Slitherine

As Richard may probably remember, in the past I have had the opportunity to provide you with information and suggestions about some pre-Roman peoples of southern Italy (in particular the Apulians), which were well-received and subsequently led to modifications in FoG.

Recently, I had a similar opportunity with another game in development by an independent developer, and I came across some additional insights that, in my opinion, could greatly improve the armies of the Apulian, Bruttian/Lucanian, and Italian Hill Tribes factions.

I have always felt that the three aforementioned factions, although already well-represented, could be further refined to better reflect historical reality. They could also become slightly more competitive without disrupting either the balance or the historical accuracy. A greater competitiveness for these factions, without compromising history and balance, could, in my opinion, lead to more players choosing these factions in tournaments. I believe the structure of these three armies does not take into account one historically fundamental aspect of these peoples' history: the enormous socio-cultural influence that the Greeks and the Samnites exerted on them.

Although archaeological findings are scarce (but still present), it is unthinkable that in nearly 300 years of commercial contacts and conflicts with the Greek colonists of Magna Graecia, there were no hoplite units, even as mere imitations, among the ranks of the Apulians and Lucanians. The fact that the findings of hoplite-style weapons and armor are scarce in Apulian and Lucanian tombs is certainly true, but this could also be attributed to an intense activity of looting by grave robbers over the last two centuries.

The same type of reasoning can be applied to the Samnite Foot/Italian Foot dichotomy, which, in my opinion, should somehow be overcome. The Samnites were in constant contact with the Lucanian, Oscan, and Daunian peoples, with whom they fought both alongside and against. It is quite implausible to think that there was no medium impact infantry among the armies of the Appenine tribes, as well as among the Daunians (who, it should be remembered, were part of the Apulians) and the Lucanians (who also had a common origin with the Samnites).

In light of all this, I would like to propose some changes to the three aforementioned factions:

Apulians: I would add 3 units of citizen hoplites, 5 units of Samnite Foot (which I would rename to the more generic "Italian Impact Foot"). At the same time, I would reduce the number of Italian Foot by 4 units.

Bruttian/Lucanian: I would add 4 units of citizen hoplites, 4 units of Samnite Foot (again, possibly changing the name). I would reduce the number of veteran Italian Foot by 4 units.

Italian Hill Tribes: I would add 6 units of Samnite Foot (again, possibly changing the name) and reduce the number of Italian Foot by 3 units.

What do you think? I'm particularly addressing Richard here.

Are there any factions with hoplites + Samnite foot? Any/many with hoplites + impact foot? It usually goes one way or another.

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:33 pm Are there any factions with hoplites + Samnite foot? Any/many with hoplites + impact foot? It usually goes one way or another.

Samnite foot are identical to spanish Scutari. A lot of list has spanish Scutari with offensive spearmen. For example, the list you are using in WTC.

Anyway I'm not getting why you are asking this question. There are a lot of historical example in wich offensive spearmen fought in the same army with impact foot units.

In addition to what I wrote earlier, I am showing you some images of artifacts from the Italian cultural heritage catalog. These are artifacts found in Iapygian or Lucanian tombs, and they are by no means 'medium infantry' armor. They are not war spoils either, but armor and helmets used expecially by the aristocratic classes. The world of Magna Graecia was one where different cultures mingled with each other for centuries in a relatively small territory. I’m also posting a couple of video from a history professor in which he talks about how, for example, the Lucanians and Apulians were deeply immersed in Greek culture (English subtitles can be activated).

https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1600016911
https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1600016910
https://artsupp.com/it/artisti/anonimo/ ... -di-bronzo
https://catalogo.cultura.gov.it/detail/ ... 1600016907
https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1700221133
https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1700212754
https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1700220346
https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 1700212556

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zTByTo4-1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgc7qq6JsUU

MrCrow wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:57 pm

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:33 pm Are there any factions with hoplites + Samnite foot? Any/many with hoplites + impact foot? It usually goes one way or another.

Samnite foot are identical to spanish Scutari. A lot of list has spanish Scutari with offensive spearmen. For example, the list you are using in WTC.

Anyway I'm not getting why you are asking this question. There are a lot of historical example in wich offensive spearmen fought in the same army with impact foot units.

To be clear, I don't have any hoplites in my Carthaginian army. The only spearmen I have are Veteran African Spearmen which is a very different unit in terms of quality, armour and cost. Citizen Hoplites cost 42. Veteran African Spearmen cost 78. This changes everything in terms of planning and army composition.

I am much more concerned with game balance (others may take a different approach). There have been some changes to the Indian lists so things do change.

In the Carthaginian 202 BC (Hannibal in Africa) list there are a few African Spearmen at 48 which is the same cost as Mercenary Hoplites. The other list (218 BC) has even more African Spearmen with Warband and Scutarii.

I was talking generically about the use of impact + offensive spearmen in the same army.

The three armies actually have these configurations (for medium size):

APULIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 2+ 0 to 6
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 24
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

LUCANIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 3
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 7
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 19
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

ITALIAN HILL TRIBES
Armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 1
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 27
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

My first proposal is this one to "fix" the the first problem that is maybe the most important (the greek influence not represented for Apulian/Lucanian)

APULIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 2+ 0 to 6
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 4
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 20
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

LUCANIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 3
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 7
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 4
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 15
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

My second proposal intends to fix also the other problem, the luck of medium impact foot units that for sure were used by those army

APULIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 2+ 0 to 6
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Impact italian foot (samnite foot with another name but same model) / cost 42/ 0 to 5
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 3
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 20
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

LUCANIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 3
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 7
Impact italian foot (samnite foot with another name but same model) / cost 42/ 0 to 4
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 4
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 15
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

ITALIAN HILL TRIBES
Armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 1
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Impact italian foot (samnite foot with another name but same model) / cost 42/ 0 to 5
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 24
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

Another idea could be to split these lists in 2 different timeframe, doing those addings just in the second one.

If you are worried about the fact the this may cause balancing issue, I will have you know 2 things:
- the first is that those 3 factions are very poor compared to the factions with whom usually they fight; so they are already pretty umbalanced and usually used in a very small number of times if compared to other minor factions. And this is a shame because they had an important role both during the roman comquest of south italy and the greeks colonization of Magna Graecia
- the second is that the amount of impact foot ad hoplites added is very very small and it's not sufficient to overturn the way how these factions are usually used

I think that with those little fixes these faction can became both more near to their historical composition and more balanced and competitive, increasing the number of players that will play with them.

I'm also really interested to know the point of view of Richard about it.

The second proposal is extreme. You are basically completely revamping the armies. Adding impact foot and spearmen improves the lists a lot.

Perhaps the spearmen could be Mercenary Hoplites to keep cost at 48. Greek troops at work in Italy?

There is much to think about when changing an army. Any change has knock-on effects. The lists now do look quite weak. 3-4 spear units is not a lot.

Ok, lets consider just the first one...do you find it extreme too?

I don’t know the historical background that is for others to judge.

First proposal is reasonable. I like keeping Italian Foot at 7 as minimum.

Italian Hill Tribes don’t get spearmen so if historical precedent is there impact foot could work.

Out of interest, what is your reasoning for no hoplites for the Italian Hill Tribes? Greek influence was limited to the coast or something?

I have no problem with severely revamping lists for historicity, but my skepticism is more - did these peoples really fight as hoplites? There's been plenty of doubt cast on the idea that any Italic peoples besides the local Greek poleis fought in a hoplite phalanx. My understanding is that the idea that they did was based on Livy and archeological finds/depictions of the aspis, but using the aspis =/= a hoplite phalanx. The Chigi Vase for example shows a bunch of men in close order with aspis, but they also have throwing spears, not the dory - hardly indicative of a hoplite phalanx...

As a lot of assunptions made for a considerable amount of other factions, nobody knows if those warriors actually fought using a proper hoplite phalanx. Are we sure for example that the hoplites used by Campanians actually fought using it? But Campanians has 12 hoplites in their roster. This is correct and who made this choice probabily was aware that they were a mix between the oscans and the greek colonists (I just really don't know why Campanians are split in 2 identical list...maybe I should also ask this to Richard).

For Apulian and Lucanian, the situation is very similar: those people were really contaminated by greeks culture in any aspect of life, even warfare.

So at the moment lets forget about the Saminte influences and lets focus on this proposal:

APULIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 2+ 0 to 6
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 4
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 20
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

LUCANIAN
Veteran armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 3
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 7
Citizen Hoplites / cost 42 / 0 to 4
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 15
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

ITALIAN HILL TRIBES
Armoured cav / cost 60 / 1 + 0 to 1
Veteran italian foot / cost 66/ 0 to 3
Impact italian foot (samnite foot with another name but same model) / cost 42/ 0 to 5
Italian foot / cost 36 / 7 + 0 to 24
light jav / cost 24 / 1 + 0 to 6

The influence of greeks colonists among italian hill tribes was too weak to justify the use of hoplites for them. But they have for sure used impact foot. Even with this configuration I think that those faction will be both better represented and better competitive.

MrCrow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 3:58 pm As a lot of assunptions made for a considerable amount of other factions, nobody knows if those warriors actually fought using a proper hoplite phalanx. Are we sure for example that the hoplites used by Campanians actually fought using it?

Right I mean I don't think the Campanians or the Romans should be fighting that way. See Jeremy Armstrong 'War and Society in Early Rome', it makes a very strong case that it it's highly unlikely that the early Roman army looked much like the conventional view outlined by Livy. I think the early Roman army basically shouldn't be that different from its neighbors in fog terms.

For that matter I think fog gives the Greeks hoplites far too early, again the more traditional view.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:15 pm

MrCrow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 3:58 pm As a lot of assunptions made for a considerable amount of other factions, nobody knows if those warriors actually fought using a proper hoplite phalanx. Are we sure for example that the hoplites used by Campanians actually fought using it?

Right I mean I don't think the Campanians or the Romans should be fighting that way. See Jeremy Armstrong 'War and Society in Early Rome', it makes a very strong case that it it's highly unlikely that the early Roman army looked much like the conventional view outlined by Livy. I think the early Roman army basically shouldn't be that different from its neighbors in fog terms.

For that matter I think fog gives the Greeks hoplites far too early, again the more traditional view.

I think the same, but I think also that we can't ask FoG a level of detail so deep. According to me, it is ok to generally call these offensive spearmen units "hoplites" as the game already do for roman and campanians

MrCrow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:32 pm I think the same, but I think also that we can't ask FoG a level of detail so deep. According to me, it is ok to generally call these offensive spearmen units "hoplites" as the game already do for roman and campanians

I think not, because I don't think that separately deployed large dense masses of spearmen can be supported. I think instead a wealthy minority of men in these adhoc warbands equipped themselves to some extant with Greek style gear, but in fog terms the units wouldn't be offensive spearmen, due to the majority of the men being more lightly/variably equipped.

I think a small proportion of impact foot for various Italian lists is totally plausible though

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:57 pm I think a small proportion of impact foot for various Italian lists is totally plausible though

I think the same. Lets wait for Richard opinion

MrCrow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:32 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:57 pm I think a small proportion of impact foot for various Italian lists is totally plausible though

I think the same. Lets wait for Richard opinion

Which is that I do not believe that there is sufficient justification to make the changes you propose.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 6:25 am

MrCrow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:32 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:57 pm I think a small proportion of impact foot for various Italian lists is totally plausible though

I think the same. Lets wait for Richard opinion

Which is that I do not believe that there is sufficient justification to make the changes you propose.

Thank you, Richard, for participating in this discussion. May I take advantage of your willingness to share more details about your thoughts?

First of all, I would like to ask if your position regarding the current configuration of the three aforementioned factions is based on some kind of source that explicitly describes the composition of these armies, or, on the contrary, if it is based on the fact that there is little archaeological evidence—though, as you have seen from the links I posted, there is some. Those links show real artifacts, cataloged by the Italian Cultural Heritage Superintendency, and they are certainly not fakes. I’ve limited myself to showing you artifacts cataloged as weaponry, but there are also several examples of Iapygian, Daunian, and Lucanian pottery that depict warriors who look anything but ‘medium infantry.’

Furthermore, I wanted to ask why you have divided the Campanians into two time periods (even though, to me, they seem perfectly identical) and haven’t thought of doing the same, for example, for the Apulians and the Lucanians. In more than 200 years of history, in very close contact with Greek culture, the Apulians, Lucanians, and Bruttians underwent all kinds of cultural and political influences. Just think that Polybius referred to the Lucanian troops fighting alongside the Carthaginians during the First Punic War as 'Mixellenes,' which literally means 'half-Greeks.' Why couldn’t it be plausible that, among the Apulian ranks, especially following the clashes with Alexander I of Epirus, there was some heavy infantry similar to hoplites (which, in my opinion, could be perfectly represented by citizen hoplites)? Probably, dividing the Apulians and Lucanians into two separate lists and adding to the second list the modifications I suggested could well represent this evolution, which, in my view, is much more than just 'speculative.'

I sincerely appreciate, Richard, the time and effort you are willing to dedicate to this discussion.

The early Campanian list has Latin and Samnite allies, the later Campanians have no allies. Otherwise they are exactly the same.

MrCrow wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 6:21 pm First of all, I would like to ask if your position regarding the current configuration of the three aforementioned factions is based on some kind of source that explicitly describes the composition of these armies, or, on the contrary, if it is based on the fact that there is little archaeological evidence—though, as you have seen from the links I posted, there is some.

They are based on Duncan Head's analysis in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars".

I have seen no evidence to overturn his conclusions.

Those links show real artifacts, cataloged by the Italian Cultural Heritage Superintendency, and they are certainly not fakes. I’ve limited myself to showing you artifacts cataloged as weaponry, but there are also several examples of Iapygian, Daunian, and Lucanian pottery that depict warriors who look anything but ‘medium infantry.’

But are any of them armed with hoplite spears rather than javelins?

Furthermore, I wanted to ask why you have divided the Campanians into two time periods (even though, to me, they seem perfectly identical)

That was rather accidental, and there is no particularly good reason for them to be divided.

Why couldn’t it be plausible that, among the Apulian ranks, especially following the clashes with Alexander I of Epirus, there was some heavy infantry similar to hoplites (which, in my opinion, could be perfectly represented by citizen hoplites)?

But it is pure speculation, which we try to avoid. Especially just to make army lists "more interesting" (for which, a cynical observer might substitute "more effective".)

could well represent this evolution, which, in my view, is much more than just 'speculative.'

It really isn't.

If you come up with some actual evidence for hoplites or heavy infantry in those armies, I will be more than willing to listen.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 10:41 am They are based on Duncan Head's analysis in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars".

I have seen no evidence to overturn his conclusions.

I took the liberty of getting the book you mentioned, and I went on to read, for example, the paragraph about the Apuli (a people whose history I know better, being from Apulia myself).

In particular, this sentence on page 168 caught my attention: "Despite the use of the Argive or similar large round shields, and the Greek influence visible in body armor and helmet, the long spear of the Greek hoplite does not seem to have been adopted, infantry being shown with two or three throwing spears."

So, it seems to me that the main objection to the presence of hoplites among the Apulian ranks is mainly due to the fact that, according to the sources and findings, the Apulians did not use the dory. I have not yet delved into what the book says about the Lucanians, but I suspect the objection is similar.

I now understand why it is better not to include citizen hoplites among the Apulian ranks.

However, this does not mean that there was no type of heavy infantry among the Apulian ranks. The book itself, shortly after the sentence I posted, says that armored troops were a minority but confirms their presence. It even shows a reconstruction (figure 157), which in Field of Glory likely corresponds to the Veteran Italian Foot: an armored infantryman with a "large round shields".

At this point, though, I would like to ask you something about the Veteran Italian Foot: why are they considered medium infantry and not heavy? Personally, I doubt that, carrying an Argive shield like that, they could have had the same mobility as, for example, the Thorakitai, who carried a more manageable thureos.

Thank you so much, Richard, for your willingness to provide these clarifications. I truly appreciate it.