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 :



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.



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.

"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.



"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.

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 

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   

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