How will Sparta's unit roster vary? + Interesting Prediction...

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Sparta was a very fanatical ctiy-state back in the day, they only really preferred the hoplite fighting fashion. They trained all their Spartans to fight in the hoplite formation. They relied on the phalanx as their primary formation, and because of their smaller numbers, they literally needed this formation to make their numbers mean something. All 'proper' Spartans were hoplites, that much we know. For Sparta to be a faction that will have a lot of replay ability, how will their unit roster vary?

We know they used helots in battle at certain times, so helots can take the place of peasant-level units. Crappy skirmishers etc. What about other tougher units? Who else could the Spartans recruit? Spartans did not use cavalry as they thought it was cowardly to not fight on foot, and they wouldn't be caught dead carrying a bow an arrow. Is Sparta going to be one of those factions that relies on mercenaries to bring the variety needed?

Also, one interesting thing I think you guys should have a look at. In the Spartan unit picture, you can see that none of the Spartans carry their short-swords. In the Greek Culture Pack, when the Spartan soldier just floors the Roman and then pokes him with the spear, that Spartan never had a shield and was carrying a spear by itself. There was also another Spartan doing the same thing just before that scene when you see the Spartan walking up to the camera. I'm just jumping to conclusions when I predict this, but has the 'Spartan Hoplite' as we know them been split into up in two units?

We know the Spartan Hoplite carries the Hoplon (Shield), Spear and Short-Sword, even a little digger but animations for that will be tricky. Now, CA would've found that the Spartans have not got much variety to them at all, so I'm thinking CA may have made a Spartan unit that only has the Spear and Hoplon, whereas another Spartan Unit will have the Hoplon and Short-Sword. This way, you can get take one unit and turn it into two. Or the Short-sword has been removed from their arsenal. No other reason I can see for why the Spartan had no shield and had just his spear. What do you guys think?

If this is the case, CA, I like what you did. It would also mean that the 'Spartan Hoplite' is no longer a multi-purpose warrior and means you have to use them more strategically and that they can't own everything.

[biohazardcake]

i think the spartans at this point in history started reforming their military like introducing romanized infantry ,but don't take my word for it. I'm sure the history buffs of this good forum will have more info.

[Faris ad Din]

No no no. I spent like 30 minutes trying to find the exact post but couldn't find it. Basically, I read a post by one of the official CA guys, probably Jack Lusted, that the Spartan without the shield in the video is in fact a Spartan officer (if you recall, in Rome and Medieval 2: Total War, officers of units did not carry shields). So no, no separate idiotically hard-core shield-less Spartan hoplite unit. After all, isn't it superbly ironic for a unit called HOPLITES to be missing the HOPLON it is named after?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

No no no. I spent like 30 minutes trying to find the exact post but couldn't find it. Basically, I read a post by one of the official CA guys, probably Jack Lusted, that the Spartan without the shield in the video is in fact a Spartan officer (if you recall, in Rome and Medieval 2: Total War, officers of units did not carry shields). So no, no separate idiotically hard-core shield-less Spartan hoplite unit. After all, isn't it superbly ironic for a unit called HOPLITES to be missing the HOPLON it is named after?

I'll have to find that post then. BTW, Obviously I know they were called Hoplites because of the Hoplon shield. I stated that in my post. The reason it confused me was because I saw it twice. You could see a guy in the background with only a spear killing a Roman, then another guy in close-up view killing a Roman with only a spear. With all the Spartans wearing the exact same helmet design and same crest, there was no way to figure out that the Spartan in question was in fact an officer. There's got to be more to this than we think. Would CA make two-handed spear combat animations for just one guy in a unit? Would save time to just make that officer like everyone. Because of this, I'm thinking that somewhere in the game, belonging to some faction or mercenaries, there are units that will only have a spear and no shield.

[RexImperator]

The SPartans are actually quite busy reforming their army, they go from Hoplite based to Macedonian style phalanx and add some Roman twists to it by the end of the period.

There was a post by Jack Lusted on the official forums which states that the Spartans will have a three tier system, with Helots, Periokoi (free non citizen inhabitants of Sparta) and true Spartan units.

[perifanosEllinas]

The Spartan army in reality was much more diverse than many people think.Sparta was the leading city of the Lakaedemonic state.The Lakaedemonic army included the Spartans,the released Helots,the Perioikoi and many mercenaries from Peloponnese,Crete and even Gauls.They also fought side by side with other Peloponnesian allies.The hardcore hoplite Spartans that most people know are just the elite class of the Spartans,known as Spartan Equals.If you want to see an in depth proper historical Spartan roster,you can check out this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tion-of-Sparta.Those units are only the units of the Lakedaemonic state.In the game they control all Peloponnese,so they should also have Corinthian troops,Achaean troops,Argive troops etc.

That is the good news.The bad news is that CA will probably go for a more cheesy,"catchy",simple roster with not much variety and (my basic complain about the faction so far) without character,just like the Greek roster of Rome total war.The unit in the Spartan preview looks like generic Peloponnesians,not like unique Spartans and that's not cool.

The Spartans didn't adapt Romanized units.They fought with legionnaire equipment for Rome but only after Sparta was conquered by Rome.

And the so called fanatic Spartan hoplites were reformed to heavy phalangites in 226 BC by Kleomenis III and fought as phalangites at every battle after that until Rome conquered them.

And Spartans themselves didn't fight on horses,but the Perioikoi and the rest Peloponnesian allies did.So the Lakedaemonic army did have cavalry.

[Durnaug]

And Spartans themselves didn't fight on horses,but the Perioikoi and the rest Peloponnesian allies did.So the Lakedaemonic army did have cavalry.

Spartiates did fight on horseback in Xenophon's time. They not only led their cavalry but more than one Spartiate was probably in a cavalry group. Presumably they are in the extreme minority though. However it makes sense that some Spartiates would elect to join the cavalry for only the rich could afford to maintain horses, i.e. Spartiates, well-off Periokoi, and presumably state-sponsored horsemen. Of course, such mobile Spartiates are exceptions to the rule.

Regarding the game time period, I would suggest having Spartiates as leaders of the Periokoi/Peloponnesian horse units. No "all Spartiate" cavalry unless part of a "what if" reform mechanic reflecting a revolution in Spartiate demographics and military doctrine.

[perifanosEllinas]

Spartiates did fight on horseback in Xenophon's time. They not only led their cavalry but more than one Spartiate was probably in a cavalry group. Presumably they are in the extreme minority though. However it makes sense that some Spartiates would elect to join the cavalry for only the rich could afford to maintain horses, i.e. Spartiates, well-off Periokoi, and presumably state-sponsored horsemen. Of course, such mobile Spartiates are exceptions to the rule.

Regarding the game time period, I would suggest having Spartiates as leaders of the Periokoi/Peloponnesian horse units. No "all Spartiate" cavalry unless part of a "what if" reform mechanic reflecting a revolution in Spartiate demographics and military doctrine.

No,the Spartans didn't fight on horseback at any time.They considered it beneath them and unworthy.There are recorded facts that prove that.

1)Not only they hated fighting mounted,but if a Spartan failed at the agoge tests they would put him in the cavalry unit of the Perioikoi as punishment and as example for the rest Spartans.

2)There is no recorded battle with mounted Spartans.

it makes sense that some Spartiates would elect to join the cavalry for only the rich could afford to maintain horses

The Spartans never had the luxury of election after Lykourgos.Their life was planned out from birth to death and there was no room for personal choice.The wealthy Spartans were obligated to participate in the Spartan Equals class and the Ypomeiones didn't have the money to maintain horses even if they wanted to.

I also would hate to see a cavalry unit made of Spartans in the game.It would be a very very bad idea which would destroy the depiction of Spartan philosophy and culture.It's the details that make the difference for me in a game.

[Durnaug]

No,the Spartans didn't fight on horseback at any time.

But what about Xenophon's tale of the Spartan cavalry commander, Pasimachus, at 4.4.10 in Hellenica?

Marincola's translation...

"Pasimachus, the Spartan commander of the cavalry..."

In this incident, the Spartiate Cavalry commander and his men tie their horses to trees, equip themselves with Sicyonian shields, thus ensuring that the oncoming Argives do not know the type of hoplite they are about to engage. Incidentally this story is one of the few references (though still indirect) to Lamdas being the symbol on Spartan shields. Thus reinforcing the assumption that this is an example of Spartan cavalry.

I do realise the Lamda is also used by Periokoi and there is a good case for such Lacedaemonians being the main part of Pasimachus' unit but is he himself not a Spartiate? The remark he makes also seems to back up the assumption he is a full citizen of Sparta.

And you should not believe everything the Spartans tell us ;-) Spartan law (i.e. that handed down by Lykourgos, if he existed at all) does change and is put aside given the circumstances. On another note, I wonder if Spartiates used horses for hunting?

[Durnaug]

No,the Spartans didn't fight on horseback at any time

Check out Xenophon's Hellenica at 5.4.39. Apparently no ambiguous use of "Lacedaemonian" this time: two Spartiates die as cavalrymen.

"while of the cavalry they killed the Spartiates Kleas and Epikydides"

[TotalWarker]

Historically* speaking the Spartans wore significantly smaller loincloths and had epic beards. If this isn't in then I'll probably cancel my pre-order due to the loss of immersion...

*A lie

[Durnaug]

The Spartans might also have easy access to diverse mercenary units at Cape Tainaron.

[perifanosEllinas]

Mmm...That's wrong translation my friend.Trust me,I'm Greek.I can understand parts of the original text.

The real text in ancient Greek says this "Πασίμαχος δὲ ὁ ἱππαρμοστής, ἔχων ἱππέας οὐ πολλούς,..." which means "Pasimachos the horse-commissioner,who didn't have many riders,..." etc.etc.

The text doesn't even mention where he's from in 4.4.10

Anyway,I hope I made that clear mate.I'm not pretending the "know it all" guy,but I can assure you on that translation as I have the original text and I can understand what it says,because I 'm Greek myself.

Edit.About the shield symbols in 4.4.10 it says this "...τὰ σίγμα τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων..." which means "...the sigma on their shields...".Sigma is a different letter from the lamda

Sigma-> Σ

Lamda-> Λ

I would like to talk also about the confusion of the terms Lakedemonian and Spartan.The Spartans are obviously those who come from the city of Sparta,but Lakedemon was a state,not a city.Sparta was the leading city of Lakedemon.The term "Lakedemonian state" refers to all the territory that the Spartans controlled and that,besides Spartans,included also Perioikoi and Helots.So if you guys read somewhere Lakedemonians it doesn't necessarily mean Spartans.A known example of that confusion is a small fight that took place before the main battle of Tegyra in 375 BC.In that small fight two Lakedemonic moras (units) were defeated by the Theban sacred band.Many people have concluded that those were Spartans,but they were Perioikoi.The Spartans never sent Spartan units to garrisons or as mercenaries(only Spartan commanders for the mercenaries),as they were needed for protecting Sparta.Even when Sparta itself went to war,they sent maximum 5/8 of their army to fight as the rest 3/8 were obligated to guard Sparta.For example,at the battle of Plataea it is believed that Sparta had 8.000 soldiers in total and that according to that analogy 5.000 Spartans marched to Plataea accompanied by another 5.000 Perioikoi for a totall of 10.000 men at the battle and the rest 3.000 remained at Sparta to guard it.

[Durnaug]

Anyway,I hope I made that clear mate.I'm not pretending the "know it all" guy,but I can assure you on that translation as I have the original text and I can understand what it says,because I 'm Greek myself.

Edit.About the shield symbols in 4.4.10 it says this "...τὰ σίγμα τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων..." which means "...the sigma on their shields...".Sigma is a different letter from the lamda

You are misinterpreting me regarding the Lamda, although I could have been clearer in my choice of words. I said the passage provides INDIRECT evidence that a Lamda is used on Spartan shields. Only the Sigma is referenced. The Lamda is not mentioned. Besides, I have argued with you before about the indirect nature of the evidence of the Lamda and I quoted this very example.

Regarding the translation of the ancient Greek, why would scholars invent the nationality of the Spartan cavalry officer? That is rather shoddy. I'll have to look into that further. Rex Warner's translation also mentions Spartan cavalry - so there we have two scholars apparently making up stuff. Or perhaps they are inferring from the indirect Lamda reference? Anyway, I will attempt to gain clarification on this point because there is always the possibility they are wrong or "loose" with their interpretation.

[EDIT: Dakyn's translation is similar to yours, "At that instant Pasimachus, the cavalry general, at the head of a handful of troopers". I have to admit you have shaken my confidence in the meaning of this passage from Xenophon but I still think the evidence points to a Spartiate commander. It certainly doesn't state he is a Periokoi commander so surely we have to argue from inference?]

You also forget about the remark the cavalry officer makes as he and his men advance towards the Argives, pretending to be Sicyonian hoplites, i.e. it is very suggestive of Spartiate confidence! So we have this cavalry commander confidently marching towards the Argives, exhibiting Spartan cunning and confidence and Xenophon indirectly saying that normally these guys would be brandishing a shield with the Lamda. Surely these all point to a Spartiate ? Again, the sources I have assume as much.

I know about the inconsistent use of the terms Lacedaemon and Sparta in the sources - I indirectly refer to that by applying Lacedaemonian to the Periokoi. However yours is the clearest statement I've read about explaining the confusion. Nice one and I will nick it for future reference.

Regarding the Spartan Moras at the Battle of Tegyra - I have yet to read that there were no Spartiates in those regiments. The books I have all assume they are regular Spartan citizen army regiments. Some scholars insist they are mixed with Periokoi whilst others insist they are diluted with hypomenions. But I do not recall the "no Spartiates at all" theory. Of course, the battle itself is possibly exaggerated by pro-Theban sources and the Moras were not wiped out.

I thought Spartiate garrisons were used in the occupation of Thebes and Athens? I could stretch the argument a bit and suggest that the Spartiates on Sphacteria were a garrison, along with those Spartiates overrun during the invasion of Laconia. And it is hard to tell when a Spartiate is or is not a mercenary. For example, King Agesilaos' fighting in Eygpt just before his death is usually described as mercenary activity disguised by the veneer of state approval.

Our knowledge and opinions on Sparta are evolving. For example, many scholars now assume that Lycourgos did not exist and that his so-called immutable laws did, in fact, change. Basically what I am saying is that I would not be so confident that no Spartiate ever fought from a horse.

[Durendalv2]

Mmm...That's wrong translation my friend.Trust me,I'm Greek.I can understand parts of the original text.

The real text in ancient Greek says this "Πασίμαχος δὲ ὁ ἱππαρμοστής, ἔχων ἱππέας οὐ πολλούς,..." which means "Pasimachos the horse-commissioner,who didn't have many riders,..." etc.etc.

The text doesn't even mention where he's from in 4.4.10

Anyway,I hope I made that clear mate.I'm not pretending the "know it all" guy,but I can assure you on that translation as I have the original text and I can understand what it says,because I 'm Greek myself.

Edit.About the shield symbols in 4.4.10 it says this "...τὰ σίγμα τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων..." which means "...the sigma on their shields...".Sigma is a different letter from the lamda

Sigma-> Σ

Lamda-> Λ

I would like to talk also about the confusion of the terms Lakedemonian and Spartan.The Spartans are obviously those who come from the city of Sparta,but Lakedemon was a state,not a city.Sparta was the leading city of Lakedemon.The term "Lakedemonian state" refers to all the territory that the Spartans controlled and that,besides Spartans,included also Perioikoi and Helots.So if you guys read somewhere Lakedemonians it doesn't necessarily mean Spartans.A known example of that confusion is a small fight that took place before the main battle of Tegyra in 375 BC.In that small fight two Lakedemonic moras (units) were defeated by the Theban sacred band.Many people have concluded that those were Spartans,but they were Perioikoi.The Spartans never sent Spartan units to garrisons or as mercenaries(only Spartan commanders for the mercenaries),as they were needed for protecting Sparta.Even when Sparta itself went to war,they sent maximum 5/8 of their army to fight as the rest 3/8 were obligated to guard Sparta.For example,at the battle of Plataea it is believed that Sparta had 8.000 soldiers in total and that according to that analogy 5.000 Spartans marched to Plataea accompanied by another 5.000 Perioikoi for a totall of 10.000 men at the battle and the rest 3.000 remained at Sparta to guard it.

The shields varied. They used the Gorgon motif, as well as other motifs on the shields. It wasn't just the Sigma or the Lambda.

As for the cavalry, the way you translate Xenophon says he didn't have many riders, which is true, but it implies a nominal cavalry unit did in fact exist. Was it the Companions? Of course not. But with what Xenaphon says (a cavalry commander who would have selected his words very carefully) and funeral reliefs which depict horsemen suggests that the Spartan Cavalry unit, no matter how small, did exist.

Regarding the overall structure of their army, the elite was Spartiates, everyone knows that, but everything else was structured to employ auxiliaries. This included the perioikoi hoplites, their allied hoplites, helots either employed as peltasts or with what Brasidas did, as hoplites (who were elite). During the Peloponnesian War, Brasidas also used allied horse and peltasts from the Chalcidice.

[Durnaug]

As for the cavalry, the way you translate Xenophon says he didn't have many riders, which is true, but it implies a nominal cavalry unit did in fact exist. Was it the Companions? Of course not. But with what Xenaphon says (a cavalry commander who would have selected his words very carefully) and funeral reliefs which depict horsemen suggests that the Spartan Cavalry unit, no matter how small, did exist.

In Xenophon's ancedote about Pasimachus, he does make an earlier reference to the cavalry as being Lacedaemonian . So we can all agree on that? The problem is with the use of the term "Lacedaemonian" - does he mean Spartiates or Periokoi in this instance, or both? My interpretation is that he probably means both and that the commander, Pasimachus, is indeed a Spartiate.

Now all we need is someone to point out that Pasimachus is not of Sparitate derivation and is always assocated with the Periokoi. That would shut me up

[EDIT: Leading on from pE's comments on the use of the term Spartans ("...So if you guys read somewhere Lakedemonians it doesn't necessarily mean Spartans..."), clearly we have translators that use the term "Spartans" for Lacedaemonians in its broadest sense. So in contemporary use, Spartan can mean Spartiate and/or Lacedaemonian just as the ancients sources used Lacedaemonian to sometimes mean Spartiates and/or Periokoi. Thus Spartiate is really the only unambiguous term although I think one source refers to its use with Cinadon, the Non-Spartiate-Spartan-and-not-mere-Lacedaemonian]

[SpilledInnards]

I'll be honest with you guys, so far I'm disappointed by the lack of historical accuracy when it comes to Sparta.

From the little we've seen it appears Spartans do not wear red speedos, and Gerard Butler is nowhere to be seen.

CA, as usual, only care about mass appeal, not historical accuracy.