Historical KH Armies for EB

[Vermin]

Before I start my next EB campaign I would really appreciate some information on the historical composition of KH armies in this period.

Does anyone have details of the ratios and numbers of different troop types in EB terms?

What was the likely historical composition of the various "league" armies and if any cities could form a substantial army on their own how were they made up (eg Corinth)?

Also if anyone has any more specific info on the dates when the newer troops types were introduced and who used them it would really help (other than what is mentioned in the unit desciptions).

Finally any info on the historical deployment and tactics of KH armies would be nice.

I would really like to make the campaign as "realistic" as possible in these areas - makes it more of a challenge as well as adding to th RP aspect.

Thanks

Vermin

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Good question - I'd like the answer to this too.

When playing KH, I prefer not to recruit troops from small towns or large towns in Greece, only from cites with more than 6,000 people - apart from town garrisons or when under invasion. So Rhodes is the only supplier of native troops in my early KH campaign.

Otherwise, my KH armies are made up of family members (love those Spartan bodyguards!) and mercenaries. KH can earn lots of money, city populations are better used as money-making, tax-paying civilians than as troops. So I absolutely adore hiring armies of mercenaries when playing KH.

[seienchin]

Use hoplitai haploi as garrison and divide your armies into 3 types:

Classic hoplite style armies
Just use hoplites, without swords, and as riders only the hippeis. There are still disputes about the role of akonkistai or toxotai, but I personally think you can use them too.

Modern hoplite armies
Use modern style hoplites a lot.The I. hoplitai, the thorakitai hopliatai, epiloktai(? The fast one) and peltastai as skirmishers. Use a little more cavallery than before. Maybe even eastern mercenary cavallery.

Makedonian style armies
Use the greek phalangitai as the core of your army, with thorakitai and thureporoi on the flanks. Try to use heavy cavallery a lot, but use hoplitai and other classic troops as a reserve behind your mainline.

Of course you can add mercenarys, but the core of your units has to be greek

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Some of the mercenary units are Greek. I always buy them, and all the Mercenary Cretan Archers I can find.

[Leão magno]

Use hoplitai haploi as garrison and divide your armies into 3 types:

Classic hoplite style armies
Just use hoplites, without swords, and as riders only the hippeis. There are still disputes about the role of akonkistai or toxotai, but I personally think you can use them too.

Modern hoplite armies
Use modern style hoplites a lot.The I. hoplitai, the thorakitai hopliatai, epiloktai(? The fast one) and peltastai as skirmishers. Use a little more cavallery than before. Maybe even eastern mercenary cavallery.

Makedonian style armies
Use the greek phalangitai as the core of your army, with thorakitai and thureporoi on the flanks. Try to use heavy cavallery a lot, but use hoplitai and other classic troops as a reserve behind your mainline.

Of course you can add mercenarys, but the core of your units has to be greek

Interesting... but wich cities would form wich army styles? I imagine that your HR would ask you to have each city-state to have it's own army.

[seienchin]

Interesting... but wich cities would form wich army styles? I imagine that your HR would ask you to have each city-state to have it's own army.

Two ways to do it. (I prefer the second)

1. Sparta, Rhodos and thermon (If you own it) use the classical style armies. Athen, Corinth, Crete and asia minor armies use modern style armies.
All the epirote and makedon cities (After having conquered them^^) use phalanx style armies. The western greek cities in spain and Massilia use hoplitai armies with a lot of local levies.

2. You use classical armies when fighting the first years in greece. Than you expand with modern hoplite armies and after maybe 50 or 60 years you start to remain more on phalanx warfare. Of course you still use some of your old armies.

In my KH I mixed both systems and was very satisfied with the roleplay Off course my bosporan kingdom and cyrene used slightly different armies and after the march of time I used a lot of phalangitai, but still sparta produced classical armies until the end.^^

[WinsingtonIII]

1. Sparta, Rhodos and thermon (If you own it) use the classical style armies. Athen, Corinth, Crete and asia minor armies use modern style armies.
All the epirote and makedon cities (After having conquered them^^) use phalanx style armies. The western greek cities in spain and Massilia use hoplitai armies with a lot of local levies.

But doesn't Thermon start the game with Iphikrates as the commander and an Iphikratian hoplite army in control of the city? Considering this, why wouldn't Thermon produce Iphikratian style hoplite armies with Iphikratous Hoplitai and Thorakitai Hoplitai? I'm sure you have a reason for having Thermon produce classical hoplite armies, though, I'm guessing it's just the historical cultural preference of the city?

I agree that a combination of the first and second systems is probably the way to go. As you say, Sparta certainly should not be producing phalangitai.

[seienchin]

Oops my bad^^
Off course Thermon is iphikrates style

[Vermin]

Thanks heaps!

This is great. Just a few points.

For each type of army, about what proportion of the army should be light cavalry, heavy cavalry, hoplites/phalanigte peltasts or other skimishers?

I know this could vary a lot depending on circumstances and availabilty but...

Eg I think the Phokians (sp?) used some artillery once in the field (maybe before this time period).

I wildly assume that the classical armies could have:

up 2 units of cav - no more than 1 heavy
and maybe 1-3 units of light troops but not more than 1 archer and 1 sling (so 3 akontistai is ok).

I suppose there would never be more than 1 unit of Elite hoplites but later I have no idea what proportion of the later "modern" armies (not the phalanx ones) would be reformed heavy hoplites.

Whilst the actual tactics used might have varied with terrain, circumstance and the ability of the general, it would seem that the classical and modern armies still rely on the infantry as the primary arm whilst the phalanx armies use (or should use!) the hammer and anvil tactics of Alex. Shortage of good heavy cav though could force a greater reliance on the inf as the primarty tool with usually bad results.

Forward the pointy-sticks!

Regards

Vermin

[Dutchhoplite]

I agree that a combination of the first and second systems is probably the way to go. As you say, Sparta certainly should not be producing phalangitai.

Depends how you want to play it. Historically they did produce phalangitai, after the reforms of Cleomenes III in the 220's.

[Ca Putt]

the KH cavalry is not that bad, It's just much worse than Hetairoi in prolonged melee. thus forcing you to charge more often, those Hippeis Xystophoroi, Prodromoi(both) and Illyrioi Hippeis can be the hell of a hammer if used correctly and Lonchophoroi have at least some staying power.

[ARCHIPPOS]

the KH cavalry is not that bad, It's just much worse than Hetairoi in prolonged melee. thus forcing you to charge more often, those Hippeis Xystophoroi, Prodromoi(both) and Illyrioi Hippeis can be the hell of a hammer if used correctly and Lonchophoroi have at least some staying power.

i have just hired a mistophoros strategos (by implementing allied goverment to Thermon). I know the upkeep is quite high but it seemed like a viable cost/benefit solution to counter the tide of Makedonian Hetairoi .... So a nice sharp/charismatic/vigorous guy popped up with a 24-men heavy cavalry unit. I took a look at the stats and although the Hetairoi certainly outclass them they seem strong enough to kamikaze-attack smaller Hetairoi contigents (especially considering the fact that they automaticaly replenish their numbers in a few turns- compared say to mercenary Thessalikoi ippeis that's a very useful edge)

[Ludens]

But doesn't Thermon start the game with Iphikrates as the commander and an Iphikratian hoplite army in control of the city? Considering this, why wouldn't Thermon produce Iphikratian style hoplite armies with Iphikratous Hoplitai and Thorakitai Hoplitai? I'm sure you have a reason for having Thermon produce classical hoplite armies, though, I'm guessing it's just the historical cultural preference of the city?

I agree that a combination of the first and second systems is probably the way to go. As you say, Sparta certainly should not be producing phalangitai.

That's a different Iphikrates. The one that introduced the Iphikratean hoplites (whatever they were) was Athenian and had been dead for the better part of the a century at EB's starting point. Also, though the Spartans may have been reactionary, they weren't regressive. It was clear to everyone that warfare had changed and the traditional hoplite wasn't going to cut it on its own.

[Vermin]

So does that mean Thermon should be using more or less classical armies despite the "native" garrison of Iphikrates' Hoplitai?

[WinsingtonIII]

Depends how you want to play it. Historically they did produce phalangitai, after the reforms of Cleomenes III in the 220's.

OK, I see, but would they not also produce some of the classical hoplites still, for old times sake?

That's a different Iphikrates. The one that introduced the Iphikratean hoplites (whatever they were) was Athenian and had been dead for the better part of the a century at EB's starting point.

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that, but the army in control of the city at game start has Iphikratous Hoplitai and Thorakitai Hoplitai, and I'm assuming the EB team made the army composition this way because Thermon had embraced the new style of hoplite, so in that case, shouldn't you still produce the new style of hoplites in Thermon?

[Ludens]

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that, but the army in control of the city at game start has Iphikratous Hoplitai and Thorakitai Hoplitai, and I'm assuming the EB team made the army composition this way because Thermon had embraced the new style of hoplite, so in that case, shouldn't you still produce the new style of hoplites in Thermon?

I guess it does. On the other hand: given how obscure the nature of Iphikratos' reform is, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't actually know which Greek city states reformed their hoplites.

[sqeecoo]

I also have a question:

What should be the ratio of levies/regulars/elites in a historical army? With barbaric factions, I try to have about half my army as levy troops (gaeroes, slingers etc.), but I'm not sure half a hellenic army should be levy hoplites -considering the semi-professionalism of hoplites and what little I know of the army compositions in a few battles.

Thanks!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I think in the EB time period, levy hoplites would be mostly used as garrison troops - used to defend a city and its home territory, but not to go invading other people's lands with. On the offensive, classical hoplites, or more modern hoplite or phalangite units, would be used. So it partly depends on the situation.

Unless, of course, your faction's financial situation is desperate, and you can't afford anything better. Beggars can't be choosers.

[WinsingtonIII]

I think in the EB time period, levy hoplites would be mostly used as garrison troops - used to defend a city and its home territory, but not to go invading other people's lands with. On the offensive, classical hoplites, or more modern hoplite or phalangite units, would be used. So it partly depends on the situation.

Well, realistically, I don't think classical hoplites would have been used on long campaigns either. These men had to provide their own equipment, so they would certainly have been more well-to-do than the levy hoplites, but they were still generally farmers I believe (based on minimal research, so if someone else has a better explanation let me know) and thus, they would really only want to campaign for short periods of time during the summer, and certainly not too far away from home, as they had to be back on their farm for the autumn harvest. Considering the fact that they provided their own military equipment, their preferences in this matter were probably considered fairly seriously, as they had the equipment and training necessary to get what they wanted.

[ziegenpeter]

OK, I see, but would they not also produce some of the classical hoplites still, for old times sake?

Seems not quite logical to me. I mean, when the U.S. invaded Irak, did they use M3 tanks for old times sake?

[Sarcasm]

Nope, just M60's alongside M1's.

[WinsingtonIII]

Seems not quite logical to me. I mean, when the U.S. invaded Irak, did they use M3 tanks for old times sake?

The ancient Spartan military and the modern U.S. military are hardly comparable institutions, and frankly, this analogy is ridiculous. You cannot compare the decisions a modern, bureaucratic, rational institution makes with the decisions made by a society based on a structure of traditional values. They have completely different decision-making processes and different ideologies to take into account when making decisions. Was it smart, rational, or logical for some Celts to continue to fight nude in an age when the use of chain-mail was rising? Of course not. But some still did it.

This is not to say that Spartan military leaders were completely irrational and refused to utilize the Makedonian phalanx, because they certainly did adopt it. But I get the feeling that in a society that was based so heavily tradition, old habits die hard, and some would view switching to the Makedonian phalanx as a betrayal of their values. The key in your response is the fact that you say it is "not quite logical." Of course it's not logical, but that's not the point. Tradition is illogical in many cases, but that doesn't stop millions of people from doing things simply because tradition dictates it.

[paullus]

Thermon, the Aitolian capital, would have an Aitolian army. In general, thureos-armed infantry and aspis-wielding cavalry is a good start. The Aitolians were never a people to field great numbers of traditional hoplitai as the core of their armies, so include peltastai, thureophoroi, and thorakitai as an important part of the army. By the middle to later third century, most of the Greek states had moved in that direction as well. On the other hand, several states experimented with phalangitai, including the Spartans, Boiotians, and Achaians. And many still had hoplitai of some sort or another in their armies, though for quite a few people the hoplitai largely disappeared, folded into units carrying the thureos rather than the aspis.

[Atilius]

Polybios 2.3 decribes an Aetolian army besieging Medion in 233 BC: it consists of ὁπλιτῶν (hoplites), ἱππέων (cavalry), and εὐζώνοις (light troops). The "hoplite" reference is suggestive, but Polybios also applies that word to what are obviously phalangites in his description (18.29) of the phalanx. Polybios probably uses "hoplite" in a very generic sense, meaning heavy infantryman.

[satalexton]

I'm always under the impression that the so-called iphrik-hoplitai are basically peltasts given a spear instead of javalins. They're never meant to form a main line were they?

[seienchin]

I'm always under the impression that the so-called iphrik-hoplitai are basically peltasts given a spear instead of javalins. They're never meant to form a main line were they?

I do not think so
They are modern more faster and flexible hoplites also equippd with swords.
BUT They are a unit the team had to alter unhistorical cause the KI couldnt use it. Originally they had quite long spears.

[olly]

Going a wee bit off thread what KH army would be the most effective for multiplayer?

Thanks

[Ludens]

The ancient Spartan military and the modern U.S. military are hardly comparable institutions, and frankly, this analogy is ridiculous. You cannot compare the decisions a modern, bureaucratic, rational institution makes with the decisions made by a society based on a structure of traditional values. (...)

But I get the feeling that in a society that was based so heavily tradition, old habits die hard, and some would view switching to the Makedonian phalanx as a betrayal of their values.

True, but amongst modern, bureaucratic and supposedly rational armies there was a similar response when cavalry had become obsolete in the face of mobile armour and troop transport. Many generals went into some sort of obstinate denial, actively trying to block the introduction and development of tanks and predicting that tanks would never replace cavalry. Similarly the Royal Navy tried very hard to prove that planes would never be a threat to battleships. Fortunately these misconceptions were cleared up in time for the second world war, but thanks to the delay the Axis had a head-start in developing new doctrines of warfare. The Allies suffered a string of defeats because they were still doing things by the old book.

So comparing Sparta to a modern military is not that far-out. Militaries are by their nature conservative and traditional.

But back to topic: the classical hoplite was not exactly obsolete by EB's time-frame. They still represented the heavier troops of the Greek city states, and made-up the elites of several successors. However there was a definite trend for lighter and more flexible troops, and I doubt a faction that had decided to modernize their military would have gone back merely for old-times sake.

[WinsingtonIII]

So comparing Sparta to a modern military is not that far-out. Militaries are by their nature conservative and traditional.

True, modern militaries continue to be traditional, as evidenced by many incidents, but I think that purely on the issue of weaponry and troop tactics (but not on social issues such as women fighting in direct combat roles) the modern U.S. military (by which I mean right now, not during the first half of the twentieth century when the cavalry debate was still continuing) has been completely open to embracing new tactics and weapons. In fact, one of their primary goals these days is the production and invention of new tactics and weapons. So, I don't think that you can argue that it's a good analogy on that level. On the social level, sure, but not on the level of tactics and weapons, as one of their primary concerns right now is developing new ways of dealing with a new type of enemy.

Plus, the statement that militaries are inherently conservative only strengthens my contention that giving up classical hoplites would be at least somewhat opposed.

But back to topic: the classical hoplite was not exactly obsolete by EB's time-frame. They still represented the heavier troops of the Greek city states, and made-up the elites of several successors. However there was a definite trend for lighter and more flexible troops, and I doubt a faction that had decided to modernize their military would have gone back merely for old-times sake.

I shouldn't have used the phrase "for old-times sake." I didn't mean that they were sitting around and said, "hey I love hoplites, we should still use them just for kicks," which is what I think you guys are taking away from my post. I'm also not arguing that there wasn't a trend for lighter troops, I acknowledged that already, what I'm arguing is that, as you said, hoplites could still be effective in certain roles and that this fact, combined with Spartan traditionalism, would mean that a core of hoplites armed in the old style would continue to be utilized. I'm not arguing for a major force of the traditional hoplites, that clearly no longer happened.

[Ludens]

On the social level, sure, but not on the level of tactics and weapons, as one of their primary concerns right now is developing new ways of dealing with a new type of enemy.

True. Modern armies are far more open-minded. That said, they still have their hang-ups.

Plus, the statement that militaries are inherently conservative only strengthens my contention that giving up classical hoplites would be at least somewhat opposed.

No argument here.

I'm also not arguing that there wasn't a trend for lighter troops, I acknowledged that already, what I'm arguing is that, as you said, hoplites could still be effective in certain roles and that this fact, combined with Spartan traditionalism, would mean that a core of hoplites armed in the old style would continue to be utilized.

I see. It sounds logical, but in this particular case the Aitolians would have found the lighter hoplites far more suited to their terrain and tactics anyway.