and shown in the YouTube videos available on the TRIUMPH! channel. So, not so much caution, as exhaustion combined with fading interest.

Second, Mark G. Thanks for the compliment. To be sure, any positives of my work are based on the better efforts by those who came, played, and wrote before me. All the minor and or major mistakes on my part serve, albeit unintentionally, to diminish those efforts.

Thanks to both for taking the time to read and remark.

Cheers,
Chris

[Mark G]

Too kind, and inaccurate - I make no claims to being a gentleman

[Imperial Dave]