Comments and suggestions about Early Achaemenid Persians

[caliban66]

Greetings. I had the chance to play with my favourite army, EAP, and enjoyed a lot. After reading Herodotus and Xenophon several timpes, I found some detais that can be improved, though, in my opinion. I hope you find these comments interesting. I´ll try to refer each comment to these historical sources, so, at least, they will be “rear-supported”.

a) Asiatic hoplites, both lidian and ionian.- These hoplites are represented as offensive spearmen, as medizing teban allies and, in general, greek hoplites. Considering that persians had conquered both of them during the sixth century BC, during the conquer of Lidia and Ionian cities, and even later, during the Ionian revolt, we can suppose that Persians had some expectations of greek hoplite behaviour when they first tried to invade Greece, during the fist Persian/Greek war, in 490 BC. But, if we read Herodotus´ description of Marathon, we find the following text: (I´m translating from my Spanish edition, ) “ Once the deployment was completed, and the omens seemed favourable, the Athenians ran towards the Persians, who were eight “stadiums” away (about a mile) […] The Persians got ready to encounter them, and considered it was madness, for the Athenians were few, and had not archers nor cavalry. […] for Athenians, among all the greeks we know, were the first to use the “running charge” against their enemies…”. Herodotus, History, VI, 112.
Well, my vision of this paragraph is that persians got surprised by the hoplite charge. But, if they knew Asiatic hoplites, how would they be surprised? Well, in my opinion, this shows that Asiatic hoplites did not use the same tactics that Athenians and other greeks. And so, offensive spearmen should be applied only to greek hoplites in this period. Asiatic hoplites may be then defensive spearmen, at least, before the Persians wars against greek cities.

b) Sparabara. Well, I must confess its behaviour during the game did not matched with my expectations. They´re actually archers with light spear POA. That is, they get POA only during the impact phase. My vision is that this does not fit with historical descriptions, and I´ll try to show out some evidences.

The spara was a kind of big rectangular shield, carried by the leader of each row of ten archers. This organization is described by Xenophon. Well, the leader carried the shield and a spear, and also bow, since sometimes the whole row shot. Before the invasion of Greece, the Persians had fought against several enemies in Asia. These battles were often fought by archers on both sides, who shot until they ran out of arrows, and then they charge against each other, as we can see in these two examples:
“Tomiris, now that Cirus ignored her, after raising all her troops, sent them against Cirus. This battle, among all the ones fought between barbarians, was the toughtest one, and was like this: first they, being separated, shot arrows to each others until they ran out of them, but, after, coming close quarters, with spears had daggers they attacked each other…” Herodotus, I, 214. Battle against Massagetae.
“-[…] And so, don´t you think, Cirus, that the Persians you bring with you are few?.- asked Ciaxares.
-Wether they´re few or not, we´ll find out later. But, tell me, in which way all our enemies fight.- answered Cirus.
- Nearly all of them fight in the same way, for both their and our ranks include archers and spearmen.
- And so it´s obvious that we have to shoot them with such weapons…- said Cirus” Xenophon. Ciropaedia, II, 7.

Well, considering the parabolic trajectory of an arrow shot, it´s obvious that the spara was not designed for protection against arrows, but to protect the archers from close combat. In fact, considering that Persians had to encounter enemy cavalry several times in open terrain, I think we all agree that horses are not eager to throw themselves against a compact and steady wall of big shields. A charging horse would rather stop before the spara, and by the time the rider could control the animal, there would be at last nine Persians aiming at him, for he would have become a good target, standing over the spara due to the horse height.
Against infantry, the spara wall may not have been such effective against charges (as we have read in Herodotus´description of Marathon), but after the initial charge, the spara wall must have been quite a good protection, and here´s my point. My hypothesis is that a steady sparabara rank was quite a good advantage during melees.
Evidence 1.- Mind that Persians had successfully encountered lidian and asian hoplites. Though not showing offensive tactics, the Persians had to fight in close combat with them (see Herodotus I, 80, battle of Cirus against the lidians).
Evidence 2.- During the deployment of Platea, we can read this: “[…] and once they arrived, they formed in the following way: in front of the spartans, Marodonius deployed the persians. Since they were more, their ranks were deeper and its front wider, standing also in front of Tegean soldiers. And, having he chosen the toughest among the persians, he placed them just in front of the Spartans” Herodotus, IX, 31. Well, after Marathon and Termopilae, the Persians may have expected to come close quarters with Spartans, and knowing it, Mardonius places the Persians in front of them. Why? Because he expected to fight at last with the same chances than Spartans. That is, the Persians did not refuse close combat, being confident, even after their previous experience against greek hoplites, in their steady spara walls.
Evidence 3.- Herodotus´s description of Platea: “ […] The tegeans were the first to initiate the offensive, advancing against the barbarians, followed by Spartans, and the Persians encountered them, having dropped their bows[…] First, there was a combat around the spara wall, and once it fragmented, there came a violent combat around the sanctuary.[…] The Persians were not less strong nor brave, but lacked then the big shields and were not so skilled”. Herodotus IX, 62. That is, while the spara wall does not fragment, Persians stand still, but once it opens, the better equipment and skill of Spartans unbalance the fight.
Evidence 4.- Battle of Micalae “ Well, as long as the Persians held the spara wall, they defended themselves and suffered no disadvantage during the battle.[…] But once the Athenians made it fall, they engaged the Persians, who, after holding and defending during a long time, finally ran to their fort”. Herodotus, XI, 102.

Well, what this comment shows is the way the spara wall worked: while it stands, the Persians are not in disadvantage in close combat, even against average hoplites. Once the front rank breaks, the Persians suffer a lot of casualties, for they are not equipped for individual close combat.

I think the current light spear POA does not reflect this behaviour, since once the charge is made. Persians count no advantage. In fact, I don´t see current POA´s able to reflect its fighting style. So I suggest you the following POA, which can be added to many other troops along History.
- Impact POA: Pavise, +, if STEADY and against any mounted non-shock troop.
And thus, the following modifications:
- Impact POA: Foot with light spear, +, unless charging mounted shock troops OR STEADY PAVISE.
- Melee POA. Better armour OR NON-FRAGMENTED PAVISE, +, keeping the same exceptions.

With this suggestions, we get the following:
- During the Impact phase, Non shock cavalry and medium infantry gets no net POA´s against STEADY pavise, unless impact foot. Pavises are better against cavalry and non offensive infantry. You need to be STEADY to resist the impact, though.
- During the melee phase, we see pavises fight more balanced with heavy infantry. Better armoured and skilled infantry get´s still net + POA (better armour and swordmen/spearmen/pikemen), but spara, while they do not fragment, have a greater staying power, which, IMO, fits better with all shown above. Once the sparabara fragment, they fight on their own, and so get no POA unless they have individual better armour. Note that, with the text I wrote, sparabara infantry cannot add the better armour POA to the one of being non-fragmented pavise. This reflects that the pavise gives protection to the whole unit, while, once they fragment, it´s the individual equipment which counts.

[nikgaukroger]

Quick comment on the first part.

It is, IMO, clear from the passage quoted that the Persians are surprised that the Greeks charge because they are so few and not archers ar cavalry rather than it was hoplites charging - i.e. they felt the hoplites should not have charged in the circumstances rather than it was a novel tactic to the Persians.

I think the authors can cover the second part better than I as they have looked at this interaction as part of the development

[caliban66]

Quick comment on the first part.

It is, IMO, clear from the passage quoted that the Persians are surprised that the Greeks charge because they are so few and not archers ar cavalry rather than it was hoplites charging - i.e. they felt the hoplites should not have charged in the circumstances rather than it was a novel tactic to the Persians.

I think the authors can cover the second part better than I as they have looked at this interaction as part of the development

It may seem so, but don´t forget the part in which Herodotus writes that the athenians were the first ones to use that tactic.

[nikgaukroger]

He says the Athenians were the first to do it at the run not that they were the first to charge with hoplites.

[jlopez]

Quick comment on the first part.

It is, IMO, clear from the passage quoted that the Persians are surprised that the Greeks charge because they are so few and not archers ar cavalry rather than it was hoplites charging - i.e. they felt the hoplites should not have charged in the circumstances rather than it was a novel tactic to the Persians.

I think the authors can cover the second part better than I as they have looked at this interaction as part of the development

It may seem so, but don´t forget the part in which Herodotus writes that the athenians were the first ones to use that tactic.

It's a bit before my period but I don't recall the Persians fighting pitched battles against Ionians. Wasn't it more sieges of city-states?

Regards,

Julian

[caliban66]

Hi, Julian. No, although Cirus conquered ionan cities by siege, persians knew ionians quite well. Ionians fought not only against persians, but also beside them after being conquered. And, during the ionian revolt, we find a battle between both, a persian victory: " And so the persian found out that ionans had left Sardis. Seeking them, they reached ionians near Ephesus. Then, the ionians deployed in order or battle, and engaging with persians, suffered a huge defeat." Herodotus, V, 102.
Mind also that offensive phalanx was develovep to fight infantry against infantry by greek cities , while ionians cities had to encounter very different armies, asiatic armies, with more cavalry, e.g.

[dfmbrown]

The Persians met Ionians in the 540s with the conquest of Lydia and Asia-minor.

And after the conquest of Egypt in the 520s, the Ionian and Carian garrisons there were taken over as going concerns by the Persians, and Carian exile communities appear in Babylon early on.

I think there are other Persain victories vs Greeks in Asia (and Africa) during this 540-500 Period - just don't expect the Greek sources to spell them out.

In the 490-470s we see Greek hoplites defeat Persian line infantry, but the sourses describe tough fights.

regards

david b

[terrys]

The combat between the Persian foot and greek hoplites isn't as one-sided as you seem to think.

If you take 6 hoplites - heavy foot/protected/offensive spear (42pts) against
6 sparabara - medium foot/protected/bow/light spear (36pts)
We get the following:

Sparabara get 3 close range shots at the greeks on the way in. (with good timing)
Allowing for a general in the vicinity, the likelyhood of the Greeks testing and failing over 3 rounds is 54%

If the Greeks hit the Persians disrupted, then they will lose the Impact phase 79% of the time, with the Persians losing 8%.
If they hit the Persians while still steady, they lose the impact 50% of the time against the Persians 20%.
NB..... This is because of the additional 3 dice on a 5+ that the Persians get for their rear rank of bow.

Adding these percentages and calculating the likelyhood of failing their CT after impact, then the Hoplites will end up Fragmented at the end of the impact phase 43% of the time.
Which means that they will lose.

I think that a 57:43 advantage to the hoplites is reasonable. (and I haven't factored in the additional base that the Persians could afford)

[caliban66]

The combat between the Persian foot and greek hoplites isn't as one-sided as you seem to think.

If you take 6 hoplites - heavy foot/protected/offensive spear (42pts) against
6 sparabara - medium foot/protected/bow/light spear (36pts)
We get the following:

Sparabara get 3 close range shots at the greeks on the way in. (with good timing)
Allowing for a general in the vicinity, the likelyhood of the Greeks testing and failing over 3 rounds is 54%

If the Greeks hit the Persians disrupted, then they will lose the Impact phase 79% of the time, with the Persians losing 8%.
If they hit the Persians while still steady, they lose the impact 50% of the time against the Persians 20%.
NB..... This is because of the additional 3 dice on a 5+ that the Persians get for their rear rank of bow.

Adding these percentages and calculating the likelyhood of failing their CT after impact, then the Hoplites will end up Fragmented at the end of the impact phase 43% of the time.
Which means that they will lose.

I think that a 57:43 advantage to the hoplites is reasonable. (and I haven't factored in the additional base that the Persians could afford)

Good numbers, but mind that those are my final expectations. You´re comparing protected hoplites, but during Persian Wars, hoplites are Armoured. Try to redo those averages with ++ on melee phase for hoplites. We should compare against armoured hoplites since those are our only historical data avaible.

[nikgaukroger]

Good numbers, but mind that those are my final expectations. You´re comparing protected hoplites, but during Persian Wars, hoplites are Armoured. Try to redo those averages with ++ on melee phase for hoplites. We should compare against armoured hoplites since those are our only historical data avaible.

Well as I recall the Persian foot lost all their encounters with mainland Greeks so ...

[rbodleyscott]

You´re comparing protected hoplites, but during Persian Wars, hoplites are Armoured. Try to redo those averages with ++ on melee phase for hoplites. We should compare against armoured hoplites since those are our only historical data avaible.

Opinions differ as to whether hoplites of the war against Xerxes had a high enough proportion of metal armoured men to count as armoured. Hence the lists allow them to be armoured or protected between 490 and 460 BC IIRC. So if you think Protected gives a better representation, the lists allow it.

OTOH the Persian list allows the Immortals to be graded as Armoured. Most of the Persian foot that put up a good fight at Plataea were Immortals, so maybe Armoured hoplites vs armoured Immortals gets the right effect.

A lot depends on how you elect to set up the refight from the options available in the lists.

[caliban66]

Well, let´s see from another point of view. Sparabara actually act during melee phase just like thracians javelinmen.
Mind that with the wording I propose, Sparabara would still be - against armoured hoplites. Against protected hoplites, would be 0 net POA´s, but mind that what Herodotus says about spara walls is that while they are "steady", persians and hoplites are balanced. Only after the spara wall breaks, persians begin to suffer. Also, medium foot gets -1 in CT´s against heavy foot.

[rbodleyscott]

Well, let´s see from another point of view. Sparabara actually act during melee phase just like thracians javelinmen.
Mind that with the wording I propose, Sparabara would still be - against armoured hoplites. Against protected hoplites, would be 0 net POA´s, but mind that what Herodotus says about spara walls is that while they are "steady", persians and hoplites are balanced. Only after the spara wall breaks, persians begin to suffer. Also, medium foot gets -1 in CT´s against heavy foot.

From a design point of view we took the view that if the sparabara failed to beat the hoplites in the impact phase, it would be safe to assume that the sparabara "wall" will be broken soon after. After all it is made from wicker shields, it is not really a wall. How hard would it be to break?

Looking at the whole interaction and not just at one part of it, the Persians have a much better chance against hoplites in the open than Thracian MF javelinmen do. The whole interaction is what is important.

The bottom line is that we have played several games with (armoured) hoplites against Persian infantry, and although the hoplites have the advantage (in the melee) it is far from a walkover. The Immortals in particular were very hard to beat - and in fact have beaten my hoplites on some occasions.

At present we see no need for a change to the rules at present. Further testing may change our opinion - but this is unlikely to happen before publication.

[caliban66]

Well as I recall the Persian foot lost all their encounters with mainland Greeks so ...

Yes, but, for example, in Marathon, persians defeat the greeks in the center while lost on both flanks. Herodotus says that in the center, the athenians deployed less deeply in order to have more ranks on their flanks. When the phalanx did not have enough ranks, persians had the advantage.

[rbodleyscott]

Well as I recall the Persian foot lost all their encounters with mainland Greeks so ...

Yes, but, for example, in Marathon, persians defeat the greeks in the center while lost on both flanks. Herodotus says that in the center, the athenians deployed less deeply in order to have more ranks on their flanks. When the phalanx did not have enough ranks, persians had the advantage.

Which is exactly what would happen in FoG.

If the hoplites are only 1 base deep they don't get their spear POA at all, which puts them at a severe disadvantage in the impact phase (net - POA plus the Persians get extra dice for support shooting). In the melee phase they will have half as many dice as the Persians, which will more than compensate for their 1 POA advatage if they are armoured and the Persians are not. (Assuming they even make it into contact, given the number of shooting dice likely to be aimed at them on the way in).

[terrys]

Good numbers, but mind that those are my final expectations. You´re comparing protected hoplites, but during Persian Wars, hoplites are Armoured. Try to redo those averages with ++ on melee phase for hoplites. We should compare against armoured hoplites since those are our only historical data avaible.

If the hoplites are armoured, then the chance of them being DISR after 3 rounds of fire is 35% (instead of 54%)
This still gives the Persians a 60% chance of winning the impact phase.
A rough calculation (I haven't got the CT simulator on this machine) gives armoured Greeks a 22% chance of losing FRG'd, and a 22% chance of losing DISR'd

Armoured hoplites cost 50% more than protected Sparabara.


I also can't think of an instance where the persians beat mainland Greek hoplites. I guess that's why they hired so many greek mercenaries.
I think the Early Archaemenids are a great army - I only wish I had one - maybe my next project.
I'd certainly be prepared to field 3 units of Sparabara against every 2 of armoured Greek hoplites.

[caliban66]

Which is exactly what would happen in FoG.

If the hoplites are only 1 base deep they don't get their spear POA at all, which puts them at a severe disadvantage in the impact phase (net - POA plus the Persians get extra dice for support shooting). In the melee phase they will have half as many dice as the Persians, which will more than compensate for their 1 POA advatage if they are armoured and the Persians are not. (Assuming they even make it into contact, given the number of shooting dice likely to be aimed at them on the way in).

But also with my suggestions. The difference is that actually, their POA only applies during impact phase. My point is that unlikely, it may apply during the melee phase rather than during impact phase. Against foot, pavise gives no POA. Spara were big shields, that may not be easy to handle during the fast and brutal actions that impact phase represents. Against infantry, its main advantage would be to maintain the enemies stuck to them after the initial contact, making them become a good target for persian shorter spears and akinakes. But against non-shock cavalry, it may affect the impact phase, since it becomes an obstacle for horses at the run, which should make them stop before them. What Herodotus describes is a static way of fighting, able to deal with heavy infantry at least for a while, as long as the spara wall stands. But once the formation disorders, their chances decrease very quickly.

[rbodleyscott]

But also with my suggestions. The difference is that actually, their POA only applies during impact phase. My point is that unlikely, it may apply during the melee phase rather than during impact phase. Against foot, pavise gives no POA. Spara were big shields, that may not be easy to handle during the fast and brutal actions that impact phase represents. Against infantry, its main advantage would be to maintain the enemies stuck to them after the initial contact, making them become a good target for persian shorter spears and akinakes. But against non-shock cavalry, it may affect the impact phase, since it becomes an obstacle for horses at the run, which should make them stop before them. What Herodotus describes is a static way of fighting, able to deal with heavy infantry at least for a while, as long as the spara wall stands. But once the formation disorders, their chances decrease very quickly.

I understand. However our view is that the present rules satisfactorily model the OVERALL interaction without the need to introduce a new POA capability to the rule set.

We are trying to model Ancient/Medieval warfare using the simplest set of rules possible. This inevitably means abstracting out some of the detail.

While your proposal would certainly add some flavour it would also add another line to the combat charts. This may seem trivial when you are talking about 1 line, but we have kept the rules as simple as they currently are by resisting the temptation to add a line here and a line there. There are many many other lines that we could add if we did not resist this temptation, and in fact, during the rules development process we have taken out many lines that have, on reflection, been deemed non-essential.

That aside, the rules publication schedule is in any case beyond the point when we could consider adding new capabilities. (Yes I know it doesn't seem a very big change, but that is the situation).

[caliban66]

Oh, well, at least I´m glad to have shared some comments that deserved such an interesting discussion. I would have loved to test this list a bit earlier