Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hopefully, someone out there is struggling to write a Hoplite list. I'm
not studding this with footnotes, but I'll be happy to provide examples
if asked.

I thought I'd add some more thoughts.

On Hoplites vs. Peltasts -- Xenophon's Hellenica is full of such
encounters in the early-mid 4th C. There are examples of the defeat,
rout, or even distruction of Hoplites by Peltasts, the the examples
prove the rule. As a sample, the Theban Sacred Band was nearly
destroyed by Corinthian peltasts outside the gates of Corinth. However,
the Theban's were ambushed while attempting to storm a gate (this is my
reconstruction) caught in difficult terrain (a graveyard with hundreds
of grave stele) and shot down by javelins. Other examples are on the
same theme; peltasts who significantly outnumber hoplites and catch them
at a disadvantage of height and/or terrain can defeat them.
On the other hand, Xenophon offers literally hundreds of examples
of peltasts run off, or even run down, by Hoplites. In effect,
Xenophon's view is that few peltasts would even stand to let Hoplites
get close.
Interestingly, this situation is changed slightly if the Thracians
are involved. Against Thracians, most Peltasts cannot fight hand to
hand; in fact, both of the encounters I found ended with the near
instant rout of the peltasts by the Thracians. Again, Xenophon takes
this as the way things should be; no one should expect peltasts to last
long against Thracians. Hoplites, on the other hand, are expected to
defeat Thracians in every instance (except where ambushed and etc.)

On Hoplite Quality - Xenophon has a chapter in Hellenica dedicated to
memorializing the success of a small city-state that stood firm as a
Spartan ally. I found this chapter of especial interest because (as a
sometime list writer) it detailed the performance of a small, probably
average city-state in contesting with Argive, Acadian, Theban, and
mercenary forces. Generally, most lists in the past tend, just by the
process of researching and writing, to give all the goodies to specific
states/periods.
This small state had:
A body of elite hoplites and body of elite 'light troops'
that could operate as an independant command;
Very high quality regular cavalry capable of defeating
larger bodies of Theban cavalry
Some light cavalry
Access to buy/rent the services of a first rate general
and his mercenary army for a short period of time.

Perhaps this state was truly remarkable, but I think it more likely
that every state could have had these capabilities. I hope the list
that evolves doesn't force the potential player to pick Athens, Sparta,
or Thebes to get some high morale, cavalry, etc.

Hoplites as mercenaries - I always felt that Phil B. had it in for
mercenaries. They either don't get a morale upgrade where other troops
would, or actually get a downgrade. These things tend to get enshrined
in tradition, so here's my 2 cents.
There were no bad mercenaries in the Greek world, or if there were,
they ceased to exist quickly! Between Thucydides and Xenophon we have
uncountable descriptions of the exploits of mercenary units and armies.
Many are average, but a remarkable number are above average. My feeling
is that most mercenary hoplites were as good as the picked men of most
city-states, and thus probably above average. Long serving mercenary
armies were very firmly superior, as they had better cohesion and
training (on the job training,) then citizen forces (outside Sparta).
Following names around Hellenica can give you a headache, but I found it
interesting that several of the better mercenary commander got around;
the Black Sea at one end of their theater, all the way to Syracuse at
the other end.
By the same token, mercenary light troops were often 'in a
different league' from the light troops that city-states could raise or
train. [Digression 1 - sources refer to Cretan and to Scythian
(apparently dismounted) archers. I'm forced to guess that these
referred both to actualy foreign archers AND to 'types'. I believe that
'Scythian' archers were archers useing Scythian style bows; not
neccesarily archers of Scythian origin. I'd be happy if someone else
could throw more light on this.] Commanders of light troops could make
names for themselves and demand high pay. This suggests, and some
performance on the battlefield warrants, higher morale.
[Digression 2 - I wonder if players should have the option to field
elite Cretan archer units as LM vs. LI. Documentation suggests they did
both, much as later period skirmishers could 'form up" and deliver
volleys.]
I am by no means suggesting that all mercenaries be Reg. B. I'm
suggesting that lists with a high proportion of Greek Mercenaries,
whether Persians, Syracusans, Italian City States, Thessalians, or
various Black Sea confederations/Scythians, should have some upgrade
options available; in an ideal world, the Hoplite list would allow a
player to field an all mercenary force that could be of excellent quality.
I realize that few players want Reg. B LI B, sh ... but I think
they were out there in small quantities.

On Hoplite maneuvers - Another set of rules actually states that Greek
hoplites were incapable of turning to a flank in a facing movement.
Poppycock, says I. I think that good quality hoplites were as well
trained as Marian Legionaries. I use that term advisedly, because there
were superb Legionaries, average ones, and under-trained ones. But in
general, they had a flexible tactical system that is too often
characterized by "the phalanx." Xenophon's hoplites can form to flanks,
march by inclining, change front at a run, and (perhaps most remarkably)
advance in widely seperated columns of attack, forming the battle line
(or not) as it suits them, with skirmishers operating in between the
columns up to the moment of contact. They can also sort out men by age
group for pursuit and combat in difficult terrain.

The decline of the Hoplite - By the time Phillip and Alexander put an
end to the Pan-Hellenic dream, the major city-states of Greece had been
in a constant state of war for something like six generations. The
strain had begun to tell in a number of ways, and perhaps this most
obvious and yet least discussed was the decline in hoplite quality. As
I said in an earlier post, it wasn't that the Macedonian Pike was
superior - in fact, I doubt they were. It was that the men in the ranks
weren't the same kind of men with the same dedication and training.
City-states provided arms and equipment to a wider group of men who
probably would not have met the qualifications in an earlier day. The
drill, individual prowess and enthusiasm of the hoplite had been
steadily eroded by casualties, massacres of prisoners, catastrophic
defeats, naval engagements with 100% casualties... It doesn't take a
lot of reading between the lines in Xenophon to see the desperation of
Sparta or Thebes for hoplite manpower by the mid-fourth century.

Gosh, I don't even play this army. I just read about it. Apologies if
this is not useful...

Chris C.





>
>


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

Hi Christian
I agree with you in most of your points. It is clear to me that greek peltasts
can neither stand up to hoplites, nor to thracians. I think that to put greek
peltasts as LMI is wrong, they must be LI. So they can beat hoplites if they
sower then with javelins and surround them. Another question is the LTS plus
javelin carrying peltast. This view is now questionable. It seems that
Iphicrates lightened the hoplite weapons (mostly the shield), but he does not
upgraded the peltast equipment. Later hellenistic stellae never shows a
thureophoroi with spear plus javelin being carried at the same time.
Hoplites were very good warriors because they were agresive and have endurance.
Persians may be agresive, but lacked endurance.

Emilio.


Hopefully, someone out there is struggling to write a Hoplite list. I'm
not studding this with footnotes, but I'll be happy to provide examples
if asked.

I thought I'd add some more thoughts.

On Hoplites vs. Peltasts -- Xenophon's Hellenica is full of such
encounters in the early-mid 4th C. There are examples of the defeat,
rout, or even distruction of Hoplites by Peltasts, the the examples
prove the rule. As a sample, the Theban Sacred Band was nearly
destroyed by Corinthian peltasts outside the gates of Corinth. However,
the Theban's were ambushed while attempting to storm a gate (this is my
reconstruction) caught in difficult terrain (a graveyard with hundreds
of grave stele) and shot down by javelins. Other examples are on the
same theme; peltasts who significantly outnumber hoplites and catch them
at a disadvantage of height and/or terrain can defeat them.
On the other hand, Xenophon offers literally hundreds of examples
of peltasts run off, or even run down, by Hoplites. In effect,
Xenophon's view is that few peltasts would even stand to let Hoplites
get close.
Interestingly, this situation is changed slightly if the Thracians
are involved. Against Thracians, most Peltasts cannot fight hand to
hand; in fact, both of the encounters I found ended with the near
instant rout of the peltasts by the Thracians. Again, Xenophon takes
this as the way things should be; no one should expect peltasts to last
long against Thracians. Hoplites, on the other hand, are expected to
defeat Thracians in every instance (except where ambushed and etc.)

On Hoplite Quality - Xenophon has a chapter in Hellenica dedicated to
memorializing the success of a small city-state that stood firm as a
Spartan ally. I found this chapter of especial interest because (as a
sometime list writer) it detailed the performance of a small, probably
average city-state in contesting with Argive, Acadian, Theban, and
mercenary forces. Generally, most lists in the past tend, just by the
process of researching and writing, to give all the goodies to specific
states/periods.
This small state had:
A body of elite hoplites and body of elite 'light troops'
that could operate as an independant command;
Very high quality regular cavalry capable of defeating
larger bodies of Theban cavalry
Some light cavalry
Access to buy/rent the services of a first rate general
and his mercenary army for a short period of time.

Perhaps this state was truly remarkable, but I think it more likely
that every state could have had these capabilities. I hope the list
that evolves doesn't force the potential player to pick Athens, Sparta,
or Thebes to get some high morale, cavalry, etc.

Hoplites as mercenaries - I always felt that Phil B. had it in for
mercenaries. They either don't get a morale upgrade where other troops
would, or actually get a downgrade. These things tend to get enshrined
in tradition, so here's my 2 cents.
There were no bad mercenaries in the Greek world, or if there were,
they ceased to exist quickly! Between Thucydides and Xenophon we have
uncountable descriptions of the exploits of mercenary units and armies.
Many are average, but a remarkable number are above average. My feeling
is that most mercenary hoplites were as good as the picked men of most
city-states, and thus probably above average. Long serving mercenary
armies were very firmly superior, as they had better cohesion and
training (on the job training,) then citizen forces (outside Sparta).
Following names around Hellenica can give you a headache, but I found it
interesting that several of the better mercenary commander got around;
the Black Sea at one end of their theater, all the way to Syracuse at
the other end.
By the same token, mercenary light troops were often 'in a
different league' from the light troops that city-states could raise or
train. [Digression 1 - sources refer to Cretan and to Scythian
(apparently dismounted) archers. I'm forced to guess that these
referred both to actualy foreign archers AND to 'types'. I believe that
'Scythian' archers were archers useing Scythian style bows; not
neccesarily archers of Scythian origin. I'd be happy if someone else
could throw more light on this.] Commanders of light troops could make
names for themselves and demand high pay. This suggests, and some
performance on the battlefield warrants, higher morale.
[Digression 2 - I wonder if players should have the option to field
elite Cretan archer units as LM vs. LI. Documentation suggests they did
both, much as later period skirmishers could 'form up" and deliver
volleys.]
I am by no means suggesting that all mercenaries be Reg. B. I'm
suggesting that lists with a high proportion of Greek Mercenaries,
whether Persians, Syracusans, Italian City States, Thessalians, or
various Black Sea confederations/Scythians, should have some upgrade
options available; in an ideal world, the Hoplite list would allow a
player to field an all mercenary force that could be of excellent quality.
I realize that few players want Reg. B LI B, sh ... but I think
they were out there in small quantities.

On Hoplite maneuvers - Another set of rules actually states that Greek
hoplites were incapable of turning to a flank in a facing movement.
Poppycock, says I. I think that good quality hoplites were as well
trained as Marian Legionaries. I use that term advisedly, because there
were superb Legionaries, average ones, and under-trained ones. But in
general, they had a flexible tactical system that is too often
characterized by "the phalanx." Xenophon's hoplites can form to flanks,
march by inclining, change front at a run, and (perhaps most remarkably)
advance in widely seperated columns of attack, forming the battle line
(or not) as it suits them, with skirmishers operating in between the
columns up to the moment of contact. They can also sort out men by age
group for pursuit and combat in difficult terrain.

The decline of the Hoplite - By the time Phillip and Alexander put an
end to the Pan-Hellenic dream, the major city-states of Greece had been
in a constant state of war for something like six generations. The
strain had begun to tell in a number of ways, and perhaps this most
obvious and yet least discussed was the decline in hoplite quality. As
I said in an earlier post, it wasn't that the Macedonian Pike was
superior - in fact, I doubt they were. It was that the men in the ranks
weren't the same kind of men with the same dedication and training.
City-states provided arms and equipment to a wider group of men who
probably would not have met the qualifications in an earlier day. The
drill, individual prowess and enthusiasm of the hoplite had been
steadily eroded by casualties, massacres of prisoners, catastrophic
defeats, naval engagements with 100% casualties... It doesn't take a
lot of reading between the lines in Xenophon to see the desperation of
Sparta or Thebes for hoplite manpower by the mid-fourth century.

Gosh, I don't even play this army. I just read about it. Apologies if
this is not useful...

Chris C.





>
>


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





Yahoo! Groups Links

Are you "That hoplite greek guy"? If you are, I agree with you in most of your
previous post. Hoplites must be more efective. But when I answer Christian´s
post, It was not for an hoplite revival discussion. I only think that the
present view of the greek peltast is wrong. May be that I have not read so many
primary sources as you, but of course I have my opinions. And by noway I think
that talk about this may go against play balance. On artistic conventions, I
think that ancient artist almost always used the real weaponry: for instance, a
spartan warrior never will be represented wearing an attic helmet. May be I am
wrong in this. I think that Duncan Head is wrong in several issues too!!
Sorry for my bad english, is not easy to me to explain my views, and for this
reason is possible that you missunderstood me.
I´ll send you several files to your e_mail, I think that are very interesting.
Best wishes
Emilio Moskowich
A Coruña, Spain.


> Hi Christian
> I agree with you in most of your points. It is clear to me that greek
> peltasts can neither stand up to hoplites, nor to thracians. I think that
> to put greek peltasts as LMI is wrong, they must be LI. So they can beat
> hoplites if they sower then with javelins and surround them. Another
> question is the LTS plus javelin carrying peltast. This view is now
> questionable. It seems that Iphicrates lightened the hoplite weapons
> (mostly the shield), but he does not upgraded the peltast equipment.
> Later hellenistic stellae never shows a thureophoroi with spear plus
> javelin being carried at the same time.
> Hoplites were very good warriors because they were agresive and have
> endurance. Persians may be agresive, but lacked endurance.
>
> Emilio.
>

I, for one, appreciate your concerns and interest, but let us not get
carried away. A very long previous discussion thread dealt with most of
these issues. In paticular, many thoughtful suggestions were made and
discussed as to how to improve hoplite representation in Warrior. As a
historian and wargamer, I was very satisfied with the results of that
discussion (i.e., a few carefully tailored list rules). The bottom line
was that we cannot and should not monkey with peltasts or other troop
types, or we will upset all kinds of play balances already in effect, and
create chain reactions that might never end. As just one example, perhaps
we would then have to revisit the Roman auxilla as well? How about
almughavars (sorry jon)? I would prefer not. Peltasts are not too strong,
hoplites have been, in a few specifically identified ways, too weak (or
too slow, or whatever).

Finally, one of my pet peeves is the overuse of statues and stelae as
evidence of armament. In this arena, artistic convention is always far
more important than accuracy. I can show you a portrait hanging in the
Texas state capitol of Sam Houston wearing a toga. I think we are safe in
assuming he was not dressed thus at the battle of San Jacinto. I'm not
saying they're not useful, I'm just saying be careful. I have a few
respectful academic disagreements with Duncan Head, for example, in this
regard. (I'm sure this will neither phase nor upset him).

These are just my two cents worth, my own views having been discussed and
footnoted here from my reading of the primary sources many times over,
with which, of course, all are fully welcome to disagree.

Roll up and win.


Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links

[Bill Chriss]

> Hi Christian
> I agree with you in most of your points. It is clear to me that greek
> peltasts can neither stand up to hoplites, nor to thracians. I think that
> to put greek peltasts as LMI is wrong, they must be LI. So they can beat
> hoplites if they sower then with javelins and surround them. Another
> question is the LTS plus javelin carrying peltast. This view is now
> questionable. It seems that Iphicrates lightened the hoplite weapons
> (mostly the shield), but he does not upgraded the peltast equipment.
> Later hellenistic stellae never shows a thureophoroi with spear plus
> javelin being carried at the same time.
> Hoplites were very good warriors because they were agresive and have
> endurance. Persians may be agresive, but lacked endurance.
>
> Emilio.
>

I, for one, appreciate your concerns and interest, but let us not get
carried away. A very long previous discussion thread dealt with most of
these issues. In paticular, many thoughtful suggestions were made and
discussed as to how to improve hoplite representation in Warrior. As a
historian and wargamer, I was very satisfied with the results of that
discussion (i.e., a few carefully tailored list rules). The bottom line
was that we cannot and should not monkey with peltasts or other troop
types, or we will upset all kinds of play balances already in effect, and
create chain reactions that might never end. As just one example, perhaps
we would then have to revisit the Roman auxilla as well? How about
almughavars (sorry jon)? I would prefer not. Peltasts are not too strong,
hoplites have been, in a few specifically identified ways, too weak (or
too slow, or whatever).

Finally, one of my pet peeves is the overuse of statues and stelae as
evidence of armament. In this arena, artistic convention is always far
more important than accuracy. I can show you a portrait hanging in the
Texas state capitol of Sam Houston wearing a toga. I think we are safe in
assuming he was not dressed thus at the battle of San Jacinto. I'm not
saying they're not useful, I'm just saying be careful. I have a few
respectful academic disagreements with Duncan Head, for example, in this
regard. (I'm sure this will neither phase nor upset him).

These are just my two cents worth, my own views having been discussed and
footnoted here from my reading of the primary sources many times over,
with which, of course, all are fully welcome to disagree.

Roll up and win.


Greek

[Bill Chriss]

> Are you "That hoplite greek guy"? If you are, I agree with
> you in most of your previous post. Hoplites must be more efective.
> But when I answer Christian´s post, It was not for an hoplite
> revival discussion. I only think that the present view of the greek
> peltast is wrong. May be that I have not read so many primary
> sources as you, but of course I have my opinions. And by noway I
> think that talk about this may go against play balance. On artistic
> conventions, I think that ancient artist almost always used the real
> weaponry: for instance, a spartan warrior never will be represented
> wearing an attic helmet. May be I am wrong in this. I think that
> Duncan Head is wrong in several issues too!!
> Sorry for my bad english, is not easy to me to explain my views, and for
> this reason is possible that you missunderstood me.
> I´ll send you several files to your e_mail, I think that are very
> interesting.
> Best wishes
> Emilio Moskowich
> A Coruña, Spain.
>

Ningun problema. Podemos escribir en espanol, si tu quieres. Estoy en el
sur de Tejas donde todos hablan espanol, y mi hijo esto' en Sevilla para
estudia espanol en el verano de 2002, aunque esta mas o menos lejos de ti.


griego