There are arguments for the idea and then, there is not a single good argumant for them being just "superior"
(two that are involved summarized as - "i like romans more than greeks" and "it wont improve the army" are to say the least not arguments at all.
For example: I like greeks more and i think that it will improve the army - i believe you are not convinced to change silver shields as exceptional rn- why would you expect that someone would change their opinion the other way around).

Idk if there is any more entitled unit in the classical age for the "exceptional" status. I do not plan on playing asiatic succesors or anything but ... it is just bizzare that some other units are clearly favored in this departament (like "pretorian guard"/"guard legionaries" - it is beyond me why they are held to such a high regard, ofc beside the fact that someone clearly liked romans a lot). Isnt it the whole idea of "exceptional" to reference certain very succesfull units ? Like cesars Xth or agema ? Not some units as abstracts (for example persian guard cav/legion guard - i am deeply unsure why they are not just "superior")

I was looking at some lists in th meantime and.... I have to bring up something thats pretty much unimportant but still bothers me greatly. In asiatic succesors list the silver shields are superior.... well - why don't they have exceptional ? When I think of the best performing concrete tactical units in history (not formations mind you) of mankind this is the literal 1st that comes to mind. And seeing that for example Ceasers legion is exceptionalit is ... strange.

I know it is obviously a subjective topis but having this one TUG of exceptional pike in Eumenes' or Perdikas' lists propbaly wont be game breaking and there is no denying that the original silver shields literally conquered the known world - they are also better documented that for example the khans guard that has exceptional and have propably the most impressive battle record of any formation in antiquity.

What are your thoughts and opinions on this ?

Well when you think aout thebans deepening their ranks - that would be an awesome reflection of that in the game.

I am approaching this from more of a game balance perspective. The "best" (most powerfull) way of playing hoplite armies in magna is ... avoiding hoplites at all cost - 2 tugs to protect your flank is the propably only use for them in this format as they are very unreliable as a frontline. Thinking how it could be fixed got me to just adding bases to their UG in Magna. Would be both historicly friendly and good for the game IMO.

Watching the moment when your hoplite frontline bounces off in terror from archers with meelee expert is very strange expirience xd.

Hi
So in Poland we play almos exclussivly classical age and mostly magna. We have discovered that long spear units are at severe disadventage in this format. Losing all claims and usefulness only after the first base is destroyed leads to them being reliably beaten by any meele expert in the game, while their usefulness against cav is also not at it;s full display (they are of course good in that role but in magna it is the only thing that they are good at). Long spears would be much more effective at 6 bases per UG. What do you think about making most of them 4,6 instead of 4.
only?

Thanks a lot

Hi

So Classical Pontic list can take Armenian allies ("from 92 b.c" until i presume 47 b.c?.). The Armenian army list has some restrictions that state "only Tigranes the Great from 83 to 69 BCE". May Tigranes the great be a leader of my allied contingent ?

I am baffeled by this - thank you for your answers.

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.

"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: 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.

Great - thx

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 )

"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.

"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 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.

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.