Classification of infantry - the return of the revenge of the extra medium foot!

[PMBardunias]

You could drive yourself crazy (I know, I've tried) categorising and recategorising and adding factors and removing them. My primary objective in thinking of legionaries as MI, not as HI (O) or any such abhorrence, is to reflect Polybius' analysis of legion v. phalanx which claims that the key difference between them is that the phalanx requires clear unencumbered terrain and a fair open battle, while the legion can operate on all sorts of terrain and in all sorts of circumstances and types of combat. This is why I think legionaries are heavy peltasts, not light phalangites, and I don't think Polybius' distinction is at all well reflected by standard categorisations of legions as HI.

Plutarch perhaps has something to add on thureophoroi:

"Plut. Phil. 9.1:  In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed, but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage. Moreover, a division of line and formation into cohorts was not customary with them, and since they employed a solid phalanx without either leveled line of spears or wall of interlocking shields such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered"

And later in battle with Machanidas: "in a very short time the whole of the mercenaries on either side were engaged. They fought sometimes in close order, sometimes in pairs: and for a long time so entirely without decisive result, that the rest of the two armies, who were watching in which direction the cloud of dust inclined, could come to no conclusion, because both sides maintained for a long while exactly their original ground."

[Tim]

I agree with Rich so want Romans regraded as LHI...

[RichT]

Yes indeed, that's the classic case of the transition from thureophoroi to sarrisophoroi (phalangites). For anyone perplexed by the vocabulary of the translation, here's an annotated and expanded version:

Plut. Phil. 9.1:  "In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers [thureoi] which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears [dorasi] which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike [sarisa]. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed [kouphotetos], but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage. Moreover, a division of line and formation into cohorts [speirai] was not customary with them, and since they employed a solid phalanx without either leveled line of spears [probole] or wall of interlocking shields [synaspismos] such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered. Philopoemen showed them all this, and persuaded them to adopt long pike [sarisa] and heavy shield [aspis] instead of spear [doru] and buckler [thureos], to protect their bodies with helmets and breastplates and greaves, and to practise stationary and steadfast fighting instead of the nimble movements [dromikos] of light-armed troops [peltastikos]."

We wonders (at least I do) how men armed only with a doru/dory/spear fought 'at a long distance' - presumably javelins featured also.

Polybius 11.13: "in a very short time the whole of the mercenaries on either side were engaged. They fought sometimes in close order, sometimes in pairs [Shuckburgh translation. Paton renders this much more literally: "They were fighting all over the field, in a confused crowd and man to man"]: and for a long time so entirely without decisive result, that the rest of the two armies, who were watching in which direction the cloud of dust inclined, could come to no conclusion, because both sides maintained for a long while exactly their original ground."

So low intensity combat (note this is the euzonoi mercenaries, not the Achaaen phalanx) but we can't read anything into Shuckburgh's 'in close order'.

[Erpingham]

So, if we take this as typical of the difference between hoplites and peltasts (in the tacticians terms)

Hoplites (HI) - heavy equipment, close order, ranks, division of phalanx it to smaller units, operate as a body

Peltasts (MI) - light equipment. able to fight at distance, no ranks and order, large phalanx instead of units, prone to confused, indesive, man-to-man combat. 

As this is explaining Greek practice, it is a bit difficult to see how one might fit legionaries in.

[Justin Swanton]

Peltasts (MI) - light equipment. able to fight at distance, no ranks and order, large phalanx instead of units, prone to confused, indesive, man-to-man combat. 

Just out of interest, what is the foundation for the idea that non-HI infantry like peltasts didn't have ranks or order? In the manuals they certainly do.

[Erpingham]

Peltasts (MI) - light equipment. able to fight at distance, no ranks and order, large phalanx instead of units, prone to confused, indesive, man-to-man combat. 

Just out of interest, what is the foundation for the idea that non-HI infantry like peltasts didn't have ranks or order? In the manuals they certainly do.

I am trying to interpret the passage as quoted.  In particular


a division of line and formation into cohorts [speirai] was not customary with them

they employed a solid phalanx without either leveled line of spears [probole] or wall of interlocking shields [synaspismos]

They were fighting all over the field, in a confused crowd and man to man

I trust you Hellenophiles to explain how this lines up (or doesn't) with other contemporary sources  - which is of course what you are doing.

[Justin Swanton]

Peltasts (MI) - light equipment. able to fight at distance, no ranks and order, large phalanx instead of units, prone to confused, indesive, man-to-man combat. 

Just out of interest, what is the foundation for the idea that non-HI infantry like peltasts didn't have ranks or order? In the manuals they certainly do.

I am trying to interpret the passage as quoted.  In particular


a division of line and formation into cohorts [speirai] was not customary with them

they employed a solid phalanx without either leveled line of spears [probole] or wall of interlocking shields [synaspismos]

They were fighting all over the field, in a confused crowd and man to man

I trust you Hellenophiles to explain how this lines up (or doesn't) with other contemporary sources  - which is of course what you are doing.

I don't think this means the peltasts didn't have file and rank structure. Plutarch (whose personal experience of infantry - if any - would have been of the Roman legion), is saying that they didn't fight like Macedonians or Romans.

In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers [thureoi] which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears [dorasi] which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike [sarisa]. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance [πόρρωθεν - porrothen], because they were so lightly armed [kouphotetos] but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage.

'Long distance'- porrothen - can also have the meaning of 'further away'. Further away than what? The spears [doru] AFAIK are not throwing spears, so Plutarch is probably suggesting is that the peltasts can outrange an adversary like a legionary who usually fights at closer quarters, and, using their agility, keep that distance. Notice 'for this reason.' - i.e. not for the reason that they have missile weapons. The lightness of their weapons however means they do badly close up against a more heavily-equipped opponent.

Moreover, a division of line and formation into cohorts [speirai] was not customary with them, and since they employed a solid phalanx without either leveled line of spears [probole] or wall of interlocking shields [synaspismos] such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered.

Notice that the probole and synapismos refer to the Macedonian phalanx, i.e. the peltasts cannot create an impenetrable mass of spearpoints and shieldwall like the Macedonians can. They have exactly the same problem as the classical hoplite - it is easy for a well-armoured opponent to get past their spear guard. As a speculative guess, I suspect that the reference to the peltasts' lack of subunits (speirai) means they cannot manoeuvre on the battlefield as the Romans did at Cynoscephalae, wheeling their lines by centuries and getting behind the advancing phalanx. This ability requires trained professional troops which the Achaeans at that point were not.

[RichT]

Broadly speaking I agree; Plutarch isn't saying "the Achaeans were armed as thureophoroi, which means they had light equipment and no unit organisation". He is saying "the Achaeans had the equipment of and fought as thureophoroi, rather than a sarisa-phalanx, and they also had no unit organisation". Peltasts and thureophoroi could have unit organsiation, it's just that the Achaeans didn't. And yes, Romans are lighter (medium) infantry operating in independent units not as a continuous mass (says I), which is what makes them more effective despite their lightness.

Note incidentally that the Achaeans were thureophoroi not peltasts. The two might have been very similar, but not identical (even if the shields were the only difference).

I think interpreting "fighting at a distance" to mean "at spear's length" is a stretch to say the least. Plutarch would hardly be contrasting them with Romans at this point - the comparison is with Macedonians (who by that reckoning fought at an even greater distance). Nobody really understands how thureophoroi fought, but based on this passage, it wasn't at close quarters. There seems to be this distinction between fighting at close quarters like hoplites, and some looser, lower intensity form of combat, probably involving rushing forward in small groups then giving back, as practised by Persians at Plataea and others (Hellenistic peltasts, thureophoroi, other barbarians), that didn't necessarily involve missiles.

[Erpingham]

probably involving rushing forward in small groups then giving back

Without wishing to raise the spectre of the Way of Western Mediterranean Warfare debate, there are those who have Romans doing this, and Iberians.  They do throw things though.

It seems though that these Achaeans are not as well organised as some other thureophoroi (assuming these are the peltasts of the tacticians), or Romans.

While I'm seeing (I think) the similarities between these types (inc Romans) and how they contrast with hoplites (in the tacticians sense), there do seem to still be variations in elan, "getting stuck in" etc.  Are these sufficient to sub-divide fighting styles, or can they be dealt with by other mechanisms (e.g. morale, combat)?

[RichT]

Ah yes, WMWW. There is something to be said for it...

Without stating the obvious (well actually, stating the obvious), it depends on the rules. Overall my hypothesis is that legionaries are sufficiently similar in fighting style to other 'intermediates' to group them together, but legionaries might be more willing to engage closely than other medium types, especially ones more dependent on missiles. How best to model that in wargames terms is an open question. My preference is for simple rules without a gazillion factors and modifiers so I'm happy with a few broad categories (for infantry, LI, MI, HI) which define overall movement and fighting ability, and morale classes (Veteran, Average, Levy for eg) which are mostly about staying power.

I'm experimenting with 'traits' or keywords that give specific special rules eg pike phalangites get 'projecting spears (probole)' and 'shield wall (synaspismos)' which give an attack/defence bonus to their front, and -ve modifiers to their flanks; legionaries might get 'agility' which lets them manoeuvre easily or attack to their flanks. Some veteran legionaries might get 'aggression' which gives them a +ve melee modifier. And so on.

[Justin Swanton]

Broadly speaking I agree; Plutarch isn't saying "the Achaeans were armed as thureophoroi, which means they had light equipment and no unit organisation". He is saying "the Achaeans had the equipment of and fought as thureophoroi, rather than a sarisa-phalanx, and they also had no unit organisation". Peltasts and thureophoroi could have unit organsiation, it's just that the Achaeans didn't. And yes, Romans are lighter (medium) infantry operating in independent units not as a continuous mass (says I), which is what makes them more effective despite their lightness.

Note incidentally that the Achaeans were thureophoroi not peltasts. The two might have been very similar, but not identical (even if the shields were the only difference).

I think interpreting "fighting at a distance" to mean "at spear's length" is a stretch to say the least. Plutarch would hardly be contrasting them with Romans at this point - the comparison is with Macedonians (who by that reckoning fought at an even greater distance). Nobody really understands how thureophoroi fought, but based on this passage, it wasn't at close quarters. There seems to be this distinction between fighting at close quarters like hoplites, and some looser, lower intensity form of combat, probably involving rushing forward in small groups then giving back, as practised by Persians at Plataea and others (Hellenistic peltasts, thureophoroi, other barbarians), that didn't necessarily involve missiles.

What is the evidence (if any) that thureophoroi were the direct descendants of Iphicratean peltasts? Iphicrates equipped his lot with 12-ft spears and light (though not necessarily small) shields, and the emphasis was on them having combat mobility, able to advance and retire. I understand this as meaning that they could outfight hoplites in a spear contest since they had greater reach, and they didn't have to close up shield-to-shield for othismos/knife fights - they could always back away if the hoplites tried advancing. This would make sense of the switch from round to oblong shields, the oblong shields increasing their mobility by not getting in the way of shields of adjacent files. All a bit tenuous of course but is there anything on this in the sources?

[Duncan Head]

What is the evidence (if any) that thureophoroi were the direct descendants of Iphicratean peltasts?

There isn't any.

4th-century Iphikratean peltasts either (a) didn't actually exist, or (b) disappeared as soon as they were invented, or (c) inspired Macedonian pikemen, or (d) inspired the Hellenistic peltast "spearmen/light pikemen" of the manuals - depending which interpretation of the evidence you favour.

Thureophoroi emerge in the 3rd century using Gallic-style shields. The Boiotians and Achaian-Arcadians, who are perhaps the best-documented users of the type, seem to have relied previously on traditional hoplites. Thureophoroi are illustrated with conventional-length thrusting-spears, and may have carried throwing-spears either as well as a thruster (that one stele from Alexandria where the spearman's page carries his thureos and javelins) or instead (one interpretation of the description of the pre-reform Achaians "fighting at a distance"). Thureophoroi are not linked with Iphikratean-style extra-long spears.

Finally the only one of the tacticians who mentions the infantry thureos, Arrian, specifically lists Greeks with spear and thureos under the hoplite category, quite distinct from the peltasts.

[Erpingham]

I have a slight worry that the focus on types of Hellenstic infantry will lead us away from the generalising approach of dividing infantry into superclasses, which can then be broken down into a larger number of classes and sub-classes.

It seems to me that the tactitians have given us a very restricted HI class - they are guys with armour shields and thrusting spears of various sorts, who form rigid ranks.  They also talk about a LI class which are lightly equipped and have missile weapons, who skirmish at various points but hang around it quite large blocks some of the time.  The MI don't seem well fleshed out.  It almost seems these are everybody else.  Is being able to chip off some clearly defined HI and LI enough for us?  We need to be able to assign a wider range of troops to our categories, so they may need to be more clearly distinguished.

[RichT]

Justin

... the emphasis was on them having combat mobility, able to advance and retire.

That's overstating it slightly - Nepos "in order that the soldiers might move and charge more easily when less burdened", Diodorus "to enable the user of the small shield, on account of its lightness, to be completely free in his movements" - so mobility and ease of handling yes, but able to advance and retire, not explicitly. (Not but what I think that's what is meant).

Duncan

Arrian, specifically lists Greeks with spear and thureos under the hoplite category, quite distinct from the peltasts.

Good point. I'm inclined not to set great store by this as it is clearly (judging by absence from Asclepiodotus and Aelian) Arrian's own addition, not something in his sources, and he is probably just trying to be clever. But still.

Generally, yes the whole peltast thing in the tacticians is most unsatisfactory. Asclepiodotus and Aelian never mention the thureos and you'd get no clue from them that thureophoroi even existed. The peltasts are hopelessly under-specified, thrown in as almost an afterthough in the classifications of infantry and not mentioned again (all attention is on hoplites and a little on psiloi). It's tempting to dismiss them as just Aslepiodotus dividing into threes again, as he likes to, expecially given that the only peltasts we see clearly, the Antigonid Peltasts, seem indistinguishable from (pike) hoplites.

I still think that the fighting styles argument, taking all together and not just following the tacticians, supports a three-way division, close combat, low intensity non missile or partial missile combat, and pure missile combat.

[gavindbm]

When reading Azar Gats "War in Human Civilisation" he makes an interesting link between observed combat in (somewhere- New Guinea? africa?) where two sides approached and engaged in spear throwing with odd heroic individual engaging in hand to hand combat, and Homeric warfare (two throwing spears, heroes engage hand to hand).  Thus it is possible that this style of combat was common to may areas ... and could be how many tribal peltasts fought.

However, this could be getting close of some ideas of denser groups of light infantry than, for example, Roman legions and Shaka's Zulus where training (& cohesion/morale) enabled closing to hand to hand combat.