Johnny Okane (Order #7165245) Introduction to the Hurlbat Publishing Edition

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Johnny Okane (Order #7165245) Introduction to the Hurlbat Publishing Edition johnny okane (order #7165245) Introduction to the Hurlbat Publishing Edition Weloe to the Hurlat Pulishig editio of Miro Warfare “eries: Miro Ancients This series of games was original published by Tabletop Games in the 1970s with this title being published in 1976. Each game in the series aims to recreate the feel of tabletop wargaming with large numbers of miniatures but using printed counters and terrain so that games can be played in a small space and are very cost-effective. In these new editions we have kept the rules and most of the illustrations unchanged but have modernised the layout and counter designs to refresh the game. These basic rules can be further enhanced through the use of the expansion sets below, which each add new sets of army counters and rules to the core game: Product Subject Additional Armies Expansion I Chariot Era & Far East Assyrian; Chinese; Egyptian Expansion II Classical Era Indian; Macedonian; Persian; Selucid Expansion III Enemies of Rome Britons; Gallic; Goth Expansion IV Fall of Rome Byzantine; Hun; Late Roman; Sassanid Expansion V The Dark Ages Norman; Saxon; Viking Happy gaming! Kris & Dave Hurlbat July 2012 © Copyright 2012 Hurlbat Publishing Edited by Kris Whitmore Contents Introduction to the Hurlbat Publishing Edition ................................................................................................................................... 2 Move Procedures ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Terrain ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Missile Combat ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Melee Combat .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix One – Creating Terrain ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix Two - Deciding the Winner ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix Three – Counters and Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendix Four – Combat Charts ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix Five – Rules clarifications .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Tip - For best results when pritig outers, please set our Page “alig optio to Noe. © Copyright 2012 Hurlbat Publishing http://www.hurlbat.co.uk 2 johnny okane (order #7165245) Micro Ancient Warfare This game recreates a battle during the Punic Wars, between Carthaginian and Roman Republican armies. The Roman army counters represent a force of two legions, with auxiliary and other friendly foreign troops, totalling approximately 22,000 men. The Carthaginian army is typical of a mercenary type army, with counters representing some 30,000 men. Using the simple but comprehensive rules, up to six players are able to recreate a complete battle on any flat surface. The battlefield can be varied to suit any type of terrain, thus giving an extremely variable playing area. Now the Carthaginian army can once again cross the Alps into Italy, fight their way into the heart of the Roman countryside, winning great victories such as at Cannae, and once again be forced back into the African continent, to be defeated at Zama. You are the general commanding one of these armies. © Copyright 2012 Hurlbat Publishing http://www.hurlbat.co.uk 3 johnny okane (order #7165245) Move Procedures The game is played on an alternate move basis, each side throwing one die at the beginning of the game and the higher score moving first on all odd numbered moves. No unit, other than those which are counter-charging, routing, retreating or evading a oe i their ees oe tur. The sequence of each move is as follows: 1. Move all routing and retreating units 2. Moving player declares any charges, measures the distance to contact and determines at which point in the move contact was made. The moving player then moves his other units as required 3. Non-moving player specifies any evading of counter-charging units and determines their move 4. Non-moving player determines the result of any missile fire, resolving any missile morale tests resulting from this missile fire as they occur 5. Resolve all melees, taking a morale test as the result of each individual melee as it is completed Terrain See Appendix One for details on how to make and set up your battle terrain. Cover A unit will be considered to be in cover when in a wood, on the edge of dead ground, in broken ground or behind a wall or hedge. Vision Restrictions Troops in woods will be able to see other troops only if they are within 30mm of each other. Troops in the woods will not be seen by troops outside the wood if the latter is not on the edge of the wood. © Copyright 2012 Hurlbat Publishing http://www.hurlbat.co.uk 4 johnny okane (order #7165245) Interpenetration This occurs when one unit passes through another. One unit must be stationary whilst the other moves through it. Open order units may pass through other units without unforming either, all other troops will unform both their own unit and the ones they pass through. Close order units may not interpenetrate other close order units, with the exception of the Roman Cohort change rule. Units interpenetrated may not mount a counter-charge in the same move. Unforming A unit will become unformed when one of the following occurs: 1. Close Order and order troops and armoured cavalry will become unformed when moving through woods, over broken ground and soft sand 2. If M3 class troops are contacted by an enemy whilst wheeling 3. If a unit is hit in the flank or rear and no troops are facing that way 4. After disengaging from a melee against any troops other than open order infantry 5. Immediately a unit begins to rout 6. After completing a pursuit, but not whilst pursuing 7. Cavalry within 75mm of elephants 8. By interpenetration Reforming A unit in melee will not be able to reform until it disengages. Reforming will take one stationary move. Missile armed troops may fire at half effect whilst reforming. All troops may counter-charge if charged but will count as unformed in the melee. Roman Cohort Change Rule This rule is included to simulate the interchanging of lines in the Roman Cohort when in melee. A Roman Cohort may change position with another cohort which is supporting is and which is within 10mm of its immediate rear. This must be done during their own move turn; the object being to bring a fresh unit into contact. When this movement is used, it will mean the Roman unit giving ground because the front unit must withdraw through the supporting unit. In this case only, neither will become unformed. Enemy units may follow up in the same move and will be classed as advancing if they do so. Enemy unit Enemy unit Cohort 1 Enemy unit Cohort 2 Cohort 2 Cohort 2 Cohort 1 Cohort 1 Durig the Ee Uits During the Roman move, Enemy unit advances to move, both units choose to Cohort 1 chooses to fall contact Cohort 2 in the melee. back through Cohort 2, same move, if required. It neither becoming will not count following up unformed or charging but will count as advancing. © Copyright 2012 Hurlbat Publishing http://www.hurlbat.co.uk 5 johnny okane (order #7165245) Missile Combat Weapon Ranges Weapon Close Range Long Range Bows Up to 75mm 75mm to 150mm Slings Up to 75mm N/A Javelins Up to 15mm N/A War Engines N/A Up to 400mm Note: Hand-hurled weapons are not thrown during the move that a unit charges into contact. This is taken into account in the melee calculation. No unit may fire whilst charging. Arcs of Fire To determine if a unit can fire at a target, place the firing arc segment alongside the firing unit counter and lay a tape measure along the appropriate line. If any of the target counters are within the arc then they may be engaged. Open order bow armed cavalry may also fire 60° either side of their centre to the rear. Missile fire calculation When two opposing units come within the relevant missile range, and one is capable of firing, the result of such fire is calculated as follows: 1. Measure the range from the centre of the firing unit to the nearest point on the target counter and determine if it is within close or long range 2. Turn to the missile table on the combat charts, and cross-reference the relevant number of fighting factors firing with the number of fighting factors in the particular target formation. This gives the basic factor loss by the target. 3. Throw a random factor and multiply the result by five. Add or subtract this result to the basic factor from 2 above Missile Random Factor This is determined by throwing one red die, counting the score as negative, and one black
Recommended publications
  • The History of Egypt Under the Ptolemies
    UC-NRLF $C lb EbE THE HISTORY OF EGYPT THE PTOLEMIES. BY SAMUEL SHARPE. LONDON: EDWARD MOXON, DOVER STREET. 1838. 65 Printed by Arthur Taylor, Coleman Street. TO THE READER. The Author has given neither the arguments nor the whole of the authorities on which the sketch of the earlier history in the Introduction rests, as it would have had too much of the dryness of an antiquarian enquiry, and as he has already published them in his Early History of Egypt. In the rest of the book he has in every case pointed out in the margin the sources from which he has drawn his information. » Canonbury, 12th November, 1838. Works published by the same Author. The EARLY HISTORY of EGYPT, from the Old Testament, Herodotus, Manetho, and the Hieroglyphieal Inscriptions. EGYPTIAN INSCRIPTIONS, from the British Museum and other sources. Sixty Plates in folio. Rudiments of a VOCABULARY of EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS. M451 42 ERRATA. Page 103, line 23, for Syria read Macedonia. Page 104, line 4, for Syrians read Macedonians. CONTENTS. Introduction. Abraham : shepherd kings : Joseph : kings of Thebes : era ofMenophres, exodus of the Jews, Rameses the Great, buildings, conquests, popu- lation, mines: Shishank, B.C. 970: Solomon: kings of Tanis : Bocchoris of Sais : kings of Ethiopia, B. c. 730 .- kings ofSais : Africa is sailed round, Greek mercenaries and settlers, Solon and Pythagoras : Persian conquest, B.C. 525 .- Inarus rebels : Herodotus and Hellanicus : Amyrtaus, Nectanebo : Eudoxus, Chrysippus, and Plato : Alexander the Great : oasis of Ammon, native judges,
    [Show full text]
  • A Literary Sources
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82860-4 — The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 2nd Edition Index More Information Index A Literary sources Livy XXVI.24.7–15: 77 (a); XXIX.12.11–16: 80; XXXI.44.2–9: 11 Aeschines III.132–4: 82; XXXIII.38: 195; XXXVII.40–1: Appian, Syrian Wars 52–5, 57–8, 62–3: 203; XXXVIII.34: 87; 57 XXXIX.24.1–4: 89; XLI.20: 209 (b); ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ I.9–11 and XLII.29–30.7: 92; XLII.51: 94; 261 V.35–40: XLV.29.3–30 and 32.1–7: 96 15 [Aristotle] Oeconomica II.2.33: I Maccabees 1.1–9: 24; 1.10–25 and 5 7 Arrian, Alexander I.17: ; II.14: ; 41–56: 217; 15.1–9: 221 8 9 III.1.5–2.2: (a); III.3–4: ; II Maccabees 3.1–3: 216 12 13 IV.10.5–12.5: ; V.28–29.1: ; Memnon, FGrH 434 F 11 §§5.7–11: 159 14 20 V1.27.3–5: ; VII.1.1–4: ; Menander, The Sicyonian lines 3–15: 104 17 18 VII.4.4–5: ; VII.8–9 and 11: Menecles of Barca FGrHist 270F9:322 26 Arrian, FGrH 156 F 1, §§1–8: (a); F 9, Pausanias I.7: 254; I.9.4: 254; I.9.5–10: 30 §§34–8: 56; I.25.3–6: 28; VII.16.7–17.1: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae V.201b–f, 100 258 43 202f–203e: ; VI.253b–f: Plutarch, Agis 5–6.1 and 7.5–8: 69 23 Augustine, City of God 4.4: Alexander 10.6–11: 3 (a); 15: 4 (a); Demetrius of Phalerum, FGrH 228 F 39: 26.3–10: 8 (b); 68.3: cf.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ptolemies: an Unloved and Unknown Dynasty. Contributions to a Different Perspective and Approach
    THE PTOLEMIES: AN UNLOVED AND UNKNOWN DYNASTY. CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND APPROACH JOSÉ DAS CANDEIAS SALES Universidade Aberta. Centro de História (University of Lisbon). Abstract: The fifteen Ptolemies that sat on the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (the date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII) are in most cases little known and, even in its most recognised bibliography, their work has been somewhat overlooked, unappreciated. Although boisterous and sometimes unloved, with the tumultuous and dissolute lives, their unbridled and unrepressed ambitions, the intrigues, the betrayals, the fratricides and the crimes that the members of this dynasty encouraged and practiced, the Ptolemies changed the Egyptian life in some aspects and were responsible for the last Pharaonic monuments which were left us, some of them still considered true masterpieces of Egyptian greatness. The Ptolemaic Period was indeed a paradoxical moment in the History of ancient Egypt, as it was with a genetically foreign dynasty (traditions, language, religion and culture) that the country, with its capital in Alexandria, met a considerable economic prosperity, a significant political and military power and an intense intellectual activity, and finally became part of the world and Mediterranean culture. The fifteen Ptolemies that succeeded to the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII), after Alexander’s death and the division of his empire, are, in most cases, very poorly understood by the public and even in the literature on the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coins from the Necropolis "Metlata" Near the Village of Rupite
    margarita ANDONOVA the coins from the necropolis "metlata" near the village of rupite... THE COINS FROM THE NECROPOLIS METLATA NEAR THE VILLAGE "OF RUPITE" (F. MULETAROVO), MUNICIPALITY OF PETRICH by Margarita ANDONOVA, Regional Museum of History– Blagoevgrad This article sets to describe and introduce known as Charon's fee was registered through the in scholarly debate the numismatic data findspots of the coins on the skeleton; specifically, generated during the 1985-1988 archaeological these coins were found near the head, the pelvis, excavations at one of the necropoleis situated in the left arm and the legs. In cremations in situ, the locality "Metlata" near the village of Rupite. coins were placed either inside the grave or in The necropolis belongs to the long-known urns made of stone or clay, as well as in bowls "urban settlement" situated on the southern placed next to them. It is noteworthy that out of slopes of Kozhuh hill, at the confluence of 167 graves, coins were registered only in 52, thus the Strumeshnitsa and Struma Rivers, and accounting for less than 50%. The absence of now identified with Heraclea Sintica. The coins in some graves can probably be attributed archaeological excavations were conducted by to the fact that "in Greek society, there was no Yulia Bozhinova from the Regional Museum of established dogma about the way in which the History, Blagoevgrad. souls of the dead travelled to the realm of Hades" The graves number 167 and are located (Зубарь 1982, 108). According to written sources, within an area of ​​750 m². Coins were found mainly Euripides, it is clear that the deceased in 52 graves, both Hellenistic and Roman, may be accompanied to the underworld not only and 10 coins originate from areas (squares) by Charon, but also by Hermes or Thanatos.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult. Global and Local Perspectives?
    The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult Global and Local Perspectives? 1 Franca Landucci DOI – 10.7358/erga-2016-002-land AbsTRACT – Demetrius Poliorketes is considered by modern scholars the true founder of ruler cult. In particular the Athenians attributed him several divine honors between 307 and 290 BC. The ancient authors in general consider these honors in a negative perspec- tive, while offering words of appreciation about an ideal sovereignty intended as a glorious form of servitude and embodied in Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes’ son and heir. An analysis of the epigraphic evidences referring to this king leads to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas did not officially encourage the worship towards himself. KEYWORDS – Antigonids, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes, Hellenism, ruler cult. Antigonidi, Antigono Gonata, culto del sovrano, Demetrio Poliorcete, ellenismo. Modern scholars consider Demetrius Poliorketes the true founder of ruler cult due to the impressively vast literary tradition on the divine honours bestowed upon this historical figure, especially by Athens, between the late fourth and the early third century BC 2. As evidenced also in modern bib- liography, these honours seem to climax in the celebration of Poliorketes as deus praesens in the well-known ithyphallus dedicated to him by the Athenians around 290 3. Documentation is however pervaded by a tone that is strongly hostile to the granting of such honours. Furthermore, despite the fact that it has been handed down to us through Roman Imperial writers like Diodorus, Plutarch and Athenaeus, the tradition reflects a tendency contemporary to the age of the Diadochi, since these same authors refer, often explicitly, to a 1 All dates are BC, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Successors
    Perdiccas, 323-320 Antigonus (western Asia Minor) 288-285 Antipater (Macedonia) 301, after Ipsus Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Archon (Babylon) Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Ptolemy (Egypt) Asander (Caria) Ptolemy (Egypt) Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Persia to Alexander the Great Atropates (northern Media) 315-311 Alexander’s Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Eumenes (Cappadocia, Pontus) vs. 318-316 Cassander Cassander (Macedonia) Laomedon (Syria) Lysimachus Daniel 11:1-4 Antigonus Demetrius (Cyprus, Tyre, Demetrius (Macedonia, Cyprus, Leonnatus (Phrygia) Ptolemy Successors Cassander Sidon, Agaean islands) Tyre, Sidon, Agaean islands) Lysimachus (Thrace) Peithon Seleucus Menander (Lydia) Ptolemy Bythinia Bythinia Olympias (Epirus) vs. 332-260 BC Seleucus Epirus Epirus “And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise Peithon (southern Media) Antigonus Greece Greece Philippus (Bactria) vs. Aristodemus Heraclean kingdom Heraclean kingdom Ptolemy (Egypt) Demetrius in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as Eumenes Paeonia Paeonia Stasanor (Aria) Nearchus Olympias Pontus Pontus and others . Peithon Polyperchon Rhodes Rhodes he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece. And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases.” (Dan 11:2-3) 320 330310 300 290 280 270 260 250 Antipater, 320-319 Alcetas and Attalus (Pisidia ) Antigenes (Susiana) Antigonus (army in Asia) Arrhidaeus (Phrygia) Cassander
    [Show full text]
  • Military Technology in the 12Th Century
    Zurich Model United Nations MILITARY TECHNOLOGY IN THE 12TH CENTURY The following list is a compilation of various sources and is meant as a refer- ence guide. It does not need to be read entirely before the conference. The breakdown of centralized states after the fall of the Roman empire led a number of groups in Europe turning to large-scale pillaging as their primary source of income. Most notably the Vikings and Mongols. As these groups were usually small and needed to move fast, building fortifications was the most efficient way to provide refuge and protection. Leading to virtually all large cities having city walls. The fortifications evolved over the course of the middle ages and with it, the battle techniques and technology used to defend or siege heavy forts and castles. Designers of castles focused a lot on defending entrances and protecting gates with drawbridges, portcullises and barbicans as these were the usual week spots. A detailed ref- erence guide of various technologies and strategies is compiled on the following pages. Dur- ing the third crusade and before the invention of gunpowder the advantages and the balance of power and logistics usually favoured the defender. Another major advancement and change since the Roman empire was the invention of the stirrup around 600 A.D. (although wide use is only mentioned around 900 A.D.). The stirrup enabled armoured knights to ride war horses, creating a nearly unstoppable heavy cavalry for peasant draftees and lightly armoured foot soldiers. With the increased usage of heavy cav- alry, pike infantry became essential to the medieval army.
    [Show full text]
  • Never Marry a Man Called Thunderbolt: Ptolemy Ceraunus and Arsinoë
    Never Marry a Man Called Thunderbolt: Ptolemy Ceraunus and Arsinoë The brief marriage (c.281/80) of Arsinoë, daughter of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, and Ptolemy Ceraunus, son of Ptolemy I and Eurydice, had disastrous consequences. Once Arsinoë opened the great citadel of Cassandreia (previously under her control) to her new husband, he murdered two of her sons by her first marriage to Lysimachus, despite his earlier promises to treat them as his heirs. Ceraunus did not long survive this particular thunderbolt of violence. Invading Gauls, lured by Macedonian political disarray, slaughtered him in battle and paraded his head around on a stake (c. 279). The grieving Arsinoë, on the other hand, fled first to Samothrace and then to her native Alexandria where she married her full brother, Ptolemy II and ended her days in security, wealth, and even divinity. The wedding (hardly a marriage) of Ceraunus and Arsinoë raises a number of specific issues. Why did Arsinoë want to marry him and why did he want to marry her? Did her brother Ptolemy II have anything to do with her marriage to his defeated rival, Ceraunus? Was it a “trick” marriage, never intended by Ceraunus to do anything more than give him the opportunity for murder or did the actions of Arsinoë and her sons somehow force Ceraunus to act as he did? Did Arsinoë marry Ceraunus because she wanted to be a basilissa once more or was she in fact still a basilissa? Is it mere coincidence that the same woman who married her half-sibling next married her full sibling, initiating the series of close-kin marriages that came to characterize the Ptolemaic dynasty? Is there a connection between the hostility to polygamy (or at least its consequences) demonstrated by Arsinoë in these marriage negotiations and the rise of royal endogamy? Macedonian/ Hellenistic dynastic history can resemble a series of Sopranos episodes.
    [Show full text]
  • 9780521812085 Index.Pdf
    Cambridge University Press 0521812089 - Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections Frank W. Walbank Index More information Indexes I GENERAL Dionysus and Heracles, ; war against Persiaplannedby Philip II, Abydus, Philip V takes, – Alexander, governor of Corinth, declares Acarnania, Philip V campaigns in, independence, Achaea, Achaean League: possible Alexandria, temple of Demeter and Kore and development out of village communities, Thesmophorion at, – ; Adonis festival, ; rise of poleis in, ; cities not attested ; nature of population, –; Polybius’ archaeologically before , ; Spartans picture impressionistic, introduce oligarchies, ; garrisons and Ambracia, Philip V campaigns in, tyrants under Antigonus II, ; coinage, Ambracus, ; Calydon belongs to, ; revival in Ameinias, Phocian pirate, third century, –, , ; appeals to Andriscus, Macedonian pretender, ; Doson, ; Achaeans detained at support for him a sign of infatuation, Rome, ; Achaean assemblies, –; Andros, battle of, , ; date of, possesses primary assembly down to , Antander, historian, ; dominated byelite, ´ ; Achaean Antigonids, and sea-power, – ; allegedly War, – aimed at universal dominion, , –; Achaeus, provides example to Polybius’ failed to maintain naval preponderance, readers, ; claimed connection with Argeads, Actium, battle of, Acusilaus of Argos, Antigonus I Monophthalmus, faces Ptolemy, Admetus, Macedonian, honoured at Delos, Cassander and Lysimachus, ; death at Ipsus, Aegeira, Antigonus II Gonatas, need for fleet,
    [Show full text]
  • Mithridatic Pontic 100Bc – 46 Bc
    MITHRIDATIC PONTIC 100BC – 46 BC The following Army Organisation List (AOL) will enable you to build a Mithridatic Pontic army for War & Conquest. Please refer to the introductory online Army Organisation List guide document. This is Version 3, April 2020. Feedback and observations are most welcome. Thanks to John O'Connor for creating the original list. The Kingdom of Pontus, located in the north of Asia Minor on the southern shores of the Black Sea, was one of Rome’s most persistent enemies. Pontus ruled over a large and wealthy area including most of the Black Sea coast, the Crimean Bosporus, Cappadocia and parts of Armenia. Due to this her armies contained an eclectic mix of troops from all of the nations in the area and large numbers of mercenaries. Her armies defeated Roman armies several times during the Mithridatic Wars but, unfortunately, only defeats at 2nd Chaeronea, Orchomenus and Zela (Veni, Vidi, Vici) are written about in most general histories – that’s if the Mithridatic Wars get a mention at all. Pontus was also responsible for the only recorded successful use of scythed chariots at the River Amnias against the Bithynians. ARMY COMPOSITION PERSONALITIES OF WAR SUPPORTING FORMATIONS Up to 25% of the points value of the army Up to 50% of the points value of the army may be Personalities of War may be selected from supporting An Army General must be selected. formations Strategy Intervention Points are automatically pooled in a Pontic army ALLIED FORMATIONS except from allied commanders Up to 25% of the points value of the army may be selected from allied formations CAVALRY Up to 50% of the points value of the army LEGENDS OF WAR may be cavalry.
    [Show full text]
  • Ptolemy I Soter, the First King of Ancient Egypt's Ptolemaic Dynasty
    Ptolemy I Soter, The First King of Ancient Egypt’s Ptolemaic Dynasty Article by Jimmy Dunn In the ancient world, there is no surprise that military men often became rulers. These men, most of whom rose through the military ranks, usually had considerable administrative skills and had proved themselves to be leaders. Almost certainly the first man to unite Egypt at the dawn of civilization was a military man who became king, and this tradition has been followed throughout the history of the world, up unto our present times. Alexander the Great built an empire during the latter part of the first millennium BC, including Egypt which he captured in about 332 BC. Though he ordered the building of a great city in his name on the Egyptian Mediterranean coast, he was not finished with his conquests and would soon depart the country, leaving behind a banker of Naucratis named Cleomenes as Egypt's satrap, or governor. He was greatly despised. Demosthenes called him "Ruler of Egypt and dishonest manipulator of the country's lucrative grain trade". Aristotle even spoke up, concurring and citing Cleomenes' numerous incidents of fraudulent conduct with merchants, priests of the temple and government officials. The Roman historian Arrian added his own assessment, telling us that "he was an evil man who committed many grievous wrongs in Egypt" When Ptolemy I took over the post from Clemones in Egypt, he had little option but to try, sentence and execute Cleomenes. Ptolemy I is thought to have been the son of Lagus, a Macedonian nobleman of Eordaea.
    [Show full text]