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  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 

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 

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

"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 

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 

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 

"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