Underpowered units?

[Phalanx300]

I found two units which stats didn't really feeled well if you looked at their description.

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/baktria/bak_baktrioi_agema.gif

The Baktion Agema, they are weaker then indogreek Hoplites while they are an elite?


https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/sweboz/sweboz_druhtiz_herusku.gif

The Cherusci unit, they have a very weak defense while there unit description says that they had a exceptional good one.

Just curious why this is?

I'm also a bit wondering why the Spartiatai are weaker then the Epileptikoi, would seem to me that they would have a advantage over them.

[SwissBarbar]

Why would the spartiatai have an advantage over the elite Epilektoi. Their badass-THISISSPARTA-time is quite over :laugh4:

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Hi.

I´m new so i´m probably mistaken. The Marian Legions, in their description it says they can easily be considered the must disciplined and versatil heavy infantry in the world which, in turn, can easily be translated in the best heavy infantry in the world but somehow their appear to bwe weaker than the camillian units.
Is that right or there´s something more? Because they´re supposed to be much stronger than the camillian units after all they were professionals.

Thx

[machinor]

Well, "disciplined" = higher morale. "most versatile" cannot be transformed into RTW engine mechanics. Roman legionaires were quite able in horse-riding, using ranged weapons (slings), siege warfare etc. etc. They had superior training in many fields. But that cannot be translated into RTW game mechanics.

[Tolg]

I doubt that even Sparta's proto-Nazi training can produce soldiers that are better than the best soldiers chosen from the many thousands of soldiers of a polis, it just produces more of them.


An example to make my point clear (transferred to modern times):

Imagine that you randomly choose 100 newborns and them you give them the best education there is, the best kindergarten, the best school, the best university etc. - You get the idea -
And than there's the rest of the world. 100,000 newborns, they just get a normal eduction, not bad, but nothing special (A normal kindergarten, a normal school, a normal university...)

Now if you in a test for all the abilities taught of course the former would do better in average, but if you just compare the best one of both groups, the later would do likely do better, because the chance that there's a second Einstein among the 100,000 is much higher than that he coincidently ends up among the 100 "chosen ones".

Now of course there are some problems with this comparison (superior genes etc.) but in general it's the same for Epilektoi and Spartiates.

[antisocialmunky]

The Marian Legion is a jack of all trades unit. It can do everything kinda well and do it until its at like 20%. However, they take higher casualites in assault roles due to their lower stats.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Well, "disciplined" = higher morale. "most versatile" cannot be transformed into RTW engine mechanics. Roman legionaires were quite able in horse-riding, using ranged weapons (slings), siege warfare etc. etc. They had superior training in many fields. But that cannot be translated into RTW game mechanics.

Thx Machinor. I beleive that the "most disciplined" in their description also mean that they´re the ones who can perform their manouvers best since this requires a lot of discipline and training.



The Marian Legion is a jack of all trades unit. It can do everything kinda well and do it until its at like 20%. However, they take higher casualites in assault roles due to their lower stats.

THx antisocialmunky. Shouldn´t they have higher stats to compensate what cannot be represented in the game?

Because Discipline and versatility are the most important things to an army. Ah, and good equipment.

Thx

[Mediolanicus]

Don't forget the Marians have 200men per unit instead of 160 (Polybian and Camillian).
IIRC their lethality is higher too.

Those things make them many times better than the earlier Romans, although the stats may show otherwise.

[Phalanx300]

I doubt that even Sparta's proto-Nazi training can produce soldiers that are better than the best soldiers chosen from the many thousands of soldiers of a polis, it just produces more of them.


An example to make my point clear (transferred to modern times):

Imagine that you randomly choose 100 newborns and them you give them the best education there is, the best kindergarten, the best school, the best university etc. - You get the idea -
And than there's the rest of the world. 100,000 newborns, they just get a normal eduction, not bad, but nothing special (A normal kindergarten, a normal school, a normal university...)

Now if you in a test for all the abilities taught of course the former would do better in average, but if you just compare the best one of both groups, the later would do likely do better, because the chance that there's a second Einstein among the 100,000 is much higher than that he coincidently ends up among the 100 "chosen ones".

Now of course there are some problems with this comparison (superior genes etc.) but in general it's the same for Epilektoi and Spartiates.

I don't really agree with that, training can make al the difference. And I don't know about morale which one has a higher one? Spartans were less likely to rout then most other Greeks seeing the harsh rules of doing that.:whip:

I do think that soldiers which went through the agoge were better soldiers then those of other poleis why at a later age decided to be professional soldiers.

[Mulceber]

Don't forget the Marians have 200men per unit instead of 160 (Polybian and Camillian).
IIRC their lethality is higher too.

Better to just say that they're 20% larger - since what you said is only true if your units are set to huge. -M

[Ludens]

THx antisocialmunky. Shouldn´t they have higher stats to compensate what cannot be represented in the game?

They are not the best heavy infantry, but the best rank-and-file heavy infantry unit. I am not sure in exactly what aspect you think them inferior to Camillian units. Maybe it's the attack factor? Remember that spear units get a -4 attack penalty against infantry, so the high attack factors of trairii and principes don't show up in combat (unless fighting cavalry, off course).

[DaciaJC]

Taxeis Triballoi

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/getai/getai_taxeistribalii.gif

They're described as being superior medium infantry and great at flanking heavy infantry; but in my Getai campaign, they usually eked out less than a 2:1 kill/death ratio against other medium infantry unless facing Hoplitai Haploi. Camillan Hastati, it seems like, perform better while being about 800 mnai cheaper.

[Raygereio]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/baktria/bak_baktrioi_agema.gif
The Baktion Agema, they are weaker then indogreek Hoplites while they are an elite?

They aren't weaker then the indogreek nobles, they have the exact same stats.
Only difference is that the Baktrioi Agema have hardy and tire slightly less in hot climates then the indogreek noble hoplites.

And that makes sense as while the Baktrioi Agema are elites, so are the indogreek nobles.

[Nachtmeister]

I don't really agree with that, training can make al the difference. And I don't know about morale which one has a higher one? Spartans were less likely to rout then most other Greeks seeing the harsh rules of doing that.:whip:

I do think that soldiers which went through the agoge were better soldiers then those of other poleis why at a later age decided to be professional soldiers.


I would say that Tolg's reasoning is basically correct, but if "game dynamics" are also taken into account, Phalanx300 is right: The Spartans are much harder to get by, and remember they were
-picked right after birth; only the toughest were kept alive
-raised to have all their self-conscience based upon how well they fought
-trained in an environment of very severe competition.
Then, think of the effect early physical training has on the human body. If done right, that is. A child has a much faster growth rate than an adolescent or an adult. This goes both for bones (get hardened early on due to beatings and the likes) and muscles (used to utter exhaustion and beyond all the time). The effect of constantly getting combat training is obvious - and morale would be un-beatable: Spartans were organized by "messes" on the battlefield, meaning they were standing next to their families. Rout and you abandon your family (esp. the front ranks) to get slaughtered; if they already got slaughtered, what's the point in routing if you have nowhere to go to and everyone you cared for is dead).
All this could be coincidentally "copied" with individual fates of, say, some very very brawnous and dedicated and selfless Athenians. Like, three men every decade.
The Spartan agoge was an industrialized production facility for such soldiers, fielding hundreds of them...
But then, how to represent this ingame? We'd need an entirely new city-model for Sparte. Like, click "recruit" and suddenly there's no more taxes, but running costs remain, and the population is "0" and you have a full stack standing next to the city... Impossible to do with RTW.

[Zett]

I'm also a bit wondering why the Spartiatai are weaker then the Epileptikoi, would seem to me that they would have a advantage over them.

They have a higher moral, and one defensepoint (or 2?) less then Epilektoi. Higher moral represent spartiatai very good (IMO).

[Aemilius Paulus]

They have a higher moral, and one defensepoint (or 2?) less then Epilektoi. Higher moral represent spartiatai very good (IMO).
Yes, the Spartans really do have higher morals. But I believe you were talking about their morale. Do not forget the "e" on the end of "moral". Morals and morale are two different things.

Sorry, I just had to comment on this. Loads of people make this mistake.

[Lysimachos]

Better to just say that they're 20% larger - since what you said is only true if your units are set to huge. -M

Sorry for nit-picky-mode, but the Marian units are 25 % larger than the earlier units, while these are 20 % smaller than the marian ones :dizzy2:

[Mulceber]

It's cool - thanks for the correction. -M

[antisocialmunky]

So here's a question, what the best heavy infantry unit in the game?

[anubis88]

So here's a question, what the best heavy infantry unit in the game?

My guess would be these guys

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/eleutheroi/iberia/rebel_dosidataskeli.gif

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

So here's a question, what the best heavy infantry unit in the game?

If we´re to look in EBteam description of the cohorts, historicaly they´re the best heavy infantry because discipline and versatility are the most important things in any army. As for the game i really can´t say.

[desert]

Well, technically Theban hoplites were even better than Spartans because they were bigger and stronger and when it got to the point where weapons were broken or discarded their superior wrestling skills meant the Spartans stood little chance.

Seriously though, instead of saying "Spartiatai Hoplitai", why can't they play some flute music when you click on them? That would be so cool.

[bobbin]

If we´re to look in EBteam description of the cohorts, historicaly they´re the best heavy infantry because discipline and versatility are the most important things in any army. As for the game i really can´t say.

Even historically I don't think the legionnaires were the best, they were so sucessful due to Romes ability to feild them in large numbers, if 100 legionnaires were to go toe to toe with 100 hypaspistai i'm pretty sure the latter would win.

I would have to agree with anubis's suggestion although it would be the Arche Seleukeia's version as the iberian guys aren't in the game anymore.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Meh, the legionaries arguably featured the most effective fighting style, especially one hardened by the standardised legionary training.

As for best infantry units, heck, I always go with Cordinau Orca. They are sword infantry, not spear, and they automatically roll off with one experience, since you need a Type IV government to build a Level Five Regional MIC in Signidunum.
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/eleutheroi/easteurope/rebel_cordinau_orca.gif

[Phalanx300]

Well, technically Theban hoplites were even better than Spartans because they were bigger and stronger and when it got to the point where weapons were broken or discarded their superior wrestling skills meant the Spartans stood little chance.

Seriously though, instead of saying "Spartiatai Hoplitai", why can't they play some flute music when you click on them? That would be so cool.

First of all, in Phalanx combat it didn't really came down to wrestling. Secondly, the Spartans were trained from the age of seven to fight, they would be perfectly able to do so, including wrestling.

And they were bigger? Where do you get that idea?:dizzy2:

[anubis88]

Even historically I don't think the legionnaires were the best, they were so sucessful due to Romes ability to feild them in large numbers, if 100 legionnaires were to go toe to toe with 100 hypaspistai i'm pretty sure the latter would win.

I would have to agree with anubis's suggestion although it would be the Arche Seleukeia's version as the iberian guys aren't in the game anymore.

i thought that only the Goidilic ones were removed...:dizzy2:

yes then the agryaspides should take the crown...

[desert]

Then explain the crushing victories the Thebans inflicted on the Spartans in Haliartus and Leuctra?

There was a lot of wrestling involved, because when the lines collided spears often broke right away. Men then switched to swords. If those were lost, then they simply pushed on with their shields. The Thebans were bigger and stronger than the Spartans, so they overwhelmed them in hand to hand.

And I've no sources for you right now, but it was written that the Boeotians were very rustic, and more physically endowed than their neighbors in Attica and the Peloponnesus.

[Phalanx300]

Then explain the crushing victories the Thebans inflicted on the Spartans in Haliartus and Leuctra?

Strategy, the Thebans applied massively deep ranks to break the traditional Spartan lines.


There was a lot of wrestling involved, because when the lines collided spears often broke right away. Men then switched to swords. If those were lost, then they simply pushed on with their shields. The Thebans were bigger and stronger than the Spartans, so they overwhelmed them in hand to hand.

Not really, the Thebans very more phycically fit then most other Greeks because they practiced alot of wrestling. I doubt to see any wrestling in Phalanx vs Phalanx warfare.

Bigger and stronger is certainly not true, and overwhelming in hand to hand certainly isn't as well.

[A Very Super Market]

Being big means nothing. You still don't refute the point that Spartan soldiers were trained from the age of 7. They were the strongest warriors. The had to be, otherwise Sparta would have died out long ago.

And thats if you completely forget the fact that there are ranks in a hoplite formation. If you dropped your shield to wrestle, someone in the second row would stab you in the face.

[Woreczko]

Hi.

I´m new so i´m probably mistaken. The Marian Legions, in their description it says they can easily be considered the must disciplined and versatil heavy infantry in the world which, in turn, can easily be translated in the best heavy infantry in the world but somehow their appear to bwe weaker than the camillian units.
Is that right or there´s something more? Because they´re supposed to be much stronger than the camillian units after all they were professionals.

Thx

The biggest advantage of late roman legionaries is their huge recruitment area combined with a pretty good stats and cheap price. While it may not seem so, unit availability is a very important factor, both in EB and in real life.
For me, currently a baktrian player, it is pantodapoi, pantodapoi phalangitai and thanvare payahdag, who are THE UNITS in my army. Sure, I love my heavy cavalry and I`m proud of Baktrion Agema, but... But I can manage without them. However without my pantodapoi, my empire would soon come crashing to the ground. Such is the value of easy accesability + good enough stats for given role.

[desert]

Being big is important because it lets you push harder. Phalanx warfare is about pushing.

The Spartans had discipline, but that doesn't count for much if your formation is being broken.

The Thebans increased the depth in Leuctra, meaning they had to break through the Spartan formation quickly or they would be surrounded and killed. Greater strength is definitely an important factor in that.

Also, if you wrestle hand to hand with someone, it's difficult for an enemy to stab you without killing his friend too. Remember, hoplites back then didn't see much because of their helmets. And if you just have a shield and are stronger than the guy opposite you, you will push him back and wreck the enemy formation.

Also recall that you didn't need ANY training to be a hoplite. All you needed to do was run forward and either push hard or stab over and over again.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Even historically I don't think the legionnaires were the best, they were so sucessful due to Romes ability to feild them in large numbers, if 100 legionnaires were to go toe to toe with 100 hypaspistai i'm pretty sure the latter would win.

I would have to agree with anubis's suggestion although it would be the Arche Seleukeia's version as the iberian guys aren't in the game anymore.

Hi bobbin

I´ll have to differ on this subject for the same reasons pointed by the EB team, i´m sure the hypaspistai were great great fighters but at large battles the legions would have tactical superiority and this´s pretty much all in a battle. Now, i also believe that a raw legionnaire is not the best individualy.

Thx

[anubis88]

Hi bobbin

I´ll have to differ on this subject for the same reasons pointed by the EB team, i´m sure the hypaspistai were great great fighters but at large battles the legions would have tactical superiority and this´s pretty much all in a battle. Now, i also believe that a raw legionnaire is not the best individualy.

Thx

first of all, he said 100 vs 100, which is not a large battle,

second, i dissagree... The Legionaire was a great soldier, but he was not elite. He was just an very well trained and equiped professional... To equip a legionaire would cost less than a hypaspistai. That's why there could have never been a large battle between only legionares and hypaspists, since no one could afford a large number of them. In one on one battle the hypaspist would win... definetly

Remember, the hypaspist were also tactically very versatile

[Aemilius Paulus]

Also recall that you didn't need ANY training to be a hoplite. All you needed to do was run forward and either push hard or stab over and over again.
Umm, I am sure you did not mean mean to say what you did. What about keeping formation? That is the first most difficult thing. Then, how about the fact that a normal phalanx will never walk straight. It moves in a diagonal line. The Spartans were the only one disciplined enough to stop this. NO-ONE in the history of the Ancient World could move a phalanx straight but the Spartans. And they spent their lives learning how to do it.

The Thebans also walked straight, but for a different reason. The Thebans were smart and inventive. Epaminondas instructed his phalanxes to walk in a diagonal opposite to the one the hoplites would normally, but unknowingly carry out. And so the two opposite diagonals cancelled out, making the phalanx march straight.

The problem causing all this was the tendency to huddle behind the shield of one's own neighbour in a phalanx. The soldiers were not cowards, but step by step, they moved closer to their right neighbour's shield by mere couple of centimetres, eventually creating an overall discrepancy in the direction of the displacement.

[Aemilius Paulus]

EDIT: whoops, double post. I was going to post and clicked the "Post" button but then immediately clicked the "stop" button on my browser to make a change in the post without having to later go and edit it. Well, at least I have learned my lesson...

[A Very Super Market]

Yeah, thats what all spammers say at first.

Desert, I don't have any idea of what you're talking about. First of all, although spears did tend to break, no self-respecting hoplite would launch one straight into a shield. There were plenty of them left after the first impact. How do you wrestle as hoplites? Seriously, how the hell would you do that? You are tightly packed, you are covered by a shield that isn't your's to move, and would need to somehow rip a heavy shield from an equally strong man's grip in the middle of freaking combat.

[desert]

Actually, the Spartans did not move in a straight line. They simply took advantage of the diagonal shift and incorporated it into their strategy. Pretty much no other hoplites knew how to do that.

Also, the hoplite couldn't necessarily SEE that it was going to hit a shield. Sometimes it hit the shields and broke, sometimes a spear could even penetrate through the shield and the bronze armor of the guy behind it. If they lost the spear, they would fight with swords. No sword, they just pushed with their shields. No shields, they either died very fast or grappled successfully with the guy in front, which was unlikely. You could push the guy, or try to topple him, or be lucky enough to face someone who also lost his stuff.

Or, consider this. You are pushed so hard that your face is literally 3 inches from the enemy's. Tell me you couldn't punch or grab with your free (weapon lost) arm at that distance.

[A Very Super Market]

You would punch a sharp metal helmet?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Pretty much no other hoplites knew how to do that.
Read your books again...



Also, the hoplite couldn't necessarily SEE that it was going to hit a shield. Sometimes it hit the shields and broke, sometimes a spear could even penetrate through the shield and the bronze armor of the guy behind it.
Alright, first of all, the hoplite spears could not have been made less aerodynamic and throw-suitable. There were specials spears for throwing. The thrusting doris was not one of them. No one threw their main spear. It is simply plain idiotic to do that when 1:spear does not fly and 2:it would leave you temporarily without a spear.



If they lost the spear, they would fight with swords. No sword, they just pushed with their shields. No shields, they either died very fast or grappled successfully with the guy in front, which was unlikely. You could push the guy, or try to topple him, or be lucky enough to face someone who also lost his stuff.
Really, you have exactly zero sources behind you. Your assumption is more comical than it is false. Wrestling? The hell? Battlefields were full of discarded, lost, or just lying-around weapons of the dead. There was always plenty to pick up.

Not to mention you are going to Hollywood style here. Phalanxes fought with spears and pushed until one broke (usually sooner than later), after which there was rarely any pursuit. During that moment when the opposing phalanx was breaking was the moment of greatest slaughter. Battles usually featured very low casualties. Last-stand type encounter were exceedingly rare. Wrestling almost never happened, and you seem to suggest that it was not an isolated event but something that was not unusual for that time. I am sure it was your own mind that came up with that notion, and it was not something you have actually read.

Really, I need ThePersianCataphract or MeinPanzer here. Or some EB team Historian to tell desert about his assertion.

[desert]

Alright, first of all, the hoplite spears could not have been made less aerodynamic and throw-suitable. There were specials spears for throwing. The thrusting doris was not one of them. No one threw their main spear. It is simply plain idiotic to do that when 1:spear does not fly and 2:it would leave you temporarily without a spear.

When the hell did I say they threw them? Maybe you should read my post again!


Really, you have exactly zero sources behind you. Your assumption is more comical than it is false. Wrestling? The hell? Battlefields were full of discarded, lost, or just lying-around weapons of the dead. There was always plenty to pick up.

Excuse me? You are going to bend down to pick up a weapon when you are literally SANDWICHED between men? When men are so close together that the dead sometimes remain standing? You would either be stabbed or trampled.

Wrestling was quite common, because that's what you did when you lost your weapons, which happened often in battles that lasted from 30 minutes to 2 hours!

Where did I even talk about last stands, anyway? :furious3:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Give me sources on the wrestling.

As I have said, battles did not come to that unless it was a last stand, which were exceptionally rare themselves. Phalanx would break and run before wrestling. Routing. It was more common than EB might sometimes suggest...

[A Very Super Market]

If you are too cramped to pick up a weapon, how would you wrestle?

[desert]

Or, consider this. You are pushed so hard that your face is literally 3 inches from the enemy's. Tell me you couldn't punch or grab with your free (weapon lost) arm at that distance.

And if you want sources, fine. Give me till the end of the week to request the book in question.
I'll probably be able to give you ancient sources by then as well.

[Mulceber]

Excuse me? You are going to bend down to pick up a weapon when you are literally SANDWICHED between men?

sandwiched between men? The only men you'd be sandwiched between would be the other members of YOUR phalanx. I don't think you'd have to worry about them killing you and thus, it would be perfectly reasonable to bend over and pick up a shield or spear, particularly if you weren't in the front rank of the phalanx.


When men are so close together that the dead sometimes remain standing? You would either be stabbed or trampled.

Uh, where did you get that? somehow when I picture close combat, I don't picture combat THAT close. Most of the casualties would be taken by the front rank of the phalanx, and it wouldn't be nearly as close as that. I don't know where you're getting your ideas. Could you give us your sources? -M

[Aemilius Paulus]

it would be perfectly reasonable to bend over and pick up a
Ummm, I am not so sure... Remember, this is Ancient Greece. You are young. You are male. And you are wearing very short clothing over your buttocks, equitable to the notoriously dangerous short skirts. I would not bend over if I were you. You never know how desperate the man behind you is...

Don't pick up the soap anyone??

[desert]

No.

You are in the front ranks. You have lost your weapon. You can not bend down to pick up a new one.

If you are in rank 4 or higher you have not yet lost your weapon. There is no need to bend down.

Also, bending down when you should be pushing the guy in front of you will needlessly disrupt the formation. So what you are saying is bollocks.

Good night. :thumbsdown:

[A Very Super Market]

Again, how is it possible to WRESTLE when you are too cramped to bend down?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Deseret, says who? Give us sources. That is why we are so reluctant to believe you. It seems you have developed you own concept of the Ancient warfare system.

Oh, and Mini-Market, give us more rhetorical arguments. Make them more lengthy. At least try to make your post-increasing spam more palatable.

[Rilder]

I find it horrendously hilarious to imagine a hoplite in the middle of a formation abandoning the formation in favor of wresting his foes to the ground.

If a a Hoplite jumped at me with the intention of WRESTLING ME TO THE DEATH. I would probably pull out my secondary weapon and just stab him a few times.

It would be incredibly stupid in my eyes to try and wrestle if I don't have a weapon, not only am I breaking the Phalanx (Broken Phalanx = death) but just because I don't have a weapon doesn't mean my foe doesn't either, not only that but if I have room to wrestle I have room to GET A DAMN WEAPON.

[Cullhwch]

Desert, you're being ridiculous.

Back to the topic at hand...
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/eleutheroi/greece/rebel_hippeis_thessalikoi.gif
I find these guys to be a bit underpowered. They do just fine for themselves, but they just lack the "oomph" that a truly elite unit should have. Their description says that they can sweep away the enemy in a single thunderous charge, but that rarely happens and they tend to take much heavier losses than reason would dictate. A minor stats boost (+3 charge, +3 defense, for instance) or a significantly reduced cost would really do wonders for them, IMO.

[SwissBarbar]

This is the funniest discussion about Phalanx-warfare I've ever read :laugh4: just so you know.

Now let me be an interventionist:

1. In my opinion the Theban phalanx surely was very capable, though I don't think they were as well trained as a Spartiatai Hoplitai, who after all has been trained since they were able to walk. But especially the Theban Sacred Band was a great force, and @ Aemilius Paulus, at least THEY would have bent over in your theory :laugh4: :laugh4:

2. Despite that, I completely disagree with the theory of wrestling Hoplites during battle. Hello? Where are we? We are staying in a crowded mass of men, none can move but forward and especially the ones in the first battle line did care NEVER
never never never never never never never never never never never never
TO LOSE THEIR SHIELD :whip: :whip: :whip:

I mean - try to wrestle here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O-l1-qFVCoE/SRvHdBwbTEI/AAAAAAAAARM/2Pq_CAgEzv0/s400/phalanx+proper4.jpg


3. Now let's imagine the most unlikely situation and you really lost your spear, and the enemy in front of you too. Do you throw away your shield and wrestle? If you did, the enemy in front of you would hit his shield into your face and kill you with a spear he got from the man behind. And if not, your neighbour would stab you, because you threw away your shield, with which you were meant to protect HIM.

[Aurgelmir]

Lol the discussion over wrestling...They did wrestle...but not much in combat(it can be,because nobody was there to see this happening or not)

For sports they did wrestle...

What did the main greek battleline when they are wounded?...do they retreat?to let the second guy to do the work,or did they fight to the end like...lets say the vikings,there the second battleline was only fighting when the first was dead...(dont know this for sure of course since everybody wants resources here,i read it years ago)

I inmagine how the big show and the undertaker tagteam wise beat up a greek army hahaha lol that would be fun to watch:....I will chocke-slam you ...you filthy spartan... damn they have to make a game like this EBvsRAW ANNO B.C.

[Phalanx300]

Being big is important because it lets you push harder. Phalanx warfare is about pushing.

Yes, yet see it as rope pulling as well, the best coordinated one wins on equal teams. The Spartans were better coordinated and trained.


The Spartans had discipline, but that doesn't count for much if your formation is being broken.

Discipline>Formation>Victory


The Thebans increased the depth in Leuctra, meaning they had to break through the Spartan formation quickly or they would be surrounded and killed. Greater strength is definitely an important factor in that.

Why do you somehow think that the Spartans would suck at hand to hand combat and strenght? The Thebans weren't the only ones to wrestle you know, I'm 100% sure that a Spartan would also be taught to learn individual combat.


Also, if you wrestle hand to hand with someone, it's difficult for an enemy to stab you without killing his friend too. Remember, hoplites back then didn't see much because of their helmets. And if you just have a shield and are stronger than the guy opposite you, you will push him back and wreck the enemy formation.

In a dense Hoplite Phalanx you wouldn't even be able to wrestle.


Also recall that you didn't need ANY training to be a hoplite. All you needed to do was run forward and either push hard or stab over and over again.

Yes you did need training, even the militia had these trainings now and then to be able to form a solid formation, which shows that it was needed in Hoplite warfare and that the Hoplite Militia weren't as Militia as the name suggests.

[Nachtmeister]

Lol the discussion over wrestling...They did wrestle...but not much in combat(it can be,because nobody was there to see this happening or not)

For sports they did wrestle...

What did the main greek battleline when they are wounded?...do they retreat?to let the second guy to do the work,or did they fight to the end like...lets say the vikings,there the second battleline was only fighting when the first was dead...(dont know this for sure of course since everybody wants resources here,i read it years ago)

I inmagine how the big show and the undertaker tagteam wise beat up a greek army hahaha lol that would be fun to watch:....I will chocke-slam you ...you filthy spartan... damn they have to make a game like this EBvsRAW ANNO B.C.



No, they could not "swap the first and second lines" during battle. Thus, if you got wounded badly, you would subsequently get trampled badly. Exceptions are possible - but look again at Swiss Barbar's picture of fighting phalanxes. If one of them were to swap lines, it would stop pushing the other for a moment or - even if skillful and ABSOLUTELY synchronous at swapping - they would at least *reduce* the pressure on the opposing phalanx, thus getting pushed backwards. What happens when the big bully pushes you backwards really fast, really hard on the schoolyard? That's right, you land on your buttocks. In the situation displayed on the picture, that means you die because the fact that the enemy phalanx rushes over you and is really cramped doesn't mean the third, fourth and every rank behind them are not able to finish you off.

I think Desert is having a great time making fools of everyone who is taking his posts literally... I smell a lot of well-concealed sarcasm there.

And wrestling - I suppose it did happen (rarely), but only on an overlapping flank. Or if a phalanx got out-manoeuvered.
What the Thebans did was this (IIRC):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=162&pictureid=1190

The "Bars" represent the opposing formations, obviously.
On the Theban side, the "blue" is the "Sacred Band"/elites.
On the Spartan side, the "dark red" are the elites.
The rest of them are regulars.
By lining up this way, they denied their right flank for a moment and at the same time surprised the Spartans who expected their elites on the right flank as it was usual for phalanx warfare to minimize phalanx diagonal drift. Also, the Spartans could not see that the formation had "double depth" on the flank opposing their elites. Faced with DOUBLE weight, it doesn't really matter HOW well trained you are - you just lose. That's like an "inverted" (and rather lethal) game of rope-pulling: Even wearing thick, grippy gloves and working together well as a team doesn't matter if your opponents have roughly the same number of well-trained team-"pullers" PLUS again as many dummies who at least are not exactly lightweights.
Even for regular hoplites, there were certain combat qualifications to be met and a considerable amount of training to attend...
And their only job was to push hard from behind anyway, then finish off the wounded that got under the phalanx. In spite of the impossible odds, the Spartans are said to have actually held the line for several minutes!! Now who's elite?

*EDIT* Oh and that joker who said hoplite warfare is for dummies (no training etc) - Good one!! :clown: But go try to attend some army drill and realize by experience that it takes weeks to get even only a COLUMN three broad and twelve deep to march in ONE direction and change direction in unison - but MONTHS before they can even keep in step and at equal distances to those before and behind them. Phalanxes were more something like 2000 broad ROWS...
You should at least watch some not-manipulated-for-public-viewing-to-show-how-badass-the-army-is drill instructions with fresh recruits before you go claim it takes nothing to form a phalanx. Better yet - be one of those recruits to really grasp the problems involved. */EDIT*

[Phalanx300]

A great post Nachtmeister, especially you telling on the battle of Leuktra.

Also when the Spartan king fell in battle(like the kings they are fighting on the front) the Spartans were even able to push all those Thebans back long enough to retrieve the body of their king. No thats loyalty, just as in Thermopylae when they fought for Leonidas his body in the end.:2thumbsup:

[antisocialmunky]

You know this thread is like 20x more interesting if you tack "in bed." onto all those short quotes. :)

@NachtMeister - IIRC, the Thebans reputedly stripped the rest of their lines down and stacked their left 50 deep. And yeah, the Spartans are said to have actually managed to hold that horde of dudes back with their standard 12 deep formation. It was rather a Pyrrhic Victory seeing how all the Theban leaders somehow managed to get themselves killed.

[seienchin]

Mmh... It seems to me, that all the people, who are really proud of their history knowledge and think they know more than all the others tend to disagree with the common knowledge about certain topics.
Esspecially the EB Team(Mostly good thing) and many players(...)...
For example:
All Celts were wearing throusers like in Asterix. (In Eb they have nacked ones)
Roman soldiers were the best in the world. (They are definitly not in EB)
Greeks in the 3rd century bc fought like macedonian phalangitai... (Many did...^^ )

And I guess the thing with the spartans is the same. The Team wants to prove the common knowledge wrong by making their stats low and reffering to their lost battles of the past and the decrease of the spartan power :juggle2:
BUT: I think EB is wrong in this point! It is true that Sparta was weak at that point and that it couldnt bring many spartiates to the battlefield, but their is no prove, that the few spartiates were weaker than the spartiates of the past, who were with no doubt superior fighters (Which the text in the Unit card also states) :2thumbsup:

[Tolg]

For example:
All Celts were wearing throusers like in Asterix. (In Eb they have nacked ones)

While I'm no historian, so I can't prove that Gaesatae existed, I can guarantee that they didn't just make it up, I've heard about naked Celtic fighters many times before I even started playing RTW, let alone EB. Now seeing that it can't be just an idea of the EB team and that they're very well informed on th other matters of ancient society, perhaps you are the one who is very proud of his history knowledge and thinks he knows more than all the others and tends to disagree with the common knowledge about certain topics."?



Roman soldiers were the best in the world. (They are definitely not in EB)

1) Versatility and superior training can't be displayed properly with the RTW engine.
2) If they were that much superior in fighting power they wouldn't have lost the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, even with the huge territorial disadvantage.



Greeks in the 3rd century bc fought like macedonian phalangitai... (Many did...^^ )

Sources?



BUT: I think EB is wrong in this point! It is true that Sparta was weak at that point and that it couldn't bring many Spartiates to the battlefield, but their is no prove, that the few Spartiates were weaker than the Spartiates of the past, who were with no doubt superior fighters (Which the text in the Unit card also states) :2thumbsup:

They aren't weak, at least not compared to other hoplitai. it's just that the Epilektoi have +1 armor because they are the best - and hence the richest - men of the polis, something the Spartans aren't, well not all of them.




Common knowledge is wrong more often than not, you should never trust it unless you can prove that it's correct.

[SwissBarbar]

I believe he meant it sarcastic, I mean... hello...

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

first of all, he said 100 vs 100, which is not a large battle,

second, i dissagree... The Legionaire was a great soldier, but he was not elite. He was just an very well trained and equiped professional... To equip a legionaire would cost less than a hypaspistai. That's why there could have never been a large battle between only legionares and hypaspists, since no one could afford a large number of them. In one on one battle the hypaspist would win... definetly

Remember, the hypaspist were also tactically very versatile

i didn´t make myself clear in a 100 vs 100 i think the hypaspist would win but in large battle the legions would win, at least so i believe. The roman heavy infantry tactics were superior it´s a known fact and backed by EB when they say "Most disciplined and versatile", now i hold no ilusion that an normal legionnaire could not cope individually with others elite but i also beleive that a seasoned legionnaire would be an elite ( campaign for 10 years, for instance).

[SwissBarbar]

Many of you forget, that the legionary was not an elite-soldier (maybe the Praetorian Guard was..) but a mere standard-soldier of Rome... from the viewpoint of conventionality he is as usual as the stinky normal Celtic Bataroas (and not the elite Carnute Cingetos), Greek Hoplitai (and not the elite Hypaspist) , Sabean Aithiopikoi Machairophoroi (Ethiopian Swordsmen) (and not the elite Lo'hamim Azzilim (Sabean Noble Infantry)) or Getic Komatai Thorakitai Stratiotai (Dacian Heavy Phalanx) (and not the elite Thraikioi Rambo-phoroi).

Alone the fact, that you compare the Roman standard-send-in-and-waste-them infantry with the elites of other great peoples like the Hellenes....these words say more than a thousand pictures *lol*

[Tolg]

Actually I wanted to add this to my last post as well, but I just couldn't find the right words.

[Rilder]

And didn't Rome actually lose a quite a lot of battles? They weren't uber "Always winning with minimal losses"

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

i didn´t make myself clear in a 100 vs 100 i think the hypaspist would win but in large battle the legions would win, at least so i believe. The roman heavy infantry tactics were superior it´s a known fact and backed by EB when they say "Most disciplined and versatile", now i hold no ilusion that an normal legionnaire could not cope individually with others elite but i also beleive that a seasoned legionnaire would be an elite ( campaign for 10 years, for instance).

i have the same opinion, individually i think the legionnaire is not the best but as a unit with their discipline, superior tactics and good equipment they excel.

[Ca Putt]

the strength of the roman military was ot the individual soldier but the command structure, the ability to produce standardized legionarys at a rate henry ford would not have dreamt of and the ability to quickly adapt equipment and tactics.

[anubis88]

i have the same opinion, individually i think the legionnaire is not the best but as a unit with their discipline, superior tactics and good equipment they excel.

It all depends on the general... He's the one that keeps the discipline, and he's the one that decides which tactics would be used... Imagine Alexander the great with an army full of hypaspist.... he would indeed be unstopable.... ( well perhaps against the persians the schock value of seeing such phalanx for the first time was even better):yes:

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

It all depends on the general... He's the one that keeps the discipline, and he's the one that decides which tactics would be used... Imagine Alexander the great with an army full of hypaspist.... he would indeed be unstopable.... ( well perhaps against the persians the schock value of seeing such phalanx for the first time was even better):yes:

Hi

This´s not exactly the discipline and tactcs that i meant. Discipline to perform the required movements and this will only come up with a lot of training; Tactics like the repl cavalary, rotation, splited cohorts...Anubis88, i´m no expert but i think that what you´re saying is strategy rather than tactics.

Thx

[Aemilius Paulus]

Many of you forget, that the legionary was not an elite-soldier (maybe the Praetorian Guard was..) but a mere standard-soldier of Rome... from the viewpoint of conventionality he is as usual as the stinky normal Celtic Bataroas (and not the elite Carnute Cingetos), Greek Hoplitai (and not the elite Hypaspist) , Sabean Aithiopikoi Machairophoroi (Ethiopian Swordsmen) (and not the elite Lo'hamim Azzilim (Sabean Noble Infantry)) or Getic Komatai Thorakitai Stratiotai (Dacian Heavy Phalanx) (and not the elite Thraikioi Rambo-phoroi).

Yeah, but heck, their equipment was equivalent that of the other nation's elites. Roman Empire was large and wealthy and it could afford to equip its soldiers with lots of crap. Lorica Hamata or Lorica Segmentata were both very expensive to produce, especially Hamata. So were the helmets, shields, swords, not to mention all the other minor pieces of equipment.

[desert]

You know this thread is like 20x more interesting if you tack "in bed." onto all those short quotes. :)

@NachtMeister - IIRC, the Thebans reputedly stripped the rest of their lines down and stacked their left 50 deep. And yeah, the Spartans are said to have actually managed to hold that horde of dudes back with their standard 12 deep formation. It was rather a Pyrrhic Victory seeing how all the Theban leaders somehow managed to get themselves killed.


It was rather the opposite of a Pyrrhic Victory considering that none of the Theban leaders died and the Spartans got slaughtered. You are talking about the Battle of Mantinea in 362 where Epaminondas got stabbed and died. Also, that was a Theban defeat.

Big post coming along. DON'T REPLY TO ME JUST WAIT FOR ME TO POST. <_<

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lemme guess, the post is going to be your latest doomed attempt to argue for the validity of your "wrestling in battle" hypothesis. Eh?

[desert]

Here is basically everything related to the argument.


Not really, the Thebans very more phycically fit then most other Greeks because they practiced alot of wrestling. I doubt to see any wrestling in Phalanx vs Phalanx warfare.

Bigger and stronger is certainly not true, and overwhelming in hand to hand certainly isn't as well.



Being big means nothing. You still don't refute the point that Spartan soldiers were trained from the age of 7. They were the strongest warriors. The had to be, otherwise Sparta would have died out long ago.

And thats if you completely forget the fact that there are ranks in a hoplite formation. If you dropped your shield to wrestle, someone in the second row would stab you in the face.



Umm, I am sure you did not mean mean to say what you did. What about keeping formation? That is the first most difficult thing. Then, how about the fact that a normal phalanx will never walk straight.
It moves in a diagonal line. The Spartans were the only one disciplined enough to stop this. NO-ONE in the history of the Ancient World could move a phalanx straight but the Spartans.
And they spent their lives learning how to do it.

The Thebans also walked straight, but for a different reason. The Thebans were smart and inventive. Epaminondas instructed his phalanxes to walk in a diagonal opposite to the one the hoplites would normally,
but unknowingly carry out. And so the two opposite diagonals cancelled out, making the phalanx march straight.

The problem causing all this was the tendency to huddle behind the shield of one's own neighbour in a phalanx. The soldiers were not cowards, but step by step,
they moved closer to their right neighbour's shield by mere couple of centimetres, eventually creating an overall discrepancy in the direction of the displacement.



Desert, I don't have any idea of what you're talking about. First of all, although spears did tend to break, no self-respecting hoplite would launch one straight into a shield.
There were plenty of them left after the first impact. How do you wrestle as hoplites? Seriously, how the hell would you do that? You are tightly packed, you are covered by a shield
that isn't your's to move, and would need to somehow rip a heavy shield from an equally strong man's grip in the middle of freaking combat.



Read your books again...

Alright, first of all, the hoplite spears could not have been made less aerodynamic and throw-suitable. There were specials spears for throwing. The thrusting doris was not one of them.
No one threw their main spear. It is simply plain idiotic to do that when 1:spear does not fly and 2:it would leave you temporarily without a spear.

Really, you have exactly zero sources behind you. Your assumption is more comical than it is false. Wrestling? The hell? Battlefields were full of discarded, lost, or just lying-around weapons of the dead.
There was always plenty to pick up.

Not to mention you are going to Hollywood style here. Phalanxes fought with spears and pushed until one broke (usually sooner than later), after which there was rarely any pursuit.
During that moment when the
opposing phalanx was breaking was the moment of greatest slaughter. Battles usually featured very low casualties. Last-stand type encounter were exceedingly rare.
Wrestling almost never happened, and you seem to suggest that it was not an isolated event but something that was not unusual for that time.
I am sure it was your own mind that came up with that notion, and it was not something you have actually read.

Really, I need ThePersianCataphract or MeinPanzer here. Or some EB team Historian to tell desert about his assertion.




Give me sources on the wrestling.

As I have said, battles did not come to that unless it was a last stand, which were exceptionally rare themselves. Phalanx would break and run before wrestling. Routing.
It was more common than EB might sometimes suggest...




If you are too cramped to pick up a weapon, how would you wrestle?




sandwiched between men? The only men you'd be sandwiched between would be the other members of YOUR phalanx.
I don't think you'd have to worry about them killing you and thus, it would be perfectly reasonable to bend over and pick up a shield or spear,
particularly if you weren't in the front rank of the phalanx.

Uh, where did you get that? somehow when I picture close combat, I don't picture combat THAT close.
Most of the casualties would be taken by the front rank of the phalanx, and it wouldn't be nearly as close as that.
I don't know where you're getting your ideas. Could you give us your sources? -M


Again, how is it possible to WRESTLE when you are too cramped to bend down?




Deseret, says who? Give us sources. That is why we are so reluctant to believe you. It seems you have developed you own concept of the Ancient warfare system.

Oh, and Mini-Market, give us more rhetorical arguments. Make them more lengthy. At least try to make your post-increasing spam more palatable.




I find it horrendously hilarious to imagine a hoplite in the middle of a formation abandoning the formation in favor of wresting his foes to the ground.

If a a Hoplite jumped at me with the intention of WRESTLING ME TO THE DEATH. I would probably pull out my secondary weapon and just stab him a few times.

It would be incredibly stupid in my eyes to try and wrestle if I don't have a weapon, not only am I breaking the Phalanx (Broken Phalanx = death)
but just because I don't have a weapon doesn't mean my foe doesn't either, not only that but if I have room to wrestle I have room to GET A DAMN WEAPON.




This is the funniest discussion about Phalanx-warfare I've ever read just so you know.

Now let me be an interventionist:

1. In my opinion the Theban phalanx surely was very capable, though I don't think they were as well trained as a Spartiatai Hoplitai, who after all has been trained since they were able to walk.
But especially the Theban Sacred Band was a great force, and @ Aemilius Paulus, at least THEY would have bent over in your theory

2. Despite that, I completely disagree with the theory of wrestling Hoplites during battle. Hello? Where are we?
We are staying in a crowded mass of men, none can move but forward and especially the ones in the first battle line did care NEVER

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
never never never never never never never never never never never never

TO LOSE THEIR SHIELD

I mean - try to wrestle here:


3. Now let's imagine the most unlikely situation and you really lost your spear, and the enemy in front of you too. Do you throw away your shield and wrestle?
If you did, the enemy in front of you would hit his shield into your face and kill you with a spear he got from the man behind. And if not, your neighbour would stab you, because you threw away your shield,
with which you were meant to protect HIM.




Lol the discussion over wrestling...They did wrestle...but not much in combat(it can be,because nobody was there to see this happening or not)

For sports they did wrestle...

What did the main greek battleline when they are wounded?...do they retreat?to let the second guy to do the work,or did they fight to the end like...lets say the vikings,there the second battleline
was only fighting when the first was dead...(dont know this for sure of course since everybody wants resources here,i read it years ago)

I inmagine how the big show and the undertaker tagteam wise beat up a greek army hahaha lol that would be fun to watch:....I will chocke-slam you ...you filthy spartan... damn they have to make a game
like this EBvsRAW ANNO B.C.





Yes, yet see it as rope pulling as well, the best coordinated one wins on equal teams. The Spartans were better coordinated and trained.


Discipline>Formation>Victory


Why do you somehow think that the Spartans would suck at hand to hand combat and strenght? The Thebans weren't the only ones to wrestle you know, I'm 100% sure that a Spartan would also be taught to learn individual combat.



In a dense Hoplite Phalanx you wouldn't even be able to wrestle.



Yes you did need training, even the militia had these trainings now and then to be able to form a solid formation, which shows that it was needed in Hoplite warfare and that the Hoplite Militia weren't as Militia as the name suggests.




No, they could not "swap the first and second lines" during battle. Thus, if you got wounded badly, you would subsequently get trampled badly. Exceptions are possible - but look again at Swiss Barbar's picture of fighting phalanxes.
If one of them were to swap lines, it would stop pushing the other for a moment or - even if skillful and ABSOLUTELY synchronous at swapping - they would at least *reduce* the pressure on the opposing phalanx, thus getting pushed backwards.
What happens when the big bully pushes you backwards really fast, really hard on the schoolyard? That's right, you land on your buttocks. In the situation displayed on the picture, that means you die because the fact that the enemy
phalanx rushes over you and is really cramped doesn't mean the third, fourth and every rank behind them are not able to finish you off.

I think Desert is having a great time making fools of everyone who is taking his posts literally... I smell a lot of well-concealed sarcasm there.

And wrestling - I suppose it did happen (rarely), but only on an overlapping flank. Or if a phalanx got out-manoeuvered.
What the Thebans did was this (IIRC):


Spoiler Alert, click show to read:


The "Bars" represent the opposing formations, obviously.
On the Theban side, the "blue" is the "Sacred Band"/elites.
On the Spartan side, the "dark red" are the elites.
The rest of them are regulars.
By lining up this way, they denied their right flank for a moment and at the same time surprised the Spartans who expected their elites on the right flank as it was usual for phalanx warfare to minimize phalanx diagonal drift.
Also, the Spartans could not see that the formation had "double depth" on the flank opposing their elites. Faced with DOUBLE weight, it doesn't really matter HOW well trained you are - you just lose. That's like an "inverted" (and rather lethal) game of rope-pulling:
Even wearing thick, grippy gloves and working together well as a team doesn't matter if your opponents have roughly the same number of well-trained team-"pullers" PLUS again as many dummies who at least are not exactly lightweights.
Even for regular hoplites, there were certain combat qualifications to be met and a considerable amount of training to attend...
And their only job was to push hard from behind anyway, then finish off the wounded that got under the phalanx. In spite of the impossible odds, the Spartans are said to have actually held the line for several minutes!! Now who's elite?


*EDIT* Oh and that joker who said hoplite warfare is for dummies (no training etc) - Good one!! But go try to attend some army drill and realize by experience that it takes weeks to get even only a COLUMN three broad and twelve deep to march in ONE direction and change direction in unison - but MONTHS before they can even keep in step and at equal distances to those before and behind them. Phalanxes were more something like 2000 broad ROWS...
You should at least watch some not-manipulated-for-public-viewing-to-show-how-badass-the-army-is drill instructions with fresh recruits before you go claim it takes nothing to form a phalanx. Better yet - be one of those recruits to really grasp the problems involved. */EDIT*





Then explain the crushing victories the Thebans inflicted on the Spartans in Haliartus and Leuctra?

There was a lot of wrestling involved, because when the lines collided spears often broke right away. Men then switched to swords. If those were lost, then they simply pushed on with their shields.
The Thebans were bigger and stronger than the Spartans, so they overwhelmed them in hand to hand.

And I've no sources for you right now, but it was written that the Boeotians were very rustic, and more physically endowed than their neighbors in Attica and the Peloponnesus.


Being big is important because it lets you push harder. Phalanx warfare is about pushing.

The Spartans had discipline, but that doesn't count for much if your formation is being broken.

The Thebans increased the depth in Leuctra, meaning they had to break through the Spartan formation quickly or they would be surrounded and killed. Greater strength is definitely an important factor in that.

Also, if you wrestle hand to hand with someone, it's difficult for an enemy to stab you without killing his friend too. Remember, hoplites back then didn't see much because of their helmets. And if you just have a shield and are stronger than the guy opposite you, you will push him back and wreck the enemy formation.

Also recall that you didn't need ANY training to be a hoplite. All you needed to do was run forward and either push hard or stab over and over again.

Actually, the Spartans did not move in a straight line. They simply took advantage of the diagonal shift and incorporated it into their strategy. Pretty much no other hoplites knew how to do that.

Also, the hoplite couldn't necessarily SEE that it was going to hit a shield. Sometimes it hit the shields and broke, sometimes a spear could even penetrate through the shield and the bronze armor of the
guy behind it. If they lost the spear, they would fight with swords. No sword, they just pushed with their shields. No shields, they either died very fast or grappled successfully with the guy in front,
which was unlikely. You could push the guy, or try to topple him, or be lucky enough to face someone who also lost his stuff.

Or, consider this. You are pushed so hard that your face is literally 3 inches from the enemy's. Tell me you couldn't punch or grab with your free (weapon lost) arm at that distance.

When the hell did I say they threw them? Maybe you should read my post again!

Excuse me? You are going to bend down to pick up a weapon when you are literally SANDWICHED between men? When men are so close together that the dead sometimes remain standing? You would either be stabbed or trampled.

Wrestling was quite common, because that's what you did when you lost your weapons, which happened often in battles that lasted from 30 minutes to 2 hours!

Where did I even talk about last stands, anyway?


And if you want sources, fine. Give me till the end of the week to request the book in question.
I'll probably be able to give you ancient sources by then as well.


No.

You are in the front ranks. You have lost your weapon. You can not bend down to pick up a new one.

If you are in rank 4 or higher you have not yet lost your weapon. There is no need to bend down.

Also, bending down when you should be pushing the guy in front of you will needlessly disrupt the formation. So what you are saying is bollocks.

Good night.


After studying your replies, I realized that by wrestling you mean something different than what I intended to get across. I guess the definition of wrestling I used was erroneous. I AM NOT talking about piledriving, or taking him down for a ground and pound, or pankration-style wrestling. I was using wrestling as a term to define what the hoplites did after they lost their weapons, which was concentrating on shield pushing, knocking a guy's helmet askew, stepping on feet, punching around the neck, etc. Sorry, that was my fault.

Ok. So shields DID shatter upon impact for the men in the first row. Not all, not most, but definitely pretty common. Spears also shattered if they hit the shield with enough force (which is how the shields broke anyway), although that could also kill the guy holding the shield as well. So loss of weapons and even shields was not rare or unusual, it did happen and Xenophon and Thucydides wrote about it, as did Poets like Archilocus and Tyrtaeus. Wrestling (alright, real wrestling) WAS unusual, unless you could bear-hug a guy somehow. If you wrestled, you broke the enemy's formation, not your own, and since you were basically useless with no equipment, you could at least take someone down and make a gap.

Nachtmeister, hoplites in ancient Greece did NOT train to be hoplites. 8th century, 7th century, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd...only a very few actually trained to be hoplites (other than Spartans). Athens might have trained its levy hoplites a little in the Peloponnesian Wars (not sure about this), but generally hoplites NEVER trained. When the time for war came, they picked up their armor and followed the lead of the veterans and formed up. It also helped that you usually stood in formation next to your friends and family.

Yes, sometimes the formation was so packed that men who got killed were pressed in by everybody else and had no room to fall.

Ok, I can't remember what else we were arguing about, so remind me.


And why didn't you read that post above? You keep asking for sources, and yet I already told you that I need a few days to request the necessary books from the library! Yeesh.

Oh yeah, it was Thebans and something else. I'd rather make a new post for that though, I already feel bad for destroying this page.

[desert]

Lemme guess, the post is going to be your latest doomed attempt to argue for the validity of your "wrestling in battle" hypothesis. Eh?

/facepalm

Tact. You don't have it. I wonder if you wouldn't have posted if I hadn't put that qualifier at the end...

Anyway, those lines about the Spartans holding them off for a many minutes and blah blah sound like they were written by Xenophon. Am I right?

[antisocialmunky]

And didn't Rome actually lose a quite a lot of battles? They weren't uber "Always winning with minimal losses"

Minimal losses :-p?

Rome's mantra was "We will win, in the end no matter the cost because you'll run out of men before we will.":whip:

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Minimal losses :-p?

Rome's mantra was "We will win, in the end no matter the cost because you'll run out of men before we will.":whip:

Are you kidding right? Rome was usually outnumbered.

[antisocialmunky]

But they always came back. Just look at the 200 year campaign to control Iberia. Despite some terrible losses, the Romans eventually killed enough of them that they lost their will to fight.

[Africanvs]

Are you kidding right? Rome was usually outnumbered.

I can see his statement holding true in the second Punic war. Hannibal was probably saying to himself, "No matter how many Roman armies I destroy, more keep coming. Are Romans growing on trees?!!"

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I can see his statement holding true in the second Punic war. Hannibal was probably saying to himself, "No matter how many Roman armies I destroy, more keep coming. Are Romans growing on trees?!!"

Very true but usually the romans were outnumbered ( not in the second Punic war).

[Nachtmeister]

/facepalm

Tact. You don't have it. I wonder if you wouldn't have posted if I hadn't put that qualifier at the end...

Anyway, those lines about the Spartans holding them off for a many minutes and blah blah sound like they were written by Xenophon. Am I right?


... Dunno, I got that from some website somewhere linked to a now-obscure post in this forum or maybe followed the links on the official EB site---- I just don't remember anymore.
The bit about hoplite-phalanx eligible citizens training at pankration and !swordplay! and spear-shield-combo came from a NOVEL I read called "The Ten Thousand", where an Athenian general named Xenophon leads 10000 greek mercenaries, among them also some Spartans (who in terms of who is the boss keep to themselves and who have a habit of chewing garlic) around the Pontos Euxeinos. They get badly mauled in Armenia by huge bow archers basically shooting javelins at them at tremendous range, penetrating shields and helmets. The events leading up to the campaign mention said Xenophon learning pankration and armed martial arts together with other Athenian youths from seasoned veterans. Well, if you say they didn't train, any evidence you are likely to bring up will qualify better than an entertainment novel. But until I see such evidence I find that basic logic and basic human survival instinct make a good case for the novel's assumptions nevertheless.

Provided you bust my point with evidence, you can throw a "si tacuisses" at me for admitting this. :laugh4:

Oh and maybe you shouldn't have put the "qualifier" in capitals, could have added the word "please" or something. No offence towards you intended, you argue with a calm tone to your posts and thus make a worthy discussion - but that qualifier DOES sound/read somewhat angry/bossy/down-putting.
It was bound to provoke a counter-strike... :clown:
Do not take it so seriously, we are all having a good discussion here after all - with the occasional humorous remark thrown in. No disrespect.

[desert]

Yeah, ok.

It was aimed more at AP, really.

Ok, so: mercenaries, of course, would have trained. At everything. Regular citizens of the poleis did not drill as hoplites. Maybe you could call athletic competitions and the like "training", but it wasn't like, "Alright guys, grab your breastplates and shields, everyone is out by the giant rock practicing making a shield wall."

[A Very Super Market]

Average citizens would not fight as hoplites. The wealthier ones fought as hoplites, and would have more reason to fight in such a dangerous way in the first place.

You also fail to take into account how difficult it would have been to order untrained people around in such a tight formation.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Desert, get some sources!!! You always make these statements, you always get proved wrong, you always say you "did not mean it in such a way". Cite sources!! Seriously how else are we to believe you. And yes, regular citizens did train for phalanx. You need quite some skill and seemingly endless training time to master moving and fighting in a formation. It most certainly does not come naturally. Finally, have you noticed that despite this thread going on so long, not a single EB team history guy or some other .Org expert popped in? That is probably because they realise the hopelessness of the argument. How much more obvious is it that Greeks trained for much time to fight in a phalanx?

As for A Very Super Market, average citizens did fight in a phalanx, as hoplites. They made up majority of it, believe it or not. That is what made Greece so special, along with democracy. Even the poorer classes joined the phalanx at rare times, although most of them did serve as psiloi.

[Rilder]

Minimal losses :-p?

Rome's mantra was "We will win, in the end no matter the cost because you'll run out of men before we will.":whip:

You do know my statement was basicly what you said. :P

[seienchin]

Ａｒｅ　ｙｏｕ kidding me?
Roman soldiers in the marian time had of course their weaknesses (Like the campains against the parthians show), but in the gallic war 5 Legions, of which 2 where fresh recruits beat a country full of hardy wariors.
Of course it was possibly, because Caesar was a good politician, but lets look at the battles.
Even if the celts at alesia had only on third of the warriors caesar was talking about it would have been impressive.
The war against Pontos and Armenia were also victories beyond imagination. Rome fought with only a small percentage of their own forces and some local levies against two mighty empires and won.
The roman legions were full time professional soldiers with good equipment and (!!) they were the elite of the roman armies. They always used many auxillaries as forgetable troops.
And yes the upper part of my last post was sarcastic...

[Rilder]

Don't talk down my beloved Pontos, Mithridates the Great was full of win. :( Defeated shit loads of time yet he still kept trying.

Also, I wasn't saying Rome sucked, It just seems like people ignore Romes losses and gloss over her victories.

[seienchin]

Nono I wasnt reffering to you :sweatdrop:
i was reffering to Swissbarbar, who said about the legionaries

Alone the fact, that you compare the Roman standard-send-in-and-waste-them infantry with the elites of other great peoples like the Hellenes....these words say more than a thousand pictures *lol*

And thats is in my point of view rubbish, because the send in and waste troops of the romans were the auxillaries. They never wasted many legionaries.

[Apázlinemjó]

Don't talk down my beloved Pontos, Mithridates the Great was full of win. :( Defeated shit loads of time yet he still kept trying.

Mithridates Eupator lost all of his battles against Pompey, Sulla and Lucullus. (Although he led only two of the battles personally).


It all depends on the general... He's the one that keeps the discipline, and he's the one that decides which tactics would be used... Imagine Alexander the great with an army full of hypaspist.... he would indeed be unstopable.... ( well perhaps against the persians the schock value of seeing such phalanx for the first time was even better):yes:

Don't forget that Alexander had a huge luck at Issus and Gaugamela. If he isn't able to rout III. Darius...

[antisocialmunky]

Most of it was manufactured luck. He knew what his men could do and he knew how his enemy would react. Luck has a lot to do with things but not all of it is just fate and circumstance. But I guess things like Bessus disappearing from the records of Gaugamela after the Companions charged the gap was.

[A Very Super Market]

Darius wasn't a dullard incompetent. Though his military ability was lacklustre, it could only be attributed to lack of experience and perhaps, a bit of personal inability. Alexander had fought countless battles, knew exactly what his men could do, and led around a group of extremely confident veterans to boot, in contrast to the scared Persian mostly-militia.

[Apázlinemjó]

That militia almost crushed the phalanx, although only by outnumbering the enemy.

[Africanvs]

Light Eastern infantry has been proven time and time again to be useless against Greek heavies. Alexander, well I should probably say Phillip since I believe it was he that planned the invasion, knew this hence Alexander conquered all of the coastal cities along the eastern coast of the mediteranean in order to deny Darius access to Greek mercenaries. Darius tried a few things to break the phalanx such as chariots, but the fact is, Alexander was a tactical genius on the battlefield with an experienced veteran army. People can say he was lucky but I'm sorry, I don't agree. And as far as the phalanx almost being overcome by superior numbers, I'm not aware of this. If you're referring to Gaugamela when Parmenion sent to Alexander for aid, by the time Alexander got there Parmenion was fine. As far as battles where Alexander was present and in command, they really didn't run into any trouble until India and those nasty elephants.

[Apázlinemjó]

I was referring to Issus. Where the Makedon army was pushed like a toy by the Persians and the Greek mercenaries, since the phalanx lost it's formation in the river basin of the Pinarus river. It could have been a catastrophic defeat for Alexander, if he and Companion cavalry don't rout Darius and free the center in time.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, the addition of Greek mercernaries kind of makes it a moot point, since they aren't militia.

[antisocialmunky]

I think its estimated that it was an equal amount of greeks mercs to macedonian phalangites.

[desert]

Since you refuse to even read my posts fully, I am going to simply use online sources until I get the books.


No, my friends. Citizen hoplites were AMATEURS. They did not train in formation. They had athletic competitions, and the tough farmer's life, and probably practiced some moves at home (as in, fathers teaching their sons), though, so that was apparently enough. The Athenians had the ephebic
two-year training course for hoplites, which was very expensive. So how would the rest of the smaller, poorer city-states have managed to afford that kind of training?


Also, anyone who could afford the hoplite's panoply, meaning most farmers, meaning a fairly large percentage of the male population of the polis, and not just the wealthy (who more commonly rode horses, even though they liked to brag about fighting in the phalanx). Think about this: there were 60,000 hoplites at Plataea, and 9,000 Athenians at Marathon. That's a hell of a lot of rich people, then.


Maybe you should provide your own sources instead of two-line posts that are basically "lololololol your rong get bak in the kichen"


Sources:
http://digilander.libero.it/tepec/the_athenian_hoplite.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Xv4mSaTmYMC&pg=RA2-PA279&lpg=RA2-PA279&dq=hoplite+training&source=bl&ots=JMuH1PH2if&sig=l5eIE6pzEQtt5a1LXjoTSsnGuSE&hl=en&ei=zCDASeaVM-rgtge6uMBU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PRA2-PA281,M1

Hell, according to Cambridge here even SPARTANS did not train in formation.


http://books.google.com/books?id=AtIu43UCDu4C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=hoplite+training&source=bl&ots=I1SGcBh1_Y&sig=3Vtm1qzv5neBg0DCQntOsu_U6DM&hl=en&ei=CiXASf6MNsHgtgfs54hL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA76,M1

*Read 2-3 pages from there, including Xenophon's quotes, or basically up to Mercenaries
Only examples of military training given are Spartans and Athenian ephebeia
Also, the ephebeia came in the 4th century, so it was very late in the history of hoplite warfare anyway.

[Phalanx300]

Shields breaking on contact or getting pierced by a spear in nonsense. If anything the Aspis would be one of the less likely shields to break, its very design was made to handle presure.

Hoplites were amateures yes, however they have had more training then most other militias. There were these coordinated dance like effects under music to help to stay in formation, just search pontic dance or something similar on youtube.

Spartans were obviously trained to fight in a formation, the Phalanx was what mattered so its quite indeniable.

[desert]

You countered Cambridge with "it's undeniable"?

Also, hoplite shields were just wood with a light bronze face. If a guy is running at top speed, getting pushed by 7+ behind him, and his spear crashes into the shield of another guy who is moving with equal speed, there is a very good chance of the shield shattering and/or being penetrated.

[Banzai!]

Has any of the people attending university here thought applying for a research grant to re-enact Ancient warfare? $10,000 would be able to make quite a few aspis and spears then you could go about testing whether shields break in real life.

[desert]

$10,000 is a lot of money! :dizzy2:

And I don't think it would be very safe to run at each other with lethal weapons with the intention of penetrating shields.

Not considering the fact that we don't know exactly how to make them. Same problem with recreating Roman armor.

For now, I prefer taking the word of ancient and modern scholars for it.

[Banzai!]

$10,000 is a lot of money! :dizzy2:

And I don't think it would be very safe to run at each other with lethal weapons with the intention of penetrating shields.

Not considering the fact that we don't know exactly how to make them. Same problem with recreating Roman armor.

For now, I prefer taking the word of ancient and modern scholars for it.

Just think about how well-respected you would become as a Classics professor!

You can become world famous just for running the length of Marathon in hoplite gear and fainting from it. Imagine how many honorary doctorates you would get for fighting mock battles.

[desert]

And then when the other professors receive the news that I died fighting, they will appear visibly shaken but will continue with their studies and say "I knew that I had raised a mortal, wait wut?!"

[Rilder]

If you buy me a set of Hoplitai gear I volunteer to fight you in it. :beam:

[Macilrille]

Banzai, here in Denmark, we have sought grants like that for Viking re-enactment, with no success. If American Unis are more favourably inclined I might finally get to write my book on Viking Warfare...

[geala]

Some should calm down a bit.

We don't have so many sources for hoplite warfare, to be honest. It's still a little bit of a myth and a matter of debate. Nobody should be too dogmatic. For example what othismos really meant and wether pushing existed on a larger scale or not is not clear. There are proponents for different views.

I would recommend to read the recent very interesting threads on RAT about phalanx fighting and experiences of reenactors with it. One should keep in mind however that it is extremely difficult to emulate a realistic fight and much will remain guesswork.

What is sure is that the Greeks considered corporal strength and endurance more important than individual fighting skill. It seems that you need a lot of power and hardiness to be able to fight prolonged hoplite phalanx battles. So, wether they wrestled or not, they needed body training. The question wether Thebans or Spartans or else were better is a bit silly because we will never know it.

One can also presume that the hoplites needed at least some training to be able to move in an organized body for some time, may it be only to cover the few hundred metres to the foe. But some sources (Xenophon f.e.) clearly say that they sometime ran the last part of the distance. You should train in this, otherwise... That they were not trained like professional soldiers is also clear. Professionals like the later Roman soldiers (to call them infantry for waste is really funny) were f.e. the epilektoi (an early example was the Theban hieros lochos) and surely also the few Spartans left in the 3rd century. Spartan performance was however not very impressive in the 3rd century. They were one of the powers in Greece beside the Leagues, Athens and Makedonia and mostly not victorious.

Back to topic. So far I have not seen an unit in EB which I would consider underpowered. The other way round the only concern I've sometimes is that skirmishing units without spears and close order should be more vulnerable to cavalry.

[machinor]

And then when the other professors receive the news that I died fighting, they will appear visibly shaken but will continue with their studies and say "I knew that I had raised a mortal, wait wut?!"
Made my day! :laugh4:

[desert]

Oh yeah. We're way off-topic.

I, uh, can't think of any underpowered units right now. :sweatdrop:

Well, maybe hoplites, but that's the cop-out answer.