PARTY IN PARTHIA

[Chris]

PARTY IN PARTHIA

By Chris Hahn


I am almost embarrassed to admit that in all my years of ancient wargaming, I have never fielded or even fought against a Parthian army. Figuring it was about time that I corrected this perceived oversight, in mid August of 2014, I drafted a Caesarian Roman army from Page K of the 'Age of Empires' list in ARMATI 2nd Edition and a Parthian army from Page M. These forces were rather large, being double-size armies, supported by 200 points of bonus units.

In addition to solving one "problem," this fictional scenario also allowed me to test a number of  rule amendments. While there is much to be said for playing a set of rules as written, there is also much (perhaps even more?) to be said for modifying said set of rules to suit one's interpretation of history. [Aside: It might prove interesting to investigate at what point an established set of  rules transforms into something else as a result of rule amendments and variations.] Getting myself back on point . . . the following 9 amendments or variants are not products of my thinking. They are adaptations and or adoptions of other ancient enthusiasts with greater experience and vaster knowledge.

1. Suspension of Impetus -
Units with Impetus do not "kill" enemy units if they win the first round of melee. Instead, the losing side loses a unit BP and is marked disordered. This status means that a minus 2 melee modifier will be applied in the next melee round. The disordered status is in addition to any fatigue modifier that may apply to the unfortunate unit.

2. Missile Modifiers -
The range of all missile weapons is divided into three categories: "close," "normal," and  "long range." At close range, the firing unit gets a +1 modifier. There is no modifier for firing at normal range. There is a minus 1 modifier if the firing unit is targeting an enemy unit at long range.

3. Skirmisher Missiles -
Hits be skirmisher units produce fatigue markers and do not result in BP loss by targeted units. Only when the limit of  fatigue markers is reached do subsequent hits by skirmishers cause actual unit BP loss/casualties.

4. Recovery of Disorder -
Units marked as disordered can remove the status marker by using the same procedure detailed under "Redress Ranks" on page 28.

5. Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry Cooperation -
Light Cavalry may interpenetrate friendly heavy cavalry with a normal move or an evade move. Heavy cavalry may also interpenetrate friendly light cavalry with a normal move. The units involved must roll a 1d6 on completion of the maneuver. A result of 5 or 6 indicates that the unit has become disordered and is marked accordingly.

If evading light cavalry cannot completely clear the friendly unit of heavy cavalry, extra movement is allowed so that the light cavalry can move through the unit, however, the light cavalry is automatically marked as disordered. The heavy cavalry unit must make the status roll as per usual. [See Mark Fry's excellent Battle Day Report in Issue 289 of Slingshot. It might prove interesting to draft a similar rule for the cooperation of light infantry and heavy infantry.]

6. Cavalry versus heavier cavalry break off -
Adopted in full from RV Number 6 as it appeared in "RVs - the State of the Nation" message on Yahoo ARMATI Forum - January 5, 2009 @ 3:32 pm.

7. Morale Rout Test -
Adopted with changes from same source listed above, RV Number 14b . . .
Changes:
- Instead of 1s or 1s and 2s on the testing die, the bad rolls will be 5s and or 6s depending on the testing unit.
- The rout path for cavalry units is 18 inches or centimeters.
- The rout path for infantry is 9 inches or centimeters.

8. Breakthrough -
Victorious cavalry units may move up to 12 inches or centimeters in a breakthrough move. After executing the movement, roll a 1d6. On a result of  5 or 6, the unit "breaking through" is marked disordered and is fined another fatigue marker. The same procedure is followed for infantry units. The distance permitted in breakthrough movement for infantry is 6 inches or centimeters.

Units making this move ARE ALLOWED to initiate another melee with an enemy formation.

9. Missile fire against unshielded flank and or rear of a target unit -
If missile fire is directed at the unshielded flank of an enemy unit, the target unit has a minus 1 modifier. If  missile fire is  directed at the rear of an enemy unit, the target unit has a minus 2 modifier.

ORDERS OF BATTLE
The Caesarian Romans mustered 15 units of heavy infantry (cohorts), 1 of these being rated as veterans. There were 13 units of skirmishers; the majority of these irksome formations being armed with javelins. Two units of light infantry rounded out the foot component of this army. The cavalry component consisted of 2 units of allied heavy horse. One of these units (the Germanic horse, obviously) was classed as veterans. There was also an Armenian contingent present. These allies brought 2 units of cataphract cavalry and 4 units of light horse to the field.
This army would be broken with the loss of 9 key units. It had an initiative rating of 6 a could deploy 10 heavy divisions and 6 light divisions.

To counter the Roman threat, the Parthians assembled 21 units of light cavalry, 12 units of cataphract cavalry, and 2 units of camel troops. The initiative rating of this mounted army was 6. In contrast to the Roman control points, the Parthians could manage just 4 divisions of heavy troops. In terms of controlling light troops however, the Parthians could arrange 12 divisions. This "horde of horses" would be defeated when 14 key units were lost.

TERRAIN
As my focus was on testing the rule amendments, I did not really bother with landscaping my table. Per the army lists, however, both the Romans and Parthians are permitted 1 gentle rise(hill) as a core piece of terrain. And so, two hills (one measuring 6 by 6 inches and the other measuring 8 by 4 inches) were manufactured and placed in the left flank zone of each army, each one pretty close to the baseline.

BATTLE
Lacking a readily available opponent, I simply figured that the Romans would be out-scouted and arranged them on the tabletop first. On the far left of the line, I placed the allied barbarian heavy cavalry (in separate divisions). These scary horsemen were joined by 2 units of light infantry deployed in their own division. The center consisted of 7 divisions of legionary infantry arranged in 6 groups of 2 units and 1 group of 3 units. The main line of battle contained 9 cohorts; the reserve line contained 6 cohorts. The veteran cohort was on the far right of this reserve, under the direct command of the army general. The heavy foot were screened by a long line (10 units) of  javelin-armed skirmishers. A unit of skirmishing archers and 2 units of slingers were positioned to the right of this main concentration. The Armenian contingent was tasked with protecting the right flank of the army. Two divisions of light cavalry were pushed forward; the cataphracts formed the single heavy division in this sector.

The Parthians arranged their cataphracts in 3 formations, each having 4 units of the very heavy cavalry. One division was stationed on the left flank, another was in the center and under the command of the general, while the third group straddled the invisible line between the center and right flank. The camel troops were stationed on the right flank and placed in the front line so as to disrupt any enemy cavalry encountered. The 12 divisions of Parthian horse archers were "scattered" across the front of the army. Some divisions consisted of a single unit deployed in depth while others contained 2 units deployed in depth. Half of the light cavalry divisions consisted of 2 units deployed in an open line.

The first blood of  the day was split on the Parthian left flank, when Armenian light cavalry delivered effective volleys against enemy units while taking limited casualties in the return fire.
The light horse of each side was soon engaged in close combat; the advantage swaying back and forth for a time until the pendulum stayed with the Armenian contingent. The arrival and attack of Parthian cataphracts returned the advantage to the Parthian side of the field. Though the ensuing melees cost the Parthian division a unit of the very heavy horse, it was obvious that they had won sector of the field as they had eliminated half of the Armenian cataphracts and three-quarters of their light cavalry.

A similar situation developed on the Parthian right. The smelly camels did not panic the Spanish and German heavy cavalry, but the prolonged melee certainly wore down the barbarian troopers. While so engaged, a couple of Parthian horse archer units were able to get around the flank and rear of the Germanic horse and pepper them with arrows. This harassing fire spelled the eventual end of these veteran cavalry. The Spanish were broken when they bit off more then they could chew; they broke  through a troop of camels and fatigued and weakened, charged into a nearby unit of light cavalry. The Spanish received a thumping and were no more. On this flank, the Parthians exchanged their camel troops for the enemy heavy horse. The Roman light infantry was subjected to arrow fire and then a charge by cataphracts. Needless to say, the light infantry did not last very long.

The engagement in the center sector started with a couple of tactical errors. First, the Romans advanced their skirmishers too far and fast, exposing them to a sweeping attack by the various groups of Parthian light cavalry. While a couple of flights of arrows were delivered into the cloud of Roman skirmishers, these volleys had little effect. A swift charge dispersed the vulnerable skirmishers, leaving just 1 unit out of the original 10 in the division. Unfortunately, in the excitement of rushing and scattering the skirmishers, the Parthians left themselves open to a countermove by the advancing lines of Roman heavy infantry. The resulting melees were very one-sided, of course, and as soon as they could, the Parthian light horse attempted to break contact with the hacking and slashing Roman heavy infantry. Some light cavalry escaped and or evaded; some were not so lucky.

As this mess of a situation concluded, the Parthian general led his division of cataphracts into battle. The charge of these armored horsemen was met with stubborn resolve by the legionary infantry. Only a couple of cohorts were  disordered by the impact of the enemy horse. Even so, the dice gods seemed to favor their effort against the cataphracts. On the edges of this chaotic melee, the Romans advanced and were again able to catch some units of enemy light horse flat-footed. Though a degree of pressure was starting to build on the Roman reserve (it had bent its straight line formation into an inverted bowl shape), it  was too little and too late to help matters in the center of the field. Once again, the shields and swords of the doughty Roman infantry proved too much for the cataphracts and light horse. Here and there, another unit routed, and at a certain point, the morale of the Parthian host collapsed.

It had taken just 6 turns of battle to reach a definitive result. The Romans had lost 4 key units (1 cohort of heavy infantry, both units of barbarian heavy horse, and 1 unit of Armenian cataphracts) against 14 key units lost by the Parthians. They had lost 2 units of camels, 2 units of cataphracts, and an impressive total of 10 units of light horse.

THOUGHTS
Well, my "Parthian problem" has been addressed. Though somewhat surprised by the brevity of the tabletop action, I was quite satisfied with how it played.

I thought the armies (albeit modified in size) were suitable for the size of the playing surface. I did feel cramped or crowded when I set up the troops. And though it's a very different format from the traditional wargame (it's essentially a map exercise), I thought the finished table looked pretty good. While the two terrain features did not play any role in the battle, their presence did lend a bit of "color" to the landscape. I am certainly no expert on the topography of ancient Parthia. My estimation or impression is that it was fairly flat, desolate even.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to take the tested rule amendments in order.

1. Suspension of Impetus -
I thought this worked fairly well, even though it was only tested in the center of the table and in just this one scenario. I rather like the "shade of gray" result as opposed to the "black and white" result of the rules as written. With a frontal fighting value of 7, Roman heavy infantry are very hard to break/overwhelm on the first round of melee. In comparison, Parthian cataphracts have a frontal fighting value of 6, so the very heavy horsemen are at an immediate disadvantage in the first round of the melee. I have read some remarks about cataphracts and might incorporate these  suggestions into other amendments. For example, I might increase their unit BP to 4 from 3, and decrease their protection value from +3 (very hard to hit) to +2 (a bit  more of a chance there). With regard to other units with impetus (warbands and elephants, for example), more testing has to be done before I accept or reject this amendment. 

2. Missile Modifiers -
Although I had to remind myself a few times and check the exact range between shooting unit and target unit, I liked this amendment quite a little bit. The Roman heavy infantry took a few more hits as the Parthian horse archers galloped close, and the cataphracts were not so invincible when fired at from close range by enemy troops with missiles.

3. Skirmisher Missiles -
I didn't get a chance to use this much in the scenario. The Roman slingers were obliterated by effective long range fire and as reported in the brief summary of the action, the line of javelin-armed skirmishers were dispersed without firing a volley, essentially. Even so, I rather like this amendment. 

4. Recovery of Disorder -
I did not get a chance to do this during the battle. The few units that were disordered (whether by melee or by interpenetration) were too close to the enemy to take the time required to rally and reorder their ranks.

5. Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry Cooperation -
I rather like this amendment, too. The dice did not favor the Parthians so much when the various formations of horse tried to move through each other. I wonder if "disorder" is too harsh of a penalty? Perhaps I should change it to un-dressed? On a related note, I am tinkering with the idea of applying it to light infantry and heavy infantry.

6. Cavalry versus heavier cavalry break off -
On the flanks, I had cataphracts against cataphracts and camels against heavy cavalry. There were not a lot of occasions where cavalry could or indeed wanted to break off an engagement. The situations of light horse trying to get out of a bad situation is already covered in the rules.

7. Morale Rout Test -
This also took some getting used to . . . I would often forget to check the unit to the left or right of the routed formation. With regard to those friendly units in the path of a broken unit, I think I might change to a bad die roll producing a state of disorder (either un-dressed or actual disorder) as opposed to losing a unit BP.

8. Breakthrough -
This was only tested once during the battle. The Spanish heavy cavalry tried it and while they didn't suffer any disorder, they were "smacked down" by a unit of Parthian light cavalry. This was something of a surprise.

9. Missile fire against unshielded flank and or rear of a target unit -
Again, I was only able to try this out once or twice during the battle, when some Parthians got around the left flank of the Germanic cavalry. At first, I hesitated and did not allow the shooting, as the fire was coming in on the barbarian cavalry left flank and they were engaged with a unit of camels. When the horse archers were around the back of the Germans, then I let them "have at it" with the stated modifiers. Typically, German heavy horse  has a protection factor of +1.  However, a close range, this protection factor evaporates. If the shooting is coming from behind the unit, well . . .

In summary, I think the drafted rule amendments worked fairly well and added to the enjoyment of the game. While not especially creative, the scenario was engaging and did provide me with an enjoyable, entertaining, and as previously stated, satisfying experience over the course of a few days in mid August. 

[Paul Innes]

Thanks for posting this, Chris. Coincidentally, the Parthians are appearing on our tabletops as part of our long ongoing campaign; it's good to compare notes with your experience.

Cheers
Paul

[Justin Swanton]

Our new club arrival Stephen - also top of the ladder - has a DBA Parthian army: 4 knight, 6 light horse and 2 psiloi. He likes using them Blitzkrieg-style - have the knights advance down the centre whilst the  light horse do a pincer move on the wings towards the enemy camp. The weakness with that approach is that the army becomes dispersed and one segment can't help the others. Jump on one of the wing pincers with fast stuff like auxilia or warband (or one's own cavalry) and one can destroy it in short order. It helps that the earth is flat in wargameland, enabling one to crowd the LH against the edge of the board and stifle their recoils.

I've no idea if this is at all applicable to Armati.

[Patrick Waterson]

In the historical Parthian vs Roman battles, one is struck by the length of time the Parthians take to 'prep' the target with shooting before the cataphracts try their luck (and their sharp pointy sticks).  The one time when both sides engaged in a recorded face-to-face fight rather than a general harassment/attrition action was in 36 BC:

"And now the Parthians presented themselves to the besiegers in brilliant array, and threatened them insultingly. Antony, therefore, not wishing that the inactivity of his army should confirm and increase among them consternation and dejection, took ten legions and three praetorian cohorts of men-at-arms, together with all his cavalry, and led them out to forage, thinking that in this way the enemy would best be drawn into a pitched battle. [3] After advancing a single day's march, he saw that the Parthians were enveloping him and seeking to attack him on the march. He therefore displayed the signal for battle in his camp, and after taking down his tents, as though his purpose was not to fight but to withdraw, he marched along past the line of the Barbarians, which was crescent-shaped. But he had given orders that when the first ranks of the enemy should appear to be within reach of his legionaries, the cavalry should charge upon them. [4] To the Parthians in their parallel array, the discipline of the Romans seemed to beggar description, and they watched them marching past at equal distances from one another, without confusion, and in silence, brandishing their javelins [hussous - pila]. But when the signal was given, and the Roman horsemen wheeled about and rode down upon them with loud shouts, they did indeed receive their onset and repel them, although their foes were at once too close for them to use their arrows; when, however, the legionaries joined in the charge, with shouts and clashing of weapons, the horses of the Parthians took fright and gave way, and the Parthians fled without coming to close quarters." - Plutarch, Life of Antony, 34.2-4

So well did the Parthians flee that the Romans netted only 30 Parthians during the pursuit.

There was also another earlier face-to-face fight, which the Romans won:

"In the meantime Pacorus, the king's son, advanced again with a large army of Parthians against Syria; but Ventidius engaged and routed him in Cyrrhestica, and slew great numbers of his men." - Plutarch, Life of Antony, 34.1

The overall result is thus about right.  And if I were an Armati player I would feel very tempted to try out the amendments. 

[John GL]

I had a party in Parthia once, in 2011 - the only time I've used Parthians in a DBM competition.  Here's the write-up I did at the time (written for DBM players, so I apologise to readers who don't like rules-specific abbreviations).  The cataphract/horse archer combination proved to be quite potent.

The last round of the 2011 Doubles League had 14 entries, two more than last year, and a good variety of armies.  There were some great games – Pete Connew's Aztecs absorbing opponents through sheer weight of numbers, an Egyptian civil war deciding that Martin Golay was the true Pharaoh and Duncan Thompson a usurper, and Nigel Poole's Scots collapsing simultaneously with Philip Donald's Seleucids for an extremely bloody 5-5.

Russ King and I took Parthians, an army we'd never used before (for various reasons we had no practice games).  Two large commands with Kn(X) cataphracts, LH(F) horse-archers plus assorted light infantry, a smaller command with just cataphracts and horse-archers, and an Elymean (internal) ally with cataphracts, horse-archers and Bw(I) foot archers.

Our first opponent was Jerry Hendy with Trajan's Romans, for a nice historical encounter.  The Romans had two large commands which set up opposite our left flank, behind a large orchard stuffed with Ax(S), facing towards the centre, plus a substantial Armenian ally in the centre.  No fourth command.  We raced to envelop the Armenians and did so with some loss, also destroying a force of LH sent by the Romans to help.  On the left the Roman cavalry advanced to get at our small allied command and were ambushed by 8 Bw(I) who stepped out of an orchard and shot down four elements.  The remaining Roman cavalry hastily withdrew.

The main Roman forces were now in considerable danger and we had several goes at killing a general, which would have broken their army, but without success.  The game timed out at 6-4.

Next came King of Kings Philip Donald with a formidable Seleucid army.  We placed a road and steep hills which nicely broke up the battlefield, and flank marched with both our small commands.  The sub-general arrived at the first attempt – a bit too early, in fact, as the Seleucids were able to react and move their Kn(F) cavalry and LH to oppose him.   The flank-marchers mowed down some light horse but then, disastrously, lost their general against another LH.  The command held but, with a break point of only 5, was soon outmanoeuvred and defeated. 

A large force of horse-archers had gone forward to assist the flank-marchers and these now broke up the enemy pike phalanx with flank attacks.  Unfortunately they weren't bright enough to flee away and insisted on throwing high dice and sticking, to be flanked and destroyed next turn.  Only 4 elements lost from a command of 30.5 EE, but the long-term pattern of the battle was clear as Pk(S) and Wb(S) bore down on our sub-general's cataphracts.  Happily our delaying tactics with horse-archers enabled us to hold out until nightfall, for a 4-6 result.

On Sunday morning we defended Parthia against an Egyptian invasion led by Martin Golay as Rameses II.  Martin had large numbers of archers who were all Bw(I) – great targets for cataphracts and possibilities for LH(F) of whom we had plenty.  We rushed forwards, cataphracts to the fore.  One Kn(X) was shot down, so I had to use our C-in-C to fill the gap, but we got a good charge in which destroyed 6 Bw(I) at first contact.  Then the luck turned and two Kn(X) died against Bd(O), leaving the C-in-C's flank exposed and promptly turned by a Bd(O).  3-3 combat with no recoil either way, and effectively the entire game at stake.  I threw 4, Martin threw 2 so his Bd(O) died and the command broke.  Then we started work on more Bw(I) and got lucky with LH(F) who killed loads more, quickly breaking a second command for a 10-0 win.

At this stage Tony Green led the competition with 25 points, followed by Dave Madigan and Chris Smith's Seljuqs on 21, then Richard Hardy and Tony Bell's Medieval Germans, Derek and Stuart Bruce's Ottomans and our Parthians, all on 20.  As Tony had already played Dave and Chris, in the last round he faced the nearest in date of the next tier – us.

Tony's army had large numbers of Kn(F) lancers, some LH, a few Cv(O), a large block of Sp(O) hoplites, plenty of light infantry and a Greek ally with more Sp(O) and some Cv.  He defended and successfully placed a waterway, a village and a large area of rough going which landed in our deployment area and provided a haven for our rather sub-standard light infantry.  His deployment was (our right to left): lots of Kn(F) and LH next to the waterway, Lydian Sp(O), the Greek ally behind, and a smallish command of Kn(F), Cv(O) chariots and LH facing our left flank.  We'd considered flank-marching and fortunately decided against it, as the enemy mounted command would probably have enveloped our left.  As it was, both our small commands were there and looked more than a match for their opponents.  The Greek ally was unreliable and would change sides if we broke a Lydian command.

As we rode forward, Tony tried to redeploy his mounted command back to the centre and the shelter of his spear phalanx.  However, a sacrificial LH(F) charge stopped this movement and even bagged a Kn(F), then our superior numbers swamped that command, which broke – but the Greeks had become reliable in the nick of time.  On the waterway flank Lydian Kn(F) and assorted LH faced off against our Kn(X) and LH(F) then, seeing that things were not going well on the other flank, charged.  Russ rolled hot dice, suffered only moderate losses and killed numerous enemy; the Lydian survivors fell back.  As I struggled to redeploy the victorious left wing (Irreg Kn(X) being incredibly clumsy), Russ's cataphracts charged again and killed two more Kn(F) to break the Lydian army for a 10-0 win.  Hard luck for Tony, who threw consistently lousy combat dice in what should have been a roughly even contest.

Our 30 points won the competition by a four-point margin.  Many thanks to Pete Connew and Steve Aspinall for organising this excellent competition. 

[Mark G]

I have parthians for armati.

They don't give a great game, unless your opponent allows it. Basically, either your shooting dice are above average and the other guy cant touch you, or they are below average and you watch the game go by waiting for mistakes and luck.

Because the battle starts at bow range, your cats are on table when you really dibt want them to be, so you hope they might get a kill before they die, but your real game is shoot and evade.

Unless your opponent cant stand up to cats (my opponents are usually roman, and legions can cope fine unless your opponent makes huge mistakes).

So you aim to destroy anti light cavalry troops early   and then leave the rest up to your archers.

However, if he cant face cats - you can minster him in a most unhistorical way

[Paul Innes]

Since partying Parthians is of interest right now, I thought I'd join in - here's a report of how they play at our place:

http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/second-outing-for-parthians.html

Might make an interesting comparison with other people's experiences?

[Chris]

Paul,

An enjoyable and picturesque report - well done!

You did a much better job handling the horse archers  than I did.

Cannot imagine that swarming light cavalry would have much effect against a  solid wall of pikes advancing at a steady pace. Eventually, the lights would have to yield.

I may have to schedule another Parthian contest before  the year is out. Perhaps something involving Marc Antony? Maybe include a flank march as well.

Thanks for posting the link.

Chris

[Paul Innes]

Thanks for looking, Chris.  You are right about the horse archers; given the commander's deployment, the outcome was kind of inevitable. I'm thinking of a more interspersed deployment, with the heavy stuff held back as far as possible to give the horse archers more time to do their thing.  I'd like to try this some day...

[Mark G]

There is an old old slingshot on using parthians which emphasises keeping the cats well out of it until the final coup de grace .

Sound advice, and one of the reasons armati doesn't really do Parthians well - the cats must start within 2.5 moves of the enemy, and have to charge anything in range

[Paul Innes]

Hi Mark, I remember using Parthians under Armati in the dim and distant past and you're right, it was a real struggle. In our rules they can roll a control test to avoid a compulsory charge, and also never have to charge pikemen anyway.  If the points are paid to make them elite, cataphracts never have a compulsory charge.

[Mark G]

Control tests would help, but the real problem is starting so close.

They should be hours away from the enemy, not in striking range from the get go.

Unless the enemy is something they can monster easily, of course.

[aligern]

Of course, in Armati, you can either pay a point for the Cataphracts to not be subject to obligatory charge or, historically, you can give the Cataphracts the bows tgey ought to have, which will make them not subject to obligatory charge.

Roy