Plataea seems to be the widely quoted, and presumably widely known example. It is undoubtedly true that the bulk of the Persian foot were bow-armed, but completely incorrect to state any man armed with a bow is a "light infantryman" and therefore fights in a loose skirmish formation, avoiding contact with any enemy by scarpering as necessary. The Persian foot fought in a disciplined formation 10 ranks deep, the first of whom were equipped with spear and pavise (the sparabara) followed by 9 ranks armed with bow and sidearm. The formation was optimised to combat massed archers and horsemen, which were the main components of armies that the Persians had been used to fighting before the invasion of Greece. The bows were used in massed ranks and at long range while the front line set up their pavises as defence against incoming fire while prepared to use their spears in hand to hand combat against a foe lucky enough to get to close quarters. The famous 'Immortals' were similarly organised and equipped, though regarded as an elite unit. Such units do not readily fit into the divisions that have been argued about. They are massed formations of missilemen that do not skirmish.
Similarly at Marathon the Greeks did not trap the Persians against the sea. The Persian battleline stretched inland at 90 degrees to the surf, and melee ensued because the Persians stood their ground and shot, as was their normal practice. Few of their normal opponents would have been able to penetrate their fire to engage hand-to-hand, but the Greek hoplite panoply was much heavier than armour used further east and proved able to stand up to the test. It should be noted that the Persians did not flee at first contact, as would be expected of troops not expecting or equipped for melee, but actually managed to repulse the (deliberately thinned) Athenian centre until their wings broke. AFAIK there is no evidence that the Persians fought in a looser order than the Greeks. Most non-skirmish troops fought on a frontage of about 1 pace, the distance between two men being that of an outstretched arm.
Bronze hoplite armour was not "discarded so they could run faster". It disappeared because it as armies grew larger it was economically too difficult to ensure that everyone had a set. Spear phalanxes did not run. Their modus operandi depended on maintaining their formation at all times (something incidentally that most poorly drilled hoplites of the Greek citystates were pretty bad at, hence the fearsome reputation of the professional Spartans).
"A man in close formation can't properly use a missile weapon" Not so. From the Old Kingdom of Egypt, through Achaemenid Persia, the Arab Conquest to the 100 Years War there have always been armies using close order missilemen. Close order is not generally so close as to involve contact with your neighbour. It is certainly not so close as to prohibit use of one's weapon! The formation you describe is actually that of locked shields, where men are packed in at half the normal spacing to take advantage of a particular specialised situation, as at the battle of Selasia, or when Alexander's phalanxes used it against the elephants encountered for the first time at the Hydaspes. As can be imagined, the ability to do anything with locked shields other than shuffle forward very slowly and carefully was non-existant. Its use was very exceptional, and is always described as such by the historical reports.
If "only the front rank could shoot" in close order it makes you wonder what the Persians were doing in such a formation for the best part of two hundred years!
You opine that Glorantan troops are likely to be inferior in skill to those of the best Earthly troops, which surprised me. I've always considered that Gloranthans, due to the presence of sophisticated healing systems, are much more likely to survive individual engagements, and therefore to benefit from hard-won experience. "Whoops! There goes my arm - I won't try that next time. Healer!"
Another oversimplification arises from the division of cavalry into only two types. It's OK to have light cavalry as groups of horsemen who skirmish in dispersed swarms, but the rest of the worlds horsemen are all lumoed together as heavy cavalry when there are (at least) two major groups within that category. Most people seem to believe that if you aren't a skirmishing horseman then your battlefield role must be to charge home. This is not the case. Most non-skirmishing cavalry actually used their mobility to close so that they could use missile weapons to weaken and demoralise a foe, only charging once they had broken a line with fire, or caused troops to waver. Their battlefield use was much different to true "chargers", who would generally be lance-armed, rarely have a missile weapon, and whose preferred and usual means of attack was the charge to contact. Roman cavalry of the Republic & early Empire exemplified the former type, whilst Alexander's Companions and the medieval knight are good examples of the latter. Note that in Alexander's time the "charger" had a helmet, breastplate, lance and no shield. We all know how the knight of the high medieval era was equipped. Obviously it is not weight of equipment, but battlefield role that define troop tactics and formation.
### Russ Massey ###
### Nothing is sure but that which is uncertain' ###
### What's evident to all is most obscure; ###
### Francois Villon ###
Powered by hypermail