Agrainian Javelin Men Psiloi or peltasts?

[Anton]

I'm about to start painting some Agrainians for a Macedonian Army.  I had intended to base them 2 to a base then it occurred to me that they might be better considered peltasts.  That would mean 3 to a base for me.  What's the current thinking?

Thanks for any help.

[Duncan Head]

I would regard them as being much the same as the original classical shielded javelin-throwing peltasts. For me (and DBMM) those are two to a base.

I suggest basing is irrelevant, it depends on the capabilities of the troops under whatever rules you use. What is the difference between 2b and 3b infantry in your rules?

For example, in DBMM psiloi superior (2 to a base) can support cavalry, as hamippoi; auxilia (3 to a base ) cannot. It is sometimes suggested that the Agrianes operated in close support mixed in with the Companions. Do you want your Agrianes to be able to do this? If so, does the basing make any difference to that capability?

(It's not an ideal example because in DBMM psiloi can't support knights anyway, and the Companions are fast knights.... but I hope you get the general principle.)

There's a nice article on Agrianes in AW XII-2

[Anton]

Thanks Duncan, I take your point about capabilities. 

I'll probably be using these mainly for Civitates Bellantes.  If I made them javelin men then they would get a higher combat factor than skirmishers.  On the other hand if I made them skirmishers with higher morale and training they would outclass most other psiloi.

It may come down to whether I want two or three units of them as I have a bag of 24 figures.

[dwkay57]

If you expect them to stand and fight for some of the time then they ought to be peltasts. If you expect them to runaway nearly all the time then they are probably skirmishers.

[Duncan Head]

It may come down to whether I want two or three units of them as I have a bag of 24 figures.

I find it hard to conceive of an Alexandrian army with more than two units of Agrianes - usually only one.

Depending what figures you've got, they are likely to be usable for other light javelin-armed infantry, though, if you have any left over.

[RichT]

It does raise the question of what the difference is between peltasts and psiloi. Strictly speaking, in a Classical Greek setting, psiloi are shieldless and peltasts have shields, and there's no (obvious) tactical difference between them. As the terms have been adopted in the usual wargamer understanding, psiloi are pure skirmishers (always run away from contact) and peltasts are some sort of hybrid 'light heavy' type of thing, sometimes chucking and sometimes charging - which is fine but leaves the awkward situation that Classical Greek peltasts were not actually peltasts, in these terms. And let's not even get started on Hellenistic peltasts...

It's the problem with having (for game purposes) to divide types up into neat, distinct categories, when IRL not everyone fitted neatly into a single box. Tactically, Agrianes clearly chucked javelins, but their use as special forces suggests more of an attack role, so I would be inclined to classify them as wargamers' peltasts (but as Duncan says it all depends on what capabilities your rules of choice give these types).

[Anton]

Thanks very much all.  Your comments have really clarified the issue for me. 

I will begin with one unit of Agrainians based 3 to a base and then a second unit 2 to a base thus having both options.  The residue can be mixed in with other figures to form other units.

Should it be of interest the figures are a pack of 24 figures from Forged in Battle.