Historicon is less than a week away; here's the test game for Heraclea, played last month.
The Romans automatically move first, and their cavalry crosses the fords on either flank.
Deployment map from the scenario; I will be - I will be using a 6 x 12 foot table which scales perfectly to this 4 x 8 version. As usual for most Ancient battles, the terrain is not complicated!
Background of the battle from the same site:
When Pyrrhus’s scattered forces arrived in Tarentum early in the spring of 280 BCE he found his allies to be totally unprepared for war and unwilling to raise the troops that they had promised him. Undaunted he attempted to fill the ranks of his local forces by conscription and drilling the Tarentines, who deserted in droves until locked under guard by Pyrrhus’s veterans. Pyrrhus in effect established himself as dictator of the unruly Tarentines. If he could train this rabble he would have forces enough to go on the offensive, but his plans were cut short as the Romans hastily assembled three armies and began to systematically crush the allies of Tarentum. The largest of these Consular armies consisting of 50,000 troops, was led by Publius Laverius Laevinius and struck into Lucanian territories to keep them from joining forces with Pyrrhus. Even though the Tarentines were not fully trained, and his forces were outnumbered, Pyrrhus gathered his Hellenistic veterans and challenged the might of the Legions at Heraclea in May 280 BCE.
Pyrrhus marched to Heraclea and made his fortified camp*, there he witnessed for the first time the Drill and order of the Romans. It was quite a shock to him to realize that not only was his opposition more numerous, but it was also a cut above the “barbarian” forces he expected to face!
At least he felt confident that the Roman swordsmen would be at a disadvantage versus the phalanx, his superior cavalry, and his “Trump” card, the elephants. He reckoned that these factors would be enough to outweigh the Romans numerical advantage. Nevertheless, Pyrrhus deployed his forces behind the river Siris, smartly working the terrain to his advantage. Pickets and light troops covered the stream and the elephants were wisely kept behind the phalanx in reserve.
(*Apparently the Romans were so impressed with Pyrrhus’s walled camp that they copied it! Pyrrhus no doubt was well inclined to go to this unusual measure because of the tricks he learned from his first benefactor, Antigonus 1st.)
The Romans for their part were unusually aggressive and spirited as they believed that they would deal with Pyrrhus’s army with the same ease that they had previously handled the Tarentine levies. Laevinius ordered out the Legions and they advanced on the Epirote pickets. The Roman and Allied cavalry were sent up and down stream and forded the river. The Epirote pickets along the stream fell back as their flanks were turned.
Jared (above left) and Peter C. commanded the Epirote army, whilst John (above left) and I had the Romans.
The Roman cavalry outnumbered that of Pyrrhus, but he had an ace in the hole - his elephants, beasts the Romans were completely unfamiliar with until then.
A little oscurus digitorum on this shot from the Roman lines!
One unit of my Roman cavalry manages to get into the Epirote backfield... never a good thing for the enemy!
Roman center advances, somewhat disordered by crossing the shallow River Stiris.
The Epirote phalangites moved up as quickly as they could, but were somewhat late to the party!
My cavalry can be seen sacking the first Epirote camp in the background...
Peter C. handled Pyrrhus, who is a Great Leader in To the Strongest terms, and his elite Epirote cavalry with skill.
Phalanx and Legion face off in the Center!
On the Roman right, the Epirote cavalry was dispatched fairly quickly, and then played cat and mouse with the Elephants, which the Romans called "Lucanian Oxen"!
Pyrrhus has the rear of the Roman Left in his sights!
Overview of most of the table near games end.
The loss of the second Epirote camp plus the destruction of a phalanx resulted in a narrow Roman victory.
ROME TOTAL 275 Points 74 VM (25)
Tribune Ophlax
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
1 | Far Left Flank (Allied) Cavalry |
|
|
|
|
1 | General, Mtd, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 6 | 2 |
1 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
1 | Light Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 5 | 1 |
1 | Light Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 5 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 25 | 6 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
2 | Left Flank (Allied) Cavalry |
|
|
|
|
2 | General, Mtd, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 6 | 2 |
2 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
2 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
|
|
|
| 24 | 6 |
Proconsul Decius
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
3 | Left Flank Infantry |
|
|
|
|
3 | General, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 5 | 2 |
3 | Legionaries Quincunx, Legio VII | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
3 | Legionaries Quincunx, Legio VIII | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
3 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
3 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
3 | Army Standard |
|
| 2 | 1 |
| Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 44 | 11 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
4 | Left Center Infantry |
|
|
|
|
4 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
4 | Legionaries - Quincunx Legio V | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
4 | Legionaries - Quincunx Legio VI | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
4 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
4 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Hero |
| replay | 1 |
|
| Camp |
|
| 1 | 3 |
|
|
|
| 42 | 13 |
Consul Publius Laverius Laevinius
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
5 | Right Center Infantry |
|
|
|
|
5 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
5 | Legionaries - Quincunx Legio III | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
5 | Legionaries - Quincunx Legio IV | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
5 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
5 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Hero |
| replay | 1 |
|
| Camp |
|
| 1 | 3 |
|
|
|
| 42 | 13 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
6 | Right Flank Infantry |
|
|
|
|
6 | General, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 5 | 2 |
6 | Legionaries Quincunx, Legio I | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
6 | Legionaries Quincunx, Legio II | 7/6+ | Pila, exchng | 15 | 3 |
6 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
6 | Leves - Light Infantry, Javelin, Raw | 8+ | 1 | 3 | 1 |
6 | Army Standard |
|
| 2 | 1 |
| Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 44 | 14 |
Tribune Gaius Mincius
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
7 | Right Flank (Roman) Cavalry |
|
|
|
|
7 | General, Mtd | 2+ | Replay | 5 | 2 |
7 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
7 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
|
|
|
| 23 | 6 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
8 | Far Right Flank (Roman) Cavalry |
|
|
|
|
8 | General, Mtd, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 6 | 2 |
8 | Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
8 | Light Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 5 | 1 |
8 | Light Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 5 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 25 | 6 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
C | Publius Laverius Laevinus, Mounted Senior Detached General | 2+ | Replay | 7 | 2 |
(Proved not to be useful in the test game, will replace with 2 units of Leves as camp guards plus an additional Hero)
EPIRUS TOTAL: 275 Points 76 VM (26)
Leonatus
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
1 | Left Flank Cavalry - |
|
|
|
|
1 | General, Mtd, Heroic | 3+ | Replay | 6 | 2 |
1 | Thessalian Cav: cavalry Javelin, Veteran | 6+ | 3 | 11 | 2 |
1 | Greek Cav: cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 9 | 2 |
| Hero |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 27 | 6 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
2 | Left Flank Infantry |
|
|
|
|
2 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
2 | Tarrantine Phalangites: Pike, Deep, Raw | 8+ | Pikes | 10 | 3 |
2 | Samnite Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 7 | 2 |
2 | Samnite Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 7 | 2 |
2 | Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 29 | 11 |
Milo
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
3 | Left Center Infantry |
|
|
|
|
3 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
3 | Pike, Deep | 7+ | Pikes | 13 | 3 |
3 | Pike, Deep | 7+ | Pikes | 13 | 3 |
| Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
| Camp |
|
| 1 | 3 |
|
|
|
| 32 | 11 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
4 | Left Center Light Troops |
|
|
|
|
4 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
4 | LI, Bow | 8+ | 3 | 4 | 1 |
4 | LI, Bow | 8+ | 3 | 4 | 1 |
4 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
4 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
4 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
4 | Light Cavalry, Javelin | 7+ | 2 | 5 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 29 | 8 |
Megacles
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
5 | Right Center Light Troops |
|
|
|
|
5 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
5 | LI, Sling, Veteran | 7+ | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| LI, Bow | 8+ | 3 | 4 | 1 |
5 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
5 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
5 | LI Javelinmen | 7+ | 2 | 4 | 1 |
5 | Light Cavalry, Javelin, Veteran | 6+ | 3 | 6 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 31 | 8 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
6 | Right Center Infantry |
|
|
|
|
6 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
6 | Macedonian Phalangite: Pike Deep Veteran | 6+ | Pikes | 16 | 3 |
6 | Macedonian Phalangite: Pike Deep Veteran | 6+ | Pikes | 16 | 3 |
| Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
| Camp |
|
| 1 | 3 |
|
|
|
| 38 | 11 |
Pyrrhus of Epirus, the "Eagle King".
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
7 | Right Flank Infantry |
|
|
|
|
7 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
7 | Pike, Deep | 7+ | Pikes | 13 | 3 |
7 | Chaeronian Guard: Hoplites, deep veteran | 5+ |
| 15 | 3 |
| Hero |
| Replay | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 33 | 8 |
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
8 | Right Flank Cavalry |
|
|
|
|
8 | Pyrrhus: Attached General, Mounted, Heroic, Senior Heroic, Great Leader | 3+ | Replay; Great Lder | 11 | 3 |
8 | Epirot Agema: Cavalry, Lance, Veteran | 6+ | Lance | 11 | 2 |
8 | Epirot Horse: Cavalry, Lance | 7+ | Lance | 9 | 2 |
| Hero |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 32 | 7 |
Unassigned
CMD | Description | Save | Spec/Ammo | Pts | VM |
9 | Elephant Reserve |
|
|
|
|
9 | General | 2+ | Replay | 4 | 2 |
9 | Indian Elephants, Deep | 6+ | Elephant | 8 | 2 |
9 | Indian Elephants, Deep | 6+ | Elephant | 8 | 2 |
|
|
|
| 20 | 6 |
Nice. TTS! aways worth a game. Will be a spectacular affair on the day I'm sure. Table and troops look splendid.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Aaron. I've never had a game of TTS! that wasn't enjoyable! :-)
DeleteThat was a close game which means it should be fun for all involved, The river is in an awkward place for the Romans, but at least it is shallow.
ReplyDeleteIt was very close; without the loss of the Camps it probably would have gone the other way. I will probably decrease to one Epirote Camp for Historicon, with fortifications and a garrison, as the camp historically was noted to have been fortified... evidently, the Romans learned that from Pyrrhus!
DeleteSplendid looking game and good to be close! I didn't know that about the camp, every day's a school day!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Thanks, Iain! Every army must have at least one camp in TTS, but you can have up to one per command. Adds victory medals, but they are vulnerable, especially if you're inferior in cavalry.. especially Light Cavalry!
DeleteFigures and scenario look excellent. Hope it goes well at show.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Gary; getting ready to pack it all up tomorrow, and depart Wednesday for Lancaster.
DeleteI agree about TtS - it can throw up some odd results and situations occasionally but its always entertaining! This looked like a classic. Hope all goes well at the show and no doubt we will be treated to full details of how things went kin a future post!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Keith. Yes, usually some pics and a post will be forthcoming eventually! :-). History serves up some odd results as well! :-)
DeleteExcellent looking game! One of my first ever 25mm wargaming armies was Republican Roman; that project came to grief as I just didn't enjoy the WRG 7th Ed. that was in vogue at the time. The TTS rule set would have been much more my to my liking had it been around then!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Robert.
DeleteSo what's to keep you from trying it now? :-)
Great looking playtest Peter and it sounds like a close one too!
ReplyDeleteThey are gonna love it at Historicon.
Regards, James
Thanks, James; "film at eleven", but the game went great there as well.
DeleteIt's one of my biggest bug bears regarding any wargaming reconstruction of the battle of Heraclea when I see that it is based on information provided on another wargaming site. Jeff Jonas is not a qualified historian or a reputable source for this battle - he is just another wargamer. The figures given by Jonas for this battle are completely fictitious, arbitrary and a complete fantasy. Neither is there any evidence to back up the assertion that the Roman cavalry were superior in number to that of Pyrrhus. Probably the opposite, as at Asculum was the case. We know there was only one consul at Heraclea. To suggest that there were four legions and as many as 50,000 men under the command of a single Consul at Heraclea is irresponsible and incredulous and being a megaphone or perpetuating this misinformation, or giving credence to the site that produced it, is in my opinion not helpful in providing any realistic basis on which to stage a more accurate reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the unnecessary rudeness of this comment, I considered just declining to publish it, like those from the Asian go-go girls, online gambling sites, etc. Probably no one else will likely see it, anyway!
DeleteIt is a GAME, sir. Neither Mr. Jonas or myself would claim to be professional Historians. Even if we were,. being a Historian certainly doesn't necessarily make one a good scenario designer, nor give one insight into how different sets of rules work. For my money, Mr. Jonas' scenario, as adapted here at least, is balanced, fun, interesting to play, and gives historically reasonable results. I don't really care if one of my units represents 500 men or 2,000,as long as the ratio is reasonably appropriate. Perhaps you would care to share your constructive ideas on developing a scenario for Heraclea?
Otherwise, consider your money to have been cheerfully refunded.
It is with regret that I was unable to make the full and detailed reply I considered necessary to explain better my point of view and to accept your challenge to provide a more credible and evidential based alternative to the Jeff Jonas account because of the limitations that Google impose on the number of characters allowed for these replies. However, I’m very glad to see that you did publish because it indicates that you are in favour of free thought and free speech and I would hope that you would agree with me that website owners who invite comment from their readers in the public domain, shouldn’t have an expectation that this will always necessarily be complimentary, unless they require a degree of hypocrisy from those that do so.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a "challenge", but if we aren't open to learning new things or evaluating new evidence, then why bother in the first place. I certainly don't expect all feedback to be complimentary, as long as it is respectful, and where there is disagreement, the basis for same explained.
DeleteWell, I’m all for anything that leads to scholarly discourse but I can’t be press ganged or conscripted into saying anything complimentary or respectful about Jeff Jonas. This is after all, whether by recklessness or wilful design, a man who has made himself the primary internet authority for the Battle of Heraclea by the way he has presented his fantasies on it as factual on the ancientbattles.com website and lulled many of its readers like yourself into reproducing it on their own websites. Much worse than this, is that it has duped supposed reputable encyclopaedic and informational sites like Wikipedia to finding its way on their platforms too, which further misinforms readers. Go to the Wikipedia site and you will see the conjured or manufactured figures that Jonas gives for the respective armies, broken down to every sordid little one hundred. There is no problem so long as a reader is left in no illusion that a battle reconstruction that is presented in the public domain is based purely on fantasy and doesn’t have an ounce of historic value but in the opening paragraphs of the Jonas reconstruction, he gives a brief background to the battle and states that the Romans put a consular army of 50,000 men in the field which he later amends to a double consular army of about 45,200 in four legions, probably having reflected on the bizarre suggestion that a single consular army of two legions could ever be as large as 50,000 in strength – the ratio of allies to Roman citizens would be impossibly high and without precedent. They are a Jonas fabrication and not backed up by any evidential or historical source but the way they are presented here is as if they are realistic and even factual. Now, does anyone really consider it credible that a single Consul could command as many as 50,000 men in the field or could be put at the head of four legions, because you would have to be willing to look pretty foolish if you did. I would assert that you won’t find any historical battle account in the Camillan period where a single consular army is as large in strength as 50,000 or where a single consul has been assigned the command of a double consular army of four legions, even in the later overseas campaigns.
ReplyDelete