ExRM 4.0 Suggestions

[Quinn Inuit]

Sorry about the roads. Pannonian warned me about that, but I totally forgot to fix it. It's definitely fixed in 4.0.

The Armenian general probably is a little overpowered, but that's also been addressed in 4.0. And with morale more of a factor, you'll find yourself focusing less on killing and more on winning.

[Sardaukar One]

I'm having a tough time fighting the Ptolemaic phalanx units, and after looking at their stats, the armour points for them seem to be rather high. They have better armour than their Antigonid and Seleucid counterparts.

My understanding is that the Seleucid phalanx was the heaviest of the three. To this, you could possibly add the Bactrian phalanx. My view, and this is all this is, is that the Seleucid phalanx should be the heavier phalanx, with the Ptolemaic and Antigonind phalanx probably being the same.

Sorry, I got the armour mixed up with defence skill. But I would still say this is too high.
The Ptolemaic phalanx hardly distinguished itself in any of the major campaigns. I don't think you could ever say the Ptolemies possessed a superior phalanx to the Seleucids.

[Quinn Inuit]

Whew! I was really confused there for a second.

The defense skill is so high because the armour is so low. They can move around more easily, but are more vulnerable.

Are you sure you're not mistaking quality for quantity? Remember, they always had a difficult time recruiting "Macedonians", so the phalanx was partially composed of trained and settled mercs, and (later on) partially composed of Machimoi. In the next version, they lose their "veteran" unit (since they didn't recall kleruchoi) and have it replaced with a redone lower-value phalanx unit comprising Cyrenaicans, Hebrews, etc. This will drag down the average "tier" of the Ptolemaic phalanx, and I think it'll produce the results you're looking for.

I'd rather not nerf the Antigonids. Their phalanx did perform quite well on occasion.

[Sardaukar One]

What i'm saying is that the Antigonids have the weakest phalanx units. And that probably shouldn't be the case.

As far as the "Macedonian" phalanx goes for the three successor states, the Seleucids should probably be the best. They were very well trained, they had a large standing phalanx in comparison to the other two and were constantly on campaign.

The Antigonids tried to spare their national levy whenever possible. The levy was generally only called up for major campaigns, such as their wars with Rome.
The Ptolemies military settlements were for the most part, failures. These settlers essentially abandoned their military training to become farmers. There were only two cities that seemed to have large numbers of greeks/macedonians, and those were Alexandria and Ptolemais, if memory serves me correctly.
The Ptolemies disguised this defecit by hiring mercs and flipping deserters. And then by using the locals.

Two years prior to Raphia, the Ptolemies trained both their out of shape macedonians and the native phalanx. And if the sources are anything to go by, Ptolemy was suprised at their success at Raphia.
Or rather, that they did not lose him the battle.
The Seleucids and Antigonids did not have such issues.

I'm not talking about the guard units, Agema etc, just the 'regular' phalanx units.

Edit : My view would be to nerf the Ptolemaic phalanx, which it seems you will be doing.

[Quinn Inuit]

What i'm saying is that the Antigonids have the weakest phalanx units. And that probably shouldn't be the case.

They do? I thought their stats were identical to the Seleucids.

As far as the "Macedonian" phalanx goes for the three successor states, the Seleucids should probably be the best. They were very well trained, they had a large standing phalanx in comparison to the other two and were constantly on campaign.

I agree. I think we need to redo the Silver Shields slightly to make them less of an elite unit and more of a solid line unit.

The Antigonids tried to spare their national levy whenever possible. The levy was generally only called up for major campaigns, such as their wars with Rome.

What'd they use otherwise? DBM gives them a lot of phalangites.

The Ptolemies military settlements were for the most part, failures. These settlers essentially abandoned their military training to become farmers. There were only two cities that seemed to have large numbers of greeks/macedonians, and those were Alexandria and Ptolemais, if memory serves me correctly.
The Ptolemies disguised this defecit by hiring mercs and flipping deserters. And then by using the locals.

Right, I think we've got that covered in 4.0.

Two years prior to Raphia, the Ptolemies trained both their out of shape macedonians and the native phalanx. And if the sources are anything to go by, Ptolemy was suprised at their success at Raphia.
Or rather, that they did not lose him the battle.
The Seleucids and Antigonids did not have such issues.

I'm not talking about the guard units, Agema etc, just the 'regular' phalanx units.

Makes sense.

Edit : My view would be to nerf the Ptolemaic phalanx, which it seems you will be doing.

Aye. You'll be able to outnumber enemies pretty well, but your troops won't be as sturdy.

[Sardaukar One]

They do? I thought their stats were identical to the Seleucids.

I think they are more or less. I was really just making an assessment when I said that.

I agree. I think we need to redo the Silver Shields slightly to make them less of an elite unit and more of a solid line unit.

I don't the silver shields are that out of whack. They were probably the best phalanx unit of their time.
The Ptolemies were quite concerned about the quality of the Seleucid phalanx at Raphia, and the credit for this must surely go to the Silver Shields. Or the bulk of it anyway.

What'd they use otherwise? DBM gives them a lot of phalangites.

Antigonus Gonatas used mercs whenever possible. One of the reasons for the success of his reign was that he gave the Macedonians as much of a breather as possible to recover from Alexander and from the Diadochi wars. Macedon was as much fought over, literally, as anywhere in Asia. Perhaps more so.
To do this, he relied on mercs for garrisons etc. Gonatas also built a strong navy, that was able to wrest control of the Aegean sea from the Ptolemies. Instead of concentrating on building influence in Greece, the Ptolemies had to concentrate on their navy. And for Gonatas, this helped preserve his manpower.

This isn't to say that he didn't use the Macedonian levy. He did. But he tried to keep them out of things as much as possible.

Though I have little evidence for this, it does seem that the guard units are much reduced from the heyday of Philip and Alexander. The Hypaspists seem to disappear from the Antigonid military, and those elite units that can be identified, have far fewer numbers. Considering what we know about recruitment into these units, I would have to say that the recruiting pool had greatly shrunk. This would suggest that the standing Macedonian army as far as nationals went was much smaller.
Money could factor into this; the Antigonids were certainly the poorest of the three successor states.
And this could also mean that Gonatas found it preferable to keep the levy at home. This helped the economy, and made him popular by keeping them out of harms way.

I'm sure the levy would still be training for war. As evidenced by when they were called up. But Gonatas spared them whenever possible.

DBM?

Right, I think we've got that covered in 4.0.

I can't wait for 4.0.


Again, I'm really talking about the regular phalanx units. The elite units are fine I think.
But one of the Ptolly pike units has a skill level of 23. Thats higher than the silver shields or the other agema units.

[Carados]

I don't the silver shields are that out of whack. They were probably the best phalanx unit of their time.

The Ptolemies were quite concerned about the quality of the Seleucid phalanx at Raphia, and the credit for this must surely go to the Silver Shields. Or the bulk of it anyway.

The phalanx was extremely disciplined at Magnesia and broke only when the elephants fled. At Raphia there was probably a major psychological effect going on because the right Seleucid wing had disappeared off into the distance, and then the left wing had just collasped to the Ptolemies assault. I randomly read about someone elses assessment that Antiochus was forced to give battle because of logistics and that he couldn't feed his army for much longer due to the Egyptian navy preventing the Seleucid navy from advancing further along the coastline (which may explain why he went after the camp?). Still, I agree. I always saw the Silver Shields as probably the best phalanx unit of the time.

Antigonus Gonatas used mercs whenever possible. One of the reasons for the success of his reign was that he gave the Macedonians as much of a breather as possible to recover from Alexander and from the Diadochi wars. Macedon was as much fought over, literally, as anywhere in Asia. Perhaps more so.
To do this, he relied on mercs for garrisons etc. Gonatas also built a strong navy, that was able to wrest control of the Aegean sea from the Ptolemies. Instead of concentrating on building influence in Greece, the Ptolemies had to concentrate on their navy. And for Gonatas, this helped preserve his manpower.

This isn't to say that he didn't use the Macedonian levy. He did. But he tried to keep them out of things as much as possible.

Though I have little evidence for this, it does seem that the guard units are much reduced from the heyday of Philip and Alexander. The Hypaspists seem to disappear from the Antigonid military, and those elite units that can be identified, have far fewer numbers. Considering what we know about recruitment into these units, I would have to say that the recruiting pool had greatly shrunk. This would suggest that the standing Macedonian army as far as nationals went was much smaller.
Money could factor into this; the Antigonids were certainly the poorest of the three successor states.
And this could also mean that Gonatas found it preferable to keep the levy at home. This helped the economy, and made him popular by keeping them out of harms way.

I'm sure the levy would still be training for war. As evidenced by when they were called up. But Gonatas spared them whenever possible.

I think we do have evidence... I always thought this serious reduction in manpower can be attributed to two main factors:

• Alexanders policy of settling Macedonians and mixing of Greek culture with different cultures
• The Galatian invasion

The first depends on who is selected to settle. If they are wealthy people then that reduces the amount of soldiers who likely have enough free time to train. If they were poor then that leaves a large percentage a number of good soldiers back at home - either way, it leads to serious problems with the Galatians.

If they sent all of the good men over to settle, then the strength of the army in Macedonia is going to be made up of mainly weak troops who perhaps haven't been trained for war - this will result in large casualties against an aggresive people such as the Celts. If, however, they sent a lot of poor people then that means the Galatians triumphed over the richer Macedonians. If they triumphed over the richer Macedonians, e.g. the nobles, then that leaves Macedon with a very limited pool of soldiers who can viably enter service in the Hypaspist and the like.

DBM?

It's a board game thing that has army lists for... various nations and what units you are allowed to use for certain time periods. They are well researched and lots of historians like to use it because... well, playing with plastic/metal toy soldiers is fun. Especially when you can use Romans, phalanxs, elephants <3

Not that we agree on everything it says.

Again, I'm really talking about the regular phalanx units. The elite units are fine I think.
But one of the Ptolly pike units has a skill level of 23. Thats higher than the silver shields or the other agema units.

The way I envision it is that the Ptollies have the following phalanx units:
Macedonians - these will be few in number but will be comparable to the standard phalanx of the other sucessors. The lighter armour counts against them outside of Egypt, however.

"African" levy - This is composed of Cyrenaicans, Hebrews, etc. this is a low quality unit and will lose most phalanx battles but they boost the size of the phalanx and will be comparatively cheap as well.

Machimoi - Theis is composed of the Machimoi caste of Egyptians. They'll be better than the "African" levy, but share their numbers so that they are probably on an equal footing to the smaller but more disciplined Macedonians. Access to these guys is going to lead to problems with public order.

Personally, I think the standard Macedonians should have unit size of 80 (large) as opposed to 120. The Ptollies should really be trying to recruit mercs and these weaker phalanx units, with the Macedonians acting almost as elite units. Which they probably were, compared to the rest of the army.

[Quinn Inuit]

I think the Silver Shields were the best regular phalanx unit of their time. They were probably outclassed by elite guard units.

Also, do you think the Machimoi were better than the Cyrenaicans etc.? I would've guessed about the same.

I like the idea of making the "Mac" units smaller. That's promising.

Hmmm...what if we make the Ptolies and Mac agema phalanx units smaller, but Tier 5? The Silver Shields stay full size, but Tier 4 and with a shorter recruitment time. That gives the Macs and Ptolies access to some high-end units, but the Seleucids a better overall phalanx.

[Dunadd]

weren't the Argyraspides so good because they were veterans of Alexander's campaigns (and some of them even old enough to have been veterans of Phillip's?)

I've only read a couple of books on the successors' wars and battles but i don't remember anyone ever beating the Argyraspides - in one battle they were outflanked when their own cavalry were beaten, but they withdrew to higher ground in good order and held off the cavalry.

Or did the unit go on with new recruits long after all the veterans were dead? (i'd have thought some of them would still be veterans of battles among the successors in that case even if the ones who'd been in it from the start had passed on)

[Dunadd]

Oh - and a suggestion - make all infantry units the same size. I can't see any historical or gameplay justification for making legionary or hoplite units smaller than phalanx units for instance - or German skirmisher units in bigger units than non-Germans.

Phalangites in any version of RTW are already overpowered compared to legionaries and hoplites - they don't need to be in bigger units too - and historically e.g Romans had far higher manpower deployed at any one time than any successor or Hellenistic state did and generally larger armies too.

[fennecer]

Romans had far higher manpower deployed at any one time than any successor or Hellenistic state did and generally larger armies too.

Wouldn't that make the Romans much too powerful? When playing as the Romans I find it too easy to flank enemies already. Maybe if you decreased their stats or something you could increase the size. But I'm not really sure how these things work.


One suggestion I have is to connect the Britons to Europe with a land bridge. It' may not be very realistic, but it's better than just letting a faction, or a handful of rebels cities if the Britons are being removed, just sit there. You could make the land bridge take a few turns to cross or something, to keep the place well defended. Assuming that's possible.

[Sardaukar One]

The phalanx was extremely disciplined at Magnesia and broke only when the elephants fled. At Raphia there was probably a major psychological effect going on because the right Seleucid wing had disappeared off into the distance, and then the left wing had just collasped to the Ptolemies assault. I randomly read about someone elses assessment that Antiochus was forced to give battle because of logistics and that he couldn't feed his army for much longer due to the Egyptian navy preventing the Seleucid navy from advancing further along the coastline (which may explain why he went after the camp?). Still, I agree. I always saw the Silver Shields as probably the best phalanx unit of the time.

The phalanx broke because the Romans got the elephants to run amok and they caused chaos within their own ranks.

The cavalry engagement at Raphia was a much faster affair than the Phalanx engagement. As I understand it, the Seleucid right wing phalanx was more concerned with what was happening to their left.
Intially, their flanks would have been safe. If their cavalry had disappeared into the distance, so had the Ptolemaic cavalry. And the levy phalanx was still covering their left.

I think the return of Ptolemy worried them. Antiochus had apparently let it be known he was trying to fight Ptolemy man to man.

I think Ptolemy caught Antiochus on the hop rather than Antiochus being forced to fight for logistical reasons. Ptolemy was invading Seleucid territory. Even if it was only Seleucid territory for a short time prior to Raphia. Antiochus had to stop him. Very much like Lysimachus at Korupedion vs Seleucus.

About the only positive for Antiochus was that the bulk of his elite units were relatively unscathed after Raphia. The Agryaspids were able to withdraw without much incident it would seem. We know his guard cavarly etc were fine, because he won the right wing. And he may have kept much of his elephant corps intact as the Seleucids were victorius in that sector.

I think we do have evidence... I always thought this serious reduction in manpower can be attributed to two main factors:


Alexanders policy of settling Macedonians and mixing of Greek culture with different cultures
The Galatian invasion
The first depends on who is selected to settle. If they are wealthy people then that reduces the amount of soldiers who likely have enough free time to train. If they were poor then that leaves a large percentage a number of good soldiers back at home - either way, it leads to serious problems with the Galatians.

If they sent all of the good men over to settle, then the strength of the army in Macedonia is going to be made up of mainly weak troops who perhaps haven't been trained for war - this will result in large casualties against an aggresive people such as the Celts. If, however, they sent a lot of poor people then that means the Galatians triumphed over the richer Macedonians. If they triumphed over the richer Macedonians, e.g. the nobles, then that leaves Macedon with a very limited pool of soldiers who can viably enter service in the Hypaspist and the like.

Alexander did settle veterans. As to how many Macedonians, its hard to say. Craterus was taking 10,000 veterans back home when Alexander died. And they cannot have been the only ones.
It seems to me that he settled a lot more Greeks than he did Macedonians. As evidenced by the 20,000 who tried to return home and were slaughtered in Media.

Macedon suffered a huge drain on its manpower resources. You have the Persian war, India etc, and who knows how many reinforcements were sent out to Asia. On top of that, you have Antipater having to keep the Greeks in line. When Alexander died, you have the Diadochi wars, that must have further drained Macedon. While the Diadochi wars were settled at Ipsus, the fighting continued. Kassander's death in 297 BC brought on more fighting. First between his sons, then with Demetrius.
Demetrius ruled for a few years, but he was involved in fighting with Pyrrhus. Then Demetrius got hoofed out of Macedon by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus. And who knows how many Macedonians went with him to Asia.
Lysimachus then kicked Pyrrhus out of Macedon.
Lysimachus ruled Macedon for a few years before the Korupedion campaign. Seleucus clearly caught him by suprise, and Lysimachus probably stripped Macedon and Europe of as many troops as he could get his hands on. This is one reason why the Galatians had such an easy time when they invaded.

Anyway, Lysimachus was defeated, Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemy Ceraunus, who before being killed by the Galatians, had himself fought off Antigonus Gonatas, defeated Lysimachus' wife and loaned a large number of troops to Pyrrhus to presumably get him out of Europe.
I doubt all the troops loaned to Pyrrhus were Macedonians, but a chunk of them must have been.

The Galatians of course did a lot of damage.

I'm not really sure what rich and poor has to do with it.

I would imagine that many Macedonians were allowed to choose if they wanted to stay in the east or return home. A courtesy apparently not given to the Greeks. Kraterus' taking 10,000 plus veterans back home could suggest that.

The Hypaspists were selected from the cream of the infantry phalanx. I know that the Royal Hypaspists would be different, but the regular Hypaspists were selected this way. I'm pretty sure this is how they were selected.

Another factor was that with this huge drain on manpower, who was doing the farming etc back home?
Men who went off to fight abroad had to be replaced at home, both economically and militarily.
Hence the reason Gonatas left the national levy alone as much as he could.

[Carados]

The rich/poor is all about the spare time they have to practice with their weapons or whatever art of war they practice. This would be apparent in the phalanx because they would obviously be better because they would've been able to train. Granted it is rather difficult to practice with the sarissa, especially by yourself. For other things it'll become more apparent (for when/if the sarissa broke, support role as peltasts etc). Did Gonatas still supply the phalanx with weapons and armour as with Phillip or did he revert to supply your own??

Yours is a very valid point though. The Alexander campaign and the Diadochi wars would've obviously taken its toll, more than the Galatians in isolation or the settling of veterans - which probably weren't numourous to begin with. The Punic wars had a similar effect on the Romans and it led to them not being able to deploy as much of their cavalry as they would normally do, hence their reliance on allied cavalry.

I think the Silver Shields were the best regular phalanx unit of their time. They were probably outclassed by elite guard units.

Also, do you think the Machimoi were better than the Cyrenaicans etc.? I would've guessed about the same.

I like the idea of making the "Mac" units smaller. That's promising.

Hmmm...what if we make the Ptolies and Mac agema phalanx units smaller, but Tier 5? The Silver Shields stay full size, but Tier 4 and with a shorter recruitment time. That gives the Macs and Ptolies access to some high-end units, but the Seleucids a better overall phalanx.

I always thought the Machimoi were better, if only marginally. There isn't that much evidence for it and this abstract suggests they weren't entirely warriors. If so then they should probably be the exact same as the other unit. But then how do we convince people to recruit them? Due to their performance at Raphia, I would suggest we have both phalanx units at tier 2, but with the Machimoi counting as "good" thus they will have 2 more attack whilst in formation.

Hmmm. Considering the Seleucid Silver Shields were mainly composed of men in their primes, as opposed to veterans, I think that is a good idea. The Silver Shields would need better stamina than the other Agema units, though.

weren't the Argyraspides so good because they were veterans of Alexander's campaigns (and some of them even old enough to have been veterans of Phillip's?)

I've only read a couple of books on the successors' wars and battles but i don't remember anyone ever beating the Argyraspides - in one battle they were outflanked when their own cavalry were beaten, but they withdrew to higher ground in good order and held off the cavalry.

Or did the unit go on with new recruits long after all the veterans were dead? (i'd have thought some of them would still be veterans of battles among the successors in that case even if the ones who'd been in it from the start had passed on)

For Alexander, maybe. With the Seleucids they were the 10'000 strong unit of men in the prime of their lives.

Wouldn't that make the Romans much too powerful? When playing as the Romans I find it too easy to flank enemies already. Maybe if you decreased their stats or something you could increase the size. But I'm not really sure how these things work.

I've significantly reduced the power of the legions, at least the pre-Marian versions. I do like the idea of increasing the size of Roman units and I've thought about it before but I'll have to think a lot more about it first.

One suggestion I have is to connect the Britons to Europe with a land bridge. It' may not be very realistic, but it's better than just letting a faction, or a handful of rebels cities if the Britons are being removed, just sit there. You could make the land bridge take a few turns to cross or something, to keep the place well defended. Assuming that's possible.

No.
If you want to invade Britain go build a fleet like everyone else had to
In our time frame Britain isn't as significant as Greece/Turkey, which is where all the other land bridges are.

[Sardaukar One]

The rich/poor is all about the spare time they have to practice with their weapons or whatever art of war they practice. This would be apparent in the phalanx because they would obviously be better because they would've been able to train. Granted it is rather difficult to practice with the sarissa, especially by yourself. For other things it'll become more apparent (for when/if the sarissa broke, support role as peltasts etc). Did Gonatas still supply the phalanx with weapons and armour as with Phillip or did he revert to supply your own??

I see what you are saying about rich and poor. Considering the low numbers for the elite cavalry units, its hard to say what they were doing.
I'm not sure when the national levy would practice. Perhaps every other weekend? During the winter?
I'm also not sure if the whole levy would be called out. Someone would have to stay and home to till the fields etc.
As for weapons, I would think that Gonatas supplied them. One of the keys for Philip in going the rout he did with the phalanx is that he avoided the huge cost of arming his phalanx in hoplite equipment.

Yours is a very valid point though. The Alexander campaign and the Diadochi wars would've obviously taken its toll, more than the Galatians in isolation or the settling of veterans - which probably weren't numourous to begin with. The Punic wars had a similar effect on the Romans and it led to them not being able to deploy as much of their cavalry as they would normally do, hence their reliance on allied cavalry.

I also would not underestimate the damage done between the death of Kassander in 297 BC down to when Gonatas took the throne. You could even extend this to the death of Pyrrhus in 272 BC. Up till then, Macedon had been at war almost non-stop.

I can't find the source, but I read a story about the awe people felt when one Macedonian returned from the east. He came home very rich apparently. I suspect he was under Antigonus, but it could be Seleucus too. So clearly if you wanted to make a fortune, buggering off to the east for a few years was the way to go.
Kassander certainly could stop recruiting officers from getting soldiers en masse, but he could not stop individuals on their own heading out east. The east was where fortunes could be made. Who knows how many men left due to this. I would imagine that young nobles would be the most likely candidates. Perhaps the Macedonian I mentioned was one too?


The Machimoni were not very good. They had to deepen the phalanx to 32 files. Maybe more. Ptolemy was under no illusions about them. Left to go toe to toe with the Seleucid phalanx for any length of time would have ended in defeat.
At Raphia, I think they placed them opposite the weaker part of the Seleucid phalanx. Matched them up against the settlers, mercs etc. They were no match for the standing Seleucid phalanx.

[Quinn Inuit]

I always thought the Machimoi were better, if only marginally. There isn't that much evidence for it and this abstract suggests they weren't entirely warriors. If so then they should probably be the exact same as the other unit. But then how do we convince people to recruit them? Due to their performance at Raphia, I would suggest we have both phalanx units at tier 2, but with the Machimoi counting as "good" thus they will have 2 more attack whilst in formation.

Good point. I still think the evidence shows that they were worse, but we need to get people to recruit them.

Hmmm...what if we make Ptolemaic "Macedonian" units smaller (or take longer to recruit), and the merc phalanx only recruitable at Cyrene, Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, the Levant, and the Nile delta? That way, if the player wants to bulk out his army, he'll need to turn to the Machimoi. They could even be Tier 1, but with a 1-turn recruitment time.

Hmmm. Considering the Seleucid Silver Shields were mainly composed of men in their primes, as opposed to veterans, I think that is a good idea. The Silver Shields would need better stamina than the other Agema units, though.

I think that's a good plan.

Luke Ueda-Sarson pointed out that Polybius said that the Seleucids had a number of picked peltasts at one siege, so these guys (probably alone of all of the Diadochi forces) were still being dual-trained as assault troops. It's hard to represent that in-game, though. We could do what Aqd did and have a Silver Shield thureophoroi unit, but then it'll get used in battles where the Silver Shields should have fought as a phalanx. Then again, at Raphia only some of them were equipped as phalangites, so I guess it's reasonable that a general would use them in different ways in the same battle.

[GraaEminense]

Good point. I still think the evidence shows that they were worse, but we need to get people to recruit them.

Hmmm...what if we make Ptolemaic "Macedonian" units smaller (or take longer to recruit), and the merc phalanx only recruitable at Cyrene, Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, the Levant, and the Nile delta? That way, if the player wants to bulk out his army, he'll need to turn to the Machimoi. They could even be Tier 1, but with a 1-turn recruitment time.

The initial cost and recruitment time is not very important, to me at least. Players plan ahead (and don't get free cash like the AI), and it's the long-term cost relative to other units that fill the same role that recommends one unit over another -unless it's just awesome for whatever reason, of course. Keep Upkeep low, and players will recruit them. Well, I will.

[Sardaukar One]

Hmmm. Considering the Seleucid Silver Shields were mainly composed of men in their primes, as opposed to veterans, I think that is a good idea. The Silver Shields would need better stamina than the other Agema units, though.

The original Silver Shields were not composed of men in their primes. Most of the Silver Shields that followed Eumenes (and were then disbanded by Antigonus) were in their 50's and 60's.

Philip formed the Hypaspists. These men were picked from the fittest and strongest. They could keep up with the cavalry, and formed the link between the cavalry and phalanx. They could perform as light troops or fight as shock troops. Still, injury and age could inhibit their performance as Hypaspists. Yet, it would surely be a waste to simply disband such men. So using them as heavy infantry ala the Agryaspids/Silver Shields makes sense. They essentially returned to where they came from ; the phalanx.
Having been though the wringer as Hypaspists, it would seem a waste to do anything else.

The Hypaspists do precede the Silver shields. And the Hypaspists and Silver Shields are seemingly joined at the hip in the Seleucid military. The Silver Shields seem to have eclipsed the Hypaspists even. But the sign of the times was for everything to become heavier. Heavier phalanx, cataphracts etc. So perhaps this isn't so suprising that we see the Hypaspists shrink in relation to the Silver Shields.

Though the physical requirements and hazardous lifestyly associated with being a Hypaspist could have something to do with it too.

Luke Ueda-Sarson pointed out that Polybius said that the Seleucids had a number of picked peltasts at one siege, so these guys (probably alone of all of the Diadochi forces) were still being dual-trained as assault troops. It's hard to represent that in-game, though. We could do what Aqd did and have a Silver Shield thureophoroi unit, but then it'll get used in battles where the Silver Shields should have fought as a phalanx. Then again, at Raphia only some of them were equipped as phalangites, so I guess it's reasonable that a general would use them in different ways in the same battle.

This was the siege of Sardis. In 214 BC I think. Antiochus III was putting down a rebellion I think.
They are Hypaspists. The Hypaspists seemed to have been brigaded under the Agryaspids, who numbered 10,000 men. There were at least two brigades of 1000 men each.

At the Daphne parade, there were 5,000 silver shields and 5,000 imitation legionaires. Its seen by many as the Hypaspists being trained to fight in the Roman fashion. Or however many there were. They were in their prime apparently.

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting. Is it possible that the hypaspists were actually just re-equipped argyraspids who were on the younger end of the age group? So the same guys might be equipped differently depending on the situation?

[Sardaukar One]

Interesting. Is it possible that the hypaspists were actually just re-equipped argyraspids who were on the younger end of the age group? So the same guys might be equipped differently depending on the situation?

The Hypaspists preceded the Silver Shields. They are mentioned under Philip at Chaeronea.
The Silver Shields are first mentioned in India under Alexander. My guess is that they were formed(or rather, when they came to the fore) sometime after Darius was killed when the wars started to get particularly hard in the east under Alexander.
If so, it would explain why many of the Silver Shields were in their 50's and 60's by the time they were fighting for Eumenes. They would have been fighting in the Hypaspists under Philip.

It certainly seems that Hypaspist veterans were being formed into their own phalanx unit. As to if that was started under Philip or Alexander is hard to say. My guess would be under Alexander. I don't recall of any mention of them at the major battles fought by Alexander against the Persians.

After Alexander's death, the Hypaspists and Agryaspids, both units about 3,000 strong, signed on with Eumenes. When Eumenes was defeated by Antigonus, Antigonus retained the Hypaspists, but got rid of the Silver Shields.

Seleucus seems to have reformed the Silver Shields from the original members. And after Ipsus, Seleucus incorporated the Hypaspists into his army. Seleucus might have formed his own Hypaspists, but I think it unlikely. I think it far more likely he got them after Ipsus when the spoils were split up amongst the dynasts.

Under the Seleucids, the Argyraspids seem to have taken precedence over the Hypaspists. Or become the more important unit. Whatever happened, the numbers were boosted from 6,000 men to 10,000 men.
I can't say how many men were distributed between the two units. From what I can tell, there seem to have been at least two Hypaspist units of 1,000 men in the Seleucid army on campaign. So perhaps as many as 8,000 men were actual Argyraspids/Silver shields. There were three Hypaspist battalions under Philip and Alexander, so its possible a third battalion was around. But I have found no mention of them anywhere in my sources.

Under the Seleucids, I think it more likely that the Agryaspids came from the Hypaspists. And from the best of the phalanx troops in the standing army. This last recruiting resource would make sense as the Agryaspids seem to have been larger than the Hypaspists. Either that, or the turnover in the Hypaspists surpassed that of Alexander.

[Wien1938]

The Hypaspists/Argyraspides debate

1. The Hypaspists were formed under Philip, as an elite corps consisting of three bodies of 1,000 men; one of these was the Agema and considered the elite of the Hypaspists.
2. The Hypaspist corps which fought with Alexander in Asia is renamed the Argyraspides at some point in Alexander's reign during the Indian campaign when they were fitted with silvered equipment and shields (burning the old, worn out kit).
3. If we accept that the Alexandrian Argyraspides are the same as the Hypaspists, then we have no problem with the end of the Argyraspides when following the battle of Gabiene, the last we hear of them is that, distrusted by Antigonos, the corps is dispatched to the distant province of Arachosia with secret orders to the satrap (governor) never to be allowed to leave.
4. This means that the corps does not exist. However the name still does. We don't hear of an elite infantry formation in the successor armies until late in the 3rd Century when the name Argyraspides re-emerges in the Antigonid and Seleucid armies.

If Luke Ueda-Sarson is right (and I think he is - I'm also a member of the Society of Ancients - yay!), then Antigonos is the first to create a "new" Argyraspides-style unit. This is marked as an elite unit, both in the original Antigonid army and in the later Hellenistic armies for three reasons:-
1. They're true full-time professional troops.
2. The personnel are specially-selected as the toughest and fittest of the youth levy. This particularly matters on the point below.
3. There is a little textual evidence for the Pelstasts/Argyraspides/etc being dual-function troops as I believe the original Hypaspists were. This fits better if we believe that the Hypaspists were phalangites, which also fits with the Pezetairoi having dual-function use (phalangite/peltast). Again, I would suggest reading Luke U-S's arguments on this subject (part 1, part 2), especially as I find them to be most persuasive.

Given that most fighting undertaken by empires consists of putting down rebellions or repelling border-raids/attacks by barbarians, the core of the "royal army" consisting of the professional Macedonian infantry/cavalry, mercenaries and local levies would have been quite sufficient for the tougher grade of resistance or challenge.
We usually only see the core levy of Macedonian troops summoned when either the kingdom was under severe threat, engaged in a major war or undertaking a scheme of conquest (such as Philip V's war against the Greeks and Antiochos III's war against the Parthians).

Where the name Hypaspist reappears it is not as a elite infantry corps but is associated with either aides-de-camp or selected officers, such as those sent by Pyrrhos to govern Italian towns in the war with Rome. There is a later reference in the Seleucid army to hypaspists but these again appear to be as aides-de-camp, rather than elite troops. The name Argyraspides appears far more often.
To refer back to Gabiene (and to Paraitacene 317 BC), the skill of the Argyraspides in phalangite-style combat leaves the imagination somewhat stretched if one wishes to imagine the Hypaspist as a hoplite rearmed as a phalangite, even at the age of 50 or so. Given the corps also absorbed many of the phalanx veterans, this should imply the original Hypaspists were phalangites on the battlefield and would explain their extraordinary skill in breaking Antigonos' phalanx on two occasions.
Therefore, to lead from this conclusion, the reconstruction of a new elite corps fits into the successor emulation of Alexander, whether in the styles of statue or the pattern of the armies or the retention of elephants (Alexander had begun to incorporate these).
It leads one to the conclusion that these were dual-use, full-time infantry which consequently meant that these would classify as veterans automatically. These would be in use the whole time, whether training, guarding the monarch or in use to put down rebellions or punish border-tribes.

The Seleucid Argyraspides were 10,000 strong and probably had an elite battalion (Agema) like the Antigonid "Peltasts".
The 5,000 rearmed I]Argyraspides[/I] need not suppose a connection to a core of hypaspists within the elite infantry corps. Just simply that half the I]Argyraspides[/I] were rearmed in the fashionable (and more effective) Roman manner.
From Luke's article,
"It is perhaps notable that the only times Polybios mentions 'peltasts' in the Seleucid army they are on one occasion described as leading an assault through a breach in a wall (10.31.11), and on the other as being 10000 strong (10.49.1). Elsewhere Polybios tells us that the elite portion of the Seleucid phalanx was 10000 strong and that most of them were called Argyraspids. It seems likely that these men were 'peltasts' in exactly the same manner Antigonid pikemen were 'peltasts' - they could be rearmed for certain missions."

There is actually no evidence to support the idea that Philip and Alexander's hypaspists were either lighter-armed or used to "keep up with the Companion cavalry". The position on the right is far more likely to be the position of honour in the infantry of the army.
Additionally, the Companion cavalry are never noted as having fought in a style which would use infantry in mixed support as we see Gauls and Numidians doing, as well as Alexander's mercenary cavalry at Gaugamela, supported by skirmishing infantry in the cavalry melee.

The only evidence to support the idea of a "heavier" phalanx is the growth of the sarissa from 18 to 21 feet. There is no corresponding increase in weight of equipment and if one is to rely of the lessened flexibility of the later phalanx, this is far better explained by the loss of full-time status of the levy phalangites and the lesser quality of later Hellenistic generals.

On the note of equipment and who paid for it, we have solid evidence that the armies of the Hellenistic kingdoms were equipped from the state and the weapons held in the state armouries. There is an inscription at Philipopolis (I believe) which lists fines for loss of equipment.

I'm a little puzzled by the reference of the Machimoi fighting 32 deep? Can you reference that? 32 deep was usually regarded as too deep to be of any use.
It may not be a question of the quality of the Machimoi but more a question of their political reliability. Newly raised for the Raphia campaign, the Machimoi did defeat the outnumbered Seleucid phalanx but soon after act as the core for a series of crippling revolts in Egypt proper.
Additionally at Raphia, the Seleucid cavalry were largely present on the battlefield, which is why the Seleucid infantry could safely regroup and withdraw.

On the subject of the troops remaining in Macedon at the end of Alexander's reign, I would say that the men available for call up would include a trained, experienced core (in 321) but a larger majority of the sons of the men in Asia. When we factor in the Galatian invasion and the devastation of the land, this would destroy much of the recruitment base of Macedonia. Duncan Head suggests, especially in cavalry, it took Macedon about 100 years to recover fully; this includes heavy defeats (possibly) when Demetrios II dies in battle with the Dardanians and (certainly) the defeat at Kynoskphalai.
Again, I don't believe that at the start of our period in Macedon, an elite infantry corps existed and that this was reconstructed in the long reign of Gonatas. It might be wiser to speculate that when the "peltast" reached a certain age, he was simply returned to the "bronze shields" and that the elite corps circulated the men of the kingdom over time, having an effect of binding the people more closely to the monarch.

Lastly in reference of Roman manpower, this was not a question of fielding huge armies but one of fielding many armies. If the Romans lost an army, they could raise another without difficulty (unless having lost three such armies and suffering the devastation of central Italy by a certain Carthaginian!) which meant for the Hellenistic monarchies that while they might destroy one two-legion expeditionary army (two legions plus two allied alae), there would be another to fight within a year. By contrast, the nature of the Hellenistic military machine was such that one bad defeat could mean the loss of the army and the kingdom. This disparity consequently influenced both grand strategy and battlefield tactics, especially if the king has to be casualty-aware.