when did peltasts stop being LMI and become LI ,showing my age WRG 6th, all new rules have them as skirmish only, they no longer the hinge/jack of all trades they once were. More deep and meaningful /rubbish questions to follow
Later peltasts are still intermediate foot ("Auxilia") in DBX, so Phil doesn't appear to have changed his mind.
(The newest DBX army lists are from 2016, so perhaps not so "new" anymore, but a whole lot newer than WRG 6th.)
That is good to know but FOG and MEG have them as LI
Quote from: shaun holdsworth on July 18, 2020, 03:25:59 PM
when did peltasts stop being LMI and become LI
In "Myths of History and Wargaming",
Slingshot issue 138.
Early (5th Century BC) Peltasts were really anti-skirmisher skirmishers. Later, after the Iphicratean reforms with 'line infantry' equipped with long spear and 'pelta' (small round shield), in the 4th century BC, the main type of mercenary infantry was the peltast, to the extent that this became a synonym for mercenaries in general. A few illustrations of the early 3rd century BC still show a small round Pelte shield in use but by the mid-3rd century BC it has been replaced by the Thureos. So really, the term 'peltast' can actually refer to anything from a javelin armed skirmisher with shield (in the 5th Century BC) , to mercenaries in general, including battleline infantry (in the 3rd Century BC).
Personally, I believe that the wargamer's Light Medium Infantry classification which combines skirmishing ability with good close-combat capability is actually a bit of a 'fabrication' or 'pokel' and is a troop-type that never actually existed. Troops either skirmished (including in rough terrain) OR they formed up and fought in the main battleline. They did not 'switch' between one activity and the other during the course of a battle whether they had the capabilities to perform both styles of combat or not. Even Hoplites were commonly trained in throwing the javelin and later on had 'Ekdromoi' anti-skirmisher (e.g. Thracian 'Peltasts') 'runners out' to chase them off.
So in sum, I am quite happy to see an absence of *WRG 6th-style) LMI in my wargames. I don't really miss them at all.
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 18, 2020, 06:12:08 PM
Quote from: shaun holdsworth on July 18, 2020, 03:25:59 PM
when did peltasts stop being LMI and become LI
In "Myths of History and Wargaming", Slingshot issue 138.
Not to mention Luke Ueda-Sarson's pieces on Hellenistic infantry:
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates1.html
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates2.html
As MeG Army List editor, I can comment on the MeG lists. We took the view similar to Simon W. The term peltast has to be used with caution because it describes the shield that was carried, not the equipment and style of fighting. In the Classical Greek period around 5th century BCE it describes a skirmisher with javelins. In the Hellenistic period the term peltast is used to describe phalangites. From the 3rd century BCE the thureos is adopted hence the thureophoroi.
On occasion "heavier infantry" seem to have replaced their long spear or pike with a pair of javelins. This may have started with the Macedonians when they were fighting Illyrians or Thracians in places where a pike wouldn't be a lot of use (plenty of mountains and forests in the Balkans!). Alexander the Great did this on numerous occasions and there are references through to the second century BCE. Hence in these lists we allow the infantry to be reclassified as skirmishers - we use the term Euzenoi.
Richard
QuoteThey did not 'switch' between one activity and the other during the course of a battle whether they had the capabilities to perform both styles of combat or not.
It may be my memory but I don't remember my 1970's Hellenstic peltasts being allowed to switch modes - they remained in a perpetual state of loose ordered-ness. Some were labelled "Thracian" and were primarily attack troops with rhomphaia. I think the real question about LMI, to be true to WRG, is whether there was an intermediate order troop type, able to move fast across bad terrain but with essentially a close-combat role, not role-switching in battle. I suspect my old PB range Hellenistic peltasts would now be called thureopheroi, however, as they were equipped with large oval shields.
So if I get my head round this "peltast" is a skirmisher,. Ipicreaten peltast is the second rate hoplite that becomes a thureophoroi. in 4th cent the peltast was the typical mercenary to the extant that peltast= mercenary(AMPW) so do that mean huge numbers of LI running around and not many HI . Will dig out SS138 and read
Whether iphicratean peltasts existed at all, and whether if they did they were ancestral to Macedonian phalangites, thureophoroi, or anything else is decidely obscure. FWIW my gut feeling is they're a misunderstanding by later historians.
To return to game classifications, ADLG is a new(er) set that has peltasts as LMI. Well, a free choice of LMI and LI to be precise. All the way back to 680 BC, which seems a tad strange.
I think the problem with peltast is that in the ancient world the term (and the troop types) evolved because it can merely mean somebody with a pelta.
But at the same time among wargamers the term has also evolved as rule sets have risen and fallen.
And any overlap in meaning between the ancient term and the wargamers term appears entirely fortuitous at times ;)
Looking back in my "old" WRG reference books: Richard Nelson describes the "action near Lechaeum 390BC" when the Spartans were surprised that the "peltasts could evade before they could be caught" which suggests something that perhaps wasn't obviously LI and in the Macedonian and Punic Wars on page 51 the description of Thracian tactics sounds more LMI than LI to me (personally). However others may prove me wrong.
I think choose the rules or troops types that suits your preferences best. It is interesting that we are still using WRG terms something like 40 years after they were last published.
QuoteIt is interesting that we are still using WRG terms something like 40 years after they were last published.
I type my reply, I dial a number on the mobile, I watch video on You Tube. When a term becomes familiar, it can persist, even when the original rationale went away. AFAIK, PB invented the concept of LMI - it wasn't in Ancient rules before WRG (Tony Bath originally had HI, MI and LI). It wasn't niche - whole armies were made up of this new type. So it was a useful shorthand to describe a lot of troop types. Even after WRG rode off into the sunset, it left us with a shorthand for a class of troops, which we could debate whether it existed or not :)
We might also mention another Barker coinage - Warband to mean "Barbarian LMI". This is also found outside discussions based on DBX.
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 19, 2020, 03:05:41 PM
I think the problem with peltast is that in the ancient world the term (and the troop types) evolved because it can merely mean somebody with a pelta.
But at the same time among wargamers the term has also evolved as rule sets have risen and fallen.
And any overlap in meaning between the ancient term and the wargamers term appears entirely fortuitous at times ;)
Tangentially, to ancient authors
thureophoros seems to mean little more than someone with an oval shield. Plutarch uses it of Roman legionaries, frex.
As for the Hellenistic troops with Gallic-derived shields wargamers usually mean, as has been mentioned in previous discussions, Plutarch has Achaeans with
thureoi fighting "peltastically", while Arrian lists Greeks with spear, sword, and
thureos as an example of
hoplitai, i.e. heavy infantry. Artistic depictions show the
thureos combined with a variety of spears and javelins. It's not obvious to me there's a single troop-type here.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 20, 2020, 03:30:16 PM
Tangentially, to ancient authors thureophoros seems to mean little more than someone with an oval shield. Plutarch uses it of Roman legionaries, frex.
Slightly more specific, I think. While it's true that Plutarch occasionally uses the word of Romans, Polybios - who's closer to the action - doesn't. He doesn't use the word thureophoroi very often, true, but when he does there is no indication that he recognizes any relation to Romans. He describes Antiochos IV's men at Daphnai as "armed in Roman style with iron chain cuirasses", for instance, although he describes other Seleucid units elsewhere as thureophoroi. Thracians and Gauls are both described by various authors with thureoi, but never called thureophoroi.
One possibility is that in the century or so after Polybios, Greek soldiers cornverged more and more with the Roman model, and Plutarch's usage reflects that very late Hellenistic position; but that is little more than guesswork.
QuoteAs for the Hellenistic troops with Gallic-derived shields wargamers usually mean, as has been mentioned in previous discussions, Plutarch has Achaeans with thureoi fighting "peltastically", while Arrian lists Greeks with spear, sword, and thureos as an example of hoplitai, i.e. heavy infantry. Artistic depictions show the thureos combined with a variety of spears and javelins. It's not obvious to me there's a single troop-type here.
Whether there are two (or more) troop-types here, or one multi-purpose one, is a difficult question. I am less certain now than I used to be (of many, many things, including) the latter option, but I still favour it.
What has caused more misapprehension than almost any other sentence in Hellenistic military studies is Phil Barker's caption in his original AMPW picture of a thureophoros, labelled "Later peltast with thureos".
Analyses of the sources isn't going to resolve this discussion one way or another as they use terms such as 'peltast' for different things at different times.
The bottom line is what you think 'peltasts' were depends upon how you interpret that the various troop types operated on the ancient battlefield.
From my point of view, and it is a personal point of view, infantry in ancient armies either skirmished in front of or behind or to the sides of the main 'battleline' OR they formed up IN the main 'battleline'.
Now I admit that some troops had a better capability to 'operate' in 'terrain' than others but this 'area of operation' and tactical 'role' was normally determined before the battle commenced and they were deployed accordingly. It didn't just 'arise' during the course of a battle such that they could 'switch' from one style of combat to another. Either way, their 'combat objectives' were defined before the battle commenced and they were deployed as appropriate to fulfil them. If this was 'skirmishing' then this is what they did. If they were in the main battleline, then they formed up for close combat. If they were to operate in rough terrain then they were probably deployed in some 'looser' 'formation' than if they were in the main battleline and so they were considered by their Commander as being 'capable' of so doing.
What I have difficulty with is with troops switching from one style of combat and/or tactical function to another, different one during the course of a battle. This is why I have difficulty with (WRG-style) Light Medium Infantry which can effectively skirmish but can also engage main battleline troops in melee with a fair chance of success (e.g. WRG Thracian Peltasts with Romphia and Javlins v Hoplites). I just don't think that this happened and therefore that it is a fictional 'wargamer's troop classification' that allows unrealistic tactical flexibility which 'skews' the game.
Infantry in ancient armies either formed up as skirmishers or in the battleline. They didn't switch between the two roles. Some troops had the flexibility to operate in rough terrain and so take and hold terrain features but this 'flexibility' can be achieved in a game without the need for an entirely new troop type endowed with a 'multi-role combat capability' which they 'turn on and off' during a game at a player's whim.
So to me, 'early' Peltasts were skirmishers' Later Peltasts could be anything varying from Guard Phalangites through Thuero-bearing main Battleline infantry to skirmishers. Determining the latter is where analysis of the historical texts is key. Polybius and later writer's cannot be simply interpreted as referring to the equivalent of 5th Centruy BC skirmishers when they referred to peltasts. What they meant, needs to be interpreted by analysis and research on a case by case basis. Creating a single troop-classification called 'Peltast' simply does not 'fit the bill'
Indeed Anthony! I'm now off to hoover with the dyson.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 21, 2020, 08:33:37 AM
Indeed Anthony! I'm now off to hoover with the dyson.
don't damage the oil cloth ;)
I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest, I never had a problem with as a multi role troop type though not on the same day . I was more interested why they became only skirmishers as they dont seam to be as good at chasing of the Thracian "peltasts" they are supposed to imitate ?
Quote from: shaun holdsworth on July 21, 2020, 12:52:09 PM
I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest,
No, you've exposed an area of debate :)
I was interested to see Duncan's comment about PB claiming "later peltasts" carried thureoi and had a more close-combat role. This is as I remember it in my younger days. Yet, it seems peltasts always carried a pelta, though not always a crescent one, and the thureos-bearers weren't peltasts. It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed. So some folks clearly think later peltasts could be like light hoplites but carrying small shields. It's all very confusing .
But I think the original question was a good one to expose the evolution of light infantry in the Greek world.
Anthony et. al.,
It's an interesting topic of debate but in the end, I expect that there won't be any consensus.
In Tactica 2 (the main ruleset that I use), Thracian (and early Greek) 'Peltasts' are 'loosely based' (3 figs per 6cm in 25/8mm scale) and are classed as 'Massed Light Infantry' grouped into units of between 12 and 27 figures in number. This compares with 'Skirmishers' which operate on a 3cm/fig individual figure frontage and have no particular formation but rather operate as individual figures, 'clumped' into whatever configuration is most suitable and achievable within their movement distance constraints.
Skirmishers have NO (zero) melee capability against Massed Troops of any kind. Each individual figure contacted is simply dispersed. Skirmishers can only melee enemy skirmishers.
Massed Light infantry (operating in units) can about face and Evade but cannot interpenetrate other massed units. They have the same Missile Capability (if so armed) as Skirmishers BUT they CAN engage other Massed Units in Melee albeit they have very little chance of success against formed Heavy Foot if contacting them frontally. Typically, their Fighting Value is only 3 to 6 and they count as zero ranks in depth. This compares with Heavy Foot which are denser (4 figures v 3 figures), usually have a higher Fighting Value of 4 to6 ot 5 to 6 AND receive 2 extra melee dice for each rank depth agaisnt the Massed Light Infantry.
However, Massed Light Infantry are more potent in Terrain where Heavy Foot will be disordered and can be effective attacking the Flanks and/or Rear of Heavy Foot units.
So, you can see that there is still a more manoeuvrable Infantry class (called Massed Light Infantry) between true 'Skirmishers' and the main battleline Heavy Foot infantry class. This 'Massed Light Infantry can only really enter Melee with Heavy Foot with any optimism in rough Terrain or if the Heavy Foot are Disordered, badly 'beaten up' already or from the Flank or Rear. They are very effective in driving off enemy Skirmishers though.
In sum therefore, I think that this treatment for 'Early Peltasts' is OK, even if I could prefer them to be simply regarded as true Skirmishers. The reasons being that they are ineffective in combat against Heavy foot (under normal circumstances) but are capable of driving off enemy Skirmishers with relative ease.
With respect to later 'Peltasts' or 'Thureophoroi', I simply class these as Heavy Foot of the main battle line. In scenario games, These 'Later Peltasts' can be given a capability to avoid becoming Disordered in Rough Terrain but continue to act, in all other respects, as normal Heavy Foot.
Overall, the 'game balance' of Massed Light Infantry in Tactica 2 seems good. They are a 'useful' troop type useful in driving off Skirmishers given their melee capability, terrain capability and increased manoeuvrability, BUT they are very limited in their ability to engage Heavy Infantry of the main Battle line and so cannot 'usurp' the battleline troop's role.
Conversely, for 'Later Peltasts/Thureophoroi' and arguably for Thracians, these can be classed as main battleline troops as normal Heavy Infantry in the case of the former and possibly as Warband in the case of the latter (if so inclined).
Cheers
Simon
Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2020, 01:34:57 PM
It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.
I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.
Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 24, 2020, 01:11:57 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2020, 01:34:57 PM
It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.
I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.
Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.
Richard Nelson's Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars (1975) first introduced me to Iphicratean hoplites and this line continued in Warry's Warfare in the Classical World (1980), so I'd suggest it has some history and may have been the dominant paradigm at some point. As no one seems to be sure how they operated, how widespread they were or even whether they were more than a thought experiment, it's a difficult one to be definitive about.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 24, 2020, 01:11:57 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2020, 01:34:57 PM
It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.
I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.
Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.
Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 24, 2020, 04:23:04 PM
Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 8)
Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids". :)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 24, 2020, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 24, 2020, 04:23:04 PM
Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 8)
Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids". :)
you could well be right
Perhaps it was the socks that were iphicrateans ? ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 24, 2020, 04:51:56 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 24, 2020, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 24, 2020, 04:23:04 PM
Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 8)
Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids". :)
you could well be right
Perhaps it was the socks that were iphicrateans ? ;)
No, the iphicrateans were the smaller
caligulae-type boots worn by young aspiring Greek teans.
Quote from: simonw on July 20, 2020, 07:21:15 PM
From my point of view, and it is a personal point of view, infantry in ancient armies either skirmished in front of or behind or to the sides of the main 'battleline' OR they formed up IN the main 'battleline'.
Spartans at least could switch between roles in mid-battle, with their fastest hoplites stripping off all unnecessary armour and then pursuing enemy skirmishers. If they were able to scatter psiloi-class troops then they were definitely peltast-class at that moment.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 24, 2020, 07:32:51 PM
No, the iphicrateans were the smaller caligulae-type boots worn by young aspiring Greek teans.
I think that the reference in Diodoros is the only definite occurrence of the word
iphikratidai in the entire corpus of Greek literature (there are a couple of other instances, in Alciphron and Proclus, I believe, which are both read as iphikratids by some editors but differently by others). Therefore, I don't think we can say with any confidence what they are, except for what Diodoros says - they are "light and easy to untie". He doesn't even call them "boots", but by the vaguer word ὑποδέσεις/hypodeseis, "footwear".
Justin,
I'm afraid that I don't agree. I interpret he 'Ekdromoi' role for 'runners out' from the ranks to have been a predefined role for the 'youngest and fittest' in the ranks (maybe one per file or 8) and with their equipment adjusted accordingly. It was never the case as far as I can see that the whole of a Spartan (or any other Hoplite) formation suddenly broke ranks and changed from Phalanx into an anti-skirmisher (peltast) role and then reformed again after chasing any enemy skirmishers off.
If we were to go that way, then we would have to re-classify Spartans as 'close' order LMI in WRG 6th terms (i.e. 4 figs/60mm base).
Cheers
Simon
Quote from: simonw on July 26, 2020, 10:13:48 AM
Justin,
I'm afraid that I don't agree. I interpret he 'Ekdromoi' role for 'runners out' from the ranks to have been a predefined role for the 'youngest and fittest' in the ranks (maybe one per file or 8) and with their equipment adjusted accordingly. It was never the case as far as I can see that the whole of a Spartan (or any other Hoplite) formation suddenly broke ranks and changed from Phalanx into an anti-skirmisher (peltast) role and then reformed again after chasing any enemy skirmishers off.
If we were to go that way, then we would have to re-classify Spartans as 'close' order LMI in WRG 6th terms (i.e. 4 figs/60mm base).
Cheers
Simon
Sure. I wasn't thinking of an entire Spartan mora running off after enemy skirmishers, only its 'youngest and fittest 'as you describe. I can't remember the reference off-hand, but isn't there mention somewhere of Spartan hoplites dumping their gear before chasing after psiloi? That would imply that every Spartan in a mora was a fully-equipped hoplitea to begin with.
Justin,
That's how I interpret it as well. With respect to the 'dumping of equipment' I'm not sure how that would have occurred but as I see it, it may simply have been the dropping of the long spear and the 'pursuit' of the skirmishers with sidearms and perhaps a javelin (or two). 'Full equipment' might have sometimes been as little as hoplon and spear (and maybe Pilos).
Cheers
Simon