spartans

[carnesy]

Hey hegemonia team, was just wondering if the spartans on the battle map will be as l33t as they were in real life i.e NO!!!!! routing from the battle field wat so ever, higher attack and defence than most units, able to intimidate other enemy etc etc...

And will this affect the campaign mode for recruiting the spartans seeming as how IF they are so good will u have to wait 2 or more turns to recruit?..(or maybe u guys cant give out these details at all )...just wondering, plus though this would make interesting discussion thread..

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!!

[spirit_of_rob]

The first part will all be worked out exactly when we come to do proper balancing. I doubt we will make them completly unbreakable as i doubt the AI will be able to cope with it but this will need testing.

The second part we are not goign to share the details yet if you know everything in advance then you wont have any fun finding all the little things in the mod .

[Tzif]

Hmm... more mysteries on my mind while waiting till R-Day.

(Release Day)

Tzif

[malibu.stacey]

dont know if this belongs to the "mystery"-category,
but which standard(non-general bodyguard) hoplite unit will be the best ingame?

my favourites:

1. spartan hippeis
2. argive epilektoi (at a very close second place )
3. elite (sacred?) band of Thebes

will any of those have 2 or more health points?

[Snevets]

Well the whole problem with the best argives is that while they don't have the hype of the spartans we are given accounts by various historians that they were comparable soldiers to the best of the Spartans. I think the real question you should be asking is how the balancing will go on with the bulk of their armies- Homoioi vs Argive Hoplites. Probably the argive elite will be almost as good as the Spartan Hippeis but the homoioi will be decidely better than the Argive Hoplites (not ridiculously better of course but noticably enough).

As for the Sacred Band they didn't get really good until later- but by the time you can recruit them it will BE later- so yeah they'll probably be a pretty close second or third once recruitable.

[carnesy]

well hopefully u guys wont make the recruitment time 30 TURNS!!!!!!!!!!! like some OTHER MODS!!!! that i know of

causing me some extreme frustration

but they did slaughter everthing that came their way, ill give them that...BUT 30 TURNS!!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!!!!

so just praying that wont happen

(for the spartan units that is)

[spirit_of_rob]

well hopefully u guys wont make the recruitment time 30 TURNS!!!!!!!!!!! like some OTHER MODS!!!! that i know of

causing me some extreme frustration

but they did slaughter everthing that came their way, ill give them that...BUT 30 TURNS!!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!!!!

so just praying that wont happen

(for the spartan units that is)

30? that sounds a wee bit excessive... its probably meant to stop the cpu mass producing them but still sounds a bit over the top to me...

[Gelgoog]

Well the whole problem with the best argives is that while they don't have the hype of the spartans we are given accounts by various historians that they were comparable soldiers to the best of the Spartans. I think the real question you should be asking is how the balancing will go on with the bulk of their armies- Homoioi vs Argive Hoplites. Probably the argive elite will be almost as good as the Spartan Hippeis but the homoioi will be decidely better than the Argive Hoplites (not ridiculously better of course but noticably enough).

As for the Sacred Band they didn't get really good until later- but by the time you can recruit them it will BE later- so yeah they'll probably be a pretty close second or third once recruitable.

yes ive heard this as well, it seems ( to me at least) that the only real benefit that the spartans had over everyone else was extreme discipline and word of mouth fear. so they had such a built up reputation that alot of battles werent decided by actual combat. in all actuality until thermopyle, the spartans were pretty much an untested garrison force keeping their slaves from revolting. their population never grew to any decent size (im talking about lakedomians here) and their had little or no economy ( no monitery system) so their benefits of discipline is over-weighed by the fact that they would not be able to replace significant loses, nor did they have the economy to hire mercenaries. also as snevets said they were good troops but their fighting ability ( not talking about discipline) wasnt that much better then some of the better hoplites around. so when you take into account everything going against the spartans, i wouldnt consider them to be that "l33t"

i mean if you really wanted to portray them accurately ingame, they would a population that was always on the brink of revolting. their soldiers would take forever to train and be extremely expensive. their economy would be in the dumpster, and their actually population growth of people that could be recuited would be something like .000001 percent. sure they could win a few battles, but they have already lost the war in the long run. thats just how my image of the spartans has been swayed over the years.

[carnesy]

uhhh yeh ok mate wateva u say bout their country and economy i dont really care bout that, and yeh i think i will still consider the SPARTAN SOLDIERS l33t seeming as how they only lost one battle in their entire military history and the soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes

[malibu.stacey]

[...]that the only real benefit that the spartans had over everyone else was extreme discipline and word of mouth fear[...]

I think the homoioi have to be the best standart hoplites in the game, primarily because they were the only professional (or standing) army in greece and thus be able to devote all of their time to exercising and training. Hoplites from other poleis were regular (or "free") citizens (with occupations like trader, craftsman or even poet and artist) and certainly did not have the time to train warfare like the spartans (besides their activities in the gymnásion), so the bulk of an spartan army has to be considerably better than that of any other polis.

On top of that they not only had superior discipline, but were provided with some of the best equipment greece blacksmiths could produce.

Spartans were the best trained and equipped soldiers, had a strong social cohesion and their bravery was undisputed, so "l33t" is a appropriate term to describe them, i think

The only disadvantage they had were their relatively small numbers (at the peak there were 9000 homoioi, i think) and therefore ,as scheuch said, the inability to compensate significant losses.

their economy would be in the dumpster, and their actually population growth of people that could be recuited would be something like .000001 percent.

well, i dont think the city of Sparta itself was a economic powerhouse (not with iron bars as currency ), but they had the perioikoi to do things like trading and manufacturing goods and the helots to cultivate fields. And the perioikoi ( and later the helots, too) fought alongside with them in battles.


sorry for my bad english, i hope i could make my point of view clear in spite of that

btw here is my favourite spartan quote:

With key Greek city-states in submission, Phillip II of Macedon turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message:
"You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Their reply was "If."

[Gelgoog]

The only disadvantage they had were their relatively small numbers (at the peak there were 9000 homoioi, i think) and therefore ,as scheuch said, the inability to compensate significant losses.
Their reply was "If."

and in military terms this is a significant disadvantage for several reasons. any significant defeat could severely reduce their fighting capability, creating capabile soldiers takes a significant amount of time that is not condusive to a waring nation, and their fighting strength while high, was offset by the costs to which is had to be attained. ( ei, the whole culture and sacrifices that were needed to create these "super soldiers" came at such a cost and the benefit isnt that great over other civilizations that are able to muster high quality soldiers at a much cheaper and quicker rate). plus the fact that they arent able to expand their territory that much because they dont have the amount of troops able to guard these areas and prevent revolts. having an empire requires the need for extensive "peace keeping" troops.

[swell]

carnesy,

You should be more careful when you write about other mods. The mod is XGM, and I quote DimeBagHo :
"This is the Spartan Royal Guard. You get one unit at the start of the campaign. Training new units takes 30 turns. Historically the Royal Guard was limited to just 300 men, so ideally you should not have more than one unit."
The other Spartan : "These are Spartan Phalangites. Training requires 2 turns with an Army Barracks."

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=67859

And it's very easy to let your frustation go, it takes 30 seconds. Backup your EDU file, find the Royal Guard, change cost to 1 or whatever, there, full stacks of Spartan Royal Guards. But you don't need them.

But carnesy I agree, this is a great mod coming, keep the faith guys !

[oudysseos]

uhhh yeh ok mate wateva u say bout their country and economy i dont really care bout that, and yeh i think i will still consider the SPARTAN SOLDIERS l33t seeming as how they only lost one battle in their entire military history and the soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes

I'm sorry but that just cannot pass. Carnesy, on what do you base your opinion? Have you studied any history? I'm not trying to be mean or put you down, but your statement is wrong in every factual instance. Let me parse.

1. "They only lost one battle in their entire military history"

This is just ignorant. Let's have a look at the record, shall we?

560 BCE The Tegeans defeat the Spartans at the Battle of the Fetters and force the Spartans to wear their own slave chains.

480 Lost Battle of Thermopylae- A bit unfair maybe, but losing is losing, no matter why.
426 Lost Battle of Olpae
425 Lost Battles of Pylos and Sphacteria - they surrendered in the latter case.
395 Lost Battle of Haliartus- a rout, if memory serves, beaten, not for the last time, by Thebes.
391 Lost Battle of Lechaeum- Iphicrates routed a force of Spartans using only peltasts.
375 Lost Battle of Tegyra- To Thebes again, even though the Spartans outnumbered them.
371 Lost Battle of Leuctra- Everyone knows this one.
362 Lost Battle of Mantinea- Lost to the Thebans AGAIN. Killed Epaminondas, though.
222 Lost Battle of Sellasia- Spartans massacred by the Macedonians
207 Lost Battle of Mantinea- This time to the Achaean League.

There are more. Of course the Spartans won many battles as well, and much more importantly won a few wars. But they were not in any time period invincible. They lost to Athenians as easily as to Macedonians. Beat them too, sometimes, that's how things go.

2. "The soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline (sic) than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes"

This is really one point, I think- that the Spartans were 'better' soldiers than anyone else. Except when they lost.

This is not an issue that can be easily resolved by a simple browse through Google, Wikipedia, or (dare I say it) an actual book.
First of all it is impossible for us to know whether the Spartans were more disciplined than any other Greek City-State's hoplites or not, unless you have a time machine handy.
They may have spent more time training for war than others; after all, in the classical period at least Spartan men did not have to work for a living as they were supported by the brutal suppression of slaves. Like the Nazis, in a way.

And, of course, after the glorious Greek defeat of the evil Persian barbarian empire (in which Sparta played a very reluctant and tardy role), the Spartans were only too happy to be financially supported by the Persians. According to some contemporaries, Spartans were notorious for their corruptability.

That's another point: whose account do you trust? There is nobody among the actual primary sources who didn't have some kind of axe to grind. To put it another way, when the enemies of Sparta (Thucydides, for instance) write about what fearsome warriors the Spartans were, and how all they did the whole live long day was practice spear thrusts, and how they never broke or routed, they (Sparta's enemies) are trying to make their own defeat of the Spartans look nothing short of miraculous. And sell a few book-readings.

So maybe, just maybe, you should take some of this 'historical' information with a grain of salt and look at the record: many Spartan victories, and also many defeats. Just like everyone else.

Don't get me wrong- I think that Spartan units in a RTW game are really really cool. But if I had to choose, I'd rather go to Athens, where I might have a chance to be treated like a person, rather than to Sparta, where all they would have let me done is work myself to death (after branding my face and maybe cutting off my thumbs).

The Spartans may or may not have been more disciplined than their peers (although I doubt it) but they were very definitely not kinder.
Sometimes that counts too.

[Gelgoog]

Don't get me wrong- I think that Spartan units in a RTW game are really really cool. But if I had to choose, I'd rather go to Athens, where I might have a chance to be treated like a person, rather than to Sparta, where all they would have let me done is work myself to death (after branding my face and maybe cutting off my thumbs).

The Spartans may or may not have been more disciplined than their peers (although I doubt it) but they were very definitely not kinder.
Sometimes that counts too.

from all accounts ive read, the spartans are probably one of the cruelist slave holders there were ( as a general populous). being that their numbers were never very high , they were always paranoid about their helots revolting, so instead to keep them in line they instilled fear upon them by having their young spartans form terror parties to go out in the middle of the night and kill random helots. then again being a spartan yourself was almost just as bad, from the grueling training at young age, to not being able to go home to your wife during the sunlight hours, and even living your whole life with virtually no possession and nurished by very foul tasting soup ( as noted by many outsiders of the time) a spartans life was well as the term goes "spartan" there existence to the state was nothing but another shield and spear, they were also treated accordingly. so while i love the myths about spartan courage and their exploits, i dont put much faith into this trend of making them seem noble and rare amongst other cultures, as theirs was cruel and bordering on the line of unhumanlike. i cant think of anyone who would choose to live and grow up under the spartan system, knowing what it was really like as far as we can tell.

[Snevets]

I don't see the point to 30 turns- people figure they trained them their whole lives so you need it that way but I dunno- there was also a constant influx from that agoge so on turn one you have dudes fresh out of the agoge ready to be organized as though they were citizens of any other city ready to be organized- just machines instead.

[Zarax]

I don't see the point to 30 turns- people figure they trained them their whole lives so you need it that way but I dunno- there was also a constant influx from that agoge so on turn one you have dudes fresh out of the agoge ready to be organized as though they were citizens of any other city ready to be organized- just machines instead.

Again, in XGM there is a distinction between the spartan kripteya (youths just out from the agoge or still in training, available in 1 turn), homoioi (2 turns as they required the full training) and the hippeis or royal guard which was the elite of elite and always kept in extremely limited numbers.
These guys take 30 turns to recruit in XGM because they are supposed to be at the same level of the 300 under Leonidas and so they shouldn't be recruited in large quantities as one unit is able to rout half an army alone.

To end this off topic arguing let me explain it shortly: you can train spartans in XGM as quickly as in 1 turn and get the elite phalanx in 2 turns but you cannot build ultra elite armies of royal guard as they would completely make the game a joke.
Yes, there is a steady supply of fresh hoplites from the agoge but the agoge itself is not limitless as only a restricted number of families had access to it in Sparta so you need a way to keep recruiting realistic.

That is in XGM, I'm sure hegemonia has its own ways of limiting elite recruiting but please stop this pointless bashing of other mods decisions.

Thanks.

[spirit_of_rob]

Im sure bashing was not intended i for one have not played XGM and the post that said the unit took 30 turns to recruit had no context when i replied didnt even say what mod he was talking about. Besides its what 30 seconds work if that to change the amount of turns it takes to recruit something so no major thing in my opinion.

But yes keep on topic please

[oudysseos]

Is it just me or is there a huge contradiction between asserting that the Helots were priveleged in contrast to other slaves but that the Krypteria came at night and killed whoever was getting out of line? That sounds like a dubious kind of privelege at best.
Consider your sources, El Muerte. Is your info coming from contemporaries of the Spartans in the time period that Hegemonia covers? Trick question- there is not much info from Spartans in that time period as the Spartans left very few written records behind them. It is a mistake to assume that they had no literature or poetry- all we can say is that we don't have any of it. I know that the discussion is not about Spartan literature but Spartan slavery but the principle applies: if your knowledge is built on third hand accounts from many years after the fact then your anaylsis is a house of cards built on shifting sands. ( Love those mixed metaphors )

The point of the thread is something else anyways- are Spartan units invincible asskicking uberkillers that are way cool. I say no, because the facts of history don't support that thesis. Also, I don't think that the Spartans as a whole were very nice people and I'm glad that constant fear of revolting helots kept them confined mostly to the Peloponnese.

However, I still feel pride, as a child of the "West" that is still greatly indebted to Hellenic culture, when I think of Leonidas.

Come and get them.

Please dont double post use the edit post button -SoR-

[El Muerte]

Helot's life was a dog's life there is no question about it. BUT in Sparta they were allowed to have children, while in others cities they didn't had that right.So if you call this a privelege then yes, they had much better condtitions in Sparta.
I can give you a link if you are interested more about this Oudysseos.Mostly historians look up to Xenophon,Aristotle, and few others,but the Xenophon and his writings it's like a "Spartan bible"
Many say he was to subjective, not realistic,and Sparta loving but i personally think that Athenian who came from loyal familly, and fought against Spartans during Peleponisian War and then later after the war, he came to live in Sparta,it seems to me he's the best and objective historian you can find.
Aristotle on the other hand gave us many useful informations, about Sparta's negative and positive sides, but he also was not objective cos he hated them and mocked their woman rights if I can recall it.

@allcoolnamestaken
You are absolutely right about Sparta's political and military power. But im my oppinion thats becouse they lost many mena and become corrupted after the Peleponesian War.First they got money crazy from all that gold they got from Persians to defeat Athens fleets.In my oppinion their king is guilty for that, he allowed money in Sparta. And don't forget thath they lost LOTS of soldiers during 27 years of war, while Thebes was totaly neutral in that time and watched while Sparta and Athens bleed to death.In final battle against Thebes there was left not more than 1500 "equals".So no wonder they lost, they changed their "old way" of life and grow lazy and greedy just like all the others.

[oudysseos]

Thanks for the tip El Meurte, but as a matter of fact I read Anabasis in Greek for the first time in 1987. Have also read Hellenica, but in translation. Xenophon rocks.

The point of the thread is not the status of the helots but the relative strength of Spartan hoplites in the time period covered by the game. I, for one, do not think that the Spartans should be an order of magnitude stronger than their enemies. Probably they should install fear as they did have a fearsome reputation far in advance of their actual win/loss record in battle. Was it Xenophon who said that they seemed to be made of only scarlet and bronze?

Apropos sources, I have just begun to read Soldiers and Ghosts, a History of Battle in Classical Antiquity, by J.E. Lendon. Excellent, highly reccomended. Seems to settle the over/under-arm tempest in a teapot as well.