Printable View
Sorry, been busy directing skinners and modelers so that you guys will have more units to critique. :wall:
Actually, I just hadn't seen this thread. Allow me a bit, because I'm extremely busy. If I get too busy to answer for a while, I'll sticky the thread until I do. Sound good, guys?
yYeah that be would be great, I know your busy so thanks for taking the time with this. I just feel it is a very important issue to sort out.
hey guys its been like over a month or two so you got an answer yet? This is basically just a reimnder that this ain't dead :D
Bump and sticky request until answered plz.
Well, the answer will not be soon i suppose. As Urnamma said we are working hard to make the patch, then next full relase. And Urnamma is one of the most hardworking guys.
maybe try thinking about IH's as representation of fight style, not a unit. Just like Pheraspidai - Hypaspistai this is basicaly the same unit but divided (because RTW engine limits) to show unit that could throw jav, fight in phalanx, advance fast, fight inf or cav. IH's are part of a system with Thureophoroi, and Thureoph. cav (if it will ever be made) - standard hirable unit of greek cities that could patrol borders, fight skirmish in rough terrain or form phalanx in big battle.
This is not EB official explanation, it is my own, used to reason for unit I do not like ~;)
Stuck.
Obviously, underhand presents a huge number of advantages. I will show the advantages and disadvantages of the overarm grip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ano2
1) More accurate.
2) More powerful.
Disadvantages of the overarm grip:
1) Your whole right arm is exposed to enemy spears.
2) You effectively destroy the whole point of the spear: a long weapon. You do this by gripping it overarm, which requires you to hold it in the middle, the center of gravity.
3) You show your enemy exactly what you are doing (ie where you want to hit them). This allows them to defend easily. You do not do this when holding it underarm, because the shield blocks your opponents' vision.
4) You could easily hit and knock out the person behind you when pulling your spear out of the dead opponent.
5) Obviously, it is much more tiring to hold your spear overarm.
Also, the two advantages that overarm offers are both practically useless. If you hold your spear underarm, and your arm is protected by your hoplon, it is far more likely that your opponent:
a) cannot guess where you will stab them, therefore you are more likely to kill them
b) cannot spear your arm. No matter how accurate and powerful your overarm thrust would be, your opponent could simply spear your arm and you wouldn't be able to strike them.
Tiberius
I don’t know that I find your points to be self evident:
This is true only if you assume that the point and butt-spike of the spear to be the same weight. I can make no claim to encyclopedic mastery of the extent evidence, but from the examples I have come across that is not the case. The spike seems to be heavier, implying a center of gravity closer to the spike (butt end).Quote:
2) You effectively destroy the whole point of the spear: a long weapon. You do this by gripping it overarm, which requires you to hold it in the middle, the center of gravity.
Only to your left, an opponent on the right would still see what you were doing with your spear, as the aspis could not really be swung around to your opposite side.Quote:
3) You show your enemy exactly what you are doing (ie where you want to hit them). This allows them to defend easily. You do not do this when holding it underarm, because the shield blocks your opponents' vision.
This would seem to be a risk with either grip, and at least with the over arm grip your spear butt is angled up and so less likely to stab a rear ranker while fighting.Quote:
4) You could easily hit and knock out the person behind you when pulling your spear out of the dead opponent.
More to the point: over or under arm is not really important (if you are right than I expect hoplites of any kind used the under-arm thrust) but rather the question, is there any reason to link infantry development of the Hellenistic era to the so called Iphicrates hoplite that resulted from the supposed reforms of said general (and in any case switching from over to under arm is not one of the things that is credited to Iphicrates).
O'ETAIPOS
Good explanation, the problem I have is still the connection of Hellenistic troop types with non-units from the fourth century. I never replied, but thanks for the reminder of medieval and later pike warfare. I have been doing my best to track down source for pike weight and construction from those later eras, but it is slow going.Quote:
maybe try thinking about IH's as representation of fight style, not a unit. Just like Pheraspidai - Hypaspistai this is basicaly the same unit but divided (because RTW engine limits) to show unit that could throw jav, fight in phalanx, advance fast, fight inf or cav. IH's are part of a system with Thureophoroi, and Thureoph. cav (if it will ever be made) - standard hirable unit of greek cities that could patrol borders, fight skirmish in rough terrain or form phalanx in big battle.
Of course, the person on your right would have the other half of you covered by HIS shield. This was why the shield was the most important piece of armour: if you lost it, you endanger not only yourself but the person next to you.Quote:
Only to your left, an opponent on the right would still see what you were doing with your spear, as the aspis could not really be swung around to your opposite side.
Seems obvious to me that after their defeat by the macedonians at least some of the greek city states would have tried to learn from their mistakes. I also don't see any reason why the two greek writers named should have made up what iphikrate's did. The moot point seems to me the extent of the *reform*. At the minimum end it might have been an experiment that happened on one campaign, at the maximum it may have been a reform that started in one city and was gradually adopted over Greece. Logically however:
1) The main advantage of a spear as a weapon comapared to a sword, axe etc is not the length but the fact it is, a) cheap and easy to produce, and b) because it is a thrusting weapon it allows soldiers to stand close together and get mutual protection from their shields.
2) There is a functional distinction between a pike and a spear that is more important than the length. The spear is designed for a formation where the front ranks fight as individuals while the pike is designed as a mass weapon. One man with a pike is useless.
It seems to me that both the macedonian pike phalanx and the greek hoplite spear formation were effective heavy infantry but as the greeks lost (not neccessarily because of the infantry) they would have thought about why. If you think about the options the greeks could have come up with the ones that occur to me are:
a) Copy the macedonians and switch to the pike (weapon and formation). Different cities may have experimented with different lengths of pikes and equipment. Some of these experiments would have been failures. I am sure there is an optimum length of pike given average height and strength of the men at the time but that doesn't mean people didn't try and fail with below par options.
b) Assume the defeat was not due to the pike phalanx in itself but rather to the macedonian combined arms. In this case they'd stick with the hoplite but try to improve the proportions of other troop types in their armies, heavy peltasts etc.
c) Counter the reliance of both the macedonian and hoplite formations for level, open ground by lightening the hoplite to make them more manouvreable. That way they could fight places where the pike phalanx unsuited.
There may be others i haven't thought of but i would be prepared to bet that at least one of the independent greek cities tried each of the the options in my list, and some may have tried all three at different times or at once.
Don't know a lot of detail about Iphicrates and I can't really weigh into the technical debate of pike/spear construction and use- but it does occur to me (from the little I have read about Iphicrates) that his major contibution or 'reform' may not have been in specific equipment so much as in the application of discipline and drill to light/medium troops.
Much that I have read suggests that skirmishers in the fourth century were not 'professional' or even 'military' troops in even the very loose sense that the hoplites of the various cities were, but rather semi-mercenary hunters/farmers with specific skills (sling, bow, javelin) from what John Keegan calls 'below the military horizon' operating as irregulars. A forceful general training men like these up into disciplined troops could develop a formidable force, as Iphicrates' success in the generation before Alexander attests.
I doubt that military commanders 2 or three generations later ever said 'bring up the Iphicrates-style Hoplites on the left flank' or anything like that, but that doesn't mean that the unit is ahistorical or doesn't belong in EB. What we can never do in-game is improvise or innovate. I can never order my legionaries to jab their pila at the faces of the attacking cavalry rather than throw them; I can never dismount my cataphracts to fight as heavy infantry; I can never stretch rope between trees or tent-pegs to trip up horses. Any unit that represents that kind of improvisation adds (IMO) a great deal to the game. If the Iphicrates Hoplite doesn't fit your fighting style then don't use them, eh?
This isn't the issue at all this a thread for diciding whether they existed. Plus if you didn't use them as the greeks what would you use? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Hmmm I thought the point of the thread was not so much if Iphicrates' reforms took place and changed the nature of Hoplite warfare (not something that I think we can ever establish beyond doubt either way), but rather whether 'Iphicrates Hoplites' belong in this game. What I am trying to say is I think they do even if we can't be sure that they actually happened. To my way of thinking the very parameters of the game result in a situation where the simulation itself can never be a completely accurate representation of reality, but (and this is a sticky but important distinction) the experience can be accurate. That is to say, the details of game play/sarissa length/unit nomenclature are important only so far as they contribute to a gameplay experience that allows us to experience what it might have been like to be there. Thus, to me, Iphicrates' Hoplites represent more than the sum of their parts. Obviously the same can be said for flaming pigs- I'm not saying that historical veracity isn't important, just that it can't be the only factor.
Fair point but classical hoplites can be represented just as they are with other units that use overhand and a tight formation. EB is for 100% historical accuracy in terms of units names etc, not simulation. Hope that made sense :S
Classical hoplites will soon be ready anyway. I'll talk to you guys about this issue again very, very soon. There'll be plenty more greek units ready soon!
Ah sweet, can't wait to see whats going on.