Pynda 168 BC- Part 2- The Battle

In 168 BC, the Battle of Pydna marked a pivotal moment in the Roman Republic's conflict with the formidable Kingdom of Macedon. In a previous blog, I explained the preparation, research, and several potential 'What Ifs. The one played in this simulation was where the terrain favoured the Phalanx, with less broken ground.

The Historical Battle 

Had the following phases.

• Skirmish triggers deployment
• Initial clash - Phalanx gains advantage on flat ground
• Terrain disruption - As Phalanx pushes the Romans back, their formation gets disrupted.
• Roman exploitation - Manipular flexibility exploits gaps
• Macedonian collapse - Battle line collapses
• Rout

My Simulation

The Reluctant Advance

As the first light of dawn broke over the battlefield, two foraging parties clashed near the dry river bed. A brief skirmish ensued, during which the Roman light infantry was victorious, causing their Macedonian opponents to retreat in rout. This initial success would cause Aemilius Paulus a problem because the light infantry started to loot the bodies of their victims rather than retire to safety.

Whilst the skirmishes were fought, the two armies took cautious steps forward to support their companions. King Perseus of Macedon felt a heavy burden of uncertainty weigh upon him, causing him to hesitate. This reluctance fragmented his formation, with the Phalanx's left and centre surging ahead, leaving him and the right wing lagging behind. Seizing the moment, Aemilius Paulus moved his Legion forward, supported by the elephants on their right.

The Phanlanx and the Legions Advance

A Battle of Attrition

As the Phalanx rolled forward like a tide, Perseus finally regained control over his battleline, guiding them across the dry streambed in a solid line. Meanwhile, Aemilius Paulus faced significant setbacks. His advance was stifled by the remnants of the victorious light infantry, who seemed utterly absorbed in looting the fallen Macedonian soldiers rather than providing vital support to their comrades.

On the Roman right flank, colossal war elephants struggled against the uneven ground, their lumbering frames hindering the cohesion of Paullus' force and splintering any chance of an effective attack. In the ensuing chaos, Roman cavalry engaged in fierce skirmishes, pushing the Thracians back but inadvertently distancing themselves from the main body of their army. The Roman line had started to fragment.

The Phalanx pushes the Legion backwards. In the Middle of the line, the Roman Light Infantry 

Remained trapped between the two masses.

Impetuous Cavalry?

In a mirror image of the Roman troubles, the Macedonian right flank saw Perseus' heavy cavalry chase off the Numidians, only to find themselves unable to rein in the wild pursuit, creating a precarious imbalance as zeal surged within their ranks.

Collision of Forces

The moment of reckoning arrived with a visceral clash; the two armies collided. The disciplined Macedonian Phalanx drove forward, initially gaining the upper hand and forcing the Roman legions uphill onto the rocky, unforgiving terrain. Yet the Roman velites proved to be an insufferable thorn in the side of their advance, thwarting their every move and creating chaotic gaps in the Macedonian centre.
Perseus found himself grappling with a dual challenge as his victorious cavalry struggled to regain control, unable to shift their focus back to launch an attack on the Roman left flank and rear, while the battle line fragmented, leaving the Macedonians more vulnerable than the Romans to exploitation.

The Turning Point

As the sun began to dip low in the sky, the tide of Battle seemed to sway precariously. The Galician mercenaries, once a bulwark for the Macedonian side, turned tail under pressure from the relentless Ligurians, further unravelling the Macedonian lines. The momentum shifted as the Roman forces finally orchestrated their regrouping, turning the tide against the Macedonian onslaught, albeit with their cavalry still isolated from the main action.
The heart of the battlefield, the decisive ground where fate would be determined, pulsated with tension as both sides prepared for what could prove to be the calamitous conclusion to this struggle.

The Final Push

In a dramatic turn of events that seemed ripped from the pages of Hollywood, the Macedonian cavalry commander brought his men's battle lust under control and managed to re-enter the fray, charging fiercely into the flank of Paullus' Legion. Recognising the urgency of the moment, Paullus committed his triarii to the Battle, and while the Roman Legion held firm, they became disordered under the double Macedonian assault.
Now victory appeared to hang tantalisingly within Perseus' grasp, he called out "Homunculus Est," urging his troops to claim victory. Success, the might of the Republic had broken.

A Close Call

History would remember Perseus' victory as a close escape. Had the Romans made the call at the end of the previous turn, they would have seized a stunning triumph. Overall, the Battle was a hard-fought contest, where both sides emerged battered but unbroken. Unlike the historical engagement, the 3rd Macedonian War would not end in a Pynda. Rome would seek revenge, while Perseus might have released the purse strings to purchase more mercenaries.

The Final Moves. The fighting has broken into clumps, but at the top of the picture,

the Macedonian Cavalry has turned to attack the Roman Flank

Some Thoughts

Despite the outcome, the Battle followed the historical sequence of events closely. Besides some bad dice throws, the omens favoured Macedon. 

1. The Roman light infantry's early success was a curse to Paulus. A series of poor dice rolls meant they hindered the Legion's advance. In the end, Paulus sacrificed them so he could get his legions into action, although the delay was probably costly. The opening light infantry should occur on one of the flanks rather than the centre of the battlefield. 
2. The Macedonian cavalry played a more prominent role, fulfilling its intended purpose in Successor armies. In the historical Battle, they are invisible, and the sources do not answer why they did not play a prominent part.
3. Last, the reduction in broken ground allowed Perseus to keep the Phalanx together, even when pushbacks fragmented the line. The fewer gaps were never sufficient to permit the Romans to exploit their flexibility. 

Pynda 168 BC - Part 1. Set-Up.

Strength & Honour's first supplement covers the period from Alexander the Great's conquests to Rome's defeat of Hannibal and the Successors' Kingdoms. It was one of my favourite periods, so unsurprisingly, I already owned a small mountain of 6mm miniatures that could be used to recreate these conflicts. I decided to replay the last scenario in Mark Backhouse's supplement, the Battle of Pynda, 168 BC, which marks the climax of the Third Macedonian War, where Rome's victory led to the demise of the Macedonian (Antigonid) kingdom.

Pynda - The Challenges.

1. How to rebase my 6mm figures, which were based on the traditional DBA style, with 40mm x 20mm rectangular bases. 
2. Strength and Honour work well solo, but I wanted to strengthen the uncertainty. This problem is more acute for solo wargamers when they attempt to refight a historical encounter. Therefore, I produce several What-If changes to the standard battle layout.

Rebasing

I wanted to obtain the impression of very different mass formations moving across the battlefield, a distinct advantage of using the 2mm scale. To replicate this in 6mm, I used three basing options.

1. Phalanxes and Legions. I used the standard 120mm x 60mm bases for these formations. The photo below shows the mass phalanx formation, which creates the right impression. The Roman manipular legion proved a more complex subject. Initially, I  covered it with a small block of figure offset to give the chequered board effect. However, this solution lost the impression of mass. Therefore, as suggested in the supplement, I opted for two ranks of miniatures with the triarii and velites mounted on separate bases. This is the version I adopted, but I am still looking for a better solution.

The Phalanx and the Legions on a Single Base

2. Warbands, Spears, and Light Cavalry. I left these on their original 40x20mm bases that would be slotted into a sabot base. The one addition I made was creating several blank, textured bases to add to the sabot base, producing a more significant variation of formations.

Numidian Cavalry with Extra Slot in Bases

3. Skirmishes and Elephants. I mounted these on 120x20mm bases. Therefore, they could be used as a single unit and in three skirmish formations. They could also be placed as the forward bases in a warband or other formed unit to reflect some loose troops. This was useful in representing the theurophori unit, which fought in skirmishes and tighter formations.

A Typical Successor Formation with a mixture of bases

Overall, except for the legions, I am pleased with the result.

Battle Set-Up.

Like most ancient battles, we are dealing with the best guesses for both the battlefield site and the troops involved. Overall, 

• Ancient sources like Livy and Plutarch focus on the morality and tactics of the commanders (Perseus' cowardice, Roman adaptability).
• Modern scholars reframe the battle in terms of terrain, timing, and logistics, demonstrating how chance and topography created the opportunity for the Romans. Rather than a simple morality tale, modern reconstructions present Pydna as a chaotic, hastily joined battle in which small battlefield features had outsized impacts. 

In the end, I opted for a dry river bed that crossed the battlefield, with the land gradually rising on the Roman side. As mentioned in the Strength & Honour supplement, the dry river bed did not play a significant role in the battle. More critical was the broken ground that disrupted the phalanx's advance. Most of this fractured ground was placed on the Roman side of the river, to reflect that the phalanxes only struggled with their formations once they had started to push the legion back.

What IFs

The discussions on Pydna centre around the Roman legion's mastery of the phalanx, the importance of their broken ground in the Roman victory, and Perseus' poor leadership. This led to six what if scenario changes. Throw 1d6

1. Perseus was notoriously frugal with his treasury, and the sources suggest that he had the opportunity to recruit more Galician mercenaries; therefore, consider adding another warband or cavalry unit to the Macedonians.
2. It is alleged that Perseus was ill, had poor command ability, or was a coward and played little part in the battle. To reflect this interpretation, the Macedonians cannot use the Command Board for 1d6 rounds. An alternative mechanism is that each round, the Macedonian side rolls 1d6; if the result is 1, the command board can not be used for that turn.
3. The broken ground was more important than the legion's superiority over the phalanx. Remove 1d6 pieces of open ground to open up the battlefield. This option could also test Perseus's ability to remain on the defensive ground.
4. The ancient sources emphasise Aemilius Paulus' augury skills and their impact on Roman morale. The add +2 to 'Consulting the Auguries.
5. The battle was a meeting engagement, and the Macedonian phalanx had difficulty deploying its ranks. Remove the light infantry skirmish (it has already occurred), and the Romans gain a free first move; then the initiative is decided as normal.
6. Macedonian cavalry is fartigued to simulate the friction between Perseus and his nobles.

My battle replay followed What-If 3, with less broken ground. The battle report is here.

Some Reading

The main primary sources are Livy XLIV, 40-2 and Plutarch Aemilius, 16-22. Both are derived from Polybius, but Plutarch refers to an eyewitness testimony of Scipio Nasica and a contemporary historian, Posidonius. The ancient sources focus on the morality and tactics of the commanders (Perseus' cowardice), and Roman adaptability.

 

Modern scholars, see below reframe the battle through terrain, timing, and logistics, showing how chance and topography created the Rome' victory.

Backhouse, M., (2022), Strength & Honour: Wargaming Rules for Epic Battles in the Ancient World, Reisswitz Press.

Backhouse, M., (2024), Conquest, Alexander to Hannibal. A Supplement for Strength & Honour. Reisswitz Press.

Burton, P. J., (2017), Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge

Cole, M., (2018), Legion Versus Phalanx, Osprey

Head, D., ((1982), Armies of Macedonian and Punic Wars 359BC- 146BC, drawing by I, Heath,  Wargames Research Group

Johnstono, J, & Taylor, M. J.,  (2022), 'Reconstructing the Battle of Pydna', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 62, 44-76

Sabin, P., (2009), Lost Battles. Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, Continuum

Wrightson, G., The Third Macedonian War and the Battle of Pydna, Penn & Sword.

Aquae Sextiae 102BC

I have started two major Strength and Honour projects this year: converting my 6mm Romans and Successor armies to 120mm bases and secondly, working on amendments stretching the rules into the High Medieval era. Both will be a few month's work, so in the meantime, I am playing Marius’ campaign against the Germans in the Cimbrian Wars 113-101 BC. The first battle to hit the table was Aquae Sextiae 102 BC.

If you are interested in Marius’s wars against the Northern Tribes and the military reforms of this period, a good starting point is Ospreys’ The Cimbrian Wars by Nic Fields.  

Aquae Sextiae 102 BC.

Mark Backhouse wrote an article on this battle in Wargames Soldiers & Strategy (119). In Mark’s suggested reconstruction, the battle against the Teutones and Ambrones tribes was fought in two separate engagements. The first was a skirmish near a local stream, and the second occurred a day later when the main armies clashed.

The First Action.

This action involved some skirmishers on both sides. The Romans supported their water gathers with a couple of legions and cavalry. The latter, whilst they did not fight, had a major influence on the skirmish that followed. The Ambrones lacking mounted support became clumped together and never managed to neutralised the cavalry threat on their left flank.

The skirmishers exchanged missiles but with little impact. The Ligurians on the Roman right finally managed to move through the wooded area and threaten the Ambrones’ right flank. However, the superiority of the Roman legion plus the Germans' inability to manoeuvre, due to the treat of the Roman cavalry, led to several routs. Soon, the Ambrones were seeking the safety of their camp, so they could not fight another day.

Meanwhile, Marius now having the upper hand but did not want to call 'Homunculus Est' because he wanted to inflict maximum damage to weaken the force he knew he had to face the following day.

The Second Day

Two warbands had been routed during the river skirmish, and one was unavailable on the second day. Despite these losses, the Germanic host was impressive, amounting to ten warbands plus cavalry and skirmishers. 

The Romans followed Marius’s historical tactics of holding the hill and forcing the Germans to meet them on slightly unfavourable terms. I also used the ambush option mentioned by Plutarch, and one legion was also hidden in the wood on the Roman left flank. 

The German tactics I used needed to be more sophisticated. They aimed to attach through the centre, hoping to exploit Marius’ raw legion that he had placed as part of his centre formation. They also tried to outflank the Romans on their right, where the Germans, on the face of it, had a numerical advantage.  

Opening Moves

The battle started with the Teutones and the Ambrones warbands rushing forward. The Northern tribes general knew it would be hard to keep his tribal formation as each warband would move at its maximum speed. Straight lines were not a German thing. The Romans stood their ground, although Marius tentatively moved the Ligurians forward towards a small wood supported by his cavalry.

Roman Left Wing - A Reappraisal 

The first clash was inconclusive, with equal honours, but the Teutones warbands soon threatened to envelop the Roman left, where their numbers became a major threat to Marius’ plan. For Marius, the battle soon boiled down to deciding when to trigger the ambush. The Roman left was outnumbered and under intense pressure, which caused the Romans to review their plans. Marius intended to wait until the warbands were fully committed before he unleashed the ambush. However, because of the Germans’ success on his left flank, he could not wait.

Ambush

The IV Legion was signalled to attack. At first, nothing seemed to move, and Marius feared the worst, then suddenly, the legion burst forth, hitting a Teutone warband in the flank. Luck followed Marius that day because, at their moment, the Roman cavalry gained an unexpected success on the right, and the German now found themselves with a successful flanking action on both their wings. The ‘Setback Cards’ were stacking up.

The Roman Attack Falters

Suddenly, the Germans rediscovered their fighting spirit and began to push back the legions in the centre. Marius’ raw legion suffered the worst in this counteroffensive, and Marius looked on in horror as the German veteran warriors moved closer and closer to the Roman camp. Meanwhile, the Roman success on the flanks faltered, thanks to a series of matched dice in several key melees. 

The Dam Bursts.

The German success in the end proved short-lived. In the next round of action, the legions re-found their momentum, and the flanks began to collapse as two warbands routed. Marius would not take any further risks; he had too many surprises that day. He called 'Homunculus Est'  , and the German Setback Cards, when counted, just equalled their breakpoints, and German's broke. It was a close call but victory was with the rising star of Rome

Comments 

After the double envelopment, I thought Rome had achieved its victory. All that remained was requiring enough Set Back and Disaster cards. In the end, this proved correct, but not before a couple of rounds of doubt when the Roam advance halted, and the German elite warband came within a move of the Roman camp. I love these little narrative twists that these rules produce..

Pushback 

The big learning element in this game was how to play the pushback rules when the attack came from the flank. Ultimately, I used common sense, and the pushback caused a ripple effect along the tribal frontline. I will have to do some rereading and ask some questions of the groups, but any flank attack soon proves lethal. I think this outcome is historical.

Warband Strategies?

The second question from this replay is, can I play a warband army more effectively? I find it hard to keep coherency with the maximum moved rule. Also, as warbands get support from a warband in the rear, the army tends to clump, leaving the flank open to exploitation. Therefore, the tactics I am using are unsophisticated. Either attack one element of the enemy line or a mass charge and quickly exploit any weakness that appears from this clash. More playtesting is required to develop some new ideas!

What Next?

Following his victory at Aquae Sexitae, Marius must face the Germans at Vercellae. I am also considering
playing one of these battles using To the Strongest to see how the rules differ in these historical encounters.

Strength, Honour and Chivalry

New year and a new project. I will try adapting Strength and Honour to the High Middle Ages, c. 1050-1250. I have read on the Facebook group that there is an adaption for the Late Middle Ages, but the Medieval period was a long one, about 1000 years. During this time, armour, tactics and the ethos of war changed.

Few Changes 

My starting point is that warfare in the High Middle Ages differed from warfare in the early Roman Empire, the period covered by the core rules. However, many mechanisms and troop types could easily be translated to the medieval period. However, differences do exist.

The Main Differences 

The Size of the Armies. 

Numbers are a problem for medieval chroniclers, but the overall impression is the armies were in the low 1,000s. Battles like Hastings and Hattin were the exception. This means that the base will represent a lot fewer men. An infantry base of between 1,000 and 2,000 men is my starting point. This means the battlefields are smaller, which will impact the mechanics, for example, command ranges.

Leadership. 

In Western armies, leadership had a heroic quality. The commander was usually attached to his retinue and led from the front. More Alexander than Julius Caesar. Muslim, Byzantine generals had a more classical approach to the general positioning. This will impact the Command Board and the risks to the general in combat.

Deployment. 

Honour and status had an impact on deployment. The vanguard and the rearguard were positions of honour.

Pre-Battle Sequence. 

Battles were rare. Most generals adopted a battle avoidance strategy. This makes the pre-battle manoeuvring more important. I am currently looking at adapting the Mortem et Gloriam system, which covers this aspect well with a simple set of rules.

Religion & Faith. 

What is the impact of religion - relics for auguries? It may be necessary to have a priest troop type.

Initial Scope

My initial area of concentration is the Crusades from the 1st to the 3rd Crusade because the variety of fighting cultures involved will be a good mechanics test. The main tactical styles will include the Western, knight-based armies with emerging chivalric way of war. Eastern military culture; the Muslims (sedentary, Fatimids and the Turkic ruled Damascus, etc) and Byzantine. These armies were influenced by the tactical doctrines of the Roman and Sassanid empires. Last, the culture of the steppe nomads, wild Turks and Mongols. 

The Battles Covered

The starting point is to get the scale per base correct. This will involve looking at about a dozen battles to ascertain the best scale to get 6-14 elements per side on the battlefield, but it also produces a balanced game.  The current list is; Antioch (1098), Ascalon (1099), Harran (1104), Ramla (1105), Tell Danish (1115), Field of Blood (1119), Ibelin (1123), Inab (1149), Harrim (1164),  al-Babayn (1167), Mont Gisard (1177), Hattin (1187), Acre (1190), Arsuf (1191), Gaza (1239), La Forbie (1244) and Mansurah (1250).

Not all these battles will make the cut, and the several battles fought during the siege of Acre could be turned into a mini-campaign.

Workbench 2024

This blog is always self-indulgent because it aims to set out my projects and ambitions for the forthcoming year. A similar bit of self-indulgence occurred last year, although personal circumstances made many of my ambitions attainable. However, it would be wrong to blame the vagaries of life on my failure to deliver all my projects last year. The most crucial factor was that I was too ambitious, a common trait with wargamers. Therefore, this year, I have been more constrained in my aims; although the project list is still as long, some will not see the light of day during 2024.

Campaigns

Last year, I had two campaigns that I planned to play during the year. The first was a fantasy campaign, the Second Shadow Wars, using the rules of the Fantastic Battles. This campaign saw little action since the early months of 2023. First, the campaign took an unusual turn when Umbarji Khan ( my Orcs ) suddenly died, leading to a succession crisis. I had not drawn up the maps for all the Umbarji realms, nor did I have detailed biographies of the various brothers and sons that would contest the Blood Throne. Finally, I needed rules to cover these surprise developments. 

I have learnt from this campaign to stop trying to develop everything myself and take some of the work the other enthusiasts have placed on the web. Therefore, I plan to play the Umbarji Civil War by adapting some one-page campaign rules and personality-driven mechanics in Henry Hyde's 'Wargaming Campaigns'.

In the meantime, the original campaign centred on the Wilderness Steppes will concentrate on the struggle for the Lakeside towns. Due to his father's death, Ozbeg has been drawn into the struggles with his family and has left the Wilderness campaign to one of the leading generals, Doba Skullcrusher, to conduct the war on his southern border. Again, this will involve looking at off-the-shelf campaign roles, using a hex system, or even returning to such old favourites as Mighty Empires. 

The Tomb of the Serpent

The second campaign used the Pulp Alley and their Tomb of the Serpent campaign.  This is now halfway through, and I plan to complete this during the year. Slade Horton and his companions from the Mace Institute are now crossing the desert in search of the Serpent’s tomb, where they will come face-to-face with the Egyptian God of chaos, Apophis. I have fallen in love with this band of adventures and plan to translate them to other game systems, so expect to see the Mace Institute appear in alternative World War II adventures. 

Recreating Battles.

I have two recreations near completion in painting and research, and they will hit the table in the first quarter of 2024. The first is the Battle of Crediton in 1643, where I'll reenact the battle using the Twilight of Divine Right rules, and maybe another replay, using For King and Parliament. 

Marius and the German Invasion

The next set of battles re-fight the battles between Marius and the Germans, Aquae Sextiae (102BC) and  Vercellae (101BC). These will be played using Strength and Honour rules. However, these battles are essentially holding games whilst I start to work on the big projects of 2024, Hellenistic World and Rome's Expansion. Why start this new development? 

Partly anticipating Mark Backhouse's supplement to cover this early period; it is my favourite era of Ancient History.  The main difference is this era will be played using 6mm figures rather than 2mm because I have a box of painted minis that have been unloved for several years. Rebasing and some in-filling of figures will be required, but hopefully, this will not be too burdensome. Unsure of the first battle, try to get to the table, but the following are on the list: Paraitatiene (317 BC), Ilipa (206 BC) and Pynda (168 BC).

Wellington in the Peninsula 

This project was on the list last year and is slowly progressing in 2 mm. 2mm is ideal for this era because it gives the authentic flavour of the mass movement of large bodies of men across the battle field. Once the painting is completed for the Battle of Vimero (1808), moving on to the other conflicts of the Peninsula campaign will be easy. 

Lion Rampart, Saga and Midgard 

The one campaign I completed last year was my Feud campaign set in the period before the Magna Carta. I plan to turn my interests to the Early Medieval period, where I will experiment with several rules, including Lion Rampart, Saga and yet-to-be-released Midgard. All three games have the potential to play a Fantasy version, so I may dig out some old 28mm Citadel miniatures to set up some small-scale fantasy battles. I plan to have some extra stuff painted by the excellent Matt Slade to give some of my old armies a new flavour. Ultimately, I may extend these one-off battles into some form of campaign. I'm interested in doing an alternative breakdown of Roman authority in Britain. Where the invaders may have been dwarves and their allies. 

Skirmish Games and Roleplay

Besides using Pulp Alley for the Tomb of the Serpent campaign. I have employed 7TV to bring the swashbuckling character of the Leopard to life as he fights his way through politics in war and the time of the English Civil War. I plan to join these adventures together and publish them as a set of scenarios. 7TV system is also being used for my Sword and Sandles project where a Greek demi-god will take on numerous quests, a mixture of Xena, Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. However, this idea is still in its early days.  

Superhero Genre

The last area skirmish is superheroes. In 2023, I played the first part of my mini-campaign when the evil Dr Nicholas Amargus (DNA) attempted to brainwash San Diego with his mind-bending gases. I adapted Pulp Alley for this first game, but for the second instalment, I will use Super Mission Force, which is designed for the genre using the gaol system. While these adventures are going on, I am building two teams of superheroes from the Golden Age who will fight Hitler's minions. 

Dungeon and Dragons

Connected to the skirmish games is my renewed interest in role-play, where the character develops even more. A magazine I found in the supermarkets made me to re-look at Dungeons & Dragons. I have found that since I last role-played – in the 1980s- enthusiasts have done much work on playing solo adventures. I plan to use these ideas and employ AI as a tool to help the game master.  I hope to post a blog on my thinking behind this and how it can generally impact wargaming. 

Naval 

I am planning a small Kiss Me Hardy game based on the scenario in one of the Lardies' magazines that is set off the island of Corsica. I am still struggling to find a set of ancient naval roles that reflect the era's sea battles. At the moment, I'm tempted to take up one of the ideas that came out of a discussion between Henry Hyde and Simon Miller of using To the Strongest mechanism for naval engagements. This could be a large project if I decide to undertake this challenge. Whatever, nothing is likely to appear next year. 

 

Some Final Thoughts

No doubt, as a wargaming magpie, some other distraction will draw me off in an unforeseen direction. Games Workshop has re-hacked the old Epic 40,000 as Legion Imperialis. A reminder of time playing Warhammer, so I am likely to give the game a try. No doubt there will be others.

I also hope to attend a couple of shows and a 'Lardie Day'. Whilst, I remain mainly a solo warmer, the hobby has a fantastic community that always gives me a boost. However, these events often provide the seeds for another project. Chain of Command has lingered in the back of my mind since my outing to Nottingham last year.

Phalanxes are Coming

A long-term project is to re-fight the struggles between Alexander the Great’s Successors, including Rome’s eventual conquest of the Greek East. Mark Backhouse is working on this supplement that will cover the early part of this period, but it’s not likely available until later this year. In the meantime, I thought getting experience handling a phalanx-based army would be helpful.

Chaeronea 86BC

The basic rules of Strength and Honour include one such engagement, Sulla’s victory over Mithridates’ army at Chaeronea 86BC. In this battle, the Pontic army led by Archelaus deployed four phalanx bases, forming the core Mithridatic force against Sulla’s five legions supported by their allies.

Like most ancient battles, very little is known of the order of battle, and the reports of the fight itself need to be clarified over the sequence of events. However, we have two primary sources. Appian and Plutarch provide a reasonable commentary on the battle., In addition, there are modern interpretations of Chaeronea in Philip Matyszak's book ‘Mithradates the Great’ and in Adrienne Mayor’s’.‘Poison King'.

Reconstructing the BattleAs I wanted to test out the strengths and weaknesses of the phalanx army, I decided to re-fight the battle as close as possible to the original. Therefore, I changed the Strength and Honour scenario’s deployment. I moved the river from behind the Pontic forces to the Roman right flank, but it would have little on the battle itself.

Matyszak’s reconstruction

1. The battle opens on his left flank; Murena, Sulla’s flank commander, attacked the Pontic right wing.
2. The Pontic chariots charged the Roman legions in the centre of the Sulla line. The chariots' failure led to a general Roman advance.
3. The phalanxes pinned the legion, a typical Hellenistic tactic, and the action moved to the wings.
4. The Pontic sub-Commander, Taxiles, extended the left wing and tried to outflank the Romans. Murena's cavalry struggled now struggled against the superior numbers and required support from some unengaged cohorts and the cavalry on the Roman right led by Sulla himself.
5. The movement of Sulla cavalry from the right led to the Pontic attacking the Roman right wing, forcing Sulla to return.
6. Finally, the legions began to get the upper hand against the phalanxes, and the Pontic attack on the flanks disintegrated, and the wing commands crumbled. This led to the phalanxes being exposed, and the battle was lost.

My Reconstruction

My recreation followed roughly this series of events. The Roman attack on the left was initially successful but was pushed back by the Pontic counterattack. Meanwhile, the chariots proved as ineffectual as in the actual battle and quickly disappeared from the field. The legions now advanced but became pinned by the phalanxes.

Murena and the god of dice

In the reconstruction, the Pontic attack on the Roman left wings never had a significant impact, mainly because Murena’s cavalry had the god of dice riding with him. His success in combat was quickly followed up by some awful discipline test by the Pontic left wing, which promptly collapsed. Sulla's help was never required, and the Pontic attack against the Roman right failed to make any headway. The Pontic general was now using up his command board chits to hold some form of force on the left, but in the end, it routed.

Homunculus Eat

The phalanxes now found themselves pinned by the legions, and a series of inclusive melees occurred between them across the centre. Meanwhile, the Pontic left finally collapsed. Sulla called Homunculus Est, but unfortunately for him too early, by one point. However, the Pontic army was now fatigued and running out of command chits and options. The game was effectually won despite removing a five-card from the Pontic setback/disaster hand. The phalanxes, now isolated in the centre, became prey to the Roman flank forces.

Some Thoughts

Overall, another enjoyable battle, and it did follow the historical sequence of events as I could reconstruct them. For me, more phalanx practice is required. The phalanx is an excellent defensive unit, but I must learn to use them more aggressively. I need to know to time the use of the supporting cavalry better. Finally, next time I leave the chariots in the garage.

Anyway, until the supplement arrives, I plan to recreate some more of Mithradates’ battles.

Workbench 2023

This blog is self-indulgent; it is just a list of the projects I hope to complete in 2023. However, it might give the reader inspiration or ideas for their games. Like most wargamers, I have long project lists, which I am always willing to add despite their minimal chances of reaching the table.

My Campaigns

My first group are those projects I started in 2022 and need to continue or complete. Overall, in 2022 I was better at getting games to the table and averaged about two games a month. I also started two campaigns. The first is a Fantastic Battles campaign, using my own campaign rules to fight the 2nd Shadow Wars. In 2023 I need to continue to develop the rules and move to the next campaign year as an Umbarji (Orc) civil war begins to brew. The second is my Pulp Alley campaign, Tomb of the Serpent, which has now moved to Cario as the heroes try to stop the ancient Egyptian god, Apophis. 

Strength & Honour and Lion Rampant

The other two ‘banker’ games are Strength & Honour and Lion Rampant. For the former, 2023 is the year of the phalanx, as I see how the rules deal with these hedgehogs of the ancient world. Initially, the focus was on Rome’s wars against Mithradates, but the aim was to run a 1st Punic War or Hellenistic campaign. Hopefully, Mark Backhouse will have completed his early Roman supplement to the game and coupled with my research; the campaign will be ready to play in 2024. For Lion Rampart, the first objective is to play the last battle of my Feud campaign before moving eastwards to play something from the Early Medieval period, including the twelfth-century Latin East (Outremer).

Two other projects are centred around games that use the Lion Rampart framework. The first employs the ‘The Men Who Would be King’ (TMWWBK) rules, where the idea is to follow the campaigns of Neil’s Blue Caps (The 1st Madras Fusiliers) during the Indian Mutiny/Rebellion. Most of the preparation has been done, so I should be able to play the first game in 2023. The second is to use the 'Xenos Rampant' game to fight an alternative WWII setting, where Dad’s Army takes on Cthulhu-led Third Reich. This is planned for the last quarter of my painting schedule goes to plan.

God’s Scale 2mm.

The next group of projects centres around the 2mm and can be briefly but inaccurately described as Black Powder games. I recently played the Napoleonic corp-level game, Blucher, using card markers, which I found very enjoyable. I am looking at some other divisional/operational rules, and the plan is to play several Peninsula War battles at both the corp (battle) and divisional levels. The first battle on the list is Vimeiro (1808). The second element of the 2mm adventure is the English Civil War and other conflicts from the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. I will use the Twilight Rules (Divine Right and the Sun King). The first game will be the Battle of Cheriton (1644), followed by Edgehill (1642). I am also reading about other battles of this era and may try something from the Thirty Years' War or the Great Northern War. One of the Twilight rules is that they are well served with historical battle scenarios.

Naval Wargaming

Naval wargaming is the third main area and a genre often ignored by landlubbers. I plan to use small scales to refight some classic naval actions. The adventure starts with the Age of Sail, with a refight of small engagements after Trafalgar, Cape Ortegal (1805). Ecnomus (256 BCE) will be the ancient venture which will link into my preparations for a1st Punic War or Hellenistic campaign. Last on the list is Cape Matapan (1941) from WWII, a period I have never played before. For each period, the starting point is the rules by Long Face Games.

Workbench

The last area is my workbench, where I have several skirmish games. This range from swashbuckling rules, ‘Flashing Steel’ to the Superhero genre employing Four Color Studios rules. I also want to try out 7TV rules and scenarios because of the excellent narrative element. The last pile on the list is some old Kickstarter board games I need to play or sell. What's familiar about all the games on the workbench, they involve a small number of figures and terrain, which I already have in my collection.
The Brown Book Initiative

Brown Books!

I love to write down ideas and how my thinking on a game develops. This motivates the blog, but I wanted something more spontaneous. So I bought some cheap brown notebooks and labelled them for each project under development. Each book will have my thoughts on the scale, rules, some research and how I plan a game or campaign. These will feed into this blog here, so there is more of a narrative between blogs.
Closing Remarks

Well, it's longer than I thought, and I have bitten off too much, but isn't that what all wargamers do? To this list, I have to add the new shiny rules and figures that appear in 2023, which will distract me in new directions. Already, I heard that the Two Fat Lardies are publishing a western gunslinger skirmish game; now that is a setting I have not tried!

Enjoy your gaming.

Strength & Honour

Strength and Honour is a new set of ancient battles written by Mark Backhouse and published by the Two Fat Lardies' Reisswitz Press. The rules recreate the battles from the Late Republic to Early Empire, i.e., from the Marian reforms 105BC to about 200AD. In this era, the protagonists fielded massive armies, 20,000 men a side was not unusual. Therefore, while the rules are scale agnostic, they are aimed at a 2mm scale where a base represents a whole Roman legion, some 4,000 to 6,000 men. Conversely, a Celtic or German Warband could account for 8,000 warriors. Using this small scale, the player might lose the majesty of a painted cohort on the march but gains a virtually stunning battlefield.

Army Lists

The army lists provided not only cover Rome, Gauls and German, but lists are also provided for the Numidians, Spanish, Ancient Britons and the armies of Mithridates. These lists give the gamer a wide range of tactical approaches to the period's warfare. The Mithridatic phalanx in 2mm looks particularly stunning, so I am hoping for a supplement to cover the Early Republic and the Successor States. Mark has also provided scenarios for ten historical battles, including Chaeronea (86BC), Bagradas River (49BC), Watling Street (60/61AD), and 2nd Cremona (69AD) during the civil wars that brought Vespasian to power. Other battles can be found on the Facebook page dedicated to the rules.

Most of these scenarios involved 6 Roman legions and a slightly larger number of war bands. This means the painting requirement is small, and the cost of entry is low. Reisswitz has produced paper armies that can be stuck to the bases for those who want to play immediately so they are ready for battle.

The Rules

I will not provide a detailed games review, but four mechanisms give this rule a unique feel.

1. Grid movement coupled with some randomness to the distance covered makes movement easy but keeps a level of uncertainty. 
2. The idea of a reversal of futures when a command action fails, and the initiative passes to the opponent. This makes the length of a turn variable, something found in other Fat Lardies games and makes the commander plan carefully the order he moves his troops. The mechanism reflects, IMO, that manoeuvring huge blocks of men around with only the use of messengers and signals is fraught with difficulty.
3. The Command Board is another device that sets the game apart. This board reflects the general’s influence over the battle. The number of tokens available is based on the army, the general and by Consulting the Auguries, the random element. The tokens, some great-looking coins available from Warbases, are then placed on the Command Board, reflecting the general's strategy. Playing these tokens allows the general to influence manoeuvre, attack, defence or rally his men. However, these valuable resources must be used carefully, as I found to my cost.The last game mechanic is the Setback and Disaster cards. These cards are printed with a number on their reverse that remains hidden. A setback in the battle leads to the player drawing a card which remains invisible to both sides. When the general thinks his opponent has passed his breakpoint, he declares ‘Homunculus Est’. The cards are then revealed and counted. If the cards exceed the breakpoint, the battle is lost. However, if the commander has called too earlier, the surviving player can discard a card.

My First Battle

My starter game was the Cicilian Gates (39BC), a small action during the Caesar and Pompey Civil Wars. Wikipedia provides a summary of the historical battle - Battle_of_the_Cilician_Gates. The sides are relatively small for Strength & Honour, two legions aside with supporting skirmishers and cavalry.

The Parthians/Pompeians had the advantage in cavalry, plenty of light horses and the dreaded cataphracts, but their infantry needed to be more experienced than the Caesarians. For me, the troop types set the strategy. The Pompeian light horse would harass the Caesarian wings while the centre held its position. The aim was to weaken the flanks making Bassus’s (the Caesarian commander) legions vulnerable on the flank. The Ceasarians had two options: to remain on the high ground and draw the Parthians and Pompeians to their defensive position or smash through the enemy’s centre. I went for the latter because of the threat of the light horse in trying to maintain this static position, and it seemed more Roman.

The battle started well for the Romans. After consulting the auguries, they rolled double six, which gave them an impressive Command Board that could maintain their attacking strategy.
The battle started with the light horse moving forward as the Caesarian legions moved down the hill. Skirmishers and the Parthian light horse exchanged fire on the right, with the skirmishers getting the better of the Parthians. Some terrible dice rolls here. On the left wing, the Parthians were more successful, as the Caesarian horse were harassed with bow fire but too scared to move forward because of the threat of the cataphracts.

The Pompeian's legions decided to hold their position across the road a let the cavalry for their job. The Parthian light horse on the right continued to be unlucky and eventually decided to call it a day. Here was my big error. I should have used the resources on the Command board better to give the Parthian light horse more support. However, with the Parthian/Pompeian left flank collapsing, the weaker legion became fodder for the better Caesarian legions. Finally, ‘Homunculus Est’ was called, and what remained of the Parthian/Pompeians fled.

An enjoyable game.

Since then, I have played Caesar v Ariovistus’ Germans. The game involved 6 Roman legions and eight tribal warbands, each with their supporting cavalry. This one was a close call but Caeser triumphs but only just.