Need a Consensus

[dvk901]

Should we remove the secondary weapon from the Hoplites that have them?
I don't really know what's historical or not, so I pose the question.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

by secondary weapon, do you mean the short sword? if so, leave it because as far as i can figure, they did indeed have a sword of sorts if the spear was lost or damaged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite

see the equipment section and there is indeed a sword typically used called a xiphos which has its own page for further explanation. i'd leave it because the average hoplite really had a short sword.

Skandranon Rakshae

[cherryfunk]

No, they used swords as a backup. Their spears often broke in the phalanx 'crush' and they had to resort to swords.

[rory o'kane]

hmm, here's my proposal
if they can form a phalanx, give them swords (they had them in case the line broke)
if not (i.e. short spears) leave them with just spears.

[cherryfunk]

'Short spears' were also used by hoplites -- in fact that was their main weapon, the Macedonian sarissa pike was not, as far as I can tell, used by Greeks.

I did notice that the hoplites no longer have phalanx ability. Shouldn't they?

[tone]

I'd say give them all swords (although need to check with city hoplites they haven't lost theirs because of issues I had with the belt before I could model)

[dvk901]

Some of them have swords, Tone. But the 'SoR_Spartans.cas' one's don't. They never did.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Look give all hoplites swords.
They always had a backup weapon for when their spear broke or lost.
Or leave them just with swords who said all hoplites had to have spears.

[rory o'kane]

history, perhaps?

[Leonidas The Lion]

Look not all hoplites had spears.
The name hoplite comes from the shield they carry.
But it is your call guys.

[rory o'kane]

why do some units not have phalanx formation? surely the whole point of any hoplite unit was to fight in phalanx formation? why dont we give the ability to all the hoplite/phalangite units? the good ones would be the the ones which would be able to fight with reasonable effectiveness when not in phalanx formation...

[dvk901]

Because some hoplites use the overhand animation, and others the underhand. You can't have phalanx and overhand, but people want it too. So some are, and some aren't.

[Angel]

The hoplites with no phalanx are the ones cover flanks. The ones with the phalanx with no long pike animation will cover the center. Using these tactics the greeks armies can do great damage. This is how I made them now and I think they provide great balancement vs the long pike armies with no flexibility. Greeks are flexiblity of the macedonians . yes I think all hoplites should have swords for quick attacks Than the spear. Im making an stat sheet for all weapons to provide an realastic delay time and more.

[cherryfunk]

That's way too complicated, Angel.

dvk, all hoplites fought in phalanx. The spear was used both overhand and underhand in a phalanx battle, but if the game can't mix them, that's a limitation of the engine but we still have to give them all phalanx formation. That's how they fought. If you want a lighter spear unit that doesn't fight in phalanx, that's fine, but it can't be identified as a hoplite unit.

At least that's my understanding, if someone knows otherwise please chime in.

[spirit_of_rob]

The general consensus is that Greek Hoplites fought in what was called a Phalanx but it is not the same as the Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx the Greek Hoplites fought in a solid mass of shields with their spears over the top of the shield wall RTWs phalanx formation is not correct for hoplites, they certaintly didnt walk forward with their spears out infront of them like pike troops.

[cherryfunk]

The general consensus is that Greek Hoplites fought in what was called a Phalanx but it is not the same as the Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx the Greek Hoplites fought in a solid mass of shields with their spears over the top of the shield wall RTWs phalanx formation is not correct for hoplites, they certaintly didnt walk forward with their spears out infront of them like pike troops.

That's not at all what I've found. What are your sources for this?

Victor Davis Hanson, in his 'The Western Way of War' very clearly states otherwise:

As the hoplites on each side began their final run in the last two hundred yards, they lowered the spear and carried it at the side in an underhand grip; this is clear from the literary evidence as well as scenes on vase paintings and sculpture. Momentum and power could be maximized through such an underhand thrust while on the move, and, of course, it was easier this way to maintain both speed and balance. The idea must have been to penetrate the enemy's groin or unprotected upper thighs which were exposed under the lower lip of his shield: the groin was the area which Homer called 'beyond all places where death in battle comes painfully.' That such blows were favored in the initial collision may be apparent from Tyrtaios' sad description of the old man who holds his groin bloody from a spear thrust....

Most spear were broken as soon as they hit the round wooden shield, or else they simply snapped off after penetrating the breastplate and flesh of the enemy. "Most of the spears were shattered" is almost a stock phrase in Greek literature.

Once most of the spear shafts were destroyed within the initial line of hoplites on both sides, many of the survivors would now go at it, inches apart, and they probably used any weapon still at their disposal. For all who still had their eight foot spears intact, a switch to overhand grip was now essential to gather enough power from a stationary position to force the point downward into the neck, groin, shoulders, or face of the enemy. Vase paintings show this clearly.

Once the spear was gone, the first choice of the hoplite was his secondary short sword -- a weapon notorious for its short range and associated with the Spartans, who fought close to their enemies. Usually hoplite battle reached this brutal point within seconds if no clear momentum had been established through the collision, and instead both sides were now butchering each other with their secondary weapons.

When it comes to ancient Greek warfare, I haven't found any historians better than Hanson so I tend to take him at his word.

Here are some vase paintings showing this underhand grip:

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

in both of those i see quite clearly the scabbard of their short swords.

Skandranon Rakshae

[dvk901]

It's also evident from the shields and the lack of clothing that these could be 'stylistic' depictions, or from the 5th\4th century BC. I'm certainly no expert, but I did a lot of researching over this because of the overhand\underhand issue, and it is apparent to my mind that they used both. The one's in the front used underhand, and the back used overhand. This actually makes just plain common sense. But, as SoR says, their 'phalanx' was different from the Macedonians, and I imagine was different from the 4th and 5th centuries BC. Many historians admit that the term 'hoplite' and 'phalanx' were used very loosely by the eyewitnesses that wrote of them...and since many were not Greek....it stands to reason they wouldn't be 'military experts' as to the fine detailed differences between Macedonian and Greek style phalanxs. Sort of like saying 'Infantry' nowadays....it can mean a lot of things.

In talking with Tone about this, we decided to make some hoplites phalanx, and others not. This gives them a 'variablity' that works pretty well, and also LOOKS cool. I'm even thinking that at some level, the supposedly 'Macedonian' factions should have a more 'hoplite' like unit as well.

BTW Cherry, I replaced the 'Greek Swordsman' model with a nice TRUE Greek sword and textures, and good unit cards. They look much better, and some of the fans will be happy. Also, I don't doubt your sources a minute, I'm just trying to make the fans happy.

But all of this is off topic anyway...the question was whether they should have swords or not. That in itself is an issue, because some people don't like the fact that when they get in close to the enemy, the unit switches to a sword. Personally, I think it makes sense and is realistic. The 'push' of the units behind leaves no room for a spear, so switching to a sword is logical, and as it would be in real life, they don't all do it at once.

I just wanted to know what others thought about it.

[tone]

The problem about phalanx is that the units will only walk up to the enemy and not charge. In most cases you really want them to be able to charge.

[cherryfunk]

The problem about phalanx is that the units will only walk up to the enemy and not charge. In most cases you really want them to be able to charge.

It does bug me that the phlanx doesn't charge. So what are the advantages of the phalanx form in the game? What specific bonuses does it confer?

In talking with Tone about this, we decided to make some hoplites phalanx, and others not. This gives them a 'variablity' that works pretty well, and also LOOKS cool. I'm even thinking that at some level, the supposedly 'Macedonian' factions should have a more 'hoplite' like unit as well.

The problem is that it feels rather haphazard at the moment -- there's no logical reason why one unit has it and another doesn't.

I think we could handle this in one of two ways:

- Remove phalanx from all short-spear hoplite units, and reserve it for the Macedonian sarissa units (or a few other units that also use the long spear, like perhaps some of Carthage's units, and perhaps the Triarii).

- Give phalanx only to elite short-spear hoplites, for example the unique Greek city hoplites, but not the others. Since moving in phalanx would clearly require discipline and drill, it makes sense that only the better quality hoplites would have it. But if we did this, we need to be consistent -- ALL the city hoplites would get it, and NONE of the 'lesser' quality hoplites would.