MeG

I was thinking about building a hellenistic greek army and during checking out the rules for their army I found something that I can only classify as a mistake.
I mean the whole set of rules for thureophoroi. According to Plutarch they were much lighter equipped,had javelins, couldn't fight well in formation because of their shields and were best used in an uneven terrain. Then according to plutarch they should be a formed loose/flexible (at best), unskilled javelins,long spear and without shove.
Would love to discuss why it isn't so in the game

The classification is mainly based on the ideas contained in these articles which also appeared in Slingshot:

http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates1.html

http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates2.html

Which I note are now 20 years old - blimey, tempus fugit and all that  :o

Read the article - I don't think it is that it being old is a problem, the thing is it ommits facts on the actuall usage of this formation.Author states that the tactical role of those soldiers remeind unchanged while it has changed dramatically, from frontline,main formation - to lighter,faster and more manoeuvrable troops deployed on the flanks of the macedonian style phalanx (or amidst it for tactical flexibility - some authors even calling them Greeks fighting in roman fashion). Their Role also dramatically changed in the strategic context.

As of contemporary authors agreeing with that - there is plenty - listing some I could find on the Internet

https://books.google.ro/books?id=1f1gEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=thureophoroi&source=bl&ots=ONXQ-A8R_k&sig=ACfU3U1SssTvadfmQYcGdMAxpKyxtrwWWw&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie14qdr7n5AhVImIsKHcwXBZk4ChDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=thureophoroi&f=false

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=thureophoroi&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1660036219409&u=%23p%3DA4E5KAZ23swJ

I would suggest that it would be useful for the list author(s) if you pull together the relevant evidence that you feel makes your case. The classification has been questioned a couple of times, however, good evidence has been sorely lacking - in the previous cases it has really been a re-hashing of old "wargamers facts" and assumptions, it'd be good to have a proper case  :D

Quotesome authors even calling them Greeks fighting in roman fashion

There may be some confusion for us here, as Greek authors used the word thureos for the Roman scutum.

For example, here https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0007,039:25&lang=original Plutarch refers to  legionary shields as "thureoi", although to the  legionaries themselves as "hoplitai".

It would be good to have all the evidence collated.

Quote from: LawrenceG on August 09, 2022, 11:09:33 AM

Quotesome authors even calling them Greeks fighting in roman fashion

There may be some confusion for us here, as Greek authors used the word thureos for the Roman scutum.

For example, here https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0007,039:25&lang=original Plutarch refers to  legionary shields as "thureoi", although to the  legionaries themselves as "hoplitai".

It would be good to have all the evidence collated.

I'd be interested to know if any contemporary sources call thureoforoi "Greeks fighting in Roman fashion" as opposed to modern authors e.g. Sekunda?

Quote from: Alduin on August 09, 2022, 07:55:55 AM
I was thinking about building a hellenistic greek army and during checking out the rules for their army I found something that I can only classify as a mistake.
I mean the whole set of rules for thureophoroi. According to Plutarch they were much lighter equipped,had javelins, couldn't fight well in formation because of their shields and were best used in an uneven terrain. Then according to plutarch they should be a formed loose/flexible (at best), unskilled javelins,long spear and without shove.
Would love to discuss why it isn't so in the game

Check out the Euzenoi if you want lighter equipped troops with javelins.  Plutarch's text is problematic, but there is no evidence that javelins and long spears were used together.

Richard

When it comes to the game itself it is not about skirmisher but TUGs that are not reflective of the hellenistic greek battle tactics. I would even say that euzanoi in the game are closer to the historic thuerophoroi that we know of.

When it comes to "making my case", I would be able to conduct some basic research on the topic when it comes both to sources and contemporary authors but you would have to tell me how much is enough. Considering lack of sources on the military of the period one or two is more than enough for me but might not be enough for you.

As of contemporary authors it would be much easier but it would only be possible in the languages I know myself so eng,pl,fr.

When I drew up the Hellenistic lists I reviewed all the sources I could find at that time pretty thoroughly.  Actual descriptions of thureophoroi in ancient literature are scarce. Plutarch talks about Achaeans with thureoi armed with spears.  In a separate context he mentions them skirmishing (which I treat as the Euzenoi).

I did not find a single contempory image of thureophoroi with both long spear and javelins (although Head implies in Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars that there are some). Images of thureophoroi include grave paintings from Alexandria and Sidon, as well as terracottas from Seleucia on the Tigris.  There are also images from Graeco-Bactria found near the Afghan border.

The idea of loose formation infantry with both javelins and long spear can be traced to the late 1970s and WRG rules which favoured such a troop type.

I will look at the The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great: Weapons, Armour and Tactics book with interest to see if it adds anything new.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 09, 2022, 03:22:40 PM
I will look at the The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great: Weapons, Armour and Tactics book with interest to see if it adds anything new.

Currently £7.19 for the Kindle edition - may well get it myself.

Luck had it that I was travelling by bus for quite a while and conducted some basic research.

The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Volume 1, Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome

The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great: Weapons, Armour and Tactics

Ostatni triumf Ptolemeuszy (last triumph of the ptolemaic dynasty ) - only summary in english

Ma J. (2000b): Fighting poleis of the Hellenistic World, [in:] H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, London: 337–376.

Graphic; Stella of Dionusios in alexandria- thureos,javelins and spear - can not find it on the Internet- found the description in The Bithynian Army in the Hellenistic Period and in the source thre also is only a description - maybe you will do better

Some of those differ in the exact offensive equipment (the polish book states it was a sword) but all are adamant in the use of javelins and flexiblee formations depending on the situation.

I hope those will change your mind about the formation in the game. Making them loose, skirmishing infantry with long spear would make them a very interesting unit as I haven't seen any like that in the Classical age rules. Alternatively they still could be flexible to fulfill that frontline role and be able to fight in rough terrain. And still with javelins ofc and without shove

Do any of those modern works actually give the source evidence for their statements?

I ask because all too often when you dig into an accepted fact you find the actual evidence does not support the statement - which is, I think, the point of the Luke U-S articles; they go back and look at what the sources say. The 1970's view of theuroforoi certainly appeared to me to one of those cases when the articles were published - changed my take on it, although I will happily admit to Hellenistic stuff being a lesser interest for me.

As an example of this phenomenon is something I have looked into in the last couple of weeks - not related to thureophoroi. You will see lots and lots of statements that troops in the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold wore blue and white "livery" with a red St Andrew's cross on it. However, when you actually look at the evidence (the Abbeville ordonnance FWIW) there is no mention of the red cross in relation to the blue and white "livery". Hasn't stopped widespread publication of the "fact" though. Far from the only case where my mind has been changed by re-looking at the sources.

It is, IMO, quite possible that the weapons of the thureoforoi are in the same boat - but the source material may prove me wrong, wouldn't be the first time  :P

As it was mentioned the sources are pretty scarce.

Opinions of those historians are mostly based on plutarch, contemporary images and their use on campaigns and in battles. When it comes to relatively obscure history of the successor kingdoms it is still a lot.

Btw. "For they used bucklers which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed, but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage."
Plutrch - life of Philopoemen
Of course bucklers is translated from thureos type shield
"Plutarch talks about Achaeans with thureoi armed with spears.  In a separate context he mentions them skirmishing (which I treat as the Euzenoi)."
I fail to see how the line above might be seen as separate context.

Need to remember that Plutarch is not a contemporary source for thureoforoi so may not be wholly reliable.

The passage that quote comes from is:

"In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed, but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage. Moreover, a division of line and formation into cohorts was not customary with them, and since they employed a solid phalanx without either levelled line of spears or wall of interlocking shields such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered."

No mention of spears and javelins. The passage seems to me to be a bit of an odd mixture to be honest. We have spears shorter than the sarissa but they are effective at fighting at a distance which suggests a missile weapon, use a solid phalanx but don't have levelled spears. One is tempted to see them as having Javelins and no combat weapons in a MeG context.

BTW I think I'm with you on thureoforoi not having Shove - doesn't seem to quite fit them even if they had a long spear.

Passage on that from the The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great: Weapons, Armour and Tactics:

(https://i.postimg.cc/K40c4wSN/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/K40c4wSN)

(https://i.postimg.cc/LqF2rMLH/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/LqF2rMLH)

Plutarch implies that they are capable at fighting at range which insinuates javelin/javelins being at their disposal. Even if not, he surly means, that the formation isn't used to it's full potential in the open terrain. In the MEG ruleset it makes them almost instantly a loose or flexible formation but certainly not closed.

Quote"In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers..."

What did he (who?) change the practice to?

Quote from: LawrenceG on August 09, 2022, 09:15:57 PM

Quote"In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers..."

What did he (who?) change the practice to?

He is Philopoemen as the quotes are from Plutarch's life about him. They were changed to being armed in the Macedonian style i.e. pikemen.

Quote from: Alduin on August 09, 2022, 09:09:23 PM
Passage on that from the The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great: Weapons, Armour and Tactics:

(https://i.postimg.cc/K40c4wSN/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/K40c4wSN)

(https://i.postimg.cc/LqF2rMLH/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/LqF2rMLH)

Plutarch implies that they are capable at fighting at range which insinuates javelin/javelins being at their disposal. Even if not, he surly means, that the formation isn't used to it's full potential in the open terrain. In the MEG ruleset it makes them almost instantly a loose or flexible formation but certainly not closed.

We're really not seeing a long spear and javelins picture from this are we?

Am a bit concerned that the book you have quoted does not seem to pay much attention to the contemporary Sidon stele which usually show a single spear a bit longer than the bearer is tall, and concentrates on the centuries later writing of Plutarch. Have bought it as it is so cheap on Kindle so will get round to reading it sometime soon to get the full picture of what the author says on Antiochos' army.

BTW there is no reason per se why javelin armed troops cannot be Close formation in MeG and, if we are looking at Plutarch he describes them as "a solid phalanx".

Quotethe contemporary Sidon stele which usually show a single spear

So ONE stele is enough to contradict a possible theory ? Sometimes I wonder who is conservative  8)

See you friday around a beer

Quote from: badhabum on August 10, 2022, 09:02:34 AM

Quotethe contemporary Sidon stele which usually show a single spear

So ONE stele is enough to contradict a possible theory ? Sometimes I wonder who is conservative  8)

See you friday around a beer

Stele as in plural you plonker  ;D

I am busy reading Richard Taylor's book on the phalanx and there are interesting elements in it :

We know that the greeks shifted from heavy close order hoplites to a lighter version or the thureophoroï once again a soldier named after his shield. That type of soldier must have had advantages that a simple close order short spear would never have in MEG and a close order LS is so similar to a traditional hoplite TUG. So we might be missing something somewhere. It is also to be noted that while being defeated by macedonian phalanxes, the greeks did stick to the thureophoroï for many years, the spartans being the first to switch to phalanxes ( according to Taylor )

I fear we will never have a good answer to the question : why did they switch to thureophoroï and how did those guys fight as we do not have enough written sources to convince wargamers on how those guys did it !

There are theories and that's all we have.

I am open minded and my opinion is that the thureophoroï could be LS, could be close order OR loose order , they also could be javelin ..

No one seems to have imagined that some of them on the front ranks could be LS with some equipped with missile such as javelins ..

So a low cost less effective hoplite or a better more polyvalent infantryman ? The endless debate is raging

Hi All

Speaking for the Greek community and basis the extensive research from the Greeks in the Greek (original) text, we are all of the opinion they should be treated either as flexible foot or have the option to be taken as close or as loose Tugs.

John

Out of interest : https://www.galatoi.com/warriors/thureophoroi.php

I'll admit that the classification of thureophoroi in MeG is something I am a little uncomfortable with. Even if only on the basis of it *feels* due to name change like the tactical role should not be just an inferior version of the old hoplite. My actual reading on the period is limited, and what I have read (including Luke U-S, who does seem quite impressive to me) is contradictory enough to leave my head spinning!

The article cited above is interesting but makes some questionable assertions? e.g. the Iphikratean reforms being influenced by the Macedonian phalanx.

I do wonder if there is sufficient uncertainty in this area to deploy the old wargaming standby of allowing the army owner to field their own interpretation?

Now, can we get back to debating Roman Lanciarii? ;)

Quote from: jfas on August 10, 2022, 12:01:13 PM
Hi All

Speaking for the Greek community and basis the extensive research from the Greeks in the Greek (original) text, we are all of the opinion they should be treated either as flexible foot or have the option to be taken as close or as loose Tugs.

John

Would be really great, invaluable even, to hear the specifics of why that conclusion was reached and any nuances that native Greek speakers get from the ancient Greek that those of us limited to English (or other languages) may well miss  ;D

MEG is MEG and REG is REG  8)

In MEG, infantry units can only be flexible LOOSE or CLOSE . If we had the opportunity to go as in REG for a full flexibility SKIRMISH/LOOSE/CLOSE it might solve the problem so perhaps a path to follow for later rue modifications ( albeit no rule has to be modified only army lists ).

From all my reading, nothing convinces me that a thureophoroî was "just" a cheap LS heavy infantry nor a medium foot loose order infantry or a euzémoî but  in fact a combination of the 3 roles. A soldier that could adapt his role on the battlefield.

I fear some people, thinking that on the battlefield they were either one or the other are sadly mistaken or too conservative,

In truth we will never know and even the paintings, frescoes, steles and so on are misleading as it is an interpretation not a picture. Taylor in his book about phalanxes explains it rather clearly : a stele, a frescoes has a size limitation and the artist is not necessarily a soldier, someone who knows things. The same goes for historians who write years latter and have not witnessed the battles but at least they did have some sources now lost to us.

You are not convinced by artistical representation being wrong ? have a look at the magnificent Waterloo panorama, at the paintings about the Franco-Prussian war ..it is all propaganda, glorification with also artistic limitations !

So we have sources and we must interpret them ! Even now, we are still discussing how well or poorly the germans did in Poland in 1939 and it's been 80 years ago ! So do you really hope to find the truth on something that happened 2300 years ago ! it is a mirage

The best we can do are educated guesses and feelings

My impression and gut feeling from readings is that the Thuerophoroï was the link between heavy infantry and other units. It must also have worked as  they were used for some years. In MEG terms I would use them as flexible, LS , Darts or loose LS and darts but flexible has my preference.

It is an open minded solution and for the future, they should be flexible SK/LO/Close as they might be the source of the euzémoï !

Anyway, on the battlefield, I strongly believe there was no close, loose or skirmish order at least not as we use it in our games !

Skirmishers would be in some close order till "deployed" in terrains or as a screen ! Loose order infantry could be close order for protection ..but unable to resist a frontal charge by lack of weapon or organisation but still we invented heavy, medium and light infantry and so wa have our games !

Now back to the Thureophoroï : Nick there are plenty of authors, of historians that go the way of a flexible infantry ..either you accept their conclusions or not but can't you be flexible ;D ?

The greek community is of that opinion, the belgian one also !

So after having a trip in the romanian countryside I am safly waiting at an airport to catch my flight home, I have anaged to gather some free time to argue with the article that was published in Slingshot and show where i agree and disagree with the points made in the said article.
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates2.html

I will propably divide this post in two parts - one will be very critical because it is about the Thureophoroi part, the second one will be propably much more in line with the article as it will comment the euzanoi part.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7Cc5rF4J/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/7Cc5rF4J)

Author ommits the second theory about the shield being of itallic influence but it is not that important.
The amazing thing about the thureos was that it was widly adapted throughout the hellenistic armies in a relativly short time.That doesn't happen unless the new troop type was effective at what it was doing and found use in the armies of the three most important post-alexandrian monarchies (Antigonids,Lagids,Seleucids). The uestion of whether it was as merceneries or not is of no importance here, as almost assuredly some were and some were not.

(https://i.postimg.cc/GBVm56w7/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/GBVm56w7)

"The Galatians were swordsmen, but Celtic sword fighting does not appear to have been adopted by the Greeks along with the thureoi." This statement is just plainly untrue. Sword fighting became a thing of so much importance that it sparked it's own sport's discipline depicted on contemporary art on a lot of occasions, the thueromachia. Some scholars even argue that it was th sword that was their main offensive weapon, supported by a javelin.

" If a thureophoroi was simply an Iphikratean hoplite who had replaced an oval pelta with another oval shield of similarly light construction, we might expect no change in either other armament or tactical application as a result." This statement is just bizzare to me as it basicly says - "shield is similar so the role is similar". As the author incorectly rejected the importance in sword fighting and didn't mention (as of yet) the use of javelins this remains the only option BUT it is the most unpropable one. Thuerophoroi were ineffective as a main battle line - they were inferior to the macedonian phalanx and also this inability is also propably the reason of existance for the other similar formation, thoirakitai. As the latter were better suited to fulfill the main line role due to the heavier equipement.
Then why were the thuerophoroi so prelevant in the hellenistic world, and why did their usage spread so fast and so wide? If they were not an effective battleline,worse tha alternatives the only plausible answer would be economic one but as of great wealth of the hellenistic states it does not seem as a viable explenation.While in reality it seems that they main role was a supporting one. They used to be deployed amidst or on the flanks of macedonian style phalanx, fastly redeploy or even skirmish with opponents. They were supposed to do the job that the immobile macedonian phalangite just couldn't do. A jack of all trades that perfectly suited a filled in gaps in the hellenistic battle tactics.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nXCq6b9B/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/nXCq6b9B)

And to the last part.
"Support for the above hypothesis can be found in abundant pictorial representations. Representations of troops equipped with thureoi from the Hellenistic kingdoms usually show them equipped with a single spear.15 Lacking a missile weapon, such troops had no more ability to skirmish than their 4th century ancestors. Yet as they lacked both (heavy) body armour and pikes, they were not in the same class as phalangites when it came to close combat. "
The author himself notes that representations with both javelins and spears exist (in the next paragraph about euzanoi), and just ignores the fact that the thuerophoroi were also portrayed with only swords instead of spears. The rational assumption would be that as their role on the battlefield was that of a flexible infantry it is quite logical that they would want to carry different weapons for different occasions. To me it seem plausible that they carried all three or a dual purposed spear (both for throwing and occasionall fighting - similar to a classical MeG Short spear).

"Such a jack-of-all-trades troop type would have been less than ideal in many sitautions, and the search for improvements appears to have begun early. One direction was to strengthen their combat ability by equipping them with heavier equipment. "Thorakitai", that is troops wearing (heavy) body armour, feature prominently in Polybios' accounts of the Achaian army, as distinguished from both the pike phalanx and the light troops. These troops were frequently deployed with the Illyrians, usually fighting between the phalanx and the light troops. Thorakitai are most likely just armoured thureophoroi, and representations of Hellenistic troops sometimes show spearmen with thureos and mail; the mail being introduced as a result of either Roman or Celtic influence.16 Another possibility was to enlarge the size of the thureoi (and presumably strengthen it) so that it's protective value was similarly increased, albeit at the expense of mobility and cheapness. The imprint of a large 'thureos' dating to ca. 150 BC has been found in Bactria, measuring some 130 cm from top to bottom, and proportionally wider.17"

Then why would one want to use it ? Author portraied this unit type as an ineffective force failing to see that it was used throughout the hellenistic world for a century. Why would the hellenistic stated want to have such a unit? My answer for thi is that the author misjudged their tactical role.As a battelline it seems bvious that they were ineffective hence it becoes more and more clear that it was not their main role to fill.

Hope this little polemic will bring you some joy to unpack. Looking further to a conversation as some of the arguments brought before are very interesting and thought me a lot.

The images are just screens from the original text. Don't know why they squeezed :(

Quote from: Alduin on August 11, 2022, 04:08:02 PM
"The Galatians were swordsmen, but Celtic sword fighting does not appear to have been adopted by the Greeks along with the thureoi." This statement is just plainly untrue. Sword fighting became a thing of so much importance that it sparked it's own sport's discipline depicted on contemporary art on a lot of occasions, the thueromachia. Some scholars even argue that it was th sword that was their main offensive weapon, supported by a javelin.

The thureomachia interests me and, of course, one of the Sidon stele show a soldier with a thureos wielding a sword. It also reminds me of some of the troops in the C2nd Ptolemaic army armed after the Galatians who may well be similar.

One thing though is that the majority (IIRC) of the Sidon stele show the soldier with a single spear which is suggestive to me that this was their main weapon and not the sword. I'd be interested in the other depictions of theuromachia which you mention not to mention dates - it may well be that things changed over time.

Also with those who suggest the thureophoroi were swordsmen but also have javelins, is the latter purely speculation or based on some sort of evidence? Not something I can recall, but as ever the period is not one of my major interests.

I am entering a plane in a few minutes  but if i rrecalli saw some depictions in the article about bithinian military that is available in the Internet- check previous posts I think that I ve mentioned it already.

The evidence is the same Stella but interpreted differently - as swordfighting became more important it is assumed that on the most depictions the soldiers aren't holding spears but javelins.
For me they are clearly spears but some historians say that they are javelins or are multipurpose (for example in the book about seleucid mentioned earlier)
So based on sources it is based on the same but also adds important cultural and tactical context what in my eyes make it more plausible than the "only spears" version.

Not so sure about the cultural context - put simplistically (a caricature even) the states around the eastern end of the Mediterranean poke enemies with spears whilst those at the western end throw a spear and then fight with swords. But as Rome's influence grows in the eastern Med we see troops being armed in the Roman style - and a number of the lists that cover the C2nd and later for the area have such in their lists; earlier, I'm less convinced.

I do not think that myself and would propably advise you to read some of the works i mentioned for better understending. Basicly some historians argue that thueros shield was not brought through direct contact with celts but through Phyrrus campaigns in italy and contact with the romans and italiotes(I mentioned that the article i argued with does not bring up this theory). In that context it makes sense that thureophoroi would fight in roman fashion. Basiclly the argument is that the roman influence on the hellenistic armies you mentioned has started to show a century erlier, since 270s.

I was also mistaken with where i saw depictions - some are in linked article
https://rcin.org.pl/Content/22462/WA308_34840_PIII348_INTRODUCTION-OF-CAVA_I.pdf

And also - such caricatures lead to people thinking that egyptians were fighting in chariots through all antiquity, they don't hold much water. Our world is very complex and i think it is great. Tommorrow i shall post the other part of the article. Best wishes.

The Sekunda article states that he believes that the thureos was based on the Galatian use not Roman:

"It had previously been impossible to decide which of these two suggestions had the most merit. In a recent communication at the Second International Hellenistic Warfare Conference in Valencia in October 2005, Pierre Juhel brought attention to a cavalry thureos listed in a Delphian temple inventory for 156/5 dedicated by King Ptolemy son of Lysimachos, who could not have used the royal title before 277-276. This confirms that the thureos came first to Greece at an earlier date than Pyrrhus' campaigns in Greece, which began in 274 with Pyrrhus' invasion of Macedon and ended with his death at Argos in 272. Therefore it seems to have been introduced into Greek warfare thanks to the Galatians, whom we first find present in the Greek world as invaders, and then serving as mercenaries in a number of Hellenistic armies."

My emphasis.

How many accounts of thureophoroi fighting do we have? Not necessarily detailed descriptions of their fighting methods but also where they are in the battle line.

Obviously we have the Plutarch description previously discussed, but what others are there. There is a Polybios one with, IIRC Thorakitai (whom I think we can include in this) supporting massed light infantry in Antiochos III's campaign that lead to Raphia, but this is what we might call "special ops" and so not directly applicable to the set piece battles that MeG represents (but still info of course).

I do not know but propably not many more - as with all conected to the hellenistic kingdoms. Historians have to deal with those scarce sources and make educated guesses.

I disagree with the inclusion of thoirakitai in this discussion as they role was much more rigid due to their heavier equipement. MEG reflects it pretty well I think, the only change they need is from close formation to flexible and maybe cancelling shove as they were still flufliing tasks on the battlefield that the phalanx could not and performed in difficult terrain.

As of other authors The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Volume 1, Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome mentions :

(https://i.postimg.cc/nsnZMCMq/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/nsnZMCMq)

Again i agree that this theory is much less propable and ive never agreed with it. Just shows that the topic of their genesis is a bit up to debate.

Part two and final conclusions for their in game status. I would cut it into several parts so that the images would be visible.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ftjt5MHs/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/ftjt5MHs)

Author mentions the tombstone of Dionysios that has javelins. He also states "The fact that it is his attendent that is carrying the javelins is I believe of significance: his usual weapon was the spear, though javelins could be used in its place, but both were not carried simultaneously." It is a valid point that i would disagree with based on Plutarch and military analisis (but it is possible that they were to choose equipment based on the tactical task at hand). I disagree with this because carrying javelins and longspear together does not strain the soldiers and would allow for greater flexibility on the battlefield, while having one or the other forces your unit out of this flexibility - especially as javelins are and have always been a very cheap and easy to use weapon.

Adding photos from a book Armies of the Hellenistic States 323BC to AD 30History and Organization by Gabriele Esposito.

(https://i.postimg.cc/jDJRTKpr/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/jDJRTKpr)

(https://i.postimg.cc/B8phjPD9/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/B8phjPD9)

"It is difficult to see how a thureophoroi equipped with a thrusting spear could skirmish effectively, but if this was replaced by a pair of javelins, this objection is removed."
Well it is not hard to imagine and i find this line bizzare.

"The new troop type demanded a new name, and I believe that name, at least in Polybios, was the euzonos.'
I am unconvinced that they were 2 separate troop types. Of course hellenistic armies still employed troops that sole task was that of skirmishing, BUT based on the sources we can tell that the thureophoroi were used for both skirmishing and melee. You would not say that dragoons while fighting on horse  (what occasionaly happened especially in XVIIth century) were a different unit than dragoons fighting on foot.

Author then proceeds to write about sources based on which he concludes that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ftL6DQyN/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/ftL6DQyN)

"If the Achaians as thureophoroi could rearm themselves as euzonoi, with javelins, there is no reason they could not still do so now that they were pikemen." This is also a very interesting statement that would make much sense if we assume that thuerophoroi were a battelline troop type that changed equipement. But as i do not know of as such an occurance (here i wait to be corrected) i assume it is wrong.

"The Achaians were drawn up next to a force of Cretan archers, Trallian slingers and other light infantry with javelins that defeated the Seleucid scythed chariots with their missiles. It is not said that the Achaians assisted in this action (although both texts are often read this way), but if they did, this would present no problem if they were using javelins rather than pikes." I would like to have contemporary historians opinion on that as it is a very interesting topic.

"The issue has been confused because the sources are in some senses contradictory. I have noted above Plutarch's Achaians skirmishing, yet being armed with spears." Again i do not find it contardictory.
"They are not exactly euzonoi as Polybios uses the term in its narrow meaning, since they are not ex-thureophoroi. " Another passus worthy of our attention because earlier the author said "Polybios' history never tells us what he means by arming in the manner of euzonoi". I do not find it at all convincing and still think that euzanoi described by Polibius are smth different than re-equipped thureophoroi.

All in all I stand confused by this fragment as it does not prove anything more than ///Plybios used to call skirmishers in a certain way while other authors did not/// .

Author summarizes: "To summarise then, I would contend that Hellenistic pikemen, at least the most able of them, continued to be able to operate in a peltast-like capacity using javelins rather than shields, and that such pikemen were called 'peltasts', not because they carried a pelta (which they did, though the word peltophoroi would appear to be preferable in this context), but because of this dual-role peltast-like function."
I find this statement as very bold and I have foun nor proof nor other historians opinions that would support or agree with this claim - But it is not the main topic of our discussion so mb other time, or pm me with some interesting texts about the topic.

"Other hoplites, whether classical or 'Iphikratean', were mostly replaced by either such pikemen, or else by 'thureophoroi' who differed from the hoplites they replaced only in the type of shield they carried - they were heavy infantry, not skirmishers."
What we now from the sources that even the author himself presented and what also is a contemporary historians conclusion, no they were not heavy infantry and no, not only the shield has changed. Their tactical and operational applications,formation (not being able to interlock the shields) ,equipement (javelins and more emphasis on swordfighting) have changed as well. if they were just a classical hoplite with a different shield fighting in a closed ranked phalanx they wouldnt be able to perform tasks that were performing based on sources.
If it was in trueth only the shield that has changed then ... why has it changed ? As it was clearly infirior and lead to the formation not being as formidable as in earlier times. Why has it spread so quickly throught the hellenistic world? Normally the changes in military doctrine and equipement are slow even in the modern times, They must have filled a nische and must have been very effective at it.

"Such troops were then not called peltasts however, at least not by contemporary sources such as Polybios, since peltast meant a pikeman."
Yes

"When operating as light infantry, they were no longer heavy troops, but belonged to the class of troops known as euzonoi, or light infantry, a word that Polybios sometimes uses in a narrow sense to mean such re-armed troops rather than light infantry in general." Again; Polibius never states what euzanoi actually is as the author noted before. I think this statement is mistaken and based on badly interpreted clues.


(https://i.postimg.cc/75CRsrhG/image.png) (https://postimg.cc/75CRsrhG)

And to summarize our most important topic - what in it for the game ?

At minimum i would like to see a change in thureos and thoirakitai from closed formation to flexible. As those beeing flexible is pretty well attested to and documented in the sources.

I firmly believe that arguments presented are better interpretations of the available sources and have better  support of contemporary historians than those presented in the article.
As of myself I would like to see Thureophoroi armed with unskilled javelins and removing the shove rule. As Thoirakitai were heavier armed I wouldnt know what to do with them as they were just heavier, maybe keeping shove or having shield cover (would represent their superior protection) - I am not sure.

In the Hellenistic Greek list it is so that you reequip all o your thureophoroi as euzanoi which i find a great idea. Propably would be the way to go for all hellenistic factions with access to thureophoroi. In this way MEG could represent that this formation was able to fight as skirmishers, in rough ground and in closed formation. A jack of all trades but with limited number of maximum bases that would balance it out.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 10, 2022, 02:14:26 PM

Quote from: jfas on August 10, 2022, 12:01:13 PM
Hi All

Speaking for the Greek community and basis the extensive research from the Greeks in the Greek (original) text, we are all of the opinion they should be treated either as flexible foot or have the option to be taken as close or as loose Tugs.

John

Would be really great, invaluable even, to hear the specifics of why that conclusion was reached and any nuances that native Greek speakers get from the ancient Greek that those of us limited to English (or other languages) may well miss  ;D

I'm somewhat holding back on trying to get some conclusions in my own head until I hear from the Greek players; I'm rather hoping they have spotted something that I have missed being limited to English translations.

Just to be clear to everyone, my silence on this isn't disagreement.

At the moment I am favouring an All or None option to allow Thureophoroi to be regraded as Average, Protected, Loose, Short Spear, Experienced Javelin.  I am not in favour of the flexible option as there is never any suggestion that they changed role during the battle. I also am still unconvinced by the using javelins and long spear at the same time. No promises here, just considering possibilities!

I stress, I haven't made any final decision on this.

Richard

We might disagree and I totally support Alduin's point of view .

Openmindedness is required    8)

dear richard, your task is a very difficult one and making decisions is even more difficult. I just want you to consider this : Alduin's arguments are sound and as valid as any counter argument you might put forward.

We all know the whole Greek community supports Alduin's arguments

Same in Belgium we agree with him and already did discuss the subject with you years ago and our ideas are still there , the same.

There are also new books on the Greek armies and some historians do think the thureophproï where the link on the phalanx's flanks, terrain , the guys who could fight in close OR open terrain, guys who by historical texts could use javelins and come back in a fighting line with a spear or long spear

Euzemoî could be a temporary formation

Many people think that way

What would convince you who sometimes tell us " it's because it feels right" . I tell you flexible thureophoroï do feel right !

Help us understand your reluctance

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 17, 2022, 11:49:20 AM
Just to be clear to everyone, my silence on this isn't disagreement.

At the moment I am favouring an All or None option to allow Thureophoroi to be regraded as Average, Protected, Loose, Short Spear, Experienced Javelin.  I am not in favour of the flexible option as there is never any suggestion that they changed role during the battle. I also am still unconvinced by the using javelins and long spear at the same time. No promises here, just considering possibilities!

I stress, I haven't made any final decision on this.

Richard

I could let aside the idea of flexidle Thureophoroi. It would be nice for me to see Thureophoroi as all Close/all Loose Protected Average Long Spear or all Close/all Loose Protected Average Short Spear Unskilled Javelin, Melee Expert. But the proposition of Richard is also very good: that is Average, Protected, Loose, Short Spear, Experienced Javelin.
Kostas

I have got a very dumb question :

So, from Nik's comments, frescoes and stele do seem to point out to the use of an "hoplite" spear and all the texts that were submitted here point to the fact that the thureophoroi were designed to be a more mobile infantry force designed to protect the phalanxes flanks and tackle the enemy in some terrain and have enough firepower to repel enemy skirmishers.

I know Richard is not convinced and I am convinced that at minima thureophoroi are a kind of loose order infantry with shooting capacity ( experienced javelin )

But by the way what historical texts or historical account do point out to the fact that thureophoroï were in fact only cheap hoplites?

So we can at least compare

Quote from: badhabum on August 18, 2022, 04:56:39 PM

But by the way what historical texts or historical account do point out to the fact that thureophoroï were in fact only cheap hoplites?

They were either javelinmen or "light" hoplites (whatever that may mean). I don't think they were both at the same time  It is currently have them as Euzenoi if they are javelinmen and as Thureophoeroi if they are the light hoplites.  If you want to represent them as both at the same time then put a SuG of javelinmen in front of your thureophoroi.

By the way, I don't think they were "designed" to protect the flanks of the phalanx.  It is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians.

Richard

I will read it all once again  ;D as I am finishing reading a book on the Seleucid army who knwos and time to dig out an article just to check

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 18, 2022, 05:07:44 PM
By the way, I don't think they were "designed" to protect the flanks of the phalanx.  It is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians.

I would concur with this. I think the idea of troops designed to cover the flanks of the phalanx is a bit of a solution looking for a problem.

I have to point something out. After reading more about the topic i have found that there are 3 main interpretations of what thureophoroi were (i would use MEG terminology - after thinking about it more I myself was convinced that they should be loose not flexible - someone mentioned before that there are no proofs that they changed formation during battle and they were at a disadventage while fighting a closed type formation - so IMHO loose it is);

1. Long spear,flexible/loose,javelin with an option to reequip them as euzanoi
I would like to think that the game as of know is heading towards this interpretation with euzanoi being representative of the first option but there are still notable differences. Lionheart states that "It is currently have them as Euzenoi if they are javelinmen and as Thureophoeroi if they are the light hoplites." which is untrue as different lists have different number of bases available to them or even being able to field only one of those units (for example Early ptolemaic egypt,Mercenary greek). Also, i have to point out that quote "it is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians."And in this game only galatians do not have a loose formaion out of those you have mentioned - while some other celtic like warriors with DC have - idk why but i have very little knowledge about galatian warfare,surely you could explain that to me. The thing with light hoplites kinda eludes me as lightening of hoplite equipement was clearly visible thruought whole IV century, way before the thureos was introduced. Yet hoplites after certain dates do not lose shield cover ,nor is it optional so ... if they are light hoplites why dont they have exact hoplites rules?

2. Longspear,loose,javelin (this is by far the most popular interpretation)

3. Short spear, loose,exp javelin,melee expert reequip as euzanoi (as you can see that is almost euzanoi profile which i think is a defensible representation on how the thureophoroi fought BUT they have to be made a TUG for some armies to function)
(there are ofc niouances in those opinions and they are simplifications based on my expiriences with the game on how I understand what rules such as shove or meele expert reflect)

Versions 1 and 3 treat euzanoi as an interchangable formation, version 2 is the only one that treats it as a compleatly separate entity.

Where is the problem you might ask? I have found not a single source nor a single historian statement that would even suggest that they were just hoplites with a different shield. I hvae read 5-10 articles and 4 books as of last 2 weeks. I have even written to some polish historians to know their opinions. The amount is not awe inspiring but it is still a lot of different opinions and takes. Based on that fact alone i am willing to say that current MEG representation of the unit is ahistorical no matter which interpretation you like most. So please provide me with some other sources/materials that would prove me wrong, because as of now i feel like I am presenting arguments and hearing none in defence of the current rules.

P.S: "I would concur with this. I think the idea of troops designed to cover the flanks of the phalanx is a bit of a solution looking for a problem."
I have no idea what this sentence means - they were literally deployed on the flanks of the phalax.

Quote from: Alduin on August 19, 2022, 12:32:27 AM
Also, i have to point out that quote "it is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians."And in this game only galatians do not have a loose formaion out of those you have mentioned - while some other celtic like warriors with DC have - idk why but i have very little knowledge about galatian warfare,surely you could explain that to me.

I think it is because the Galatians do not appear to have done well when fighting in terrain.

Quote
The thing with light hoplites kinda eludes me as lightening of hoplite equipement was clearly visible thruought whole IV century, way before the thureos was introduced. Yet hoplites after certain dates do not lose shield cover ,nor is it optional so ... if they are light hoplites why dont they have exact hoplites rules?

I would suggest that it is because whilst previous lightening of hoplite equipment took place, they retained the traditional aspis which is a large shield but thureoforoi had the smaller (narrower certainly) thureos and so get less coverage as mentioned in one source IIRC.

Quote
3. Short spear, loose,exp javelin,melee expert reequip as euzanoi (as you can see that is almost euzanoi profile which i think is a defensible representation on how the thureophoroi fought BUT they have to be made a TUG for some armies to function)

As an aside I would note that whilst not easy it is quite possible for an army with few TUGs and a large number of SUGs to be successful - Jason Broomer's use of the Alexandrian Expeditionary being a case in point for an extreme version.

Quote
Where is the problem you might ask? I have found not a single source nor a single historian statement that would even suggest that they were just hoplites with a different shield. I hvae read 5-10 articles and 4 books as of last 2 weeks. I have even written to some polish historians to know their opinions. The amount is not awe inspiring but it is still a lot of different opinions and takes. Based on that fact alone i am willing to say that current MEG representation of the unit is ahistorical no matter which interpretation you like most. So please provide me with some other sources/materials that would prove me wrong, because as of now i feel like I am presenting arguments and hearing none in defence of the current rules.

Unfortunately, as we know the sources are so sparse and vague that they don't really provide us with much to hang our hat on for the classification. One thing we can say, as I understand it, is that the thureoforoi replaced the traditional hoplite in many cases where a state did not move its troops to be organised in the Macedonian manner; in some cases they then changed from thureoforoi to being armed as the Macedonians e.g. the Achaeans. Thus, I would suggest, it is a reasonable interpretation that as they were replacing heavy infantry that they were also heavy infantry of some sort and also being the next step in the ongoing lightening of equipment for the heavy infantry. For them not to be heavy infantry I think there would have to be some sort of demonstrable change in warfare.

That is, of course, an interpretation to explain them, however, having been digging around on this for a bit now I have noticed that where historians (and prefectly good ones such as Sekunda) suggest or state that the thureoforoi were some sort of "medium infantry" they do not actually provide references as to why they make the statement in the majority of cases, and when they do it is to the Plutarch one mentioned early in this topic which is in itself a bit contradictory as previously noted. It very much feels to me that we have one of those cases where there is a definition of something that has been around for a long time and is repeated as fact, but is actually based on very weak evidence if any at all. I am, of course, more than happy to be shown to be wrong - I certainly haven't read all the material that is out there.

Quote
P.S: "I would concur with this. I think the idea of troops designed to cover the flanks of the phalanx is a bit of a solution looking for a problem."
I have no idea what this sentence means - they were literally deployed on the flanks of the phalax.

Remind me of which battles did the "big 3" successor powers of the Antigonids, Seleukids and Ptolemaics do this in. My mind has gone blank on it.

Having just caught up with what is written in Charl Du Plessis' "The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great" I must say that his suggestion as to what the thureoforoi were is, in MeG terms, pretty much what Richard has suggested with his Average, Protected, Loose, Short Spear, Experienced Javelin. And no LSp option at all.

The suggestion that Plutarch's "doru" are actually "longche" makes sense of the quote  :D

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 19, 2022, 08:00:29 AM
Having just caught up with what is written in Charl Du Plessis' "The Seleucid Army of Antiochus the Great" I must say that his suggestion as to what the thureoforoi were is, in MeG terms, pretty much what Richard has suggested with his Average, Protected, Loose, Short Spear, Experienced Javelin. And no LSp option at all.

The suggestion that Plutarch's "doru" are actually "longche" makes sense of the quote  :D

Funny I read it just yesterday evening and was about to post it.

Same conclusions in other books

And nowhere, absolutely nowhere did I find anything to support the thureophoroï as a heavy infantry hoplite style fighting man ! so the classification we have in MEG is IMO pretty wrong and based on no historical evidence while there is much more evidence about a new lighter infantryman designed to protect the flanks of heavier units.

Also note that in antiquity there was no "heavy, medium, loose or skirmishing" infantry distinction but more " battle infantry" vs "light infantry" .And light infantry was everything not hoplites/phalanxes ..so thureophoroï were classified "light" but are more loose in a MEG GAME SYSTEM !

QuoteI think it is because the Galatians do not appear to have done well when fighting in terrain.

Interesting could you point to the historical text describing the battle  as I did not find it .

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 18, 2022, 06:32:19 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 18, 2022, 05:07:44 PM
By the way, I don't think they were "designed" to protect the flanks of the phalanx.  It is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians.

I would concur with this. I think the idea of troops designed to cover the flanks of the phalanx is a bit of a solution looking for a problem.

Nik's sentence means he thinks it was a case of "We have all these thureophoroi, what shall we do with them?" "Put them on the flanks of the phalanx."
Not "We need something to cover the flanks of the phalanx." "I know, let's create a troop type with an oval shield, no armour and some sort of spear and/or javelins."

Quote from: badhabum on August 19, 2022, 08:34:04 AM

QuoteI think it is because the Galatians do not appear to have done well when fighting in terrain.

Interesting could you point to the historical text describing the battle  as I did not find it .

It is just my thought on what may be the reason, not an absolute fact.

However, Polybios in the post-Magnesia Roman campaigns springs to mind as a possibility for the basis - worth looking at to see if it supports the idea or not. Also whatever there is on the invasions of Greece would be another suggestion. Have feeling the recent Grainger book has more info that could inform - FWIW he is pretty damning about the Galatian performance on the whole, but I only read it quickly some time ago.

Also I think that for a lot of the barbarians "warband" types Flexible is a bit dubious, but in the interests of not annoying a load of players I am not suggesting reviewing ;D

"I would suggest that it is because whilst previous lightening of hoplite equipment took place, they retained the traditional aspis which is a large shield but thureoforoi had the smaller (narrower certainly) thureos and so get less coverage as mentioned in one source IIRC."
But there were also thureos found that were larger than the hoplite shield - most were smaller indeed but some were not. A good counterargument is that thureophoroi are not only of Greek origin which suggests a more universal fighting style than phalanx.

"As an aside I would note that whilst not easy it is quite possible for an army with few TUGs and a large number of SUGs to be successful - Jason Broomer's use of the Alexandrian Expeditionary being a case in point for an extreme version."
Oh it is , but I am already assuming that the current iteration of this unit is gone from army lists and armies like hellenistic Greeks have some problems with having tugs at all if u want to portray acheans before the reforms.
(Also I will soon post another question about attalids phalanx - once I am finished with a book about them)

"One thing we can say, as I understand it, is that the thureoforoi replaced the traditional hoplite in many cases where a state did not move its troops to be organised in the Macedonian manner;"

More or less - in the greek states it was often times the case of not having funds and need for a macedonian phalanx. Hoplitism was not only a style of fighting, it was a type of social order that was slowly degrading thruought centuries. If the thureos were fighting like hoplites they could have been described as such, or even the brief mentions about them would propably mention it and they do not.

" in some cases they then changed from thureoforoi to being armed as the Macedonians e.g. the Achaeans. Thus, I would suggest, it is a reasonable interpretation that as they were replacing heavy infantry that they were also heavy infantry of some sort and also being the next step in the ongoing lightening of equipment for the heavy infantry."
That changed was representative of a facts that the acheans needed heavy infantry. While thureos were good enough for borderguarding/skirmishes and support actions they were a bad battleline - It is almost direct quite form Plutarch - hence Philopoemen reformed the army in the Macedonian manner. This change was a result of strategic need.

Also ... no - did Philip II changed his heavy infantry into heavy infantry ? No . I do not understand why reform is less likely to change a light formation into frontline one. It is a result of the needs of the state/ruler/geopolitical situation.

" For them not to be heavy infantry I think there would have to be some sort of demonstrable change in warfare."
Strategic change is probably the biggest change of circumstances that could occur. Acheans transformed from a defensive alliance into de facto the strongest of Greek states, having lighttroops as the backbone of your army would no longer suffice.

"definition of something that has been around for a long time and is repeated as fact, " there is no such a definition - from those +/- 15 works I have gathered at least 3 - the 4th one about them fighting in roman style was discarded as of early 2000s
So there still is debate - my problem is that meg does not side with any of those 3 options and create smth entirely different that is not based on the clues we have.

", but is actually based on very weak evidence if any at all." Please use this sentence to judge the current iteration as I have not seen a single  piece of evidence to support it. As mentioned earlier even little evidence  that I think am providing you is much better than none .

About the battles - rafia is such an example, if I recall kynoskefale (unsure about English writing of this one - omens vs Philip V) and magnesia
Basically every recorded major engagement - they were used either to skirmish,support the main line of pikes or were deployed to amongst it to increase mobility (of this I have a vague memory - would have to check it out again propably)

LawrenceG - thank you - and that is a sound argument. Yet they wouldn't do that if there were unable to fill fill that role am I right ? No general would like to create weaknesses in their plan.

Quote from: Alduin on August 19, 2022, 10:46:18 AM
(Also I will soon post another question about attalids phalanx - once I am finished with a book about them)

Sounds intriguing - I've wondered about their infantry on occasion.

Quote
"One thing we can say, as I understand it, is that the thureoforoi replaced the traditional hoplite in many cases where a state did not move its troops to be organised in the Macedonian manner;"

More or less - in the greek states it was often times the case of not having funds and need for a macedonian phalanx. Hoplitism was not only a style of fighting, it was a type of social order that was slowly degrading thruought centuries. If the thureos were fighting like hoplites they could have been described as such, or even the brief mentions about them would propably mention it and they do not.

" in some cases they then changed from thureoforoi to being armed as the Macedonians e.g. the Achaeans. Thus, I would suggest, it is a reasonable interpretation that as they were replacing heavy infantry that they were also heavy infantry of some sort and also being the next step in the ongoing lightening of equipment for the heavy infantry."

That changed was representative of a facts that the acheans needed heavy infantry. While thureos were good enough for borderguarding/skirmishes and support actions they were a bad battleline - It is almost direct quite form Plutarch - hence Philopoemen reformed the army in the Macedonian manner. This change was a result of strategic need.

Good point, colour me convinced  8)

Quote
", but is actually based on very weak evidence if any at all." Please use this sentence to judge the current iteration as I have not seen a single  piece of evidence to support it. As mentioned earlier even little evidence  that I think am providing you is much better than none .

I think Richard's suggestion is reflecting that.

Quote
About the battles - rafia is such an example, if I recall kynoskefale (unsure about English writing of this one - omens vs Philip V) and magnesia
Basically every recorded major engagement - they were used either to skirmish,support the main line of pikes or were deployed to amongst it to increase mobility (of this I have a vague memory - would have to check it out again propably)

I stopped being lazy and dug out some stuff  :D

Antiochos III against Molon - according to Bar Kochva Antiochos had Greek mercenaries  on one flank of his phalanx, the other had only cavalry.

Raphia - to the right of the Argyraspides were 5000 troops Bar Kochva lables as "Carmanians" and also describes as easterners, the Greek mercenaries are to the right of these and so not next to the phalanx. On the other wing the left of the settler phalanx is covered by the 10,000 Arabs. Ptolemy obviously has converted his Greeks to phalangites and used Galatians and Thracians to cover the right, the left has cavalry.

Magnesia - the 16,000 Seleukid phalangites have Galatians covering their flanks.

Panion - murky but there don't appear to be any troops who you'd identify as thureoforoi next to the phalanxes.

Kynoskefalae - odd as it was a battle escalating from columns marching; Philip's army had mercenaries (possible Thureoforoi) but these were engaged before the phalanx arrived as things were all rather ad hoc so not too good for drawing conclusions; but they were marching in advance of the phalanx.

Pydna - another escalation battle and I can't see any mention of Thureoforoi types, but there could easily have been some but where I cannot see.

Sellasia - Antigonos deployed Illyrians between the phalanx "speira".

And thanks for taking the time on this thorny subject - much appreciated as I'm certainly learning stuff  ;D

"Raphia - to the right of the Argyraspides were 5000 troops Bar Kochva lables as "Carmanians" and also describes as easterners, the Greek mercenaries are to the right of these and so not next to the phalanx. On the other wing the left of the settler phalanx is covered by the 10,000 Arabs. Ptolemy obviously has converted his Greeks to phalangites and used Galatians and Thracians to cover the right, the left has cavalry."

As of the seleucid greeks, they still were protecting the flank but they just were not the only ones . Ptolemy has greeks on the flank of the egyptians equipped in macedonian fashion , as they are mercenaries it is highly unpropable (next to impossible is better term) they were phalangites, especially that their direct opposition were medes and other light units and seleucid phalanx wasn't extended to meet them - which would happen if they were deployed as such. If I recall they are even called thureophoroi in the original sources about the battle but of this i am deeply unsure (a bell rings somwhere in my head).
" Ptolemy obviously has converted his Greeks to phalangites" but in short - what makes you think that ? Greek merceneries were universally thureophoroi or some sort of skirmishers.

"Magnesia - the 16,000 Seleukid phalangites have Galatians covering their flanks."
Romans had attalid thueros on one flank if i recall and antiochus had 4000 peltasts that were separate from the phalanx, they were also diffrentiated in the sources form the skirmishers (psiloi) and from the phalanx and guard phalanxm so there is a plausible theory that they are thureophoroi as it was the default style of fighting in greece at the time.

Kynoskefale - it is plausible that they were fighting in the initial stage of the battle for the hills on the macedonian side.

Panion - There is 6.500 greek mercenaries (source calls them aetolians but  "'No Strength to Stand': Defeat at Panium, the Macedonian Class, and Ptolemaic Decline" by Paul Johstono explains why it is not the case and they are just greek mercenaries) on the side of ptolemaic kingdom, 500 are cavalry but the other 6000 are so vaguely described that the only argument that supports them being armed as thureos is that it was the default way of arming a soldier in greece in the hellenistic period

Pydna - romans had greek allies at their flank, preseus had greek merceneries and thracians at both flanks - again there is a storng argument that they were thuerophoroi, as at the time they were synonimic with greek mercenaries.

Sellasia - The best example. Battle takes place just before the achean reforms, it is certain that the whole campaign was mainly fought by thureophoroi (on the side of the achean league and other small geek states). As of the battle itself Polibius states that they were at least 3000 greek mercs and that the achean league provided another 3000 infantry (not to mention other greek allies that amounted to another 5000). The battle is very complex as on the macedonian side there were basiclly 3 disinct phalanxes fighting on two hills an between them. If you are talking about the "centre" that conected the two main formations then it was comprised of megalopolitans propably fighting with pikes and achean thureos (Pol). If about the flanking manouvers that took place on the hill ... all in all please send me anarticle or source as in those I found this battle is the prime example of thureophoroi functioning as jack of all trades and doing pretty much anything that the situation recquires. Thats why i was baffeled that you brought up this example.

"I think Richard's suggestion is reflecting that." Only if you were to strictly replace the hoplite version of thureos with the exp javelin one - then yes it does reflect that.

If you meant "They were either javelinmen or "light" hoplites (whatever that may mean). I don't think they were both at the same time  It is currently have them as Euzenoi if they are javelinmen and as Thureophoeroi if they are the light hoplites.  If you want to represent them as both at the same time then put a SuG of javelinmen in front of your thureophoroi." then I explained in a previous post that it is not only not reflective of the actuall formation but also impossible under current MeG ruleset (as mentioned some aries do not even have aces to both of those units not to mention that the number of bases would have to be adequate)

"By the way, I don't think they were "designed" to protect the flanks of the phalanx.  It is a role that fell to them but the flanks could equally be protected by other mercenaries such as Illyrians, Thracians or Galatians."
I wouldnt say that they were 'designed", they evolved from classical hoplites to better fulfill the needs of greek states and then it was noticed that they fir in the hellenistic armies very well. TThe fact that they wer not the only formation capable of this does not make it less propable. As you have said yourself it was not only the thracians that were used for this task but also ilyrians or gallatians - they are not mutually exclusive. Thats why when i hear tht the thueros were not used that way because the galatians were closer to the phalanx itself it blanks my mind. They were both on the flank of the phalanx - the fact that one was closer than the other does not make any difference in this discussion.

Quote from: Alduin on August 19, 2022, 03:03:28 PM
"I think Richard's suggestion is reflecting that." Only if you were to strictly replace the hoplite version of thureos with the exp javelin one - then yes it does reflect that.

Yup this one  :D

As it has been 2 weeks since the lionheat post about the rulechanges, what are the conclusions of our conversation ?
What makes you uncertain of making the change ? What are the other possibilities you mentioned?
( I would love to glue my thureophoroi to their bases with 3 on each xd )

We are looking at an All or None option for Thureophoroi to be Loose, Average, Protected, Experienced Javelin, Short Spear in addition to the current classification.

It affects a number of Hellenistic lists.

Richard

Great - thx

So i guess in conclusion, they should be classed as Loose, short Spear, Experienced Javelins.

Now what about contemporary art?

Is it not so that they do not keep multiple javelins in their hands and have either a spear or sword?

i have a feeling we will never know what how these guys fought.

i myslef have doubts about greeks in a battle line not fighting with a thrusting spear.

Quote from: Jilu on August 31, 2022, 01:22:35 PM
So i guess in conclusion, they should be classed as Loose, short Spear, Experienced Javelins.

Now what about contemporary art?

Is it not so that they do not keep multiple javelins in their hands and have either a spear or sword?

i have a feeling we will never know what how these guys fought.

i myslef have doubts about greeks in a battle line not fighting with a thrusting spear.

For those interested in the old sligshot article:
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates2.html

I support fully Alduin's research . Sorry if I was silent but got unwell and now have recovered .

I may be wrong but the torakitaï are considere the "neavy" version of our Thureophoroï friends .

So what should become of them as we have even less information only that they were "armoured" and fought in difficult terrain !

As for our thureophoroï soldiers, did they not exist alongside some hoplites, hoplites who were mostly mercenaries! so here is my remark : why would an army use hoplites and thureophorï hoplites both as heavies ... !

Should that not mean the role/use was different

Quote from: Jilu on August 31, 2022, 03:26:27 PM

Quote from: Jilu on August 31, 2022, 01:22:35 PM
So i guess in conclusion, they should be classed as Loose, short Spear, Experienced Javelins.

Now what about contemporary art?

Is it not so that they do not keep multiple javelins in their hands and have either a spear or sword?

i have a feeling we will never know what how these guys fought.

i myslef have doubts about greeks in a battle line not fighting with a thrusting spear.

For those interested in the old sligshot article:
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates2.html

Article basiclly repeats points that i tried to cover earlier.(swordfighting, lack of comment on main sources such as life of philipoemen, fails to explain why they were jackofalltrades as in authors opinion it is just a light hoplite - it is all but a versatile unit) It is even more flawed in that it suggests that hoplites armed in ipphcratean manner were next to the same as usual hoplites. I would assume that it is just dated knowledge and bad source and military analysis.

Short Spear is a spear tbh ;p

I also would like to thank all of you that had shown me support during my research, without your kind words and encouragement I wouldn't have had the drive to finish it.

Looks to me like there is plenty of research there and reference to plenty of sources. Don't trash somebody's research and methodology just because their conclusion is different from your own and therefore *must* be flawed.

I wouldn't suggest the article represents dated understanding either, since I'm pretty sure that at the time it was challenging the previous group wisdom about the nature of these troops.

(FWIW I am on the side of thureophoroi having a somewhat different tactical role to hoplites, but I do consider there to be significant room for doubt on the subject.)

Note that the article does say that thureophoroi could be armed with javelins, and this comes under the case of euzenoi. So in that sense they are the continuation of the jack-of-all-trades troops used by Alexander in particular. But wouldn't be armed with both thrusting spear and javelins at the same time.

"Short Spear is a spear tbh ;p"

I'm not sure who/what this is aimed at? - there isn't a hard cut off between spears that can be thrust and spears that can be thrown. It is quite common for troops for shorter spears to have both "javelin" and "short spear" characteristics.

QuoteNote that the article does say that thureophoroi could be armed with javelins, and this comes under the case of euzenoi. So in that sense they are the continuation of the jack-of-all-trades troops used by Alexander in particular. But wouldn't be armed with both thrusting spear and javelins at the same time.

I do agree but there is a description of those guys going forward, throning javelins and coming back in their lines to take a "dory"  so things are sometimes a bit more difficult as once euzémoï they cannot come back as loose order infantry ..or the rules must be adapted to enable loose order to be flexible and go SK  ;D

Fair point! But of course all rules classifications risk being a simplification of what was actually possible (perhaps only on special occasions) in real life.

In my opinion MeG, unlike some previous rulesets, better reflects the idea that there were troops who could both "skirmish" and "fight in the battle line", but perhaps not as effecti8vely as the specialists in either case. And that shows up in the fact that there are non-skirmishers who get to shoot outside of the charge phase. In many cases they are unskilled javelins, so not considered very good at the skirmishing. But those that are rated experienced are obviously better regarded for their skirmishing capability.

There is a lot to be said for some troops skirmishing and some continuing to provide a solid line for them to retire behind where troops are sufficiently well trained and disciplined to do so effectively. And that could be represented in game terms by loose (or even close) order foot with the better shooting capability, rather than by separate (smaller) blocks of skirmishers and more solid foot.

No rule is perfect but MEG has all it needs to do it . Flexible units do exist .

Close and loose are not realistic organisations but a projection of how we would like units to work !

But it is how MEG works

You could have - for FOOT -  close flexible who can switch from close to loose and loose flexible who could switch from loose to skirmish

That's not difficult to do ! It's already in the rules

"Looks to me like there is plenty of research there and reference to plenty of sources. Don't trash somebody's research and methodology just because their conclusion is different from your own and therefore *must* be flawed."
Plenty of sources is literally one written record of their use in one battle (while they are several also pointed out earlier in the discussion), and some pictorial representations. There are much more written sources, with the most important being entirly ommited. (By most important i mean the one that is brought up by historians alost always when writing about the formation)

His conclusion is baseless, supported by literally zero contemporary historians and next to none actuall military analisis. I didn't compere it to my research alone but to all other books and articles listed earlier in the discussion and not even a single one of those suggests that they were equipped or used in similar way to classical hoplites.

This conclusion is flawed - I have listed at leat 3 different ones that are not. Ofc i do not agree with all of them personally but they all make sense.

"I wouldn't suggest the article represents dated understanding either, since I'm pretty sure that at the time it was challenging the previous group wisdom about the nature of these troops.
(FWIW I am on the side of thureophoroi having a somewhat different tactical role to hoplites, but I do consider there to be significant room for doubt on the subject.)"
It has 20 years and refers to books written in 1940s - as its conclusions are wrong in the eyes of modern historians i think that calling it dated is a fair assumption

"Note that the article does say that thureophoroi could be armed with javelins, and this comes under the case of euzenoi. So in that sense they are the continuation of the jack-of-all-trades troops used by Alexander in particular. But wouldn't be armed with both thrusting spear and javelins at the same time." But it also states that they were armed with one or the other and does not support this conclusion by literally anything, he jsut states it as a fact. Why though ? Why does he think that ?


"I'm not sure who/what this is aimed at? - there isn't a hard cut off between spears that can be thrust and spears that can be thrown. It is quite common for troops for shorter spears to have both "javelin" and "short spear" characteristics."
"i myslef have doubts about greeks in a battle line not fighting with a thrusting spear." Thats what it was aimed at - exactly as it was said - ther is not such a line - as there are proofs of thureophoroi fighting at range then short spear suits them well if the spear was of double purpose.

Quote from: badhabum on September 01, 2022, 11:02:18 AM
I do agree but there is a description of those guys going forward, throning javelins and coming back in their lines to take a "dory" 

I think you have taken that from a website you posted a link to early on in this topic - https://www.galatoi.com/warriors/thureophoroi.php. Unfortunately when you go back to the historical sources - in this case Polybios 11.11-18 and Plutarch Philopoimen 9 and 10 (although the website only mentions Plutarch and only 9 which is odd) - they do not say what the website says. The actual relevant stuff from Plutarch was quoted in this topic by Alduin.

Also i would love to add as it stung me greatly. I personally think that thureo should be loose/long spear/unskilled javelin  BUT the version proposed by lionheart of them being sort of "frontline skirmishers" so loose/short spear/expirienced javelin is also very reasonable and even if i would like to i wouldnt be able to argue with that interpretation.

Quote from: Alduin on September 01, 2022, 02:44:28 PM
Also i would love to add as it stung me greatly. I personally think that thureo should be loose/long spear/unskilled javelin  BUT the version proposed by lionheart of them being sort of "frontline skirmishers" so loose/short spear/expirienced javelin is also very reasonable and even if i would like to i wouldnt be able to argue with that interpretation.

I suspect that the combination of the bits from Plutarch saying they were effective at distance leading to Experienced shooters rather than Unskilled, and not fighting with levelled spears being a bit more suggestive of SSp than LSp is Richard's thinking.

Quote from: Alduin on September 01, 2022, 02:44:28 PM
Also i would love to add as it stung me greatly. I personally think that thureo should be loose/long spear/unskilled javelin  BUT the version proposed by lionheart of them being sort of "frontline skirmishers" so loose/short spear/experienced javelin is also very reasonable and even if i would like to i wouldnt be able to argue with that interpretation.

And I fully agree and I know I am not alone in this.  Thureo should be loose/long spear/unskilled javelin or loose/short spear/experienced javelin . The choice could even be left to the player as it is the case of the Alexandrian  hypaspist .

I think there are enough clues and still no one has show me one line from one historian describing Thureophoroi fighting as hoplites what they are now in MEG on the contrary

Would losse order SP or LS/ experienced or unskilled jav, protected and FLEET of FOOT not be an acceptable MEG solution ?

Quote from: badhabum on September 07, 2022, 12:21:36 PM
Would losse order SP or LS/ experienced or unskilled jav, protected and FLEET of FOOT not be an acceptable MEG solution ?

Not happening.

Well why ? what would the solution be to the fact that obviously they are not close order long spear infantry not simple skirmishing infantry

Quote from: badhabum on September 07, 2022, 04:15:37 PM
Well why ? what would the solution be to the fact that obviously they are not close order long spear infantry not simple skirmishing infantry

I don't understand why you don't think they might not be close order spearmen.

Loose order, protected, fleet of foot would be a devastating new troop type, as would Experienced Javelin and Long Spear.  Combining both would be a troop type which moves faster than any other protected loose foot, would shoot with experienced javelins and get long spear combat factors.  This would unbalance them compared to pretty much every other classical troop type (think of Spanish, Gauls, Thracians, Illyrians, Italians) with a few specific exceptions (Impact Weapon, Melee Expert legionaries or Pike in 4 ranks)...

You have raised this point so many times before - I have provided my view on several occasions.  I won't be entertaining any more discussion on this topic.

Richard

When I said I won't be entertaining any more discussion on this topic I meant it.  This topic is closed.

Message from Simon Hall:

All,

I have read the entire stream so let me offer some closing comment. I do think we have the right answer both from a historical and game point of view.  As many have said late on its hard to argue with RJC's final proposal.  At the end of the day someone has to make a call, and RJC has done so and the answer is a good one.

Let us take a step back.  There has been much evidence provided that suggests a lighter role was probable for Thureuphoroi.   My strong suspicion is that they were trained to fight like hoplites in the open or to take lighter equipment and fight in terrain.  There are some clear no nos in MeG but we have the plus of lots of options.  Fleet of foot is mainly for unprotected troops moving fast. Swiss infantry are an exception based on their known behaviour.  So not that.  But the team has listened and adapted a terrain variant for Greek lists.  This is surely a progressive step forward to be celebrated.

I find the option to take them in hoplite form or redefine them as terrain troops as SSp, Exp Jav a fine addition to the Greek lists and very plausible.  So RJC and Nik have done their job on this well and found a good answer, without straying into dangerous territory. 
I have little doubt the Thureoporoi could bring long spears to battle and form solid lines working together and be effectively Hoplites with different shields.  But I also have little doubt that if needing to fight in terrain they would leave long spears behind as being an encumbrance and focus more on short spears and javelins. So I do think this is a good answer overall. It gives some very useful terrain troops as Theurophoroi which did not previosuly exist.  Try redesigning a few lists with this available and it does make quite a difference.

So a time to come together around a good answer and stop arguing about finer nuances about which there are many opinions but little to go on. What is solid to go on is some form of lighter equipped terrain role and this has been positively taken on board by the list team.  Job done.  Move on to the next debate and enjoy rolling skulls.

Simon