In addition to two very good articles on wargame rules and the writing of same, the April 2003 issue of WARGAMES Illustrated contained a scenario for an Ancients wargame. Robert Avery's 'FLAMINIUS AT THE DOG'S HEAD: The Battle of Cynoscephalae 197 BC - A Scenario for Vis Bellica' peaked my interest for a few reasons. First, there was the history of the engagement. And by this I don't mean the complexity of the foreign policy of Rome in Greece just after the end of the Second Punic War. Here, I am referring to the clash between two types of warfare: phalanx versus legion. A second point of interest with respect to this contest of heavy, close order infantry, was the very ground on which the battle took place. As Mr. Avery notes, ". . . they couldn't have chosen a worse place to fight!" The engagement was fought across a ridge line, punctuated by rough terrain and a few hillocks in the shape of dog's heads. (Cynoscephalae is a Greek term meaning "dog's heads.") Consulting other sources for information on the battle, the assessment by Mr. Avery was reinforced: "The uneven ground seriously hindered the Macedonian phalanx, but heavy mist early in the day also hampered Roman mobile tactics." (WARFARE in the CLASSICAL WORLD, "The Punic Wars and Roman Expansion," page 125.) Third, though the scenario is set out for use with Vis Bellica, it occurred to me that with a little "work," the scenario could be adjusted to suit the ARMATI rules. Admittedly, what follows is not at all then an original idea. However, as I've often noted in the introduction or commentary sections of previous submissions to MWAN, the search for suitable topics and subject matter is vexing. I have also admitted to enjoying taking a second and even third look at historical battles and reconstructing these on the wargame table. The timing of the presentation by Mr. Avery was just right then. Indeed, "researching" Cynoscephalae for an ARMATI replay would eventually lead to the decision that 2004 would be a theme year. The theme? Ancients, of course. Finally, my interest was peaked by exposure to the Vis Bellica rules. After a couple of weeks looking in and around the web sites which support this new rules set (well, relatively new ... the 1st edition came out in November 2002), 1 decided to order the book and 2nd Army List (1st - 10th century AD). In some respects, perhaps this was not a wise decision. For in reading about Cynoscephalae and specifically, about the action of the unknown Tribune during the battle; in rereading ARMATI and ADVANCED ARM AT!; in reading the Vis Bellica rule book for the first time, I began to think about command and control on the Ancient battlefield. Did the rules I was more familiar with portray command and control adequately, accurately? Did the new rule set? Perhaps through some tinkering with aspects of each, I could fashion some "house" rules that would better represent the problems of command and control during Ancient battles? I may have compounded the "mistake" by looking for certain passages in The Grass Crown and Fortune's Favorites, both wonderful, historical texts in a series by Colleen McCullough. Historical fact replaced historical fiction when the chapter on The Battle of Cannae was reviewed in that astounding text by Victor Davis Hanson, Carnage and Culture. While related to the task or project at hand, such considerations and musings are best reserved for separate treatment. I am indebted to Mr. Avery however, for providing me with this much wargame "food for thought." I am also in his debt, as he presented me with a very strong foundation on which to build the ARMATI version of The Battle of Cynoscephalae, 197 BC. ORDERS OF BATTLE Macedonian The order of battle for the Macedonian army at Cynoscephalae is as follows: Phalanx @ 16,000 Mercenaries @ 1,500 Peltasts @ 4,000 (2,000 of these are Thracian) Light Infantry @ 2,000 Cavalry @ 2,000 (divided evenly between Macedonian and Thessalian contingents) In ARMATI terms, this order of battle may be broken down as follows: 20 units of Phalanx (a~ 800 men each (deployed in depth; 40mm x 90mm stands) - armed with pike/shield; FV of 7(0)0 +1 and BP of 4 1 unit of Mercenary Levy Infantry @ 700 men (80mm x 45mm stand) - armed with spear/shield; TV of 3(0)0 +1 and BP of 2 2 units of Mercenary Skirmishers @ 400 men each (80mm x 20mm stand) - armed with javelin/sword or sling/buckler; FV of 3(1)1 +2 and BP of 1 4 units of Thracian Peltasts @ 500 men each (80mm x 60mm stands) - armed with javelin/spear/shield; TV of 4(1)2 +1 and BP of 2 4 units of "other" Peltasts @ 500 men each (80mm x 60mm stands) - armed with javelin/shield; TV of 4(1)2 +1 and BP of 2 5 units of Light Infantry @ 400 men each (80mm x 20mm stands) - armed with javelin/shield or bow/sword; FV of 3(1)1 or 2(1)1 +2 and BP of 1 4 units of Cavalry @ 500 men each (80mm x 60mm stands) - armed with spear/ small shield; FV 5(1)0 +1 and BP of 3  Notes on Macedonian Order of Battle: 1. Numbers involved were checked against the information available in the CLASSICAL WARFARE text, as well as from an Internet site. Mr. Avery's approximations are correct. 2. Three (3) units of the phalanx were considered "veteran" troops and so, given a BP value of 5. 3. All phalanx elements are deployed "in depth." (See 7.9.2 Heavy Infantry in Depth, page 16 of ARMATI.) In some respects, this qualification, especially for the packmen, seems redundant. The basic unit of the phalanx was formed from a block of men 16 files across and 16 deep. Perhaps instead of the notation "in depth," a melee or combat modifier should be given to units which had greater depth than their opponents? Perhaps a +1 advantage for every 8 ranks of soldiers? But then, what impact, really, does the man in the 13th rank of a 16 rank formation have on the fighting between the first three to five ranks? 4. One (1) unit of the Macedonian Cavalry was also considered to be "veteran" class, and given a BP value of 4. 5. The skirmish / light infantry units were arranged on 80mm x 20mm stands to give the impression of greater dispersal, as opposed to the 40mm x 40mm square stand listed in the rules. 6. The CLASSICAL WARFARE text shows the wings at Cynoseephalae commanded by Philip V and a general Nicanor. Two (2) sub-generals were added to this short list of leaders. 7. The order of battle provides for a fighting roster of 25,500 men. Under the ARMATI representation, this amounts to 40 combat stands and 4 command stands. The total BP value of this force is 121. 8. The Later Macedonian army list in ADVANCED ARMATI allows for 3 Heavy Divisions and 3 Light Divisions. The army break point is 2 key units and the initiative rating is 4. For purposes of this reconstruction, the allowance is modified to: 5 Heavy Divisions and 7 Light Divisions; Army Break Point is 6, and initiative remains the same. Romans The order of battle for the Roman army at Cynoscephalae is as follows: 2 Roman Legions @ 8,400 2 Allied / Italian Legions @ 10,000 Aetolian Phalanx @ 4,000 Aetolian Peltasts @ 2,000 Aetolian Cavalry @ 400 Allied / Italian Cavalry @ 1,800 Roman Cavalry @ 400 Elephants @ 20 (approximately) In ARMATI terms, this order of battle may be broken down as follows: Roman Legion: 3 stands of Hastati (c), 500 men each (80mm x 45mm) - armed with pila/shield/sword; TV of 7(2)2 +2 and BP of 4 2 stands of Principes //i 600 men each (80mm x 45mm) - armed with pila/shield/sword; FV of 7(2)2 +2 and BP of 4 1 stand of Triarii @ 600 men (80mm x 45mm) - armed with long spear/shield/sword; TV of 7(2)2 +2 and BP of 4 2 stands of Velites @ 450 men each (80mm x 20mm) - armed with javelin/sword; TV of 3(1)1 +2 and BP of I Allied / Italian Legion: 3 stands of Hastati @ 600 men each (80mm x 45mm) - armed with pilalshield/sword; TV of 5(1)1 +1 and BP of 4 3 stands of Principes @ 600 men each (80mm x 45mm) - armed with pila/shield/sword; FV of 5(1)1 +1 and BP of 4 1 stand of Triarii @ 600 men (80mm x 45mm) - armed with long spear/shield/sword; FV of 6(1)1 +1 and BP of 4 2 stands of Skirmishers @ 400 men each (80mm x 20mm) - armed with various; FV of 2(1)1 +2 and 3(1)1 +2 and BP of I Aetolian League: 5 stands of Phalanx @ 800 men each (deployed in depth; 40mm x 90mm) - armed with pike/shield; FV of 7(0)0 +1 and BP of 4 4 stands of Peltasts @ 500 men each (80mm x 60mm) - armed with javelin/spear/shield; FV of 4(1)2 +2 and BP of 2 Cavalry: 1 stand of Roman "Knights" @ 400 men (80mm x 60mm) - armed with spear/shield; FV 4(0)0 +1 and BP of 3 3 stands of Allied / Italian Horse @ 600 men each (80mm x 60mm) - armed with spear/shield; FV of 4(0)0 + 1 and BP of 3 1 stand of Aetolian League Horse @ 400 men (80mm x 60mm) - armed with spear/shield; FV 5(1)0 +1 and BP of 3 Elephants: 1 stand - approximately 20 pachyderms (80mm x 45mm) - armed with various; FV of 4(3)1 +1 and BP of 3  Notes on Roman / Allied Order of Battle: 1. The Allied / Italian Legions, though similarly armed and trained, are given lower FV than the Roman Legions. 2. One (1) unit of the Allied / Italian Horse is considered "veteran" troopers and so, given a BP value of 4. 3. As with their opposition, the skirmish / light infantry units under the Roman eagles were arranged on 80mm x 20mm stands to give the impression of greater dispersal. 4. I could find no name for the legates or sub-generals working with T. Quinctius Flaminius at Cynoscephalae. Each legion does have a commanding officer, however. The Aetolian contingent has a separate command as well. 5. The order of battle provides for a fighting roster of 28,900 men. Under the ARMATI representation, this amounts to 49 combat stands and 6 command stands, including Flaminius. The total BP value of this force is 159. 6. The Republican Roman army list in ADVANCED ARMATI allows for 5 Heavy Divisions and 3 Light Divisions. The army break point is 2 key units and the initiative rating is 4. For purposes of this reconstruction, the allowance is modified to: 14 Heavy Divisions and 4 Light Divisions; Army Break Point is 7, and initiative remains the same. 7. For the Aetolian contingent, they have 2 Heavy Divisions and 2 Light Divisions with respect to command and control. The army or contingent break point for this force is 2 key units. Initiative rating is a non-issue; they are considered part of the Roman order of battle in this regard. TERRAIN AND DEPLOYMENTS Map I shows the layout of the wargame "table" for this reconstruction. The playing surface measured 8 feet x 4 feet, with each side setting up on the long edge. My representation of the ridge line and hillocks differs slightly from the schematic presented by Mr. Avery, and from the one accompanying the narrative in CLASSICAL WARFARE. This license is acceptable I think, as the emphasis must be placed on the dominating terrain feature itself and not on its specific outline. However, the wargaming parameters will be the same as suggested by Mr. Avery: "The ridge, for gaming convenience, should be on two contours. The lower contour should be (classed) rough terrain, and two of the three (the western and central) upper contour areas should be (classed) difficult terrain. (Italics are mine.) With respect to deployment, I took a little historical license here as well, but remained generally true to the history of the engagement. The historical record relates that this was an encounter battle: the light troops of both sides meeting on the ridge in the early morning mist. King Philip brought out part of his phalanx and pressured the Roman left. The remainder of the phalanx was trying to deploy on the unfavorable ground, when it was attacked a pushed hack by a combined force of elephants, Aetolian League infantry and legionnaires. One could make a convincing argument then, that there were really two battles fought at Cynoscephalae.  The record also informs us that at the climax of the battle, with the right wing of each side winning their battle, an unknown tribune in the Roman ranks organized approximately 20 maniples and fell on the unsuspecting rear of the "victorious" Macedonian phalanx. Unable to respond, the Macedonians were quickly cut down; the Roman victory was complete. (Please see Note 1) Not wishing to estimate the relative positions of the light troops on either side and other details, nor purposefully recreate the maneuver by the nameless tribune, I placed each army in battle order just off their respective edge of the field (wargame table). For the Macedonians, their strength was placed on the right of the line. Here, five divisions formed: three of light troops and two of heavy. To the left front of Philip V and his 11 units of phalanx were posted one division of Thracian peltasts with attached archers. Next in line was a strong detachment of mercenary peltasts. And last, off the right front corner of the phalanx, a unit of mercenary levy infantry was placed. These irregular troops were supported by a unit of javelin men and a unit of slingers. A mix of Thessalian and Macedonian cavalry completed the deployment on the right. These horsemen were aligned with the phalanx and protected the flank of same. A similar disposition was entertained on the Macedonian left, though here, numbers and divisions were less than under Philip's direct command. "General" Nicanor posted nine units of the phalanx behind a strong screen of peltasts and other light troops. Three units of Thracians and as many units of bowmen or other missile troops made up this single Light Division. Mirroring the role played on the other end of the line, a single unit of heavy cavalry protected the left flank of Nicanor's phalanx. The contingent from the Aetolian League formed the right of the Roman line. Four units of peltasts (in two divisions) fronted a small phalanx composed of five units. Just to the right of this block of heavy infantry, the Aetolian commander placed his 400 cavalry. The Roman battle line consisted of four legions: the Italian legions forming on the right and left respectively, while the Romans occupied the center. Each legion was identically deployed: Velites or skirmishers in front; Hastati in the first line; Principes in the second line; Triarii in the third and final line. Commanders placed themselves just behind the first line of their men. The only variance within this deployment was the small detachment of elephants fronting the line (between Velites and skirmishers) on the Roman right. Some three hundred yards behind the line of elephants and light infantry, an equally small detachment of Roman knights took position. The 1,800 troopers of the Italian Allied Cavalry occupied the far left of the line, close to the cohorts of Principes of the last Italian legion. In general, both forces deployed on a similar frontage. And both armies deployed with something of a gap in the middle of their line. The Macedonian position looked stronger, however. The units of the phalanx presented more of a "mass;" presented more of an unbroken line of long pikes and large, circular shields. The Roman and Allied host, in contrast, did not look as imposing, numerous or solid. On paper though, the Romans were in fact, more numerous. One could also remark that the depth of their lines made up for the lack of an "appearance" of mass, solidity. With respect to the kind of look this formation might present, well, I cannot imagine that I should like to be within the first four or five ranks of any enemy to face a Republican Roman Legion. (Please see Note 2) RULES REVIEW / REVISION Commenting on the nature of the terrain at Cynoscephalae and its subsequent effect on the types of troops present, Mr. Avery advises, "Remember that under Vis Bellica, Close Order infantry and all mounted troops who end their movement phase in Rough or Difficult terrain are marked as Disordered." Fair enough, but I was using the ARMATI rules, penned by the prolific Arty Conliffe. How best to reflect the nature of the ground on the phalanx and cohorts? With regard to movement, the Terrain Effect Chart (Section 6.9, page 12) does not contain the class of terrain "Difficult Ground." Additionally, one finds that cavalry-irrespective of type-cannot negotiate the nature of ground found at the field of Cynoscephalae. The same restriction applies to Elephants. Several modifications were made then, so as to allow movement and combat across and on the ridge line. Heavy Infantry retains the movement rate of six (6) inches, but pays a penalty of 1 /3 its move rate when in Rough terrain. Marching and fighting over Difficult terrain (the western and central hillocks on the ridge), costs Heavy Infantry 1/2 its movement rate. Light Infantry (Peltasts) can move without penalty over Rough terrain; it is only in the Difficult ground that these troops must pay two (2) inches per turn of movement. Skirmishing Infantry (Velites and the like), pay no penalty in either Rough or Difficult terrain. As for cavalry and elephants, these units will pay a penalty of 1/3 their normal movement rate when negotiating Rough ground. Neither cavalry nor elephants may enter/traverse Difficult ground. For example, the detachment of elephants in the Roman front line would move six (6) inches instead of nine (9) when the pachyderms advanced onto the ridge line. Under the ARMATI rules, on a level battlefield and all other things being equal, the phalanx and cohort were an equal match. Each unit has a frontal TV (fighting value) of 7. However, as history has shown again and again, the instances of a level battlefield and all other things being equal are very rare. In Section 7.5 Fighting Value (FV) of the ARMATI rules, one reads: "The Fighting Value of a unit is its most important attribute. The FV represents many factors, such as: weapon handling, armor protection, and discipline. Every unit has FVs assigned to it for it Front and Flank facings and a third TV for Special situations." The rules go on to explain that the Special FV rating is used when troops enter into melee across "bad" terrain. (14) Under the ARMATI rules, the Roman cohorts have a Special TV of 2. In contrast, the elements of the Macedonian phalanx have a Special TV of 0. A significant advantage then, lays with the Roman infantry (Allied Italian cohorts have a Special TV of 1) in melee against the phalanx. From the historical aspect, I can understand this assessment and rating. It is in terms of the game however, that the advantage gave me pause. Essentially, it seemed to me to be unfair to the packmen of Macedonia. Previously, I remarked that I should not like to he one of those phalangites facing Romans. Let me remark here as well, that even on ground as ill-suited as Cynoscephalae, I should not like to be in a maniple of Hastati, getting ready to engage a block of Macedonian packmen. Granted, the terrain will most likely "disorder" the ranks of the phalanx. Granted, the volley(s) of pila will add to their "disorder." However, I would still be left with the  unpleasant task of facing five or six ranks of serried pike points. After some debate, I decided to cut down the Roman advantage (no pun intended) to a Special TV of I for the Roman elements. The Allied Legions would tight on an even basis with the phalanx. All other ARMATI rules would apply with respect to these circumstances. It has been referenced in the orders of battle, that skirmishers and light infantry were (are)represented with 80mm x 20mm stands, instead of the 40mm x 40mm (40mm x 20mm, deployed in two sections, with 3 figures to a stand) as detailed on page 1 of the ARMATI rules. Prior to setting up this particular battle, I had used the 40mm x 40mm stand to portray "swarms" of skirmishers. It finally dawned on me, given the depth of some ancient formations and the coverage afforded by long lines of skirmishers, that it made more sense to have the skirmishers deployed on an 80mm x 20mm stand. With respect to the Triarii elements of the Legion, ARMATI depicts these units as roughly half the size of other cohorts. The stand of Triarii then, would only measure 40mm x 45mm, compared to the 80mm x 45mm of other line units. ARMATI does not attempt to represent each maniple of the standard Roman cohort, and rightly so. Accepting that maniples of Triarii were roughly half the strength of maniples in the first and second lines, and that there would be 10 maniples in a typical field legion, this results in 10 x 60 = 600 men in the Triarii ranks. The Avery article (supported by other sources) states that there were two Roman legions on the field at Cynoscephalae. These legions containing approximately 8,400 men. Dividing this total by 2, one gets a field strength of 4,200 men per legion. This total is then divided in order to reflect the Hastati, Principes, Triarii and Velites. Based on my rudimentary math, the totals were as listed in the orders of battle. And based on this, it seems justifiable to have the Triarii "unit" represented by a single stand measuring 80mm x 45mm. In ADVANCED ARMATI, the Basic or Core Force for a Roman Republican army consists of two (2) units each Hastati and Principes, and one (1) unit of Triarii. With a control rating of 5 for the Heavy Divisions, this allows each unit or number of maniples if you will, to act independently and yet in concert. In fact, a wargamer could set up the units in checkerboard fashion so that the Hastati would be first to engage and then, when the time was right, the Principes could be committed to the melee. But then, what of the Bonus Units? How to provide controlled divisions for these additional troops? How could I represent the more "fluid" fighting style of the Roman Legion? Looking through the rules yet again. I happened across the Advanced Rules in the Basic Book governing "Roman and Carthaginian Echelon Tactics." (40) In the Advanced Book, aspects of 2.0 Melee Break-Off (page 28), were also found to apply. Letting go of the checkerboard approach. I opted for a "system" wherein the infantry of the legion could interpenetrate. That is to suggest, if things "got to hot" for the Hastati, they could break off the melee and withdraw through the reserve line of Principes. The fresh troops in these maniples could then hear the attack of the enemy or take the contest to him. Either way, the Hastati would he allowed to reorganize and rest. For the current project of Cynoscephalae then, a Roman Legion has three (3) units of Hastati, two (2) units of Principes and one (1) unit of Triarii infantry. Each type of infantry is in its own Heavy Division. At deployment, there is three inches of open ground between each line, between each class of legion infantry. In contrast to the stated rules for breaking off from melee, I think that the legionnaires should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, I think they can opt for this in turns of combat when they have inflicted BP loss on the enemy force. I would also suggest that the Response Roll on page 28 of ADVANCED ARMATI be modified thus: 1 Unit does not break-off; continue fighting next turn. 2-6 Unit breaks off. The cumulative loss of initiative points is tracked for each split division which results, however, friendly units in the path of the unit breaking-off DO NOT have to check routed into checks as per the Basic Rules. Again, these exclusions are specifically geared to Roman and Allied / Italian Legion elements. Paragraph 2 of the battle summary of Cynoscephalae reads: "Philip charges downhill and forces back the Romans. His left wing is still deploying across the ridge. Flaminius orders the right plus elephants to attack." (WARFARE, page 124) How was the order to charge the Romans communicated through the Macedonian right wing? Did Philip send couriers or sub-commanders to "hurry up" the deployment of the left? And what of Flaminius? How did he order his units to attack, advance or hold their positions? Are these questions I should even consider, given the command and control rules in ARMATI? (Please see Note 3) This last question seems the most relevant and I apologize to the reader for going off on something of a tangent. (Earlier, I did remark to thinking about command and control issues on the ancient battlefield.) For instance, the role of general officers may be viewed as a kind of after thought. Section 2.3.1. of the Basic Rules explains: "In the periods covered by ARMATI, a general could exercise only a limited degree of influence on his units once the battle commenced-mainly to inspire troops by his exalted presence." Perhaps another way of phrasing this is: "objects in motion tend to stay in motion." That is to comment, irrespective of which side wins the initiative roll that game turn, as a player. I can be fairly certain that my cohort, war band or line of cataphracts is going to move in the direction I want them to move. However, is it realistic to have well ordered lines of light and heavy infantry. light and heavy cavalry. advancing toward one another at a steady and measured pace? Perhaps I should not have ordered and skimmed through the Vis Bellica rules book while working on this project? Perhaps I should not have toyed with the idea of utilizing the DBA "system" for each major leader on the field at Cynoscephalae'? I guess what it boils down to is this: what kind of 're-fight of Cynoscephalae did I desire'? Did I want to follow the historical record to the letter and allow the unknown tribune to swing the 20 or so maniples around into the backs of the Macedonian packmen? Or, was I simply more interested in "researching" the orders of battle: recreating the terrain: making sure the deployments were "accurate:" tinkering with the rules a little hit. and then just "pressing the go button" to see which side would emerge victorious from what would undoubtedly be a "train smash" between legion and phalanx at various points along the ridge? Here, this last question seems to run on, and I again apologize to the reader . It appears that instead of presenting a revision to the existing rules in ARMATI and ADVANCED ARMATI, I am typing (thinking) out loud ... as it were. In summary, I guess I am not quite content with the rules governing controlled and uncontrolled divisions. It seems to me that the only "penalty" (the quotation marks are mine) endured is the loss of initiative. Even if each original division is split due to combat or other reasons, the elements of the division remain "in control" and the units may move freely. Perhaps I am thinking too much about this specific "issue?" Returning to more familiar and more comfortable ground, the following two points represent more parameters for the scenario as opposed to rules revisions. First, with respect to deployment, the ARMATI guidelines are superseded by the historical account. While there is a center (battle line), right and left flank for each host, there is not a restricted deployment center, left and right flank. Second, with respect to game length, there is not set number of turns within which King Philip or the Consul Flaminius must earn victory. Army Break Points have been established by means of some educated guesswork. This does not mean that there is not room for one or two additional turns after one side has reached their limit. The Roman victory condition "big man down" (in reference to Philip) as listed in the Avery article, does have a certain appeal, however. Pike v. Pila: Centurions in the Mist Battle Replay Back to MWAN # 127 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum 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