Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/23/2004 00:06:51 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:
BTW, I hope you FHE guys are noticing all the Classical Warrior customers
in the woodwork!!!>>

Although Imperial Warrior is selling like hotcakes, I personally believe, and
have so predicted to my fellow horsemen, that Classical Warrior will be our
hottest selling army list book...

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hristos,

Before we continue our debate, I should clarify that I agree with the
idea of LTS always fighting in two ranks. Otherwise there is no
advantage of spear over pike, in which case the latter shoudl cost
more. But presumably the spear, beign shorter and handier, does not
suffer from disorder as much as pike formations, for which their good
order is critical (from what I read of Polybios).

Now for the Thebans fighting in 4 or 5 ranks. I still disagree with
your proposal. I suppose my reasons relate to game play more than
history, but can be summed up as follows:

This will give them MORE fighting power than pikes. If there is
EVIDENCE that they were effectively pike troops, then fine, classify
them accordingly. For this classification, normally, I would expect
some type of archaelogical or illustration evidence to suffice, as we
accept for most lists. I haven't seen any of that for the Thebans,
but I don't know everything that is out there. But don't call them
spear and treat them as pikes; they are one or the other. If you
want them to fight as pike, call them pike, not some kind of super
spear.

As for the effect this would have on the game, it is not just
an "attrition" thing. As I said, it would potentially allow them to
rout on first contact many troops they otherwise wouldn't rout
immediately.

For example, if a standard 4 element Hoplite unit hits Persian
immortals they do 16@3 = 40 casualties = 2 CPF on a 16 strong unit.
The Persians do 12@2 = 24 and get pushed back. But if Theban
Hoplites in 4 ranks hit them, they do 12@3 = 30 casualties (double
that if the Thebans are two elements wide). The Persians do 6@2 = 12
casualties and get pushed back disordered. If the Thebans are two
elements wide they rout the Persians (on first contact), whereas the
normal Hoplites could only do so if they roll a plus.

In fact, even other spear are in real trouble against them. If a
Theban unit two elements wide and five ranks deep hits another
standard Hoplite unit two elements wide and two ranks deep they will
rout the other hoplites on contact if they roll +1 or the hoplites
roll -1.
Thebans = 28@3 = 70 casualties (4 CPF); roll +1 = 28@4 = 84
normal Hoplites = 16@3 = 40 casualties (1 CPF); roll -1 = 16@2 = 32

Normally when two hoplite blocks meet, one has to roll 3 higher on
the dice to route the other (1 in 36 chance). The Thebans in five
ranks only have to roll 1 higher (14.3 in 36). So the odds of the
Thebans routing their typical opponents on an initial charge are
massively increased.

Also, you cited some examples from their own period, but under these
rules what you propose would apply to opponents from all periods.
For example, with 5 ranks fighting, the Thebans will beat Swiss Pike
on average. That doesn't seem right to me.

I still like the rest of the list a lot, but Thebans (or any LTS
troops) fighting in five ranks is too much. If you think they were
pike, show us some evidence and class them as such, much like the
Hellenistic Greek DBM list.

regards

Scott Elaurant

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scott_elaurant"
<Scott.Elaurant@d...> wrote:
> Hristos,
>
> Before we continue our debate, I should clarify that I agree with
the
> idea of LTS always fighting in two ranks. Otherwise there is no
> advantage of spear over pike, in which case the latter shoudl cost
> more. But presumably the spear, beign shorter and handier, does
not
> suffer from disorder as much as pike formations, for which their
good
> order is critical (from what I read of Polybios).
>
> Now for the Thebans fighting in 4 or 5 ranks. I still disagree
with
> your proposal. I suppose my reasons relate to game play more than
> history, but can be summed up as follows:
>
> This will give them MORE fighting power than pikes. If there is
> EVIDENCE that they were effectively pike troops, then fine,
classify
> them accordingly. For this classification, normally, I would
expect
> some type of archaelogical or illustration evidence to suffice, as
we
> accept for most lists. I haven't seen any of that for the
Thebans,


Scott,

Thanks for the thoughts. You do me too much honor calling me
hristos (which is Christ in Greek). Hrisikos, on the other hand, is
only a goldsmith.

Glad to see you agree with me on hoplites fighting two ranks
deep. The easiest and quickest answer to the rest of your comments
is two-fold. First, we DO have clear evidence that fighting 40 ranks
deep was how the Thebans whipped the Spartans. Xenophon says so.
Second, you seem to have misread the list rule, so all of your
calculations are incorrect and overstate the power of my Theban
hoplites. The proposed rule is that ranks 3 through 5 get to fight
ONE FOURTH of their figures IF CHARGING, COUNTERCHARGING, or
FOLLOWING UP. Hence, they will get beat all day long by pike on even
dice. On a per frontage basis, a 16 figure Pike unit 4 elements
deep=12@4=36. A one element wide 24 figure hoplite unit 6 elements
deep will cost 50% more and only do 11@4=33.

Remember, Warrior explicitly states that THE RANKS OF FIGURES
ALLOWED TO FIGHT ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF HISTORICAL DEPTHS,
RATHER THAN REFLECT WEAPON LENGTH. P.68.

Thanks again for looking this over and sharing your thoughts. Soon
I'll get back to the list with whatever I can find on a related
issue (two ranks deep as you and I already agree but need to
convince Scott of) regarding in-period barbarian/hoplite matchups.

Meanwhile, any other objections?



Greek

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@D...>
wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scott_elaurant"
> <Scott.Elaurant@d...> wrote:
> > Hristos,
>

The main thing about the Thebans fighting deeper, wasn't to bring
more spears to bear. It was for the weight of push. The Thebans
used the shield push to roll back the Spartans, shatter their
formation, and thus the morale of the entire Spartan allies. This
is crucial point. Greek Hoplites were capable of both a spear fight
and a shield fight. The Thebans, lining up in an extreme formation,
were clearly looking for the shield fight.

I am assuming that the Thebans fighting deeper in the proposed army
list is to represent their commitment to the othismos aspidon "push
of shields".

Was it more effective than pikes? We can't really say for certain,
as we do know that this formation was able to break the pre-eminent
Spartan phalanx. But in all cases a very great leader made certain
that circumstances were on his side (possible cavalry flank, a ruse
of standing down, then attacking). But neither the massed Theban
formation, nor the elite Spartan hoplites really were pitted against
the pikes of Macedon, nor the less flexible formations that came
after.

It may be a bad assumption to say that pikes would be "better" than
hoplites however, as, as has been noted, at Charonea it appeared to
be a lock in the infantry trenches until Alexander got a flank with
his Companion cavalry. And there we didn't have the flower of
Hoplite troops, nor tactics.

Shan

[Bill Chriss]

On a per frontage basis, a 16 figure Pike unit 4 elements
> deep=12@4=36. A one element wide 24 figure hoplite unit 6 elements
> deep will cost 50% more and only do 11@4=33.
>


One more comment here. In bound two, the Theban hoplites will be
disordered and pushed back (36 cpf to a 12 fig unit--the last two
ranks don't count for cpf). Unsteady, they revert to only one and a
half ranks fighting=6@3 minus 2 for disordered= 9.
The pikes still do 12@4=36... 3 cpf and twice as many. Pikes will
break my Thebans on bound two on even dice, just as they would
without the list rule. It's just a less one-sided push on bound one
with the Thebans having about a 40% chance of winning bound one and
keeping the fight going longer. For example, if they roll up one and
the pikes roll even, they'll win and disorder the pikes, and be
disordered themselves by tghe 3 cpf. On bound two, thebans do
11@2=22 (1cpf) and the pikes do 8@1=12 (1 cpf) and it's a lock from
then on with the pikes doing 8@1 (12) until tired and the Thebans
doing 6 at 1 (9) until tired.

I think that particularly with what we know about the Thebans at
Leuctra, Mantiea, and Chaironea, this is a much more accurate
simulation than 12@4=36 for the pikes vs. 8@4=24 for the hoplites on
contact anbd an inevitable break on bound two, unless the Theban
gets a net +2 random factor on bound one.

In my system, the pikes still win on even dice, it's just a bit less
lopsided.



Greek

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shanhoplite" <Shanhome@a...> >
> The main thing about the Thebans fighting deeper, wasn't to bring
> more spears to bear. It was for the weight of push. The Thebans
> used the shield push to roll back the Spartans, shatter their
> formation, and thus the morale of the entire Spartan allies. This
> is crucial point. Greek Hoplites were capable of both a spear
fight
> and a shield fight. The Thebans, lining up in an extreme
formation,
> were clearly looking for the shield fight.
>
> I am assuming that the Thebans fighting deeper in the proposed
army
> list is to represent their commitment to the othismos
aspidon "push
> of shields".
>
> Was it more effective than pikes? We can't really say for
certain,
> as we do know that this formation was able to break the pre-
eminent
> Spartan phalanx. But in all cases a very great leader made
certain
> that circumstances were on his side (possible cavalry flank, a
ruse
> of standing down, then attacking). But neither the massed Theban
> formation, nor the elite Spartan hoplites really were pitted
against
> the pikes of Macedon, nor the less flexible formations that came
> after.
>
> It may be a bad assumption to say that pikes would be "better"
than
> hoplites however, as, as has been noted, at Charonea it appeared
to
> be a lock in the infantry trenches until Alexander got a flank
with
> his Companion cavalry. And there we didn't have the flower of
> Hoplite troops, nor tactics.
>
> Shan


I agree with you in almost all respects, Shan. Even if Theban spears
were not longer as I surmise, you are right to point out the other
advantages to Epaminondas' deep formations. The point, and the
reason for my proposed list rule, as I have said before, is
that Warrior explicitly states that THE RANKS OF FIGURES
ALLOWED TO FIGHT ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF HISTORICAL DEPTHS,
RATHER THAN REFLECT WEAPON LENGTH. P.68.

Thanks for your insights.


Greek

Hrisikos,

Sorry my bad. I didn't read the 1/4 of following ranks correctly.
You are right - that changes all my calculations completely. In that
case I am less certain of my opinion on the extra ranks fighting
without playtesting it. But the playtesting would need to be
extensive, and against a wide range of opponents. I wouldn't like to
see this result in a "Theban Super Army" with major advantages which
were uncosted.

Bearing in mind Charonea, I can see your point about Hoplites versus
Pike, although by then it would seem that this tactic came to be used
by a lot of Hoplites in addition to Thebans. So were the Thebans
just the first to use it? Wouldn't it apply to most hoplite lists
later?

I have read Xenephon's description of Leuctra too and while it is
regrettably brief, my impression was that the critical factor was the
greater weight of numbers rather than spear length. (as another
writer said, the "push on shields" fight rather than a spear fight).
So, I am still wondering whether allowing Hoplites to just count full
depth for calculating casulaties /CPFs would be better? But I am
happy to see both ideas playtested.

regards

Scott Elaurant




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@D...>
wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scott_elaurant"
> <Scott.Elaurant@d...> wrote:
> > Hristos,
> >
> > Before we continue our debate, I should clarify that I agree with
> the
> > idea of LTS always fighting in two ranks. Otherwise there is no
> > advantage of spear over pike, in which case the latter shoudl
cost
> > more. But presumably the spear, beign shorter and handier, does
> not
> > suffer from disorder as much as pike formations, for which their
> good
> > order is critical (from what I read of Polybios).
> >
> > Now for the Thebans fighting in 4 or 5 ranks. I still disagree
> with
> > your proposal. I suppose my reasons relate to game play more
than
> > history, but can be summed up as follows:
> >
> > This will give them MORE fighting power than pikes. If there is
> > EVIDENCE that they were effectively pike troops, then fine,
> classify
> > them accordingly. For this classification, normally, I would
> expect
> > some type of archaelogical or illustration evidence to suffice,
as
> we
> > accept for most lists. I haven't seen any of that for the
> Thebans,
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the thoughts. You do me too much honor calling me
> hristos (which is Christ in Greek). Hrisikos, on the other hand, is
> only a goldsmith.
>
> Glad to see you agree with me on hoplites fighting two ranks
> deep. The easiest and quickest answer to the rest of your comments
> is two-fold. First, we DO have clear evidence that fighting 40
ranks
> deep was how the Thebans whipped the Spartans. Xenophon says so.
> Second, you seem to have misread the list rule, so all of your
> calculations are incorrect and overstate the power of my Theban
> hoplites. The proposed rule is that ranks 3 through 5 get to fight
> ONE FOURTH of their figures IF CHARGING, COUNTERCHARGING, or
> FOLLOWING UP. Hence, they will get beat all day long by pike on
even
> dice. On a per frontage basis, a 16 figure Pike unit 4 elements
> deep=12@4=36. A one element wide 24 figure hoplite unit 6 elements
> deep will cost 50% more and only do 11@4=33.
>
> Remember, Warrior explicitly states that THE RANKS OF FIGURES
> ALLOWED TO FIGHT ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF HISTORICAL DEPTHS,
> RATHER THAN REFLECT WEAPON LENGTH. P.68.
>
> Thanks again for looking this over and sharing your thoughts. Soon
> I'll get back to the list with whatever I can find on a related
> issue (two ranks deep as you and I already agree but need to
> convince Scott of) regarding in-period barbarian/hoplite matchups.
>
> Meanwhile, any other objections?
>
>
>
> Greek

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
>
> Hrisikos,
>
> Sorry my bad. I didn't read the 1/4 of following ranks correctly.
> You are right - that changes all my calculations completely. In that
> case I am less certain of my opinion on the extra ranks fighting
> without playtesting it. But the playtesting would need to be
> extensive, and against a wide range of opponents. I wouldn't like to
> see this result in a "Theban Super Army" with major advantages
> which
> were uncosted.
>
> Bearing in mind Charonea, I can see your point about Hoplites versus
> Pike, although by then it would seem that this tactic came to be used
> by a lot of Hoplites in addition to Thebans. So were the Thebans
> just the first to use it? Wouldn't it apply to most hoplite lists
> later?


Scott,

By the time the tactic caught on, there weren't any more hoplite
armies. Alexander wiped them out or made them obsolete. While they
lasted, however, NOBODY but the Thebans (and later the Macedonians)
fought more than 8 ranks deep that I can recall. Remember, the Thebans
fought 40 RANKS DEEP. It was not so much a matter of no one else
knowing about the tactic as no one else training to perform it. This
is similar to asking why Napoleon was the only one to assault linear
musket and rifle formations in column. He was just the first one to
think it up AND THE ONLY ONE TO TRAIN HIS ARMY TO DO IT EFFECTIVELY.
Allowing the list rule to other contemporaneous Greeks destroys its
reason for existing, to reflect the reality and results of the Thebans
fighting in MUCH deeper formations than their contemporaries.

>
> I have read Xenephon's description of Leuctra too and while it is
> regrettably brief, my impression was that the critical factor was the
> greater weight of numbers rather than spear length. (as another
> writer said, the "push on shields" fight rather than a spear
> fight).
> So, I am still wondering whether allowing Hoplites to just count full
> depth for calculating casulaties /CPFs would be better? But I am
> happy to see both ideas playtested.
>
> regards
>
> Scott Elaurant
>


I have thought a lot about this, Scott, since you originally raised it.
The problem is that it might prevent the Thebans from breaking as easily
by changing the cpf numerator, but it will not replicate their ability to
push back shallower hoplite phalanxes. It doesn't change who wins a combat
on even dice. It just makes it take longer to tire or disorder the
Thebans. Thus, it doesn't provide the realism we're looking for here. It
produces different effects than the ones we need to replicate and can
replicate with my list rule.


BTW, I hope you FHE guys are noticing all the Classical Warrior customers
in the woodwork!!!


Greek

[Ed Kollmer]

I have been following this thread carefully, I have a Hoplite army and
always felt it needed to be helped. I am hoping that some list rules such as
those being discussed here are used.
I complement these fellows on their ideas and help in bring this issue to
the FHE.
Ed Kollmer



----- Original Message -----
From: <hrisikos@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Greek Hoplites fighting in five ranks...?


> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hrisikos,
> >
> > Sorry my bad. I didn't read the 1/4 of following ranks correctly.
> > You are right - that changes all my calculations completely. In that
> > case I am less certain of my opinion on the extra ranks fighting
> > without playtesting it. But the playtesting would need to be
> > extensive, and against a wide range of opponents. I wouldn't like to
> > see this result in a "Theban Super Army" with major advantages
> > which
> > were uncosted.
> >
> > Bearing in mind Charonea, I can see your point about Hoplites versus
> > Pike, although by then it would seem that this tactic came to be used
> > by a lot of Hoplites in addition to Thebans. So were the Thebans
> > just the first to use it? Wouldn't it apply to most hoplite lists
> > later?
>
>
> Scott,
>
> By the time the tactic caught on, there weren't any more hoplite
> armies. Alexander wiped them out or made them obsolete. While they
> lasted, however, NOBODY but the Thebans (and later the Macedonians)
> fought more than 8 ranks deep that I can recall. Remember, the Thebans
> fought 40 RANKS DEEP. It was not so much a matter of no one else
> knowing about the tactic as no one else training to perform it. This
> is similar to asking why Napoleon was the only one to assault linear
> musket and rifle formations in column. He was just the first one to
> think it up AND THE ONLY ONE TO TRAIN HIS ARMY TO DO IT EFFECTIVELY.
> Allowing the list rule to other contemporaneous Greeks destroys its
> reason for existing, to reflect the reality and results of the Thebans
> fighting in MUCH deeper formations than their contemporaries.
>
> >
> > I have read Xenephon's description of Leuctra too and while it is
> > regrettably brief, my impression was that the critical factor was the
> > greater weight of numbers rather than spear length. (as another
> > writer said, the "push on shields" fight rather than a spear
> > fight).
> > So, I am still wondering whether allowing Hoplites to just count full
> > depth for calculating casulaties /CPFs would be better? But I am
> > happy to see both ideas playtested.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Scott Elaurant
> >
>
>
> I have thought a lot about this, Scott, since you originally raised it.
> The problem is that it might prevent the Thebans from breaking as easily
> by changing the cpf numerator, but it will not replicate their ability to
> push back shallower hoplite phalanxes. It doesn't change who wins a combat
> on even dice. It just makes it take longer to tire or disorder the
> Thebans. Thus, it doesn't provide the realism we're looking for here. It
> produces different effects than the ones we need to replicate and can
> replicate with my list rule.
>
>
> BTW, I hope you FHE guys are noticing all the Classical Warrior customers
> in the woodwork!!!
>
>
> Greek
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> Scott,
>
> By the time the tactic caught on, there weren't any more hoplite
> armies. Alexander wiped them out or made them obsolete.

Hoplite armies did not disappear with the advent of Alexander,
although I grant the potential obsolencence. Hoplite armies still
appear in the Eastern Med until the change-over to thureophoroi (and
fight Antipater and it would seem the initial Galatian invasion) and
continue in some shape or form in the Western Med.

While they
> lasted, however, NOBODY but the Thebans (and later the Macedonians)
> fought more than 8 ranks deep that I can recall.

Not really. Just from Xenophon Hellenica:

"Xen.Hell. II.IV.[12] "As for the men from Phyle, they too filled the
road, but they made a line not more than ten hoplites in depth.
Behind the hoplites, however, were stationed peltasts and light
javelin-men, and behind them the stone-throwers."

II.IV.2.[13] But while they [Corinthains and allies] were negotiating
about the leadership and trying to come to an agreement with one
another as to the number of ranks in depth in which the whole army
should be drawn up, in order to prevent the states from making their
phalanxes too deep and thus giving the enemy a chance of surrounding
them ... [18] This, then, was the force on either side. Now the
Boeotians, so long as they occupied the left wing, were not in the
least eager to join battle; but when the Athenians took position
opposite the Lacedaemonians, and the Boeotians themselves got the
right wing and were stationed opposite the Achaeans, they immediately
said that the sacrifices were favourable and gave the order to make
ready, saying that there would be a battle. And in the first place,
disregarding the sixteen-rank formation, they made their phalanx
exceedingly deep, and, besides, they also veered to the right in
leading the advance, in order to outflank the enemy with their wing;
and the Athenians, in order not to be detached from the rest of the
line, followed them towards the right, although they knew that there
was danger of their being surrounded.

VI.II.[20] [21] These latter [Spartans], who were drawn up only eight
deep, thinking that the outer end of the phalanx was too weak,
undertook to swing it around upon itself."

VI.III.[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now to
the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-
company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx
being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were
massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they
conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the
rest of it would be easy to overcome.

VI.V.[19] When the phalanx had thus been doubled in depth, he
[Agesilaus] proceeded into the plain with the hoplites in this
formation, and then extended the army again into a line nine or ten
shields deep."

Also note that Thucydides description of Delion contains what I think
is the first mention of Theban (not Boiotian) increased depth of 25
men deep. So increased depth was a 5th century innovation just not
used elsewhere.

Remember, the Thebans
> fought 40 RANKS DEEP. It was not so much a matter of no one else
> knowing about the tactic as no one else training to perform it. This
> is similar to asking why Napoleon was the only one to assault linear
> musket and rifle formations in column. He was just the first one to
> think it up AND THE ONLY ONE TO TRAIN HIS ARMY TO DO IT
EFFECTIVELY.
> Allowing the list rule to other contemporaneous Greeks destroys its
> reason for existing, to reflect the reality and results of the
Thebans
> fighting in MUCH deeper formations than their contemporaries.

See above - contemporary concerns were about being outflanked -
Theban commanders had to balance the depth of the formation against
this.

The so-called longer Theban spear seems unproven - Xenophon does not
mention difference in Theban equipment which one would have expected
if there was a signficant difference.

Edward

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Sturges"
<edward_sturges@h...> wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > By the time the tactic caught on, there weren't any more
hoplite
> > armies. Alexander wiped them out or made them obsolete.
>
> Hoplite armies did not disappear with the advent of Alexander,
> although I grant the potential obsolencence. Hoplite armies still
> appear in the Eastern Med until the change-over to thureophoroi
(and
> fight Antipater and it would seem the initial Galatian invasion)
and
> continue in some shape or form in the Western Med.


I suppose I agree. But the point is they don't seem to have fought
any battles as armies after 350, only as mercenaries for Alex or the
Persians.


NOBODY but the Thebans (and later the Macedonians)
> > fought more than 8 ranks deep that I can recall.
>
> Not really. Just from Xenophon Hellenica:
>
> "Xen.Hell. II.IV.[12] "As for the men from Phyle, they too filled
the

Snip

> And in the first place,
> disregarding the sixteen-rank formation, they made their phalanx
> exceedingly deep, and, besides, they also veered to the right in
> leading the advance, in order to outflank the enemy with their
wing;
> and the Athenians, in order not to be detached from the rest of
the
> line, followed them towards the right, although they knew that
there
> was danger of their being surrounded.
>
> VI.II.[20] [21] These latter [Spartans], who were drawn up only
eight
> deep, thinking that the outer end of the phalanx was too weak,
> undertook to swing it around upon itself."
>
> VI.III.[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now
to
> the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-
> company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx
> being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were
> massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they
> conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the
> rest of it would be easy to overcome.
>
> VI.V.[19] When the phalanx had thus been doubled in depth, he
> [Agesilaus] proceeded into the plain with the hoplites in this
> formation, and then extended the army again into a line nine or
ten
> shields deep."



Good points, and I'm aware of all this. My point, as you indicate
below, is not that no one else COULD fight 40 or 50 ranks deep, but
only that no one else came close. I stand corrected, though. I
should have said no one but the Thebans FOUGHT more than SIXTEEN
ranks deep. This is preserved in game terms by the fact that you CAN
run your hoplites 4 deep, and still get some minor nbenefit in CPF
calculations.


>
> Also note that Thucydides description of Delion contains what I
think
> is the first mention of Theban (not Boiotian) increased depth of
25
> men deep. So increased depth was a 5th century innovation just
not
> used elsewhere.
>
> See above - contemporary concerns were about being outflanked -
> Theban commanders had to balance the depth of the formation
against
> this.
>
> The so-called longer Theban spear seems unproven - Xenophon does
not
> mention difference in Theban equipment which one would have
expected
> if there was a signficant difference.
>
> Edward




Again Edward, this is my point. FIGURES FIGHTING IS TO ENCOURAGE
PLAYERS TO USE HISTORICAL DEPTHS NOT TO SIMULATE WEAPON LENGTH. You
are quite right to say that this was a later 4th century innovation
JUST NOT USED ELSEWHERE. Didn't armies besides Hellenistic Greeks
know about flaming pigs? Surely everyone in the Mediterranean after
500 b.c. COULD HAVE armed themselves as hoplites, or after 300 COULD
HAVE bought some elephants, or after 100 COULD HAVE decided to use
pila. The point is they didn't. If we judge these matters not on
what armies actually did and trained to do, but on what was
technologically feasible, then I'd like to arm my Macedonian
companions with shields and add elephants to my Achaean league army.
While I'm at it, how about giving all my hoplites bows, since many
Persian infantry carried them together with shields and spears?



I appreciate your historical research and agree with it. I just
don't think it changes the justifications for what we are suggesting
in game terms BECAUSE WE"RE JUST TRYING TO ENCOURAGE USE OF DEPTHS
BY CERTAIN TROOPS THAT THEY ACTUALLY USED. Thanks again, and please
help me find some references that I promised Scott on 4th century
hoplites vs. thracians and other impetuous barbarians in frontal
confrontations. I saw one reference to nine Athenian expeditions
into Thrace after the Peloponnesian War, none of which turned out
too well. I''d like to see the details, as I expect they were not a
result of impetuously charging hoplites frontally, but rather
ambushing them. I'm anxious to see what you might find on that,
since you've obviously got sources conveniently to hand. thanks


Greek