Hoplites- How should they have fought?

**Ano2** · 09-21-2005, 16:25

I have long had an obssesion with the Greek Cities and I am really curious as to how the Iphikrates hoplites actually fought.

I know they have a 12 foot spear, and light linen armour on the whole, which was supposedly meant to allow them to catch peltasts. However in the game they are shown fighting in a Pike Phalanx, with spears instead of pikes. If they did actually fight like this why did they not use pikes?

Alternatiely if they did not fight in a Pike Phalanx, how did they fight? The close formation shieldwall would be nearly impossible with 12 foot spears being used underarm, and if the spears were not held in an upward position how were they held?

Alternatively did they even use 12 foot spears? I can see no advantage to them, so why not use the traditional overarm 9 foot spears?

Intellegent debate welcome.

**Puzz3D** · 09-21-2005, 16:35

They held the spears overhead, but I don't know about the style of fighting this way. I do know that CA made them hold the spears underhand because it would go against the popular concept that spears were always used underhand. This idea of catering to popular belief pervades the game. For instance, the gladius isn't used correctly in the game either.

**Bonusmalus** · 09-21-2005, 17:02

I think it was Alexander (the great) and macedonians who introduced the phalanx formation to the greeks. Of course they could have usen some kind of shieldwall formation earlier. Alexander used the phalanx very effectivily in his campaing against the Persians.

**Kraxis** · 09-21-2005, 17:28

The Iphikratean peltasts (or hoplites if you want), is a matter of controvercy. They might not have fought in a shieldwall formation as they were faster than hoplites (they were particularly scared of the Spartan hoplites as they had caught them a few times), and still had the range of weapon to get close with them. So some sort of dense, yet open formation seems to be the most logical choice for them.
How they used the weapon I don't know, but it seems to me most effective if they used the overhand style

**Ano2** · 09-21-2005, 19:11

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The Iphikratean peltasts (or hoplites if you want), is a matter of controvercy. They might not have fought in a shieldwall formation as they were faster than hoplites (they were particularly scared of the Spartan hoplites as they had caught them a few times), and still had the range of weapon to get close with them. So some sort of dense, yet open formation seems to be the most logical choice for them.
How they used the weapon I don't know, but it seems to me most effective if they used the overhand style

Interesting but I don't think you could thrust a 12 foot spear overhand.

**Kraxis** · 09-21-2005, 19:36

Originally Posted by Ano2

Interesting but I don't think you could thrust a 12 foot spear overhand.

It is true that the grip in underhand is a bit stronger, but if the spear is well balanced (that is if you grip it at it's center of gravity) then you can actually wield a 12 foot spear.
One thing is certain, they didn't use a twohanded style as their shield made that impossible. Eventhough it was smaller and lighter than the normal aspis it still needed a gripping hand.

The 12-foot spear is of course at the absolute edge of onehanded capacity. At least to use it effectively. I can't remember which author makes a great analysis on it, but it has been put on the net somewhere. It is absolutely great.

Iphikratean peltasts were not supposed to win battles themselves. They were like other peltasts supposed to disrupt and possibly break up hoplite formations. Then other units could take advantage of it. Breaking up doesn't mean that they needed to inflict many losses. A few at a select point could be rather disruptive, and with the long spear it was easier than with javelins.

**Spino** · 09-21-2005, 17:35

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

They held the spears overhead, but I don't know about the style of fighting this way. I do know that CA made them hold the spears underhand because it would go against the popular concept that spears were always used underhand. This idea of catering to popular belief pervades the game. For instance, the gladius isn't used correctly in the game either.

CA's decision to have all spearmen in RTW use an underhanded thrust animation was rooted in the technical limitations and shortcomings of their 'hit box' system and not due to any subjective interpretation of history. I believe one of the developers made a statement about this many months ago. Modders who have changed the default thrusting animation to either the default javelineer's overhand throw animation or a custom one of their own design cited lower effectiveness in combat after the changes were made. Basically the overhand animation has a lower chance of hitting an enemy's 'hit box', especially when the enemy is at a lower height. CA's default underhand thrust animation provided a better likelihood of a hit regardless of the target's elevation.

FYI, a few members of the European Barbaroum modding team have stated that they were able to overcome the hit box limitations and provide overhanded thrusting animations for the appropriate units (i.e. hoplites) but we'll find out when that mod is eventually released (if at all).

**Puzz3D** · 09-21-2005, 20:31

Originally Posted by Spino

CA's decision to have all spearmen in RTW use an underhanded thrust animation was rooted in the technical limitations and shortcomings of their 'hit box' system and not due to any subjective interpretation of history. I believe one of the developers made a statement about this many months ago.

Longjohn said player expectations was the reason, but he did site difficulty in doing the collision detection as a problem as well. It's pretty clear that in light of the player expectation consideration there wasn't much motivation to overcome the collision detection difficulties. He specifically mentioned the problem of the overhand spear hitting the head of the man in front. It worked in real life so why not in the game which has the same geometry? It could have been made to work.

I also don't buy the argument that the underhand spears work better at varying elevations. The spears are absolutely horrible on even a mild upwards gradient. It looks like the spears and the men's feet are kept parallel to sea level and not to the gradient on which they are standing.

**Spino** · 09-21-2005, 20:53

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Longjohn said player expectations was the reason, but he did site difficulty in doing the collision detection as a problem as well. It's pretty clear that in light of the player expectation consideration there wasn't much motivation to overcome the collision detection difficulties. He specifically mentioned the problem of the overhand spear hitting the head of the man in front. It worked in real life so why not in the game which has the same geometry? It could have been made to work.

I also don't buy the argument that the underhand spears work better at varying elevations. The spears are absolutely horrible on even a mild upwards gradient. It looks like the spears and the men's feet are kept parallel to sea level and not to the gradient on which they are standing.

Well the underhand spears must certainly work better for a unit defending on higher ground, that's a trade off I can certainly live with since units no longer receive the same generous morale bonuses on higher ground as they did in MTW. Sure, it was easier for CA to take a blanket approach for all spear units and label it 'done' rather than working on a different approach for both types of spear grip. And personally I think the image of men in the front ranks with spears jutting throught their heads would look much worse than having them poke through their lower abdomens or hips as they do right now. However, I also believe incorporating routines for each man that would prevent him from poking a hole through the head of his comrade would have adversely affected the unit balance and possibly the framerate, thus forcing CA to spend much more time tweaking and worse, force them to change their recommended system specs. Overestimating performance on your median user's system is a big no-no in game developing.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 09-21-2005, 22:12

I think it was Alexander (the great) and macedonians who introduced the phalanx formation to the greeks. Of course they could have usen some kind of shieldwall formation earlier. Alexander used the phalanx very effectivily in his campaing against the Persians.

Alexander did not introduce the phalanx to the Greeks, but he did use them better than the Greeks did before his time. Alexander reformed the Phalanx to make it better, and thus beating the Persians was easier.

Sorry, I don't feel like going into detail I'm lazy right now...

**Puzz3D** · 09-21-2005, 23:54

Originally Posted by Spino

Well the underhand spears must certainly work better for a unit defending on higher ground, that's a trade off I can certainly live with since units no longer receive the same generous morale bonuses on higher ground as they did in MTW. Sure, it was easier for CA to take a blanket approach for all spear units and label it 'done' rather than working on a different approach for both types of spear grip.

There was a +2 morale bonus for higher ground in MTW which isn't a large bonus.

It doesn't bother me how the men hold their spears, but I am surprised that they don't follow the terrain because this is supposed to be a state of the art game. Right now the battle engine of HistWar Le Grognards looks to be much more advanced than Total War going by the recent interview at The Wargamer.
Hist War Le Grognards