A full account of the battle and the translation of the sources into a feasible scenario can be found in the Lost Battles itself. However, a brief summary is useful for the reader of this report. 

This battle was the second encounter between an Greek phalanx-based army and the Roman legions. The first being at Haraclea in 280BC. The locations of other battles from the campaign are illustarted to the right. The two armies were similiar in size though of different troops. Though at Asculum the Romans had more infantry and a number anti-elephant devices. In addition after the battle of Heraclea, in which the Greek war elephants had a heavy impact on the Romans, the legions were provided with flammable weapons and anti-elephant devices in an attempt to counter the Greek elephants.

Pyrrhus' army comprised Macedonian infantry and cavalry. Supporting these with Greek mercenary infantry, allied Italian Greeks, including a Tarantine militia, some 20 elephants as well as Samnite infantry and cavalry. The Greek army however had an advantage in cavalry and of course a number of elephants. 

The Lost Battles scenario deals with only the second day of fighting. Further, the arguments for terrain and where the battle are fought are all explored by Sabin in the scenario background. For our battle however we selected not to have additional terrain.

Sabin's scenario calls for a troop scale 2000 men per average infantry unit. This means that an average infantry formation at Asculum represents 2000 men while a levy infantry formation is twice that number, some 4000 men. In contrast a veteran infantry formation is only 1000 men. Using this scale average cavalry formations convert to 1000 men while veteran cavalry formations represent only 500 men. For Asculum this translates to the following:

In Lost Battles movement and combat is completed using sectors, of which there are 20 arranged in a grid five wide by four deep. For Asculum each grid represents an area some 800 metres across. The historical deployment is illustrated below with the historically the deployment of the armies shown.

However, for our refight we opted to use a free deployment. That is each army was not placed as above but rather the formations were deployed by the respective commanders. 

The following describes the key elements of our refight.

The Battle:

Our battle of Asculum started with an aggressive deployment by Pyrrhus which was generally along historical lines. One significant exception was the deployment of one formation of elephants on the Greek left-centre. Another formation of Greek elephants and supporting infantry remained in reserve, rather than being on the Greek right centre as illustrated above.

The Romans counted with a solid infantry centre where light infantry were pushed forward in front of the Roman and allied legions. What Roman and Italian cavalry existed was divided between the wings. Roman Anti-Elephant weapons, bolstering the light infantry, were deployed opposite the forward deployed Hellenic elephants, that is on the Roman right centre.

Soon the Greek troops advanced. The elephants soon attacked the Roman light infantry, who were bolstered by various anti-elephant weapons, routing the light infantry in the process. 

Meanwhile the Greek cavalry pushed forward on both wings with Pyrrhus soon moving the Greek cavalry reserve to the Greek left to gain complete supremacy. Here the Roman cavalry was soon routed. 

This meant the the infantry of the Roman right-centre were being attacked by the advancing Greek phalanx from the front and cavalry to the flank. However, the legions, who were withdrawn obliquely from the rest of the Roman line, fought hard and gave little ground.

The Roman left wing was somewhat more successful. The Greek cavalry on the Roman left had become extended and the Roman cavalry gained the advantage though were "spent" in the process. With the Greek cavalry routed the Roman cavalry started to attack the Greek infantry from the flank and later the rear. 

By this stage the infantry centre was locked in full combat. The Roman light troops having absorbed the first attacks by the enemy phalanx had retired and the legions advanced. The Greek phalanx pushed into combat in deep formations while the legions proved resolute in defence and counter-attacked where possible. However, before the legions could break the Hellenic host the Roman right-centre finally collapsed. With it the army also broke.

Victory & Defeat:

In Lost Battles armies are not typically equal. Instead a handicap system is used to determine how well the players result compares to the historical armies performance. 

For our battle the Greeks achieved a total 96 points. This comprised 18 points for withdrawn/lost Roman troops, 30 points for routed troops and 48 points for shattered troops. The Romans in contrast achieved a total 77 points. Of these points 30 points were for Greek formations that had been shattered, 4 points for routed formations and 27 points for troops that had become spent. This gave a narrow victory to the Greeks of 19 points. A truly a Pyrrhic victory.

Analysis:

The following was provided by the Greek commander as a brief analysis of the battle.

The historical deployment, in Lost Battles, has the right flank cavalry in two different squares. This results from spending one command point on double moving the veteran Thessalian cavalry and one command point on single moving the AHC. A group single move would also cost two commands
so there is the temptation to get the VHC further forward for the same number of commands. I was further tempted to attack with the VHC in turn two which placed it in the Roman left flank square and a single command (and hence move) put the AHC in the square behind. The Thessalians took a
hit in the Roman turn 2. It was in turn 3 when I hit the problem. The VHC could attack and therefore be in the lead, but the following AHC, from the square behing, even through it could have attack with a single move (from the one command spent on it) could not attack because moving into a zone with friendly troops stops that group (unit in this case) from any further movement. Alternatively I could not attack with the VHC and just move the AHC in to reinforce and declare that the lead unit. Needless to
say my bold, or perhaps rash, attack continued with the VHC lost in the next turn.

The negative combat modifier for lead HI attacking fresh legionaries prompted me to get the elephants into the front of the fight. To ensure that they only counted one towards the attack limits prompted me to leave them in the led when they took a hit. This partly worked but very quickly led to dead elephants. Next time I'll try pushing them forward later in the Roman players turn when my Greek lead unit takes a hit leaving them as the lead unit at the start of my next turn. This sounds very like using them as a reserve attacking force as was Pyrrhus' aim in the battle.

As the game progressed I go into the rhythm of leading my attacks with a pike unit then in the Roman turn replacing it with an AHI unit to absorb the next hits. This kept my pike units fresh for longer and hence able to benefit from their "shock effect" or "deep formation" combat bonuses for longer. This seems to nicely reflect Pyrrhus' use of these Italian troops for greater flexibility in his battle line, and maybe even as a way of reducing Greek/Epriot casualties?

We are of course looking forward to putting these fiendishly subtle plans into action in the next game. Those Romans clearly benefited from the "ease with which they could recruit fresh forces" in the victory points calculation. If the legionary fighting value of 4 were used in the victory calculation the Greek score would have been 115 giving a clear victory of 48 points, almost a "major victory". Those Roman Legionaries are very tough to crack.

Return to the Ancients Page