Effectiveness of 8Bw

Plataea and Ephesus for starters. Miletus as well. Plus the smashing of mercenary hoplites in the conquest of Babylon.

I'm on the fence about it too. Even though I want a good fight between EAP and Hoplites, I think the EAP need to figure out a different way to win.

One way would be to introduce a "8Ax+Bowfire" type element. But being 8Bw already gives them a +1 in cc.
Another would be to classify them as 8Bw but give 8Bw specifically some kind of bump like side support. But they aren't a "locked shieldwall" type unit. The wicker shields just aren't like a hoplite shield..
Yet another would be make them a new "Light spear with bowfire" element. Maybe Fast 6Sp+Bowfire that doesn't get side support and gets beaten in ties, but that strikes me as a bit too powerful..

I'm kind of thinking that the EAP should rely on their Cv to win the day.

Personally since I'm really in favor of using superior/inferior d12s, I'd make Immortals "Superior" 8Bw, and the rest are regular 8Bw. This gives them a slight boost without changing the rules, and but you still gotta rely on your Cv to win the day or you're toast! But remember, if you nominate one of your elements to be superior and have better luck, you have to also nominate one of your elements to "inferior" and have worse luck to keep the balance. In a historical matchup, I'd use Asiatic Hoplites that EAP won against might be "inferior" to real manly men hoplites...

It wasn't the hoplite per se, but what the hoplites achieved at Marathon. They broke from their shieldwall model (which cost them dearly at Ephesus) and turned into more of a charging warband at Marathon, to get in under the arrowfire, than a steady shieldwall.

We must tread very carefully with EAP heavy foot. We do not know for certain how they were equipped. There may have been rear ranks with spear and shield. Many may have worn armour, including scale mail and linothorax. We also do not know that the collapse of the front rank was the rule rather than the exception.

Also it is telling that the Persians do NOT adopt hoplite tactics after the rebllion in Ionia after Plataea, but instead hire Greeks to fight for them. This suggests standard practice of hiring your enemy's best troops, rather than a decision that Persian infantry were obsolete. They found the Greek willingness to close and slug it out particulalry tough to deal with. Most uncivilised!

But EAP would have had the same issue with Gallic Wb.

It is getting tedious, but I'll say it again: Both Herodotus and Theucydides say of Plataea that the Persians put up a HELL of a fight, and it was damn close-run affair. And this wasn't finding another way to win. This was standing their ground and slugging it out with the Greeks right back. People (wargamers) also constantly forget that Persia DID actually conquer most of Greece (including sacking Athens, and chasing the vaunted hoplites off all of Attica save for a tiny shivering remnant on the island of Salamis.) I'd call that an asskicking....

Ephesus is probably the only one of these that the Persians were successful in the field against a Hoplite formation.As for Miletus it was a siege I think?

However,the Persians also scored victories over the Carians during the revolt..if this was due to Superior tactics,numbers or cavalry we are none the wiser as the Carians resorted to ambush tactics.
In the Battle of Platea the account of the battle being hard fought before the Persians colapsed could also count the Persian numerical supperiority as a factor and that the Spartans and Tegeans did not attack at first (waiting for favourable omens)and also being pressured by cavlalry.

It is clear the Sparabara formation could contribute to tactical success(alone or with support is unclear) but could also fail against heavier armed formations used agressively.

What I would suggest in dba terms is that hoplites of this era (if fighting historical opponents)only get the +1 flank bonus if Spartan or Athenian Hoplites and others only if they do not initiate combat or are in persuit.My reasoning behind this is that only Spartan Hoplites were drill enough to maintain formation and the Athenians demonstrated they were organised enough to do so at the Battle of Marathon.

The Sparabara 8Bw should get the +1 side support from other 8Bw elements if also not initiating combat or in persuit.My reasoning for this is that it was a practiced formation that had been effectively used by the Persians against several other opponnents in several campaigns before so they were most probably trained to fight in this mass formation.

These I would only consider as house rules or for given scenarios.

I mentioned this in another thread some time ago but I came across a Slingshot article about how army lists forget their Herodotus and under-rate Early Achaemenid Persians. It was by Giobanni d'Erme - and it was publishes back in 1986! Issue 126 July 1986 to be precise.



Plus ca change!



Simon

Is there evidence of engagements of the Persian army with Greek forces on its entrance to Greece which give detailed accounts of the battles?
I think your refering to Battle of Platea when describing how the Spartans were chicken and would not fight man to man when offered...I have not come across this in accounts I have read but do not discount it as taunting has been common place on many a battlefield.My conception of the battle was that it was a stand-off...the Greeks fearing flanking by the Persian cavalry and facing greater numbers versus the Persians not wanting to attack enemy in a more advantageous position since the Greeks were uphill.It was Persian raiding on the Greek supply line that broke the stalemate when the Greeks decided to retire to a more secure line of defence,that the retreat was so chaotic the Persians saw their chance and attacked.The Persians however had not expected the Greeks to turn and fight.

I don't regard the Spartans as being special in any way...it was the Tegeans who initiated the charge,the Spartans refused until suitable omens were in their favour.My suggested rule that they(and the Athenians) do receive the +1 flank support due to their ability to be able to "occassionally manouvre effectively"as metioned in the army list narative for Early Hoplite Greeks!

My concerns for the effectiveness of the Sparabara formation are grown from the lack of accounts of its success and its abandonment as a tactic by the Persians around 465BC and future use of simular tactics by Byzantine Infantry,Medieval Italian states and the disasters of Charles the Bold during the Burgundian wars.

It could be possible Hoplite tactics evolved partly in response to the Sparabara tactics as the improvement of heavier armour,helmets and larger shields used in close and deepening formations could be a response to heavy missile fire...as the Hoplite tactics evolved after Marathon the Sparabara may not have been as effective.