So, having had some research into the thracian tribes and their reputation as an army of lightly armored javelin skirmishers I found it a little odd how mediocre they are with javelins. I mean for the culture credited with the creation of the Peltast it's odd they are limited to unskilled TUGs and experienced SUGS when the other famous mediterranean ranged mercenaries like Cretans and Rhodians are skilled. What is the justification for this? Not saying it needs to change, but I am curious.
Edit: I was mistaken about the Rhodians being skilled.
I think their reputation was based within the Greek context - they were better than the Greek psiloi types - and not in the wider world in the way that Cretan archers were seen. I suspect this indicates that the classification of the non-Thracian types may be a bit generous and that those on the Greek list should probably be Poor for example as this would mean the Thracians types would dominate them.
https://thehistorynetwork.org/2804-the-ubiquity-of-the-cretan-archer-in-ancient-warfare/
Quote from: badhabum on April 24, 2021, 11:14:20 AM
https://thehistorynetwork.org/2804-the-ubiquity-of-the-cretan-archer-in-ancient-warfare/
From the same podcast: "The Cretans are the most famous, but certainly not the only 'nation' associated with a particular fighting style (Rhodian slingers and Thracian peltasts leap to mind but there are others too)"
And I think that is correct, all three types of mercenaries show up all over the place in Roman, Macedonian and Greek armies. I'm just not sure why Thracians are uniquely average among the three. I'd be willing to wager that Thracians probably show up as much if not more in what little historical record we have, usually described as ferocious, expensive mercenaries used to defeat light infantry, fight in rough terrain, and harry cavalry and heavy infantry with a hail of javelins.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM
I think their reputation was based within the Greek context - they were better than the Greek psiloi types - and not in the wider world in the way that Cretan archers were seen. I suspect this indicates that the classification of the non-Thracian types may be a bit generous and that those on the Greek list should probably be Poor for example as this would mean the Thracians types would dominate them.
I can see where you're coming from with this, and you may be correct, but the Romans and Persians also used Thracian Peltasts (Hell the Romans even named a type of gladiator after them, possibly why Spartacus was called a Thracian.) so they must have been doing something right!
There is a part 2 ( minute 17 might interest the thracian lovers )
https://thehistorynetwork.org/2805-the-ubiquity-of-the-cretan-archer-in-ancient-warfare-pt-2/
And the funny thing is that it seems that persian mounted archers outranged the cretan SK but not the slingers
Also note that the rodian slingers are renowed but not skilled
The cretan are also described as possibly "peltast like " with shields and possibly light armor an idea that has not been retained for MEG ;D
A lot of possibilities but choices have to be made . I must admitt I read once an interesting article on the cretan "medium infantry" theory,
You are correct about the Rhodians, my mistake. Well if Cretans are unique in their distinction as skilled I guess it stings a little less that Thracians aren't as good. I'm still not sure why Thracian Warriors (I'm assuming this would be the Peltast, since the title Thracian Peltast seems to be missing in the lists. Although the list does seem to indicate that the javelin-men are peltasts which seems odd, the books I've read seem to indicate they were separate) are unskilled though. Each of them carried at least two javelins (although that's just from depictions, warrior burials archeological finds show they probably carried more) as well as either a long sword, rhomphaia, or spear. That should be enough ammunition to qualify as experienced at least.
Thracians are probably Unskilled shooters, not through a lack of skill but rather a lack of ammunition?
If they were Experienced shooters then they would do just that, sit back and shoot rather than be ferocious?
Even being Unskilled makes them really quite useful when taking on enemy light troops.
Lance.
Quote from: Lanceflint on April 24, 2021, 04:22:05 PM
Thracians are probably Unskilled shooters, not through a lack of skill but rather a lack of ammunition?
If they were Experienced shooters then they would do just that, sit back and shoot rather than be ferocious?
Even being Unskilled makes them really quite useful when taking on enemy light troops.
Lance.
Sources are conflicting on this, because yes they are described as ferocious but they you also get passages like this from the Thracian Osprey book:
"At the battle of the Hyaspes, Curtius (VIII,14 24-30) 'Alexander sent the Agrianes and Thracian light-armed against the elephants, for they were better at skirmishing than fighting at close quarters. These released a thick barrage of missiles on both elephants and drivers...'"
and
"The Bithynian Thracians were nominally part of the Persian Empire, but had been independant since around 435, and by this stage they were giving their satrap, Pharnabazus, a lot of trouble. Seuthes sent about 200 horsemen and 300 peltasts to help fight the Bithynians. These men recieved about 200 hoplites to guard their camp while they went and grabbed their share of plunder. The Bithynians responded with a dawn attack by cavalry and peltasts on the Odrysian camp. They hurled their spears and javelins at the Greeks, who, shut up inside the stockade, found themselves unable to reply. The greeks broke down the fortifications and charged out, but were unable to catch the bithynians. The latter fled the from the charge, but kept hurling javelins from both flanks; every charge merely caused the greeks more deaths. It was said that only 15 hoplites survived this massacre."
Also
"At the battle of Cunaxa the largely Thracian peltasts fought with some distinction, skillfully allowing charging Persian cavalry to pass through their opened ranks while showering them with javelins. The persians opted to ride on to the enemy camp rather than face the peltasts again."
I guess my biggest gripe with lowland and hill tribe Thracian lists is while they do have a lot of javelin-men, they don't really win battles off of the back of them, which from passages like the ones above, seems like they often did. They've got this reputation for being bloodthirsty barbarians, but when you really look at how they actually fought, it was a lot of raiding, ambushes, hit and run, and sneaky tactics (like the time they tried to crush Alexander's phalanx in his first battle with carts filled with rocks, later repeating this tactic against the romans in 70CE). However in the game they just sort of feel like another flavor of Gaul.
I've attached a modified version of the hill tribes list that more lines up with what I understand the Thracian fighting style to be. Changes are: I renamed the warrior with spear to Peltast, made it unprotected, gave it experienced shooting, and gave it the option for fleet of foot. I replaced devastating charger on the Rhomphaia troops with Two handed cut and crush and experienced javelins. I also removed the option for melee expert and added optional shoot and charge. As above, Peltast with Rhomphaia is unprotected. Lastly I changed the Javelinman to Superior to make it better at skirmishing, but left it as experienced javelin. I didn't include min/maxes and UG sizes, but those are unchanged. Overall this should make the army worse at combat, but better at shooting, meaning the army will need to wear down the opponent with javelin-fire to be successful, which is more what I expected from the actual list.
Edit: and before someone tells me the rhomphaia shouldn't be two handed cut and crush because it isn't and anti-cavalry weapon, firstly, I used it because I didn't want them to have forced charge, second, also from Osprey's Thracians:
"...at the kallinkikos skirmish in 171, when perseus' Thracians used it to hamstring horses, and returned from battle bearing severed Roman heads as trophies upon their rhomphaias."
[attachment deleted by admin]
About the rhomphaia it has been discussed for a long time so you might have to bring more info. As many axeman ( egyptians, sumerians, akkadians ...) they are classified as "melee expert" which is not bad at all . But if you want to modify it , you must also tell us why ? Gladius did cut arms and legs but were mostly a trust weapon and are not 2HCC weapons ..see it is not always that easy
But let us wait for Richard's answer
I thought I did a pretty good job justifying it with the quote about how it was specifically used to hamstring horses.
I suppose it could just be mandatory melee expert for rhomphaia, I just don't think devastating charger is a good fit, I don't think thracians are that reckless as I've previously stated.
I think that given they were fighting cavalry any half decent sword, etc. would have been used to hamstring horses. I think the important factor in justifying such a classification would be Thracians being used as especially suitable for fighting cavalry which I'm not sure we have - Alexander had quite a few with him but they don't seem to have figured in fighting cavalry. Melee expert as Jacques says is usually used for effective fighters in these cases, you coudl easily give them SSp for a Charge Phase claim if you think they need that without the DC Forced Charge.
Quote from: Agoz on April 25, 2021, 01:47:03 PM
I thought I did a pretty good job justifying it with the quote about how it was specifically used to hamstring horses.
I suppose it could just be mandatory melee expert for rhomphaia, I just don't think devastating charger is a good fit, I don't think Thracians are that reckless as I've previously stated.
I believe the representation of Thracians as DC with melee expert is much better than 2HCC. The quote about hamstringing horses is fine, but the combination of DC giving +1 vs Cv/Cm/Ch (not CL in good going) at Impact and +1 from Melee Expert at Melee is much better than the 0 vs Cv/Cm/Ch at Impact and +2 at Melee. The DC gives them forced charges against foot which is more appropriate. 2HCC would make them too controlled.
I am also not convinced that Thracian peltasts deserve Skilled shooting. The context is their performance in the Greek world. I might consider a proportional upgrade (e.g. up to half), but would need to look at it compared to other javelin skirmishers.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 25, 2021, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: Agoz on April 25, 2021, 01:47:03 PM
I thought I did a pretty good job justifying it with the quote about how it was specifically used to hamstring horses.
I suppose it could just be mandatory melee expert for rhomphaia, I just don't think devastating charger is a good fit, I don't think Thracians are that reckless as I've previously stated.
I believe the representation of Thracians as DC with melee expert is much better than 2HCC. The quote about hamstringing horses is fine, but the combination of DC giving +1 vs Cv/Cm/Ch (not CL in good going) at Impact and +1 from Melee Expert at Melee is much better than the 0 vs Cv/Cm/Ch at Impact and +2 at Melee. The DC gives them forced charges against foot which is more appropriate. 2HCC would make them too controlled.
I am also not convinced that Thracian peltasts deserve Skilled shooting. The context is their performance in the Greek world. I might consider a proportional upgrade (e.g. up to half), but would need to look at it compared to other javelin skirmishers.
Richard
What about making their javelin skirmishers superior instead of skilled?(Or at least a portion) That would make them better at skirmishing and fighting while still making their damage output the same as other less famous javelinmen at range. Allowing them to do they hit-and-run Guerilla style of combat much more successfully which would seem to be what they were good at.
I wonder after having listened to the podcast I did post here if the thracian SK coulf not be protected as they seem to be regularly used with the agrinians but I must admitt I am not a specialist for that type of troops
Well they had pelte shields of course(and later carried the theuros), but aside from nobles I don't think they wore much else as far as armor goes.