How close to a realistic Seleukid army would this be?

[Dayve]

I've come up with a new houserule which i use for all campaigns since i'm so tired of being able to walk over absolutely anything that comes at me, and that is always play on VH/M and never use an army bigger than 10 units, no matter what. That's 10 units including the general. So with that in mind, here's what i've been using as the Seleukids, and i'm just wondering how close to realistic it is.

First of all i've got the main battle line. This is always 4 units strong for me. The unit descriptions say that Pantodapoi phalangites were used in and around 272BC, but not in great quantities and only in the part of the battle line that was going to see the least action. It says that Kleurchoi phalangites were the workhorse and most numerous, and that pezhetairoi were the cream and weren't used in all that great a number.

It says that peltastai were being phased out and replaced with thureophoroi, and it says that jewish spearmen were a common sight all over the empire in cities, in armies, pretty much everywhere.

So for the early campaign i've got:

1 General
1 Pantodapoi phalangite
2 Kleurchoi
1 pezhetairoi
1 peltastai
2 thureophoroi (or 1 and 1 jewish spearmen)
1 slinger
1 unit of light or medium cavalry.

So how is that on the realism scale? There's nothing overpowered about it, it's very balanced, it allows your to fight effectively but there is still a very real risk of losing battles, it isn't just a walkover, especially when you come up against 20-unit stacks. If the army is being led by my faction leader or faction heir then i'll perhaps replace one unit of the kleurchoi phalangites with some silver shields.

Now, that army is for the western half of the empire, where you will fight against the Ptolemaioi, Pontos, Armenia, possibly Makedonia.

The eastern half is completely different and it's hard to keep to a specific set of units, but the 10 per stack maximum rule still applies. I lose so many men fighting against the Pahlava there, losing cities and then retaking them, defending them, etc... it's a constant fight with the AI to hire the best mercenaries for that kind of warfare before they can. The only thing i can say for certain about what my army composition there is, is that it will always consist of 50% slingers and archers.

How did the Seleukids fight the horse heavy eastern people in reality? Especially the Pahlava. Surely they must have realised that lumbering phalangites were utterly useless in the vast expanses of the east against extremely mobile hit and run factions who could pick them off one by one day after day and retreat after the skirmish is over...

Or did they not? I understand the Seleukids suffered some spectacular defeats at the hands of the Pahlava...

[marodeur]

I understand the Seleukids suffered some spectacular defeats at the hands of the Pahlava...

That's true. And with your army composition you will suffer some quite historic defeats against historically correct pahlava armies consisting primarily of horse archers and better-than-you-will-ever-have cavalry units (which you can't ecpect ai to generate by itself). But your army will diw in historically correct fashion... .

[Dayve]

That's true. And with your army composition you will suffer some quite historic defeats against historically correct pahlava armies consisting primarily of horse archers and better-than-you-will-ever-have cavalry units (which you can't ecpect ai to generate by itself). But your army will diw in historically correct fashion... .

Well, like i said, the army i mentioned was the western army which works like a charm against the Ptolemaioi. On the eastern frontiers of my empire my armies look so different you'd hardly be able to tell they belonged to the same faction. Large amounts of long-range missile troops and medium and light spear infantry.

To be honest, i'm clueless as to how to fight the Pahlava. I've been attacking them in towns where their horses don't have the mobility of a field battle, and then defending towns. I've been waging war in city streets rather than out in the open, because i know if i go out in the open i'll be quickly annihlated and lose some very important eastern provinces which generate a lot of income for me.

Any tips for me on how to fight Pahlava as Seleukids?

[NeoSpartan]

I've come up with a new houserule which i use for all campaigns since i'm so tired of being able to walk over absolutely anything that comes at me, and that is always play on VH/M and ...

OR you could set it to VH/M no battle fatige, or just VH/H, or Vh/h no battle fatige

as that gives you a challenge, but at the same time the AI's bonus is not too strong that you have to resort to AI abuse. (thats what I currently do)

I've also heard alex.exe gives the AI a few IQ point. I got a few days ago but have yet to install it.

[SwissBarbar]

Whats the difference between VH/H and VH/h ?

@ Dayve: I find it very suspenseful the way you play your campaign, I do it almost the same way, just playing another faction and that my 2 main armies still are fullstacks.

So in my KH-Campaign (meanwhile late):

Royal Army (Europe)

1x FM (Faction Leader or Faction heir, if both are too old another son or grandson of the FL)
(core)
4x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Thorakitai Hoplitai
2x Thureophoroi
(light supportive infantery)
4x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
3x Peltastai
(cavallery)
4x Hippeis Xystophoroi



Royal Army (Mikra Asia)

1x FM (Satrap of Mikra Asia or one of his Aids)
(core)
4x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Katpatuka Zanteush
2x Thureophoroi
(light supportive infantery)
4x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
3x Peltastai
(cavallery)
4x Hippeis Xystophoroi



Standard Army

1x FM (must have served in another Standard Army for at least 5 years or 5 battles)
1x FM (second in command)
1x FM (third in command)
(core)
2x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Thureophoroi
(light infantery)
2x Ekdromoi Hoplitai or Hoplitai Haploi
(light supportive infantery)
2x Peltastai
2x Sphendonetai
(cavallery)
1x Hippeis
1x Hippakontistai


The Main armies are for emergency cases. I recommend you the same. I also am getting closer to pahlava, the late Hay heavy cavallery was a challenge alredy, but they had not so many horse archers, so its going to get even harder. 1 tip: good slingers are excellent against heavy cavallery and FM, no other unit has killed more enemy FM than my Rhodian Slingers. I also intend to create Asian Standard Armies with many archers instead of the light infantery and the light supportive infantery to fight Pahlava, it seems to be the only way.

[Dayve]

Your armies are too powerful for my tastes, with all that elite infantry and so many slingers it's almost cheating against an AI that doesn't know how to react when faced with 4 units of slingers. What i mean is, slingers are supposed to cause heavy casualties BUT compell the enemy to fight, and once the fight starts they have to stop firing otherwise they kill their own guys too.

The AI doesn't know that. If you're the attacking army, they will simply stand idly and let you destroy them with slingers, so with those 4 units of slingers you could have an army of akontistai and levy hoplites and still win because the enemy would be weakened so bad by the slingers.

So... i only use 1 against western armies, at most.

But then east is different. In the east factions settle wars with arrows instead of swords, so it's an entirely different ballgame.

[SwissBarbar]

well its the royal armies, who are supposed to be elite and who are only used in emergency cases, as i wrote. The Standard armies use max. 2 Slinger units as you see.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Fuzzy rule of thumb for infantry - cavalry distribution of the ancient Iranian empires: For every five infantry, add one horseman. From there, for every three to ten horsemen, add a knight. You therefore get a range of fifteen to fifty infantry for every knight you field. Food-for-thought, especially if you know how your economy looks like and what types of troops are available to you.

[NeoSpartan]

Whats the difference between VH/H and VH/h ?

.

Not pressing "Shift" and "h" at the same time.

[abou]

How the Seleukids and Parthians fought each other is, to be honest, unknown. We don't really have much on the record. We know that when Antiochos III, IV, and VII began their campaigns they were successful - about all we have info on is the Elburz crossing by Antiochos III, IIRC. The evidence for Antiochos IV is murky. Antiochos VII, however, didn't play it as smart as he should have and wintered in freshly conquered territory with his army split into smaller contingents. The sources may be biased, but apparently his military behaved badly pissing off the locals so that when the Parthians did come back they were easily able to isolate groups by ambush in Media. Parthians played smarter, not harder.

So it seems that when the Seleukids got their act together and made a serious attempt to push the Parthians back, they could; the problem was in keeping that land afterward. Of course, it doesn't help when your satraps declare independence all the time and you have infighting between the royal family.

So, considering we don't have much info, how did the Seleukids do it? My guess is the cavalry contingent of the Seleukids was big enough and quick enough to keep the Parthians worried about fighting a stand-up battle or getting caught in an attempt at a hit-and-run . From there, it would just be a matter of sticking to broken or rolling terrain where you can nullify the Parthian horse advantage and moving quickly enough to bottle-up the Parthians in their cities under siege. It's hard to conceptualize it since in RTW we can only represent so many cities on a map, but sieges small and large happened all the time and it's clear that the Seleukids were pretty damn good at it... as long as you wouldn't mind a city getting torn up in the fighting a la Sardeis or Tyre.

[Conqueror]

Good luck getting that to work when sticking to max 10 units/army though