|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 27, 2019 10:07:26 GMT
Jim, the fact is that (a) we remain unclear about how hoplites fought. (b) Carians were believed to have been the last remaining hoplites to fight in bronze cuirasses, (c) Greeks were themselves mixed, and some believe they were descended from original settlers from ... you guessed it, Ionia, Anatolia, and Egypt (possibly Memphis?).We won't evwr know. Also, sorry the evidence remains as I said, unclear about the phalanx - was it shoulder to shoulder as described about later Greek armies. Or did it just mean barracks/bamd of brothers. Mardonius was challenging the Greeks to leave their defensive positions on the slopes of Cytheron. And you'll know that archaeological evidence includes arrow and spear tips on the side of the mountain that are consistent with Persian HC weaponry as well as foot. Which squares with Herodotus' account of the Persian C harassing them in the rough going! But then you already knew that, since you've been there! You recall the Spartans hiding from the Immortals, much to their disgust. You will never convince me Plataea was anything other than the Midway campaign of that war. A lucky break the hoplites got, winning while the underdog, desperately defending their homes. Are you telling me the Greeks by then were as convinced as you were of the inevitability of hoplite victories over Persian HI? If so, why did the hide out on the mountain for 8 full days? And you know that according to Herodotus, the battle took place when there was a gigantic eff up in an attempt to withdraw further out of reach of the Persians, when the Greeks realised they had to fight, or die. Plataea was less '300', and more failing to heed the principles of Sun-Tzu. We must be wary of ancient writers' descriptions of weaponry, tactics and amrour capabilities, and do as Stevie says - focus on the high level accounts. Heck the average journalist nowadays has an embarassing grasp of military hardware and tactics. Just laughable. How much worse were the ancient writers, without even photographs and video to help them? I focus on what they were good at: describing events, struggles and outcomes. The rest is just fantasy. I agree that we should focus on outcomes. If Plataea was a coin toss then what about Mycale? Eurymedon? Eion? Marathon? These were not small engagements, nor sieges or mopping up exercises. Did the Greeks just roll high PIPs? It is completely reasonable that the Greeks had some trepidation. They were facing the largest empire that the world had seen and had few previous encounters. Sure some Athenians faced them at Ephesus (after they burned Sardis) but they blamed that on the Ionians (poor excuses for hoplites). The first set piece battle between mainland Greeks (those accustomed to "hoplite warfare" whatever that means) at Marathon did go the way of the Athenians. A blocking force at Thermopylae did resist any frontal assault from Persian infantry for three days prior to being outflanked. But Plataea was the next level up. We know the outcome of that battle. We know the outcome of the follow up battles. Let's look at the strategic outcomes. Prior to Xerxes' expedition, Persia controlled Ionia and Thrace. After Xerxes' expedition, they did not. Greek navies controlled the Eastern Mediterranean trade routes. There is no way that this outcome can be considered a strategic victory. If it was a minor set back, a fluke, (surely the Greeks can't roll 6-1 three times again?) then this should have been addressed by the Persians themselves with another expedition. That they did not, echoes loudly through history. It took 70 years before Ionia was bought from the Spartans (bought, not fought; taxing half the world's population provides a lot of darics). As for some of your less mainstream points about the Carians and particularly, the ancestors of the ancient Greeks, I will ask you for your sources. I don't find them in my library. Anyway, we should agree to disagree and get back to the game. I will try your changes this weekend and report back. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 10:22:18 GMT
An interesting discussion between Jim and Primuspilus here. I myself am entirely neutral on this subject. Yes, the Persians were no pushovers, and managed to conquer various people that used various fighting styles...including the Ionian Greek Hoplites of Western Anatolia. On the other hand, the Persians themselves recognised that the Greek Hoplite was in many ways superior to their own heavy infantry...which is why they tried to hire as many Greek mercenaries as they could. That Marathon re-fight shows that even with the 8Bw +1 v heavy foot, and ignoring the flawed ‘Threat Zone Shooting Priority’, and adding +1 PIP to contact Bows, the Persian 8Bw is still inferior to a side-supported spearman (although nowhere near as hopelessly inferior as DBA wants them to be). And I think that is about right. Hoplites do have an advantage...they are good at being Hoplites. Give them the perfect battlefield, with no hindering terrain and enough space to form a long shield-wall, then they should win. The Persians also have an advantage...they are good at being Persians. Give the Persians their perfect battlefield, with some hindering terrain and room to get their cavalry around the back of the spearmen, then they too should win. What won’t work is lining-up the Persians to fight a Hoplite battle...it’s not their fight, as they don’t have the right troops for it. Any dumb player can lead the Greeks to victory. There’s not much thinking required. Just line ‘em up and advance. The Persian player has to think a bit more. But he has the tools to do the job. With higher aggression the Persians can usually get to choose the table-edges, so look for ways of getting your swifter cavalry to outflank the enemy (all area terrain, apart from BUA’s, must be at least 1 BW from a table-edge, so paths will be there somewhere). In a worst-case scenario, where advancing looks like it might be dangerous, then don’t. Grab the edge with the most hindering terrain, hide your shooters behind it, and wave two fingers at the Greeks shouting “Come and get me if you think you’re hard enough!”. Nowhere in the rules does it say that invaders must attack. The worst that could happen is a stalemate-draw...and maybe the next battlefield will have more favourable terrain. In short, with the new proposed rule amendments, I’d say that the odds were now about 50/50. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 10:28:10 GMT
What lost it for the Persians however, was they lost 2 of the Ps on the right flank (probably should take a Hd next time), and 2 Cv on the left flank (including the general). Chris...quick question:- How do you lose Persian Psiloi and Cavalry to Greek Spears? Even when doubled, Psiloi and Cavalry just flee from Spearmen...and they won’t flee over a table side-edge either. See figure 21a on page 30 of the rules. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 27, 2019 11:36:10 GMT
Chris...quick question:- How do you lose Persian Psiloi and Cavalry to Greek Spears? Even when doubled, Psiloi and Cavalry just flee from Spearmen...and they won’t flee over a table side-edge either. See figure 21a on page 30 of the rules.
Hard flanking I presume?
Cv have always been very susceptible to Sp in DBX, despite the "flee don't die".
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 12:55:23 GMT
That is true Arnopov. However, Spears do not pursue, so the only way they can be in contact with the Cavalry in the Persian bound is if the Persian player deliberately moves them into contact during the Persian bound. And why do that when they could flee and leave a gap which the Greeks can then use for hard flanking in the following Greek bound? Better to let the Spears do all the contacting (unless there is a dammed good reason...such as a hard flank opportunity). Of course, the Cavalry could flee during the Greek bound, and the Persian player not have enough PIPs to get them back up in the following Persian bound so at least their Threat Zone covers the gap. That’s why I like to keep some Psiloi in reserve for just this sort of emergency. Anyway, Cavalry that recoils a full base width cannot be hard flanked by Spears with a movement of 2 base widths. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 27, 2019 14:32:25 GMT
What lost it for the Persians however, was they lost 2 of the Ps on the right flank (probably should take a Hd next time), and 2 Cv on the left flank (including the general). Chris...quick question:- How do you lose Persian Psiloi and Cavalry to Greek Spears? Even when doubled, Psiloi and Cavalry just flee from Spearmen...and they won’t flee over a table side-edge either. See figure 21a on page 30 of the rules. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
<embarrassed silence>... In the words of The great poet Homer, “doh!” The cav hard flanked the Spears but not the other way around, and yes the Ps we’re just doubled not HF. So I definitely played this wrong. I knew that ps flee but didn’t appreciate that cv do too. It’s what I get for trying to play late at night whilst tired. Toddler didn’t go to sleep till about 10 last night... Ok well good learnings. Thanks for pointing that out Stevie. Will try again later.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 27, 2019 14:32:27 GMT
Which is what I have been saying all along. Persian and Greek armies should be well matched. Persia lost a bunch, Greece lost a bunch. Sparta tried long and hard to bring Persia (army and navy) into the Pelopponesian war, so confident were the Spartans in their own prowess.
Persia did well against hoplite armies on Persian soil. Hoplite armies won plenty after the cream of Persian HI veterans got slaughtered on the long, long march/rout back from Plataea. Hoplite armies did well on occasion campaigning on extended supply lines, but usually not.
What IS clear from both The Histories, and references to the three Greco Persian wars in Theucydides, is that the Persians were never considered a pushover.
By the way, the Persians were impressed by the independent and "can do" spirit of the Greek fighting man. But they also were not subject to the kind of innate supremacism of the Greeks. It ia entirely plaisible that hiring Greek mercenaries had an element of "..., keep your enemies closer" to it . The Persians had lost precious men and money in the Greek adventure. We cannot dathom the extent and severity of the shockwaves that sent through the Persian Empire, leading to multiple rebellions. It is likely that the Persian government had theirnhands full. Despite their name, the Immortals were clearly NOT as easily replaceable. Many of rhe Greek city states would have taken advantage of that to throw off Persian rule. Was Persia in any position to seriously stop that, regardkess of the prowess of their own forces?
Sorry all, I have a tendency to try to think outside the box on these topics, based on what makes modt sense to me, and avoiding separating the tactics, armaments, amd formations from the political and cultural realities they had to operate in at the time.
That is how you generate good history on the gaming table.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 27, 2019 14:34:08 GMT
Anybody with experience want to play test these new rule ideas?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 15:54:43 GMT
Here is a theory Primuspilus for the demise of the Immortals and the Sparabara... ...perhaps the fall of the 8Bw formation was directly proportional to the increase in Greek mercenaries.. Why spend all that money on training and equipping Sparabara when you could hire more better mercenaries? The Persians appear to go into the hiring of Hoplites big-time after the failed invasion of Greece, and not before. And according to Duncan Head, they proved to be surprisingly loyal...unlike the barbarian Foederati that the Late Roman Empire hired and tried to ‘legitimise’ when they adopted a similar policy. Certainly we don’t hear of Greek mercenaries setting up their own private kingdoms within the Persian domain. (Actually, the Greek mercenaries in the distant east did rebel once, after the death of Alexander. But they were quickly crushed by the Successor Peithon, who was later one of the murderers of the new regent Perdiccas)Just a thought (but a pretty good one). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anybody with experience want to play test these new rule ideas? Don’t give up Chris! We all had to go through the DBA learning curve. Consider it as a rite of passage. And see if this helps:- fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_DBA_3.0.pdf...as it contains just about every obscure DBA rule, all laid-out in the phase you need it. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 27, 2019 17:27:59 GMT
Here is a theory Primuspilus for the demise of the Immortals and the Sparabara... ...perhaps the fall of the 8Bw formation was directly proportional to the increase in Greek mercenaries.. Why spend all that money on training and equipping Sparabara when you could hire more better mercenaries? The Persians appear to go into the hiring of Hoplites big-time after the failed invasion of Greece, and not before. And according to Duncan Head, they proved to be surprisingly loyal...unlike the barbarian Foederati that the Late Roman Empire hired and tried to ‘legitimise’ when they adopted a similar policy. Certainly we don’t hear of Greek mercenaries setting up their own private kingdoms within the Persian domain. (Actually, the Greek mercenaries in the distant east did rebel once, after the death of Alexander. But they were quickly crushed by the Successor Peithon, who was later one of the murderers of the new regent Perdiccas)Just a thought (but a pretty good one). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anybody with experience want to play test these new rule ideas? Don’t give up Chris! We all had to go through the DBA learning curve. Consider it as a rite of passage. And see if this helps:- fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_DBA_3.0.pdf...as it contains just about every obscure DBA rule, all laid-out in the phase you need it. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Here is an idea: Define "Sparabara". Were they a class and a system of training? Were they wicker basket shields? Were they bow-armed and equipped HI who otherwise behaved like hoplites (ie held shield wall and fought in formation) using Boeotian-style shields? Did some/many/all carry an aspis, but just not very good with it? Was it tactical doctrine (ie the whole relying on archery as a precursor to close combat, like Roman pila)? What exactly is it we are claiming the Persians "abandoned"?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 27, 2019 17:30:48 GMT
What I see is a radical overinvestment in most wargame systems with arms and equipment and fighting style that in many cases is based on social sciences imagery of the time, and not military science (ie vases and carvings designed to glorify the king and state, and not designed as any kind of repository of military training, tactics and weaponry).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 19:52:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 27, 2019 20:12:16 GMT
Actually, Stevie, again we are applying modern bias potentially. We know that frequently, ancient writers do not mention weapon systems (the term "hoplite" is a good example, so is "phalanx") in a constant and consistent way. Ancients may not mention something because (a) it was not there, or (b) because it was so common as to be unworthy of mention.
We know, supposedly, legionaries existed in the Roman army in 400AD. Were they anything like Caesar's or Marius' legions? Were there troops that were so ubiquitous as to be unworthy of mention?
I say this because, again, no stable, concrete descriptions exist of either hoplite- or sparabara-warfare. The hoplite though is far better documented. No auther has yet been able to reconcile the three views of sparabara:
1. with wicker shieldwall in the front rank. 2. with figure 8 shield, and the wicker baskets being more of an occasional field fortification that was abandoned pretty quickly, and not just because it was deemed inferior to hoplites, but because it sucked. Period. 3. with round shield (it isn't like Persians hadn't fought with and against hoplites before) and carrying bow.
We know SOME foot carried a wicker shield at some point. Some carried a figure 8 shield at some point. And some carried hoplite shield at some point.
Now if you had just suffered the greatest military catastrophe in your nation's history, with a badly led and badly managed invasion, and then these guys turned around and started helping you put down rebellious Greeks in your own province, and you have LIMITED funds with which to write stuff, you write about the critical, newsworthy stuff. Remember, guys, "dog bites man" isn't worthy of a song ...
And THAT is why you and I are aligned - we go to the high level outcomes, and overall behaviour of our DBA elements. Results, and the tactical and equipment causes be damned.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 27, 2019 20:32:06 GMT
Much appreciated Stevie Although we'll still need experience play testers to make sure we're not screwing anything up. I still think a "rule testing tournament" would be worthwhile, but perhaps hard to organize. Either way, how does this kind of thing move from the forum to The Barkers' eyes/ears?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2019 21:34:33 GMT
|
|