INTRODUCTION It has long been the intention of Tactica's design team to provide ancients enthusiasts with additional army lists (free of charge) to both complement materials already in print and to allow players to expand their gaming within the scope of this innovative game system. After a year of preparation, the Tactica team is now ready to make good on their promise first issued in Volume IX-6 of THE COURIER by presenting the first of several newly designed and play-tested army lists for Tactica players nationwide. Photo from Tactica. Courtesy Arty Conliffe. More than simply anew collection of unit statistics however, in adhering to the historical flavor of the Tactica system as a whole, this article - and those that will follow - is intended to provide players with a feel for the historical period in which these armies fought; a review of their strengths and weaknesses; a rationale for each army's design based on interpretations of selected historical writings; and, where applicable, optional rules to enhance campaign potentials. Overlaying this ambitious undertaking is a common theme. Focusing on the Hellenistic Age, the following army organizations reflect the period dating from the death of Alexander the Great to the defeat of the last Egyptian dynastic army by the Romans at the battle of Actium. During this roughly three hundred year period much of the known world came under Greek domination and the Tactica armies representing this "Hellenistic Age" are offered as a unified whole rather than a patchwork collection of individual army types with little historical justification. Beginning with the Macedonian Successors and the Galatians in this article, different Hellenistic nations and powers will be similarly treated, providing players with numerous gaming possibilities and hopefully encouraging them to explore this fascinating era further while having fun in the process. NEW OFFERINGS At the outset two distinctly different Hellenistic armies are now available: the Macedonian Successors and the Galatians. Why these particular offerings? Why two armies which at first glance would seem to have little in common with each other? Respecting the Macedonian Successors: [1] in examining Tactica's original collection of army lists one finds represented the Alexandrian Macedonians as well as the Later Macedonians, [2] the former illustrating Macedon's rise to power at the expense of the Persians, and later the rise of Rome at the expense of the last of the Macedonians. For the intervening period, however, no corresponding army list is available. The Macedonian Army fielded by Alexander's successors during this intervening period is a night and day comparison to either of the previously specified lists. For example, the number of actual native Macedonians found in all of the Successor states initially diminished with the majority of the home levies having either been killed, dispersed as settlers, or reduced by old age. This general decline continued well into the Hellenistic period. Gone too, early on are the excellent Hypaspists of Alexander's day, these elites serving for a time under various Asian commanders before disappearing completely. In their place are a host of mercenaries as well as bits and pieces of defeated foes whose forces were often incorporated into the "national" Macedonian command. To this can be added such changes as elephants, fewer peltasts, and cavalry of reduced capability. The resulting combination suggests an entirely different array than either the Alexandrian powerhouse that preceded it or the rebuilt Later Macedonians to follow. As such the Macedonian Successor army presented here acts to properly "fill in the gaps". For their part, the Galatians deserve similar recognition, admittedly for different reasons. Following the initial round of inconclusive clashes between rival contenders to Alexander's empire between 320-280 B.C., these early Celts (often referred to as "Gauls") under the leadership of Brennus burst onto the European scene, cutting their way through much of war-torn Macedon and then Greece proper, devastating war weary populations and raising havoc in general. It is the defeat (or at least the forced withdrawal) of these invaders at Lysimacheia in 277 B.C. that gave on Antigonas Gonatus the victory needed to gain the Macedonian throne, thereby ending local civil war and founding a dynasty that would last until Macedon's final defeat and absorption into the Roman Empire. While Antigonas might well thank the Galatians for their timely intervention, the rest of the Greek world held a radically different view of their new neighbors. After their final expulsion from the Greek mainland, some 20,000 of these Balkan tribesmen migrated to Asia Minor where they quickly set themselves up in the vast plain of Phyrgia and from this commanding position dared all comers to try and kick them out. Despite an occasional set-back [3] the Galatians remained very much on the scene throughout the Hellenistic period, often hiring themselves out as mercenaries and continuing as a thorn in their neighbor's side as late as 189 B.C. when they challenged the newly arrived Romans at Mt. Olympus. [4] Their continued presence as raiders and marauders was a continual justification for many a local tyranny in Asia Minor as well. For these reasons this article serves to introduce the Tactica enthusiast to the Hellenistic Age by offering two armies - one a logical addition and the other a logical antagonist - as representations of the period in question. Each of these armies is treated individually below. DESIGNING THE MACEDONIAN SUCCESSOR ARMY The army of the Macedonian Successors was no longer the professional, long-term force of Alexander or even of Phillip's day. Rather, it had reverted to what it had largely been before the Phillipian reforms, i.e., a levy of farmer "reservists" called up when and as needed. [5] The core of the army remained the pike-armed heavy infantry phalanx. Unlike its Alexandrian counterpart, however, in which the phalanx was viewed as one of many arms to be properly coordinated in battle, the armies of the Antigonids saw the phalanx as the Queen of Battle, comprising at different times between 50 and 65% of its total armed strength. At the same time the size of the individual phalanx "regiment" was increased, in part, in an effort to replace lost quality with quantity (it must be remembered here that historically it was always easier and cheaper to train a man as a pikeman than as a cavalryman). Ironically at the very time when the importance of the individual phalanx was growing the number of available native Macedonians, and correspondingly the number of phalanxes that could be put into the field, was rapidly declining. In an age in which mercenaries were a common fact of life, the bulk of the Macedonian army consisted of mercenaries (primarily Greeks and Illyrians at first), and the size of the Macedonian army as a whole probably never exceeded 30,000 men under arms. [6] In comparing the number of phalanxes available in the Alexandrian period as represented in the Tactica lists with those of the Later Macdonians, a compromise number of two phalanxes was chosen to represent the diminished number of native Macedonians with a third and fourth phalanx of "Greek Allies" included to represent call-ups of local levies and mercenary contributions augmenting the regulars. Looking at the army as a whole, given the standard Tactica ratio of 1:100 and the previously cited reference for maximum army size, a maximum number of 300 figures was decided upon as the maximum size for the Antigonid army composition, the majority of which were typically mercenaries or other non-Macedonians. This historical framework is replicated in the army list below with the size of the Maceconian army topping out at approximately 260 figures (elephants counting as multiples) and a mercenary contingent (to include Thorakites and Cretans) of 156. Not all of the contingents raised in support of Macedonian rule supported the use of the Macedonian sarissa (pike). This 16 to 18 foot long weapon was only grudgingly adopted by many Greek city-states after repeated Macedonian insistence. In the case of Sparta the changeover was openly resisted in favor of retaining the traditional Hoplite spear. Faced with a touchy political situation in Greece under the best of circumstances, more often than not Macedonian strategoi were forced to admit these "allies" when they reported for duty, spear in hand. Rather than dismiss them outright a place was found for the spearmen somewhere in the battle line. Thus it is that the Macedonian Successor list has provision for these auxiliary hoplites while their somewhat lower morale reflects a basic lack of enthusiasm for service under Macedonian arms. [7] Good peltasts were always hard to come by in Hellenistic times, this being the case no less in the Macedonian army than that of its rivals. By the Third Century B.C., the majority were mercenary in origin and mercenaries gravitated to wherever pay was best. Throughout most of the period this was definitely not in the service of an austere state like Macedon which had taken a long time to recover from the Galatian onslaught. Yet, while not as numerous as in previous years, the Macedonians enjoyed their share of Thureophori (as mercenary peltasts were commonly called). Man for man, these were largely on par with their counterparts of the previous generation. Using this rationale, the number of Peltast units are reduced from that originally given in the Alexandrian Macedonian lists, while individual unit proficiencies are kept at the same levels as before. Peltasts were notthe only combat arm to decline in Macedonian service after Alexander. The cavalry in particular was seriously reduced, the original Companions having largely divided themselves up among contending Asian and Egyptian commanders, rival pretenders and would-be Kings-On-Earth. Succeeding generations of troopers, infused with new mercenary blood, turned in their long xyoss (the cavalry equivalent of the phalanx pike) for the more traditional javelin as the role of Macedonian cavalry changed from shock to skirmishing. This change was consistent with the growing over-reliance on the phalanx as the army unit of decision in battle. The smaller size, numbers, and arms of the Macedonian cavalry as represented in the lists below reflect these substantial modifications to classical doctrine. Also with respect to modification of doctrine is the inclusion of a new type of peltast, the Thorakites. These troops are mail-armored infantry developed during the Hellenistic period to act as a supporting link between their skirmishing counterparts and the main battle line. [8] Though still dispersed by heavy infantry, their added "stiffening" added strength to the army's anti-skirmisher arm. Perhaps the most obvious difference in army composition between the original Macedonians and the Successors is the inclusion of elephants. We know from numerous reports that shortly before his death Alexander acquired numerous elephants from sources in India and that these elephants were fully outfitted as an Alexandrian elephant corps, only to be broken up and divided after his death. One of the early Successors, Perdiccas, brought several of these beasts with him using them to stamp out (quite literally!) a revolt among rebellious elements within the army. [9] Later Pryhus of Epirius was known to have used elephants against very surprised Roman opponents (most probably acquired in a deal with Perdiccas or one of his followers) and, following Antigonas' recovery of Macedon from temporary Epirian control, the last of these battle-beasts reverted again to his control. Though not numerous and never able to breed well in captivity, the animals would have played a noticeable role as mobile weapons platforms and shock forces well into the Successor period. The inclusion of a small Macedonian elephant contingent is likewise consistent from the standpoint of gaming playability; the added weight of the beasts giving the Macedonians an added historical punch while ensuring that the Successors of Alexander are far from the pushovers some would otherwise believe. MACEDONIAN SUCCESSOR OPPONENTS Any7actica player wishing to tryout the Macedonian Successors will find this army providing a richly rewarding gaming experience with no want of historical opponents. For example, with a few judicious modifications and additions a previously built Alexandrian Maceconian army can do double duty as an early Seleucid or Ptolemaic opponent (the latter often contending with Macedon the rich mercenary recruiting grounds of Thrace). Moving a bit further in time a combination of both hoplite and pike-armed contingents can form the nucleus of a scratch-built Epirian force with which to contend for possession of the Macedonian homeland. Having gotten that off one's chest, the Macedonian Successor army is just in time to knock heads with the Galatians, as presented below, and, assuming all goes well, one can even resurrect the Greek Coalitionlists from the original Tactica set and, by adding or subtracting a Greek ally here and there, recreate any of the numerous attempts by the various Greek city-states to win back their freedom by forming anti-Macedonian leagues (see the historical timelines presented below). All this is not to suggest that all Macedonian Successor wars will be fought on Macedonian (or Greek) soil. While the Antigonids historically played for the status quo they often campaigned far afield. Macedonian conflicts with the Ptolemies over Thrace have already been noted. Such conflicts were waged both on land and sea. Likewise, no Seleucid player will be completely content until he (or she) has wrested the birthplace of Alexander from the "usurpers". This should be taken in turn to suggest that strategically the Macedonian Successors are easily adaptable to a campaign situation with as many players as desired. Note, however, that the Macedonians will not fare as well, historically speaking, far away from home. The need to preserve as many of the "home town boys" as possible will probably preclude the Antigonid commander from attempting to reenact Alexander's campaigns along the banks of the Euphrates, but within a reasonable distance from home they can still be counted on to give as good as they get on a given day. PAINTING THE MACEDONIAN SUCCESSORS During the early period of the Successor Era, roughly 3 20-280 B.C., the initial Macedonian army in the field will not physically vary all that much from their Alexandrian predecessors. Variances will begin to creep in, however, as time goes on. Traditional Macedonian helmets will see regional variations (as will the size of shields carried) as troops from defeated foes combine with new mercenary recruitments to replace losses. Traditional Macedonian helmets will typically have their metal colored red and the front guard brass edged in black. A mixture of red and bronze-brass colors, however, would still be considered acceptable as would a variety of white feathered or horse-haired plumes for officers and even the traditional "forage hat" as well. The standard tunic color for infantry under Alexander was red and while this would be retained for the most part, some regional variation would likely creep in over a period of many generations. Different shades of leather or even quilted armor are acceptable but, except for the Thorakites, Macedonian infantry would not be armored. Those players wishing additional details on uniform development are directed to the excellent source by Duncan Head cited in the references at the end of this article. The two native Macedonian phalanxes depicted in this army were typically referred to as the Bronze Shields and the White Shields, denoting the basic shield colors represented on the field. While intricate geometric patterns were often inscribed on shield surfaces (an excellent challenge this), multi-colored shields were never the case during this period and this historical injunction should be respected. Peltasts were another matter. While most will have spine-bossed shields of plain white, local and regional variations again come into play. Players should feel free to indulge their creativity in both shield and dress/cloak designs for their peltasts. Cavalry will typically be depicted with bronze "pot" helmets hammered out of the base metal, accompanied by brown or off-white linen. Don't overlook the option of giving your mercenaries - and their officers in particular - the occasional plume-crested helmet and flashy dress to break the monotony. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be in the painting of the Macedonian Elephant Corps. Note that castings should reflect the larger Indian elephant rather than the smaller North African varieties. Examples of Macedonians riding and fighting from their beast bareback do exist but these should be taken to reflect only the earliest attempts at incorporating elephants into the battle array. More commonly the traditional Macedonian elephant casting should have a wooden howdah (tower) in which two to three castings are represented. Note that while the casting as finished may have more than one class of weapon-armed figures, i.e., bowmen and javelin throwers (depending on the manufacturer) only one type of missile-armed weapon can be used and this selection should be announced prior to the start of the game. Such bow and javelin armed troops could be either native Macedonians or mercenary levies. As such players should exercise reasonable leeway in painting these figures as they see fit. Note that howdahs were often decorated with numerous shields - as much for easy recognition as rallying points in battle as for protection - and these designs, if intended to reflect mercenary troop contributions, can be displayed with decorated designs rather than standard 'plain' bronze. [10] DESIGNING THE GALATIAN ARMY The Celtic, or Galatian, army presented below is offered as a distinct forerunner of the Gaulic hordes that would later contend with Rome for possession of prime pieces of Mediterranean landscape. While lacking in the more disciplined aspects of ancient warfare these semi-barbaric tribes were far from disorganized, nor were they the battlefield 'mob' that some would depict them as being. While their success often lay in closing en masse with an enemy early on, allowing native ferocity to carry the day, if rebuffed the Galatians were equally capable of forming Lip ranks and beating an orderly, fighting retreat from the field. As a case in point let it be understood that the Romans originally adopted the idea of the Testudo from the tactics of their Galatian adversaries. Pushed toward the European mainland by a variety of migratory forces, prior to 279 B.C., the loose confederation of Celtic bands eventually known as Galatians were held in check by a number of Asian-based Greeks under the early Successor contenders. The army of one of these in particular, Lysimachus, served to keep these intruders at bay for some time until drawn off by events to deal with more immediate threats from other contenders. The Celts wasted no time in exploiting the "open door" left them, first thrusting into Thrace, followed by Macedonia, and then down the Greek peninsula, plundering royal tombs, gutting the local countryside, pillaging and looting at will. The army that invaded the Greek mainland was organized into numerous tribal warbands, with individual warriors fighting in extremely dense shoulder-to-shoulder formations, which made the typical Greek phalanx look spacious by comparison. If able to close within arm's reach of an opponent these warriors could do incredible amounts of damage while their mobile cavalry harassed enemy flank and rear. That the Galatians were initially pushed back at all was due, in part, to the reverse side of this picture - an extremely dense formation of troops particularly vulnerable to skirmishers and peltasts. Skirmish troops were practically unknown to the Galatians and their use in an organized manner came as quite a shock. They were never capable of devising a good defense against such largescale harassment. These two factors - dense formations with their inherent strength and weaknesses, coupled with the total absence of skirmishers, form the basis for the core of the Galatian army. The army that faced Antigonus Gonatus near Lysimacheia in 277 B.C. is estimated at approximately 18,000 in strength. [11] With this as a starting figure and, accounting for both Celtic losses on this occasion, and deductions for stragglers who remained in northern Thrace, a figure of 12,000 infantry and cavalry seems a realistic reflection of Galatian strength in the years that followed. Again using the Tactica ratio of 1:100, the bulk of the typical Galatian army in the field would seem to be accurately reflected at 120 figures. In keeping with this estimate, three warbands of 32 and a corresponding body of 24 nobles were selected as forming the Galatian main battle line. It can be noted that this number could vary considerably as estimates from available sources remain just that, estimates. Players should use the number of Galatian warbands as initially provided but if desired, they may increase the size of the army by the inclusion of up to two additional warbands to reflect population increases and local federated allies in Asia Minor in the interests of playability without sacrificing historical "accuracy" (see special rules governing the Galatians). After their expulsion from the mainland the Galatians encountered numerous Seleucid and minor Greek city-state opponents as they carved out their own empire in the middle of Asia Minor. From these they acquired large numbers of chariots, typically four-horse scythed designs, in the form of captured equipment which they incorporated into their army organization. Delbruck states that the Galatians used scythed chariots as early as their disastrous battle with Antiochus (the Seleucid) in which his use of elephants resulted in the Galatian horse turning tail and creating havoc among friendly formations. [12] One thing that could occasionally hamper the average Galatian horde was the common practice of warriors taking their wives and families with them when they went to war. Not only did this hamper their movements in general, but it required the detailing of sufficient forces to protect the local campsites and non- combatants from stray plunderers. This factor is likewise reflected in the special rules section below. Galatian cavalry was notably more of a status symbol than a recognized combat arm. Used primarily as the forerunners of a larger Celtic pillaging team, emphasis on skirmishing and scouting often took the place of skilled man-to- man combat in close action. Players who wish to replicate the early versions of the Galatian army prior to their arrival in Asia Minor could delete the chariot units and replace them with either two additional light cavalry units or with an optional warband as indicated above and one light cavalry unit. GALATIAN OPPONENTS In general the Galatians can take on just about any and all comers. The original Greek confederacy list can be dusted off and used to represent the forces of mainland Greece, led by the Aetolians, who handed the Galatians their first defeat outside Delphi. A running campaign against the Macedonian Successors could easily be envisioned (perhaps with the chariot deduction described above), while a later campaign against a variety of Seleucid opponents would afford some excellent gaming opportunities. Likewise a modified Pontic army could also be utilized to represent the army of the Asian Pergamon under Attalus who, like Antigonus generations before him, established his kingdom with a Galatian defeat (the same Galatians the Pontics might fight on one table-top could easily do double duty by being incorporated into other, later Pontic armies against Roman opponents on another table as Well!). Indeed, one of the nicer things about fielding a Galatian army in this period is the notion of the generic army. Just about every Seleucid ruler, rebel, and would-be conqueror, used Galatian mercenaries at one time or another. Thus it is possible to "borrow" Galatian warbands and/or cavalry from an existing army and incorporate them into a "Greek" army without the sacrifice of historical accuracy. Moreover, with a little ingenuity, minor Greek city states like Epirus can likewise be constructed from scratch by utilizing elements of both Hoplite Greek and Galatian armies. PAINTING GALATIANS The nice thing about building a Galatian army is the relative ease with which the army can be painted. First, with only minor modification, Gaulic troops intended for use against Republican Romans can be substituted for their predecessors. In many cases Galatian warriors fought naked, the lack of clothing being seen as an expression of personal courage. While not only making for some interesting table-top displays (especially in 25mm) painting detail in such cases can be limited to shieldwork alone. For those desiring detail, shield patterns, checked pants and personal tattoos of delicate intricacy are the stuff of which Galatians are made. For chariot troops Pontic, or even Pre- Roman Briton troops can be easily substituted. Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars as well as various Osprey Men-At-Arms guides will provide sufficient reference for color schemes. SUMMARY In the last few pages the Tactica design staff has attempted to make good on a long-standing promise to provide players with relevant additional opponents and, in the process, to set the stage for further additions, campaign suggestions, etc. The author hopes that the information provided will be both helpful and informative and will encourage players to explore deeperinto a fascinating confusing and largely neglected, period of historical wargaming. Additional articles in this series will be forthcoming and readers are encouraged to forward their comments and suggestions on this and related material to the people at Tactical Solutions. Enjoy. Historical Time Line All Dates Given Below as B.C. 323 Death of Alexander the Great. 320-280 The "Age of the Successors". Numerous internecine battles between rival lieutenants of Alexander with no clear conclusion being reached. Through a process of ruthless elimination three main dynastic rivals will emerge: the Antigonids in Macedonia, the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucid in Asia. 279 Galatians begin their invasion of the Greek peninsula. 277 Antigonas II (Conatas) defeats the Celts in Thrace at the battle of Lysimacheia. This defeat is sufficient to propel Antigonas into the kingship of Macedonia. 276 The bulk of the remaining Galatians cross over from Greece to Asia Minor where they establish themselves in Phyrgia. When not raiding and looting neighboring states tribal leaders will hire out bands of confederates into various Hellenistic armies as barbarian auxiliaries. 275 Pyrhus of Epirus returns from his campaigns in Italy to loot Macedonia. Invading with some 8,500 Creeks and large numbers of Galatian tribesmen he defeats Antigonas and temporarily overruns much of Macedonia. 270 Antiochus I of Selecus defeats the Celts in Asia Minor at the great 'Elephant Victory'. 267 Supported by grain and gold from Ptolemy II of Egypt, Sparta and Athens lead a coalition of Greek city states in an attempt to throw off Macedonian rule. Thus begins the six year conflict known as the Chremonidean War. 265 Antigonas defeats rebellious league of Creeks under Spartan leadership outside Corinth. Re-establishes nominal Macedonian control over the Peleponnese. Lays siege to Athens. 262 Athens surrenders and is garrisoned by Macedonian troops. 239 Death of Antigonas Conatus at the age of 80. Attalus I of Pergamon defeats several Celtictribes in Galatia. Borrowing on the example of Antigonas, Attalus uses the prestige of his victory to proclaim himself ruler of Pergamon and the founder of the 'Attalid' dynasty. 229 Athens "buys out" the Macedonian garrison. 216 The last Galatians in Thrace are routed. NOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Also commonly referred to as the Antigonid Macedonaisn, referring to Antigonius Gonatus, the founder of the Antigonid dynasty in Macedon. [2] The "Later Macedonians" as presented in the original Tactica ruleset can historically be thought of as the last of the Antigonid armies successfully fielded fora time under Perseus until their defeat by the Roman Republicans during the 2nd Century B.C. [3] In the process the Galatians were evantually defeated a time or two, witness for example Antiochos I's great "Elephant Victory" over the Galatians in 270 B.C. whereupon the Galatians hired themselves out to Antiochus' opponents, thus not only surviving as a nation but, it could be argued, acting as a type of balance of power between numerous Successor contenders for generations. [4] Near modern day Ankara, Turkey. [5] Michael Grant, From Alexander To Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World, New York MacMillian Publishing Company, 1982. pg. 25. [6] ibid. [7] According to Plutarch the Spartan reformer-rebel king, Cleomenes, attempted to impose radical change upon his Spartan hoplites by attempting to arm and train them with the sarissa, thus introducing the Macedonian style of combat to the Lacemadonians. Cleomene5 either succeeded too murh or too little forat the first engagement wherein this radical adoption was put ot the test, the Macedonians routed Cleomenes at Sallasia (221 B.C.), after which Cleomenes was forced into exile in Egypt where he soon died. See Hans Delbruck, History of the Art of War, Volume 1: Warfare in Antiquity. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press [1975 reprint of 1928 edition], pg. 246. [8] For a good treatment of the changing roles of infantry and cavalry in the Hellenistic era see Duncan Head, The Macedonian and Punic Wars. [9] See Peter Green, Alexander To Actium: The Historical Evolution of The Hellenistic Age. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1990, pg. 8. [10] See Duncan Head, The Macedonian and Punic Wars. [11] W.W. Tarn, Antigonas Conatus. London, 1913 11969 reprint edit.] pg. 165. [12] Dellbruck, op. cit., pg. 241. Tactica Army Lists: Macedonians and Galatians Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. IX No. 6 Back to Courier List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com