"Ancient greeks armies: boring to play?" Topic

I always like a Greek army (they look great) but is seems to be boring to play, just hoplite blocks with a little skirmishing and cavalry and that's it.
Is this assumption correct?

No way!

Well if you look at it like that, same with Macedonian (phalanx), Romans (cohorts) and so on. The fun is in replicating historical tactics and being successful. Give hoplites a go, they are good fun :)

cheers
Jon.

I've fought a lot of enjoyable hoplite battles, they can be gripping. Although the troops are similarly armed, there's skill in deploying your army- where do the best troops go- do you try for an overlap- positioning of generals- depth. Then there's where you attack, can you refuse a wing a la Epaminondas? Also what to do with cavalry and lights. Lots of decisions to be made.

The tactical choices are mostly at set-on, so the combat resolution needs to be very quick.

As noted, ultimately Ancient warfare in general might be considered a little dull – line up and charge. But it isn't, and Hoplite armies are no less interesting all the other massed infantry close combat style armies.

Greek armies are interesting for the following reasons:

1. file depth varied – according to circumstnaces and doctrine

2. order was varied too – close order was adopted defensively.

3. refusing the reverse flank was a tactical possiblility.

4. wing columns were used by the Thebans for flank guards/attacks.

5. peltasts developed as troop types throughout the period.

6. cavalry took on a more of an important battlefield role in the 4th century.

7. overlapping can be fun too – that is if you incorporate rules for "drifting".

I think it might be the perception of the opposing armies being just the same.

The more one learns about strategy and tactics the more it seems to help generate interest.

Perhaps recommendations of some works on Greek warfare would be of benefit.

There were always auxiliaries, though many histories don't mention them.

Best to mix up your games, Pitched battles all the time can lead to similar results. In Greek warfare often small actions yielded many more times the strategic result than large battles.

I believe it depends on what type of game you like. When I started playing DBA two of the first armies I got were Greek Hoplites Armies. As opponents I got bored with them pretty fast. It seemed to me like the Hoplites just pushed each other back and forth. I felt like most games were usually decided by a flank attack by the more mobile, but weaker, elements.

This isn't a knock on DBA as I have every version, have played it extensively, and think it's a really great gaming system. I think DBA did a good job representing Hoplite warfare. But I enjoy games that I feel are both quick and more mobile. I generally play with armies that are primarily mounted so maybe Hoplites just didn't push my buttons. Your mileage may vary.

Persians?

One of the first historical match ups I ever wanted to buy were painted Athenian and Spartan 28mm armies back in the 90s.

These days I'm all about Alexandrian, Successors & Hellenistic Greeks but I couldnt imagine doing Classical Greeks at this time.

If I did, it would be Greeks vs Italian Tribes or Carthaginians.

As wmeyers said, maybe recommendations for some good books on greek warfare would help.
So I'm open to suggestions.
Also, what are smaller actions and how do the hoplites functioned in those. No pikeblock but???

And, which rules are good for hoplit warfare as eg Hail Ceasar doesn't give rank bonusses (just large, standard etc)

Brownand, I think you want to go and look at Hoplomachia, the Perfect Captain's hoplite warfare rules… you'll see, not at all a dull kind of warfare! And you also get a scenario book and a campaign system. Oh, and it's free!

Peter Connolly has the work ‘Rome and Greece at War'

link

Hoplite vs hoplite warfare was a usually regulated affair to minimize innovation and attempt to limit casualties to both the winner and loser. Most of the large hoplite battles of the classical age and Peloponnesian wars are not exactly simulation gems. Most generals would not have fought the battle of Mantinea (418) because every bit of foresight would have predicted a Spartan win.

And yet the allies stood up to the superior Spartan led forces- probably because they knew the rules of war would protect the losers from being slaughtered- since the heralds and other arbitrators would stop things and declare a winner.

Not so with foreigners- the Greeks would pursue them into their camps and cut them down. Occasionally in some blood grudges massacres might happen like when the Spartans set fire to a forest after a battle with Argives who had fled.

But this is rare stuff in pitched battles.

Once tactical changes started to happen at a revolutionary pace- hoplites became less practical troops.

The Thebans developed the stacked deck oblique order which defeated the often used Spartan outflanking maneuver. Once that tactical revolution took hold then all sorts of changes made battles more fluid, and the hoplite armies just had a tough time against combined arms (even against Persians- when the Persians were able to bring it off).

This book covers my favorite period of the hoplite wars 400-250 BC. When the armies had to adjust to tactical changes and could field combined arms forces such as fought in the Lamian War.

I wish they would reprint:
Military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon Hardcover – 1970 by J. K Anderson

link

Yeah, after checking out the prices sellers are asking, a reprint would be great.

I'd never heard of this work previously.

There is a preview:

link

I can recommend the following books for some interesting and informative perspectives on hoplite warfare::

Donald Kagan and Gregory F. Viggiano, eds. Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (2013)
link

J.E. Lendon. Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (2005)
link

Victor Davis Hanson and John Keegan. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (1989)
link

Lendon is a super read. Thanks for the tip on the Kagan book, I'd not heard of that!

thanks for the book tips

I think the question can only be answered if the precise period in question (and interpretation of that period) is defined. If you read Hanson's or Lendon's books for the late archaic or early classical periods you would find hoplites arrayed in an almost ritualistic battlefield theatre with the contest between sides orchestrated to limit tactics in favour of a homeric test of arms by the collective. Hanson notes examples of phalanxes giving up advantages like a hill position. Not too thrilling for wargaming and should not involved articulated and diverse armies.

Now, a little later in the Peloponnesian war you can almost feel Hanson's dismay at the loss of the limits of warfare and the development of trained and articulated armies with greater use of light troops and skirmishers. Sad for the Greeks that they found war, as opposed to decisive battle, but good for gamers interested in fighting more complex and colourful actions.

So, classical greek warfare can be interesting if put into the right period. Of course, it gets far more interesting once the Macedonians get involved…

I figure any time and place where battles typically feature a largely monotype army fighting another much like it is likely to get relatively dull under most rules. Cf various comments about Dark Age infantry slogs. Combined arms or the clash of disimilar systems can hardly fail to add a little interest.

But give there's been a number of rulessets published recently that aim specifically at Classical Greece, evidently there's ways to make it interesting enough for many people.

On that subject, have any of you played "men of Bronze" by Osprey games? How is it?