Portrayal of Hoplites

[Ender Wiggin]

Why are hoplites so darn flexible? They can be used just as Roman Legionaries can. Both get equally shredded when flanked and really the only difference is that Romans get javs and the hoplites get spears.

Historically, the nature of the aspis, where half of it was off to your side rather uselessly, preempted individual combat.

[Frtigern]

Actually, I don't find them all that flexible. Their stamina is not that great. To remedy this I use them in guard mode to tie down enemy heavy infantry or to protect flanks against cavalry. All units do not do well if flanked, unless they're elite with ridiculously high discipline, training, defense and morale, but if flanked, you simply turn the formation towards the attacker and send another unit to flank the flankers, while watching your new flanks. But the one big difference is their different formation sizes. The Romans have a looser formation for rotating ranks through to the rear and to the front. This means when they meet a hoplite phalanx, the hoplites will get flanked on both sides, and eventually the rear. They will hold their ground for a while, and the Romans will lose men, but eventually the hoplites will break as swordsmen are better suited at killing on the flanks. The Greeks perfected the forward pushing phalanx not the all direction pushing phalanx, and they did it fighting other Greeks who fought in the same way.

Historically, the nature of the aspis, where half of it was off to your side rather uselessly, preempted individual combat.

The aspis was not useless because the other half was off to your side. It protected the spear holding side of the man to the left of you, where each shield overlapped the other, while the rank behind you held their spear through. Traditional Greek-style hoplites are the ones without any secondaries like the Classical Hoplites, Spartans, Distinguished Hoplites, Syracusan Hoplites and Greek General's Bodyguards. They fought in this fashion, but after fighting the Persians, Celts and Romans the Greeks began to adapt their hoplites into a more flexible and mobile unit. Lighter shield, armor, swords, and javelins. As such their tactics changed as their enemies changed. Natural evolution of warfare. Below is an organization of all of the "hoplite-like" units in EB, organized into groups of the weapons they brought into combat. You can have a look yourself here:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/

Dense formation spearmen with javelins
The Romans units usually carry swords, unless they're Triarii or Camillan Principes and Post Marian Elite Legionary Light Infantry (who both carry javelins and spears). There are spearmen who aren't Roman, who fight in a hoplite phalanx and also carry javelins like Libyan Heavy Spearmen, Iberian Medium Spearmen, Illyrian Spearmen, Celto-Hellenic Infantry, Dacian Heavy Phalanx, Helvetii Phalanx, Lusotannan Medium Spearmen, Hellenic Spearmen, Hellenic Heavy Spearmen, Chatti Spearmen, Sabean Noble Infantry, Hellenic Elite Spearmen, Germanic Naked Fanatic Spearmen, and Celtic Naked Spearmen.

Dense formation spearmen with swords
The Greek Heavy Hoplite Phalanx, Ptolemaic Royal Guard, Sacred Band Infantry, Dacian Light Phalanx, Indo-Hellenic Medium Infantry, Persian Hoplites, and Babylonian Heavy Spearmen carry swords and are comparable to Eastern Imperial Heavy Auxiliary Infantry Cohort.

Dense formation spearmen with spears as secondaries
Then there are hoplites like the Hypaspistai (aka Hellenistic Royal Guard), Massilian Hoplites, Baktrian Royal Guard, Galatian Heavy Spearmen, Elite Dacian Infantry, Gallic Noble Infantry, Germanic Mercenary General, Germanic Bodyguard, and Arverni Nobles, who actually have swords as primary weapon but have spears as a secondary.

Any of these in a well balanced army of missile, cavalry and infantry units under a competent commander will defeat a Roman army, but the thing that Romans did that made them so unique was their professionalism. The army of the late Republic-early Imperial was the most professional ancient army of the time. They had the manpower AND the logistics to sustain a campaign, and instead of using part time soldiers they created a full time army, which is unique because most city states cannot sustain soldiers for longer than a season of fighting, except those over paid palace guards who never saw combat. They usually faced armies composed of every able bodied man given a spear and a shield. The Romans had highly disciplined, trained, and equipped soldiers who killed on command. The Spartans may have been the only city-state to have such a high proportion of it's army with that kind of professionalism, but lacked the creativity and ambition of the Romans.

[FrisianDude]

Frtigern, I love your big post there.

Chatti Spearmen

and 'normal' Dugundiz too. Both have 1.1 mass, at least, that's the denseness of their formation, correct? Gaut Spearmen and Chauci Spearmen are slightly more 'massive' though, though in my Sweboz game I didn't really notice them having wider formations; I only really noticed had by far the best stats of the Druxhtis/Dugundiz spearmen. Gaisolitho Aljod and [http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=celtic%20infantry%20batacorii&text=&ownership=any&class=any&category=any]Batacorii[/url] also seem to qualify there, don't they?

Edit; I also just noticed the Gauts are trained rather than highly trained the others are. So they're better but more likely to break. Heh.

[Entropy Judge]

Both have 1.1 mass, at least, that's the denseness of their formation, correct?

Mass is the ... well, mass of the formation, not its density. It's how well they push other units (High Mass means you push Harder, which is why it's extremely difficult to push Pikes around); the formation density is governed by the spacing and Training.

Edit; I also just noticed the Gauts are trained rather than highly trained the others are. So they're better but more likely to break. Heh.

Training has to do with unit density and how well they keep formation; Morale and Discipline are governing factors for how quickly a unit breaks, so the Chatti are the best (12 Morale + Disciplined) followed by the Gauts (12 Morale + Impetuous) followed by the standard Dugundiz and Chauci (11 Morale + Impetuous).

[Frtigern]

Frtigern, I love your big post there.
and 'normal' Dugundiz too. Both have 1.1 mass, at least, that's the denseness of their formation, correct? Gaut Spearmen and Chauci Spearmen are slightly more 'massive' though, though in my Sweboz game I didn't really notice them having wider formations; I only really noticed had by far the best stats of the Druxhtis/Dugundiz spearmen. Gaisolitho Aljod and Batacorii also seem to qualify there, don't they?

Edit; I also just noticed the Gauts are trained rather than highly trained the others are. So they're better but more likely to break. Heh.

Thanks, yes the Chauci, Celto-German, Gaut, and Belgae are also included in the "Dense formation spearmen with javelins" sections. As well as the Celtic and Noricum spearmen. There are so many, it's easy to miss a few.

[Entropy Judge]

Why are hoplites so darn flexible? They can be used just as Roman Legionaries can.

It might be an engine limitation; you can't really model the different combat styles effectively, so units tend to be similar in function.

[Ender Wiggin]

What they could have done to reflect this was jack hoplite shield stat way up (And heck, many of the elites have big metal faced shields anyway) and drop defense skill like a rock. Anyway, that was my point about the aspis. It's great, when you're in formation. When you're fighting mono a mono, it sucks.

[amelius]

What they could have done to reflect this was jack hoplite shield stat way up (And heck, many of the elites have big metal faced shields anyway) and drop defense skill like a rock. Anyway, that was my point about the aspis. It's great, when you're in formation. When you're fighting mono a mono, it sucks.

Thats why hoplites are supposed to fight in the traditional hoplite formation, with hoplites being stretched out like this



just imagine a lot longer, and its important for the hoplite line to just as long as the enemies line to prevent any flanks.

The Romans fought very differently from the Greeks, checkerboard formation vs hoplite formation

It might be an engine limitation; you can't really model the different combat styles effectively, so units tend to be similar in function.

This pretty much.

[Perdiccas]

nicely written and instructive Frtigern

[FrisianDude]

I wasn't entirely sure whether you wanted to mention some examples (in which case you had quite a lot) or if you wanted to write an exhaustive list (in which case there were some gaps). A thing I'm wondering though, is it the 'mass' number which determines how far troops stand from each other or is it the level of training/discipline?

[Frtigern]

Mass is what I thought governed unit density. Higher mass number meant a tighter formation. Entropy Judge mentioned how training has something to do with formation. This is still true in today's armies. No training=poor formation. Whereas morale and discipline equal the unit's staying power. I look at the Spartans for example. Mass of 1.22 which is as high as you can get and they are highly trained. Greek Light Hoplites on the other hand are only trained and have a mass of 1.1, which is also the same for the Hellenic Spearmen, who wear linen armor and a thureos shield. But you can have spearmen that are highly trained and have a density of less than 1.22. I think that is a difference represents the unit's more flexible nature, as well as the changing away from the aspis overlapping, tight hoplite phalanx into the wider thureos shieldwall.

[Entropy Judge]

Mass is what I thought governed unit density. Higher mass number meant a tighter formation. Entropy Judge mentioned how training has something to do with formation. This is still true in today's armies. No training=poor formation. Whereas morale and discipline equal the unit's staying power.

Mass is the pushing power; tightness of the formation is governed by the spacing; Training defines how well the individual soldiers maintain that spacing; Morale, IIRC, governs how durable the unit's will to fight is, while Discipline affects the rate of Morale loss.

I look at the Spartans for example. Mass of 1.22 which is as high as you can get and they are highly trained.

*Almost* as high as you can get - even the crappiest Pike units, the Pantodapoi, have a Mass of 1.35 - and the TAB have 1.25. However, contra-examples are better:
Woithiz Watha have 1.18 Mass and are Untrained
Batacorii are Highly Trained but only have 1.1 Mass
Cladaca are Trained with 1.05 Mass
Drapanai have 1.18 Mass and are Untrained
Eiras have 1.18 and Untrained
Dunaminica have 1.18 and Highly Trained

[Frtigern]

Thanks Entropy Judge for clarifying what mass means in EB and how training maintains spacing.

*Almost* as high as you can get - even the crappiest Pike units, the Pantodapoi, have a Mass of 1.35 - and the TAB have 1.25.

Well, yes pike units obviously have higher mass. I didn't include them in this assessment of hoplite spearmen, because pikemen are pikemen and are in their own category of mass. I should've been more clear.

[Entropy Judge]

Fair enough, and TAB are sufficiently rare that 1.22 is definitely the highest normal (IE, not Pike-based) Mass anyway. Does the AI ever get to TAB?

[JaM]

I think Hoplites are not portrayed correctly - long spear was not ideal weapon in close melee fights. It was a good weapon to keep enemy at bay, especially in formation. But once enemy closed in, long spear was practically useless,especially against Romans who used shields offensively, pushing enemy, while thrusting and stabbing them with short gladius. Once enemy fixes your spear with his shield, all you can do is throw it down. So in those situations, Hoplites were forced to switch to their short slashing weapons. While those were very effective in one on one situations, they were not as effective in situations when enemy is pushing you with shields - your slashing attacks would be practically inefective. Another important fact was shape and size of the shield - Roman Scutum was not that wide as Hoplon, which also meant there were more legionaries per frontage than Hoplites. Overall this shows the reason why Greeks were looking at Roman way of warfare and modified their style - Theuroporoi, Thorakitoi were inspired by the Roman fighting style, and they completly replaced obsolete Hoplites..

What can be done about this in EB? SOme kind of reform that would replace obsolete Hoplites would be nice. Spear needs to be less effective against swords. Its simple, and its repeating itself in almost all games where swords defeat spears. I'm not saying it should be the way as it is done in S2TW,where katana infantry decimates Yari infantry in seconds.. But, there has to be slight advantage. Damage potential for uderhad thrust was about half of what could be delivered overhand, but underhand grip provided better control and consumed less fatigue. Attacking with spear onehanded while you carry the shild in other hand meant your attacks were not as fast as you could be with shorter weapons. But, because pear was used for thrusts to pierce enemy, its wounds were more dangerous than custs, which means it should have higher lethality,but smaller speed (should be slower) than swords.

My suggestion is to have short thrust swords (Gladius) with delay 0-5, short slashing swords with delay 10-15,slashing longswords (no tip - Gallic swords) delay 25, slashing and thrusting swords (Spatha) delay 20, Spears and pikes delay 30-40, one-handed axes delay 30, two-handed axes delay 40.

I plan to use this system in my EB submod i plan to release soon.

[yuezhi]

i think hoplite swords were removed because they used them too much.

technically theurophoroi and thorakitai are supposed to be the reformed hoplites, only they weren't used correctly when they were introduced (even i don't know how to use them when playing carthage ) also, while thorakitai were definitely inspired by the legions, IIRC theurophoroi preceded them without inspiration from the italians, and were intended to replace hypaspistai.