Recent Posts

Hi stevie.

This is a great book and I have dreams of playing each of the 173 engagements described. But when it comes to Ephesus, it simply does not say that the sparabara broke the Greek centre. It says that the Greeks broke once their floating flank (the other was anchored on the Cayster River) was enveloped by the Persian cavalry. It also says that the Ionians couldn't break through the sparabara or the Lydians. To quote the author:
"Asian Greeks either lacked othismos (pushing) tactics or were less practiced at them. In fact, the latter seems more likely, a product of the peaceful conditions that had long prevailed within Persian-administered Ionia". No doubt the Athenians present learned the lesson well that staying put is bad idea and took it home with them.

It also clearly states that the Athenian centre at Marathon did not break. Again to quite the author:
"The Persian center held firm under this spear attack, as it had the best troops and faced only short Greek files that couldn't exert strong othismos. It was front-fighter against front-fighter here and the sparabara forced their foes backwards. Herodotus said that the Persians went so far as to penetrate the middle of Athens' line, but this seems quite unlikely in light of the phalanx's abiltiy to hold formation elsewhere. It's more probable that the Greek center merely fell back a bit and didn't actually break".

That has been my point in this discussion. The sparabara need to have a chance at holding the hoplites long enough to win on the wings. They shouldn't bulldoze holes through the line. Unless, of course, you take Herodotus as gospel. But 2 million in Xerxes' army? Not likely. Having said that, I do believe the 192 casualties at Marathon. It seems similar to other casualty lists by sources like Thucydides after a phalanx victory. It is also something that would've been recorded, venerated and public knowledge in Athens so a fudge would have been called out. But that's the fun of Herodotus, finding what you believe and what you discard. Dan Carlin calls him the world's first screenwriter and it seems apt. If you accept this number then it is unlikely that the Athenian centre broke, particularly as the Athenians suffered casualties both from Persian cavalry during the pursuit and at the fight for the ships.

By all means let's stiffen the Persian line. Maybe they can avoid the recoil like hordes. Maybe increasing CC factor. But please don't give them RPGs. I really want games where there is tension from the set up dice roll to the last element. More than happy for the Persians to set up favourable terrain at home to maximise their strengths (But stevie rules will allow the Greek general to choose the smallest board...) and help even the contest. I do not want steam roller affairs. But the changes have to make reasonable historical sense based on the outcomes. To help, the extra PIP to contact can be explained by Pausanias' ridiculous slaughtering of goats at Plataea. It may not have happened but, as I said, you get to choose with Herodotus.

Cheers

Jim

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

There were Greek colonies in Caria and the population of Miletus was mixed. But Carians considered themselves Anatolian. They spoke Carian, an Anatolian language. There are Hittite references that suggest a specific people before the Dorian/Ionian migrations. They were influenced by Greeks certainly. But against whom did they employ phalanx fighting? Again, my point is that carrying a shield and a spear doesn't make you a hoplite. Otherwise sparabara were fronted by hoplites. As you have said, we don't know how they fought but we know the outcomes and they stack heavily in favour of the hoplite v sparabara on the battlefield. Look at the battles after Plataea.

I do have some familiarity with Greece. As a pathological wargamer a made my 5 year old son and 75 year old parents wander around Marathon a couple of years ago (really hot! how did they fight in that armour?) We also had a Peloponnesian road trip, visiting Tegea amongst other places. Marathon, between the foothills and the beach, is relatively flat, as much as the Earth can be. No battle was ever fought on a billiard table. But didn't even Mardonius comment with disdain on the Greek practice of lining on flat ground to battle? In my mind's eye, it would've been denuded of trees for farming in the ancient times but wild shrubs and small trees would exist. There are accounts that these were some impediment to the centre of the Athenian line. Driving through the Peloponnese, I could clearly picture city-state phalanxes deploying between the hills, anchoring their flanks, just as described. No place for sweeping cavalry movements. I could also see great ambush locations as used in other battles in later periods. It's a quirk of DBA 3 terrain rules that Greek battles tend to be on billiard tables because at 600x600mm you don't need to anchor your flank on terrain. The phalanx runs right across the board! Indeed, you mostly see the phalanx incompletely formed at deployment or with some unusual kink or line of reserves (a tactic only seen after Alexander). I use 750x750mm to change that up.

Thucydides gives great accounts of hoplites in rough terrain. Demosthenes' disaster in Aetolia. Spartan disaster at Sphacteria. These are clear demonstrations that troops expecting to fight as hoplites are not well matched against light troops in favourable terrain. No doubt some hoplites could fight in rough terrain, if the lightened there equipment, opened their order and put away the idea of shoulder to shoulder formation. But that is not a phalanx (or shieldwall if you'd rather).

Thebes may have been frightened (I have no love for ancient Thebes) but also may have wanted to replace Athens as the local power. Probably a bit of both. Corinth too, was doing it's political best to assure the eclipse of Athens. Argos was hoping to replace Sparta. I see Thebes as making a rational political decision (the decision to resist Persia is quite irrational). Other Boeotians chose to fight (Platea, Thespia).

By all means, let's work on improving DBA 3 so that the Persian Wars are fun to play. But we shouldn't completely overturn the historical basis.

Cheers

Jim

PS Pictures of the beach at Marathon, looking east and west. I spent considerable time imagining the Persian ships pulled onto the beach.

Ooooooh! Chaos theory. I like it!

Jim

I think that Miletus was a siege. No question that virtually all near east armies were better at siege warfare than the classical Greeks.

Jim

Great job again! Even with your PIP/combat rolls Tony, you showed that hoplite battles are more interesting in DBA 3.

Jim

Now I have supported improving Sparabara resilience against Spears (i.e. Hoplites) over multiple posts. But 50/50? Let's go to the videotape...(if only we had one)

I could find 8 battles of Persian forces v Greek Hoplites in the first half of the fifth century BC that would likely have at least included at least some sparabara satrap regular forces. Sources are scarce and Herodotus is...well...Herodotus.
498 Ephesus v mostly Ionian Greeks with some Athenians and Euboeans - Persians win but this is thought to be due to Cavalry/Light Infantry overwhelming the flanks
494 Malene v Ionian Greeks - Persians win after surprise arrival of Cavalry on the flanks.

I mention Ionian Greeks specifically because they had lived under relative peace under the Persians since Cyrus the Great and previous to that under the Lydians. They were not fighting Hoplite battles every few years as the mainland Greeks were inclined to do.

After this time, I cannot find a Persian victory

490 Marathon
480 Psytalleia (only 600v400 but overwhelming victory to heavy spearmen)
479 Plataea (could count as two separate Greek victories due to the disjointed nature of the battle)
479 Mycale
476 Eion
466 Eurymedon

if I'm missing any battles please let me know.

So yes, 8Bw shouldn't be run over (it makes the game boring) but they shouldn't be even. I think this is best illustrated by Cimon's battles. He was never daunted when fighting Persians after Plataea and was the aggressor. He certainly seems to have learned that protected archers (even small numbers) are very good at protecting the flanks of the phalanx from cavalry with unarmoured horses.

Why the empire that contained the largest proportion of the world's population (~45%) at it's height couldn't overcome bickering "farmer militia" on the battlefield is one of history's enigmas.  But the results are there. Certainly weapon systems and home ground advantage play a role. But even after the Persians abandoned sparabara in the mid 5th century, hoplites continued to command the field. Xenophon and his friends seem to show that.

So Athens was burned but earth and water were never received. If only Argos and Thebes weren't recalcitrant and a united Greek army with Thessalian cavalry had met the Great King's army on the plain of Thessaly. Wouldn't that be something?

Now to hunker down under my aspis and await the arrow barrage (it is nicer in the shade...)

Cheers

Jim