Thinking of starting Successors

[Westbury]

Another run at Paraetacene. Victory to the Eumenids.

[Westbury]

Later on.....

[Westbury]

Closing stages

[Jjonas]

Ouch elephants hitting cavalry. Looks so impressive! A really big smash up. One thing rules have a difficulty with is the elephant screen, which seems to have been withdrawn to the flanks. Probably because neither commander wanted to have his precious phalangites exposed to the kind of carnage that haunted Alexander's army after the Hydaspes. The elephants seem to spar with skirmishers and each other before the main event, then are pulled away like a curtain to wrap around the flanks. Very difficult to simulate- and who would want to after painting so many nice elephants.
One thing about the Successors, they were ruthless but did not wholesale slaughter each other's troops. Instead they absorbed the losers. The troops were constantly moving from one side to another. Antigonus' army in Egypt melted away to join the Ptolemies with their offers of higher pay, since many of them had been captured at Salamis earlier in an Antigonid victory.
The story of how Seleucus (much later) rode up to Demetrias' phalanx and just pleaded with them to surrender is an interesting anecdote, which reveals that Seleucus knew that he would recognize the phalangites by face and even names, and they him. I think that is why elephants were not launched into the Macedonian infantry or cavalry ranks because that would have caused a grudge that few would be able to erase with money.
Thanks for the super massive display!

[macsen wledig]

very nice

[trev]

I think you guys are a little beyond starting successors now!     Very impressive.

Interesting thoughts on elephants there Jeff.

[Easy E]

Ouch elephants hitting cavalry. Looks so impressive! A really big smash up. One thing rules have a difficulty with is the elephant screen, which seems to have been withdrawn to the flanks. Probably because neither commander wanted to have his precious phalangites exposed to the kind of carnage that haunted Alexander's army after the Hydaspes. The elephants seem to spar with skirmishers and each other before the main event, then are pulled away like a curtain to wrap around the flanks. Very difficult to simulate- and who would want to after painting so many nice elephants.
One thing about the Successors, they were ruthless but did not wholesale slaughter each other's troops. Instead they absorbed the losers. The troops were constantly moving from one side to another. Antigonus' army in Egypt melted away to join the Ptolemies with their offers of higher pay, since many of them had been captured at Salamis earlier in an Antigonid victory.
The story of how Seleucus (much later) rode up to Demetrias' phalanx and just pleaded with them to surrender is an interesting anecdote, which reveals that Seleucus knew that he would recognize the phalangites by face and even names, and they him. I think that is why elephants were not launched into the Macedonian infantry or cavalry ranks because that would have caused a grudge that few would be able to erase with money.
Thanks for the super massive display!

Great point!  The Successor's (especially early on) fetishized Macedonian phalangites specifically.  They were a rare and important resource not to be squandered.  They also thought that the decisive combat was between the Phalanx, and the elephants, light troops, and cavalry were more of a side show.  Therefore, your theory about their reluctance to use some of these other troops directly against the rare resources they wished to recruit makes a ton of sense. 

I had never really considered it that way before.   

[Westbury]

Interesting points Jeff and a conversation we had during the game and also about the skirmishers. At Paraetacene there are 179 elephants and at Gabene around 90; that's a lot of big beasts and in both cases strung across the front of the battle line. Added to them are all the skirmishers, at Paraetacene Eumenes had around 17,000 and Antigonus not much less; again, a lot of men spread over the battlefield.
So where did they all go? I acknowledge the precious resource argument but equally you could argue the 'well they knew the risks going in' and where is there to go but forward if you are lumbering beasts or sneak off backwards if you are skirmishers and the long pointy sticks are getting a bit close.  The Ipsus example of the elephant screen preventing Demetrius getting back to help his dad could support the argument of pulling off to the flanks or it could have just been dumb luck.
The whole elephant thing also informs the disordering cavalry rules tenant, was it only those cavalry who weren't used to elephants or was it all cavalry at all times and the skill was to deploy away from them hence why they are deployed forward with the skirmishers?
I don't know, I'm just a gamer who has done a fair amount of secondary sources research but that's it.

[Easy E]

No one really knows, and we never really will. 

That's the joy and curse of ancients. 

[Jjonas]

The sources say the elephants are withdrawn at Ipsus. At Gabiene and Paraitacene elephants engaged along the front and flanks. The elephant barrier was something Antigonid cavalry had to ride around.
The elephant battle in the center was interspersed with skirmishers.
Again the lack of any description of any elephant vs heavy infantry clash seems to point to the elephants being withdrawn through the gaps in units. Which seems by mutual consent of both armies. One reason is elephants do get tired so maybe both sides decide that it’s a good point to water and stand down than to risk nervous or panicking.
We do not get much info of what was the point of the skirmisher and elephant first line dual as nothing seems to come of it. The elephants part and the phalanx engagement ensues with no more mention of elephant help.

A nice but older source A. M. Devine’s OOB and descriptions of Paraitacene and Gabiene.

[Westbury]

It's a conundrum Jeff. From a gaming perspective I'm happy for players to deploy historically but then (like in virtually every other wargames period engagement) it's all down to them. In all the games we've played so far with elephants the beasts have effectively acted as road blocks, never powerful enough to overthrow a pike/hoplite block but strong enough to delay a unit while it kills them thus breaking up the nice neat lines; seems to work and I'm happy to go with that. I don't think I'll get much buy in to the rule that says "after 3 turns all elephants must withdraw to be watered"   

[has.been]

It is not just elephants that tire.
The big advantage of the Roman legion was the rotation of soldiers.
Fresh Romans against tired Barbarians = victory!

Wot av de Romans ever given us? 

[Jjonas]

“Where did they go” that being the light infantry and elephants in front of the phalanx.

Just about everybody avoids this issue.

Bob Bennett & Mike Roberts* at least imply that lanes must have been formed to allow the beasts and skirmishers to retire through the advancing phalanxes. On the flanks of Eumenes and Antigonid battles the mix of elephants and cavalry is given note. Even the detail that Eumenes superior numbers were routed by the lead elephant being killed and causing a rout of the rest. This is an uncommon revelation about the herd leader being a prominent loss- like the general dying that often causes army wide morale tests.

But most sources simply don’t ask the question above because it involves speculation. The Bob Bennett Mike Roberts speculation is simply based on the idea that Alexander’s phalanx was drilled enough to let scythed chariots pass through it- and skirmishers as well.

Joseph Pietrykowski in his Great Battles of the Hellenistic World does not even ask the question. The phalanxes engage and no mention of the elephant screen occurs- except details on the flanks as above.

Jeff Champion in his Antigonus the One-Eyed is most clear about the dangers of the elephants to both sides:
Page 57
"At the same time, the fighting in the centre between the infantry phalanxes had also begun. There are no details recorded of any fighting involving the elephants positioned in front of their infantry. The most likely conclusion is that neither side was prepared to risk the dangers involved and withdrew their elephants prior to the start of the fighting."

Does not answer: Why an elephant screen. How were they withdrawn?

My answers. Why? I reckon an elephant screen precludes a side with elephants from messing with your deployment. The screens seem to cancel each other out. At Raphia the decisive combat on the Seleucid right is not mirrored on the left flank, where the Seleucid screen and Ptolemaic cancelled each other out. Neither side put an elephant screen in front of their phalanx. Why not? Probably because both sides had less well trained phalanxes and the Seleucids had a lot of ad hoc allies forced to serve as heavy infantry. It is clear that at Raphia only the victorious right wing Seleucid elephants encountered Ptolemaic heavy infantry during the rout of the Ptolemaic left wing.

In other actions as the phalanxes reach the decisive distance the elephants are withdrawn.

How? I agree that this is a trained maneuver that the phalanx was ready to implement by quickly side stepping, letting friendlies through and then filling the gaps. The two sides must have simply felt this was the sporting thing to do, and thus there is no real commentary on where and how. Obviously as described at Magnesia having the elephants too close while under combat stress can break this ordered lane situation up cause total collapse. Obviously as gamers we tend to be less sporting about things like this and prefer to try to thread a needle to gain any advantage. So I can agree with "The most likely conclusion is that neither side was prepared to risk the dangers involved." Is the real reason, as doing the opposite risked mutually assured destruction of the precious phalanx and elephants.

*The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281 bc
Volume II: Battles and leaders.

[Westbury]

No argument from me Jeff and some points to ponder for rules writing.
For my own rules, when the skirmishers are driven off or evade they go back through the pikes by measurement but are assumed to have flowed around so no detrimental effects and experience has shown that, a) this works and b) the skirmishers play no real part in the remainder of the game. With the elephants the rules allow for them to be panicked by the death of the mahout and rampage randomly across the board - 100% historical? I don't think we can ever know, but seems to capture the unpredictability and pure bloody nuisance enough for a game.
Nice to see Bennett & Roberts quoted, have used their two books extensively, very useful.
 

[Easy E]

I gather that in late Successor battles, they held back a bit because there was always another day to fight.  Very few battles were of an existential nature where the Victor was swept away completely and their forces destroyed.  Therefore, you had to keep your forces a "threat in being" even if you lost tactically.   

If you lost tactically and all your key Elephants and Phalanxes were crushed, you risked losing your whole kingdom.  Better to hold some back, lose a bit, and still be a kingdom-in-being than risk it all and lose everything.  You typically only see that happen when the Successor himself is killed. 

Therefore, this "campaign" aspect should be present in a wargame for the period if we want players to model similar decisions that the actual Successor's had to face.  In a single stand-alone battle players will gladly risk it all for a tactical victory.  However, when you layer in a campaign element to the game, players suddenly become much more conservative in their tactics.