Hi, this is in reference to the proposed regrading of pilum armed infantry in the above lists to Ssp, Skilled javelin, shoot and charge, melee expert, shield cover.

A couple of issues. It would seem to encourage unhistorical tactics. Such troops can get engaged in a missile duel and prevail against many of their historical opponents, who are often unskilled javelin. They may be encouraged to use their shooting skills for extended periods against other non shooty opponents. I didn't think they carried more than two pila?

If pilum armed troops can be defined this way, why is it not offered to pilum armed troops in other lists?

Overall, it seems to be adding an unnecessary complication. Why not just have them as standard pilum armed troops eg impact weapon  with possibly melee expert?
If is is thought they need to have some shooting capacity I think it should be charge only. I would have though the previous classification was fine, although possibly aligning the Etruscans with the camillans  by only allowing one rank to shoot.

The Leves enabled them to engage with missiles.  It is a particularly expensive troop type to engage in a missile duel for any length of time.
The later troops were more flexible in their use of skirmishers.
The use of the pilum developed.  This seems a better way to reflect the early use of the pilum.

Quote from: accard on November 25, 2023, 01:51:01 AM
A couple of issues. It would seem to encourage unhistorical tactics. Such troops can get engaged in a missile duel and prevail against many of their historical opponents, who are often unskilled javelin. They may be encouraged to use their shooting skills for extended periods against other non shooty opponents. I didn't think they carried more than two pila?

Work done by Phil Sabin and Alexander Zhmodikov (for example) suggests that in the period from C4th to maybe as late as the C2nd BCE Roman tactics included much more use of missiles than is usually thought - and is a factor in why, as Sabin describes, Roman battles tend to be longer than, say, Greek battles where there is much less exchange of missiles. The pila volley followed by an immediate charge appears to be more of a LRR onwards thing. I'm not sure if much research has been done on this recently; does seem an interesting area to look at.

That's very interesting - is their work available online?

But I predict if these changes are extended to the Mid Republican Romans there may be a murmur or two of discontent....

Skilled javelin, no less ..yes that would be a hefty debate

Experienced might be better if you whish to modify the lists with some skilled as for the mounted shooty armies

Quote from: accard on November 25, 2023, 10:15:46 AM
That's very interesting - is their work available online?

Sabin - https://www.jstor.org/stable/300198

Zhmodikov - https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436566

Quote
But I predict if these changes are extended to the Mid Republican Romans there may be a murmur or two of discontent....

I'll go out on a limb and say that won't be happening 

Nik - a factor for Roman Republican battles taking a long time, was that a significant proportion of each legion was skirmishers. During the early Republic, a legion of 4,000 men included 1,000 skirmishers. A consular army of 4 legions with allied legions means about/upto 10,000 skirmishers. (Something to think about for army lists). Using this to whittle away at enemy would be a lengthy task.

IIRC There was a Spanish historian who published a few papers a few years ago on the "Western Mediterranean Way of War" citing examples of Roman (non-skirmish) legionaries engaging in protracted pilum-throwing. However, if it needs to be protracted, that suggests "Skilled" is not correct.

I think you are probably referring to Fernando Quesada Sanz's "Not so different: individual fighting techniques and small unit tactics of Roman and Iberian armies within the framework of warfare in the Hellenistic Age".

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43684935

The Skilled classification is due to there being only 1 rank of missile armed troops and so in effect it is about the same as Experienced (but actually a touch worse) - it is a way of getting the desired effect.

The notes for this troop type say they must deploy 3 Deep - but presumably you could then expand so the long spear and the 1 deep pila were in separate files?

Quote from: accard on November 25, 2023, 10:15:46 AM
But I predict if these changes are extended to the Mid Republican Romans there may be a murmur or two of discontent....

It won't be happening.  The idea on the evolution of the legion is that the Romans reequipped the principes from spear (hasta) to pilum and focused on the sword as the melee weapon.  This may have arisen from fighting Pyrrhus or from fighting the Gauls.  This resulted in a more flexible formation compared to the earlier formation where the idea was after the leves had skirmished and the hastati had thrown their pilum and retreated, the principes did the bulk of the fighting as a phalanx.  This evolves further into the entirely pilum equipped cohorts of the later republic. 

It is all theory, but its as good a theory as any  (the sources on the legion prior to Polybius are minimal (Livy and Dionysius), confusing and contradictory.

Sure, but I though the existing system modeled that ok, with the charge only javelin,  long spear. 

As you say, some missile fire then fighting as a phalanx.

And the withdrawal of the hastati could be taken as built into the previous model- now often the hastati will be doing a lion's share of the hand to hand, unless some special provision can be introduced allowing the spear armed troops to pass through the hastati in the charge or movement phase.

It had the virtue of being simple. The new model looks slightly more complicated and I wonder whether there will be any unintended consequences.
I can see what is intended from your and Nik's explanation, but I can imagine after deployment some formations as Dave mentions above, with pilum in some files and spear in others providing greater protection against mounted.

Has it been tried out on the table?

Quote from: accard on November 26, 2023, 12:56:05 PM
Has it been tried out on the table?

Yes (and my suspicion would be that you haven't)!  I was actually not satisfied with the Etruscans since last year - the Charge Only wasn't quite right. The solution isn't as elegant as I would like but it is the best one I can find.

It still surprises how much people can criticise something that they haven't tried, hasn't cost them a penny and they don't have to use.
The idea of publishing draft lists was for people to spot errors and make constructive criticisms.  Sadly it has attracted far too many people who have complained because things have changed, without actually trying the changes themselves.

Richard

If it's any consolation (which it probably isn't!) this has been the pattern with every set of ancients rules since at least DBM if not before (basically from when we could all discuss rules on the internet). I think it happens because many of us (including me!) spend much more time thinking about lists than we do about either the actual history or about tactics on the table. So it's nothing personal - just a wargamers flaw, I think.

Quote from: daveparish on November 26, 2023, 05:54:58 PM
So it's nothing personal - just a wargamers flaw, I think.

Sadly this time around some of it has been personal.

Not you of course.