Short Pike

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Would altering hoplites to have short pikes make them less effective in combat? It is more historically accurate to have short pikes on, plus it gets rid of so many bugs.... like organisation, charging and spear grip.

I'm trying to alter all hoplites to have short pikes and a units radius of 0.24, making it more organised and compact.

[Mediolanicus]

It makes them stronger, thus unbalances things.
It also makes them completely ahistorical.

But, yes, it also has its benefits...

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

actually, it is accurate historically. when hoplites marched, they were in that formation. The front with spears under-arm and the rest had them at an angle. When they fought, their spears were overarm. Therefore, with Short_pike on, it is 100% fluent and 100% historically accurate, according to the book i read.

A question: How do i add new weapons? I allowed my hoplites to have a secondary weapon (a sword), of which wasn't orignally there. I got the skeletons for the weapon applied, but the only problem is that I dont have the textures and models.

[Ludens]

Except that hoplites didn't march into combat: they charged. The phalanx formation is incapable of charging. Also, the fighting and marches stances of hoplite are open to debate. The team has taken the sideways overarm position, based on artistic works, but that is just one interpretation. So I'd like to know what book you are referring to and why it argues for this underarm-march/overarm-fighting position.

[mcantu]

actually, it is accurate historically. when hoplites marched, they were in that formation. The front with spears under-arm and the rest had them at an angle. When they fought, their spears were overarm. Therefore, with Short_pike on, it is 100% fluent and 100% historically accurate, according to the book i read.

A question: How do i add new weapons? I allowed my hoplites to have a secondary weapon (a sword), of which wasn't orignally there. I got the skeletons for the weapon applied, but the only problem is that I dont have the textures and models.

secondary weapons will not work correctly with the overarm spear animation...

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Except that hoplites didn't march into combat: they charged. The phalanx formation is incapable of charging. Also, the fighting and marches stances of hoplite are open to debate. The team has taken the sideways overarm position, based on artistic works, but that is just one interpretation. So I'd like to know what book you are referring to and why it argues for this underarm-march/overarm-fighting position.

My sources are from renown historians, such as Peter Colony (Book: Greece and Rome at War) and this link:
http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html

Plus it makes perfect sense, who marches whilst carrying spears overarm? They marched with under arm, and whilst charging, they had an initial underarm thrust. Then, after that initial clash into the enemy, they would raise their spears (if not already broken) and fight and push etc.... The reserves in the phalanx would raise their spears at an angle, for protection against arrows. Usually the reserves, or hoplites in the back, don't get much combat. Phalanxes were never disorganised, if they were, then that means an immediate retreat.

There are many inaccurate depictions of hoplites and romans in EB. For example, hoplites didnt wear metal cuirasses. They also didnt wear cloaks and capes in battle, only in ceremonies. Think about it, the cloaks will only burden them in combat. Generally, people want to be as effective as they can, common sense..... As for the romans, I forgot specific faults, but the hastati and princepes depictions were wrong (I forgot, but I'm certain that EB is wrong). I'm a bit rusty on my roman knowledge but it is in the book: Greece and Rome at war by Peter Colony.

It's been so long that I've read that book, I should read it again, I'm sure I can pick out a few minor historical inaccuracies in EB. I understand that EB concentrates on barbarian culture mainly and it's a lot of hard work, still great work with the mod.

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

secondary weapons will not work correctly with the overarm spear animation...

It worked for me, the only problem is that the sword isn't visible. I dont know how to edit the 3ds models and include a sword model in every hoplite. I successfully edited the hoplites to be in a tight phalanx formation, really organised, with over arm spears in the front, and at the back the hoplites carried their spears at an angle. It's really awesome, since when they are flanked, the reserves draw their swords (which are invisible). As I said, fluent and historically accurate.

All I edited was to adjust the hoplites to have "spears" primary weapons characteristics.
Then I added values and a skeleton for them to have a secondary weapon sword.

With these, the hoplites would use spears in the front, but if they were flanked or breached heavily, then they would resort to a secondary weapon. The hoplites still used an overarm spear at the front, and the hoplites at the back still carried their spears at an angle (as mentioned before)............ They all fought and travelled in a cohesive and organised phalanx, when phalanx and guard mode was on.

[Ludens]

It's been so long that I've read that book, I should read it again, I'm sure I can pick out a few minor historical inaccuracies in EB. I understand that EB concentrates on barbarian culture mainly and it's a lot of hard work, still great work with the mod.

EB does not focus on the barbarians. It started out focusing on the Barbarians, but even before the first release the overriding goal was to create as accurate as possible a mod for R:TW. So remarks that the team's depiction is inaccurate are taken very seriously.

Plus it makes perfect sense, who marches whilst carrying spears overarm?

Hoplites presumably marched with the spear against their shoulder, like other spearmen. Holding a spear level is tiresome, so they wouldn't be levelled unless combat was imminent.

There are many inaccurate depictions of hoplites and romans in EB. For example, hoplites didnt wear metal cuirasses. They also didnt wear cloaks and capes in battle, only in ceremonies. Think about it, the cloaks will only burden them in combat. Generally, people want to be as effective as they can, common sense.....

Hoplites definitely used bronze cuirasses (can't give you a primary source, but Hans van Wees discusses the evolution of hoplite armour in "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities"). Not sure about the cloaks: it has been brought up before, but I can't remember the answer.

As for the romans, I forgot specific faults, but the hastati and princepes depictions were wrong (I forgot, but I'm certain that EB is wrong). I'm a bit rusty on my roman knowledge but it is in the book: Greece and Rome at war by Peter Colony.

Sorry, but this is worse than useless as it says nothing about what is wrong. I can't say exactly what the team has used to reconstruct the Romans, but have a look at their bibliography.

[Mediolanicus]

My sources are from renown historians, such as Peter Colony (Book: Greece and Rome at War) and this link:
http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html

Plus it makes perfect sense, who marches whilst carrying spears overarm? They marched with under arm, and whilst charging, they had an initial underarm thrust. Then, after that initial clash into the enemy, they would raise their spears (if not already broken) and fight and push etc.... The reserves in the phalanx would raise their spears at an angle, for protection against arrows. Usually the reserves, or hoplites in the back, don't get much combat. Phalanxes were never disorganised, if they were, then that means an immediate retreat.

There are many inaccurate depictions of hoplites and romans in EB. For example, hoplites didnt wear metal cuirasses. They also didnt wear cloaks and capes in battle, only in ceremonies. Think about it, the cloaks will only burden them in combat. Generally, people want to be as effective as they can, common sense..... As for the romans, I forgot specific faults, but the hastati and princepes depictions were wrong (I forgot, but I'm certain that EB is wrong). I'm a bit rusty on my roman knowledge but it is in the book: Greece and Rome at war by Peter Colony.

It's been so long that I've read that book, I should read it again, I'm sure I can pick out a few minor historical inaccuracies in EB. I understand that EB concentrates on barbarian culture mainly and it's a lot of hard work, still great work with the mod.

1. Your argumentation is exactly the reason why the short_pike pseudo sarissa-phalanx is wrong. No hoplite regiment would march like that!

2. Why would a hoplite rise his short 6foot doru for protection against arrows, when they've got a nice round shield for that?

3. The way they fought is debated and will probably never be known for sure. They certainly didn't fought like the sarissa phalanx but with shorter spears though.

4. True, they were never disorganised, that's what wrong about the EB hoplites, but that's because of the RTW engine.

5. AFAIK every unit in EBI represents the strongest outfitted unit of its kind. This will probably change in EBII. I do not doubt that hoplites didn't always wear bronze cuirassas. I have serious doubt they never did though.

6. EB is focused on overal accuracy within the game engine's limits. When you think anything is innaccurate you should post a thread about it on the EB or EBII main forum.
Be sure to have a sound argumentation ready as to why it is inaccurate, what is accurate and what your sources are. When you only have one source then please do say why all the other sources are false and why yours is correct.

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Ok, I provided source, Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and that link before. None of you guys have a reference or legitimate source to back your arguement.

Firstly, the spears were raised at an angle or even vertically straight up in the reserve ranks. The hoplite weere especially vulnerable against archers and missiles, shields wouldn't do much. The spears provided minor protection. Hoplites have a great weakness against archers, read some history on the Battle of Gythium. Many peltast skirmished destroyed Hoplites.


Hoplites most certainly marched with spears resting on their shoulder. But when battle was immeninant (like in your conventional battle mode for RTW) they marched with the front hoplites carrying spears underarm, and reserves holding it at an angle or straight up. When battle commenced, the front hoplites fought with overarm spears with the rest holding at an angle or straight up. My link and book reference explains this, and it is a reliable source, since it evaluates many sources of antiquity. READ MY LINK PROVIDED. If you can argue against it, then provide your legitamit source. YOU CAN NOT presume that it would be tiresome holding a spear, and generalise without a good source. HOPLITES needed to prepare for battle, not rest their spears on their shoulders when battle was immeninent. PLUS If all the hoplites had overam spears during battle, wouldn't it be cramped and clunky? I could cleary stab my ally, and the phalanx would be even more inflexible than it already it.

That "nice shield" can't protect them from arrows effectively. Arrows can hit your body, head, side, etc. Plus I bet those spears protected the peltasts behind them from arrows too............ Why aren't they allowed to be more prepared? It's like saying, why wear helmets when they have a nice shield...

The RTW engine isn't limited, it can make hoplites organised. Implement phalanx with over arm spears, I did it.... All I need is to add secondary weapons for hoplites, which I did, but the models arent appearing because I can't edit the 3ds unit models.


Hoplites wore linen cuirasses, as metal ones were a burden. Metal ones (bronze) were used in earlier periods. The hoplites needed flexibility and manouvrebility, since many rising powers such as the Republic of Rome had flexible armies. Maybe the general or officer would get a metal cuirass. MY REFERENCE IS ON THE BOOK Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and this link http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html


I am certain that hoplites didnt wear cloaks, read my sources, like Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony. That book is one of the most detailed and accurate books I've read. He translated information from many Ancient Historians and Archelogical findings, then evaluated it clearly.


Currently, my arguement proves point since I provide multiple sources and common sense. PLEASE provide sources when opposing my opinion.

Seriously... I know comments on historically accuracy are taken seriously, but you guys are only making illogical generalisations on hoplites. Common sense and sources would be nice.

[simplemind07]

By putting the short pike and the 0.24, will that make them more powerful?
Because I only put in the 0.24 radius and my hoplite are actually more powerful and had to tone them down by -2 defense and -1 on attack.
Did you test them out by putting in both attributes? And how were they? More powerful? More Organised?

[Mediolanicus]

Ok, I provided source, Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and that link before. None of you guys have a reference or legitimate source to back your arguement.

Firstly, the spears were raised at an angle or even vertically straight up in the reserve ranks. The hoplite weere especially vulnerable against archers and missiles, shields wouldn't do much. The spears provided minor protection. Hoplites have a great weakness against archers, read some history on the Battle of Gythium. Many peltast skirmished destroyed Hoplites.


Hoplites most certainly marched with spears resting on their shoulder. But when battle was immeninant (like in your conventional battle mode for RTW) they marched with the front hoplites carrying spears underarm, and reserves holding it at an angle or straight up. When battle commenced, the front hoplites fought with overarm spears with the rest holding at an angle or straight up. My link and book reference explains this, and it is a reliable source, since it evaluates many sources of antiquity. READ MY LINK PROVIDED. If you can argue against it, then provide your legitamit source. YOU CAN NOT presume that it would be tiresome holding a spear, and generalise without a good source. HOPLITES needed to prepare for battle, not rest their spears on their shoulders when battle was immeninent. PLUS If all the hoplites had overam spears during battle, wouldn't it be cramped and clunky? I could cleary stab my ally, and the phalanx would be even more inflexible than it already it.

That "nice shield" can't protect them from arrows effectively. Arrows can hit your body, head, side, etc. Plus I bet those spears protected the peltasts behind them from arrows too............ Why aren't they allowed to be more prepared? It's like saying, why wear helmets when they have a nice shield...

The RTW engine isn't limited, it can make hoplites organised. Implement phalanx with over arm spears, I did it.... All I need is to add secondary weapons for hoplites, which I did, but the models arent appearing because I can't edit the 3ds unit models.


Hoplites wore linen cuirasses, as metal ones were a burden. Metal ones (bronze) were used in earlier periods. The hoplites needed flexibility and manouvrebility, since many rising powers such as the Republic of Rome had flexible armies. Maybe the general or officer would get a metal cuirass. MY REFERENCE IS ON THE BOOK Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and this link http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html


I am certain that hoplites didnt wear cloaks, read my sources, like Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony. That book is one of the most detailed and accurate books I've read. He translated information from many Ancient Historians and Archelogical findings, then evaluated it clearly.


Currently, my arguement proves point since I provide multiple sources and common sense. PLEASE provide sources when opposing my opinion.

Seriously... I know comments on historically accuracy are taken seriously, but you guys are only making illogical generalisations on hoplites. Common sense and sources would be nice.

Yes, you gave one source... The EB team has books of them and historians (and people studying to be) on Greek and Roman history on the team. That doesn't mean they are right though, it does mean that saying EB is full with gross inaccuracies because you've read one book that says so, can be a bit awkward...

The first row underarm, the rest overarm is especially debatable from what I've read, but we simply can't know for sure.

Peltast and archers is not the same thing; a javelin and an arrow neither, as you seem to imply.

Secondary weapons and the RTW engine don't go well together. You'll have your hoplites fighting with swords all the time, unless you turn them into a sarissa phalanx.

Aren't hoplites in EB the older ones, while the light hoplites and the two "phalanx" hoplites (I forgot the name) are the newer ones with liner cuirasses, for the reasons you say.


"PLUS If all the hoplites had overam spears during battle, wouldn't it be cramped and clunky? I could cleary stab my ally, and the phalanx would be even more inflexible than it already it."

True, but I see no reason why hitting someone in the balls behind you with your underhand trust would be less cramped and clunky and more flexible.

Besides, the hoplites were infamous for their inflexibility, that's why they experimented with more flexible kinds in the EB time frame.


I told you where to post a thread if you want the EB team members to take a look. You'll get even more response on the .org than here. They have got the sources, they will discuss this with you.

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Yes, you gave one source... The EB team has books of them and historians (and people studying to be) on Greek and Roman history on the team. That doesn't mean they are right though, it does mean that saying EB is full with gross inaccuracies because you've read one book that says so, can be a bit awkward...

The first row underarm, the rest overarm is especially debatable from what I've read, but we simply can't know for sure.

Peltast and archers is not the same thing; a javelin and an arrow neither, as you seem to imply.

Secondary weapons and the RTW engine don't go well together. You'll have your hoplites fighting with swords all the time, unless you turn them into a sarissa phalanx.

Aren't hoplites in EB the older ones, while the light hoplites and the two "phalanx" hoplites (I forgot the name) are the newer ones with liner cuirasses, for the reasons you say.


"PLUS If all the hoplites had overam spears during battle, wouldn't it be cramped and clunky? I could cleary stab my ally, and the phalanx would be even more inflexible than it already it."

True, but I see no reason why hitting someone in the balls behind you with your underhand trust would be less cramped and clunky and more flexible.

Besides, the hoplites were infamous for their inflexibility, that's why they experimented with more flexible kinds in the EB time frame.


I told you where to post a thread if you want the EB team members to take a look. You'll get even more response on the .org than here. They have got the sources, they will discuss this with you.

They marched with the front ranks with under-arm spears. I don't think the spear would hit someone in the balls, especially since the shield (hoplon) covers from knee to chin. When they fought, the front ranks used over arm, which the reserves held spear at an angle. If everyone fought with over-arm... that would look funny .

Thanks, but the only reliable source is from that single book. The book features opinion of a team of historians. The site also provides a good source. I presumed that one source from a book and common sense would be enough for my arguement.
Even with one source, COMPLETE common sense would back me up as well. It doesnt make sense, the depiction of hoplites in EB, it's almost laughable.

I experimented with the hoplites. If they had phalanx formation as a formation characteristics, and "spears" as primary weapon characteristic, then they will form an organised block of men. Plus the men in the front still attack with over arm spears, yet the men at the back hold their spears up in an angle (which I wanted). Only problem is.... When they get flanked, the hoplites would use spears to counteract them.... I tried adding swords as a secondary weapon, it worked, it's just that you can't see the model of the sword since I dont know how to edit 3ds unit models.

The hoplites dont always attack with swords, if you make them have "spears" as a attribute, then they will be like normal vanilla RTW hoplites, except with the front ranks fighting with over-arm and reserve ranks holding their spears at an angle (which is 100% historically accurate). This is actually pretty sweet, and they will use swords IF THEY are heavily flanked. The length of the spears in Vanilla RTW's hoplites is fine, not too long nor shot (5.8 m is accurate).

[Mediolanicus]

They marched with the front ranks with under-arm spears. I don't think the spear would hit someone in the balls, especially since the shield (hoplon) covers from knee to chin. When they fought, the front ranks used over arm, which the reserves held spear at an angle. If everyone fought with over-arm... that would look funny .

Thanks, but the only reliable source is from that single book. The book features opinion of a team of historians. The site also provides a good source. I presumed that one source from a book and common sense would be enough for my arguement.
Even with one source, COMPLETE common sense would back me up as well. It doesnt make sense, the depiction of hoplites in EB, it's almost laughable.

I experimented with the hoplites. If they had phalanx formation as a formation characteristics, and "spears" as primary weapon characteristic, then they will form an organised block of men. Plus the men in the front still attack with over arm spears, yet the men at the back hold their spears up in an angle (which I wanted). Only problem is.... When they get flanked, the hoplites would use spears to counteract them.... I tried adding swords as a secondary weapon, it worked, it's just that you can't see the model of the sword since I dont know how to edit 3ds unit models.

The hoplites dont always attack with swords, if you make them have "spears" as a attribute, then they will be like normal vanilla RTW hoplites, except with the front ranks fighting with over-arm and reserve ranks holding their spears at an angle (which is 100% historically accurate). This is actually pretty sweet, and they will use swords IF THEY are heavily flanked. The length of the spears in Vanilla RTW's hoplites is fine, not too long nor shot (5.8 m is accurate).

Please do post a thread about this where I said, I wish to see the EB team's opinion on your sources.

So you've readded the phalanx formation for the hoplites? I'm sorry but I'm not confinced the hoplites fought like the sarissa phalanx but with shorter spears like in RTW or even this but with spears overarm like you say.

5.8 foot you mean I suppose? that's ~1.70m IIRC..
The doru was about 1.80m in lenght. It was the sarissa that was almost 6 meters long.


Edit: if not everyone fought overarm, why are all the depictions we have of greek warriors either all fighting underarm (with something that used to be swords IMO) or all overarm.

I shall post two pictures I took last time I was in the British Museum to illustrate this when I get home, if I remember.

[Ludens]

Ok, I provided source, Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and that link before. None of you guys have a reference or legitimate source to back your arguement.

I cited Hans van Wees about the cuirases and referred to EB's source list for the Romans to give you an idea of the research behind the EB mod. I haven't read the book, but the website you refer to is very simplistic. You cannot compress 500 years of development of hoplite warfare into a single page.

Firstly, the spears were raised at an angle or even vertically straight up in the reserve ranks. The hoplite weere especially vulnerable against archers and missiles, shields wouldn't do much. The spears provided minor protection. Hoplites have a great weakness against archers, read some history on the Battle of Gythium. Many peltast skirmished destroyed Hoplites.

I've read that this was the case with phalangites, but not hoplites. Are you sure Connolly is arguing this for the hoplite phalanx? Common sense tells me that a few spear-shafts provide very little protection from falling arrows. About a shield not providing protection against arrows: again I must ask if Connolly is writing about the Macedonian rather than the hoplite phalanx. Peltasts were deadly against hoplites if the terrain was unsuited for heavy infantry and the hoplites did not have cavalry or light infantry to counter the peltasts, but in other conditions it was hoplites that dominated the battlefield. There is a reason why Greek city states continued to put their faith in hoplites even after professional peltasts were introduced.

Hoplites wore linen cuirasses, as metal ones were a burden. Metal ones (bronze) were used in earlier periods. The hoplites needed flexibility and manouvrebility, since many rising powers such as the Republic of Rome had flexible armies. Maybe the general or officer would get a metal cuirass. MY REFERENCE IS ON THE BOOK Greece and Rome at War by Peter Colony and this link http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html

And my reference is Hans van Wees, and he disagrees.

Thanks, but the only reliable source is from that single book. The book features opinion of a team of historians. The site also provides a good source. I presumed that one source from a book and common sense would be enough for my arguement.
Even with one source, COMPLETE common sense would back me up as well. It doesnt make sense, the depiction of hoplites in EB, it's almost laughable.

If you are going to take that attitude, than as far as I am concerned this discussion is over. There is much controversy over the way hoplites fought so one book is not evidence, even if it takes in the view of multiple authors. Especially since hoplite warfare was in use for half a millennium, and hoplites would have changed as new equipment and tactical doctrine were developed, my common sense tells me that hoplites varied in time and place, and therefore you should be careful about making blanket statements. We also have very little evidence about the actual mechanics of hoplite combat. The famous hoplite push may have be meant figuratively: apart from the name there is no actual evidence that they pushed. Note: I am not saying they did not push, I am saying we don't know. Not even Connolly and Goldsworthy. If you want to see the opposing, check out Hans van Wees book I mentioned earlier (and yes, he also evaluates the views of multiple authors).

[Mediolanicus]

Good point Ludens.

I think he is talking about the Macedonian Phalanx, which did wear linnen cuirasses, had 5.8 meter spears they used as missile shield because they had to use both hands to hold their sarissas, and besides their aspis was too small to use against an arrow shower..

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Good point Ludens.

I think he is talking about the Macedonian Phalanx, which did wear linnen cuirasses, had 5.8 meter spears they used as missile shield because they had to use both hands to hold their sarissas, and besides their aspis was too small to use against an arrow shower..

No. I think he isnt.

Historians always tend to contradict each other, in argument, due to the variety of different sources there are. I ll leave it to that for now. Seriously check out the book I've read, it's got interesting points too.

You can borrow it from your local library.
http://www.amazon.com/Greece-Rome-Wa.../dp/185367303X
and
A Begginers Guide to Greece (Old and rare book)
and
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience by Victor Davis Hanson
and
Greek State at War series by W. Kendrick Pritchett
and
Warefare in Ancient greece
..etc... (books I've read over my school years)

If you guys arent gonna read it, then there's no point arguing, we both have stubborn views. Seems that the whole forum has only read Hans Vans Wees findings, or maybe only a few poeple read it, and then influenced many others. I read a lot of general history, and from memory, it links well with these books(exactly).

From reviews on Han's book, it seems that he "assumes a lot, with thought, not evidence", which isn't Colony's or Hanson's methods. They rather analyse evidence, look at other persepctives and then evaluate, shwoing both sides. I remember that Colony once mentioned that some people think they wore bronze armour (although he argued that it was only for earlier ages). It looks like Han's book is a rather small book too? (I googled it).

to mediolanicus:
BTW, of course he's (Colony) refering to hoplites, he refered it to the battle of thermopylae, and later wars in the hellenistic era (which wasnt far from EB's timeframe). During Thermopylae, I doubt Macedonian pikemen existed (since it is an evolution of the late hoplite) Spears at even 2 m or so, can provide minor protection. Peltasts were known for destorying entire armies of hoplites, since Greece features uneven terrain. Shield from chin to knee were great, but their heads were vulnarable you know. Arrows dont go straight to your body, it rises up and curves down onto your front head or shoulders. To my knowledge, the only difference from early and late hoplites, were armour, helmets (corinthian helmets later became obselete, due to sight and hearing problems) and weapons.

Macedonians had even longer spears, to compensate for their smaller strapped on shields.

Having a bronze cuirass is absurd for the late hoplite. Heavy, expensive, a burden, useless... It was useful in early periods, yes, but not later periods, with more mobile enemies and more devastating arrows which went throught it like a hot knife through butter. There is no evidence of bronze cuirasses in the later era, only found on officers/generals, with specific engravings. General bronze cuirasses date way earlier.


In conclusion:
Thucydides, Arrian, Xenophon and Homer accounts (quoted in the books mentioned before) > Hans Vans Wees theory

[Mediolanicus]

to mediolanicus:
BTW, of course he's (Colony) refering to hoplites, he refered it to the battle of thermopylae, and later wars in the hellenistic era (which wasnt far from EB's timeframe). During Thermopylae, I doubt Macedonian pikemen existed (since it is an evolution of the late hoplite) Spears at even 2 m or so, can provide minor protection. Peltasts were known for destorying entire armies of hoplites, since Greece features uneven terrain. Shield from chin to knee were great, but their heads were vulnarable you know. Arrows dont go straight to your body, it rises up and curves down onto your front head or shoulders. To my knowledge, the only difference from early and late hoplites, were armour, helmets (corinthian helmets later became obselete, due to sight and hearing problems) and weapons.

Macedonians had even longer spears, to compensate for their smaller strapped on shields.

Having a bronze cuirass is absurd for the late hoplite. Heavy, expensive, a burden, useless... It was useful in early periods, yes, but not later periods, with more mobile enemies and more devastating arrows which went throught it like a hot knife through butter. There is no evidence of bronze cuirasses in the later era, only found on officers/generals, with specific engravings. General bronze cuirasses date way earlier.


In conclusion:
Thucydides, Arrian, Xenophon and Homer accounts (quoted in the books mentioned before) > Hans Vans Wees theory

A Macedonian pikemen is not "an evolution from the hoplite" and their longer spears weren't "for compensating the smaller shield.


Thucydides, Arrian, Xenophon and Homer accounts sadly enough don't say anything about how the hoplites really fought. It is evident though that they didn't fought like the sarissa phalanx 'but with shorter spears".

[mcantu]

It worked for me, the only problem is that the sword isn't visible. I dont know how to edit the 3ds models and include a sword model in every hoplite. I successfully edited the hoplites to be in a tight phalanx formation, really organised, with over arm spears in the front, and at the back the hoplites carried their spears at an angle. It's really awesome, since when they are flanked, the reserves draw their swords (which are invisible). As I said, fluent and historically accurate.

All I edited was to adjust the hoplites to have "spears" primary weapons characteristics.
Then I added values and a skeleton for them to have a secondary weapon sword.

With these, the hoplites would use spears in the front, but if they were flanked or breached heavily, then they would resort to a secondary weapon. The hoplites still used an overarm spear at the front, and the hoplites at the back still carried their spears at an angle (as mentioned before)............ They all fought and travelled in a cohesive and organised phalanx, when phalanx and guard mode was on.

the problem occurs when the unit is charging. it will charge with the secondary weapon. it will also at times alternate back and forth between the spear and sword while fighting. this is a long standing issue with RTW and the overarm spear animation. i do the unit stats/animation for RTR and have never been able to find a good solution. EB does have a few hoplites with swords though...

[mcantu]

ok, i tested out short_pike on some RTR-VII hoplites which still retained their secondary swords on the model (we also disable the secondary weapon for overarm spear hoplites, btw).

the results are that the unit will march with the spear, switch to the sword to charge, and remain with the sword in battle. i could not get them to switch back to spears at all. sorry, but this is a no-go...

and btw, that site you referenced reads like a 14 year olds book report