Slitherine

Why do hoplites in the Classical Greek list lose the option to be armored for the later period covered by the list?

Is there any indication in the classical sources that the hoplites protection ceased to be heavier than most of their opponents at least up to the time of Phillip and Alexander? While there are comments in sources that there were changes in Hoplite armor and that metal bell cuirases were replaced by other types such as linen (or linen with metal reinforcement), I do not believe that there is any overall indication for this period that Greek hoplites became less effective and less well protected as heavy infantry versus their historical opponents. An option to down grade hoplite armour from armoured to protecteded makes some sense in the list but with the overall top down design philosophy for FoG it seems wrong to completely eliminate or substantially restrict the armoured hoplite option, at least prior to 330-320 B.C.

Chris

I was under the impression that Hoplites were thought to have gone back to the heavy armour around the time of Alexander.

I would think that with a large shield and metal helmet and leg protectors, the difference between metal or linen body armour couldn't have made much difference.

Completely agree. I think later hoplites are under-rated in FoG because of their protected classification. The theory that hoplites went from bell cuirass > to linothorax > to unarmored, is just that, a theory based on small amounts of information and a lot of speculation.

In game terms this makes later hoplites quite a bit inferior to pikes.

A different theory holds that the Macedonians introduced the pike as a way to compensate for the fact that they couldn't afford real hoplite equipment. This theory believes that later hoplites and pikes were about equal in combat power, the pike having the longer reach and the hoplites having the heavier armor. This can only be accomplished in Fog by allowing the later hoplites to be armored.

As a comparison, Roman Hastati are given the option to be protected or armored. Why?, because they could have a metal plate on their chest? On average I doubt if a Roman Haatati was more heavily armored than a later greek hoplite.

And how often do we see Later Hoplite armies? Given a choice the gamer will almost always choose the earlier armored version.

Hal

will05 wrote:I was under the impression that Hoplites were thought to have gone back to the heavy armour around the time of Alexander.

I would think that with a large shield and metal helmet and leg protectors, the difference between metal or linen body armour couldn't have made much difference.

I do not recall reading anything in classical sources for the Peloponnesian War or for the period between then and the wars of Phillip and Alexander that would seem to indicate that the effectiveness of hoplite armor dropped. Their role in warfare decreased in importance to some degree with the increased use of light and mounted troops but they seem to have continued to be the epitome of heavy infantry.

Chris

Delbruck wrote:A different theory holds that the Macedonians introduced the pike as a way to compensate for the fact that they couldn't afford real hoplite equipment. This theory believes that later hoplites and pikes were about equal in combat power, the pike having the longer reach and the hoplites having the heavier armor. This can only be accomplished in Fog by allowing the later hoplites to be armored.

I knew a different version about pike introduction. In my version Philip II introduced pike (sarissa) because this kind of formation required lesser time to train warriors than hoplite formation. In the mind of Philip, and his son Alexander, this was a defensive formation and the attack role was exerted by cavalry. References I know don't show a significant reduction in armor for Macedonian pikemen; on the contrary, I have references about use of Spartiates to fight without body armor.

I suppose the reduced cost of the non-armoured hoplites in some way makes up for their reduced effectiveness.

Depends whether you see the reduction in hoplites' armour as down to economic decline or to a change in military doctrine. If the latter then the protected hoplites should perhaps be given some other advantages (drilled? sword ability?) to make up for it.

It would be interesting to know the list designers' rationale for the cut off date for the armored hoplite option. In Xenophon's Anabasis at the battle of Cunaxa and in the march cross country after Cyrus the Younger's death, the Persians seemed unwilling to fight against hoplites in a pitched battle so it appears that the hoplites retained their fighting ability at this point. This almost 60 years after the cut off date for armored hoplites.

Iphikrates proposed reforms in the 390's were then to lighten hoplite equipment. This is 70 years after the cut off date for armored and would seem unnecessary if all hoplites were already only wearing light armor that would qualify as protected. (Of course the Classical Greek lists do not appear to have the option to get Iphikratean Hoplites which seems a bit odd as well since the end date for the list at 279 B.C. is well after the death of Alexander the Great

Chris

batesmotel wrote:It would be interesting to know the list designers' rationale for the cut off date for the armored hoplite option.

This has been discussed at length before. I suggest searching for the old thread.

rbodleyscott wrote:

benny wrote:Does Armoured' means metal armour in AoW? If so, I'd be interested to learn why hoplites in the Persians Wars are Armoured whereas later ones are Protected. I don't claim to be an expert by any means but what I've read does not suggest any change in the level of protection during the 5th century. The bronze bell corselet fell out of general use in the 6th century, well before the Persian Wars, and from then on I'd understood linen and leather corselets were the norm, apart from the occasional wealthy individual splashing out on a bronze 'muscled' cuirass.

The bronze bell corselet was replaced by the composite corselet, comprised of leather covered with iron scales. This was still in use in the Persian War period. The proportion of hoplites still so equipped at this stage is uncertain.

Our army lists therefore allow a cross over period between 490 BC and 460 BC when hoplites can be optionally graded as armoured or protected. This date range was decided on the advice of experts.

Are you suggesting that 'armour' was a key factor in Greek success in the Persian Wars? This was really where my question started. If Scots spearmen and Greek hoplites are modelled in similar ways, how does AoW represent their different historical results against massed archers?

...
Even in an AoW refight of Thermopylae, with the Spartans stationary, as Superior Drilled Protected spearmen with a general they would not be likely to collapse from the archery that could be brought to bear on them.

I assume this is the previous discussion you mentioned. Is it your opinion that Greek hoplites suffered a significant degradation in combat ability some time in the period between 490 and 460 B.C.? Certainly from all the discussion of using the Classical Greek list in the forum here it is generally agreed that armoured offensive spearmen are significantly more effective than protected ones. Yet you have this significant decline in effectiveness occur during the period when the hoplite was effectively the best heavy infantry in the world purely because of the change from composite corselet to the linothroax? Is there any evidence in the ancient sources to indicate that this change in the type of armor in most general use for Hoplites resulted in them being significantly more vulnerable to bow fire or less effective in melee?

If the decision in this case is purely based on whether there is "enough" metal in the cuirass used or not, this seems distinctly at odds with the philosophy that not everyone who has a lance should be a lancer. Of course, a hoplite with a linothorax still has metal greaves, a metal helmet and a large metal faced shield, so he would still have a significant amount of "metal" armor.

Chris

p.s. Quoted text is from the old thread: posting.php?mode=quote&p=19855

It is unfortunate that there is a step in the effectiveness of hoplites of different dates, but it is harder to say whether the earlier ones may be over-effective under the rules or the later ones under-effective. In particular, we are happy with the relative effect of Macedonian pikemen and Protected hoplites. As I can testify from using them a lot in Achaemenid Persian tournament armies, armoured hoplites tend to win against Macedonian pikemen on average, which would not be the correct historical effect for later hoplites. Whether it is the correct historical effect for earlier hoplites is unknowable as they never met Macedonian pikemen.

rbodleyscott wrote:It is unfortunate that there is a step in the effectiveness of hoplites of different dates, but it is harder to say whether the earlier ones may be over-effective under the rules or the later ones under-effective. In particular, we are happy with the relative effect of Macedonian pikemen and Protected hoplites. As I can testify from using them a lot in Achaemenid Persian tournament armies, armoured hoplites tend to win against Macedonian pikemen on average, which would not be the correct historical effect for later hoplites. Whether it is the correct historical effect for earlier hoplites is unknowable as they never met Macedonian pikemen.

Thanks for the further explanation. This reasoning seems more consistent with overall FoG philosophy.

I would have thought that armoured spear against protected pikes would be much like pikes against legionaries in that whichever side became unsteady first would be the one hugely likely to loose. With the pikes having a slight edge at impact and even in melee, I would think that it would be about even with a slight tilt in their favor when all the troops are average.

One thing that has occurred to me is that it might have worked better if steady pikes and spears caused all armor to be ignored, similarly to the way it is for chariots and elephants, on the assumption that when facing a wall of spear/pike tips the armor of the pikemen and of their attackers would be equally irrelevant. If spear and pike had this effect rather than negating sword factors, game balance would remain similar to what it is now in melee and the advantage of being armoured for hoplites or the huge one it would be if there were armoured pikes would be significantly reduced.

Historically, it doesn't seem clear to me that pikes, at least for Phillip and Alexander should have a significant advantage over hoplites. In all of Phillip's and Alexander's battles against hoplites, it does not seem like the battle was decided by the clash of the phalanxes. So maybe later hoplites should be the equal of the Macedonian pikes?

Chris

So maybe later hoplites should be the equal of the Macedonian pikes?

Would make the rules simpler. Remove pikes from the game.

batesmotel wrote:Historically, it doesn't seem clear to me that pikes, at least for Phillip and Alexander should have a significant advantage over hoplites. In all of Phillip's and Alexander's battles against hoplites, it does not seem like the battle was decided by the clash of the phalanxes. So maybe later hoplites should be the equal of the Macedonian pikes?

As I said in a previous post, it's very likely Philip introduced Macedonian pikes because he have no time to train his men as hoplites. The use of sarissa simplified a lot training, because your men needed only to keep formation, not to fight as a cooperative unit (very simplified explanation).
If you are planning a campaign, or even a scenario, I suggest you to write your own army list. You cannot demand that an army list of a FOG book has the characteristic you need to obtain the effect you have in mind, or you found on an history book.

why cant we demand that ?

My understanding was that Phillip was constantly drilling his soldiers. At Chaeronea he seems to have used the side way movement that seems to have been inherent in part time Hoplites looking for protection of the shield of the man next to them. This created a gap because the full time Sacred Band didn't do this & Alex took the cavalry through and surrounded the Sacred Band. However Phillip also put his Hypasists against the Athenian contingent, who were said to have not fought a battle for many years (they used mercenaries a lot). So it looks like he exploited a gap to get his cavalry through with commander in the front rank and attack the flank of the enemies best BG, whilst matching his own best foot BG with commander (himself) in the front rank to the enemies worst heavy foot. The Pike in the middle were just meant to hold the line.

This last is what the pike seemed to be for. Bear in mind that the pikes were thought to have not been much longer than the spear at the time.

It looks to me that it was in fact the trainnig that made the pikemen more effective than the Hoplite. Now this would work in the rules if three ranks of pike were to cost the same as two ranks of spear, but they don't. However the difference is quite small, but the battle group even sizes mean that there is a disadvantage going with three ranks in an eight block, which all my pike armies are based on.......