Raphia Refight (What?! Another One?)

[Chris]

For those who might have an interest,

The narrative of an attempt to refight the Battle of Raphia (217 BC) using amended TACTICA II  rules can be found here:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/


The title of the post is "ANTIOCHUS III vs PTOLEMY IV"


With tidings of comfort and joy to you and yours,
Chris

[dwkay57]

Interesting write up Chris (although I did skim the early bit on the army compositions).

In the battle summary, you mention the delays caused by the "activation" system the rules used. If you had not used this but instead allowed troops to advance "under normal orders" would the result or shape (or enjoyment) of the battle been different?

Also of interest was your dismay that the senior commanders did not engage in close combat. I tend to think that by this period the heroic leader was dying out (or had died out through heroic leadership...) and was being replaced by the manager commander style, so would not expect too many to get their hands bloody.

PS. Somewhere on the Terrain section of the forum, there is a thread where Duncan provided some links to maps that provided more of a local geographical context to this battle.

[Duncan Head]

Also of interest was your dismay that the senior commanders did not engage in close combat. I tend to think that by this period the heroic leader was dying out (or had died out through heroic leadership...) and was being replaced by the manager commander style, so would not expect too many to get their hands bloody.

Though surely Antiochos III is the classic example of a commander who remained "heroic" - to his detriment.

PS. Somewhere on the Terrain section of the forum, there is a thread where Duncan provided some links to maps that provided more of a local geographical context to this battle.

It was http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4872.15, especially this bit:

No terrain is mentioned at Raphia, but it may have been close enough to the coast to show the sea, or coastal dunes, on one edge - see this map. Have you seen the maps in Galili's article? Someone, it may have been Bar-Kochva but I haven't checked, thought that the Seleucid cavalry on the  right may have partly concealed their superior numbers in a re-entrant between sandhills.

[RichT]

Yes interesting account (though you know my views on all of that dice rolling). Can I offer a nitpick on your order of battle:

... then the peltasts under Socrates ...  82.4 /Socrates the Boeotian had under him two thousand peltasts ...  65.2

2 units of 20 LI (Peltasts) FV 3-6 / Average / Javelins [10x2]

These 'peltasts' are peltasts in the Hellenistic sense, and most likely (in pitched battle at least) armed 'in the Macedonian fashion' i.e. as pikemen - like the Antigonid Peltasts, rather than javelin-armed LI. Note that Polybius doesn't use 'peltasts' to refer to any of the other units classed as 'peltasts' (in the wargamer sense, LI Jav) in your lists.

[Chris]

Three replies from three wise men . . . How seasonally appropriate. 

Addressing each in the order received . . .

DK -
Apologies for the comparatively long OBs. I started many different drafts before finally settling on this approach or format. On reflection, I suppose I could have simply referenced the ancient narrative information but with the tinkering done to Tactica II, I felt it important to go through each army present.

Regarding the "disruption" in command and control . . . I presume that a normal game, wherein I had absolute control over every formation so that they could move every turn would have produced a different battle. The Egyptian phalanx certainly would have been more involved. The various phalanxes may have been engaged earlier as well, though foot almost always moves slower than horse.

Recalling the ancient narrative, it seems that both the main leaders were in the immediate vicinity of action. I guess this was where the game aspects "interfere" with the historical accounts.

DH -
Your comments appear directed toward DK. Joining in, while I have not done an extensive study of the terrain, the source material found and studied indicated that terrain did not play any role, really, in the engagement. The feature you mention might explain the positioning of half of the Seleucid horse on one wing "at an angle" though.

RT -
"Nitpick" appreciated. I defer to your experience and expertise. In the final analysis though, I do not think this mistaken representation tilted the battle one way or the other. As related in the summary, the solo wargame followed, generally, the historical course of the action.

It might (emphasis on might) prove interesting to refight the battle but allow free deployment as well as add a few terrain features. And of course, use rules that do not require handfuls of dice to be thrown.

Thanks to all for reading/skimming.

[dwkay57]

But do you think Chris that without the "delayed by card" factor you would have had a more realistic / interesting / or fun battle?
There is a another thread jogging along about initiative based rules so it might be useful to have a view for that.

[Chris]

Cheers David,

I confess that I have not been following (or even aware of) the other thread dealing with the referenced topic. I will add it to my list of resolutions for the coming year.

"Realistic," "interesting," and "fun" have different definitions of course, but are all related to the enjoyment and participation in this hobby.

I've been thinking (generally and superficially) about ancient battles and it occurs to me that an argument could be made for effective command and control. With the notable exception of the Gallic Wars episode where the trumpet calls bounced off the terrain and led to some confusion, it seems that battles were rather straightforward affairs of advance/charge, hack and push and stab, and then run away.

To this end, trying out a command and control deck is or was an attempt to take a measure of absolute control away and thereby make the tabletop encounter more realistic.

I am not so sure that it would have been interesting or counted as interesting to get more units of phalanx stuck in and so, able to roll handfuls of dice turn after turn as the attritional melees ground on. This directly relates to the "fun" formula, for lack of a better term or word. Some player-generals like to roll handfuls of dice; others do not.

Likewise, some like to be able to command and control all their formations.

Feel that I am rambling (is it "prattling on"?) here . . .

Again, in order to better answer this line of query, it seems that I would have to refight the refight. This time, however, without the house rule(s) of having a command and control deck of cards.

[dwkay57]

Now there's a project for the new year Chris.