Following several games involving Neo-Babylonians or Achmaenid Persian, am challenging my understanding of their "shield-walls" and the rules for such. Within the rules, pavises are defined as "large free-standing personal barricades", and within the army lists, 'spara', gerrha and similar are defined as Pavise.
The use of such shield tactics was, iirc, first recorded by the Elamites, and rapidly copied by Babylonians and Persians/Medes. The organisation (for the Persians), as described by Xenophon and Herodotus was that the spara was (only) carried by the leader of each row of ten archers, and that the spara were constructed together to form a barrier before the battle, (by use of their spears), and were used to defend against enemy missiles. Herodotus (I, 214) describes exactly this in the battle against Massagetae. This tactic was successful against contemporary armies, most of which comprised archers on both sides.
However, the effect of the shield wall against non-missile infantry was:
1/. Lydian war (546BC) : the Persians infantry fought and either held or defeated hoplites type warriors at both Pteria and Thymbra.
2/. Pelagasium (525 BC) : the Persian infantry fought and defeated Egyptian spearmen and mercenary Greek hoplites.
3/. Marathon (490BC) : the Greeks were successful, however, the Persians were caught by surprise and did not have time to erect the shield wall.
4/. Plataea : the Persians held their ground until the shield was breached ... re: Herodotus ....
"The Tegeans were the first to initiate the offensive, advancing against the barbarians, followed by Spartans, and the Persians encountered them, having dropped their bows.... First, there was a combat around the spara wall, and once it fragmented, there came a violent combat around the sanctuary ....The Persians were not less strong nor brave, but lacked then the big shields and were not so skilled". Herodotus IX, 62.
5/. Battle of Micalae " Well, as long as the Persians held the spara wall, they defended themselves and suffered no disadvantage during the battle.[...] But once the Athenians made it fall, they engaged the Persians, who, after holding and defending during a long time, finally ran to their fort". Herodotus, XI, 102.
My interpretation is that the "shield wall" was more than a flimsy defence, and more than a "large free-standing personal barricades". If the former it would not have presented a significant obstacle to charging cavalry or hoplites. The shield-wall provided significant defence until the attacking infantry had breached or broken it.
I propose that Neo-Babylonian, Achmaenid Persians (and others) drop the pavise option, but add a Barricade characteristic instead. Construction of the barricade should be an action requiring a card, and once constructed it may not be moved or removed. Combat factors would remain similar to now but would give the Persians greater melee capability and would remove the issue of sparabara etc retiring and retaining the pavise cover. The concept of a formed body of men retiring/stepping backwards in order, whilst firing a bow and lugging a large wicker shield – surely a Benny Hill special.
-
Thanks for posting Ian.
I think my take on the 1-5 points of evidence is that they caused a temporary obstruction to infantry. So it feels that the current Pavise which gives a +1 vs infantry in charge combat is about right.
The bits that then we ponder3e were:
1) Speed. Should it slow movement. As it was carried by a separate team I didn't think so for battle manoeuvre speeds.
2) Should you pay to set it up like caltrops. The more I read the more it was a task to set them up something like stakes.
3) Should it affect mounted much. I doubt anything you can carry can hold up a horse much. So didn't feel right to be a barricade which is much more permanent and significant and immobile. All the evidence we have seems to be against bow and foot armies.
4) Should we limit movement options. Probably so, but erred for KISS for now. But with hindsight I think the lugging backwards is a step too far. But then other pavises are less rigid and more mobile so have to draw an artificial one somewhere.
From a game point of view barricades en-masse would stifle the use of the army so that is a consideration as well.
So my summary is that at some point in the future I would be tempted to have it as today but like stakes to deploy and they are picked up when you move.. Then if you go backwards you lose them - so prefer to stay where you are and fight.
But not going to change anything short term. They have plenty of enemies. But try it out that way and report back how it feels. Always seeking as good a historical feel as possible.
Si
Persian skilled shooter behind pavise are really good ...but do not make them superhuman please
Ultimately that would make them a little less good.
But they have many enemies they don't like.
We have a campaign here where they are fighting Parthians.
The cataphracts make quite a mess of them.
Within the points system all armies have their enemies where they feel 1,000pts worse or 1,000pts better due to the specific match up. That is part of the fun.
Si
As Sparabara only had short spear for front ranks; and as this was used for constructing the 'shield wall', (Herodotus); should the short spear characteristic be removed from combat factors ?
This would not apply to Immortals (as all were armed with short spear), but it deemed applicable, may also apply for similar troops in Elamite, Skythian and Neo-Babylonian armies.
That may well be worthwhile considering.
I know Graham Briggs is doing some research into it as well at present so we can put heads together about it then.
Si
Gents, to chip in to this debate, and widen it to a discussion of how the Early Achaemenid infantry should work in rules and army lists, I done a bit of looking through recent works on the subject. It's longer than a forum post should be, so I've put it up on my blog.
cwatp.blogspot.com (http://cwatp.blogspot.com)
Thanks Graham B.
Si
My thoughts on Grahams fine commentary ...
Quote1. For minor conflicts within a single satrapy, it's likely that just the locally available troops would be used. However, it is unlikely that these conflicts would be of the scale represented by most wargames rules.
. Probably true although we do cover for it with the two lists.
Quote2. For major conflicts the "Persian style" corps would be the heart of the army. So, compulsory troops in any EAP list should be the sparabara formations "fighting in the Persian style", but not the Immortals or guard units. At least a third of the troops present should be of this nature, I'd suggest enough compulsories so that players have to take at least three units
This does suggest we should have a much larger minima for the Sparabara to ensure it is the core of at least the Satrapal armies. Perhaps 18 minimum between the different types.
Quote3. How to depict the Sparabara formation? I would say fairly large units (the corps tended to be 10,000 – in theory – all deployed together). So, say, 6-8 bases in MeG. Personally I would have them as formed close order foot but if that's too much of a departure 'flexible' in MeG perhaps. They should have bow and light spear and the spara as a sort of pavise or minor wall.
Flexibles probably works best.
Quote4. Immortals. If it's an army on campaign with the king of Kings, they'd have the full 10,000 Immortals there. But in the context of the Persian army, while it's good, it's still just one corps out of thirty. So I would allow only one unit of 6-8. I would suggest allowing the Immortals to substitute for one of the "Persian style" units. i.e. if you had, say 20 compulsort Persian Style bases, allow 6-8 to be upgraded to Immortals. They should be better morale than the other troops though (superior) and were probably better shots too (they were all promoted from the line units so each new recruit into the Immortals would already be highly experienced.
I think the challenge with that one is that the Persian armies were often massive but the troops fighting were often a lot less. So keeping the option of an immortal heavy battle probably does make sense still. I would be tempted to raise the compulsory level of the normal sparabara which will automatically reduce them down in numbers.
Quote5. Immortals in a non Royal army. We know very little about these. The army left in Greece to fight Plataea was in effect still a royal army but the KoK had gone home. It seems unlikely they'd have all been sent so maybe 0-6?
That would make sense to me.
Quote6. Apple bearers . The apple bearers were only a 1000 man unit, so tiny in comparison with the size of the army, and only 10% of the number of the Immortals. Too small to depict in a list I'd say, or perhaps they should be subsumed into the Immortals.
Justifies a 4 or 6 for character.
The Pavise I would for future be tempted to have it more like caltrops and being deployed and then you lose it if you move.
However on all he above we will store for a little while to allow stability to reign.
Si
QuoteI would be tempted to raise the compulsory level of the normal sparabara which will automatically reduce them down in numbers.
For now in a royal army it is 0
In the 3 lists in competition for IWC2020, all had the immortals skilled shooter ( sup and average ) which is normal as it makes the army strongh ( not unbeatable )
I suspect people will just use the Royal Army if they want lots of immortals.
The plus of the satrapal army would seem to be a large number of weaker troops giving mass bow fire along with a Medizing Greek strike force.
Si
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on October 01, 2020, 04:53:41 PM
I suspect people will just use the Royal Army if they want lots of immortals.
The plus of the satrapal army would seem to be a large number of weaker troops giving mass bow fire along with a Medizing Greek strike force.
Si
A grrek strike force that is either "combat shy" or "poor" ...great ;D
I thought its was average. But perhaps that is I have sent he suggested adjustment.
Si
Some are average but combat shy and others poor ...so no real force .
The later persian have some good hoplites . An interesting army, perhaps underestimated I used it at IWC2020 but only 2 games . Not a real winner in a 3 hour game but fun .
Your looking within the list.
The Medizing Greek external ally gives you 4 TuGs of Average, Shove, shield cover hoplites.
Unless I have missed something.
Si
I was looking at the Royal Army ...let us be Royalist
I as pointing out her benefits of being non royalist ;)