Greek fighting style

[Quinn Inuit]

The next release is definitely going to have a Greek Mac-style phalangite. No question. The question is how to implement that unit. I was thinking that it should require a royal barracks. This is to represent the immense money and time it took to redo one's hoplite force into phalangites.

But what of the elite hoplites, you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked. I think we need to fundamentally reevaluate hoplites in this game. I've been doing a lot of reading, and I think we're doing it wrong.

First, most normal hoplites shouldn't be that good. Besides the general's bodyguard, I think we should only allow for the recruitment of elite hoplites with the major_port (or maybe trade_hub) resource, to represent the fact that only the richest of cities could still field such troops.

Second, cities should be able to recruit mercenary hoplites from the local buildings. These mercs should be more or less like they are now, so they'll be noticeably tougher than city hoplites, but with lower morale (mercs don't fight to the death much). This will encourage the computer to build primarily merc armies, which is IIRC more accurate.

Third, we should introduce ekdromoi hoplites. Unlike some other mods, I believe ours should be nearly an even match for a normal hoplite in a fight. The ekromoi were just normal hoplites who weren't wearing armour.

Fourth, I think we should make ekdromoi and all heavy peltasts "skirmisher" rather than "missile" infantry. They'll be have in a similar fashion, but skirmishers are apparently more vulnerable to cavalry. However, if the skirmishers are relatively heavy troops like ekdromoi, velites, thureophoroi, or the like, they should be able to hold their own in many cases.

Thoughts?

[Wien1938]

Looks thoroughly sound. I approve! Theurophoroi are flexible medium infantry, so this will fit very nicely.
Looking forward to 3.4.

[Jamey]

I wouldn't have a problem with removing the generic elite hoplites from the Greek faction and forcing the use of the colony barracks to acquire them.

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, sounds like a plan. Let me run my "skirmish" idea by Aradan and see what he thinks, since I think he knows more about that issue than I do.

[The Colonel]

Anyone have any idea what the Greek army composition should be?

All unit pictures from EB as examples I am not encouraging copying of any way or form

Well, now that we have the theurophoroi, we should also bring in their heavier brothers, the throkatitai. Im not sure that they used javilens as well, but they were the heavy infantry of their army, used not for flanking or horassing, but assaulting the enemy head on. As for modelling, unless you have a talented modeller, i suggest taking a unit that already has chainmail, slap on a attic or chalcidian helm, give it a theuros looking shield re-skinned and a spear with a sword as a secondary weapon. This unit is not limited to the greeks, but the macedonians and sucessors also used this unit as well.

















Also, the Cretan Archers were slightly more armored than they appeared in RTR 1.9. Leather armor with a cap, maybe shield, and that should fix it. Should be an AOR unit to whoever controls crete IMO.


Greeks also began to move away from the classical hoplite and move towards a lighter version, armed similarly, but with a differnt shield and chainmail or lamellar, dependingon the wealth of the individual. Could take a model of any unit with lamellar, give it a reskinned theuros shield as a place-holder for the actual shield, and slap on a attic or chalcidian helm.




Thats my two cents on the greek army at the times. The theurophoroi and Throkatitai should be available in a later barracks as well as a greek pike unit, since they came later. The lighter greek phalanx should come right away.











Thessalain cavalry should be added as an AOR unit for both macedon, epirus, and the greeks, to whoever controls lands near Aetolia/thessalay. The greeks began to field heavier cavalry around the time to counter the macedonians too.

[Quinn Inuit]

All unit pictures from EB as examples I am not encouraging copying of any way or form

Well, now that we have the theurophoroi, we should also bring in their heavier brothers, the throkatitai. Im not sure that they used javilens as well, but they were the heavy infantry of their army, used not for flanking or horassing, but assaulting the enemy head on. As for modelling, unless you have a talented modeller, i suggest taking a unit that already has chainmail, slap on a attic or chalcidian helm, give it a theuros looking shield re-skinned and a spear with a sword as a secondary weapon. This unit is not limited to the greeks, but the macedonians and sucessors also used this unit as well.

Hmmm, my research has found pretty scanty primary references for the thorakitai. I'm not keen on including them. It's possible they existed, but from what I can tell they appear to have been fielded rarely enough that they're not worth including.

Also, the Cretan Archers were slightly more armored than they appeared in RTR 1.9. Leather armor with a cap, maybe shield, and that should fix it. Should be an AOR unit to whoever controls crete IMO.

Agreed about the AoR. I think that's fixed in the current version, at least for most civilized factions.

As for the armour, I'll see about swapping the curent one out for KLA's. I think it'll work quite nicely, and I already have permission to use his units.

Greeks also began to move away from the classical hoplite and move towards a lighter version, armed similarly, but with a differnt shield and chainmail or lamellar, dependingon the wealth of the individual. Could take a model of any unit with lamellar, give it a reskinned theuros shield as a place-holder for the actual shield, and slap on a attic or chalcidian helm.

They were moving away from the aspis? Also, I thought they were using linen armour, not chainmail or lamellar.

Thats my two cents on the greek army at the times. The theurophoroi and Throkatitai should be available in a later barracks as well as a greek pike unit, since they came later. The lighter greek phalanx should come right away.

I'd rather make the lighter Greek phalanx require a barracks upgrade, since most cities hadn't started using it by 280.

That brings up an interesting question, though. Should Greeks be able to recruit hoplites and phalangites at the same time, or should the phalanx upgrade be irreversible?

Thessalain cavalry should be added as an AOR unit for both macedon, epirus, and the greeks, to whoever controls lands near Aetolia/thessalay. The greeks began to field heavier cavalry around the time to counter the macedonians too.

I'm pretty sure they're already an AoR unit, and we're going to be adding Aetolian hippakontistai, too.

[horatius]

That brings up an interesting question, though. Should Greeks be able to recruit hoplites and phalangites at the same time, or should the phalanx upgrade be irreversible?

I don't know about the historical part, but I definitely think it should not be an irreversible upgrade. There must have been a transition period, where both forms were used, rather than just overnight having a major transition. Plus, I like the idea of using both hoplites and phalangites in my army, for added flexibility and adaptability.

[Wien1938]

I'm not happy with The Colonel's proposals here, they don't hold up on a number of grounds.

Polybios only mentions thorakitai twice in the Achaean army and once in the Seleucid army. There are some fragmentary reliefs surviving which show a theurphoros type of infantryman armoured in chainmail, one example coming from Sidon in Lebanon and the inscription suggests he is an Anatolian, who are frequently known to have been mercenaries.
These were used as mobile infantry to support light infantry, sometimes on steep hills and are usually associated in battle with theurophoroi. I would argue for the inclusion of javelins as well as a spear and suggest these troops were used in the Greek fashion as a heavy intervention force in the light infantry's battle. Certainly one could see an advantage to using thorakitai to storm a hill held by enemy skirmishers - their mobility and javelins would give an advantage in the missile exchange and their armour would tell at close quarters.
However, I would also agree with Quinn that they are rare enough to be dropped. As above, they're only mentioned three times in the whole of our period and may have been a late 3rd Century experiment which was dropped after the Romans defeated the Hellenistic powers in the early 2nd Century.

I would not actually argue for armour on the Cretans. The Roman velites did not use armour either, yet are rated as superior light infantry, which I would ascribe to their sword and shield which come into play in close combat. I would argue that the well known inclusion of light shields in the Cretans' equipment was due to their capability in close combat as well as ranged skirmishing. Certainly they're found in Alexander's army in circumstances where they would have found melee equipment useful. The other factor is to remember that "Cretan" probably became similar to "Tarantine", that is denoting a style of troop rather than an ethnicity.
A "Cretan" archer armed with bow, shield and a short sword or dagger would more than justify their increased expense versus other archers.

There is no evidence that all Greek states ever actually ceased to use the classical hoplite.
279 BC, the Boiotian troops at Thermopylai (against the Galatians) has 10,000 hoplites deployed.
270s, the Boiotian league rearms with the theuros - although sometimes these theurophoroi are still called "hoplites" on inscriptions, we should recall that "hoplite" merely means "an armed man" and that Macedonian phalangites are also called "hoplites" on occasion. If we assume that the Boiotians switch to theurophoroi in the sense of a heavier skirmishing infantry, this would match well if we consider two factors.
The first is the presence of Antigonid Macedon. There is less war in Greece until the 260s as Macedon is controlling much of the political climate through alliances, tyrants and oligarchic juntas and had been doing so since Philip's day. The second is that the primary opponent for the Boiotians would not have been the Macedonians, but the Aitolians. The latter were mainly excellent skirmishing troops and a switch to heavier theurophoroi would have been tactically sensible as the theurophoroi could return fire and prevail in a melee, where as the hoplites would have come unstuck, especially in rough ground.
In 245 BC, the Boiotians convert their troops again, this time to peltophoroi. This is accepted as meaning a conversion to Macedonian arms as at the same time an agema is established, which parallels Macedonian doctrines. At this time, the league becomes a Macedonian ally and remains so until 197 BC, and is sympathetic afterwards until 167 BC.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Spartans ever converted their hoplites into theurophoroi, nor the Syracusans. Athens is controversial as there are no clear records of conversion to either theurophoroi or Macedonian arms and this may well be consistent with a decline into provincial obscurity. Certainly Athens is not noted as fighting unless being besieged.
Even the Aitolians retained some hoplites, as the great bulk of their fighting force were javelinmen noted by Polybios as neither equipped nor trained for close combat and being at home in rough terrain. While it is conjecture, I would assert that the Aitolians convert their few hoplites into theurophoroi as this would better compliment their national fighting style.
I am not certain as to when the Achaean League converted from hoplite to theurophoros but I would place a bet on between 270 and 250 BC, when apart from the Chremonidean War when the Peloponnese is quiet as far as Sparta is concerned and the main threat would have been the Aitolians and their raiding. Achaea is also a hilly district so the theurophoroi style would have suited the citizens. In 208 BC, Philopoimen re-equips and retrains the citizen horse and foot into a Macedonian style in order to face the threat of a resurgent Sparta. Acheaen troops were being beaten regularly in pitched battle by the Spartans and we can note that Aitolia was being contained by the vigourous campaigning of Philip V of Macedon at this time.

If we're keeping a united Greek faction, then I would allow simultaneous recruiting of hoplites and theurophoroi but the transition to Macedonian arms would override both as mercenaries would then supply the lighter troops in an army. I would give Aitolia an AOR Aitolian infantry unit so as to recruit their excellent skirmishers.

As for cavalry, the Greeks and the Thessalians in particular always had deployed heavy cavalry. However, apart from the Thessalians the main disadvantage had been training and numbers. Certainly in 208 Philopoimen reforms the Achaean cavalry and while it is not certain that these were equiped with the xyston, it is possible that at least the general's guard is so equipped. Polybios regards large round shields as standard practise for Greek cavalry and Aitolian cavalry is noted for its reputation at the end of the 3rd Century.
The evidence on cavalry armament suggests that we can take the heavy Greek cavalryman of the 4th Century armed with two javelins, sword, helmet and breastplate and merely add to this a hoplite style shield.
Quinn is correct on this matter.

[florin80]

That was actually an enjoyable post. Good job!

[The Colonel]

I said began to move away from the classical hoplite armed in a breastplate and hoplon shield , militarily, it did not even make sense at the time to field a proven ineffective army, what I mean is that they began to re-equip holpites in a differnt fashion, with lighter and higher quality armor, i.e. chainmail(chainmail began to be used at around circa 250BC) Vases also show greek infantry using chainmail, and some in scale as well. Linen was used until the introduction of chainmail at around 250 BC(I do not now however if linen was completely abandonded, however, one can probably inferr that chainmail was more widely used given its higher strength and its ability to be easily repaired). Of course they did not drop the hoplite altogether, but as I said it became lighter and more flexible. However, the older form of hoplites should not be dropped altogether in a barracks uprade since most greek states refused to abandon the tradition. Never did I say that they converted their hoplites into theurophoroi, but merely equipped them differntly. I have never heard of any state completely converting their units into theurophoroi. I say that they should be two distinct units in game sepreate from each other, the hoplite used in the main battle line, the theurophoroi used on the flanks or as skirmishers.

@Quinn, when greeks began to use the phalangites, they did not completely abandon the hoplites. If that were to be made in game that the greek hoplite would be untrainable, the greeks would in essence become boringly similar to the other hellenistic factions. Also however rare the throakitai were, I suggested them as a heavy infantry unit for the hellenistic powers to counter the roman heavy infantry such as the imitation legionarres that Realism gave to the eastern hellenistic factions (which i think that they should be re-named into something else, ahem, throakitai).

[Wien1938]

Breastplates had already been disappearing from hoplite equipment since the mid 5th Century. Lininothrakes had been appearing since the early 5th Century and is generally accepted to have been the normal armour for hoplites since the late 5th Century.
Can you point me in the direction of any evidence for Greeks using chainmail? The conventional view is that hoplites wore bronze plate, linin or leather - sometimes reinforced with scales around the stomach. But apart from the one Anatolian mercenary depicted wearing a light chainmail shirt (no shoulder pieces and shorter than the celtic shirt), I have neither seen nor heard of Greek or Hellenistic troops wearing chainmail.
There is no evidence I have seen to indicate that hoplite warfare became more flexible, if by this you mean moving towards the Roman tradition. Not all the hoplites were converted either, there being two parts that must be remembered - that the Greek states did not react as a block, Athens never converting, while the regional players (Sparta, Achaea, Aitolia, Boiotia) all converting in different fashions and timelines. The records of battles does point towards theurophoroi being used as mainline troops as well as skirmishers. There is no art work evidence of hoplites rearmed with the theuros, which makes me wonder as to your sources.

[The Colonel]

There is no art work evidence of hoplites rearmed with the theuros, which makes me wonder as to your sources.

as for hoplites being re-armed with a theuros, i was saying to use the model of a thueros shield in case of a lapse of a good moddler. As for hoplites changing, well thats shown in EB, which is a very reputable mod, and has much research put into it, them having academic and archealogical resources that not much have access to. Your very same question is answered in their faq.

Q: I've never heard of unit/faction/name X. I can't find it online. Where did you find it?
A: Most of our sources are primary archaeological and textual evidence. We have people reading and examining this evidence in period languages. We consider secondary evidence as well. However, many of our sources are found in places that only academics will be able to access, and a few have not even been published yet. Our goal is to be as accurate as possible, not to please those who want to be able to find what we describe on Google.

it being one of the most historically accurate mods on the TWC next to realism, i believe that their team is a very credible source and a very good example to follow by. Take it up with them if you think that they are wrong. I am however very sure that mail was at least present in hellenistic armies at around the third century BC. I've yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

As for the artwork, my bad, It looked like chain in the picture, and I misinterpreted the text next to it, it was a book I was remebering from a year ago, and i just looked at it now. Titled the Greek Armies by peter connolly. Was one of my first books that I read about the greeks, not a encycopedia of information, but i am sure that it is accurate.

I've heard from a few books, and even here in this site, that there was evidence of hellens using chain in the late 3rd century BC. But then again, its been a while since i did any study of these ancient civilizations, so maybe this issue is best asked in the Vestigia Vetustatis. Im sure some history nut there knows.

Also look at the greeks moving from a block from a game play view, in game, the greeks HAVE to move as a block since they are represented as 1 faction. Maybe the newer greek units should be recruitable only in the areas that moved foward. Complete realism isnt really achievable, they'd have to go with what the general idea was at the time, which i assert was a move towards greater mobility from roman influence, as well as introduction of some mail. But then again i could be wrong. Just thought it would be good for gameplay and balancing against the romans.

[florin80]

as for hoplites being re-armed with a theuros, i was saying to use the model of a thueros shield in case of a lapse of a good moddler. As for hoplites changing, well thats shown in EB, which is a very reputable mod, and has much research put into it, them having academic and archealogical resources that not much have access to. Your very same question is answered in their faq.

Well, no, the faq only says that one must believe them on whatever was included in eb. It doesn`t specifically cover Wien`s question about the sources for this particular unit. Imo you`ve used one implication too many.

Now, anyone mature enough will realize I`m in no way trying to criticize eb or start an argument involving eb. I`m just making a point. Eb is not the philosophical stone of history. It can`t be. Much of the info on these early units is something that needs interpreting and what they actually offer is simply their interpretation. Anyone man enough will admit that apart from a very small number of the units represented in our mods, the rest are actually to one extent or another, guesswork. Call it educated guesswork if you will, but still a fair amount of it. And I mean that for any rtw mod or other wargame.

It being one of the most historically accurate mods on the TWC next to realism, i believe that their team is a very credible source and a very good example to follow by.

Yes, but you don`t actually know that, do you? Otherwise you wouldn`t be quoting them as a source, but would instead be providing the same sources they should be able to provide. Basically they seem credible to you or you`ve been told they are, but you are not in the position to verify this yourself.
To give you an example, Connolly keeps on going on about the liby-phoenician pikemen of Hannibal giving pretty exact details. And even the Osprey title on the carthaginian wars is representing the liby-phoenicians this way. And their illustration was used as a source by many mods.
Now, when I saw these two sources telling the same thing I was inclined to believe it. But then I realized that Osprey is using Connolly as THE source. And sadly, Connolly isn`t giving any in his book. This is a classic example of the modern writer substituting himself for the real source. Basically the trail stops there.
And if you get to read a writer like Daly you`ll be amazed to hear that the only time liby-phoenicians are mentioned explicitly is in the form of a small group of cavalry sent to Iberia. Those liby-phoenician pikemen mentioned above are just africans or libyans in the sources apparently. But Connolly iirc never goes through the trouble of demonstrating why they should be labeled liby-phoenicians, let alone fighting in the macedonian style. So, you see it has come a long way.

The point here being that there`s no point to recreate another mod when that mod already exists, is released and fully playable. And using it as the source leads in that direction. No offense meant to anyone so I hope you won`t feel in any way offended.

BTW, why is this discussion taking place in the bugs thread?

[bladerunner900]

BTW, why is this discussion taking place in the bugs thread?

Exactly!

[Wien1938]

Unfortunately Peter Connelly is not reliable. He is known to make things up and to contradict himself to make a popular point. A good example is his insistance on Hannibal's Libyans forming a Macedonian phalanx.
I am a history nut - Quinn knows this well enough!
I don't know about the other forums/mods, but I have never seen any evidence of Greek troops armoured in chainmail. While it is possible, the notion seems to my mind to lack the kind of supporting evidence to support the claim.

[Quinn Inuit]

Consider these posts moderated!

At this point, I think we should continue with the plans outlined in the first post (along with increasing thureuphoroi attack/def stats). That seems to have the best historical evidence behind it. I think I'll also give Aetolia a hidden resource so I can give them some unique units and no hoplites.

One question: were there still a lot of merc peltasts by this time, or were they all merc thureuphoroi?

[florin80]

One question: were there still a lot of merc peltasts by this time, or were they all merc thureuphoroi?

You are referring to a guy with some fair equipment like a shield(maybe bronze, but still a small round shield) and maybe even a helmet, but no other armor, right? Because the akontistai, in the form of an irregular with a bunch of javelins and no other equipment(not even a shield maybe) I`d imagine would continue to exist throughout.
Honestly I`d also be interested to know. Some modern writers give the impression that the professional greek peltast by our time had evolved into what we call the thureophoroi in your mod. Warry in his Warfare in the Classical World being one example.

[Wien1938]

Part of the problem for modern writers is in interpreting what is meant by "mercenaries" in Hellenistic warfare, where those mercenaries are not explicitly given a fighting style. The opinion of Duncan Head and others is that theurophoroi are the troops usually referred to as mercenaries as the fighting style seems to have been common in the Eastern Mediterranean and those "mercenaries" are usually found either in the skirmishing line or fighting in a skirmishing fashion.
In this I would agree that while light skirmishing troops such as akontistai were still commonly operating, these fall under the later category of "euzonoi" or "psiloi" - the light armed skirmishers usually incapable of close combat (excepting Velites, Paeones, Cretans etc). The common flexible infantry were the "mercenary" theurophoroi. Certainly in accounts of campaigns of the Hellenistic kings, we find that they use the mercenaries to tackle rough ground, while the "heavier" troops remain behind. An example is a campaign of Philip V in Aitolia in 218 BC.
I'm of the opinion that the Macedonians should not be able to raise "peltasts" or "theurophoroi" as regular troops but that these would be mercenaries (like the Thracians) and therefore the regular Macedonians are either phalangites or cavalry. Only the "peltophoroi" and "agema" would have been capable of dual-role functions, which can be represented by the "hypaspistai" troop type; this remains uncertain since while these troops are found storming walls and used on forced marches, they were also left behind when difficult and rough ground needed to be tackled.

Florin 80, in answer to your post, only the Lykians are still found fighting in a "peltast" function using a round shield in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries. My belief is that from about the 270s the theuros becomes increasingly popular and replaces the "pelte" (meaning the original peltast's small round shield). The reasons for this, despite an increase in weight is that the theuros provides more cover against missile fire and can be used aggressively in close combat (usually being metal rimmed).
Certainly there is evidence from Illyria and Thrace that the oval shield was being adopted between 300 and 280. This might have come from the Italian connection (Illyrians) but more likely from the Celts in my opinion.

[The Colonel]

Besides the greeks Wien, i've heard (im not sayin anything anymore since it'll probably be completely wrong and corrected, thnx btw for correcting me tho) that other hellenistic factions went through some changes as well?

[Wien1938]

Well, the imitation legionaries hold a certain measure of controversy. We know that the Seleucids converted a part of the agema in 166 BC, after the Antigonids were destroyed by the Romans, and it has been suggested that the Ptolemies did likewise, though I'm not inclined to accept such a conclusion as the artwork is inconclusive (the troops portrayed could easily be theurophoroi or thorakitai) and there is no explicit mention in the sources of Ptolemaic imitation legionaries.
As far as I can tell from the sources, the Hellenistic factions didn't change that much, since apart from against the Romans, their methods were proven and battle-winning ones. And even against the Romans, if one reads the surviving parts of Polybios, Livy, Appian and Plutarch with a critical eye, there is a certain sense that Perseus had defeated the Romans in the first four years of the war (171 - 167, Third Macedonian) by winning the Kallinikos skirmish (despite Livy's protestations), by outmanoeuvring the consuls, winning back most of Thessaly and defeating the Pergamenes at sea.