Luke, I know that this post is over 7 years old but for me it is one
of the most historically interesting on the list. I think it still
have relevance today to other systems that are under construction.
It clearly explains somethings that I had been misled about by the
uses of the term Peltast. (I found it while looking for something
else but was totally hooked.)

Thanks
Tim

--- In dbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Luke Ueda-Sarson <Luke@...> wrote:
>
> >"Nick" <n.farrell@b...> wrote:
> >
> >> "I recall totally losing faith in WRG rules when peltasts
> >> (LMI, LTS, Jls) could beat Hoplites (HI, LTS) frontally.Ý
> >> Thank heavens for DBM."
> >>
> >> Historically they did (which was why the Peltast replaced the
> >> Hoplite)...
> >
> >Oh dear. Oh, dear. Oh, dear, dear. Where do I start?
> >
> >No, I'll leave it to Luke, it's his pet subject at the moment :-)
> >
> >cheers,
> >Duncan
> >
>
> Lol!
>
> Here's a (not-so) brief resume of the great peltast question...
>
> The word peltast can mean (or meant if we talk about the ancient
> Greek equivalent) more than one thing, so first you have to be
> careful about defining what you mean. Let's stick with the
> normal/usual meaning: a skirmisher with a light shield (the pelte)
> tossing javelins.
>
> No such peltasts ever frontally defeated hoplites if by frontally
we
> mean in hand to hand combat (which the 6th/7th edition posters
did),
> with one exception - a bunch of Thracian peltasts once butchered
some
> hoplites dioprganised crossing a river (and it isn't even explicit
> there was any hand to hand fighting in this case - it is just a
> likley assumption). Moreover there is some evidence that Thracian
> peltasts were more suitably equipped (and prepared) to fight in
hand
> to hand combat than other (ie Greek) peltasts, so this may not be
> totally relevant in any case.
>
> Certainly there are no examples AFAIK to be found of Greek peltasts
> ever engaging in hand to hand combat frontally at all with
hoplites,
> let alone defeating them.
>
> Indeed, there are no examples of Greek peltasts defeating hoplites
> aided frontally by javelin shooting either: examples of hoplites
> suffering from peltasts involve attacks on their rear (eg
> Pylos/Sphacteria) and/or the hoplites breaking when charged by
other
> hoplites after the javelin shooting had weakened their line
> (Corinth/Lecheum).
>
> The posts mentioned however "peltasts" being in old WRG ternms LMI,
> JLS, LTS Sh, where peltasts like those I mentioned above are
clearly
> LI, JLS, Sh.
>
> So what are these LTS, JLS troops? They basically are a remnant of
> old research that is now being updated.
>
> It was noted in the realatively early days of WRG (and don't forget
> the R part of WRG had and still has real meaning here), by our very
> own Duncan most noteably, that in Plutarch, the Achaian
thureophoroi
> (ie not exactly "peltasts" since they use the thureos shield, not a
> pelte) are described as "fighting at a distance" "using pelstast-
like
> tactics" with a SPEAR.
>
> Since it is hard to see how troops could skirmish like peltasts if
> armed with ONLY a spear, the natural conclusion was they carried a
> spear as well - and this was supported by the evidence of
Iphicrates'
> "peltasts" carrying a particularlky long spear. (As however,
> Iphikrate's troops are actually hoplites turned into "peltasts",
> there is no evidence they ever carried javlins at all, so it turns
> out this is probably a bogus link - an articale of mine about this
> will appear in Slingshot soon).
>
> Since such troops apparently had weapons appropriate for fighting
> hand to hand as well as at a distance they got called LMI under WRG
> (that jack of all tradeds classification which many were/are very
> unhappy with), and the results was as LMI, LTS, JLS shield they
could
> easily outfight hoplites (MI, LTS, Sh) in hand to hand as well as
> shoot them up.
>
> It appears to me however that no such troop type ever existed in
the
> GreekÝ military system.
>
> Not a single picture of a Greek infantry armed with both spear and
a
> javelin is known save for the earliest representations of hoplites,
> and the hoplites soon lost their javelns, presumably as being
> unsuitable fro phalanx fighting.
>
> There is however one telling picture of a thureophos aremd with his
> usual spear, and a boy attending him with two javelins that are
> clearly his master's weapks (he also carried his master's shield).
>
> This to me supports my contention that what we have here is a
> thureophoros (a spearmen, just one not as heavily equipped as a
> hoplite) that could, if occasion demanded it, swap spear for a pair
> of javelins. In this case he could become a skirmisher - like the
> Achaians mentioned in Plutarch, and use peltast-like tactics - but
> not at the same time as if spear-armed. In support of this we can
> note how early Macedonian pikemen under Philip and Alexander could
> swap their pikes for javelins to assault cities, or march through
> mountainous terrain.
> .
> I will argue in my next Slingshot article (under preparation
now...)
> that the training required to keep men able to do both effectively
> was less in evidence in the Successor states: kingdoms like Egypt
and
> the Seleukids hired mercenaries to supplant their phalanx do these
> tasks, while the Macedonians trained only an elite portion of their
> phalanx in both techniques, which as a result meant that a some of
> their phalanx was called "the peltasts", not because they carried a
> different shield from the other phalamgites, but because they
could,
> if need be, fight as if peltasts - in a peltast-like manner.
>
> In any case, as far as I am concerend, there is no evidence that
any
> Hellenistic or Classical Greek troops would ever use both spear
(LTS)
> and javelins (JLS) at the same time.
>
> So the poroblem os peltats beating hoplites is one of inappropriate
> classification.
>
> If peltasts were classified as DBM blades they would beat hoplites,
> but they aren't. they are Ps or Ax depneding upon the list and date
> so can't do it. Similarly if peltasts had been classified as LI,
JLS,
> Sh (or possibly even LMI, JLS, Sh) in 6th or 7th edition they
> wouldn't have been able to beat hoplites either.
>
> That is why getting accurate army lsits is so important,
>
> I quite alike a lot of the features found in competing systems such
> as Armati (not - a lot of thema duff too...), but they all tend to
> suffer heavily from bad army lists. Pne of my first games of Armati
> involved me pitting my 4th century Romans against some Sassanid
> persians.
>
> Unfortunately, the Armati Sassanid list has all Persian cavlarly
> armed with lances, and a fair proportion have as high a combat
factor
> as the Roman infantry (6), giving them a 15/36 chance of a quick
> kill, so can easily ride right over the top of the Romans, rather
> than sitting back shooting until cherged...
>
> So the accuracy (and therefor to me the enjyment) of the game was
> completely disrupted by inapproporaite troop classifications.
>
> Our peltasts case above is no different.
>
> It is when the troops are accurately classified and you still get
> crap results that you really have to worry... that's means the
> underlying rules are in all probability crap too.
>
> Cheers, Luke
>
> (PS. There is the case of late Judean infantry fighting with long
> spear and jevlins. I have yet to investigate this in detail: does
the
> text refer to the same man having a long spear and 7 javelins, or
one
> man having a long spear, while other ranks hurl javelins, perhaps a
> succesion of 7 volleys - perhaps under Roman influence for
instance.Ý
> If anyone has a copy of the text, even an English version, can they
> pleas post it to me...)
>