New Unit

[Monk]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/unit1.htm

Greek Archers

Occasionally referred to as toxophilites - are stealthy and skilful ambushers who can use their mobility to cross rough terrain where hoplites and other heavy infantry cannot follow them. They wear little armour, go barefoot and bareheaded, and use compound recurve bows and bronze-tipped arrows. They are used in loose formation to pepper enemies with arrows before the main battle is joined by hoplites and heavy infantry. They can also be positioned behind a line of spearmen to similarly bombard enemy units. They are vulnerable if left unprotected from enemy cavalry and light skirmishers, as they have little chance of lasting for long in hand-to-hand combat. Archers are used to break up enemy formations and inflict casualties before the main body of the army smashes into the enemy.

[Sir Robin]

Hooray...

Another unit I can use as targets for my cavalry.

[Balamir]

Quote[/b] ]go barefoot Hiarrg hiarrgh I'll order my cav to stomp their feet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[max_killer_payne]

I really hope CA make the archers more realistic, in MTW they're very unrealistic. And despite CA saying most PCs that can handle MTW, I am still concerned whether my PC will handle RTW

[Hakonarson]

Yep, pretty vanilla stuff.

[Lehesu]

Vanilla....yum... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Hakonarson]

Odd how they're supposed to be barefoot, but the picture seems to have sandals, and use a compound recurve bow but appear to be using a simple self bow, wear little armour but appear to have a linen cuirass...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Also to be strictly accurate they were not particularly vulnerable to light skirmishers - they could always run as fast as any infantry chasing them, so need never be caught unless somethign blocked their way.

This is explicitly attested to in Xenophon, where 1500 Greek javelin throwers could do nothign at all to 400 Persian light archers.

[RisingSun]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif let the bitching begin... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[King James I]

I'd rather they made the Greek archers a region specific unit (Cretan, Scythian perhaps) because the Greeks hardly ever used archers in battle instead prefering cheaper javlinmen and slingers.

[Hakonarson]

Greeks preferred atrchers to javelinmen - but they didn't have many, so those that served could command a premium as mercenaries - Cretans were the most common, but there were small numbers in most states.

It wasn't that they were paid more so they weren't hired as much - it was that there weren't enough of them so they got good pay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ June 08 2003,04:15)]Greeks preferred atrchers to javelinmen - but they didn't have many, so those that served could command a premium as mercenaries - Cretans were the most common, but there were small numbers in most states.

It wasn't that they were paid more so they weren't hired as much - it was that there weren't enough of them so they got good pay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Why weren't there that many archers in Greece then?

[Rosacrux]

Because the Greeks - save the Cretans, which had a long tradition in archery, and that's why Crete produced many and of great quality archers - believed any missile weapons to be "dishonorable" and "not for the good breed".

Even though the Cretan mercenaries and the Rodian slingers, got decent money for offering their services throughout the Greek world, most people thought of them as "inferior", because the fought "like the Barbarians" (and that would be the eastern "barbarians", Persians and such) and not "like Hellenes".

Another factor would be that Greeks (at least in the Classical era) fought heavily armoured and with a large shield too - not an easy target for the not-so-great bows of the times, as the Persian found out during their Greek campaigns.

A third factor would be that Greeks loved to excel in their weapon of choice and excelling in the art of archery is not something achieved without extensive training, preferably from childhood. So, when the standard martial arts and gymnastics plus a little drilling, would make one an excellent hoplite, there was no way to take a well-fit and excercised citizen and turn him into an archer.

So, no, before Alexander's times the archers were not a part of the standard Greek army composition and even after his times only a few areas (Crete, Macedonia) produced adequate numbers of those. That's why the Greeks used extensively light peltasts and other javelinmen and never got many archers in their armies.

BTW, the Cretan archers had also a large knife and a buckler as standard equipment.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 09 2003,02:04)]Because the Greeks - save the Cretans, which had a long tradition in archery, and that's why Crete produced many and of great quality archers - believed any missile weapons to be "dishonorable" and "not for the good breed".

Even though the Cretan mercenaries and the Rodian slingers, got decent money for offering their services throughout the Greek world, most people thought of them as "inferior", because the fought "like the Barbarians" (and that would be the eastern "barbarians", Persians and such) and not "like Hellenes".

Another factor would be that Greeks (at least in the Classical era) fought heavily armoured and with a large shield too - not an easy target for the not-so-great bows of the times, as the Persian found out during their Greek campaigns.

A third factor would be that Greeks loved to excel in their weapon of choice and excelling in the art of archery is not something achieved without extensive training, preferably from childhood. So, when the standard martial arts and gymnastics plus a little drilling, would make one an excellent hoplite, there was no way to take a well-fit and excercised citizen and turn him into an archer.

So, no, before Alexander's times the archers were not a part of the standard Greek army composition and even after his times only a few areas (Crete, Macedonia) produced adequate numbers of those. That's why the Greeks used extensively light peltasts and other javelinmen and never got many archers in their armies.

BTW, the Cretan archers had also a large knife and a buckler as standard equipment.
Cheers for the answer Rosacrux. Its quite interesting how Greece and the Celts and such a similar concept of honour. The Celts too thought it dishonourable to used archer in battle, and usually only used them in emergencies like when Caesar invaded Gaul.

I certainly hope that Cretan archers and Rhodian slingers get in the game as unique units as they were some the best in the world at what they did.

Wouldn't it be cool if we could sign a treaty with a faction that has possesses those specific units so he could supply a certain number of men in exchange for an amount of gold? I know its not entirely historically accurate but the money he would receive would represent how much he would get through tax once the men had got home.

Anyway surely they would be worth more since it no doubt costs more to equip an archer than a petlast and also you would have to train more to become a good archer. Anyway from what I remember a petlast was more vulnerable when he was on a hill when against an archer because the archer outranged the petlast and the petlast was more exposed on the hill.

[Hakonarson]

It's a good story, but it's not resally true.

Greeks always had light infantry - slingers and javelinmen and a few archers, but they didn't fit into the geo-political system they used - the Hoplites were the political will of hte people - indeed they wERE the people, so battles were decided by the clash of hoplite for many complex reasons.

Most non-javelin skirmishers in greek service were slingers - the shepherd's weapon, and considered perfectly good for warfare.

Javelins were also used extensively.

However the Hoplite phalanx was the city - it was hte citizens and resident aliens, and it was its victory or defeat that decided the war.

There were Hellenic city states that did not field a lot of hoplites - Arkanians, Phokians and one or 2 others often put forward forces mostly of javelinmen, while Athenian archers were also trained to support the phalanx from behind.

It was after the Spartan defeat at Sphacterea/Pylos that someone asked a Soartan survivor if the brave men were all dead - to which he replied that "wands (ie arrows) would be wonderful weapons if they could pick out hte brave" - Athens had used a combinatoin of light troops and hoplites to overwhelm the small spartan force at no cost.

Greeks did not despise light infantry, nor did they ignore them, however they had a limited role in the peculiar social-military organisation of the era and area.

Of course this was also only for a relatively short period of time - IIRC the Hoplite was thought to have been instituted around 700 BC, and by 420-ish all states except Sparta had large numbers of light troops supporting the phalanx. Even Sparta was forced to greatly expand their own light forces after a couple of defeats at the hand of light troops alon - such as Sphacterea and outside Corinth at the hands of Iphicrates in the 390's.

[Rosacrux]

Not bad Hak, but there are some moot points:

- Athens never fielded indigenous archers. It had archers alright, but those were mercenaries. They steadily used, in the late 5th-early 4th century, Skythes.

- Who are the Arkhanans? Arkadians maybe? Phoceans of course couldn't field large numbers of hoplites, hoplite armament was an expensive thing.

- After the pelloponesian war the whole Greek world started to shift towards using larger numbers of Javelinmen and especially peltast variations, but it was only towards the end of the golden age of the City States, and thus only few people would actually serve as hoplites. The bulk of those peltasts were mercenaries.

- Sphakteria was a small skirmish, not some great battle. 200 Spartans died during that "battle". So it's impact wasn't huge at all.

- It was due to social-economical factors that the hoplite phalanx was weakened, but that wasn't true for the whole Greek world. In Thebes, for instance, right up to the dawn of the Macedonian era, the hoplite phalanx was still dominant.

- Even prior to the Iphikratian reforms, the northern Greeks who had to fight against the various Balkan tribes, used light skirmishers (especially peltasts) in great numbers, because of the type of warfare and the opposition they faced.
I was trying to point out why the Greeks never used archery much, and that quote of yours


Quote[/b] ]Greeks did not despise light infantry, nor did they ignore them, however they had a limited role in the peculiar social-military organisation of the era and area.

is precisely the point I was trying to make. Even though "inferior" would be quite more descriptive than "limited", when talking about their role.

Interesting is that the ancient Greeks from the unweildy hoplite phalanx moved to the unweildy macedonian phalanx, with only a short stop (Philipos=Alexander's era) at which they used extensviely the combined arms concept.

[Hakonarson]

The impact of Sphactera was MASSIVE - it wasn't the 148 dead Spartans - it was the 292 CAPTURED ones (making a total of 440). Of these 120 were hte Spartan "officer class" - ie Spartiates.

Spartans surrendering was absolutely unheard of in Greek history for Spartans to surrender.

Sparta sued for peace as a result, although Athens was too arrogant to grant it.

Greece had started to use more light troops well before the Peloponesian war as a result of fighting the Persians around hte Aegean since 490. Athens had been using Thracian peltsts since about 550BC.

I know Athens Skythian archers were not natives. Often local troops were used to support Athenian efforts - Thucidydes mentions 400 archers who had come "from other quarters" (Penguin translation, pg 283) among other light troops sent by Athenian allies to Pylos. Cleon had a total of 800 Peltasts and 800 archers, so the allied contribution of archers was quite considerable as a % of the total.

Actually I though the Skythians were state slaves?

I've never read anywhere that ALL Athenian archers were Skythes, so what is your source for that?

My apologies for crappy spelling - Aitolia, Phokis and Arkanania all had large contingents of psiloi javelinmen.

Of course many "Greeks" didn't regard the "northern Greeks" as proper Greeks at all - Thessaly had a strong cavalry but was not "really Greek. Boetia (Thebes) also had some well regarded cavalry (not as many as Thessaly) amd was "really" Greek, but Macedonia wasn't - even after Alexander's time "Greeks" and "Macedonians" werenot regarded as the same - the Macedonian generals thought themselves much superior to Eumenes, the Greek general

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] ] - Who are the Arkhanans? Arkadians maybe? Phoceans of course couldn't field large numbers of hoplites, hoplite armament was an expensive thing

Hak probably means Akarnanes , from Akarnania ( nowadays Aitoloakarnania )

[Rosacrux]

I could write a bloody diatribe on this subject and seems I’ll have to eventually… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

First of all, I am not trying to “overdo” you in terms of knowledge, I am just trying to provide data from things I know all too well. Let’s see at some facts concerning what you wrote.

- I do not disagree with your main point, why do you keep repeating it? Initially we were talking about archers, not light infantry in general. Archers were never really abundant in the Greek armies. 800 out of 12.000 is not a huge percentage, is it? Moreso 1600 out of 34.000 (in Alexander’s army).

- Sparta sued for peace at least twice before winning the war... seems they had to get little Athenian bugger Alkibiades on board to actually believe they could win this war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

- Sphakteria was a minor skirmish and that's it. It had small actual impact (besides a severely damaged ego for the Spartans) on the times warfare – most evolutions have already been adopted by the Athenians (Iphikrates) and the stubborn Spartans never gave up the hoplite phalanx as their main battle formation and that's one of the many reasons they never caught up with the warfare evolution. Allthough they used from 430 BC the “prodromoi hoplites” a light type of hoplite (no armour, little “pilos” helm, no greaves), they carried on using some of the lesser classes of Sparta as skirmishers, more suited in the “cannon fodder” role than actually helping the common effort.

- Spartiates were not “the officer class”, Spartiates were the actual Spartan citizens. Those never exceeded the number of 5.000 in Sparta’s history, although Sparta managed to field more than 9.000 hoplites including the younger (20-30 years of age) Spartan citizen who had not full citizenship (acquired at their 30th birthday) and by recruiting some of the Perioikoi (the second citizen class) as hoplites as well. I guess by “officer class” you mean the over-30 years of age actual full-citizen?

- Save the “dark age” of Greece (for which we have limited sources anyway) the Greeks always used light infantry. The standardization of the peltast (late 5th century) and Iphikrates reforms made the light infantry “professional”, but after the pelloponesian war the standing army was professional anyway, mercenaries at most. I am not questioning that, I am talking about archers, not javelineers-peltasts.


- The Skythes I am talking about are mercenaries (“free barbarians”, not slaves) and they were used by the Athenians during their hegemony extensively. We have several accounts about them and it seems like at a point Athens had 1200 Skythian archers, who would fight either on horseback or on foot. There are no accounts on native Athenian archers, but it’s safe to assume some of the “lesser classes” who served alongside the hoplites, might’ve carried bows. But it was not a weapon of choice in Athens and I assume you agree on that.

- Some southern Greeks thought of the Macedonians, Hepirots and the rest of the northern Greek tribes as “non-proper Greeks”, not all. Except if you believe Demosthenes speaks for the whole Greek world, which – I assure you – is not the case.

The main “problem” of the northerners was that they were not living in City-States, as free citizen, but were subjects of kings. No proper Greek would let himself be ruled by a tyrranos the ancient Greeks said.

It is funny to even doubt the Greek-ness of the Macedonians and the Hepirots, when we have so many proof for it… actually the whole Hellenistic world is the greatest proof, isn’t it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

ok you two are more or less saying the same from different prespectives and you end up fighting. I will try to clarify the things in a non-historic way.

1)WERE THE GREEKS USING ARCHERS? yes
2)WAS IT CONSIDERED HONORABLE TO BE ONE? no
3)WHY?

its not one reason or the other if you ask me.

first approach : not fighting in close combat has considered not to be brave and honorable , as a result only lower classes would fight as archers ( and light infantry in an extend), the higher classes would choose to be hoplites
second approach : to fight as an archer was considered to be for the lower classes. As a result the upper class would not fight as archers but would fight as hoplites.

To my view it is a cuclical reaction of BOTH approaches that led to the low importance of archers and other light infantry using 'distance' weapons. It was both not considered brave and it was also something the lower classes should do.

[Hakonarson]

Oh I don't think we're arguing at all - rather we're having a full and free exchange of information http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Rosa there weer 800 archers at Pylos - but the whole Athenian army there wasn't 12,000, but given yuo sue thos figures 800 of 12,000 is 6.67%, while 1600 out of 34,000 is 4.7%, so on a % basis Alexander used fewer archers than the Athenian figures you quote

Sparta gave up the Hoplite Phalanx for the Macedonian one in 225-220BC.

I've never heard of "Prodromoi Hoplites" but they sound like Iphikritian Peltasts - Iphicrates came after the Peloponesian war and his "peltasts" may have been an attempt to provide cheap "hoplites" for the Persian mercenary market.

While there were many mercenaries around after the Peloponesian war citizen troops remained the basis of most armies - mercenaries were still too expensive to use regualrly unless subsidised by Persian gold

Spartiates were officers to the lower classes such as the Neodamesis (sp?? former Helots used as hoplites) and Perioikoi ("dwellers about" - lower-class non-Spartan citizens of Lakonia), and also sometimes for non-Lakonian cities if they asked for them and hthe Spartans felt like beign generous - 2 famous examples (who's names escape me) are the single Spartan officers sent to Syracuse against het Athenians, and Carthage against eth Romans in the 1st Punic War - about 25BC showing eth Spartans still had considerable reputation 120 years after defeat by Thebes

I'm glad we agree on some things too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Rasoforos there was no choice involved - rich citizens and resident aliens fought as hoplites or cavalry - period. Poor citizens (and non-citizens) fought as light infantry because they couldn't afford the equipment to be hoplites or cavalry.

[Lechev]

Please dun stop this tread and keep it coming. I am enjoying much in reading all this informations as i dun have much learnings in the greek culture and their art in military ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hakonarson]

Me too Lechev - IMO it's al good stuff.

I've just finished reading a couple of web pages about the Athenian Peisistratid tyrants who were overthrown in 511BC - apparently their power was partly based on support from the lower classes -"poor hill farmers" - as many of the hoplite classes opposed them (as well as many who supported them of course), but they had various populist measures such as land redistribution, institutingtravelling judges to regularise justice throughout the land, cheap loans and encouraging them to start growing what we would call "cash crops" of grapes, olives - this was realy the start of the strong farming class in Athens.

So clearly during the classical "hoplite" period the "lower classes" were not always despised

I'd think of them more as similar to the poor of today - no-one wants to hang around with them, or to become one of them, but they could have considerable political clout if properly organised.

[Rosacrux]

Rasoforos, we are not argueing we are just... hhmm... brainstorming? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hakonarson, I shall dig up some sources about the prodromoi hoplites. They were not peltasts - they carried the hoplon (aspis) and the 2-meter spear alright, but abandoned the unweildy corinthian helmet for the pilos helmet and got rid of all defensive gear, save the shield.

Alexander indeed didn't use many archers but
a)their role in the battle was very vital, they weren't used just to prepare the heavy infantry advance

b)included more than 10.000 light infantry (Greek and Thracian peltasts, Agriannes javelineers and others) in his army. That was evolutionary for the Greek warfare of the times.

For the agrarian class issue: The farmers were not considered "lower classes" in Athens or Sparta. The bulk of the free citizens with full rights were land owners. Neither in Sparta or Athens would we find extremely large property, and most of the people owned a dozen acres or so, and worked on them with the help of several slaves. Meaning, the slaves were working and the free citizen would do the supervising thing, when he wasn't been discussing things in the Agora http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Hakonarson]

My point is that farmers had to become free citizens - they hadn't always been - eg Solon had banished serfdom from Athen in 590BC IIRC.

Alex's evolution was Phillips, and included using all-arms to win the battle rather than jsut support the phalanx - large numbers of light troops were not unheard of - Xenephon's "10,000" may have included 3000 peltasts, archers and slingers when all was said and done (ie when the Rhodians becamse slingers).

I'm familiar with unarmoured hoplits in pilos & tunic having evolved in the Peloponesian war - I'm jsut unfamiliar with the term prodromoi as applied to them - to me "prodromoi" was a Macedonian light cavalryman armed with a sarissa, and sometimes also called sarissophoroi.

[DthB4Dishonor]

Gah, I think this was a planned farce so that Hak and Crux could get there post numbers up.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Just kidding guys you both seem very well versed in ancient warfare (well atleast greek). I am curious on 2 parts as I am a novice historian, i.e. I just look up on internet and borrow library books about historical things that interest me. Anyway here are my 2 questions,

1)What are your respective professions and educational backgrounds?

2)What greek city-state would you say was the most powerful? What I mean by this is pretend you were the general what city state do you feel you could most easily win with in battle vs another?

I know the first thing you guys will say is depends on period. Well lets say around the time of peloponesian war (pretend the persians never attacked). Or if you prefer you can answer it generally with no particular period.

I am very interested in what you gentlemen have to say and I am impressed, enlightened and intrigued by this thread.

RTKPaul

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] ]Gah, I think this was a planned farce so that Hak and Crux could get there post numbers up....

psssst... hak, he knows dammit... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Profession and educational background? Hmm... are you with the IRS by any chance?

Oh, whatever: BA in Journalism, a couple of history courses (19th century Greek history, medieval Balkans) on the side and for the past 12 years I am pursuing a career in journalism (but that career seems to escape http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif )

As for the answer to your question: Athens. More resources, great navy, superior culture, adoptability... only one weakness: true democracy. That would prove fatal, as seen in the Alkibiades incident. Plus, they had bad luck too (plague).

Had Athens won this war, there would be no Rome, not even Alexander's empire: Athens would've become the Rome of antiquity.

P.S. Athens could not win in an all-out land battle against the allmighty Spartan hoplites, but in every other aspect they were far superior than their opponents.

P.S.2 I am talking about the Pelloponesian war era.

[Hakonarson]

Bugger - yes he guessed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I started playing toy soldiers when I was 12, did history at high school, did an apprenticeship as an aircraft mechanic, and a 12 yr part-time BA majoring in history starting when I was 23 as a "hobby" There weren't may "military" courses available here, but I did Greek History (Persian & Peloponesian wars but I've forgotten most of it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif), WW1, "Early 20th century Europe" (=ww1 & WW2 - the rise & fall of fascism - a great addition to the WW1 course&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, Indian Mutiny & Java Rebvellion, & a couple of others.

I'm now a civil servant - data-analyst for the local Civil Aviation Authority, having gone through jobs in maintenance planning and quality assurance with various airlines and maintenance organisations.

And I still play toy soldiers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I started geting "serious" about history when I was 17 or 18 by buying Penguin Classics - Thucidydes was one of the first I got, followed by Livy. A couple of Loeb volumes followed (Polybius, Dio Cassius).

My main interests in wargaming have been WW2 and ancients over the years, but pretty much exclusivly ancients for the last 10 yrs.

I agree with Rosa about Athens being the most powerful state - it had a true "empire" with a balanced approach to all things - economy, land and sea power, political influence.

Sparta by contrast was only interested in making sure no-one was more powerful than they were on land, without actually having any great wish to expand. Indeed they accused several kings of having expansionist ambistions and called them to task

However I have to disagree with Rosa (gosh there's a surprise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif) about what might have happened if Athens won, and why.

Greece was still made up of too many relatively powerful city states - Athens could no more rule Sparta than Sparta could rule Athens, and Persian gold would have done it's job sooner or later - IMO it was Persian gold that won the war for Sparta - without it they would have been defeated by 410, but the Persians managed to allow Sparta to continually rebuild its fleet, hire mercenaries, bribe cities, etc.

Athen's democracy may be seen as a weakness - the certainly screwed a few good generals/admirals for political reasons - but it was also a major strength - enabling good generals to advance and allowing them a much larger pool of manpower than Sparta had. On the whole I think it was not a factor.