PDA

View Full Version : another new unit



Heraclius
05-06-2003, 21:21
Greek Peltasts
Peltasts are lightly equipped, fast moving skirmishers who wear down enemies with a hail of accurately thrown javelins. Their strength lies in their ability to move through broken or rough terrain, and stay away from threats. Once their javelins have been thrown they fight with spears, although they also carry straight swords and small shields (the "pelte" that gives them their name). As a result, they can fight quite effectively against other units of skirmishers but are vulnerable if caught in the open by light cavalry.

Stormer
05-06-2003, 21:25
Cool

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-06-2003, 21:40
Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ May 06 2003,15:21)]Greek Peltasts
Peltasts are lightly equipped, fast moving skirmishers who wear down enemies with a hail of accurately thrown javelins. Their strength lies in their ability to move through broken or rough terrain, and stay away from threats. Once their javelins have been thrown they fight with spears, although they also carry straight swords and small shields (the "pelte" that gives them their name). As a result, they can fight quite effectively against other units of skirmishers but are vulnerable if caught in the open by light cavalry.
I thought peltasts used slings?

Spino
05-06-2003, 22:01
Quote[/b] ]I thought peltasts used slings?

Peltasts were known to wield any sort of missile weapon short of bows. Rock throwers were not uncommon either if stones optimal for slinging could not be found (or if clay and lead were in short supply for fashioning into proper sling missiles). If there's one thing Greece's countryside has an abundance of it's small rocks.

Sticks and stones as the saying goes

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-06-2003, 22:15
Oh, ok. How big were these rock throwers? I take it we're not talking trebuchet? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Shahed
05-06-2003, 22:47
Will I die of anticipation or not ?

That is the question.

Catiline
05-07-2003, 00:01
AS much as this is interesting, where has it come from, it's not on the units page at .com. peltats should certainly be in the game, way before hoplites in historical terms, but...

Catiline
05-07-2003, 00:13
You'd htink on a 10 meg connectrion you'd not need to refresh cache...

Shahed
05-07-2003, 01:00
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ROFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

ShadesWolf
05-07-2003, 07:02
Below is the picture for all of u who havent seen it...

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/pelt.jpg

Hakonarson
05-07-2003, 09:19
Peltasts are good - even reasonably accurate, and also correct for the time frame http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Lighter missile troops in Greek armies were known as psiloi, and could be armed with slings, bows or javelins, with or without shields.

Clasic peltasts were more an early troop type tho, and their role became taken over by heavier troops armed with javelins and spears and heavier shields - thureophoroi - capable of limited skirmishing and also figting in hte battle line.

Psiloi remained a common troop type throughout the era.

Nowake
05-07-2003, 11:18
Hakonarson, a question ...

Their recruitement grounds? I can't imagine them as having another social status different then ... let's say velites ... Am I right?

Spino
05-07-2003, 15:02
Quote[/b] ]Peltasts are good - even reasonably accurate, and also correct for the time frame

Lighter missile troops in Greek armies were known as psiloi, and could be armed with slings, bows or javelins, with or without shields.

Clasic peltasts were more an early troop type tho, and their role became taken over by heavier troops armed with javelins and spears and heavier shields - thureophoroi - capable of limited skirmishing and also figting in hte battle line.

Psiloi remained a common troop type throughout the era.

No to mention they were integral to the success of the Macedonian type phalanx. Balance of arms and all that.


Quote[/b] ]Oh, ok. How big were these rock throwers? I take it we're not talking trebuchet?

Freaking HUUGE Talls as trees and hands like bloody baskets Seriously, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an average sized man of the period to huck a 50 kilo rock a hundred yards or so... LOL

Speaking of huge, I couldn't resist...

"Would ya look at the size of that kid's head It's a virtual planetoid and it has it's own weather system Looks like an orange on a toothpick"

"I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at parts Aye, now that was offsides, now wasn't it? He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow."

"Head Paper Now"

"Heed Pants Now"

"Head Move that melon of yours and take your mother the paper if you can, hauling that gargantuan cranium about"

LOL

OK, exactly when does a rock become a stone and is there any paperwork involved?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

shingenmitch2
05-07-2003, 15:52
Reasonably accurate? hmmm...

The peltast, or more correctly Thracian Peltast were contemporary with Classical hoplites and ran right through Hellenistic times into mid Republic. They were the Thracian hillmen who used javelins to skirmish and who were excellent night-raiders. The peoples of these incessantly warring tribes were considered bloodthirsty mercenaries. Most Classical Greek armies used these Thracians allies to one extent or another -- Later Alexander (being Macedonian--a state developed from the plains/horse tribes of Thracia) & succesor state armies used them quite extensively. Thracians were so numerous a people that the Greeks lived constant fear of them ever becoming organized.

Now then about that PIC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I'm quite baffled by that picture -- looks like nothing I'm familiar with. IF that soldier is meant to represent the Thracian peltast allies used by Greeks, then it is completely wrong... thracians wore the "fox skin" hat with the Thracian/phrygian peak, the used the PELTA shield (from which they derived their name and which is CRESCENT shaped and made of wicker). They could wear either a simple tunic or linen curiass as body protection. In other words, they looked very different from this.

As Hark said, during Hellenistic times, a light version of the hoplite emerged (basically with shield and helmet only) designed to be able to catch and engage the peltasts as the traditional Hoplite was to heavily armored to catch them.

And if they do the Thracian Peltast, what we still need are Thracian RHOMPHIA troops -- nasty, nasty, nasty -- the Rhomphia is like an early versian of the falx used by the later Dacians (themselves an Illyrio-Thracian tribe)

Now the Psiloi (primarily slingers) are an absolute necessity as a unit. Don't discount how deadly the slugs of lead /rock they fired could be... they were as deadly and as acurate as archery fire. When Daniel killed Goliath with a sling it is portrayed as an amazing feat--believe me, it is as if he shot him with an arrow.

shingenmitch2
05-07-2003, 15:56
Upon closer examination... that pic looks much more like a light Celt-Iberian troop -- small, round shield with central boss, and skullcap-style helmet. Perhaps they mixed up picture with troop description? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Hakonarson
05-07-2003, 23:20
Yeah the pic is pretty naf....but that's not really that important http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Shingen there were peltasts other than Thracian ones. Thracians provided the prototype and the name from the distinctive shield, but the Greeks used large numbers of GREEK peltasts - far more than Thracian ones.

For example in Xenephon's Anabasis his 10,000 Greeks include 1500-2500 peltasts.

Originally they were just a skirmisher armed with a sword so they could fight other skirmishers. They were never really able to stand up to hoplites in open battle.

Iphicrates the Athenian Mercenary General is credited with making his Peltasts into a sort of cheap hoplite by giving them larger shields and very long spears in the early 300's BC, and this troop my have evolved into the Thrueophoroi I mentioned previously.

Alexander actualy used very few peltasts in relative terms, and those he did use were mainly Thracians. His light infantry were all mainly from tribes around Macedonian such as Agrianes and Thracians rather then Greek mercenaries. Of course the native Macedonian infantry were essentially "peltasts" before they were made pikemen since the were lightly equipped javelin throwers.

A few times he did equipe his pikemen in peltast style with javelins for tasks where pikes would not have been appropriate such as forced marches and scaling hills and fortifications.

shingenmitch2
05-08-2003, 14:23
Slight disagreement here...

First off, pics matter ... imgane a Roman in samurai armor, or Greek in CMAA attire...

If CA is trying to create general "types" then the Thracian Peltast is the model to use -- they were, afterall, the origin of the term. The Thracian is offbeat enough to be a great addition, but not so obscure as to muddle down into the minutia of sub-types that you describe.

Second, Thracian mercenaries were used widely by Classical greek armies. They were perfect mercenary troops -- plentiful and willing to fight (sometimes for spoils alone). This trend continued with the Successor States. When I say widely used, I'm talking 500-1000 auxiliaries to a 10k army... that is significant.

I don't have my books in front of me, but my guess is that you would find that the bulk of those 2,000 peltasts at Anabasis were Thracians and that the battle account just didn't make a huge distinction about whether they were Greeks or not... it may have even been taken for granted that people would understand them to be Thracian.

The thureophoroi, though skirmishers of a sort, shouldn't fall under the classification of peltast (they didn't use a pelta, and weren't a missle/javelin troop). They were more correctly a light-hoplite, counter-peltast unit (they evolved down from the hoplite, not the other way around -- true hoplites were too burdened by full armor to catch the peltasts, thus Greeks would take fast youths, lighten or eliminate body armor, and convert them to peltast chasers).

Hakonarson
05-08-2003, 22:30
I imagine that Thracian peltasts will either be a seperate troop type entirely, or perhaps Thrace will get a +1 valour for raising peltasts.

The troosp in teh Anabasis were not Thracians - at least not in any significant numbers - they were mercenaries from the reek cities - Thracian peltasts were quite distinctive, as you say, and would have been mentioned as being thracian not Greek.

Many Thureophoroi carried javelins as well as a thrusting spear, as did some later peltasts. The fact that they didn't carry a pelte is irrelevant to their rle - many peltasts didn't carry a pelte either The precise role of hte Thureophoroi is apparently quite shrouded - they carried a mix of light and heavy equipment,and peltasts and hoplites themselves both largely disappeared when thureophoroi became common.

Michael the Great
05-09-2003, 18:47
What about them moving over broken or rough terrain?
I wonder if that will have an impact on formations

Hakonarson
05-09-2003, 23:28
Moving over terrain should impact on formations but probably just by removing rank bonuses.

Possibly troops trying to get rank bonuses should move slower as they try to maintain ranks (even tho it won't do them any good).

Of course heavier equipped troops should still tire faster when doing any "stressful" movment - such as through difficult going, running, moving up hills, etc.

Michael the Great
05-10-2003, 14:40
Yess,as this is one of the reasons teh romans defetead hoplite phalanxes,but was it that important?

RisingSun
05-10-2003, 15:20
I think the main reason was that due to the nature of the phalanx, the Romans could fight against it in a narrower, column-type formation, allowing much more mobility, and room for maneuvers. The reason this was possible, is because for the phalanx to exploit te weakness of the formation, they would have to break the phalanx.

Hakonarson
05-11-2003, 00:20
I'm not sure what you're tring ot say RS - Roman formations were continual across the fighting fromt just like the pahalnx was - they certainly did not fight in a series of seperated columns.

As for terrain being important Michael - yes it was at both Cynocephalae and Pydna.

At Cynocephalae one wing of hte Macedonian army was deployed on rough ground and couldn't get it's formation right at all - it was immediately driven back, and it was from this wing that the un-named Tribune took 20 maniples to attack the flank of hte other half of the Phalanx that was driving the Romans bback.

At Pydna we are told the Phalanx was pushing the legions back easily, but small natural irregularities in the ground led to gaps in the wall of pike through which individual legionaries managed to slip to attack the pikemen at close quarters and break them up even further.

The key here is disorder for hte pike - regardless of cause. Eg at Magnesia the pike were disordered by retreating friends and elephants - but the effect was the same.