Thracians - a peltast free zone

[vakarr]

Hi, I see that since FoG doesn't have a "Light Medium Infantry" category, many compromises have been made, so Thracian infantry have been made into better open terrain troops, but worse difficult terrain troops. Also the Dii get classed as swordsmen, which must be fun to experiement with. This is great for competitons but the list is now a "peltast free zone" - not one troop-type in the Thracian list is called "peltasts".

When I look at the Greek list I do see a troop-type listed as peltasts - Light Foot with javelines and light spear. My suggestion is therefore that if you believe that this is how peltasts should be classified, then all Thracian infantry armed with light spear should have the option of being Light Foot with javelins and light spear OR Medium Foot with light spear. Also, I see there is the usual Roman bias in the lists - the Romans get superior slingers (Balearics) for heaven's sake but there aren't any superior light cavalry or foot in the Thracian list. So here's my suggestions for the Thracian list:

1. Allow any medium infantry armed with light spear to be reclassified as Light Foot, protected, light spear and javelin. Alternatively, allow such infantry to pass through difficult terrain without being disordered.
2. Allow a single battle group of each type of foot and light horse to be classified as superior (this includes the Greek mercenaries around 400 BC who if they are not armoured can be Cyreans - members of the 10,000). This does not mean that the swordsmen get classified as superior swordsmen.
3. Thracian light horse should have the option of being protected - my latest research shows they did have shields in the 7th-3rd centuries
3. Around 350- 275 BC Thracian nobles should be allowed to use lance
4. After 275 BC the Thracian cavalry go back to using light spear and sword, but should have the option of being protected

5. The precise way that Thracians with long spear worked with the light spear/javelin/sword-armed troops is not known, and were very likely part of the same units, so the long spear-armed troops should be able to interpenetrate the light spear and sword-armed troops (not those with heavy weapon though).

I have presented the reasons for these changes in my previous Slingshot articles but there will be additional evidence in my new book "The Gods of Battle" which will be published next year.

Cheers,

Chris

[hammy]

In FoG all medium foot are effectively the light medium or light heavies of other rulesets.

The bulk of the Thracian foot are thus light medium infantry. What they can't do is skirmish but the fight perfectly well in rough and difficult terrain. While medium foot are dissordered in difficult terrain they are still far better in hand to hand combat than light foot.

Peltasts is a term that is used to mean many different things. My understanding is that strictly it refers to troops who carried the pelta style shield but thes seemed to behave in different ways over time. In other rulesets Thracians are similar in their battlefield performance to FoG medium foot, the only difference perhaps being that in 7th edition I think they can skirmish with javelins.

There are 24 bases of light foot allowed to the Thracian list, these troops can move through the medium foot (but not vice versa) so most of what you seem to be wanting is possible.

"1. Allow any medium infantry armed with light spear to be reclassified as Light Foot, protected, light spear and javelin. Alternatively, allow such infantry to pass through difficult terrain without being disordered. "

I don't see why this is needed, dissorder is no big deal, once you leave the terrain you are no longer dissordered.

"2. Allow a single battle group of each type of foot and light horse to be classified as superior (this includes the Greek mercenaries around 400 BC who if they are not armoured can be Cyreans - members of the 10,000). This does not mean that the swordsmen get classified as superior swordsmen. "

Troops like Balearic slingers and Cretan archers are classed as superior because the histories regularly refer to them as being better than other similar troops and as being much sought after. One thing the FoG lists have tried to avoid (but not managed everywhere) is spurious distinction for the sake of it. Where there is little evidence that there were better troops within a force then the whole force ends up as average. There is nothing wrong with average.

"3. Thracian light horse should have the option of being protected - my latest research shows they did have shields in the 7th-3rd centuries "

For light horse to count as protected they would need a lot more than just a shield. You may have missed something in the POA system though, light horse are always shot at with no POA even if they are in more than one rank. Light horse are not cavalry so all the unprotected cavalry in more than one rank stuff does not apply. The only game effect of protected light horse is that they have better armour in melee which is a benefit against unprotected troops and means that they are on an even armour POA in melee against protected. Overall most light troops are just fine as unprotected.

"3. Around 350- 275 BC Thracian nobles should be allowed to use lance "

Really? I haven't seen anything about lance armed Thracians since they were removed from the old WRG lists back in the late 1980s presumably because there is little if any evidence. I would be interested to hear more on this one as there were other lance armed cavalry at that time.

"4. After 275 BC the Thracian cavalry go back to using light spear and sword, but should have the option of being protected"

So you are saying that in the later period that the cavalry should not be all armoured? The Thracian noble cavalry are the superior armoured cavalry, not the light horse.

"5. The precise way that Thracians with long spear worked with the light spear/javelin/sword-armed troops is not known, and were very likely part of the same units, so the long spear-armed troops should be able to interpenetrate the light spear and sword-armed troops (not those with heavy weapon though). "

There are only a very small number of interpenetrations allowed in FoG and those that are allowed are all of close combat troops moving through archers. I would assume that BGs of Thracians with long spear are actually mixed long spear and javelin, there are very few occasions where light spear is better than long spear in FoG so surely this can just be assumed to be happening within the battlegroup.

Can you point me at the slingshots you are refering to? I will dig them out and have a read.

[nikgaukroger]

Hi Chris,

Good to see you here Also look forward to the new book.

Agree we probably should have had a LF option for the Light Spear BGs - but in real playing life I doubt many (other than perhaps yourself ) would use that many.

The interpenetration idea for different types of BGs is messy and the FoG philosophy, if you like, would really just assume that such actions are taking place within the BG and that the effect is best modelled by one set of classifications - probably the Spearman one in this case because of they way it works in the game.

[vakarr]

Hi, the Slingshot articles were Slingshot 207, January 2000, pp48-53; Slingshot 209 May 2000 pp 33-38; and Slingshot 210 July 2000 pp 38-43 and can be read here (along with the complete Great Rhomphaia Controversy and other writings Thracian): http://home.exetel.com.au/bmboats/articles.htm

The cavalry with lance thing is based on the Alexandrovo and Kazanluk Tomb paintings. Very briefly: Alexandrovo - lances with butt spikes. Kazanluk - "Seuthes" is holding his lance exactly the same way as Alexander in the Issus mosaic. Archaeologists also now claim to have found a lance head from a balanced tapering lance (but only the lance head and a conical sauroter -how can you tell the difference?) in the Getic captial of Hellis/Helios (there's lots of really interesting information about that site that has only recently become available). There is other evidence also.

Your description of the capabilities of FoG medium infantry sounds terrific, I can't wait to see how it turns out. Steven Neate played Thracians vs Alans and beat the Alans, much to his and his opponent's surprise - I get my first chance in two weeks' time (against Lysimachid). However, it still seems strange to see a Thracian list without any peltasts listed.

the only difference perhaps being that in 7th edition I think they can skirmish with javelins.

In Warrior, 7th Edition, and preceding WRG editions Thracians could shoot 20 paces (hardly ever happened but deadly if it did) and could skirmish. However, in 7th edn and Warrior they had to take a waver test if charged in the open by mounted, something that made them very uncompetitive. Terrain is always hard to find on competition tables anywhere near the centre. Their new status should help in open competitions a lot.

Troops like Balearic slingers and Cretan archers are classed as superior because the histories regularly refer to them as being better than other similar troops and as being much sought after.

This describes Thracian peltasts exactly. "Thracian warriors were ferocious opponents who were in high demand as mercenaries" - page one of a certain Osprey book, which also lists the many Thracian tribes which were listed as the "most valiant" or similar. Even if you only use Thucydides' disparaging description of Sitalkes' army ("chiefly dangerous due to its numbers") , he still says that the Dii were better than the rest of the army and therefore the swordsmen at least should be classed as superior.

So you are saying that in the later period that the cavalry should not be all armoured? The Thracian noble cavalry are the superior armoured cavalry, not the light horse.

Sorry I thought "protected" meant "shielded" so I meant Light Cavalry should have the option of using shields all the time, but heavy cavalry should be unshielded until after 275 BC.

[hammy]

Hi, the Slingshot articles were Slingshot 207, January 2000, pp48-53; Slingshot 209 May 2000 pp 33-38; and Slingshot 210 July 2000 pp 38-43 and can be read here (along with the complete Great Rhomphaia Controversy and other writings Thracian): http://home.exetel.com.au/bmboats/articles.htm

Troops like Balearic slingers and Cretan archers are classed as superior because the histories regularly refer to them as being better than other similar troops and as being much sought after.

This describes Thracian peltasts exactly. "Thracian warriors were ferocious opponents who were in high demand as mercenaries" - page one of a certain Osprey book, which also lists the many Thracian tribes which were listed as the "most valiant" or similar. Even if you only use Thucydides' disparaging description of Sitalkes' army ("chiefly dangerous due to its numbers") , he still says that the Dii were better than the rest of the army and therefore the swordsmen at least should be classed as superior.

So you are saying that in the later period that the cavalry should not be all armoured? The Thracian noble cavalry are the superior armoured cavalry, not the light horse.

Sorry I thought "protected" meant "shielded" so I meant Light Cavalry should have the option of using shields all the time, but heavy cavalry should be unshielded until after 275 BC.

In period Thracian medium foot are among the best there is by virtue of having more or better capabilities. I suppose you could argue that Thracians end up being average in much the same way that Numidians do. Numidian light horse are only average in FoG because against historical opponents they are good enough to perform as they did historically without needing to be superior. Essentially there are not that many javelin armed ligh horse in the period that the Numidians were considered good light troops. The same can be said of Thracians. There are not may other medium foot with the same capabilities as them, only Thureophori and Thorakitai are as good, most contemporary medium foot are light spear only and many are poor and only light spear.

With Cretans and Balearic slingers there are plenty of other light archers and light slingers so the Cretans and Balearics need to be superior to be better.

As for protected, armoured etc. it is not a totally strict line. Macedonian companions are classed as armoured even though they don't have shields, there are plenty of cavalry who do have shields who are only protected.

Thracian noble cavalry as superior armoured light spear are among the best mounted in period. They are worse than Macedonian companions and agema but other than that a very good troop type. The option for lancer would have been interesting, more so to see how many people chose to use it as lancer is very much a double edged benefit.

[nikgaukroger]

Steve Neate won a game

[timmy1]

Chris, as Nik stated good to see you here. I think that the Thracians are going to be a real pain to play against under FoG. Lots of options with lots of toys. Last night I was playing Principiate Roman vs Seleucids. Both times I have seen Seleucids on the table the Thracians make an appearance and dominate any terrain that is not open ground. Yesterday I was trying to get a BG of Auxillia foot led by a TC (81 points), into the flank of the Argyraspides who were anchored on a Plantation covered steep hill. My opponent stuffed the Thracians (42 points) into the front of the hill and in almost 6 hours of gaming I never got near to shifting them, indeed I was a base down at the end. Even if I could have spared a BG of Legionaries, the Heavy Weapon would have forced me to think twice.

Looks like Thracian Peltasts work to me even if they are not called that.

[rbodleyscott]

Chris,

Did the Thracians call themselves peltasts?

[vakarr]

Thracians should be allowd Mountains as one of their terrain types - the Rhodopes mountains are the highest in the Balkans, and there are several other mountain ranges in their territory that were the scenes of some battles.

I have now found a textual reference to Thracian cavalry with lances. Minor M. Markle says in his article "Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon" (p 490) "... the conclusion is inescapable that in 339 BC the Triballian cavalry were armed with sarissas." He is referring to a passage by Didymus "He (Philip) received his third wound during the foray against the Triballi, when one of his pursuers thrust a sarissa into his right thigh and made him lame" Justin adds "... Philip was wounded in his thigh in such a way that his horse was slain through his own body" Markle says " Surely, Philip fleeing on his horse cound not have been wounded by a Triballian infantryman chasing him with a long lance. If Philip was mounted so must have been his pursuer." He's got a point but I don't necessarily agree with this - such a wound would have to have a lot of force behind it, which might be more easily achieved by an infantryman. Also, would a man on horseback go for a thigh, would it not be easier to strike for the back or some other, larger area? Possibly the lance was being held low down, parallel to the horse, as shown in many paintings, so this might result in a thigh injury.

[nikgaukroger]

Thracians should be allowd Mountains as one of their terrain types - the Rhodopes mountains are the highest in the Balkans, and there are several other mountain ranges in their territory that were the scenes of some battles.

I suspect we decided that Hilly covered the areas where massed battles were likely to be fought - we could, of course, be mistaken