Please bear with the following which, although lengthy, is necessary I think to explain my subsequent suggestions for changes in FoG to the way javelin-armed "medium" infantry work.
I have just finished re-reading a volume entitled "Thracian Peltasts and their influence on Greek Warfare" by J.G.P. Best. Taken in conjunction with the contents of Parke's work on mercenaries in the Hellenistic world, I have long believed that peltasts are commonly misrepresented in wargame rules and having now played FoG it is a problem which extends to FoG. However, I believe the mechanisms of FoG permit an easy adjustment which will give a much better reflection of the historical role of peltasts, and hence the suggestions which I make below for amendments to the rules.
I should explain first that I think there are two confusing uses of the word "peltast" and it is important to be clear which of the uses is intended when the word is encountered.
The word "peltast" appears to have been used initially to describe light javelin-armed troops who were equipped with a small shield known as a pelta, probably of a distinctive crescent shape. Subsequently, any troops carrying a light shield, whether of crescent shape or not, and armed with any length of "pointy stick", appear to have qualified for description as peltasts (even in certain ancient texts Macedonian phalangites), the description appearing to be derived from the type of shield carried, rather than referring to the battlefield function of the troops carrying the shield.
The other use of the word peltast appears intended to describe only lightly armed troops whose principal function was to skirmish with the enemy using javelins, but who later developed a resilience in close combat somewhat greater than the unshielded javelin-throwing skirmisher whom the original peltast succeeded.
In the context of more general usage of the word peltast to describe troops with a light shield (and therefore not necessarily skirmishers), it should be noted that some peltasts were felt to be equipped for, and quite capable of, hand-to-hand combat with heavier troops (e.g. Macedonian phalangites and the so-called Iphicratean peltasts - whose existence I do not believe in as the invention of Iphicrates, but rather as a derivative from a much older troop type such as those represented by the Thracians who carried a long spear instead of the javelin.)
It is with the second more restricted usage of the word peltast that I am principally concerned here. In the context of this usage, the sources generally appear to indicate that the fighting style of this troop type was that of skirmishers who generally had significant difficulties in facing close combat troops and horsemen save in the types of terrain in which close-order troops and cavalry had difficulty operating.
The sources also indicate that when charged by close-order troops or cavalry in terrain suited to the operation of those last mentioned troop types peltasts tended to attempt to evade contact if possible (as would be the consistent with the role of skirmishers).
However, the perception of the writers of most wargame rules appears to have evolved along lines which traditionally have divided infantry without bows or slings into only three troop types, namely those who fight only in close order, those who hurl missiles but are capable of close combat as well, including combat against the heavier types of troops, and finally missile-armed skirmishes who are often called psiloi.
The problem with this form of classification seems to me to be the fact that it fails to recognize that because of its different uasages the term peltast covers more than one type of troops, with the result that peltasts have traditionally been seen in wargames rules as belonging exclusively to the class of medium infantry who can fight both with missiles and in close combat.
I would not dispute for one moment that there is a class of troops which is more lightly armed than the heavily armed close combat specialists and which is not only capable of but primarily intended for engaging in close combat, particularly in terrain in which the cohesion of heavier troops is impaired (e.g. the Thracian spearman mentioned earlier).
Nevertheless, the original peltast appears to have been a skirmisher, who was often lumped by the ancient authors into the description of psiloi (although the latter description should really be applied strictly only to those skirmishers who were armed with bows or slings). Over time, as the capabilities of the original peltast were explored, it appears that the peltast became one of the commonest troop types in the Hellenistic world and that there was some development of the manner in which peltasts operated from the original open order of javelin-armed skirmishers.
This development appears to have resulted in increased effectiveness on the part of the javelin-armed skirmishers, which I do not feel can be justified from the sources purely by reference to the addition of a small shield for the protection of the skirmisher. What seems to have happened in practice is that the numbers of the javelin-armed skirmishers employed were increased substantially, and there was also an increased frequency with which such skirmishers were caught by (in particular) cavalry, as well as, occasionally, by heavy infantry. These incidents suggest to me that the relevant development which improved the effectiveness of the skirmishers was the use of such skirmishers in more dense formations than had previously been the case. Such a development would be likely to increase the weight of missiles which a peltast unit could direct upon its opponents, whilst at the same time producing some reduction (by virtue of the density of the formation) in the capacity of the formation to evade quickly if charged. On occasion, the increased unit density may even have given rise to a self-confidence (often mistaken) which would allow the peltast to be drawn into acceptance of, or even eagerness for, a close combat confrontation with opposing troops.
In light of the above I propose the following amendments to FoG:-
1. under the heading "Charging with missile armed foot troops" on page 33 add to the list of troop types who must pass a CMT in order to charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmisher "foot who are armed solely with javelins".
2. under evade moves on page 34 add to the list of troop types who can evade if they are formed up entirely one base deep "medium infantry who are armed solely with javelin".
On another topic, I noticed in the games of FoG played to date that there appears to be no mechanism for reflecting the potential for battle lines to draw apart or for troops to be pushed back significant distances without breaking.
However, I think such mechanisms could be introduced very easily and with little loss of playability. Indeed, I think they would add considerable interest to the way in which the close combat mechanisms work. My suggestions are as follows:-
1. the losers of a close combat in the Melee Phase (not Impact Phase) are pushed back a specified distance-say 2 MUs -unless the losers are skirmishers fighting non-skirmishers in which case the skirmishers must break-off.
2. winners in the Melee Phase all of whose opponents are pushed back must, if shock troops, follow-up any non-skirmisher opponents unless such shock troops pass a cohesion test (in which case they may choose whether or not to follow up)
3. the winners of the Melee Phase all of whose opponents are pushed back and who are not themselves shock troops may follow-up if they pass a cohesion test.
4. winners taking a cohesion test under points two or three above ignore any adverse result if failing the cohesion test
5. if winners of the Melee Phase are taking a cohesion test to determine whether they follow-up opponents:-
(a) shock troops add one for having lost a base or bases in the latest melee round and/or for having dropped a cohesion state
(b) non-shock troops deduct one for having lost a base or bases in the latest melee round and/or for having dropped a cohesion state.
It also strikes me as odd that troops in close combat appear to have similar prospects of recovering cohesion to troops who attempt such recovery when not in close combat. I wonder if consideration has been given to the inclusion within the cohesion test table of a further deduction (-1) on the die score, when testing to bolster or rally a battle group, if the battle-group which is attempting to recover cohesion remains engaged in close combat?
Finally,I also feel that because FoG is clearly attempting to model certain weapon capabilities to some degree, it would be appropriate to distinguish, at least in terms of ranges, the effects of the more primitive self bows from the effect of more sophisticated/powerful weapons such as composite and long bows. Historical sources do appear to indicate that there was a significant difference in effectiveness, which is the reason why composite bow was so highly prized. In this connection, I would suggest the creation of a new class of bow (e.g short self-bow) with effective range of 2 MUs and a maximum range of 4 MUs. Obviously, this would require some consideration of adjustment to points cost of troops armed with the less effective bow as against others armed with the more effective types.
I'D appreciate comments - preferably polite ones!
Regards,
tworden
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Aynsley [mailto:Richard.Aynsley@hewitt.com]
Sent: 11 June 2007 10:53
To: Ann Worden
Subject: RE: 11th June Gaming
Fair enough - enjoy your visitors
Can't make this Friday, but next Monday for our league
game is fine....
Look forward to seeing your ideas on FoG. I suppose we
also need to try DBMM at some point as well.
Cheers
Richard
Richard Aynsley
Hewitt Associates Limited
Hibernian House,
Building 5200,
Cork Airport Business Park,
Co. Cork.
Main: 021 4357880
Fax: 021 4357834
www.hewitt.ie
Hewitt Associates Ltd is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
Hewitt Associates Ltd is registered in Ireland and is a Limited Liability Company.
Reg number : 356441.
Reg address: Block D, Iveagh Court,Harcourt Road, Dublin 2
"Ann Worden" <annworden06>
11/06/2007 09:42
To Richard Aynsley/Cork/Hewitt Associates@Hewitt Associates NA
cc
Subject RE: 11th June Gaming
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the delay replying - I've been away.
Can't play tonight, because we have guests coming who are staying until Friday. However, if you are up for a game on Friday night and can persuade Louise that I will by then be suffering extreme withdrawal symptoms if you don't give me a game, I would be happy to come up then.
Failing that, how are you fixed for playing on Monday next? - Our league match up ?
In the meantime I've had some thoughts about FoG which would improve its historical accuracy and, I think, add fluidity. I'll come back to you shortly with further details, and see what you think.
Regards,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Aynsley [mailto:Richard.Aynsley@hewitt.com]
Sent: 07 June 2007 15:19
To: carrywilliam@eircom.net; annworden06@eircom.net; tony.bergin@kerry.ie
Subject: 11th June Gaming
So who's going to make it on Monday then ?? Are we
playing league games / FoG / DBMM / Fun Games
I know Padraig is out of action for June and Tony can't
make it so......
Re your game William, Tony will be playing James on
Monday 25th June, and as the kids have broken up by
then do you want to play Mikey that night ?
cheers
Richard
Richard Aynsley
Hewitt Associates Limited
Hibernian House,
Building 5200,
Cork Airport Business Park,
Co. Cork.
Main: 021 4357880
Fax: 021 4357834
www.hewitt.ie
Hewitt Associates Ltd is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
Hewitt Associates Ltd is registered in Ireland and is a Limited Liability Company.
Reg number : 356441.
Reg address: Block D, Iveagh Court,Harcourt Road, Dublin 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
