Graeco-Bactrian terrain - no hills in Bactria??

[wato]

The Graeco-Bactrian list only allows Agricultural or Steppe as terrain choices - don't the Hindu Kush qualify as 'Mountains', or 'Hilly' at least? Or do the Mountain Indians live on the plains?

[rbodleyscott]

The Graeco-Bactrian list only allows Agricultural or Steppe as terrain choices - don't the Hindu Kush qualify as 'Mountains', or 'Hilly' at least? Or do the Mountain Indians live on the plains?

You have a point. However, the territory types listed for each army do not represent all the territory types within their borders, but only those they would feel the need to defend - eg where there were major cities. Whether we got this right in the case of Graeco-Bactrians may be debateable.

[Scrumpy]

To be fair to the authors, all those cats & nellies flattened the terrain out.

[Redpossum]

The Graeco-Bactrian list only allows Agricultural or Steppe as terrain choices - don't the Hindu Kush qualify as 'Mountains', or 'Hilly' at least? Or do the Mountain Indians live on the plains?

You have a point. However, the territory types listed for each army do not represent all the territory types within their borders, but only those they would feel the need to defend - eg where there were major cities. Whether we got this right in the case of Graeco-Bactrians may be debateable.

Sir, with all due respect, that's very questionable logic. If you live in a place like that, you don't let the enemy come through the mountains and debouch into the interior plains. You fight them and stop them in the mountain passes, where the easily defensible choke points are.

That's just basic Mil Sci 101

I'd say the terrain for this list needs to get on the list for corrections.

[olivier]

Sir, with all due respect, that's very questionable logic. If you live in a place like that, you don't let the enemy come through the mountains and debouch into the interior plains. You fight them and stop them in the mountain passes, where the easily defensible choke points are.

That's just basic Mil Sci 101

certainly not if you have a high manoeuvrable army! You want fight in open plain and not in constricted pass were you manoeuvrability is hampered!

[daleivan]

certainly not if you have a high manoeuvrable army! You want fight in open plain and not in constricted pass were you manoeuvrability is hampered!

That's what I was thinking, too. Given that the Graeco-Bactrian army has large amounts of mounted troops, was fairly mobile, it would follow that they would have preferred to fight on the open plain. Plus I wonder how many passes there are through the various mountain ranges bordering what was Bactria--might be too easy to pick a different pass to move through. Given that Bactria's cities were largely around the Oxus and on the plain, having agricultural and steppe as the terrain choices makes sense to me.

Cheers,

Dale

[nikgaukroger]

The Graeco-Bactrian list only allows Agricultural or Steppe as terrain choices - don't the Hindu Kush qualify as 'Mountains', or 'Hilly' at least? Or do the Mountain Indians live on the plains?

You have a point. However, the territory types listed for each army do not represent all the territory types within their borders, but only those they would feel the need to defend - eg where there were major cities. Whether we got this right in the case of Graeco-Bactrians may be debateable.

Sir, with all due respect, that's very questionable logic. If you live in a place like that, you don't let the enemy come through the mountains and debouch into the interior plains. You fight them and stop them in the mountain passes, where the easily defensible choke points are.

That's just basic Mil Sci 101

I'd say the terrain for this list needs to get on the list for corrections.

It may be basic modern Mil Sci 101 - but it would not be for F0G sized battles which inherantly assume that the situation has been arrived at where 2 large armies are fighting.

[wato]

Considering the evidence of Greek cities in fairly mountainous areas, such as modern day north-west Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, the occasional battle would likely have been fought in those areas – unless, of course, they abandoned those cities, fought in the steppes and then came back to repopulate.

Granted, Bactria proper was flat but the Graeco-Bactrians ruled over a much more extensive area. Indo-Greeks has Hilly as an option yet the area they ruled is no more mountainous and probably less so than the south-eastern part of the Graeco-Bactrians’ kingdom. If the Bactrians always fought, at least defensively, in steppe or flat agricultural land why do 32 bases of Mountain Indian foot appear in the list? It seems a strange idea that they recruited LF and MF to then take them away to fight on steppes. Didn’t these poor blokes ever get to defend their homes (being, presumably, in mountains)?

[Rudy_Nelson]

As a person with a Military Science degree (not just military history though it includes that as well.), the logic used by Possum is not valid.

Tactically, the 20th century concept of ambush in rough terrain would be valid for small groups even in Ancient times. But with the Fields of Glory system, it involves the ability of commanders to command and control armies not just smaller delaying tactic groups. As such a major concenr would be what is called consideing MSRs (Major Supply Routes) and avenues of approach. For example, the Persians could have fought the greeks invading Asia Minor at a number of hilly or rough terrain areas but due to the type and size of their army, they elected to fight at a major river crossing of a vital avenue of approach (and MSR) Yes I am sure people can find example of rough terrain ambushes but what we are talking about are MAJOR significant battles that could change the control of a region and not just delaying and harrassing tactics.

So the concept used by the rule's designers to limit available terrain (and it must be limited as a majority of the areas can contain almost every terrain type as a possible battle site) is a valid one and the guidelines seem very reasonable. .

[philqw78]

And I think FoG is designed to play out decisive battles, not the skirmishes and ambushes or the Thermopylae's where the enemy can be slowed, but battles to destroy the enemy's army.

[ars_belli]

Offhand, I cannot think of any historical examples of large-scale battles fought in the Hindu Kush by the Greco-Bactrians, or for that matter any major battles in mountainous terrain involving large ancient armies. If someone knows of any, I hope that you will cite them for us, so that we may investigate further.

Cheers,
Scott

[daleivan]

As a person with a Military Science degree (not just military history though it includes that as well.), the logic used by Possum is not valid.

Tactically, the 20th century concept of ambush in rough terrain would be valid for small groups even in Ancient times. But with the Fields of Glory system, it involves the ability of commanders to command and control armies not just smaller delaying tactic groups. As such a major concenr would be what is called consideing MSRs (Major Supply Routes) and avenues of approach. For example, the Persians could have fought the greeks invading Asia Minor at a number of hilly or rough terrain areas but due to the type and size of their army, they elected to fight at a major river crossing of a vital avenue of approach (and MSR) Yes I am sure people can find example of rough terrain ambushes but what we are talking about are MAJOR significant battles that could change the control of a region and not just delaying and harrassing tactics.

So the concept used by the rule's designers to limit available terrain (and it must be limited as a majority of the areas can contain almost every terrain type as a possible battle site) is a valid one and the guidelines seem very reasonable. .

Excellent points. Interesting to note that the debate in the Persian satrapial command that faced Alexander's initial invasion in Asia Minor was not over where to fight him--it was whether to confront him directly or use scorched earth tactics to deny him supplies. When the Persians did confront him at Granikos river, they fought him in ground that would suit their cavalry arm, not in hills. I assume the same would apply in Bactria.

I haven't actually fought against a Graeco-Bactrian army (my friend Mark is working on expanding his Indo-Greek army so that it can morph into one) but looking over the list it seems like the G-B army would prefer steppe to a hilly and uneven battlefield. And of course, one of the beauties of FoG's terrain system is that you don't always get what you want or where you want.

Cheers,

Dale

[MarkSieber]

While the likelihood will depend on whether they're fighting historical or tournament opponents, the Graeco-Bactrians have a reasonable chance of gaining initiative and so may be able to choose hilly from their opponent's terrain types.

I would like to see more historical information (and I'm not sure how much there is) before weighing in on the question at hand. What I have read indicates the Greek rulers did not assimilate with the natives (more likely once they moved into India) and trained locals to fight in the Hellenistic style for foot troops. Whether this implies that they stuck close to their colony towns is unclear--that would depend on strategic and tactical necessity. Since most of the non-Greek cavalry is light horse, it may have been used more for raiding and scouting than battle, which would influence the choice of ground for the phalanx & heavy cavalry.

Does anyone recommend any texts? My reading is limited to the Montvert publications, the WRG Punic and Macedonian book, and some books on coins.

[Redpossum]

Nolo contendere

[wato]

Offhand, I cannot think of any historical examples of large-scale battles fought in the Hindu Kush by the Greco-Bactrians, or for that matter any major battles in mountainous terrain involving large ancient armies. If someone knows of any, I hope that you will cite them for us, so that we may investigate further.

Cheers,
Scott

Numerous armies have 'Mountain' as an available territory so should they all be scrapped? Other 'cavalry' armies also have 'Hilly" as a terrain choice eg Middle Bulgarian and Seljuk Turk in Swords and Scimitars (the only book in front of me at the moment).

Any evidence for Graeco-Bactrian army composition or battles is scanty. The same could be said for most armies. It would be a small book of army lists if definite proof of army composition and battle results is required. I am just assuming that if settlements were present the occasional battle is likely to have been fought there, especially if the list includes up to 38 elements of "Mountain Indians". If a player wishes to represent an army from that part of the kingdom he or she should be able to. If others want to maximise cavalry and fight in steppes that is their choice. But then again, the 10,000 strong cavalry army against the Seleucids didn't fare all that well.

I am not saying to scrap Steppe as a Territory Type, I am saying they should have Hilly available as well.

[ars_belli]

With all due respect, I think there is a problem with the premise here. The proposal is that, since the territory of the Graeco-Bactrians included lots of mountains and hills, they should have the option of choosing Mountain or Hilly terrain in FoG. This in spite of the fact that there is no record of any battles actually having been fought in such terrain, and that the available troop types aren't particularly well suited to them.

But by that logic, the Classical Greek and Alexandrian Macedonian armies should also have the option of choosing Hilly and/or Mountain terrain, since there are plenty of mountains and hills in Greece and Macedonia. Yet we know that the opposite was true historically, and that Greek and Macedonian army commanders actually preferred to fight on relatively flat, open battlefields.

To me, it seems that since the available troops types don't appear to be well suited to hilly or mountainous terrain, and lacking any evidence for battles actually having taken place in mountains or hills, then I wouldn't expect to see Hilly or Mountain as terrain options for the Classical Greeks or Alexandrian Macedonians... or for the Graeco-Bactrians.

Just my two drachmai worth, of course.

Cheers,
Scott

[Smackyderm]

I guess the question is this: do the army terrain types represent only their doctrinal terrain of choice, or do they also represent prevalent local terrain in which they may be forced to fight?

If it's only doctrinal then a strong case can be made.