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 

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 

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 

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:





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.