"Raphia in Dallas - May 14" Topic

I am planning on running Raphia at Consimworld Expo in Dallas the weekend of May 14th. It is a boardgame convention, but since I am using modified rules from GMT's Simple Great Battles of History, it should fit in. Anyone interested, I will run the game as many times as there is interest on Saturday. Play takes about 2-3 hours. The game is played on a 5'x18'table with several thousand figs.

expodallas.consimworld.com

Parts of the game shown here, but the table shown here is reduced from what it will be at the Con. Up to 4 players per side. Rules very quick to learn.

link

I'll look forward to seeing the photos!

The Duke's Raphia games are legendary. I urge anyone in The Metroplex to participate if possible.

Exceedingly impressive. Wish I was closer. Best of luck!

Very cool. One thing to note. The map is a little out of date.
The Greeks should be phalangites too. But often folks find it more fun to have hoplites or thureophoroi.
I too have come to the conclusion that the type of Ptolemaic elephants were not the deciding issue. Being outnumbered three to two on the right wing and aggressive tactics there were the key. The left wing Seleucid elephants did nothing except demonstrate against the more equal sized Ptolemaic right wing, so size and type and training meant nothing there.
I need to update my map and my page. I'm glad you have included th elinks to the genetic information on Eretria elephants. Sad that the researcher collecting the data was killed in the civil wars.
Sounds like a great Raphia game presentation and game format.

the elephant issue is an interesting one and not nearly as 'resolved' as some of the current writers claim. That the current Eritrean elephant population is the bush, or savannah elephant is not in doubt, but neither does that fact answer the question of what elephants were present in the Ptolemaic army at Raphia. We only have Polybios' account and the fact that we know the Ptolemaic elephants were sourced from Africa.

Just because the current isolated and small (100-200 individuals) population of elephants in Eritrea are bush elephants does not mean that these were the variety employed by the Ptolemies. After all, the Carthaginians and Numidians (and even the Romans) also used elephants sourced in Africa. Carthaginian coins definitely depict elephants with African features (eg the concave rather than humped convex back and African elephant style ears). Are we really to believe for example, that the Carthaginians and Numidians were bringing African bush elephants across the Sahara or all the way west from Eritrea. More likely there were elephant populations north of the Sahara, from which they drew their stock. If indeed the claimed smaller North African sub species (L. A. Pharoaensis) did exist until around the 1st Century AD, there is no reason to doubt that these were available to the Ptolemies.

Meroitic art features many elephants, although the artistic conventions typically mean they look more like Indian than African elephants, despite African elephants living in the area.

I personally think the smaller North African elephant theory, unconnected to the modern "forest elephant" equivalency theory, is more credible. That said, I don't doubt that JJartist has a point, that the elephants' size may not have been the relevant factor.

Cheers,
John

Unfortunately the dates for consimworld fall on graduation weekend for most of the local universities, so no can do. ;(

The non-phalanx foot were my biggest back and forth indecision. In the end, I think I came out with a best guess in terms of the figures poses, basing and ratings for my rule set. I guess the best test is that we have played the game over 1/2 dozen times and the various outcomes are all within historical parameters, so something works. Issue like mounting shorter sarissa on Socrates' "peltasts" to using Jewish Maccabean figures for the "Arabs" to making Ptolemy's phalanx 6 rows instead of 4 were all fun to bounce around about.

I was drawn to Raphia in part because the period sources have more detail than any other battle of the age I have found. My foundation always went back to Polybius and Bar-Kochva. I also found some great article such as Michael Parks' very helpful, at least in the back and forth about what was really what.

Simon was amazing in his guidance and to the extent anything is right, he gets credit.

Paul Johstono's recent book is quite detailed on the Ptolemaic forces, although he deliberately bypasses the elephant issues. Part two will focus on why he think the destruction of the Ptolemaic phalanx at Panium is the root of their demise.

The Army of Ptolemaic Egypt 323 to 204 BC
link

Panium:

My out of date take on it:
link

I do think using Maccabeans as "Arabs" is perfect since Arabs in this context mean a whole group of people, including Idumenaeans and other Palestinian provincial troops who were common garrison troops. As well Arab tribal allies from across the frontier. It is always a hard lift to find 10,000 Arab infantry in any source when dealing with the Nabataeans that stopped Demetrias and other Successor incursions with mobility.

Yes, I have a copy, miraculously in perfect condition after languishing in a neglected bit of the garden following the courier's delivering it "to the front door" . . .

I haven't had a chance to start reading it yet.

I used Maccabeans for the Arabs in my 15mm Ptolemaic army. They seemed the right choice.

Cheers,
John

A couple of pics

link

Beautiful! And I had no idea someone made dead elephants :~)

Cheers,
John

Excellent!

Note: I was over exuberant in the above post.
[The Greeks should be phalangites too. But often folks find it more fun to have hoplites or thureophoroi.]

This is not what Johstono says. He conjectures that the Greek Mercenaries were a mix of troop types/armaments is likely.
Some may have been trained as pike armed "peltast" phalangites, some were probably thureophoroi based on the description of their placement and activity level. Some may have been old style hoplites. So the second part of my statement is what I follow in any 217 BC scenarios.
It seem this idea of a 'peltast' phalanx of lighter armed with smaller shield than regular small phalangite shields is common in Ptolemaic and Antigonid armies. My guess it made them elite because they could then be armed for various missions with whatever gear was needed. In other words a more direct link to the hypaspists of Alexander who could operate with any style gear depending on the mission.