"CRAZY" FOR CHAERONEA – PART 1
A Solo Wargamer Hosts His Own Battle Day
Due primarily to geographic location but also a severe lack of discretionary funds, I have never had the pleasure and privilege of attending the annual Battle Day event hosted by The Society of Ancients [1]. Were I labeled a cockeyed optimist, I would probably remark that I have a perfect record of never being in the room(hall) where a single historical battle is wargamed in a variety of scales and with many different rule sets on the same day. On a note less South Pacific, more serious, and realistically positive, I have had the privilege of staging several of the selected engagements on my tabletop. I have also had the pleasure of seeing my reports on these efforts appear in print [2].
The selection of Montaperti for Battle Day 2014 does not really appeal to me. However, I do look forward to reading the online and traditional coverage of the proceedings, as well as studying the pictures of the various tables populated by what I imagine will be terrific-looking troops. Interested in participating in this year's gathering (at least in some fashion), about six weeks prior to the scheduled event, I came up with the idea of putting together my own Battle Day. Instead of Montaperti, 1260 AD, I chose Chaeronea, 338 BC [3]. Being a practicing soloist, I could not wargame the selected action on many tables over the course of a single day, but I could manage (or at least hoped to manage) three refights over the course of a couple of months. As for rules, I planned an alphabetical approach. My first game would be played using the newly acquired Armati 2nd Edition rules written by the team of Wolksy and Conliffe. Rick Priestley's colorful and popular Hail Caesar would adjudicate the second refight. The third and final tabletop battle of Chaeronea would be played using Lorenzo Sartori's colorful, popular, and spiral-bound IMPETVS rules.
In a perfect wargaming world, I would have an extensive collection of 15mm Ancients. The thousands of figures (representing some 20 historical armies – from the Biblical Era to the late Medieval period) would be based as Epic Scale Units. Were this the actual case, and if one accepted a unit to man ratio of 1 unit represented 1,000 men, I would require approximately 30 units of Allied, Athenian, and Theban hoplites to represent the Greek heavy infantry present at Chaeronea [4]. In Armati 2, Epic Units have a frontage of 8 centimeters. Placed edge to edge, the 30 units of allied hoplites would take up almost 95 inches of tabletop. Allowing for the river and marshy ground on the right of this defensive line, the hill and acropolis on the left, and allowing for space between hoplite contingents, a table 12-feet long seems quite sufficient. Does this mean that one has to have a 12-foot table in order to wargame Chaeronea? Obviously not. But how does the interested gamer go about staging Chaeronea if he only has a 6 by 4-foot table?
My approach was simply this: I took the length of the table and divided it by the number of units determined to be in the Greek army. The standardized frontage for every unit in the Allied army was 1.5 inches. Placed end to end, my adjusted Greek army would occupy 60 inches of a table 72 inches long. I would have some room – not a lot mind you – for space between the contingents, as well as some space for the major terrain features of the historical battlefield [5].
The final draft of my Armati 2 order of battle looked like this:
The Allied Greek Army [6]
Heavy Divisions – 6; Light Divisions – 4; Initiative – 4; Army Break Point – 10
2 x Athenian Generals: Lysicles and Chares, each valued as 1 key unit
10 x Athenian Hoplite Units – 6[1]1 +2 Spears at 4 break points each
8 x Allied Hoplite Units – 7[1]1 +2 Spears at 4 break points each
1 x Theban General: Theagenes, valued at 1 key unit
10 x Theban Hoplites – 7[1]1 +2 Spears at 4 break points each
1 x Theban Hoplite Unit – 7[1]1 + 2 Spears at 5 break points [veterans]
1 x Sacred Band Unit – 8[2]2 +2 Spears at 4 break points
6 x Peltast Units – 4[1]2 +1 Javelins at 2 break points each
4 x Skirmish Units – 3[1]2 +2 and 2[1]1 +2 Javelins/Slings/Bows at 1 break point each
The Macedonian Army [7]
Heavy Divisions – 7; Light Divisions – 4; Initiative – 7; Army Break Point – 10
1 x King Philip II – valued at 2 key units
1 x Alexander – valued at 1 key unit
2 x Units of Hypaspists – 8[2]3 +2 Spears at 4 break points each
1 x Unit of Hypaspists – 8[2]3 +2 Spears at 5 break points [veterans]
22 x Units of Pike Phalanx – 7[0]0 +1 at 4 break points each
2 x Units of Pike Phalanx – 7[0]0 +1 at 5 break points each [veterans]
3 x Units of Heavy Cavalry – 4[0]0 +1 Various at 3 break points each
1 x Unit of Light Cavalry – 3[0]0 +1 Xystons at 2 break points
6 x Peltast Units – 4[1]2 +1 Javelins at 2 break points each
4 x Skirmish Units – 3[1]2 +2 Javelins or Slings at 1 break point each
The landscape of my first Chaeronea battlefield was simple; I imagine that a majority would dismiss it outright as primitive. Preferential point taken. A section of table (about 3 inches in width and 18 inches long) on the far right of the Greek Allied deployment was labeled "river/marsh." The far left of the table was designated as steep hill. This terrain feature was approximately 4 inches wide and 24 inches long. The forward portion of this area (a rough square measuring 3 inches on each side) was designated as the acropolis. Both terrain features started on the Greek Allied long-edge of the table [8].
With regard to deployment, I set up my table to look like the diagram on page 68 of WARFARE. Alexander, all of the cavalry, and a number of light infantry and skirmisher units were arranged on the left of the Macedonian line. There were four "divisions" of pikemen deployed in the center of the field. The "division" on the left was furthest from the enemy; the "division" on the right was closer to the enemy hoplites. The Macedonian right was completed by the Hypaspists and more light infantry along with skirmishers. King Philip was behind the 3-unit formation of Hypaspists. As for the Greeks, the Athenians held the left, the allied contingents were arranged in the center, and the Thebans – along with the Sacred Band – faced the Macedonian cavalry and Alexander. The Allied line also had light infantry and skirmishers on each flank.
BATTLE SUMMARY
Over the last weekend of February, history was repeated on my tabletop. The "miniature" battle was not an exact replica of the historical engagement, however. It did mirror the description offered by Diodorus in that it was "fierce and bloody." In addition to a large number of light units, a total of 17 key units (10 Greek, 7 Macedonian) were broken and routed. To both my horror and humor, the ascendent Alexander spent the entire contest dithering about on the Macedonian left flank. His heavy cavalry were forced to make a series of complex moves in order to get out of the way of a bent-on-melee Theban phalanx. The fair-haired son of King Philip spent the remainder of the day safely tucked behind the ranks of a block of Macedonian pikemen.
The light troops of both sides engaged in smaller battles within the larger engagement. With a little help from a unit of heavy horse, the Macedonians were able to prevail on their left. The right flank was a different story. Here, units from both sides executed about face moves and chased each other on the periphery of the main clash. The Athenians eventually took control, forcing the enemy peltasts to withdraw in the face of advancing heavy infantry. Given the echelon arrangement of King Philip's formations, it was only logical that the Hypaspists were the first to come to grips with the enemy hoplites. Here, the Athenians were outclassed and suffered as a result. However, the Macedonians were outnumbered on this far flank by roughly three to one. Fortunately, the Athenians did not have the speed or the command and control required to wheel their unengaged hoplites onto the exposed right of the Macedonian line. In the center of the field, the allied contingents and the Thebans gave the phalanx a rough time. For a couple of turns, even though King Philip retained the move option and melee direction for the entire battle, it looked as if the Greeks might push their way through the Macedonian center. Fortunately, the pike phalanx held long enough for the units on the right of the line to take out more Athenians and more allied hoplites. Turn 10 witnessed the rout of the tenth allied unit and subsequent collapse of the Greek army.
Curiously, not a single general had lost his life on the field of honor. Then again, not a single general had attached himself to a unit heavily engaged in melee. Given that Alexander did not have any particular role in this refight (other than hiding), it comes as no surprise that the vaunted Sacred Band never stabbed a spear or raised a sword in anger. This unit was on the far right of the right-most Theban division. This group of Thebans did not become involved until the very last turns of the battle. Here, too, they enjoyed an initial advantage against the enemy pikemen.
COMMENTARY
I do suppose I could be critical and complain about the lack of a feint maneuver by King Philip and the complete lack of any dashing cavalry exploits by the young Alexander. But this strikes me as rather unproductive. Yes, I was trying to refight the historical battle of Chaeronea. I was not trying to replicate the exact sequence of events, depending on which authority and which account you champion. Perhaps it would have been more exciting had Alexander crashed through the enemy lines and turned on and surrounded the Sacred Band. Perhaps it would have been more thrilling had his father executed the alleged maneuver and drawn the Athenians to their historical doom. As it turned out, it was pretty exciting without the King's strategy or Alexander's exploits. The Thebans, and to a certain extent the allied contingents, certainly gave the pike phalanx a bloody nose on my primitive but functional tabletop. I cannot help but wonder how the wargame would have turned out had I kept the Athenians in a defensive posture. As just described, they were not held back and they suffered accordingly. All things considered, I think it went pretty well. I enjoyed staging and gaming the historical battle with my new copy of Armati 2. I did not have any problems with the rules. At the risk of admitting a bias, I would hazard to suggest that Hail Caesar and IMPETVS have their work cut out for them. At the same time, I am very curious to see how this battle goes with a different set of rules.
Notes
[1] My flight to London would cover approximately 4,000 miles. A train or rented car would take me the rest of the way to Milton Keynes. I have not calculated the price of a round-trip ticket or the cost of meals and lodging for what I would imagine would be at least three to five days in England, but I believe the total amount would be breath-taking. Even so, attending Battle Day remains on my "wargaming bucket list."
[2] Gaugamela was the contest selected for the First Battle Day. In July of 2012, my report of a Hail Caesar version appeared on the LONE WARRIOR BLOG. The Sambre was the battle chosen for 2005. My treatment was published in Issue 176 of LONE WARRIOR. For 2007, it was Cynoscephalae. I was actually ahead of schedule on this refight, as my report appeared in the January-February 2004 issue of MWAN. In 2009, Callinicum was selected. I do recall wargaming this battle and writing about it, but I don't believe it was submitted for consideration. My examination of Zama appeared in the February and March 2010 issues of Miniature Wargames, just prior to the scheduled Battle Day event. In April of 2011, my report on refighting Chalons was published. Two years later, The Society selected this fifth century fight for its Battle Day event. It is perhaps worth noting that the majority of my refights were wargamed using Armati and Advanced Armati.
[3] In early February of 2014, I was introduced to a map, order of battle, and summary explanation for the 362 BC battle of Mantinea courtesy of page 65 in WARFARE IN THE CLASSICAL WORLD. (See "A Makeshift Model of Mantinea," posted to SOA – Battle Reports, and TMP – Ancient Battle Reports, on February 19.) Pages 68 and 69 contain the diagrams, order of battle, and summary explanation for Chaeronea. In some ways then, the choice of seemed like a logical progression.
[4] The order of battle provided on page 69 of WARFARE details 10,000 Athenian hoplites, 12,000 Theban hoplites, and 8,000 hoplites from Allied city-states like Euboea, Corinth, Megara, etc. The Wikipedia entry does not list exact numbers but informs that scholars believe the numbers on both sides were approximately equal. Reading the translation of the relevant passage from Diodorus [Ancient History Sourcebook] shows that numbers are provided only for the Macedonian army. Very generally speaking, these totals match the numbers provided in WARFARE.
[5] I briefly considered using Intro scale units as described and diagrammed on page 1 of the Armati rules. These "basic" units have a frontage of 4 centimeters in 15mm scale. Forty units of Greek Allies, deployed one after the other in a single line of battle, would occupy just about 63 inches of tabletop.
[6] The Athenian hoplites are given a lower frontal fighting value to reflect their inexperience. This decision was made after reading the Wikipedia account, wherein reference is made to an account of the battle by Polyaenus. Evidently, the Athenian infantry was newly raised and so, not quite as experienced or fit for battle as were the Macedonian phalagnites.
The peltasts (light infantry) and skirmishers of the Greek Allies had the same frontage as the heavy infantry units even though each unit represented approximately 500 actual troops. The similar frontage for light and heavy infantry was the product of borrowing Rule Variant 7 – Double Frontage LI and LHI, originally posted to the Armati Yahoo Forum on September 3, 2008 [Message 31095 by RodgerUK1].
[7] For this refight, I assigned King Philip II a greater key unit value than most Armati generals and made his son only worth 1 key unit, as he had not yet earned his historical name. I also gave the Macedonians 3 veteran formations. All of these were foot units as, on reviewing the material, I was not convinced that Companion cavalry (at least the ones I am familiar with) were present on the battlefield. Of course, I could be very much mistaken in this interpretation.
[8] The map on page 68 of WARFARE shows three rivers in addition to the Cephissus. One water course runs along the far right of Macedonian line, while two rivers (streams?) essentially divide the opposing armies into three sections. In my research of the battle, I could not find confirmation of the existence and location of these waterways. Therefore, I did not place three more rivers on the tabletop.
sets the record straight.
