Greek peltasts

[shaun holdsworth]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.)

[shaun holdsworth]

That is good to know but FOG and MEG have them as LI

[Duncan Head]

when did peltasts stop being LMI and become LI

In "Myths of History and Wargaming", Slingshot issue 138.

[simonw]

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of the early 3rd century BC still show a small round Pelte shield in use but by the mid-3rd century BC it has been replaced by the Thureos.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.

[nikgaukroger]

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

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[shaun holdsworth]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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 

[dwkay57]

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.

[Erpingham]

It 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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

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".