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:





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 

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 

See you friday around a beer

Stele as in plural you plonker 

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 

MEG is MEG and REG is REG 

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 ?

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.



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.



"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.



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.