Neo-Babylonian list

[Player]

looking at the new list the regrade for the infantry has them as 'Sparabara' with front rank as spearmen and pavise but no short spear and instead unprotected with bow. I also not that they are formed flexible. I am a little confused as the spearmen in the list above this are formed close and hence should have 4 figures to a base. Now it says flexible then does that mean 4 or 3 to a base? or just that the rear rank loose archers come into the front rank if acting as loose.  This seems odd as it defeats the object of the sparabara type infantry with the archers behind the spearmen.
How should this all be represented with figures in the battle group?

[Jilu]

What i do for flexible units :
1 rank of 4 per base and one of 3 per base.
If in close formation the 4 per base are in front. if in lose formation the 3 per base are in front.
You can also do all ranks by 4 or by 3 and use a marker to show they are close or loose.

[Doomsmile]

You can order Close/Loose formation markers from companies like Litko game accessories to indicate their formation.

I don't really know of any better way of indicating Flexible states for a front-rank-only flexible unit like sparabara.

[Player]

Yes, Jilu, that is how I represent other flexibles but the problem with the sparabara types is that the back rank is a different troop type, being archers. I am actually confused as to why this unit should be flexible in any case, given that it is a fairly fixed formation.

[Jilu]

Well then use 4 per base  for esctetic reasons and declare what formation they are in, a marker is useful
As for the why :
In close formation they are better in open ground, in lose formation they are better in terrain or vs elephants

[Player]

Should the regraded Babylonian front rank 'sparabara' not have the spear as a melee weapon from the original listing?
or as they now have pavise is the spear lost and both ranks now have a bow as listed and instead a row of pavises in front on separate bases/strips as recommended in the rule book? 

[lionheartrjc]

The Bow and Pavise characteristic reflects the practice of a single rank of spearmen carrying the pavises and 9 ranks of bowmen behind.

Richard

[Player]

Yes, I get that but what really is the difference between the two options:

1. close formation spearmen with shield cover and shieldwall with integral shooters. (bowmen marker or base/s at the rear to indicate integral shooters)
2. flexible formation sparabara with just bow unprotected and Pavise. (this implies no spear and just a pavise in front - also specified in the rules as a separate base of pavises)

How should these different options be represented because as far as I know the real formations were the same?

[lionheartrjc]

Yes, I get that but what really is the difference between the two options:

1. close formation spearmen with shield cover and shieldwall with integral shooters. (bowmen marker or base/s at the rear to indicate integral shooters)
2. flexible formation sparabara with just bow unprotected and Pavise. (this implies no spear and just a pavise in front - also specified in the rules as a separate base of pavises)

How should these different options be represented because as far as I know the real formations were the same?

1 is a formation of spearmen with a few supporting skirmishers.
2 is a formation of archers with a front rank of spearmen carrying pavises. 
They are entirely different formations. 

Our sources for the formations used by the Neo-Babylonians are scanty to say the least.  The written sources just talk about Spearmen and Archers (technically a better translation is soldiers with bow and soldiers with spear). The reliefs don't really add much more. The evidence for the sparabara is drawn mostly from Early Iranian practice in Elam and Persis that appears to have been adopted by Medes and Scythians (although possibly the other way around).

The list basically allows for either separate units of archers and spearmen or units of sparabara in any combination.  You can play whatever interpretation you feel is best.

Pavise characteristic implies the front ranks have spear.  1 rank doesn't justify the short spear melee weapon as well.

Richard

[Player]

Thanks Richard.
For the second formation, it says in the rules for pavise that separate bases should be used in front. Hence, instead of the spearmen with large shield as in the first formation, would you use small bases with pavises on them in front of the archers instead of using the spearmen figures from the first formation? 

[nikgaukroger]

For the troops with pavise I'd have the pavise on the base and not separate unless I also wanted to use them for troops without pavise - saves messing around with a separate base.