12/19/2023 0 Comments Hoplite shield op8when you pick a design for your own hoplon, there. But even during this period, many cities allowed soldiers to choose their own designs. ![]() Later on, during the Hellenistic period, there is more evidence of standardised shield designs this was the time when standing armies, employed by the state, become more common. “A Spartan had as an emblem on his shield a fly, and that, too, no bigger than life-size. When some mockingly said that he had done this to escape being noticed, he said, “Rather that I may be noticeable for I come so close to the enemy that my emblem is seen by them in its true size.” Plutarch tells the story of one Spartan who used a life-sized fly as his shield emblem: There seems little evidence of standardisation, at least up to and including the 5th century: each hoplite chose his own shield design. Not sure.Hoplite shield design was incredibly varied. I'm wondering if the default status of quite a few units in the army lists as 'Deep' might be a bit off. So, should 6-12 or 8-12 ranks as a norm count as Deep? Did the Romans stick with 8 ranks, or did they go deeper to 12 or beyond? We also have Anglo-Saxon shield walls averaging 6 ranks, with similar thinning and thickening (up to perhaps 9-12 deep at Hastings). The Theban phalanx at Leuctra was an exception to this and counts as an Exceptionally Deep unit already (no problem with this). So in essence we have Greek hoplites with a default depth of 8-12 ranks, and cases of thinning/thickening of this to 4 ranks and 16 ranks. I like your thinking re hoplites having the option to adjust their depth the history reflects this well. Re Germanic warbands - supposedly very deep masses of men, much deeper than Romans. Xenophon (similar period) had the enomotia 12 deep. Did Germans and Gauls fight that much deeper than Romans?lįWIW Thucydides (around 400BC) had the Spartan hoplites' enomotia 8 deep. ![]() Reflecting the two examples above.Īs for the Saxons or indeed most warband style units, you would have to get Simons input. So deep normal hoplites would have the same save as veterans or deep raw against normal troops. That would reflect the historical tactic of going deep to offset against inferior troops. Possibly in the Greek list going deep could be an option rather than compulsory as Greek armies seemed to change depth as a tactical option rather than a set doctrine.Īn optional house rule for a campaign setting could be that in a strictly Hoplite on Hoplite fight the deeper unit gets a +1 save to reflect their better performance in the Othismos which the Greeks speak about, yet modern scholars still argue over. In 415BC the Athenians fought 8 deep and their Syracusan opponents who outnumbered them, but lacked experience fought 16 deep. At the battle of Nemea the allies agree to form 16 deep to hold the Spartans, the Thebans renege on the agreement, go 25 deep and the outflanked Athenians get a serious kicking! As you can guess, I’m not a fan of the Thebans from their Medizing in 480BC onwards, a bunch of disreputable chancers! The Theban deep phalanxes were very much their unique signature tactic from the Pelopenisian war onwards, often to the disadvantage of their allies who had to fight to cover the flank of that beast and normally took losses as they got outflanked because of the lack of frontage to the army caused by the deep Thebans. The normal references are to 10-12 deep with 16 not being unusual. There are many accounts of many different depths of Hoplite phalanxes, 8 is mentioned but rarely. Similarly, Anglo-Saxon shield walls were usually 5-6 men deep, and could be made a little thicker or thinner depending on circumstances. Seeing photos of a battle between hoplites and pikemen where both sides' units were 3-deep raised my eyebrows. I also understand some Javelinmen are in 'deep' units as well? So why are all the Greek Hoplites 'deep' units in the army lists? Same as standard hoplite phalanx (so I thought). So I understand 'deep' for pike units.Īnd the Imperial Roman cohort was 8 deep. The Macedonian pike phalanx was 16 deep, correct? And by some accounts could be much deeper if desired. Now the Thebans messed this up with one apparently 50 deep phalanx at Leuctra, but that is an exception (I thought). My understanding was that the standard depth was usually 8 (or 12 if you believe Xenophon) ranks, and sometimes as little as 4 (as at Marathon). I'm a bit confused about the thinking behind Greek Hoplites of all nationalities being listed as 'deep' units in the army lists.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |