Units with two melee weapons (apart from cavalry with lances) are horribly clunky in M2TW. They have a tendency to repeatedly switch between weapons without prompting. The Argoi are a good example of this; you can command them to attack a cavalry unit with their spears, and one minute later they'll switch to swords on their own. You command them to attack with their spears again, and look closely to make sure they actually switch, and shortly after they're attacking with their swords again.
Units with two melee weapons (apart from cavalry with lances) are horribly clunky in M2TW. They have a tendency to repeatedly switch between weapons without prompting. The Argoi are a good example of this; you can command them to attack a cavalry unit with their spears, and one minute later they'll switch to swords on their own. You command them to attack with their spears again, and look closely to make sure they actually switch, and shortly after they're attacking with their swords again.
Yes! It's horrible! Only way to make it work in a tolerable manner would be to make both weapons deal equal damage... but that would be pointless.
Units with two melee weapons (apart from cavalry with lances) are horribly clunky in M2TW. They have a tendency to repeatedly switch between weapons without prompting. The Argoi are a good example of this; you can command them to attack a cavalry unit with their spears, and one minute later they'll switch to swords on their own. You command them to attack with their spears again, and look closely to make sure they actually switch, and shortly after they're attacking with their swords again.
Correct! I have almost always found this to be an issue with Medieval II mods, especially when spearmen are fighting cavalry. It's the dumbest thing in the world for a person holding a spear to be like "hold up, wait a minute! This guy's on a horse! It'd be better if I used my sword instead."
Dude I don't know if you just can't read or if it's something I can't say here but:
So
1.The cingula was not worn in a way like a belt used to hold up mail was worn=Higher up ...so???
2.The tropheum traiani and Trajan collum in Rome show roman soldiers not having a belt to hold it up.Oh my that stupid roman not following your advise shame isn't it?
3.Just because the romans did sometimes wear belts to hold it up it doesn't change the fact IT WASN'T DONE BY EVERYONE.Do you understand that?
1. A belt not worn like a belt? Lol, if you strap it around your torso, you're wearing it like a belt and it does it job. The fact that it protected the crotch and looked fancy is a bonus.
2. Artist could have been a douche, like his modern brothers. Could have been one of those guys who died from exertion.
3. May I ask that you give ancient people some due credit? They weren't stupid. If something is going to make their life easier, they will use it. March 20-30km with that weight on, you'll wish you distributed it better. Heavy infantry like Thorakitai? They better be smart and take advantage of everything they can.
1. A belt not worn like a belt? Lol, if you strap it around your torso, you're wearing it like a belt and it does it job. The fact that it protected the crotch and looked fancy is a bonus.
2. Artist could have been a douche, like his modern brothers. Could have been one of those guys who died from exertion.
3. May I ask that you give ancient people some due credit? They weren't stupid. If something is going to make their life easier, they will use it. March 20-30km with that weight on, you'll wish you distributed it better. Heavy infantry like Thorakitai? They better be smart and take advantage of everything they can.
I'm no art expert or military historian, but to the untrained eye (or just a pair of eyes with common sense) it would appear that several infantrymen and cavalrymen in this carved relief on a 3rd-century Roman sarcophagus appear to be wearing a tied "belt" around their mid torsos to do exactly as you mention in regards to weight distribution:
Pics of the new lonchophoroi and thureopherontes hippeis can be found on the twitter feed...
I tend to edit my posts once or several times after writing and uploading them. Please keep this in mind when reading a recent post of mine. Also, should someone, for some unimaginable reason, wish to rep me, please add your username in the process, so I can at least know whom to be grateful towards.
The new units look great, but I was wondering what exactly is the thureopherontes hippeis? From what I remember they weren't in EB1, I guess I was just wondering what their role is. Anyway, both units look fantastic, you guys are doing great work.
The new units look great, but I was wondering what exactly is the thureopherontes hippeis? From what I remember they weren't in EB1, I guess I was just wondering what their role is. Anyway, both units look fantastic, you guys are doing great work.
Those two are the late (Thorakitai Reform - so around 222BC) replacements for Hippakontistai and Hippeis.
Those two are the late (Thorakitai Reform - so around 222BC) replacements for Hippakontistai and Hippeis.
Really? Are their stats incredibly beefed up from these latter two earlier and replaceable units? From what I recall (haven't played in a few months, though), these new units don't look incredible different from the Hippakontistai and Hippeis.
Really? Are their stats incredibly beefed up from these latter two earlier and replaceable units? From what I recall (haven't played in a few months, though), these new units don't look incredible different from the Hippakontistai and Hippeis.
Incredibly beefed up? No. Different? Yes. One main area of improvement is morale/steadiness, though the difference is slight.
They have better equipment (more armour, presence of shields for the Lonchophoroi, and better shields for the Thureopherontes), and different weapons. The Thureopherontes have spears, rather than swords, which will make them more useful for charging the rear of engaged infantry when they've expended their missiles. The Lonchophoroi have heavy javelins and a kopis, so will be more versatile and more durable in melee than the Hippeis were.
Incredibly beefed up? No. Different? Yes. One main area of improvement is morale/steadiness, though the difference is slight.
They have better equipment (more armour, presence of shields for the Lonchophoroi, and better shields for the Thureopherontes), and different weapons. The Thureopherontes have spears, rather than swords, which will make them more useful for charging the rear of engaged infantry when they've expended their missiles. The Lonchophoroi have heavy javelins and a kopis, so will be more versatile and more durable in melee than the Hippeis were.
Ah! Thanks for explaining this in detail. However, by "more armour" do you mean they've been given bronze/iron greaves for their arms and legs + bigger, better helmets? I don't see them sporting chainmail; do some of them have breastplates? Sorry, the pictures are small, so it's rather hard to distinguish exactly what they're wearing.
Ah! Thanks for explaining this in detail. However, by "more armour" do you mean they've been given bronze/iron greaves for their arms and legs + bigger, better helmets? I don't see them sporting chainmail; do some of them have breastplates? Sorry, the pictures are small, so it's rather hard to distinguish exactly what they're wearing.
More men are armoured. In the case of the Thureopherontes, just under half have thorakes on - the Hippakontistai are all unarmoured. There are also some helmets, where Hippakontistai had only hats. It's less noticeable in the case of the Lonchophoroi, the Hippeis were almost all armoured anyway. But the big change there are the shields, which the Hippeis don't have.
Ptolemy II's felt-armoured cavalryAuthor: Duncan Head Synopsis: Allow some mercenary cavalry to be Cv (S)/Kn (I) with felt horse-armour. Under discussion - numbers involved may not merit an upgrade at the element scale of the list. See TNE message 7355 and responses Proposal:Add the following lines: Only in Nubia under Ptolemy II, in 274-260 BC: Upgrade Greek mercenary Regular Cv (O) to Reg Cv (S){DBM} or Reg Kn (I){DBMM} with front ranks on felt-caparisoned horses 0-2 Justification:The Alexandria-based Hellenistic writer Agatharchides of Knidos writes, in his "On the Erythraean Sea":
For the war against the Aithiopians Ptolemy recruited 500 cavalrymen from Greece. To those who were to fight in the front ranks and to be the vanguard - they were a hundred in number - he assigned the following form of equipment. For he distributed to them and their horses garments of felt (stolas piletas), which those of that country (hoi kata ten choran; "the natives of the country" in Burstein) call kasas, that conceal the whole body except for the eyes.(Translation Burstein p.52; frag.20, slightly modified by me.)
The passage relates to the "Aithiopian" war undertaken by Ptolemy II (282-246 BC) to defeat the Meroitic Kushite kingdom's opposition to the establishment of Egyptian elephant-hunting stations on the Red Sea coast, and the associated expansion of Egyptian influence in Nubia. The war probably took place, roughly, somewhen between 275 and 265 BC. I've chosen 274 rather than 275 as the start date to fit with an existing "step" in the published Ptolemaic list. Ptolemy equipped one hundred Greek cavalry with stolas piletas, called kasas "in the country". Stole is quite a general word for clothing or equipment, sometimes translated "robe", but also used for military equipment. In this case it is clearly used for some sort of extensive robe and horse-caparison, covering "the whole body except for the eyes". Piletos - "quilted" in Burstein's translation - derives from pilos, "felt", and means "made of felt" according to LSJ. Kasas is the accusative plural of kases, a word that Xenophon uses for a Persian saddle-cloth and in the form kassos is found in Egyptian papyri of the Ptolemaic period. The word kasopoios, a maker of kasai, also occurs in the papyri. The LSJ translates kassos as "a thick garment". That the kases was defensive equipment, rather than flowing robes intended as suitable desert clothing, is suggested by the fact that the fragment before this concerns Nubian archery and poisoned arrows; the felt caparisons were probably a response to the poisoned arrows.
Secondly, while loose robes are a common response to desert sun, I've not come across another case of such covering being extended to horses! Thirdly, and perhaps most decisively, the most likely reason for limiting the kasai to the front ranks rather than issuing them to the whole unit was if they were defensive. The proportion, 100 out of 500, adopting this armour might suggest that one front rank out of five, or two out of ten, received the additional protection. This usage of kasai appears to be Egyptian (see TNE message 7158 and subsequent discussion, or my forthcoming Slingshot article), rather than a Nubian word relating to the Ptolemaic adoption of a local defence. So what we have here is an example of an unusual Hellenistic response to specific local military conditions, a counter to poisoned arrows that might otherwise disable a cavalryman if they hit unprotected areas of either the rider or his horse (cf. Smaldone pp.50-52). Interestingly, it appears to pre-date the Seleucid adoption of full cataphract armour by 60-75 years. While we have no information on whether the felt defences actually worked in practice, it seems reasonable to assume that they had some benefit against archery. However, only part of the formation represented by the element will be protected. Greek mercenary cavalry are normally Cv (O); giving them armoured horses would make them Cv (S) in DBM. But the definition of that type doesn't explicitly cater for cases where only the front ranks of the element has the additional protection - which is part of the reason why I suggest only an optional, not a compulsory, upgrade. In DBMM, the definition of Cv (S) is more restricted; details aren't relevant here but basically you need to have a bow. The alternatives seem to be either to assume that felt protection for a quarter of the horses makes too little difference to be represented, and stick to the same Cv (O) classification as before; or to treat these troops as poorly-armoured shock cavalry, Kn (I) in DBMM, as Persian javelin-armed cavalry on part-armoured horses have now become. In DBM and DBMM an element normally represents 200-250 cavalry; if one front rank of a 4-deep formation were protected, this would mean upgrading two elements. But if the two front ranks of an eight-deep formation are involved, only one element would be upgraded as all the felt-caparisoned horse would be concentrated in the front element of a two-element-deep formation. To complicate things, this only really works well in DBM 3.0, where a second rank of Ordinary cavalry can support a Superior cavalry front rank - not in DBM 3.1 or in DBMM. The numbers also assume that the Ptolemaic list is at "normal" scale; I suspect this is appropriate for campaigns in Nubia even if the large royal armies used for big battle like Raphia would require a reduced troop scale.
References:Thanks to David Brown who originally brought this to our attention and provided the Bassett article; and to all who commented on TNE, especially Luke Ueda-Sarson. Bassett, Sherrylee R, The Death of Cyrus the Younger (Classical Quarterly NS. Vol. 49 No.2, 1999) Burstein, Stanley M, Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea (Hakluyt Society, London, 1989) Head, Duncan, "Ptolemy II's felt-armoured cavalry" - Slingshot, forthcoming. LSJ - Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon; revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie (Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940); available online at the Perseus Project, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Smaldone, Joseph P, Warfare in the Sokoto Caliphate (Cambridge University Press, 1977)
This is a little-known passage from Agatharchides of Cnidus (fragment 20), which discusses a campaign against the Aethiopians fought by Ptolemy II:For the war against the Aithiopians Ptolemy recruited 500 cavalrymen from Greece. To those who were to fight in the front ranks and to be the vanguard - they were a hundred in number - he assigned the following form of equipment. For he distributed to them and their horses stolas piletas (felt stolai), which those of that country call kasas, that conceal the whole body except for the eyes.
Duncan Head discussed this passage very thoroughly in an article in Slingshot, and I've always simply taken it to be a mention of some sort of generic covering for man and horse which served the purpose of defending against arrows (the previous paragraph mentions the poisoned arrows of the Aethiopians) as he did. But now that it has been quite well established in this thread that stole and spolas are synonyms, and that they can both be used quite specifically to describe organic cuirasses, this excerpt takes on a whole new meaning.
Thoughts?
...I haven't seen Duncan's article, but if we take stola/spolas to mean simply 'organic' body armour, generally of 'skin/rawhide/leather', then the passage seems to make sense. The 'felt stola' could be simply a felt trapper, similar to mediaeval knightly ones, which also covered the horse completely except for eyeholes.
( the "whole body except for the eyes" would be a reference to the horse's body - note that 'body' is singular, not plural so presumably does not refer to the rider).
The cavalryman with his normal equipment would already be protected against arrows. The phrase "...distributed to them and their horses.." I would interpret as in the sense of issued to the troopers for their horses.......
The only Ptolemaioi-specific unit are the Kleruchoi Agema Hippeis - elite lancers. Otherwise they get all the same new units as others impacted by the Hellenistic reforms.
I don't want to sound rude or anything, but even finding the new EBII ptolemaic thorakitai impressive, i still find the ptolemaic thorakitai from Roma Surrectum II more cosmetic and detailed.
I'll need some clarifications on facial features, helmet types, clothing patterns etc before I can do the Bosporan Heavy Archers. Also, shield designs.
I don't want to sound rude or anything, but even finding the new EBII ptolemaic thorakitai impressive, i still find the ptolemaic thorakitai from Roma Surrectum II more cosmetic and detailed.
They look like they're fashion models, not soldiers.