Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>Light troops were typically deployed separately. Going back to
>Delium: "the cavalry and the light troops were posted at each wing".

But were these 10,000 Boeotian "light troops" (IV/93, pg 321 Penguin
edition) actually more than camp followers?

Apparently they were deployed so that they were protected by water
courses (IV/96), and were they actually facing any significant
numbers of Athenians? Most of the Athenian "light troops" had
already gone home after fortifiying the temple (IV/90), and they left
300 cavalry behind at the temple-- so was there really any kind of
threat facing them on the flanks? Should they be classified as Class
E "Hordes?" instead of LI?

IV/96 says "No contact was made on the extreme wings of either army,
since both alike were held up by water courses along the way." If
the Boeotian light troops on the wings were never meant to advance
and fight, then this could refer to the end of the hoplite lines.
And since it says "both alike" I think it does do so, since the
Athenians certainly did not have enough troops to extend their
non-hoplites wide enough to match the frontage of 10,000 Boeotian
light troops.

If not, would water courses actually be a barrier to skirmish-order
fighting troops (LI)?

I wish we knew more details about the Boeotian detachment sent to
deal with the Athenian cavalry reserve (IV/93). I get the impression
that it was an offensive measure, but it could be that they scattered
the 10,000 light troops on their flanks utilizing bad terrain in
order to prevent the Athenian cavalry from being able to advance thru
it onto their flanks.Need a topographic map to really make more
conclusions.

If they were capable of fighting then why did the Boeotians have to
send for "javelin throwers and slingers from the Malian Gulf" (
IV/100 pg 325) in order to assault the fortified temple at Delium?

I have to question the precision of the term "light troops"-- At
IV/94 it says the Athenians had "no properly armed 'light troops' on
this occasion...most of them had merely followed the army
inadequately armed, as part of the general expedition of foreigners
and citizens from Athens..." so the term might apply equally to camp
followers and servants.



>The original Athenian expedition had "There were 5,100 hoplites in all.

.....Then the non hoplites are listed as:
>There were altogether 480
>archers, eighty of whom were Cretans, 700 slingers from Rhodes, 120
>exiles from Megara serving as light troops, and one horse transport
>carrying thirty horses. [VI:43]"

So there were 400 indiginous archers. Given the tribal/ familial
nature of unit organization, I think it most likely that the Athenian
archers would be deployed close to their own Hoplites, and
Detachments could simulate this in Warrior. The 800 foreigners would
be in units of their own.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

Doug

A few thoughts below.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> But were these 10,000 Boeotian "light troops" (IV/93, pg 321
Penguin
> edition) actually more than camp followers?

Whatever they were they were not a maintained force of light troops
as we would understand the term. The Psiloi is from 'psilos'
meaning "bare". So its usage could indeed in some cases apply to
camp followers.

>
> Apparently they were deployed so that they were protected by water
> courses (IV/96), and were they actually facing any significant
> numbers of Athenians? Most of the Athenian "light troops" had
> already gone home after fortifiying the temple (IV/90), and they
left
> 300 cavalry behind at the temple-- so was there really any kind of
> threat facing them on the flanks? Should they be classified as
Class
> E "Hordes?" instead of LI?

Unclear but I agree that's probably the best definition if trying to
refight Delium.

>
> IV/96 says "No contact was made on the extreme wings of either
army,
> since both alike were held up by water courses along the way." If
> the Boeotian light troops on the wings were never meant to advance
> and fight, then this could refer to the end of the hoplite lines.
> And since it says "both alike" I think it does do so, since the
> Athenians certainly did not have enough troops to extend their
> non-hoplites wide enough to match the frontage of 10,000 Boeotian
> light troops.

Moot without more information. But I agree that the Athenian
hoplites did not line up against the opposing psiloi.

> If not, would water courses actually be a barrier to skirmish-order
> fighting troops (LI)?

No, I think we have to remember that just because they were lightly
armed/equipped does not make them automatically skirmishers - just
that the light armed often fought this way.

> I wish we knew more details about the Boeotian detachment sent to
> deal with the Athenian cavalry reserve (IV/93). I get the
impression
> that it was an offensive measure, but it could be that they
scattered
> the 10,000 light troops on their flanks utilizing bad terrain in
> order to prevent the Athenian cavalry from being able to advance
thru
> it onto their flanks.Need a topographic map to really make more
> conclusions.
>
> If they were capable of fighting then why did the Boeotians have to
> send for "javelin throwers and slingers from the Malian Gulf" (
> IV/100 pg 325) in order to assault the fortified temple at Delium?
>
> I have to question the precision of the term "light troops"-- At
> IV/94 it says the Athenians had "no properly armed 'light troops'
on
> this occasion...most of them had merely followed the army
> inadequately armed, as part of the general expedition of foreigners
> and citizens from Athens..." so the term might apply equally to
camp
> followers and servants.
>

The Boiotians are described: "[3] Boiôtoi de pros toutous
antikatestêsan tous amunoumenous, kai epeidê kalôs autois eichen,
huperephanêsan tou lophou kai ethento ta hopla tetagmenoi hôsper
emellon, hoplitai heptakischilioi malista kai psiloi huper murious,
hippês de chilioi kai peltastai pentakosioi." while of the
Athenians: "... psiloi de ek paraskeuês men hôplismenoi oute tote
parêsan oute egenonto têi polei: hoiper de xunesebalon ontes
pollaplasioi tôn enantiôn, aoploi te polloi êkolouthêsan, hate
panstratias xenôn tôn parontôn kai astôn genomenês, kai hôs to prôton
hôrmêsan ep' oikou, ou paregenonto hoti mê oligoi."

The difference may merely be that the Athenian psiloi were completely
unequipped ie would have to resort to stone throwing, while the
Boiotians had more but not specialised equipment and were definitely
levy not experienced specialists. This is probably the case with the
alleged 35,000 Spartan helots at Plataea in 479.

I think that if you are thinking about specialist light troops then
the ones sent for would be just that. They are described
as "akontistas kai sphendonêtas..." ie their weaponry is described.

Interestingly in VI:64 Thucydides differentiates between light troops
and camp followers. The one are called 'psiloi' and the
other 'ochlon' - translated by the dictionary as 'throng'.

> >The original Athenian expedition had "There were 5,100 hoplites in
all.
>
> .....Then the non hoplites are listed as:
> >There were altogether 480
> >archers, eighty of whom were Cretans, 700 slingers from Rhodes, 120
> >exiles from Megara serving as light troops, and one horse transport
> >carrying thirty horses. [VI:43]"
>
> So there were 400 indiginous archers. Given the tribal/ familial
> nature of unit organization, I think it most likely that the
Athenian
> archers would be deployed close to their own Hoplites, and
> Detachments could simulate this in Warrior. The 800 foreigners
would
> be in units of their own.

Here we are talking about levied troops. Only the Megarans are
referred to as fighting as psiloi, the others are referred to by role
eg archers and slingers. I'm also not convinced the balance of the
archers are necessarily Athenian. When Athens had had embodied
archers they tend to be described as being separate from the hoplites.

As far as I am aware there is no evidence for any mixing of hoplites
and specialised light troops. Occasionally, stone throwers line up
behind the ranks of hoplites - this seems to be an ad hoc manoeuvre
on slopes for example. Can't see the Hellenica reference for this at
the moment.

> Doug

Edward