In 238 BC, Diodotus
governor of Bactria, used the Parthian rebellion to assert his independence. Seleucus
II planned expedition would seek to recover the region, first dealing with the
Parthian before moving against the Bactrian province.
This historical conflict continues
the usage of one command enlarged to 24 elements. The composition of both
forces is listed below with the Graeco-Bactrian fielding both options listed to
reach their total of 24 elements.
Seleucus invades the
territory of Bactria which is characterised by steppe terrain features; two
gentle hills, and rocky or scrub ground.
Game one
The Bactrian with superior
numbers of mounted troops easily stretched their battle line beyond that of the
Seleucid army. At the start, the Bactrian quickly enveloped the Seleucid left,
but in the ensuing combat came off the worst for their effort. Incurring heavy
casualties (3 – 0) the Bactrian commander probed for weaknesses between the
phalanx and left wing. This proved successful with the destruction of units to
include the elephant and chariot corps bringing the score even (5 – 5).
Alarmed at the breach in
the line, Seleucus led half the phalanx to stave off the impending Bactrian
threat. Caught in the cavalry maelstrom, the Seleucid general became wounded generating
a panic among his troops. Sensing the indecisive activity among the Seleucid,
the Bactrians seized the break in combat to reform their troops for the
decisive blow. This came giving Bactria a
victory over Seleucus, 5 – 9 + CinC.
(13 turns, under one hour)
Game two
Seleucus now formed two
wings with the right wing positioned forward. This comprised of the phalanx,
elephant corps and supporting infantry. The supporting wing on the left
contained the chariots and Xystophoroi. To counter this, the Bactrian placed
their phalanx in centre with Iranian lancers positioned in support to the right
of the phalanx all the Greek cavalry. Extending both flanks were all the
Bactrian light horse.
As the Bactrian phalanx
marched steadily forward, Bactrian light horse attacked the Seleucid right
forcing their commander to send troops to recover the situation. Unfortunately,
the situation became critical as parts of the Seleucid phalanx had to face new
threats on their flank. In the melee that followed, casualties fell heavily on
both sides with the Bactrian having a slight advantage (5 – 7). The final
stroke came when Bactrian reserves charged the Galatian mercenaries cutting
them down to a man. Victory Bactria 5 – 9.
(9 turns in 45”)
Game three
Following two setbacks,
the Seleucid deployed in a compact formation with Xystophoroi cavalry forming a
reserve. The Bactrians too deployed in a compact formation, but this was due to
the constrictive nature of ground rather than a need to match the Seleucid tattle
line. This placed their phalanx opposite the Seleucid chariot and elephant
corps.
For a period, weather
conditions hampered proper signalling (poor pip scores) on both sides and after
an hour (four turns) both armies shuffled forward to meet in the centre.
Iranian lancers charged Seleucid
phalanx and held their advance long enough for supporting troops could turn its
flank. At the same time, Bactrian light horse now threatened the Seleucid left
raising alarm bells for their commander. To contain the threat, Seleucus moved
the Xystophoroi held in reserve and chariots to contain the Bactrian threat. This
became critical as Seleucus became wounded and was carried off the field
leaving overall command of the army to his second in command (1 – 3 +SCh +
CinC).
Assessing the situation, the
second in command moved forward to reform troops. In this moment, the Bactrian
redoubled their efforts to take out the chariots and an elephant to widen the gap
between their centre and left wing.
Avenging their general,
the Seleucid phalanx charged the Iranian lancers. Galatian mercenaries joined
the battle by attacking the Greek cavalry to their front. The renewed effort
tipped the balance leaving a stunned Bactrian general no option but to leave
the field. Score Seleucid 7 -9
(10 turns 1:20”)
Double the number listed
below will bring the total to 24 elements for each command.
The Seleucid
1 x General (3Kn), 1 x
Xystophoroi (3Kn), 4 x phalangites (4Pk), 1 x Thracians (4Ax), 1 x scythed
chariot (SCh), 1 x elephant (El), 1 x Galatian (4Wb), 2 x archers (Ps).
Graeco-Bactrian
1 x General (3Kn), 2 x Arachosian
and Saka cavalry (LH), 2 x Iranian lancers (3Kn), 1 x elephant (El), 4 x
phalangites (4Pk), 1 x military settlers (3/4Ax), 1 x Cretan archers (Ps).
and
1 x General (3Kn), 3 x
Arachosian and Saka cavalry (LH), 4 x Iranian lancers (3Kn), 4 x Bactrian
(Cv/LH),
Note:
The loss of the CinC counts
as two elements when calculating scores. In both these tests, the loss of the CinC
meant overall command moved to the sub-ordinate. Command distance is measured
from the subordinate general (8BW) which in both cases left a number of troops
outside coverage. Those troops beyond command distance still require the additional
pip cost to move.
Nice bat rep
ReplyDeleteNice to see my beloved Seleucids emerge with a wind in the final game. I still believe in fielding pike elements as double elements to stop pike armies being outflanked all the time. I can see little evidence to suggest this was the 'norm'.
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the battles of Magnesia and Cynoscephalae did demonstrate the vulnerability of the deep pike formations. In the former, the phalanx on the left wing were threatened on both flank and rear while rough terrain disrupted the formation in the latter that Roman units could strike their open flanks.
ReplyDeleteThe sole victory for the Seleucid was a result of improved deployment and timely use of supporting troops.
I agree phalanx flanks are vulnerable but in neither of those two battles do I believe the pike based army's frontage was shorter - pretty sure it was longer at Magnesia. I also don't fully buy the rough ground argument at Cynoscephalae; one wing did fine on the ground and the other was still deploying when engaged and I think that was the bigger determinant.
Delete