Factions and units - info and descriptions [Archive]

The Wizard

10-27-2004, 18:56

This is the research I did on the Parthians before the release of the game, but it's not done yet (note the missing cataphracts, for instance ~;))

Iranian Levies /Light Infantry

Strong charge, normal attack, very weak defence, poor morale, large shield

(Spherical Median cap, long curly hair, beard and moustache, grey shirt, baggy grey trousers, tunic over shirt reaching to knees, simple shoes, belt with attached short sword, simple spear, leather-covered cane shield)

These peasant levies from the countryside of Iran were forced into military service at need; hardly trained, they were used as general duties personnel and baggage guards as well as acting as a spear phalanx in battle. They should not be relied on in battle, and should only be used for simple tasks. They can be recruited in all of Iran.

Syrian Archers/Light Infantry [Mercenaries]

Normal attack, weak defence, normal morale, shield, long range

(Cap, long curly hair, short-sleeved tunic reaching to thighs, light brown trousers tucked into short boots, quiver slung over the shoulder hanging on the back, large composite bow, small shield, hatchet hung off hip)

Mercenaries from northern Syria, these men could be found in all armies in the Orient. Their composite bow gives them an advantage in range, and their hatchets can cause more havoc amongst armored troops than one could expect from such lightly armed men! A wise commander will however remember that they cannot be relied on to hold out for long in the melee, and they are best used to pepper enemies with arrows until the heavier troops can engage.

Anatolian Highlanders/Light Infantry [Mercenaries]

Normal attack, fast, hardy, missiles good versus armor, missiles disrupt formations, very weak defence, normal morale, shield, short range

(Cap, long hair, moustache, short-sleeved jacket, striped trousers reaching to the ankles, short boots, belt with attached dagger, small target shield, goatskin pouch containing sling pellets slung over shoulder)

The tough hill men of Western Asia are hired by any powers active in the Orient. Hard to detect in flight, and difficult to dodge, sling pellets could stun, maim or even kill, and were extremely dangerous even to armored troops. These men can only be hired in the Highlands of Anatolia.

Kurdish Hillmen/Light Infantry [Mercenaries]

Weak attack, fast, hardy, missiles very good versus armor, very weak defence, normal morale, shield, long range

(Cap, long hair, moustache, woolen tunic, trousers tucked into short boots, sheepskin jerkin, target shield of stained hide, bunch of javelins, dagger)

These tough hillmen from the western reaches of Iran and Anatolia use javelin-thongs to give their throws greater range and accuracy. Their javelins are powerful weapons facing armored foes, but they should only be used skirmishing, as a melee is not something they should get stuck into. These men can only be recruited in Anatolia and the mountains of western Iran.

Sakae Tribesmen/Light Cavalry [Mercenaries]

Normal attack, fast, very weak defence, strong charge, poor morale, shield

(Long Scythian-style hair, moustache, tunic, baggy trousers, short boots, cowhide round shield which is slung over the back when using bow and equipped when using lance or sword, gorytos with bow slung over the hip, quiver slung over other hip, akinakes, simple saddle, Scythian [and later Mongolian] cut of the horse’s mane, no stirrups)

These tough Scythians from the northeastern frontiers of the Empire are levied from the vassal chieftains of the tribes there. Living a tough life, they learn to ride as soon as they can walk, and they are masterful horsemen. They can fight with lance, bow and sword in equal mastery. However, they are disloyal and cannot be relied on to fill important roles, but they can fill gaps in the line of horse archers in a Parthian army. They can only be hired from the eastern reaches of Iran [Note: if the map stretches that far].

Parthian Horse Archers/Light Cavalry

Good attack, fast, missiles good versus armor, weak defence, normal morale, long range, can perform Parthian shot, can perform Cantabrian circle

(Long parted well-groomed hair, ‘bandana’, moustache, ‘goatee’, kaftan of fine fabric with a felt or leather decorative border, heavily decorated trousers covered by thick, tubular fabric ‘chaps’ slung from the waist, simple shoes, composite bow, quiver slung over the hip, tail of horse tied in a tubular, decorated object)

These cavalrymen are recruited from the minor nobility of the Parthian people, and originally come from the steppes of Central Asia. Although they now live in Iran, they still learn to ride as soon as they can walk like their ancestors. They are expert archers and expert horsemen, being able to shoot a bow accurately from horseback, and they are the masters of the ‘Parthian shot’, being able to shoot backwards at full gallop. They are best used at weakening enemy formations so that the heavy cavalry can finish them off. They can be recruited from any Parthian-held territory.

~Wiz

Steppe Merc

10-27-2004, 22:45

Parthians.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/parth1.jpg
Parthian Cataphracts 1st century BCE
These are the cataphracts. They used their kontos with two hands, going very slowly at an 'ambling pace'. Note that the one on the left is better equipped. The level of armor depended on the noble man's wealth, and often horses were un armoured. The most popular early armor was scale, either of hard leather, horn or iron, depending on the richness of the noble. Each man provided his own armor, so little standarisation exited at all. After the inital charge, after the weaking up by the horse archers, they would switch to their great swords. Note that the current Cataphract would likely be best for a generals unit, for their should be at least three units of cataphracts, varying in strenght, cost and skill.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/parth2.jpg
Light Infantry Types
These are actaully from the Sassanaiains, but they kept their infantry essantially the same as their Parthian fore bears. However, ignore the catahphract. The spearmen was pretty much worthless, a poor peasant with a spear and sheild better suited for garrison duty or gaurding baggage trains than open battles. The archer is a Syrian Merc, and is of far better quality than of the spearman. The slinger is from Anatolia, and a highlander of very good quality despite his lightness. The Javileener is a Kurd, and is also a highlander, thus of good quality. Note: NO PAJAMAS!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/parth3.jpg
Parthian Horse Archers
These are horse archers, mainly poorer nobles. They are extremely similar to their Scythian and Sarmatian brethren, and have a similar love for colors. Note the gorytos, the combo quiver/bow case. And look: NO PAJAMAS! Apparently they loved their long hair, and often went helmless in pictorial evidence, and as you can see have quite long hair. They all have the superior compound or complex bow, and have a marked suporiority to non- Eastern nomadic peoples in their bows.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/parth4.jpg
The picture before were Parthians petty noble archers, while these are true nomads, mercanaries employed by their more civilized brethren. The white guy with blond hair is an Iranian nomad, and has one spear and a sword along with his bow, as opposed to the foriegn Turco-Mongol archer who has multiple javilens and a lasso with his bow. The guy with the dorky hat is a standard bearer. Again: NO PAJAMAS.

In conclusion, the Parthians should have more varied units, and NO PAJAMAS

Steppe Merc

10-27-2004, 22:46

Here's the Sarmatians. Sadly, the plates are all centered around 1st BCE to 2nd CE, since this is when the most information is know. However, I have included some plates, for while they may be a bit out of our time frame, I feel they are still important.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/sarmatian1.jpg
Don Frontier, 5-4th Century BCE
A bit to early, but you get the picture. Note the 'Amazon', and here use of the lasso, for which they were aparently famous for. Note the Scythian on the ground, and his colurful outfit. Apparently the Sarmatians were a bit less colorful, but this is again early than our timeperiod, and I feel they advanced colorfuly as the years progressed. All in all the Sarmatians are quite similar to the Scythians, except slightly poorer weapons. Apparently some Sarmatians were tattooed in child hood. Note the 'Amazon' is nothing near like the one showed at the com.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/sarmatian2.jpg
The Divine Sword, Pontic Steps Late 1st BCE to 1st CE
This is a relgious cermony, worshipping the Divine Sword, which apparently the Scythians did as well. They also worshipped the wind, for one gave life while the other took. Check out the armour on the heavy horsman, and his spear. The red guy is a noble.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/sarmatian3.jpg
This is a foot soldier of the Bosphoran Crimea. Not sure if they'll be included, or if they should be, but here he is.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/steppemerc/sarmatian4.jpg
Trajan's First Dacian War 101-102 CE
These are again out of our time zone, but they show quite well the weilding of the two handed contus and the Parthian Shot (which, of course, others used besides the Parthians).

This isn't much, I know, but they should be essentially similar to the Scythians. However, the Sarmatians should be in hear, as well as the Scythians (since I don't think their overrun quite yet).

Steppe Merc

10-27-2004, 22:50

Here's some feedback on the current units of Parthians. Wiz, please comment on my ideas!

Right, I know a lot about Parthia, so I'll list the Parthian units, whether there good or not, and make suggestion changes/additions.
First off, all of them should be recoulered, loose the faction colours, and loose the pajamas.

Melee

1. Peasants - Not so sure. I hate peasants, so I can't comment on them in a non biased fashion.
2. Eastern Infanrt- Idea good, exicution bad. Loose the pajamas, and the hood. Stats are good, as their infantry sucked.
3. Hillmen- Pretty good. They did recruit many hill people, and they were better trained than their standard infantry. Mabye loose the hood.

This is pretty good. The parthians infantry sucked, and most were skirmershers, so this is represented pretty well.

Skirmeshers

1. Slingers - Has pajamaitis. Has too strong of an melee attack. These guys were either mercanaries or hillmen.
2. Archers: Pretty good. But all of the archer units need to have better range, as the Parthians and the Scythians had the best archers hand down.
3. Onagers No good. The Parthians were a steppe people, and really really were bad at seiging. Get rid of this unit. Yes, this would make it hard for them to seige, but they were really bad at it.

We should also add peltlasts, which the Armenians and the Pontusians already have. Just give them that, but without the pajamas.

Mounted Archers
1. Horse Archers- Again, pajamitis. Loose the pajamas, give them no head gear and long flowing hair. Mabye their can be two units: One Iranian Nomad, and another a Lesser Parthian Noble.
2. Persian Cavalry: I guess this is like the Parthian Nobles? The need longer hair, and their outfits need to be not purple, and far more colorful.

We should add the Cataphract Archers, which Armenia already has. Also, split the Horse Archers into two or three catogories as suggested. The Lesser Parthian Noble could have better melee and better armour. Also, as another nomadic unit (which would be trainable, but cost more), can toss javilens.

Heavy Horse
1. Cataphracts: As for one type of Cataphracts, this is good. But they need to hold their kontus in two hands. However, there should be three different classes of Cataphracts: One that has the horses unarmored. These are poorer nobles, probably with scale armour for themselves. Another could be a fully armoured cataphract, but with scale armour on himself and his horse. This and the first class would make up the large number of cataphracts. The fewest number would be the current Cataphracts, as these represtent extremely rich nobles, and would be few in numbers.
2, Camel Cataphracts: Um... This might be okay if we just give the camel no armour, and mabye the rider scale armour.
3. War Elephants: These are fine, if they are Indian Elephants (which it's really easy to change it to).

Right, so there should be three classes of cataphracts, as opposed to the one right now.

Others
1. Early General: This is the javilen tossing, unarmoured early version. Um... I think that if we want to keep this guy in, give them armour on them... But I fail to see why a general would be decked out like this when he could be outfitted in a cataphract way. But whatever floats your boat.
2. Later General: These guys are Cataphracts. Mabye they could be like Siphie of the Porte, and in addition to their two handed kontus, also have compound bows? Either way, they would be the most expensive and current class of catas.

Mercanary units:
1. Bedoun Camel Archers: Not to sure.
2. Bedoun Warriors: Not to sure
3. Arab Cavalry: Not to sure.
I'm pretty sure most of the Parthian mercanaries were either light infantry, nomadic tribes from Iran, or Greeks. I don't think they would have recruited mercanary cavalry when their cavalry was far superior, but I'm not sure.

Right. Please nitpick, point out inaccuracies, point out impossibilities, and make your own suggestions.

S.O.F

10-28-2004, 01:05

GERMANIC ALTERATIONS
Having gone over various sources these are my rough ideas as how to bring the Germans more into historical lines.

Generally Germans of this period should be pretty poor off when it comes to arms and armour. Gauls have been directly trading with Rome, Carthage, and Greeks for sometime and all the Germans get is what they can trade off the Gauls. However what the Germans lack in arms they make up for in ferocity. So across the board German Units could use a general drop in armour values and an increase in the affects of the War-cry bonus

Infantry
Ok this needs a rework, the Phalanx of Spearmen is of hotly contested historical accuracy, Axemen and Berserkers feel akward additions which try to tie in with later Nordic types.

First Tier Unit
Germanic Warband
Germans fought with Spear yes but not in a ranked formation. More suitable Germans should throw spears before hand to hand much like Romans.

Second Tier Units
Germanic Veteran or Hardened or some sort of elite sounding name Warband
The more seasoned warriors, have better armour and either purchased or stolen swords or other sorts of hand weapons.

German Raiders
Raiding and Slave trading seem quite common among German tribes however losing the current uber status Night Raiders have would pull them more into historical lines. Still fast, still armed well, but just not as good as the current ones.

Third Tier
Chieftians Warband
These are the veteran retainers and elite warriors of oe of the many petty Germanic leaders. They can actually afford mail or have fought long enough to have acquired some.

Religious Unit
Fanatic Warriors or a Berserkers could be fine here.

Missile Units
Not so bad mainly some name changes.

First Tier
Barbarian Skirmishers renamed Germanic Youths

Second Tier
Get rid of the armour and the chosen bit on these archers, archery was not common with the Early germans so what few they would field would be quite poor.

Cavalry
Gothic Cav is very out of period and should be dropped, but the German use of light cav has been ignored

First Tier
Germanic Raider Cavalry
These would actually have been more along the lines of the swifter horsemen picking up a Youths and moving as mounted infantry running them as regular cav is really the only option available with RTW. So Javein armed skirmish cavalry for these fellows

Germanic Cav
Current Barbarian Cavalry

Second Tier
Germanic Noble Cavalry
Same as the current Barbarian Noble Cavalry

End Notes
Still lacking on the diversity front, but with further additions of tribe specific units perhaps some sort of Mountain Tribesmen from the Alps the list could be fleashed out and still remain quite accurate.

S.O.F

10-28-2004, 01:09

PSYCHO V

10-28-2004, 01:13

SOF, do you want to add some tribal distinctions?

sharrukin

10-28-2004, 01:22

Good list of basic types Steppe merc and I very much agree on need for light-medium armoured lancers.

BTW(by the way?) what does IIRC mean?

Some of this I already posted in wrong place? Sorry :embarrassed:

If there is a seperate unit for Sarmatian Cataphract perhaps it should have slightly reduced armour stats to reflect horn/cuir-bouilii scale armour in unit. Sarmatians did not have same resources as Parthians. Scythians should not have Cataphracts as buildable unit. They had armoured lance cavalry but not Cataphract level.

Eastern Infantry; Elite should have spear and bow as this was common in east -something like Janisary Infantry, they won't stand up to Romans or Greeks. The Parthians had decent quality infantry(again not Graeco-Roman quality!) the accounts of Marc Anthony in the east, 36 BC? shows this. The Parthians blocked the path of the Legions on several occasions and you don't do that with morons or horse archers in closed country.

Generals; should have Cataphracts BUT the suicide bug means we should delay this? they should at least be bow armed.

Arab Cavalry;the Arabian breed existed at this time but not sure if Arab tribes used it in organized military way at this time.

We need to keep in mind the two weapon limit for units and make some choices between reality and reasonablely close game stats.

Peasants;Parthia; muster levies (hamspah) Low quality spear as you suggest.

The Parthian army was at times additionally supported by camel-borne troops. The animal could bear the weight of the warrior and his armour better and endure harshness longer than the horse; also, the archer could discharge his arrows from an elevated position. -Beduin Camel Archers They existed in Assyrian times.

Cavalry Types
1.Equipped with bows in addition to their lances and heavy armor, to allow them to engage the enemy from afar before charging. Like MTW Steppe Heavy Cavalry-Lance and Bow Factions;Scythians/Sarmatian/Parthian-Armenia?

2. Cataphracts without bows are sometimes referred to simply as lancers. Like Byzantine Pronoie Allegon Factions;as above

3. Quilted Armour or Lobster cuir-bouilli Light Lance and Bow-Like MTW Steppe Cavalry with Bow Factions;Parthian(Azat)/Scythian/Armenian/Dacian(allied Roxalani-maybe available as Merc)

4.Horse Archers Factions;Parthian/Scythian/Armenian/Seleucid-rare for Dacian/Thracian
:book:
5.Medium shock Cavalry-spear and javelin Faction;Parthian/armenian/Thracian/Dacian/Scythian/Seluecid/Ptolemaic/Carthage/Iberian/Gaulish(south)/Pontus

5a. as above but low quality due to poor horseflesh and lack of skill Faction;Roman/Greek(sorta and sometimes)/Gauls(north)

6. Heavy horse Batavian-Frisian breed Faction;Germania(big horses not skilled riders or well equipped compared to eastern cavalry-better than Roman cavalry but a kid with a sharp stick could manage that) More research needed on german cavalry :book: they seemed to defeat gaulish cavalry through ferocity not skill-the gallic cavalry was good.

The Friesian horse is an ancient breed descended from the primitive Forest Horse (Equus caballas silvaticus). It is the only horse breed native to Holland, and has been important in the development of some native UK breeds, such as the Fell Pony and the Dales Pony. For german horse graphics this might be useful -The Exmoor has been found in representations from the Bronze Age as a chariot pony.

7.Clibinarii(super heavies) very heavily armoured lancers Factions;Parthians
Nations in the Middle East occasionally fielded cataphracts mounted on camels rather than on horses, with obvious benefits for use in arid regions but this was rare. Not sure its worth putting these in at all except that the skins and stats already there. These were rare-maybe regional availability in Palmyrae or only as merc?

The bow was of the powerful and large compound type which outranged Roman weapons and its arrows, shot with swiftness, strength, and precision, penetrated the armor of the legionaries. The cataphract was probably equipped with a mace as well. So armed and thus skilled, he was one of the ablest and most feared soldiers of antiquity.

the Parthians avoided the deficiency of the Achaemenid cavalry by carrying camel-loads of arrows for use in the field as soon as their archers ran out of their own; this enabled sustained and effective long-range engagements and reduced the number of the enemy rapidly-PARTHIANS HAVE LARGER SUPPLY OF ARROWS THAN ANY OTHER

But the Arsacid kingdom never was a truly national state; with the Scythian and Parthian elements were united some elements of Greek civilization. The successors of Arsaces I. even founded some Greek towns, and when they had conquered Babylonia and Mesopotamia they all adopted the epithet Philhellen. -What about Militia Hoplites in Greek cities, they should be rare as their availability to players could result in silly Parthian armies.

Sethik

10-28-2004, 02:14

IIRC= If I Recall Correctly

sharrukin

10-28-2004, 03:20

Thanks Sethik

How do I narrow the page on messages? Mine seem a bit too wide.

S.O.F

10-28-2004, 05:34

SOF, do you want to add some tribal distinctions?

The problem we have there is that at the time the game is set the Romans know very little about the Germans because they have had almost no contact. In the late Imperial period we have tons of distinct groups such as the Franks, Saxons, Burgundians, Angles, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Lombard but during the Republic and Early Empire we no very little.

We know of the Cimbric and Tuetones who come into conflict with Republican armies in the 2nd Century BC but there is some dispute whether these groups are even Germanic or Gallic, perhaps if we take them as Germans we can include units German in appearance but Gallic in arms.

sharrukin

10-28-2004, 07:10

S.O.F. I have a little on that but not much info as you said.

Semnones; An obscure tribe about which I have very little information. They appear to have been a subgroup of the Suevi, and dwelt in the bulk of what once was East Germany at roughly the time of Arminius (c. 10 CE). They remained in about that location for the remainder of their identifiable existence. They disappear about 200 CE, being replaced in that region quite soon after by the Alemanni Confederation - it is reasonable to assume that many Alemanni had been Semnones, therefore.

Boii; A Celtic tribe, one section of which settled in Cisalpine Gaul and the other gave its name to Bohemia

Ingvaeones; An early Germanic proto-tribe, or cultural group. They dwelt in Jutland, Holstein, and Frisia from some unknown time in the ancient past (perhaps 500 or 1000 BCE), until the differentiation of localized Teutonic tribes (Frisians, Saxons, Jutes, Angles) in that region circa 50 BCE

Irminones; An early Germanic proto-tribe, or cultural group. They dwelt in eastern Germany, roughly between the Elbe and Oder Rivers some unknown time in the ancient past (perhaps 500 or 1000 BCE), until the differentiation of localized Teutonic tribes (Lombards, Marcomanni, Quadi) in that region circa 10 CE

Istvaeones; An early Germanic proto-tribe, or cultural group. They dwelt around the Rhine and Weser river systems from some unknown time in the ancient past (perhaps 500 or 1000 BCE), until the differentiation of localized Teutonic tribes (Chatti, Hermanduri, Franks) in that region circa 250 CE

I also know the Bastarnae were present along the Carpathians-Moldavia region but this is divided up currently by three provinces.

The Wizard

10-28-2004, 17:03

Well Steppe Merc, generally your analysis is good, quite good even, but I have a few points.

Parthians did not use elephants. I don't know which moron at CA decided to confuse Sassanian Persians with Parthians, but the Parthians didn't use the beasts.
IIRC, the Parthian cataphracts/clibanarii didn't fire from horseback; this was something lesser nobles did. What I do know for sure is that Sassanian clibanarii did not fire from horseback, and I may be confusing the Parthians and the Sassanids.
On the different cataphract types: it is a good idea, but I doubt the Parthians had more lightly armored cataphracts in their own formations, distinguished them from the fully armored ones. Also, if we do something like this, we need a division between the very heavy 'East Parthian clibanarii/cataphracts/lancers' and the much lighter 'West Parthian clibanarii/cataphracts/lancers' which could serve as anti-cavalry on horseback (not sure about their historical accuracy, though).
So, a couple of points and ideas, all nicely summed up. Share your thoughts on it!~:cheers:

~Wiz

khelvan

10-28-2004, 18:33

Just a quick note - Let's be nice to CA. I am sure you were just using a figure of speech, but it is hard to find fault with the company for ahistorical units. If you look at Head Hurlers and the like, there is a bit of a 'fantasy' element intended to appeal to the masses who like 'cool' things and eye candy. I am sure they did their best trying to stay historical when the mandate is to appeal to the masses (these two do not go hand in hand).

Steppe Merc

10-28-2004, 20:49

Aymar would certaintly disagree Kelhvan... he has no love for CA, I assure you.

And yes, I did know that the Sassianians used Elephants, but I wasn't sure if the Parthians did as well. And I know for sure that Lesser Nobles were often bow armed... see my one pic with the two blonde guys.

sharrukin, I was just talking about the Parthians... I hadn't gotten enough info to make a unit list for the Sarmatians. But they should have armoured lancers, as should the Scythians. I would agree with you about them not having Cataphracts per se, as Osprey pointed out, they were not true Cataphracts, for that destinction went really only to the Parthians and later Sassanians.

Oh, and SOF, we also have another Germanic specilist, Stephen, who is strongly in support of the pike armed unit...

khelvan

10-28-2004, 21:50

That may be so, but to my mind it is no reason not to be respectful. That is all I ask.

S.O.F

10-28-2004, 23:28

Oh, and SOF, we also have another Germanic specilist, Stephen, who is strongly in support of the pike armed unit...

Really no German expert myself just what I had handy and thought it might be useful. But German Pikemen are contentous issue, and while a single account calims such was the case there are a large number of folks who believe it incorrect.

The Wizard

10-28-2004, 23:43

And yes, I did know that the Sassianians used Elephants, but I wasn't sure if the Parthians did as well. And I know for sure that Lesser Nobles were often bow armed... see my one pic with the two blonde guys.
I find the name 'Lesser Nobles' a bit confusing; I personally think 'Parthian Horse Archers' would be better, and the description would include the fact that they were drawn from Parthia's lesser nobility.

~Wiz :bow:

sharrukin

10-29-2004, 02:26

Steppe Merc

10-29-2004, 22:18

Agreed. As I said before, they were often horse archers, like in my pics, or lesser Cataphracts, often with no horse armour.

The Wizard

10-30-2004, 00:21

"azat" is the word for noble in Parthian. Azat Cavalry maybe?

400 Parthian Azat's threw an army of 50,000 mounted warriors against Mark Antony in 36 BC. Not all of that 50,000 would lack any sort of armour. We know they used spear and javelin cavalry who had some armour. The "lesser noble" cavalry may not have been able to purchase a full cataphract outfit but that doesn't mean they had to stay at home.
I think you misunderstood me; I was referring to the name 'Lesser Nobles' for Parthian horse archers. I find it a confusing name, and personally I prefer 'Parthian horse archers' to that, including the fact that they are lesser nobles in the description of the unit.

Interesting... so the Parthians used javelin wielding cavalry which was also able to handle itself in a charge. I didn't know that.

~Wiz

sharrukin

10-30-2004, 02:01

Sorry about the misunderstanding Wizard! By the way the "Azat" were the higher nobles as their numbers would suggest. I don't have the name for the lesser nobles yet. With regards to the spear/javelin combo you nailed it earlier;

"Sakae Tribesmen/Light Cavalry [Mercenaries]

Normal attack, fast, very weak defence, strong charge, poor morale, shield

(Long Scythian-style hair, moustache, tunic, baggy trousers, short boots, cowhide round shield which is slung over the back when using bow and equipped when using lance or sword, gorytos with bow slung over the hip, quiver slung over other hip, akinakes, simple saddle, Scythian [and later Mongolian] cut of the horse’s mane, no stirrups)

These tough Scythians from the northeastern frontiers of the Empire are levied from the vassal chieftains of the tribes there. Living a tough life, they learn to ride as soon as they can walk, and they are masterful horsemen. They can fight with lance, bow and sword in equal mastery. However, they are disloyal and cannot be relied on to fill important roles, but they can fill gaps in the line of horse archers in a Parthian army. They can only be hired from the eastern reaches of Iran [Note: if the map stretches that far]."

The more civilized Parthian version would lack the bow and maybe not as high morale.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

10-30-2004, 16:50

Also here is a rather nice bit of info on the Germans that is found online http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/library/ancger.asp

Again miniature wargaming is a good source of information and miniatures provide a good base for skinners.

For folks looking to work on the Dacians this article might be helpful http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/library/dacians.asp
Hey, S.O.F!!! You could coordinate your work with Stefan the Berserker and SaFe. They are the ones coordinating the Germanic Faction and Germanic Units. Perhaps I could include you in those two groups?

Aymar de Bois Mauri

10-30-2004, 17:07

Aymar would certaintly disagree Kelhvan... he has no love for CA, I assure you.
Well, yes and no.

I love CA's guts for making the series, their imaginative work - technical and artistic - and their attention to detail in previous works, specially Shogun.

I, however, hate their recent approach and all of what is implied in it. The norrowness of mind that some people inside CA and (I believe ALL) inside Activision have, is bordering on the corporate slime approach: "the let's make some huge money with the fantasy "cool"-childish-Arcani-Iberian-Bullshite-Warrior-Pharaoh-New-Kingdom-Egypt " piece of crap fever. I could add that this has been really a disrespect for the hardcore fans of the game, who were the ones that started the ball rolling back in the times of Shogun, but I won't...

That is what's my oppinion...

The Wizard

10-30-2004, 20:42

Well, I find that CA and its publisher have been very arrogant towards the core of their community, the ones that they should be listening to as well as making sure the dough comes rolling in.

Compare that to companies as Blizzard, a company which has bèta online tests for its games, listens to the best players on how to improve the game with the next patch, keeps on supporting a game way past where most companies (such as Activision or EA) would stop, and includes reasonable requests and ideas into development of its games.

Sigh.

~Wiz

khelvan

10-30-2004, 21:34

None of us know why these decisions were made. The unfortunate reality is that in order to work with a major publisher like Activision, often a developer like CA must give up some creative control. I seriously doubt you should be directing your ire toward CA, they were probably handcuffed in what they could and could not do, and were under Activision mandates to do certain things.

Be upset about the product, not with the people who made it, unless you were a party to the decisions made and disagree with them. I doubt anyone here was a party to the decisions, so any assumption about why the decisions were made is almost certainly 100% wrong. Let's stick to the facts and be respectful to CA until we have a reason to be otherwise.

S.O.F

10-30-2004, 22:48

IBERIAN ALTERATIONS:and boy do they need them.
This took a bit longer to put together but I've got some pic to go with it this time. One of the major things that are required for the Iberians is that more provinces are added to Iberia, right now the 6 is a bit bare. Rebel controllered provinces in the northern mountians (Basques were still about at this time and still independent minded as ever) along with ones along the coast to represent the Greek cities particularly Saguntum perhaps Tarraco alowing both Iberian and Carthage expansion in the region with out direct war with factions.

Pics

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XQAjA6UexNlZe94sUZHldP3!uxI8kF*UNNzHxAjH5iG3!*mBMV9Ixv!XdGRd3Umew8rL6C93TXdvB5Xel16Tsi0W4AY!t8cTGwC OZ9ueGeAo65wSDT1RFBJpUZeTvN3TfTNf50FANes/iberianelite.JPG

These fellows are the elites of an Iberian force. The fellow carrying the head is an Iberian Chieftain and the others are other wealthy Iberians part of his bodyguard.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQAjA34g7oZZe94sUZHldGHJ533Q568Mz8I7ZIfP!s3uRhSb!Yhc2AVW5cY72R80QLN1c3PEIicpEPLvh9nb1erw5Ph!HSDiQFc 7p7h!YQu6hdNTJbIf2kyexI6wDhOa9ecNh4FzGf!!OOEy64ypXA/iberiansvsromans.JPG

Iberian Warriors engaging Romans mix of wealthier and poorer warriors.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WwAeA6wdIYEX4gepg*xhxp7jWvUdlSXFHl5K1ejM7fVAC703oJtYfj0Cx2GwEf8cnf5KRvtXyhPKpIFRmnmlhpdpGO8TSQlsCyr 3zJhcV0ytalBVrDazo68yZx9KcLj2bxjOsxBorFw/Iberiancav.JPG

Iberian Cavalry and a Roman Equite (the in game Equites could use some work as you can see).

Revising the Current Factions Units
This is part that is a real headache since we can't easily come up with names for regiments but are basic ones would be>

Infantry:
Scutarii- The current unit does quite a good job but some Scutarii would have been armoured as well and drawn from wealther Iberians. Both units could easily be included but naming the elite version is a bit of a problem

Celt-Iberians- Celts in Iberia would really have more to do with other Iberians then Gaul to the north. Perhaps being the only Scutarii types with War Cry may work.

Iberian Infantry- Suppose they can stay representing the poorer members of Iberian society or those drawn from more remote regions and not drilled in Scutarii tactics

Missile Infantry
Caetratii- This is the general name given to Iberian Skirmishers almost entirely armed with Javelins. I might be reasonable to keep the current Skirmishers and Slingers and add these fellows in as slight better in hand to hand combat and slightly more armoured folks.

Iberian Cavalry
Well the current system here may work with some reskinning and a touch of renaming. Lesser cavalry would fight with onyl a sword and shield much like the current round shields and richer or wealther warriors fighting with spear and owning some armour.

End Notes
So the major problem with the Iberians is the lack of names for units, we have some but quickly it seems to turn into Iberian Light Cavalry or Elite Scutarii or something like that.

S.O.F

10-30-2004, 23:04

Well 1-3 isn't bad for a batting average. Anyone care to explain why folks can't edit there posts here?

Oh and Aymar if you want to throw me in with that group more a Carthage man myself though.

Stormy

10-30-2004, 23:10

Mercenary Units

Mercenary Hoplites
http://www.hat.com/Curr/bx8045.jpg

Example
http://www.hat.com/Curr/8045g.jpg
http://www.hat.com/Curr/8045h.jpg

More can be found in the links below.

Mercenary Hoplites #1 (http://www.hat.com/Curr/Curr8045a.html)

Mercenary Hoplites #2 (http://www.hat.com/Othr2/Rossi15.html)

Aymar de Bois Mauri

10-31-2004, 18:23

Well 1-3 isn't bad for a batting average. Anyone care to explain why folks can't edit there posts here?
That's because of Junior Member status. When you're Member you'll be able to edit the posts. It shouldn't take long.

Oh and Aymar if you want to throw me in with that group more a Carthage man myself though.
Hey, which ever you prefer. It's your choise. But since you posted a lot of different info I was just suggesting. It is entirelly up to you to choose the group in which you would like to work. AFAIK, it could be all of them... :grin2:

Aymar de Bois Mauri

10-31-2004, 18:25

IBERIAN ALTERATIONS:and boy do they need them.
I agree. I must repost the info I and Parmenio gathered, a couple months ago, for the Iberians. I'll repost it today.

BTW, S.O.F two pics aren't working...

Urnamma

11-01-2004, 20:00

On a side note about the Carthaginians & the Iberians...

I think they should be able to recruit Scutarii of both types. They were used in both Punic Wars by the Barcids, who knew a good thing when they saw one.

Numidian cavalry should be recruitable by Carthage. Maharbal and his numidians were easily the best light cav that Hannibal had.

Veteran Scutarii, Veteran Iberian Infantry, Elite Iberian Infantry... Any one of these names might be good for the armored scutarii.

Iberians should have a heavy cavalry. They did at Cannae, and later when Scipio Aemilianus (sp?) was in Iberia. Not quite an elite heavy, but more like macedonian cavalry stat wise. Long shields are cool, but are ultimately a light cav.

Sacred band cavalry should have higher stats (make them a 2 hp unit to reflect their being able to withstand so many years of campaigning and being trained from birth by Ishtar's priesthood). Their horses should also be barded, but only on the front end. I've seen more than one picture of this.

S.O.F

11-01-2004, 20:28

BTW, S.O.F two pics aren't working...

Hence why I complained about the lack of an Edit function for me ;)

Urnamma

11-02-2004, 03:56

Ideas for units in general:

Perhaps we could use the hidden resources to make units recruitable in certain places. For example, no gallic warbands in North Africa or no Phalangites from the steppe. Dunno if this has been discussed yet.

Ideas for new Carthaginian units:

Balearic Skirmishers: The Balearics had a great unit of javalineers, at least according to Plutarch and Livy. They doubled as effective screening and light troops. Great light infantry all around (making the cavalry rout at Trebia due to constant harrassment in concert with the slingers).

Elite African Infantry: Liby-Phoenician sword armed infantry. Many of Hannibal's veterans took Roman heavy armor, spanish swords (gladius hispanicus), and roman shields and fought like Romans, without the Pila of course. They were instrumental at Cannae in wedging the Romans in.

I think you guys already remaned the skirmishers to something more in line with their Iberian nature, right?

Maybe Poeni infantry should be renamed Liby-Phoenician Infantry. Phoenicians did not fight outside of elite units and the officer corps, according to my sources. They let the half-libyans fight though.

Sacred Band might be renamed to Sacred Band of Baal for infantry and Sacred Band of Astarte for cavalry. Gives them an archaic feel.

The Carthaginians need a temple to Astarte (Ishtar), she was one of the MAJOR deities in the pantheon. Maybe giving experience bonuses to cavalry or something (The priesthood was heavily involved in the education of the nobility and the equestrian arts). Maybe also a Happiness bonus due to... Happiness (ritual prostitution and sacred mysteries).

Urnamma

11-02-2004, 04:11

http://www.wargamer.com/greatbattles/images/alex2-39.gif

This is what the sacred band should look like. With the lamellar armor on the front of the horse.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-02-2004, 20:29

On a side note about the Carthaginians & the Iberians...

I think they should be able to recruit Scutarii of both types. They were used in both Punic Wars by the Barcids, who knew a good thing when they saw one.
Both the Iberian and Carthaginian unit rooster will be completelly remodeled.

Numidian cavalry should be recruitable by Carthage. Maharbal and his numidians were easily the best light cav that Hannibal had.
And they were also responsible for Hannibal's defeat. They will remain hirable mercenaires.

Iberians should have a heavy cavalry. They did at Cannae, and later when Scipio Aemilianus (sp?) was in Iberia. Not quite an elite heavy, but more like macedonian cavalry stat wise. Long shields are cool, but are ultimately a light cav.
Before you posted this, you could have checked our Europa Barbarorum historical thread at the Colosseum. All the information about the modifications to factions is posted there. The Iberians info is in page 4 - post#91 and in page 6 - post #162 (unit info). Please read it before you post, ok?

Sacred band cavalry should have higher stats (make them a 2 hp unit to reflect their being able to withstand so many years of campaigning and being trained from birth by Ishtar's priesthood). Their horses should also be barded, but only on the front end. I've seen more than one picture of this.
I agree on the horse barding. That was one of the planned modifications to the Carthaginians, but not regarding the 2HP. Increased HP creates more problems than it solves...

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-02-2004, 20:35

Hence why I complained about the lack of an Edit function for me ;)
Sorry. Didn't understood... :wall:

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-02-2004, 20:55

Ideas for units in general:

Perhaps we could use the hidden resources to make units recruitable in certain places. For example, no gallic warbands in North Africa or no Phalangites from the steppe. Dunno if this has been discussed yet.
Go to your PM box.

Ideas for new Carthaginian units:

Balearic Skirmishers: The Balearics had a great unit of javalineers, at least according to Plutarch and Livy. They doubled as effective screening and light troops. Great light infantry all around (making the cavalry rout at Trebia due to constant harrassment in concert with the slingers).
Didn't know that. But are they different enough from the normal skirmishers to be a specific different unit stats-wise?

Elite African Infantry: Liby-Phoenician sword armed infantry. Many of Hannibal's veterans took Roman heavy armor, spanish swords (gladius hispanicus), and roman shields and fought like Romans, without the Pila of course. They were instrumental at Cannae in wedging the Romans in.
Agreed. that neeeds to be discussed. BTW, read your PM box. :grin2:

I think you guys already remaned the skirmishers to something more in line with their Iberian nature, right?
Nope. The stats are pretty much the same. Why? Are you refering to the Iberians use of the Solifera? Skirmishers didn't use it.

Maybe Poeni infantry should be renamed Liby-Phoenician Infantry. Phoenicians did not fight outside of elite units and the officer corps, according to my sources. They let the half-libyans fight though.
Exactly. Check your PM box. :grin:

Sacred Band might be renamed to Sacred Band of Baal for infantry and Sacred Band of Astarte for cavalry. Gives them an archaic feel.
A longer name then they already have? Nope.

BTW, I've been unable to find evidence to a unit called Sacred Band Infantry. Can you find something that gives credit to CA's depiction of them?

The Carthaginians need a temple to Astarte (Ishtar), she was one of the MAJOR deities in the pantheon. Maybe giving experience bonuses to cavalry or something (The priesthood was heavily involved in the education of the nobility and the equestrian arts). Maybe also a Happiness bonus due to... Happiness (ritual prostitution and sacred mysteries).
Agreed.

[cF]HanBaal

11-03-2004, 03:37

Ideas for units in general:

Elite African Infantry: Liby-Phoenician sword armed infantry. Many of Hannibal's veterans took Roman heavy armor, spanish swords (gladius hispanicus), and roman shields and fought like Romans, without the Pila of course. They were instrumental at Cannae in wedging the Romans in.

This is yet highly disputed. I agree with the captured armour... but not sure about the rest. Polybius mentions only the following, contrary to later assumptions:
"114. The armor of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles. The shield of the Iberians and Celts was about the same size, but their swords were quite different. For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room."
from : http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html
Polybius mentions no weapons nor shields replaced by the Lybians at Cannae (nor at Trebia nor Trasimene btw), nor in fact by the Gauls or Iberians (the Iberian swords originally similar to the romans' short swords). Besides, I don't see how someone who had previously and repeatedly won with his original weapons, being thus already adapted to those same weapons for a long time (Iberian falcatas were even built differently for each individual, re his arm's length) would want to relearn how to fight with new weapons and/or armour, in such a hostile environment with no time for that re-adaptation. Finally, the best metalsmiths in Europe were later reknowned to be in Iberia (sth about the local iron qualities), so the quality of the swords on Hannibal's original army from Iberia must have been at the very least of the same quality of those of the romans. You and others might be right, but I found no reliable primary statement till today that proves your point.

---

Maybe Poeni infantry should be renamed Liby-Phoenician Infantry. Phoenicians did not fight outside of elite units and the officer corps, according to my sources. They let the half-libyans fight though.

That's wrong. In both the 1st punic war and in the 'Mercenaries/Truceless war' at least (both near RTW's starting period), it is very clear that carthaginian citizenry fought (in phalanxes) in significative numbers. It was however in special occasions and it is not known if they were, at least in small numbers, present in the mainstream carthaginian armies. IMO at least a small contingent of 'doubtless' loyal soldiers must have been present to ensure the officer's corps authority in possible tense situations with the hired mercenaries.

During the 1st punic war when Regulus had Carthage ready for siege:

"For, in addition to the misfortunes I have mentioned, the Numidians, attacking them at the same time as the Romans, inflicted not less but even more damage on the country than the latter. The terror-stricken inhabitants took refuge in the city of Carthage"
...
"When the Romans saw that the Carthaginians were marching through the flat country and pitching their camps on level ground, they were surprised indeed and somewhat disturbed by this in particular, but yet were anxious on the whole to get into contact with the enemy. Acting on this authority, he[Xantippus, the 'carthaginian' gen] sent the elephants forward and drew them up in a single line in front of the whole force, placing the Carthaginian phalanx at a suitable distance behind them. Some of the mercenaries he stationed on the right wing, while the most active he placed together with the cavalry in front of both wings"

During the 'Mercenaries/Truceless war' against the Lybians+Mercs:
"Yet, although the Carthaginians were in such straits, they first of all appointed Hanno to the command; they[carthies] next busied themselves with enrolling mercenaries and arming the citizens of military age. They also mustered and drilled their civic cavalry and got ready what ships they had left, consisting of triremes, quinqueremes and the largest of their skiffs.
...
The Carthaginians, in consequence [of being traped and sieged in Carthage itself], seeing that he [Hanno] was mismanaging matters, again appointed Hamilcar Barca to the command and dispatched him to the war on hand, giving him seventy elephants, all the additional mercenaries they had been able to collect, and the deserters from the enemy, besides their burgher forces, horse and foot, so that in all he had about ten thousand men."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html

---

The Carthaginians need a temple to Astarte (Ishtar), she was one of the MAJOR deities in the pantheon.

It's a possibility but I disagree. Astarte was a chief goddess yes, but in Tyre, Byblos and Sidon... all phoenician cities that were not under control of Carthage by 270BC. In this aspect Baal, Tanit and Melqart were correct choices, imo, by CA. In fact, some believe Tanit and Astarte are the same, being Tanit the carthaginian adopted name:

"The god held to be the most important to Carthage was the goddess Tanit, who is depicted on many Carthaginian coins. Tanit was regarded as the patroness goddess of the city and was accorded special favor by her citizens. The Greeks identified her as approximating Diana, the Moon goddess, and Persephone or Kore, for the grain and harvest. To Carthaginians she was the goddess of good fortune, the harvest, and the Moon. Tanit is equivalent to the Phoenician goddess Astarte, the mother goddess."

"Tanit is a Phoenician goddess and the chief goddess of Carthage, consort of Ba`al-Hammon. She is a goddess of fertility and of the heavens, including the stars and the moon. The roots of her name mean Serpent Lady. This name also appears to be cognate with the Egyptian Tanetu, a form of Hathor as goddess of light. The scholar S. Olyan convincingly argues that she is actually a later form of ´Asherah, although many scholars still identify her with `Ashtartu/ Astarte.

"Melqart means King of the City. As prototype of the Good King, he is primarily concerned with the health, prosperity, and general well-being of his people, rather than being an autocratic ruler. Originally the chief god of Tyre, where his consort was `Ashtart or Astronoë, his cult spread throughout the Mediterranean. He was quite popular in Carthage, Spain, and the Western (i.e., North African) colonies. Many scholars believe he is the source for the Greek Herakles (Hercules in Latin) with whom the Greeks identified him."
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/punicdei.html

------

Aymar posted:
I've been unable to find evidence to a unit called Sacred Band Infantry. Can you find something that gives credit to CA's depiction of them?

Well, 'Sacred Band' Infantry existed... but they stopped being used during the Sicilian Wars against the greeks (some decades before 270BC), following a defeat where they were wiped out to the last man, causing logical resentment and harm in the higher families/rulers/command back at home. They were a force of about 2500-3000 men, consisting of the higher nobility with the best armour, weapons, and being academy-religious trained from their youth. They probably started only serving as cavalry units with the officer corps, and not anylonger as first line meat grinder units (and thus with more chances of retreat/disengagement) to avoid another disaster. CA however decided to allow the player to re-build those infantry units since the 'technology' remained. It's up to us to decide wether or not to remove them though I somewhat agree with CA...

"Carthage had a small army of citizen soldiers who dressed and fought Greek phalanx style which at that the time was the number one military tactic. One time Carthage sent out a large citizen army of 3,000 troops to fight, this was called the Sacred Band and was highly drilled and had a high esprit de corps. The Greeks decided nothing was sacred and vanquished them. Subsequently, we no longer hear of such a large citizen army, or any other Sacred Band, or maybe the Carthaginians just decided not to tempt fate again with a name like that."
http://www.hat.com/AnciCAf.html

This last link has nice pics of models for our units btw Aymar ~;)

[cF]HanBaal

11-03-2004, 03:41

where it is:
"want to relearn how to fight with new weapons and/or armour"
should be:
"want to relearn how to fight with new weapons and/or shields"

can't edit yet sorry.... what are the requirements to become 'member' and so be able to edit my posts? :help:

sharrukin

11-03-2004, 16:50

"Just don't think too deeply and everything will make sense."
(Herman Finkers)

These are essentially name changes and unit ideas. Some of them are Wizards :bow: and others have probably already been done by someone else.
Urnamma helped with some of the greek as well.

MACEDON

LEVY PIKEMEN; Pantodapoi
LIGHT LANCERS; Prodromoi
MACEDONIAN CAVALRY; Companion Cavalry
COMPANION CAVALRY; Heterairoi Cavalry
EARLY MACEDONIAN GENERAL; removed Neither the Agema or the Companion cavalry were so lightly armoured!
MACEDONIAN GENERAL; Basilikon Agema

EGYPT

PEASANTS; removed Hellenic Kingdoms rarely if ever used untrained peasant levies, Ptolemies in particular! ? Not sure about gameplay.
NUBIAN SPEARMEN; removed
NILE SPEARMEN; Machimoi Levy Spear
DESERT AXEMEN; Machimoi axemen Armour-3 Not elite Available early
PHAROAHS GUARD; Agema Foot Guard
BOWMEN; Machimoi Archers Use cheap shortbow for levies. Available early
PHAROAHS BOWMEN; Cleruch Bowmen; These elite archers are equipped with a scale corselet and the oriental long composite bow. Armour-6=scale corselet
NUBIAN CAVALRY; removed
DESERT CAVALRY; Arab Cavalry
NILE CAVALRY; Cleruch cavalry
CAMEL ARCHERS; Arab Camel Archers; Bow with a quiver hung at the waist, and a very long sword. Would dress in a dyed tunic (probably in simple colors like various shades of brown, tan, and white, and perhaps grey) with short sleeves or without and hemmed at the knee. A cape might also be worn. Footwear (if any) would be leather sandals. Might wear a leather or cloth strand around their heads to hold their hair in place. Often with beard and mustache. The rider would sit on a checkered cloth draped over the camel. They used a stick along with a rope coiled around the camels throat to control the beast instead of a leather bridle. Dark hair often with beard and mustache
EARLY EGYPTIAN GENERAL; removed
EGYPTIAN GENERAL; Basilikon Agema
ELEPHANTS; Added
"Syrian Archers/Light Infantry [Mercenaries] =Warlock

THE SELEUCID EMPIRE

LEVY PIKEMEN; Pantodapoi
PHALANX PIKEMEN; Phalangite
SILVER SHIELD PIKEMEN;Argyraspides-Faction Ptolemy, Seleucid, Macedon, Pontus
SILVER SHIELD LEGIONARIES;Thureophoroi; Faction-Ptolemy, Seluecid, Macedon
CATAPHRACTS; (GOOD IF WE CAN USE THE SAME UNITS WITH DIFFERENT FACTION) as Parthian Lance Cataphract (no bow) Selucid's copied these from Sarmato-Persians. Long spear, sword worn over the right shoulder. Muscled iron cuirass with metal (iron) pteruges, laminated tubular arm and leg armor (iron) covering the feet but not the hands, helmet (iron) with metal mask in the form of a bearded face (the helmet could also have hair carved on to its top). The helmet could be crested with a tuft of black hair. Leather gauntlets could be worn over hands. Horse was draped in full iron armor with a brown leather strap running along the spine. Belting, bridle and straps would be brown leather decorated with bronze or silver fittings. The sword sheath and belt could have iron or bronze fittings as designs.
COMPANION CAVALRY; Heterairoi Cavalry
SCYTHED CHARIOTS; The wood would be a greyish-brown, with bands of red ornamentation, edged in white. The horses would be armored with headpiece (iron), poitrail (chest armor) in iron, and a large saddle blanket of leather or cloth (red?). The headpiece was topped by a tufted of hair. Collar and leather straps would be red, perhaps with white decorations to match the chariot body. The single crewmen was dressed similar to a Companion cavalryman except would wear a normal bronze helmet (ie, without the face mask) and might wear pant under tunic. The cuirass might be scale. Clothing colors as for infantry phalanx.

"Syrian Archers/Light Infantry [Mercenaries] =Warlock!

PONTUS
HILLMEN; See Wizards "Anatolian Hillmen"
EASTERN INFANTRY; Spear and bow with quilted armour, stats should be increased
PHALANX PIKEMEN; Phalangite
BRONZE SHIELDS; Chalkaspides
EARLY PONTIAN GENERAL; removed
PONTIAN GENERAL; Basilikon Agema

Kurdish Hillmen/Light Infantry [Mercenaries] =Warlock

GREEK CITIES

HOPLITES; Iphicratean Hoplite?
ARMOURED HOPLITES; ? The hoplite's armor--the panoply--consisted of a shield, helmet, breastplate, greaves (plate armor worn around the lower leg), sword, spear, and tunic, and weighed about seventy pounds. All this on a soldier who himself probably weighed no more than 150 pounds.
SPARTAN HOPLITES; Spartiate Hoplite
INCENDIARY PIGS; removed!!!!!!
GREEK GENERAL; Basilikon Agema

UNITS ADDED

ARGYRASPIDES; An elite formation of hypaspistai or shieldbearers. These men can almost certainly be identified with the socalled argyraspides or silvershields from the later part of Alexander's reign. These soldiers were not recruited on a territorial basis, but selected individually on merit from the taxeis of the pezhetairoi. The hypaspistai numbered three thousand men organised in three subunits of each a thousand soldiers. Argyraspides; Silver Shields,outstanding infantry troops who were capable of performing a wide range of tasks. a flexible and mobile adaption of the original Greek hoplite a relatively short spear in the right hand with the large shield. It is these units that were seen by latin writers as Imitation Legionaires

TARANTINE LIGHT CAVALRY; Tarantine Light Cavalry; These units were equipped with javelins or thrusting spears and carried little or no body armor. They were often used as prodromoi or Scouts. Their main function however was to protect the heavy cavalry and the phalanx from enemy attacks. These light cavalry usually operated in a more open formation.

Thureophoroi;Linothorax(linen armour), spear, javelin, helmet and long and narrow shield, almost almond shaped(thureos). Long spear, sword hung over right shoulder. Also are seen carrying 2 or more javelins, although not all the time. Carried an oval thureos (shield) like those carried by Galatians, or Roman legionaries, painted plain white or another pale color with no design on the front. A piece of bronze or iron covered the central front of the shield. Wore a bronze helmet, sometimes with a red crest. Bare legs, Macedonian shoes (went up over ankle, like a short boot), and tunic extending to just above the knee, short sleeved, sometimes embroidered on the neck and sleeves. Cloaks were sometimes worn. Tunics and cloaks were commonly white, red-brown, rose, blue, and ochre. Some units could be uniformed (same colored clothing, etc). All leather straps would be brown in color.

Thorakitai;Mailshirt, thureos shield, spear, Long spear, sword hung over right shoulder. Also are seen carrying 2 or more javelins, although not all the time. Carried an oval thureos (shield) like those carried by Galatians, or Roman legionaries, painted plain white or another pale color with no design on the front. A piece of bronze or iron covered the central front of the shield. Wore a bronze helmet in Macedonian design, with or without cheek pieces, probably with a crest (red crest most likely), sometimes with a red crest. Bare legs, Macedonian shoes, and tunic extending to just above the knee, short sleeved, perhaps sometimes embroidered on the neck and sleeves as for Thureophoroi. Wore a short mail shirt (without shoulder flaps). Tunics may commonly be in white, red-brown, rose, blue, and ochre (as was common amongst Thureophoroi). Some units could be uniformed (same colored clothing, etc), again as for the thureophoroi. All leather straps would be brown in color.

Galatian Mercenary; Long swords hung from a leather or iron sheath on the waist by chain or leather belt, oval/rectangle scutum shield, and perhaps with one or two spears as well. The shield would have an iron/bronze boss plate at it front center. The shield was often red or blue, although other colors were known, such as dark green. Some might have pants and a long sleeved tunic. The pants might extend only to just below the knees, or all the way to the ankle where they would be tied with leather strings. Pants might be baggy or tight. Hair might be stiffened with lime to make it stand up. Long flowing mustaches were common, and a few might also have a short beard. Hair colors were often blonde, or red, and browns. Might also wear a cloak. All clothing was of un-dyed wool (various shades of brown), could be checkered, or striped, and some might be brightly colored: purple, scarlet, brown were common. Footwear would be brown leather shoes, if worn at all. Bronze, gold, silver torc and armlets would often be worn as well. Might wear a bronze or iron helmet, perhaps with a hair crest (black most common).

Daylami Infantry; mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry.

Bactrian Spearmen, Spear and Bow

Parthia Heavy Infantry ;Spear, Bow, and Shield; "They wore soft caps called tiaras, multicoloured sleeved tunics with iron scale armour looking like the scales of fish, and trousers. Instead of aspides they carried gerrha with their bows cases slung below them. They carried short spears, large bows, cane arrows and daggers hanging from their belts beside the right thigh."
Asvaran Noble Cavalry;

Hyrcanian mountaineers; Shield and axe a sagaris, a pick-like axe The Persian battle-axe or Sagaris was Scythian in origin, not being a traditional Persian weapon The 'Sagaris' had a long slender handle with a heavy cutting or striking blade or point. Being light enough to use effectively one handed but still able to penetrate a metal helmet or armour.

Dihqan Lancers; Lance and bow. lesser knights, or dihqans, these dihqans received land and a stipend in exchange for mounted service. Throughout our period, eastern cavalry would have made widespread use of leather and felt horse bards - important when facing other nomad horse archers.

Scythian Heavy Foot; Scythian short composite bow in Gorytus bow case with 30-40 arrows. Spear as secondary weapon. Lamellar armour made of bronze plates on quilted or soft leather backing.

Roman cavalry; Metal helmets (cassides) were worn, light shields (parmae) carried and darts, or light lances or spears, were issued. With this equipment the cavalry was no match for good infantry and in fact did not have too fine a fighting record. It was at times not trusted, and occasionally in battle was unreliable and lacked discipline and courage.

Your opinion is very much wanted :help: what needs to be changed, removed or any gameplay considerations.

Urnamma

11-03-2004, 17:06

Like I said before, the axemen and the desert cavalry make about as much sense as the chariot archers. They're a Saite unit at the latest.

Macedonian cav should be given to all the Greek states and be renamed Greek medium cavalry, to reflect the good cavalry that all the Greek states had. Love the rest of the ideas.

Urnamma

11-04-2004, 03:45

As far as carthaginian citizen infantry goes, it was always of low quality. Maybe they could be the miltia unit, akin to levy pikemen.

[cF]HanBaal

11-04-2004, 05:15

As far as carthaginian citizen infantry goes, it was always of low quality.

Why so? Links? If you read Polybius you'll find that they excelled in the 2 campaigns I mentioned earlier. In more detail,

Against the romans, in that battle of the 1st punic war, they stood their own and got nearly 0 casualties:

"those [romans] who had managed to force a passage through the elephants and collect in the rear of those beasts, encounted the Carthaginian phalanx quite fresh and in good order and were cut to pieces.

It resulted that in this battle the Carthaginians lost about eight hundred of the mercenaries, who had faced the Roman left wing, while of the Romans there were saved but about two thousand"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html

While in the campaign against the rebellion of Mercs + moreLybians +Numidians, they fought greatly... mercs who were no n00bs at all:

"Some of these [mercenary] troops were Iberians, some Celts, some Ligurians, and some from the Balearic islands; there were a good many Greek half-breeds, mostly deserters and slaves, but the largest portion consisted of Libyans.
...
being convinced in their arrogance, owing to their success in Sicily against the Roman legions, that not only the Carthaginians, but any other people in the world would not readily face them in arms.
...
Mathos [Lybian rebel general], having so far carried out his purpose, at once sent envoys to the Libyan towns urging them to strike a blow for liberty and imploring their support and practical assistance. Nearly all the Libyans had agreed to join in the revolt against Carthage and willingly contributed troops and supplies.
...
The Carthaginians, in consequence, seeing that he [Hanno] was mismanaging matters, again appointed Hamilcar Barca to the command and dispatched him to the war on hand, giving him seventy elephants, all the additional mercenaries they had been able to collect, and the deserters from the enemy, besides their burgher forces, horse and foot, so that in all he had about ten thousand men.
...
Spendius [roman rebel gen], on learning what had happened, put his two forces in movement to meet in the plain and render mutual assistance to each other, those from the town near the bridge being not less than ten thousand in number and those from Utica over fifteen thousand. When they got in sight of each other, thinking that they had caught the Carthaginians in a trap between them, they exhorted each other with loud shouts and engaged the enemy...About six thousand Libyans and mercenaries fell and nearly two thousand were made prisoners.
...
He [Hamilcar] next traversed the rest of the country, winning over some towns and taking others by assault.
...
Spendius, after effecting a junction with the Libyans, descended into the plain and attacked the Carthaginians. The battle was a stubborn one, but ended in the victory of Hamilcar. Autaritus and Spendius escaped, but with the loss of about ten thousand killed and four thousand prisoners.
...
A short time afterwards, collecting a picked force of mercenaries and Libyans to the number of about fifty thousand and including Zarzas the Libyan and those under his command, tried again their former plan of marching in the open parallel to the enemy and keeping a watch on Hamilcar...Autaritus, Zarzas and Spendius decided to give themselves up to the enemy and discuss terms with Hamilcar [after he outmanouvered and trapped them]... The Libyans, when they learnt of their officers' arrest, thought they had been betrayed, as they were ignorant of the treaty, and rushed to arms, but Hamilcar, surrounding them (more than forty thousand) with his elephants and the rest of his forces, cut them all to pieces. This occurred near the place called the Saw; it got this name from its resemblance to the tool so called.

...[the Lybians were still more and were sieging Carthage, when Hamilcar arrived to besiege the besieged]

They appointed a committee of thirty senators and dispatched them to Hamilcar accompanied by Hanno, the general who had previously retired from command, but now resumed it, and by all their remaining citizens of military age, whom they had armed as a sort of forlorn hope...When they were each ready to attack, they drew up their armies confronting each other and at a preconcerted signal closed. The Carthaginians gained the victory, most of the Libyans falling in the battle, while the rest escaped to a certain city and soon afterwards surrendered, but Mathos himself was taken by the enemy."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html

As you see urnamma, carthaginian citizens fought exemplarly against an OVERWHELMING outnumbering enemy who, according to Polybius, numbered up to 100.000 in total.... Hamilcar had 10.000 to start, many among them exactly 'mere' carthaginian citizens. And no, I'm not talking of the 'Sacred Band' units who were highly trained in academy-religious temples (thus also highly moralised), with the best weapons-armour available and suposedly extinct by these times ... or were they? ~;)

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-04-2004, 15:56

HanBaal']Aymar posted:
I've been unable to find evidence to a unit called Sacred Band Infantry. Can you find something that gives credit to CA's depiction of them?

Well, 'Sacred Band' Infantry existed... but they stopped being used during the Sicilian Wars against the greeks (some decades before 270BC), following a defeat where they were wiped out to the last man, causing logical resentment and harm in the higher families/rulers/command back at home. They were a force of about 2500-3000 men, consisting of the higher nobility with the best armour, weapons, and being academy-religious trained from their youth. They probably started only serving as cavalry units with the officer corps, and not anylonger as first line meat grinder units (and thus with more chances of retreat/disengagement) to avoid another disaster. CA however decided to allow the player to re-build those infantry units since the 'technology' remained. It's up to us to decide wether or not to remove them though I somewhat agree with CA...

"Carthage had a small army of citizen soldiers who dressed and fought Greek phalanx style which at that the time was the number one military tactic. One time Carthage sent out a large citizen army of 3,000 troops to fight, this was called the Sacred Band and was highly drilled and had a high esprit de corps. The Greeks decided nothing was sacred and vanquished them. Subsequently, we no longer hear of such a large citizen army, or any other Sacred Band, or maybe the Carthaginians just decided not to tempt fate again with a name like that."
http://www.hat.com/AnciCAf.html
Well. OK. I'm willing to keep them, but I'm going to rework the unit graphics of the SBI.

As for the deity questions, you both ([cF]HanBaal and Urnamma) better decide between yourselves because I'm getting lost here... :confused: ...I'll trust your knowledge and good judgment. :wink:

HanBaal']This last link has nice pics of models for our units btw Aymar ~;)
Indeed. But some of these have already been posted by Stormy in the EB thread.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-04-2004, 16:11

S.O.F

11-04-2004, 16:49

SUCESSOR NOTES

Sharrukin coverd this pretty well just a few more notes.

Eastern Phalanx: Seleucids and Pontus most certainly had to draw a great deal from the local populace to fill the Phalanx ranks. Certainly some regiments would be kept at the highest percentage of Hellenic Phalangites but adding in an lesser Eastern version seems senseable, the regiment would of course require a reskinning so the Phalangite is wearing pants (How barbaric ~;) ).

Ptolemaic Egypt Composition: The current Egypt is just terrible but putting it along the lines of the other Sucessors is a good idea. Some of the current units can be alter to fit since locals would have been used to fill out the ranks. Desert Axemen could be de-elited as already stated, reskinned and just made to be some local levies. Ethnic Cavalry of some sort would be drawn from the Egyptian populace as well. Nubians are not all to out of place certainly much like rules of egypt before and after Nubian/Sudanese would be brought up the nile serving as Auxillaries, perhaps realagation to a mercenary unit would be in order.

Perhaps a bit more later, generally the Sucessors are a poorly covered lot while Alexander gets countless books. The Sucessor wars are certainly more interesting then those of Alexander but that is just me.

sharrukin

11-04-2004, 16:58

I was thinking about what Urnnama said and I think he was right. The battle axe unit isn't historical for the time period. I might use the unit as a Parthian unit of axemen from the east where axes were more popular than they were in northern europe. The Nubians were not used as far as I have been able to find out. We can use them in an earlier or later mod.
I agree, Alexander was a Great general but a little perspective, maybe?

Dead Moroz

11-04-2004, 17:00

Ethnic Cavalry of some sort would be drawn from the Egyptian populace as well.
Are we gonna use this terrible name - "Ethnic Cavalry"? :dizzy2:

Ranika

11-04-2004, 17:02

What about Native or just Egyptian cavalry?

sharrukin

11-04-2004, 17:07

NILE CAVALRY; Cleruch cavalry
NILE SPEARMEN; Machimoi Levy Spear
BOWMEN; Machimoi Archers
PHAROAHS BOWMEN; Cleruch Bowmen

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-04-2004, 17:11

SUCESSOR NOTES

Sharrukin coverd this pretty well just a few more notes.

Eastern Phalanx: Seleucids and Pontus most certainly had to draw a great deal from the local populace to fill the Phalanx ranks. Certainly some regiments would be kept at the highest percentage of Hellenic Phalangites but adding in an lesser Eastern version seems senseable, the regiment would of course require a reskinning so the Phalangite is wearing pants (How barbaric ~;) ).
That can be made. Or are you just joking? :confused:

Ptolemaic Egypt Composition: The current Egypt is just terrible but putting it along the lines of the other Sucessors is a good idea. Some of the current units can be alter to fit since locals would have been used to fill out the ranks. Desert Axemen could be de-elited as already stated, reskinned and just made to be some local levies. Ethnic Cavalry of some sort would be drawn from the Egyptian populace as well. Nubians are not all to out of place certainly much like rules of egypt before and after Nubian/Sudanese would be brought up the nile serving as Auxillaries, perhaps realagation to a mercenary unit would be in order.
Thanks for the added info. BTW, in the Alpha 0.2 some of the Egyptian stats have been altered, specially the naked Desert Axemen that had 20 Armour!!! :stunned:

They don't have it anymore. An interim, while we don't make the more substantial changes.

BTW, you would like to focus in what factions? I want to add you to the EB Workgroup list. :grin:

Urnamma

11-04-2004, 19:01

Native cavalry - does anyone else think they should have spears?

Urnamma

11-04-2004, 20:14

Here's my revised Carthaginian Unit List, as per [cF]HanBaal's constructive criticisms:

Spanish Sword = Gladius Hispanicus

Barracks Units:
No Peasants! => Phoenician Citizens are too precious!
Town Militia => Poeni Citizen Militia: A basic militia pike unit. Has Sarissa, small round shield, and is dressed in a white tunic with linen Cuirass. Low discipline, not very high stats (think levy pikemen). They were not highly trained soldiers, just defenders of their city. This is to reflect what Adrian Goldswarthy and Theodore Mommsen say about most Punic
citizen phalanxes.

Militia Barracks Units:
Iberian infantry => Should have white tunic with purple trim and red crest on helmet. Did they have leather armor? I would think they'd be too poor.

City Barracks Units:
Libyan Spearmen => Should have Linen cuirass. Helmet is fine, shield should be fine... might need to change it to a scutum... I found conflicting reports of their shields.. White tunic.

Carthaginian Scutarii => Should have spanish sword, scutum, javelins. Leather armor with chest plate. White tunic with purple trim and red crest on helmet. Close order formation,
less attack & morale, higher discipline than Iberian Scutarii.

Army Barracks Units:
Liby-Phoenician Infantry => The standard african phalanx of the Carthaginians. Of mixed blood, they were somewhat loyal to the State, rather than being simply paid mercenaries. (Going from Poeni Infantry model): Helmets are fine. I'd go ahead and give them chain armor. It'll help balance things out, and since they used both chain and linen... I do believe that home produced mail was available after the first Punic War.

Royal Barracks Units:
Elite African Infantry => Should have Roman Helmets and mail armor. Spanish Scutum & Sword. (Sources, Adrian Goldswarthy 'The Punic Wars',Theodore Mommsen) White tunic with gold border and gold crest on helm. (Signifying that they are the general's picked infantry) (Sources: Appian, Arachnion (an italian ancient history journal)). Great troops, as good as Roman legionaries.

Along with Awesome Temple of Baal:
Sacred Band Phalanx: (working from current model of sacred band) remove Corinthian helmet. Replace it with something like the ingame Spartan hoplites wear. Replace the shields and give them small ones. Give them Sarissa for they are pikemen. Here’s your elite Carthaginian citizens, [cF]HanBaal

Cavalry:

Stables Units:
Round Shield Cavalry => should just have leather armor. No chest plate. Should have falcata, not Spanish Sword. Tunic should have purple border with red crest on helm.

2nd Level Stables Units:
Long Shield Cav => Shield should be Scutum. Rest is fine how it is, aside from maybe a tunic and crest change to purple and red respectively.

Elephants => No Change

3rd Level Stables Units:
Carthaginian Burgher Cavalry => Should have linen Cuirass, metal helmet. No shield, has lance. White crest on helm. White tunic. No greaves.

War Elephants => No Change

Royal Cavalry Stables:
Sacred Band Cavalry (with awesome temple of Astarte) => White tunic with gold border. Armor should be lacquered white, as should greaves. Horse should be barded with white lamellar. Helmet should be metal, white. Gold plume on helm. Black horses (for contrast) would look cool as hell. Stats should be increased slightly. These were an elite within an elite.

Armored Elephants => No change

Missile Units:

Practice range:
Skirmishers => Fine how they are. Need an Iberian name prefaced by Carthaginian. White tunic with purple border.

Archery Range:
Balearic Slingers => look same as current Carthaginian slingers. Same stats as Balearics in game. White tunic with green border, I think. Check your Polybius, Livy.

Catapult Range:
Balearic Light Infantry =>
Have leather armor. Carries javelins. High Missile attack (like their slinger counterparts). Carries Sword and small shield, NOT knife. Leather helmet. Same tunic as above if appropriate.

Some sort of siege engines would also be appropriate.

Building Changes:
Well, if there's anything I can assert authority on it is religion. I'm writing my thesis on ancient near eastern religions. Astarte and Tanit are distinct. Astarte is the consort of Milquart, and Tanit of Baal (-Hammon is superfluous). If you want me to go into a complicated explanation about how the Phoenicians confused the Syraic and Sumero-Akkadian/Babylonian pantheon, I will. Also, they were distinct from the Canaanites in that the Canaanites (at least the Philistines and the Sherdan sea people) believed that the consorts were switched around. Baal with Astarte and Tanit with Milquart. Here's what I think the stats should be:

Levels: 1 +10% to happiness
2 +20% to happiness
3 +30% to happiness, +1 to mounted troops
4 +40% to happiness, +2 to mounted troops
Allows construction of Sacred Band Cavalry (along with Royal Stables). This reflects its doubling as a school for the equestrian nobility. Remember, the sacred band is the property of the Goddess, having been spared from sacrifice. They are trained from birth. They're the units most loyal to the State.

Aqueducts: (a huge city like Carthage with advanced city planning would have something similar)

Execution square could be changed to Sacrificial Site of Moloch, then Large Sacrificial Site, then Huge Sacrificial site... You get the picture. Same effect. Moloch sacrifice of children was common in Carthage.

I think that all other Gallic and Iberian units recruited by Carthage should be made mercenaries to reflect their off and on status in Carthaginian armies. Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen wouldn't be that bad though..

Urnamma

11-04-2004, 20:15

Just a Post Script: No archers, there is no evidence that they used them that I've ever seen.

Urnamma

11-04-2004, 20:17

Hehe, I just keep adding to this. At Komumbo in Southern Egypt and at the Temple of Isis at Elephantine, there were inscriptions of Nubian soldiers from Ptolemaic times. I know, because I was there. They were used as skirmishers/archers. No phalanx. They had tunics on of some type, and beaded hair. No flat top haircuts or Zulu gear. Whether we add them or not, it doesn't matter to me, but they did exist during the reign of the Ptolemies.

S.O.F

11-04-2004, 20:31

That can be made. Or are you just joking? :confused:

Well the end bit was a joke, being it quite strange to the modern person that the wearing of pants be considered barbaric which was the case in the ancient world.

BTW, you would like to focus in what factions? I want to add you to the EB Workgroup list. :grin:

I suppose you can stick me on the Sucessor, Carthage, Iberians, Germanics, and Dacians mainly. Probably be able to spout stuff off on just about any other faction as well.

[cF]HanBaal

11-05-2004, 21:19

First of all, nice effort building up a list with so many details :thumbsup: . I will though put some questions and suggestions (first for the units, later for the buildings), that I hope you (and others) can agree or refute:

Town Militia => Poeni Citizen Militia: A basic militia pike unit. Has Sarissa, small round shield, and is dressed in a white tunic with linen Cuirass. Low discipline, not very high stats (think levy pikemen). They were not highly trained soldiers, just defenders of their city. This is to reflect what Adrian Goldswarthy and Theodore Mommsen say about most Punic
citizen phalanxes.

Can you quote them on the sarissa? Preferably with reliable PRIMARY sources... for some reason I find modern scholars making up or assuming quite often to have sth new to write their own 'historical' books...Till today I haven't found a reliable primary source quoting who mentions sarissas or any pikes among the carthaginian phalanxes, only assumptions.

---

Militia Barracks Units:
Iberian infantry => Should have white tunic with purple trim and red crest on helmet. Did they have leather armor? I would think they'd be too poor.

Also known, and probably more apropriate, as Iberian Caetrati (Caetra was the name of the small round shield). Agree with the white tunic with purple trim... but why the red in the crest? Their helmets varied a LOT and oftenly didn't even have a crest. Those who had a red one were probably captured from a dead roman ~:) . For protection, they very usually had a circular bronze/metal plate for the chest (where the draws in it varied a lot), and when affordable bronze/metal greaves and a bronze/metal belt... here CA depicted them quite well with exception for the obvious need of a falcata instead of the gladius and the need of a throwing javelin. Here's a nice pic:
http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_ofrenda_01.jpg

Also nice models here:
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.asp?manu=HaT&code=8058

---

Carthaginian Scutarii => Should have spanish sword, scutum, javelins. Leather armor with chest plate. White tunic with purple trim and red crest on helmet. Close order formation,
less attack & morale, higher discipline than Iberian Scutarii.

Where's scutum I hope you don't mean the rectangular roman one but a oval one like the celts' common shields. Same doubts with the crest. Imo, MAJOR POINTS: Overall less charge and speed than the Caetrati but more defense and discipline. Very important is changing their primary weapon to a spear, that they combined with the soliferra (all metal javelin) to pin the enemy's main battle line. The feared falcatas (most of them used these but some used more straight swords like the gladius) were used for close (disordered) combat afterwards or on ambushes. Finally, why distinguish them from the Iberian Scutari? They were one and the same, drawed exactly from the same locations. Here'a nice pic:

http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_guerrero_01.jpg
Excelent depiction of an Hannibal's Iberian Scutari Infantryman by Jeff Burn

Also present in the models' link I showed above for the Caetrati.

---

Army Barracks Units:
Liby-Phoenician Infantry => The standard african phalanx of the Carthaginians. Of mixed blood, they were somewhat loyal to the State, rather than being simply paid mercenaries. (Going from Poeni Infantry model): Helmets are fine. I'd go ahead and give them chain armor. It'll help balance things out, and since they used both chain and linen... I do believe that home produced mail was available after the first Punic War.

I completely agree with this one. They used a mix of chain (for the abdomen zone) and linen (for the upper body) indeed as the pics below for the Elite guys will show.

---

Royal Barracks Units:
Elite African Infantry => Should have Roman Helmets and mail armor. Spanish Scutum & Sword. (Sources, Adrian Goldswarthy 'The Punic Wars',Theodore Mommsen) White tunic with gold border and gold crest on helm. (Signifying that they are the general's picked infantry) (Sources: Appian, Arachnion (an italian ancient history journal)). Great troops, as good as Roman legionaries.

Well, I have presented before my LARGE doubts of their changing of primary weapon to the sword since Polybius, the only existing main source of those days never mentions it when describing the armies at Cannae, only refering to the armor as being captured from the romans. Honestly I don't see how he would 'forget' that mention while he was talking about that exact subject. Don't misundertand me though since those african troops always carried with them a short sword from the start that became their primary weapon for the ambushes and for close/disordered combat.... But since you insist I can go on with you in this one, on the condition you remove the roman helmets! That was a blasphemy! Oh, and I would daresay "better than Roman legionaries" ~;)

Here's nice pics for our models:
http://www.hat.com/Curr/fu8020a.jpg
"The man to the left is wearing mail armor of the Roman type, most probably taken off a dead Roman foe. Roman armor was excellent (copied from the Celts) and required some skill to make. When Hannibal took his army and war into Italy he massacred plenty of Romans, excellent armor notwithstanding and replaced all his worn and broken armor with the spoils (ironically, though only one dead Roman was needed for a change of armor, two dead Romans were need for new greaves as each Roman only wore one greave, on the lead leg). The Carthaginians however kept the rest of their gear. The man on the top right wears linen armor."

http://www.hat.com/Curr/fu8020b.jpg
"Three of our Carthaginians carrys spears, only when his spear was broken or when he was drawn into close combat did he draw his sword (above left)."

from: http://www.hat.com/AnciCAf.html

As you said, one can see for the carthaginian original soldier that they (nr2) wore a mix of linen armour and chain armour (for the abdomen/balls zone), while others (nr4) wore what seems to be a mix of bronze (for the whole body) and linen but I'd go for the nr2 as our basic model.

---

Along with Awesome Temple of Baal:
Sacred Band Phalanx: (working from current model of sacred band) remove Corinthian helmet. Replace it with something like the ingame Spartan hoplites wear. Replace the shields and give them small ones. Give them Sarissa for they are pikemen. Here’s your elite Carthaginian citizens, [cF]HanBaal

There's no description details, afaik, on what they really looked like so where did you based your changes on? To be honest I find them pretty cool with those helmets and large shields ~:).

===========================

Cavalry:

Stables Units:
Round Shield Cavalry => should just have leather armor. No chest plate. Should have falcata, not Spanish Sword. Tunic should have purple border with red crest on helm.

Same doubts with the crest and the lack of chest plate. Ok with the rest.

---

2nd Level Stables Units:
Long Shield Cav => Shield should be Scutum. Rest is fine how it is, aside from maybe a tunic and crest change to purple and red respectively.

Ok, aside from the red in crest.

----

3rd Level Stables Units:
Carthaginian Burgher Cavalry => Should have linen Cuirass, metal helmet. No shield, has lance. White crest on helm. White tunic. No greaves.

Hmm you described a light cav comparable perhaps to the Long Shield one. I think this should be available in the 2nd Level with similar stats but perhaps more morale due to loyalty.

And for the 3rd level comes my MAIN suggestion in units. Iberian Heavy Cav. It's an obvious blunder by CA since Long shield cav is ultimately a light cav. The suposedly 'Sacred Band Cavalry' units CA brags about that subsisted with Hannibal in his iberian/gaul/italian campaign for 17 years ... were Iberian. There are no records of 'Sacred Band Cavalry' crossing the Alps (aparts probably from the officer corps). All ancient descriptions mention of Iberian Heavy Cavalry and Numidian light cav doing so, to the total number of 6000 (which were what varies but it is common to say 4000 were Numidian). It were those 2000 Heavy Iberian Cav that at Cannae (virtually with no losses till there) deployed as the first line of Hannibal's left flank. The other Gallic medium/heavy cav deployed behind them. Considering the almost immediate routing/crush effect they performed on the roman flank, and later in the roman rear, one has no doubts of their high efficiency. I even dare to add that these cav units were Hannibal's favourite force. Till the day Hasdrubal (his brother in law) died and Hannibal took command in Iberia as general.... Hannibal was the cav commander and with extraordinary reputation.

---

Royal Cavalry Stables:
Sacred Band Cavalry (with awesome temple of Astarte) => White tunic with gold border. Armor should be lacquered white, as should greaves. Horse should be barded with white lamellar. Helmet should be metal, white. Gold plume on helm. Black horses (for contrast) would look cool as hell. Stats should be increased slightly. These were an elite within an elite.

Nice description. Those should look a beauty ~:) . Is there any way to restrain the Sacred Band units to be buildable only in Carthage? That would be great to avoid high numbers of them in the fields. After all, as you said, they were "elite within an elite" ... and from the carthaginian homeland higher nobility I might add.

---

Balearic Light Infantry =>
Have leather armor. Carries javelins. High Missile attack (like their slinger counterparts). Carries Sword and small shield, NOT knife. Leather helmet. Same tunic as above if appropriate.

Totally agree here. Hannibal's light inf was very useful in Italy and that was another of the hard lessons the romans learnt. Wether in Trebia (where they helped rout the enemy cav flanks) or in Cannae (where they were crucial to complete the double-envelopment of the LARGE roman 'meatball') they proved of great worth in close combat too. Both these Iberian javelineers and perhaps even the Balearic Slingers should have the feared falcatas. Here's a nice pic:

http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_honderos_01.jpg

I have a suggestion though to avoid overcrowding. We could mix this Balearic Light Infantry and the Iberian Caetrati since both were the top light infantry/skirmishers and both were 'Iberians'. Add the javelin(s) to the Caetrati, as they should, and we have a pretty similar unit.

Hope we agree on most things :wink:

Urnamma

11-05-2004, 22:31

Can you quote them on the sarissa? Preferably with reliable PRIMARY sources... for some reason I find modern scholars making up or assuming quite often to have sth new to write their own 'historical' books...Till today I haven't found a reliable primary source quoting who mentions sarissas or any pikes among the carthaginian phalanxes, only assumptions.

In the first Punic war, a Spartan general reorganized the Carthaginian army and itroduced the Sarissa. I forget which text I read it in... I don't think it's in English. I am absolutely sure they were pikemen though. Mommsen can almost be considered a primary source. He is THE God of Roman history. Besides that, he died before a book on history would have really made you much money. He did it for his love of classical antiquity.

Also known, and probably more apropriate, as Iberian Caetrati (Caetra was the name of the small round shield). Agree with the white tunic with purple trim... but why the red in the crest? Their helmets varied a LOT and oftenly didn't even have a crest. Those who had a red one were probably captured from a dead roman . For protection, they very usually had a circular bronze/metal plate for the chest (where the draws in it varied a lot), and when affordable bronze/metal greaves and a bronze/metal belt... here CA depicted them quite well with exception for the obvious need of a falcata instead of the gladius and the need of a throwing javelin. Here's a nice pic:

We'll go with your info, it's more informed than mine on this. The red crest was to differentiate them as Carthaginian troops. Don't remember where I heard that.

Where's scutum I hope you don't mean the rectangular roman one but a oval one like the celts' common shields. Same doubts with the crest. Imo, MAJOR POINTS: Overall less charge and speed than the Caetrati but more defense and discipline. Very important is changing their primary weapon to a spear, that they combined with the soliferra (all metal javelin) to pin the enemy's main battle line. The feared falcatas (most of them used these but some used more straight swords like the gladius) were used for close (disordered) combat afterwards or on ambushes. Finally, why distinguish them from the Iberian Scutari? They were one and the same, drawed exactly from the same locations.

Aymar said they should be differentiated somewhat. I was thinking along that line, and that Carthaginian officers would 'whip them into shape' so to speak when it comes to discipline and battle order.

Well, I have presented before my LARGE doubts of their changing of primary weapon to the sword since Polybius, the only existing main source of those days never mentions it when describing the armies at Cannae, only refering to the armor as being captured from the romans. Honestly I don't see how he would 'forget' that mention while he was talking about that exact subject. Don't misundertand me though since those african troops always carried with them a short sword from the start that became their primary weapon for the ambushes and for close/disordered combat.... But since you insist I can go on with you in this one, on the condition you remove the roman helmets! That was a blasphemy!

Roman helmets removed, sword kept. Give and take. ~;)

There's no description details, afaik, on what they really looked like so where did you based your changes on? To be honest I find them pretty cool with those helmets and large shields .

There aren't any descriptions, granted. But... The Corinthian helmet was out of general use in the timeperiod. Since they were pikemen, and not spearmen, they would have used the smaller shields. I like the way they look too, but not at the expense of them being somewhat realistic. I was tempted to call them Elite Citizen Infantry, but decided Sacred Band sounded cooler, and since we have no way of knowing either way, could stay. Aymar has the final say on this though...

And for the 3rd level comes my MAIN suggestion in units. Iberian Heavy Cav. It's an obvious blunder by CA since Long shield cav is ultimately a light cav. The suposedly 'Sacred Band Cavalry' units CA brags about that subsisted with Hannibal in his iberian/gaul/italian campaign for 17 years ... were Iberian. There are no records of 'Sacred Band Cavalry' crossing the Alps (aparts probably from the officer corps). All ancient descriptions mention of Iberian Heavy Cavalry and Numidian light cav doing so, to the total number of 6000 (which were what varies but it is common to say 4000 were Numidian). It were those 2000 Heavy Iberian Cav that at Cannae (virtually with no losses till there) deployed as the first line of Hannibal's left flank. The other Gallic medium/heavy cav deployed behind them. Considering the almost immediate routing/crush effect they performed on the roman flank, and later in the roman rear, one has no doubts of their high efficiency. I even dare to add that these cav units were Hannibal's favourite force. Till the day Hasdrubal (his brother in law) died and Hannibal took command in Iberia as general.... Hannibal was the cav commander and with extraordinary reputation.

Then lets get rid of the burghers and give them Iberian Cavalry! Describe them, man!

Nice description. Those should look a beauty . Is there any way to restrain the Sacred Band units to be buildable only in Carthage? That would be great to avoid high numbers of them in the fields. After all, as you said, they were "elite within an elite" ... and from the carthaginian homeland higher nobility I might add.

I think there is a way to make them only available in Carthage. Thanks for the compliment :bow:

I have a suggestion though to avoid overcrowding. We could mix this Balearic Light Infantry and the Iberian Caetrati since both were the top light infantry/skirmishers and both were 'Iberians'. Add the javelin(s) to the Caetrati, as they should, and we have a pretty similar unit.

I don't know about this... The Balearics were a seperate culture from the Iberians... And they were better skirmishers per se (insofar as we are only describing javelin throwing and skirmishing). This is probably our only contention..

[cF]HanBaal

11-05-2004, 23:12

Still on the units and that you spoke only in the end of your post:

I think that all other Gallic and Iberian units recruited by Carthage should be made mercenaries to reflect their off and on status in Carthaginian armies. Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen wouldn't be that bad though..

I disagree. Carthage had Iberian territories from where to recruit troops, though they were payed as if mercenaries and directly lead by one of their own people (as the numidians btw). Carthage did not held any Gallic territories from where to recruit so your idea of a "Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen" seems way off...

=================

Building Changes:
Astarte and Tanit are distinct. Astarte is the consort of Milquart, and Tanit of Baal (-Hammon is superfluous. Baal with Astarte and Tanit with Milquart.

Hmm I'll go with you. And are you suggesting 4 deities for Carthage? If not we must decide yourself which 3 will be final and I don't think leaving Baal and Tanit out is advisable. These 2 were the 2 chief deites in Carthage. Remember that Carthage by 270BC has nothing to do with Tyre... where Melqart and Astarte were the chief deites but NOT in Carthage. Coins and many other proofs show that Tanit was the chief goddess of Carthage, and the consort of Baal-Hammon:

Here's another source that backs my last assertion:
"The chief deity was Baal Hammon, the community's divine lord and protector, who was identified by the Greeks with Cronus and by the Romans with Saturn. During the 5th century a goddess named Tanit (the equivalent (not the same then but just equivalent ~;) ) of the Phoenician goddess Astarte) came to be widely worshipped and represented in art. It is possible that her name is Libyan and that her popularity was connected with the acquisition of land in the interior, as she is associated with symbols of fertility. These two overshadow other deities such as Melqart, principal deity of Tyre, identified with Heracles, and Eshmoun, identified with Asclepius."

from: http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-religion.htm
(this is a nice link with MANY other external links and sources on this issue btw)

If you insist with Astarte and if it is possible, we can put in the 4 deities then. And perhaps making the same temple as the prerequisit for both the SB Inf and Cav units would be advisable too....it wouldn't be necessary if it was possible to build more than one kind of temple per city. Is it doable though? If not, we can adopt your suggested atributes for mounted troops to Melqart also:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Graphics/PunBasel_564_ha.jpg
Obv. head of Melqart
Rev. head horse; in field palm tree; in Punic script 'ommachanat' (= in the camp or people of the camp, meaning army headquarters)

---

Aqueducts: (a huge city like Carthage with advanced city planning would have something similar)

Agreed but not aqueducts. Carthage's system was one of underground LARGE and numerous cisterns who kept waters in great quantities (excelent to prevent long draughts and long sieges) and distributed water all around. Here's something about that and the planned urbanization of Carthage you also refered:

"Archaeologists think that Carthage had an ‘urban’ character very early in its history and the arrangement of houses suggests that, by the end of the 8th century, there was already an urban plan in existence. This means Carthage was probably a planned city from the start, rather than being built up bit by bit in a higgledy-piggledy way. Evidence suggests that many Phoenicians cities were built or rebuilt to plans, particularly from the beginning of the fifth century.
...
There was also a coastal residential district, with formal street planning. The Greek historian Diodorus speaks of wealthy estates, which were well-irrigated and planted with vines, olives and fruit trees.
...
Because Carthage was later completely destroyed by Rome, little evidence has been found for the city. None of the temples on the Acropolis survive, but archaeologists have excavated a house on the Byrsa Hill. It dates from a period covering 200 years, from the eighth to the sixth centuries BC. When it was built, it consisted of a long rectangular building. There was a large enclosed courtyard at the front with a man-made well and four rooms at the back. The walls were made of mudbrick and were built on top of a stone foundation. The interior of the house was reorganized a number of times. It was probably two stories high and the roof would have been made of baked clay tiles. Archaeologists found evidence that offerings to the gods had been placed with the foundation. These were a clay oil lamp and pottery bowl and later a ceramic bottle was added, possibly with a burnt offering inside.

Other excavations in Carthage have shown that houses usually had a central courtyard with a well or impluvium (stone basin for collecting rainwater) in the centre. Rainwater was then stored underground. A colonnade would have surrounded the courtyard and led to the rooms of the house. Basic plumbing was usually present as a stone channel, which carried sewage into the street gutters.

A house would have had a kitchen which was usually long and narrow and would have had a hearth in one corner. The bedrooms were small and windowless and may have been upstairs. Houses would probably have had store rooms, service quarters and possibly shops at the front of the house. Archaeologists think that there were also multistory housing blocks. They have worked this out by studying the thickness of house walls, the number and capacity of underground cisterns under each house and the amounts of mosaic pavement material which must have come from at least two stories. The Greek historian Appian mentions buildings of six storeys."

As you see, instead of aqueducts I suggest Underground (Large) Cisterns.. maybe 2 new levels for small and large cisterns?

---

Execution square could be changed to Sacrificial Site of Moloch, then Large Sacrificial Site, then Huge Sacrificial site... You get the picture. Same effect. Moloch sacrifice of children was common in Carthage.

And this I disagree. The sacrifice of children in Carthage is yet to be proved, contrary to what many sources say, and in the light of the evidence we have I believe there was no premeditated killings of children. Here's a self-explanatory article:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Carthage-child-sacrifice.htm

Conclusions one can take from the evidences available to us:

- Polybius, especially, and Livy too(though this is not so reliable once he was an 'enemy' of Carthage and born almost 100 years after Carthage's destruction) are the two most ancient and reliable sources and neither mentioned the issue. Both had no reasons to hide something so hedious about Carthage... quite the contrary;

-the assumption of the child sacrifice came later, way later, and was backed up by romans;

-the 'famous' bronze image of Cronus "extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire" was in fact made up by Diodorus (the one who started the carthaginian myth) who "was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths, specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king's enemies were roasted alive";

-not even one inscription mentioned the deliberate killing of the child

-foreigners' inscripted vows exhisted and I agree definitely they wouldn't 'offer' their healthy child just because they were passing through

-born dead or young obituaries were considered to be 'recalled' by Baal to his 'home' for being special, and so it would be a dishonor to the Gods to be buried in a normal cemetery (and several other religions happen to do this too)

- the archaelogical discoveries that mention 20.000 urns in a timespan of at least 200 years are far from conclusive contrary to some people. In a large population such as Carthage (700.000 in its end but thought to have more than 1.000.000 in its zenith) plus the inumerous foreigners that also made their 'sacrifices' this is NOT a large number. In fact, it backs the idea that they were 'premature deaths' or 'born deads' with a special burial, coz medical technology was far less evolved than today and they occured much more than today. If you make your math those were less than 2 a week...

Add these facts to the known hate romans had towards Carthage and their desperate try to find morale excuses after the destruction of the city and the consequent genocide of its population when they represented no risk whatsoever to them. A 'moral' possible excuse to do it, even if made up, was very welcome to excuse the roman barbaric unmerciful act at the eyes of the other local/regional populations(especially the subjugated ones who could revolt) and to enhance their 'civilised' superior (aka nazism) wannabe status.

Ranika

11-05-2004, 23:22

I imagine this has been discussed elsewhere, as I've seen Carnyx descriptions, but the Carnyx should at least accompany Gallic generals, if not most units. My question is, are their horse mounted officers? I imagine so, as there are horse mounted commanders for armies without generals, but I don't know if those operate the same way 'officers' do in the export_unit file.

Urnamma

11-05-2004, 23:27

I disagree. Carthage had Iberian territories from where to recruit troops, though they were payed as if mercenaries and directly lead by one of their own people (as the numidians btw). Carthage did not held any Gallic territories from where to recruit so your idea of a "Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen" seems way off...

Ok, I'll take your word for it on this one. Don't know a lot about the Gauls, just know that they were in Hannibal's army. There should definitely be more Gallic mercenary types then... Vanilla barbarian mercenaries suck.

Hmm I'll go with you. And are you suggesting 4 deities for Carthage? If not we must decide yourself which 3 will be final and I don't think leaving Baal and Tanit out is advisable. These 2 were the 2 chief deites in Carthage. Remember that Carthage by 270BC has nothing to do with Tyre... where Melqart and Astarte were the chief deites but NOT in Carthage. Coins and many other proofs show that Tanit was the chief goddess of Carthage, and the consort of Baal-Hammon:

Yes, I'm suggesting four deities. The suggestion about the temples producing both sacred bands... Remember, each sacred band was 'of a particular God'. Cavalry belonged to Astarte, Infantry belonged to Baal, essentially.

Agreed but not aqueducts. Carthage's system was one of underground LARGE and numerous cisterns who kept waters in great quantities (excelent to prevent long draughts and long sieges) and distributed water all around. Here's something about that and the planned urbanization of Carthage you also refered:

Good info! I know they didn't have aquaducts, but I was thinking that since they were such an advanced city, their building tree should reflect it. I think we should work on this next. If you need any help with the Iberian building tree, I always love researching stuff I don't know already.

And this I disagree. The sacrifice of children in Carthage is yet to be proved, contrary to what many sources say, and in the light of the evidence we have I believe there was no premeditated killings of children.

Well, I know the mainland Phoenicians had the sacrifices... I know they did happen at some point in Carthage too. Some historians have posited that they contiued in Carthage after they were ended in Tyre. I was just thinking about something that could replace the moronic 'Secret Police' set of buildings.

[cF]HanBaal

11-06-2004, 01:28

In the first Punic war, a Spartan general reorganized the Carthaginian army and itroduced the Sarissa. I forget which text I read it in...

Don't bother searching mate. Go to the primary source (Polybius, the single existing main source of those times) that the other 'historians' base their assumptions from:

from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html

"Just about this time there arrived at Carthage one of the recruiting-officers they had formerly dispatched to Greece, bringing a considerable number of soldiers and among them a certain Xanthippus of Lacedaemon, a man who had been brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience.
...
Acting on this authority, he sent the elephants forward and drew them up in a single line in front of the whole force, placing the Carthaginian phalanx at a suitable distance behind them. Some of the mercenaries he stationed on the right wing, while the most active he placed together with the cavalry in front of both wings."

According to the main sources, they formed a phalanx. Period. One could assume they were pike phalanxes but then I ask you to reflect on this:

"The evidence for the shields of Carthaginian citizen troops is summarised in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars", by Duncan Head:

It depends on the date of your army. The Sacred Band at Krimisos in 341 BC are described (in Plutarch's "Life of Timoleon") as wearing iron cuirasses and bronze helmets, with huge round white leather shields - probably plain white, with no blazons. Then there is a big gap lacking in reliable evidence, until the Third Roman-Punic War.

Between these points, Greek-style hoplite-shields do appear in Carthaginian art, so it is probable that the citizen troops carried these.

For Carthaginian citizen troops of the first and second Roman-Punic wars, I would be inclined to use hoplite shields, painted white, with individual blazons mixing Greek emblems and motifs taken from Carthaginian art such as horses, palm-trees, the "Hand of Baal" and the "Sign of Tanit"."

One thing seems to be sure, the 'Sacred Band' Inf had large shields which suggests the use of hoplites and not pikes since as you personally and correctly suggested, using pikes meant using smaller shields.

---

The red crest was to differentiate them as Carthaginian troops. Don't remember where I heard that.

Could be... but I would apreciate having something confirming it as historical. If not, I think a white or black crest would be more advisable to keep them in touch with the rest of the carthaginian army colours.

---

Aymar said they should be differentiated somewhat. I was thinking along that line, and that Carthaginian officers would 'whip them into shape' so to speak when it comes to discipline and battle order.

I tend to disagree. The Iberian (and Numidian, greek, gallic etc) batallions were hired/recruited along with their original 'field commanders'. The carthaginian officer corps would command above these 'field commanders' but not directly with the troops in most cases. Comprehensible regarding also the different languages that all these people had. I agree that the recruited ones could be forced to an higher degree of "discipline and battle order" but also remember that that would be compensated by the fact that they were fighting for another country. Concluding, trying to avoid overcrowding of similar units which obviously means more work.

---

Then lets get rid of the burghers and give them Iberian Cavalry! Describe them, man!

Lol... man ~;)! I think we should keep both since there was a punic civic cavalry that is missing in the game. Something alongside the 'Long Shield Cav' but with perhaps more morale. About the Heavy Iberian Cav I will have to do some more research since their description is varied. Some even say they were heavily armoured so I'll have to look better into that.

---

I think there is a way to make them [SB units] only available in Carthage.
...
The suggestion about the temples producing both sacred bands... Remember, each sacred band was 'of a particular God'. Cavalry belonged to Astarte, Infantry belonged to Baal, essentially.

This is a problem then. If one makes as you say, it won't be able to train both types of units since we can only build one type of temple per city... and since the SB units should be only buildable in Carthage we have a problem. As I asked before... is it possible to allow building more than one temple per city? If not we should reconsider about puting both types of SB units trainable for the same temple.

---

I don't know about this... The Balearics were a seperate culture from the Iberians... And they were better skirmishers per se (insofar as we are only describing javelin throwing and skirmishing). This is probably our only contention..

Ok, we can put in the Balearic skirmishers. These would have slightly more skirmishing qualities like speed, stamina and ammo (javelins) than the Iberian Caetrati (aka 'Iberian Infantry') who would have better charge and melee attack/defense stats. The Lybian javelineers would remain the lower quality skirmishers.

===================

Yes, I'm suggesting four deities.

If possible, I'm with you then.

---

Well, I know the mainland Phoenicians had the sacrifices... I know they did happen at some point in Carthage too

The only somewhat suspicious evidence some people base their assertions on regarding the phoenicians are the quotes from the Bible:

"He [the late- seventh-century B.C. Judahite king Josiah] defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Moloch" (2 Kings 23:10)."

So strong a connection has been presumed between such biblical passages and the Punic sanctuaries that these sacred grounds in Carthage and elsewhere are now called Tophets. The fact is, however, that the biblical passages do not mention sacrifice. They only refer to passing children through fire. And the fact is that during the early 1st millennium, cremation was introduced in Phoenicia and had spread to the colonies by the beginning of the 8th century (including Carthage). This continued for three centuries (alongside burial) and then burial started to be the main way, especially amongst the upper-classes who were quite exquisite during this ceremonies. Archaeology suggests that a ceremonial meal took place over the grave. Incense may have been burnt as well. The body was washed, perfumed and wrapped in cloth bandages. The wealthy were elaborately dressed and their clothes fastened with clothing pins (fibulae). Embalming was only used occasionally. Possessions were also buried, such as useful items of pottery, e.g. jugs, bottles, plates and cups. The dead wore jewellery - earrings, bracelets, rings and beads and rich luxury items, for example imports from Etruria. Sometimes were placed magic items such as ritual razors in the tomb, and also painted ostrich eggs to protect the dead during their journey to the afterlife. Also buried were items which the dead could use in the afterlife, so toys were buried with children, iron weapons and armour with men and cosmetic containers and weaving implements with women. Cemeteries were usually placed well away from settlements and with a natural barrier, such as water, in between. Children were usually buried in their own cemetery away from adult cemeteries.

If you read my conclusions from the other post, adding to these ceremonial burial rituals, which involved for sometime cremation (especially between the 8th century BC and the 5th century BC) what I see is children having their own special cemeteries due to their 'early recallings' by the Gods.

Urnamma

11-06-2004, 05:09

One thing seems to be sure, the 'Sacred Band' Inf had large shields which suggests the use of hoplites and not pikes since as you personally and correctly suggested, using pikes meant using smaller shields.

You're right. They did indeed use long spears, not pikes. My misreading came from my mistranslation of a particular passage last year. I got the case of the nouns wrong. One was in nominative, the other in accusative, you know the story with such things... :embarassed: There are Greek sources other than Polybius though. Most of them are fragmentary.

Lol... man ! I think we should keep both since there was a punic civic cavalry that is missing in the game. Something alongside the 'Long Shield Cav' but with perhaps more morale. About the Heavy Iberian Cav I will have to do some more research since their description is varied. Some even say they were heavily armoured so I'll have to look better into that.

Sweet. Maybe we should get rid of long shields?

This is a problem then. If one makes as you say, it won't be able to train both types of units since we can only build one type of temple per city... and since the SB units should be only buildable in Carthage we have a problem. As I asked before... is it possible to allow building more than one temple per city? If not we should reconsider about puting both types of SB units trainable for the same temple.

We could just have the sacred band infantry trainable by barracks. That'd eliminate the problem ~:cool:

Ok, we can put in the Balearic skirmishers. These would have slightly more skirmishing qualities like speed, stamina and ammo (javelins) than the Iberian Caetrati (aka 'Iberian Infantry') who would have better charge and melee attack/defense stats. The Lybian javelineers would remain the lower quality skirmishers.

Indeed.

The only somewhat suspicious evidence some people base their assertions on regarding the phoenicians are the quotes from the Bible:

Nope... There are some primary texts that support it. I really don't see why sacrificial sites would increase law and order though.. In any case, it doesn't matter. Let's find something to redo the secret police crap. Who ever heard of Punic Secret Police?

I tend to disagree. The Iberian (and Numidian, greek, gallic etc) batallions were hired/recruited along with their original 'field commanders'. The carthaginian officer corps would command above these 'field commanders' but not directly with the troops in most cases. Comprehensible regarding also the different languages that all these people had. I agree that the recruited ones could be forced to an higher degree of "discipline and battle order" but also remember that that would be compensated by the fact that they were fighting for another country. Concluding, trying to avoid overcrowding of similar units which obviously means more work.

So lower morale but better discipline?

Ranika

11-06-2004, 06:55

Is it possible for a temple to provide a bonus to only a single troop type, but not allow the building of that soldier? That way, you could make the Carthaginian sacred bands buildable by a regular barracks, but have the proper temple provide a bonus to the bands that would be trained for it? Or perhaps, a weapon bonus for the type of weapon the band would be using (do they all use heavy?)

Urnamma

11-06-2004, 22:02

The Egyptian Pantheon should be changed to reflect Ptolemaic realities. Sarapis, Aesklepios, Isis and Horus should be used.

DemonArchangel

11-06-2004, 23:27

Oh please do NOT call Imitation Legionaries Thureophoroi
that would sound SO stupid.

sharrukin

11-07-2004, 03:50

Oh please do NOT call Imitation Legionaries Thureophoroi
that would sound SO stupid.

We are not calling them anything, as they never existed!

They should be replaced by Thureophoroi who have the advantage of actually having existed.

[cF]HanBaal

11-07-2004, 23:56

Maybe we should get rid of long shields?

I agree. The new 'Iberian Heavy Cav' could be sort of the 'Long Shields' but with a Scutum (oval shield here instead of that weird one from the 'Long Shields', or again a round Caetra) and better armour. The 'Round Shields' would be renamed 'Iberian Light Cavalry' and given a javelin becoming fast skirmishing cavalry.

Here's a nice description:
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/SetScans/HAT8055a.JPG
"They carried a small round central handgrip shield called a caetra or, more rarely, a larger oval scutum shield. They were armed with a javelin or spear and a sword, which was often the distinctive curved falcata. The four figures in this set are thus attired and armed, and all aspects have been properly sculpted. One of the men carries his caetra on his back, which is correct, and the man with the scutum is wearing armour, which marks him out for a heavier role than the rest."
from: http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.asp?manu=HAT&code=8055

Another possible models for 'Iberian Light Cav':
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/cathside_05_large.jpg
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/sp3.jpg

and for the 'Iberian Heavy Cav':
http://www.andy.watkins.dsl.pipex.com/wargames/ancientmins/car030.jpg
from: http://www.andy.watkins.dsl.pipex.com/wargames/ancientmins/mincarthage.htm

My final suggestions:

Iberian Light Cav:
Non armoured (except for a metal/bronze helmet and maybe a small round chest plate);
Fast and tireless (not as much as Numidians but still higher than other standard cavs);
Ranged unit (javelins, but less deadly from range than the highly skilled Numidians);
Weak charge;
Good melee attack (here the falcatas do their 'dirty' work unlike the numidians ~;) )
Available at 'Stables' (first tier). Recruitable in Iberia only (?).

Iberian Heavy Cav:
Armoured (body armour, greaves, bronze helmet);
Powerful charge (spear as primary weapon);
Very Good melee attack (again the falcatas are crucial);
Very Good Morale.
Available at 'Elite Cavalry Stables' (3rd tier). Recruitable in Iberia only (?).
These were the famed units that crossed the Alps with Hannibal and campaigned during 17 years fighting decisively in each battle and yet sustaining very little losses. Hannibal himself was the Heavy Cavalry Commander since very young age before becoming the Chief-Commander.

More pics of main Iberian units:
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armiesofthefanatici/chrisbrantley/ancientspanish/index.html

---

And for the 'Punic Citizen Cavalry', here's some models:
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/cathside_04_large.jpg
and
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/car3.jpg

Not as drilled as the 'Heavy Iberian Cav' but still a good reliable Heavy Cav.
Available at 'Cavalry Stables'. Recruitable in Carthage only (?).

========

We could just have the sacred band infantry trainable by barracks. That'd eliminate the problem.

hmm Sacred Band units were religiously connected. I suggest making both units (cav and inf) trainable under both the temples of Baal and Astarte. I dont know for sure but I think Carthage starts already with the temple of Baal. And since Baal was the chief deity, "the Ruler of the Universe", I think a temple to him should be enough as a requirement for the SB units. Besides, you haven't brought me your sources that claim SBCav were strictly trained under Astarte.. I found nothing of the like yet. Are you sure on that?~

---

So lower morale but better discipline?

If you guys insist with different Scutari units for Iberia and Carthage, ok.

====

And now back to the issue of Elite African Infantry. I've been making huge research on Carthaginian units and the vast majority depict that even the roman mail armoured ones never left their spears. Afterall, you haven't brought me neither any PRIMARY sources to back your view. I repeat, why would troops who fought in spear formation for a long time. with GREAT success so far, drop their spears, in the middle of a war in such hostile environment? Why would Polybius (single existing source of those days covering the issue) not mention it while he was talking exactly about the subject only mentioning the armour as captured? And I also repeat, they always had swords with them from the start (exactly from the same short design as the roman ones and arguably even better regarding the famed iron/steel minerals' quality from Iberia) so I suggest leaving them with the spears, but also give them high stats while fighting with the swords since they had made good use of them so far... like during the mountain fights (ie Alps) and the several rush charges from ambushes (ie Trasimene). They were named by some "the most powerful fighting machine" of those days... either with their spears or with their swords I might add ~;)

http://www.michtoy.com/MTSCnewSite/black_legion_miniatures/72_custom_painted/bl_72_romans/carthaginians/8020-2-2.jpg
Model for our 'Poeni (or Liby-Phoenician) Infantry' without mail armour...

http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/cathside_03_large.jpg
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/car2.jpg
... and above another models for our mail-armoured 'Elite African Infantry'.

My suggestions:

Town Militia --> Barracks

Iberian Caetrati & Lybian Spearmen --> Militia Barracks

Iberian Scutari & Liby-Phoenician/Poeni Infantry --> City Barracks

Elite African Infantry & Sacred Band Infantry* --> Army Barracks

*plus Awesome Temple of Baal or Astarte

(there ain't no 'Royal Barracks' as you suggested before in your post ~;) )

==============

There are Greek sources other than Polybius though. Most of them are fragmentary?

Regarding the punic wars and close to its timeline? Which?

---

Nope... There are some primary texts that support it [Phoenician child sacrifices].

Which?

---

Let's find something to redo the secret police crap. Who ever heard of Punic Secret Police?

Well, Carthage was a civilised nation. They must have had some sort of law enforcement so I don't find it that inapropriate.

Urnamma

11-08-2004, 06:04

First of all lemme preface this post. I've enjoyed our little argument thoroughly so far. It is this sort of argument in which both parties learn something and really contribute to the historical unit tree by vigorous research. My hat is off to you so far, my friend. :bow:

I agree. The new 'Iberian Heavy Cav' could be sort of the 'Long Shields' but with a Scutum (oval shield here instead of that weird one from the 'Long Shields', or again a round Caetra) and better armour. The 'Round Shields' would be renamed 'Iberian Light Cavalry' and given a javelin becoming fast skirmishing cavalry.

Sweet.

Not as drilled as the 'Heavy Iberian Cav' but still a good reliable Heavy Cav.

I'd say these guys should be classified as medium cav for game balance.

And now back to the issue of Elite African Infantry. I've been making huge research on Carthaginian units and the vast majority depict that even the roman mail armoured ones never left their spears. Afterall, you haven't brought me neither any PRIMARY sources to back your view. I repeat, why would troops who fought in spear formation for a long time. with GREAT success so far, drop their spears, in the middle of a war in such hostile environment? Why would Polybius (single existing source of those days covering the issue) not mention it while he was talking exactly about the subject only mentioning the armour as captured? And I also repeat, they always had swords with them from the start (exactly from the same short design as the roman ones and arguably even better regarding the famed iron/steel minerals' quality from Iberia) so I suggest leaving them with the spears, but also give them high stats while fighting with the swords since they had made good use of them so far... like during the mountain fights (ie Alps) and the several rush charges from ambushes (ie Trasimene). They were named by some "the most powerful fighting machine" of those days... either with their spears or with their swords I might add

Ah, but PRIMARY sources confirm my argument, especially in regards to Cannae.

'to look at them, one might have thought the the Africans were Roman soldiers, their arms were largely Roman, having been ....'

Now, arms generally means arms and armor. Let's take it to the Latin.

' Afros Romanam magna ex parte crederes aciem: ita armati erant; armis & ad Trebiam caeterum magna ex parte, ad Thrasymenum captis.'

Note that he uses the word for weapons, twice. Let us use some logic in regards to Cannae as well. The double envelopment that was completed by the Africans and the Iberian Heavies was a quick affair. The phalanx formation is notably slow and inflexible. Therefore, sword armed infantry would have been far better than spear. Polybius gives the same account. Hannibal knew that these tactics would work far better against the mobile Romans. Polybius gives a similar account. In the Greek, he uses a similar word that can be interpreted as arms, being either armor, weapons, or both. The University of Chicago translation translates it as 'armor', but a reasonable argument can be made that it should be arms (both armor and weapons).

(there ain't no 'Royal Barracks' as you suggested before in your post )

Carthage doesn't have it... yet. They could indeed, with but a simple edit of the export buildings txt file. That way they don't get their uber-units faster than everyone else. Note the helmets on your Elite African infantry models. They look Roman or Gallic enought to me.

Good models for Liby-Phoenicians.

Also, just as a game consideration, why not have the Elite Africans with swords and the Sacred Band with spears. Why have two phalanx units at the top of the tree?

Regarding the punic wars and close to its timeline? Which?

Get back to you on that one. There are some lesser known Greeks around the time of Polybius.

Which?

I'll find the exact sources for you. Mostly inscriptions/relief. Gotta head to the library for the exacting details. ~;)

hmm Sacred Band units were religiously connected. I suggest making both units (cav and inf) trainable under both the temples of Baal and Astarte. I dont know for sure but I think Carthage starts already with the temple of Baal. And since Baal was the chief deity, "the Ruler of the Universe", I think a temple to him should be enough as a requirement for the SB units. Besides, you haven't brought me your sources that claim SBCav were strictly trained under Astarte.. I found nothing of the like yet. Are you sure on that?~

Yes, I'm sure. You're right, they were religiously connected. I think the cities directly around Carthage (Thapsus?) should be able to train them too. That might get rid of our problem. Punic citizenry did own large estates, after all.

Urnamma

11-08-2004, 06:06

If you want, PM me your AIM or MSN handle and we can discuss it real time. That way we could have a complete unit list hammered out by the end of the week.

DemonArchangel

11-08-2004, 21:22

There is scanty evidence that imitation legionaries existed.

DemonArchangel

11-08-2004, 21:32

But, considering how widely the legionary was adapted, there's a good chance that they did exist.

sharrukin

11-08-2004, 22:26

But, considering how widely the legionary was adapted, there's a good chance that they did exist.

If you have any sources I would love to see them as it would make our job easier if they did exist. Militaries by their natures are very conservative and rarely adopt foreign ideas quickly. They will eventually if forced to do so.

I think CA got the concept of imitation legionaries from Nick Secunda's view on the subject, but he is using evidence that is thin to non-existent.

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

Ranika

11-08-2004, 22:37

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

That seems to be the basis for the imitation Legionaries altogether, which is terribly flimsy evidence, as a precursory javelin throw was not a purely Roman style of fighting by any means. To the contrary, many many cultures employed such a tactic in their military. It is notable, again, that most of the accounts don't really explore the weapons or armor employed, aside from the throwing of javelins first. In this sense, there is no proof of the use of a Roman style scutum, a short sword, etc.

I do recall that Gallatia eventually had imitation Legionaries. They used a Gallic-style oval shield though, I believe.

Urnamma

11-09-2004, 01:03

If you have any sources I would love to see them as it would make our job easier if they did exist. Militaries by their natures are very conservative and rarely adopt foreign ideas quickly. They will eventually if forced to do so.

I think CA got the concept of imitation legionaries from Nick Secunda's view on the subject, but he is using evidence that is thin to non-existent.

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

I don't think they existed either. As far as I'm concerned, it's another unit that can be scrapped in favor of a more interesting historical one. Maybe we should compile a list of units that can be scrapped, so we can have more room for new ones.

sharrukin

11-09-2004, 04:20

I don't think they existed either. As far as I'm concerned, it's another unit that can be scrapped in favor of a more interesting historical one. Maybe we should compile a list of units that can be scrapped, so we can have more room for new ones.

Sounds like a good idea to me!
1. Egyptian Chariot Archers; yet to see proof they existed-Scythed chariots, yes but nothing on Chariot Archers
2. Early Hellenic General units; the Basilikon Agema did not change significantly from alexanders time. One unit should be enough.
3. Onagers of all types simply did not exist at all! 3rd century AD
4.Nubian Spearmen/Cavalry/Desert Axemen
5.Peasants; if we can make one unit for all civilized factions and one for the barbarian factions we could free up a lot of slots.
6.one unit of Scythed Chariots for the Hellenic factions should do.

Urnamma

11-09-2004, 04:28

Some other units that can be gotten rid of:

British Head Hurlers (I assume no one wants these pieces of crap)
Scythian Head Hunting Chicks
Amazon Chariots (wtf?)

sharrukin

11-09-2004, 04:42

We should also consider the Wardogs and Cataphract Camels. They existed but they were rare and were not line units. Including them without some limitations would not be historical. There are also a number of civilian workers/female citizens/etc I guess populate the cities? They could probably be replaced by generic units.

Ranika

11-09-2004, 04:52

Yes, when you go to the city view, not during a battle, there are little peasant people. It's an aesthetic, and by removing all but some generics, we'd free more space for additional units.

sharrukin

11-09-2004, 04:58

Do we have a master list or sticky that we could post unit candidates for what to include in the game? Some idea about what others are doing might prevent duplication of efforts. For example I have Tarantine Light Cavalry which originally hearald from the greek parts of southern italy. They should perhaps be available to Romans as part of their cavalry auxiliaries list.

BTW Ranika very interesting post about Irish troop types.

Ranika

11-09-2004, 05:05

I didn't believe that Tarantine cavalry were used by the Romans as auxiliaries? But then, I suppose they likely did, as Greek cavalry was rightly reknowned, and the Romans would've been foolish to not make use of the indigenous cavalries.

And thank you. I've studied Celtic cultures in general, but my particulars are the Gauls, and the Gaels, especially, from their inception in Ireland, to modern issues, especially in military aspects. So little in known about Irish soldiers in the dark ages by most, but it's quite well chronicled, due to the massive amount of books produced in Ireland during the dark ages (the Irish golden age, actually, as they were unaffected by the dark ages, and had just recently begun to write). It upset me how they were portrayed in Viking Invasion, with the anachronisms of having gallowglass, and redudant units (kerns and dartmen), and so on.

[cF]HanBaal

11-09-2004, 05:06

First of all lemme preface this post. I've enjoyed our little argument thoroughly so far. It is this sort of argument in which both parties learn something and really contribute to the historical unit tree by vigorous research. My hat is off to you so far, my friend. :bow: .

Thx for the nice words. Idem ~:)

I'd say these guys should be classified as medium cav for game balance.

Ok... though Aymar is already wary of bringing too many units so this may be left out. But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... Carthage will only get cavalry to the center Med in acceptable recruting/transport times when it gets Sacred Band. Ok that they can get Numidian mercs but there ain't that many available, especially if those who sometimes appear happen to die in battles, which is probable since Numidian cav mercs ain't exactly shock troops for needed flank attack/defense in pitched battles.

---

Ah, but PRIMARY sources confirm my argument, especially in regards to Cannae:

'to look at them, one might have thought the the Africans were Roman soldiers, their arms were largely Roman, having been ....'

Now, arms generally means arms and armor. Let's take it to the Latin.

' Afros Romanam magna ex parte crederes aciem: ita armati erant; armis & ad Trebiam caeterum magna ex parte, ad Thrasymenum captis.'

Are those Polybius' words? If they are not I find them non reliable..especially if they are from Livy who was totally biased towards romans. Saying they were armed totally like romans would be typical of Livy who would then self-conclude that the roman weapons were prefered to those of the carthaginians and consequently better...

Let us use some logic in regards to Cannae as well. The double envelopment that was completed by the Africans and the Iberian Heavies was a quick affair. The phalanx formation is notably slow and inflexible. Therefore, sword armed infantry would have been far better than spear. Polybius gives the same account.

If you reread Polybius you will find the African units stationed in the flanks never really had to move that much in consequence of the backward movement of Hannibal's center line. And the phalanx formation is only "slow and inflexible" when the spears are down. Put your spears up and you have a "fast and flexible" unit, especially when we're talking of some of the most experienced units this world has ever seen.

"The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html

Also, just as a game consideration, why not have the Elite Africans with swords and the Sacred Band with spears. Why have two phalanx units at the top of the tree?

I agree... but that argument isn't valid for our suposedly historical mod right? Again, I just don't see why they would drop their spears to the garbage when they perfected fighting that way for years and with excelent results! That doesn't mean they ONLY fought that way and that they wouldn't be as good with swords since for several occasions they did so and with equally great results. I know that in rtw phalanxes suck since they take ages to reform and are slow and buggy when told to charge (like raising their spears :dizzy2: ) and I more than anyone would like to fix it.. but not to the expense of nonjustifed units.

In the Greek, he [Polybius] uses a similar word that can be interpreted as arms, being either armor, weapons, or both. The University of Chicago translation translates it as 'armor', but a reasonable argument can be made that it should be arms (both armor and weapons).

Then I guess you have to take that argument to Chicago's experts. If you convince me you have the reason I concede ~;)

---

Carthage doesn't have it... yet. They could indeed, with but a simple edit of the export buildings txt file. That way they don't get their uber-units faster than everyone else.

Well, Carthage never lasted to the Marian Reforms...so they didn't have their own 'reforms' if you get my point.

Besides I think it's more than logical the way I suggested since we have to balance the fact that Carthage is one...romans are 4. Carthage gets quality sooner, romans get numbers sooner. Just like the way it was historically. Finally, if one faction can give the whole power of rome an hard time, that one should be Carthage. Curiously I always said (since I heard that Carthage wouldn't have a Senate in RTW) that an historically represented unified Carthage would be just too powerful for rome. Unified they would have the generals, the money, the elite troops and most of all a coordinated command between Hamilcar(1st PW) or Hannibal (2nd PW) and the carthaginian Senate's main party, that of Hanno surnamed the 'rich' and his greedy/corrupt followers who were more interested in their personal wealth that in winning the wars.

Note the helmets on your Elite African infantry models. They look Roman or Gallic enought to me.

They look carthaginian to me ~:)

=========

Get back to you on that one. There are some lesser known Greeks around the time of Polybius.

Covering the punic wars even if sparsely?! Geez I really would like to get a grab on those!

=========

I think the cities directly around Carthage (Thapsus?) should be able to train them too. That might get rid of our problem. Punic citizenry did own large estates, after all.

That would work ~:wave:

khelvan

11-09-2004, 05:15

We have 300 units to play with, and some ahistorical ones that exist which may be safely deleted. This is far more than MTW. Assuming 30 factions that means we only start to get in trouble when we get to about 8 or so unique units per faction. How many are we talking about now?

It may be useful to start faction-specific threads if this one starts to get too cluttered, and keep this for general or common information.

Ranika

11-09-2004, 05:17

I thought we'd planned for almost entirely unique units for every faction? Though, truly, there must be 'generic' units for some if we plan on all 30 factions, and there must be some compromise reached, in that case. If it comes to it, what units would be fine to 'duplicate', for what factions?

sharrukin

11-09-2004, 05:22

"didn't believe that Tarantine cavalry were used by the Romans as auxiliaries? But then, I suppose they likely did, as Greek cavalry was rightly reknowned, and the Romans would've been foolish to not make use of the indigenous cavalries."

I don't know that they did or didn't, which is one reason I would like to see a sticky master list as it would open things up to criticism, in a nice way ~:) .

As you said it makes sense that the Romans used such troops when they took over the south but history doesn't always make sense.

"But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... "

That is not going to happen until we crack the codes that control movement and other aspects of the game engine. As it stands now changing the stats for naval units even drastically makes little difference to the outcome. The potential for drastically increased movement exists as is evidenced when you win a battle you get free movement afterwards, so it should be possible.

Urnamma

11-09-2004, 06:45

Ok... though Aymar is already wary of bringing too many units so this may be left out. But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... Carthage will only get cavalry to the center Med in acceptable recruting/transport times when it gets Sacred Band. Ok that they can get Numidian mercs but there ain't that many available, especially if those who sometimes appear happen to die in battles, which is probable since Numidian cav mercs ain't exactly shock troops for needed flank attack/defense in pitched battles.

I think they can be left in, especially if we get rid of long shields. We'll never get up to 30 factions... some would be far too weak.

Here's a list of our Carthaginian & Influenced Area Mercenary units so far:

Libyan Spearmen: Agreed upon
Iberian Caetrati :Agreed upon
Scutarii (Carthaginian) : Agreed upon
Balearic Light Infantry : Agreed upon (Mercenary Unit)
Liby-Phoenician Infantry : Agreed upon
Elite African Infantry: Disputed
Sacred Band Cavalry: Agreed upon
Iberian Heavy Cavalry: Agreed upon
Iberian Light Cavalry: Agreed upon (shared with Iberia)
Sacred Band Infantry: Agreed upon
Carthaginian Burgher Cavalry: Agreed upon
Skirmishers: Agreed upon
All the Elephants: Agreed upon

We should definitely start working on the descriptions and actual unit info. PM me with an aim or MSN handle or an email address and we can get that cooridinated. Or we can start a Carthage topic here. Whichever you prefer.

Are those Polybius' words? If they are not I find them non reliable..especially if they are from Livy who was totally biased towards romans. Saying they were armed totally like romans would be typical of Livy who would then self-conclude that the roman weapons were prefered to those of the carthaginians and consequently better...

No, it's Livy. Polybius wrote in Greek. More on this below.

Then I guess you have to take that argument to Chicago's experts. If you convince me you have the reason I concede.

Well, that's a little unfeasible... Tell you what, I can take it to a Classics prof and have him look at the Greek if you want a second opinion. I'm 100% sure that the word used can be translated as weapons/arms in Polybius. Livy was indeed biased toward the Romans, and this is why I find my argument convincing. The Romans of Livy's time carried Gladius Hispanicus. If he read good primary accounts that described their (the Africans) arms, he would have said they were armed like Romans. You're being a little harsh though. Livy is still a pretty good source. Livy also goes on about how great the 'flower of his infantry' was, which would seem to suggest the same. Fabius Pictor describes them as fighting 'in the Roman style' as well.

Besides I think it's more than logical the way I suggested since we have to balance the fact that Carthage is one...romans are 4. Carthage gets quality sooner, romans get numbers sooner. Just like the way it was historically. Finally, if one faction can give the whole power of rome an hard time, that one should be Carthage. Curiously I always said (since I heard that Carthage wouldn't have a Senate in RTW) that an historically represented unified Carthage would be just too powerful for rome. Unified they would have the generals, the money, the elite troops and most of all a coordinated command between Hamilcar(1st PW) or Hannibal (2nd PW) and the carthaginian Senate's main party, that of Hanno surnamed the 'rich' and his greedy/corrupt followers who were more interested in their personal wealth that in winning the wars.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give them the last level of barracks. I like your argument though. So what would be the barrack levels of the units then?

Covering the punic wars even if sparsely?! Geez I really would like to get a grab on those!

There's some Fabius Pictor around, even though he's a bit pro-roman (since he is a Roman, go figure).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, though a little later in time, uses sources now unavailable to us and was as professional or even more so than Polybius. His works are translated.

There are a couple that write in the time of Scipio Aemilianus, pretty contemporary with Polybius. Lemme find them for ya. Can you read Ancient Greek?

Stormy

11-09-2004, 07:39

For the modders working on the Ptolemaic Egypt. :bow:

Ptolemaic Soldiers

Example:
http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Ptolemaic/ptol_08.jpg
There is a banner/flag also

Click here for more of the Ptolemaic Empire soldiers (http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Ptolemaic/1stCorps_Ptolemaic.htm)

The_Emperor

11-09-2004, 09:54

Some of the current units can be alter to fit since locals would have been used to fill out the ranks.

That is not true, the locals were so terrible and unreliable the Ptolemaic Dynasty never depended on them. With regard to the army, the greater bulk of troops were from the Macedonian land-owning classes, with very, very few natives in the Ptolemaic army, if there at all.

For all intensive purposes Egypt was an occupied naton, ruled over by Macedonians who made up the core of its army to prevent the temptation of rebellion.

chemchok

11-09-2004, 10:15

On the topic of the Ptolemies using local Egyptians in their army, I had posted this earlier in the "lost" thread in the Colosseum, the info is from the Encylopaedia Britannica...

-under Ptolemy IV

"Following the defection of one of Ptolemy's best commanders, Egypt's Syro-Palestinian territory, Coele Syria, was seriously threatened by Antiochus III, the Syrian Seleucid ruler. In 219, when the Seleucid ruler captured some of the coastal cities, Sosibius and the Ptolemaic court entered into delaying negotiations with the enemy, while the Ptolemaic army was reorganized and intensively drilled. So grave was the threat that for the first time under the Ptolemaic regime native Egyptians were enrolled into the infantry and cavalry and trained in phalanx tactics. In 218 the negotiations collapsed, and Antiochus renewed his advance, overrunning Ptolemy's forward defenses. In the spring of 217, however, Ptolemy's new army met the Seleucid forces near Raphia in southern Palestine, and with the help of the Egyptian phalanx Ptolemy was victorious. Although holding the initiative, the Egyptian king, on Sosibius' advice, negotiated a peace, and the Seleucid army withdrew from Coele Syria."

And under "The Ptolemies" on EB

"Native revolts in the south, which had been sporadic in the second half of the 3rd century, became serious and weakened the hold of the monarch on a vital part of the kingdom. These revolts, which produced native claimants to the kingship, are generally attributed to the native Egyptians' realization, after their contribution to the victory at Raphia, of their potential power."

Another interesting tidbit- after the revolts the Ptolemies began recieving their kingship in Thebes, the traditional seat of power of Egyptian royalty, rather than Alexandria.

The_Emperor

11-09-2004, 12:49

If what you say is true then the Ptolemies only ever pressed natives into the army when the situation was desperate and the Macedonian part of the army did not provide enough men...

As you say this only happened at a time of grave threat, and once it was over they soon regretted it with the ensuing rebellions.

it was the exception rather than the norm.

Nestor

11-09-2004, 14:15

I suspect, might be wrong but couldn't find anything else, that for the Seleucid Factions you are using these descriptions from Sharrukin:

THE SELEUCID EMPIRE

LEVY PIKEMEN; Pantodapoi
PHALANX PIKEMEN; Phalangite
SILVER SHIELD PIKEMEN;Argyraspides-Faction Ptolemy, Seleucid, Macedon, Pontus
SILVER SHIELD LEGIONARIES;Thureophoroi; Faction-Ptolemy, Seluecid, Macedon
CATAPHRACTS; (GOOD IF WE CAN USE THE SAME UNITS WITH DIFFERENT FACTION) as Parthian Lance Cataphract (no bow) Selucid's copied these from Sarmato-Persians. Long spear, sword worn over the right shoulder. Muscled iron cuirass with metal (iron) pteruges, laminated tubular arm and leg armor (iron) covering the feet but not the hands, helmet (iron) with metal mask in the form of a bearded face (the helmet could also have hair carved on to its top). The helmet could be crested with a tuft of black hair. Leather gauntlets could be worn over hands. Horse was draped in full iron armor with a brown leather strap running along the spine. Belting, bridle and straps would be brown leather decorated with bronze or silver fittings. The sword sheath and belt could have iron or bronze fittings as designs.
COMPANION CAVALRY; Heterairoi Cavalry
SCYTHED CHARIOTS; The wood would be a greyish-brown, with bands of red ornamentation, edged in white. The horses would be armored with headpiece (iron), poitrail (chest armor) in iron, and a large saddle blanket of leather or cloth (red?). The headpiece was topped by a tufted of hair. Collar and leather straps would be red, perhaps with white decorations to match the chariot body. The single crewmen was dressed similar to a Companion cavalryman except would wear a normal bronze helmet (ie, without the face mask) and might wear pant under tunic. The cuirass might be scale. Clothing colors as for infantry phalanx.
Well, from my Greek sources I cannot find anything that can support most of these units:

In peace time and war time the seleucids had a Royal Guard that was made from both cavalry and infantry.
Part of the Royal guards Cavalry were the "Hetairoi" meaning Companions (same name as the original Macedons). Another part was a unit of Syrrians, Frygians and Lydians (cavalry). Both of them or just the second part were/was called "Vasiliki Ili"=Royal Squadron.
The foot soldiers of the Royal Guard were named like the original Macedons "Hypaspistai".
There were also city guards (Macedons, Cretans, Myssians and others).

In war time there were

HEAVY INFANTRY
--"Phalanx" or "Macedons" exactly like the Macedonian phalanx.
At first all the soldiers were of Macedonian origin, later they included asians still fighting in the Macedonian way.
--Heavy mercenaries (Greeks, Galatians and may be others)

LIGHT INFANTRY ("evzonoi" as a generic name)
--Peltasts
--Javelinmen
--Archers
--Slingers

Part of them were Thracians (peltasts), Agrianes (javelinmen), Cretans (archers), Cypriots (slingers). These ethnic names were also used as technical terms: saying "thracians" you were actually refering to "peltasts".

Another part was made of various citizens of the Empire from different nations, that were forming separate units and were fighting according to each one's military tradition.

HEAVY CAVALRY
--"Agema" or "Agemata" ("agemata" is the plural of "agema") If they were one unit they should be called "Agema", if more than one "Agemata". They were men of Macedonian or Thessalian origin.
--"Cataphractoi" (meaning cataphracts in greek). They were Greek and Galatian mercenaries.
--(probably) "Nyssaioi" from the country of Margiani in between Parthia and Bactria (could be Nyssians in english, I'm not sure)

LIGHT CAVALRY
--"Tarantinoi" horse-javelinmen, meaning from Taras=Tarentum in latin (they weren't always from Taras but they kept the name).
--Thracians (not sure what exactly)
--Horse archers from various nations of the Empire.

They also used "scythed chariots" and indian elephants.

They had various kinds of siege equipment, ballistas, stone-throwers and units of engineers.

When we are talking about Macedons in the Royal Guard, the phalanx and the heavy cavalry they were not always from Macedonian origin. They were "clerouchoi" meaning in Greek that they were given a piece of land, royal land in this case ("clerouchoi" is not a military term). This was the way for the Seleucids to attract Macedons but if they couldn't get enough, "clerouchoi" could be other Greeks, may be even aborigines.

I have information about the other successor states but I'm afraid it's contradicting what I've seen in the thread.
Do you think this info can help?

EDIT: "Scythed chariots" not Scythian

chemchok

11-09-2004, 17:51

If what you say is true

See Polybius 5.65 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/5*.html#65); they raised and trained a force of 20,000 native Egyptian phalangites.

then the Ptolemies only ever pressed natives into the army when the situation was desperate and the Macedonian part of the army did not provide enough men...

As you say this only happened at a time of grave threat, and once it was over they soon regretted it with the ensuing rebellions.

it was the exception rather than the norm.
The point was that the Egyptians weren't so terrible and unreliable as to be completely useless. I'm sure the Ptolemies did regret their use after 217 BC, but I'd be extremely interested in any detailed and historical description of a Ptolemaic army's composition post-Raphia; to my knowledge one doesn't exist.

I don't see why it would be unreasonable to include an Egyptian phalanx unit for the Ptolemies, simply link them to one of the huge city buildings to reflect their late adoption. Their benefit would not be amazing stats, but a lower unit build cost and upkeep cost than the comparative Hellenic units availabe to the Ptolemies.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-09-2004, 20:02

Sounds like a good idea to me!
1. Egyptian Chariot Archers; yet to see proof they existed-Scythed chariots, yes but nothing on Chariot Archers.
The latest time that chariots of ANY kind were used in Egypt was in the Late Saitic Period (405BC-335BC) (http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_29_figure_1.htm).

In that period, they used heavy chariots pulled by 4 horses and with a driver and a archer (both armoured). No scythes or 3 men per chariot. In fact, even before, NEVER did the Egyptians used scythes or 3 men per chariot. Only two.

The only people I know that used 3 men per chariot were the Sea People and the Hitites.

3. Onagers of all types simply did not exist at all! 3rd century AD
What siege engines to replace them then? Small catapults?

5.Peasants; if we can make one unit for all civilized factions and one for the barbarian factions we could free up a lot of slots.
Thinking about it.

6.one unit of Scythed Chariots for the Hellenic factions should do.
Nope. Only one heavy chariot for the Seleucids and one Noblemen javelin throwing for the Britons. There is no Historical evidence for any other nation to use them.

Steppe Merc

11-10-2004, 00:25

I know that the Parthians had no onagers... all steppe people were horrible at seiging, except for the Mongols, who enslaved Chinese to do it for them.

Ranika

11-10-2004, 00:28

Weren't ballista or scorpions a preamble to onagers? One fired large stones, but shorter distance than the onager was capable of, and also smaller, so they weren't as effective.

sharrukin

11-10-2004, 03:18

Weren't ballista or scorpions a preamble to onagers? One fired large stones, but shorter distance than the onager was capable of, and also smaller, so they weren't as effective.

This is a website that might be of interest on this subject. Some of the Greek Catapults fired 60lb stones.

http://198.144.2.125/Siege/OtherSiegeEngines/OtherSiegeEngines.htm

[cF]HanBaal

11-10-2004, 04:49

We should definitely start working on the descriptions and actual unit info. PM me with an aim or MSN handle or an email address and we can get that cooridinated. Or we can start a Carthage topic here. Whichever you prefer.

I already added your contact to my MSN list and from Wednesday night I'm gonna be more time online (round of exams ending). Since the Carthage Worklist is just you, me and Aymar so far (though Aymar is working more on Iberia) we can deal with it with instant messenger. I think it is the best way you agree?

---

Tell you what, I can take it to a Classics prof and have him look at the Greek if you want a second opinion. I'm 100% sure that the word used can be translated as weapons/arms in Polybius.

No need then. If you are 100% sure I trust you.

The Romans of Livy's time carried Gladius Hispanicus. If he read good primary accounts that described their (the Africans) arms, he would have said they were armed like Romans.

Yet he didn't... now you got me suspicious again... ~;)

You're being a little harsh though. Livy is still a pretty good source. Livy also goes on about how great the 'flower of his[Hannibal's] infantry' was

Sure he did say that. If Hannibal's inf kicked his beloved allmighty romans many times in a row of course they must have had the 'flower power' within :grin:

---

I don't think it's unreasonable to give them the last level of barracks. I like your argument though. So what would be the barrack levels of the units then?

I posted this before:

"My suggestions:

Town Militia --> Barracks

Iberian Caetrati & Lybian Spearmen --> Militia Barracks

Iberian Scutari & Liby-Phoenician/Poeni Infantry --> City Barracks

Elite African Infantry & Sacred Band Infantry* --> Army Barracks

*plus Awesome Temple of Baal or Astarte"

Pretty reasonable you agree?

---

There's some Fabius Pictor around, even though he's a bit pro-roman (since he is a Roman, go figure).

Yeah I knew about Fabius Pictor, but I never knew his original work existed. I thought only Livy had access to it. But now imagine a 'bit pro-roman' source being 'reinterpreted' by a 'lil-more-than-a-bit pro-roman source'... :shifty:

---

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, though a little later in time, uses sources now unavailable to us and was as professional or even more so than Polybius. His works are translated.

Great, I'll give it a look! Thx for the tip :thumbsup:

There are a couple that write in the time of Scipio Aemilianus, pretty contemporary with Polybius. Lemme find them for ya. Can you read Ancient Greek?

Nope. But if you gimme their names I can probably find translations like I did for Polybius ~:wave:

Urnamma

11-10-2004, 05:03

I already added your contact to my MSN list and from Wednesday night I'm gonna be more time online (round of exams ending). Since the Carthage Worklist is just you, me and Aymar so far (though Aymar is working more on Iberia) we can deal with it with instant messenger. I think it is the best way you agree?

I agree wholeheartedly.

No need then. If you are 100% sure I trust you.

Yet he didn't... now you got me suspicious again...

He did, the Latin that I quoted to you earlier was his. He use variations of arma (weapons).

I posted this before:

"My suggestions:

Town Militia --> Barracks

Iberian Caetrati & Lybian Spearmen --> Militia Barracks

Iberian Scutari & Liby-Phoenician/Poeni Infantry --> City Barracks

Elite African Infantry & Sacred Band Infantry* --> Army Barracks

*plus Awesome Temple of Baal or Astarte"

Pretty reasonable you agree?QUOTE]

Good stuff. Maybe town militia should be some sort of phalanx unit a la Phoenician Citizen Infantry. With stats like militia hoplites. That'd be closer to the truth for Carthage.

[QUOTE]Yeah I knew about Fabius Pictor, but I never knew his original work existed. I thought only Livy had access to it.

No, there's some of his stuff around. He wrote in Greek though, and none of it has been translated, except into German and French.

Nope. But if you gimme their names I can probably find translations like I did for Polybius

Well... you really can't. There are no English translations of any that I am aware of. I'll still dig up the names for you next time I hit the library.

Our biggest problem now is the missile unit tech tree. (I'm pretty sure we agree on cavalry). Most of Carthage's missile units were mercenaries...

sharrukin

11-10-2004, 06:15

I suspect, might be wrong but couldn't find anything else, that for the Seleucid Factions you are using these descriptions from Sharrukin:

Well, from my Greek sources I cannot find anything that can support most of these units:

In peace time and war time the seleucids had a Royal Guard that was made from both cavalry and infantry.
Part of the Royal guards Cavalry were the "Hetairoi" meaning Companions (same name as the original Macedons). Another part was a unit of Syrrians, Frygians and Lydians (cavalry). Both of them or just the second part were/was called "Vasiliki Ili"=Royal Squadron.
The foot soldiers of the Royal Guard were named like the original Macedons "Hypaspistai".
There were also city guards (Macedons, Cretans, Myssians and others).

In war time there were

HEAVY INFANTRY
--"Phalanx" or "Macedons" exactly like the Macedonian phalanx.
At first all the soldiers were of Macedonian origin, later they included asians still fighting in the Macedonian way.
--Heavy mercenaries (Greeks, Galatians and may be others)

LIGHT INFANTRY ("evzonoi" as a generic name)
--Peltasts
--Javelinmen
--Archers
--Slingers

Part of them were Thracians (peltasts), Agrianes (javelinmen), Cretans (archers), Cypriots (slingers). These ethnic names were also used as technical terms: saying "thracians" you were actually refering to "peltasts".

Another part was made of various citizens of the Empire from different nations, that were forming separate units and were fighting according to each one's military tradition.

HEAVY CAVALRY
--"Agema" or "Agemata" ("agemata" is the plural of "agema") If they were one unit they should be called "Agema", if more than one "Agemata". They were men of Macedonian or Thessalian origin.
--"Cataphractoi" (meaning cataphracts in greek). They were Greek and Galatian mercenaries.
--(probably) "Nyssaioi" from the country of Margiani in between Parthia and Bactria (could be Nyssians in english, I'm not sure)

LIGHT CAVALRY
--"Tarantinoi" horse-javelinmen, meaning from Taras=Tarentum in latin (they weren't always from Taras but they kept the name).
--Thracians (not sure what exactly)
--Horse archers from various nations of the Empire.

They also used "scythed chariots" and indian elephants.

They had various kinds of siege equipment, ballistas, stone-throwers and units of engineers.

When we are talking about Macedons in the Royal Guard, the phalanx and the heavy cavalry they were not always from Macedonian origin. They were "clerouchoi" meaning in Greek that they were given a piece of land, royal land in this case ("clerouchoi" is not a military term). This was the way for the Seleucids to attract Macedons but if they couldn't get enough, "clerouchoi" could be other Greeks, may be even aborigines.

I have information about the other successor states but I'm afraid it's contradicting what I've seen in the thread.
Do you think this info can help?

EDIT: "Scythed chariots" not Scythian

Unless I need new glasses most of what you have posted DOES support exactly what I posted!

Basilikon Agema;"Both of them or just the second part were/was called "Vasiliki Ili"=Royal Squadron."

Agema Foot Guards;"In peace time and war time the seleucids had a Royal Guard that was made from both cavalry and infantry."

Heteroi Cavalry; This was the new name of Companion Cavalry not Agema Royal Guards.

Hypaspistai-Argyraspides;"In addition to the pezhetairoi existed an elite formation of hypaspistai or shieldbearers. These men can almost certainly be identified with the socalled argyraspides or silvershields from the later part of Alexander's reign." Hypapists is the older term for these troops.

"later they included asians still fighting in the Macedonian way." These were called Pantodopoi. Levy Greeks were later called this as well.

"--"Cataphractoi" (meaning cataphracts in greek). They were Greek and Galatian mercenaries." Eastern heavy cavalry not Galatian mercenaries.

"("evzonoi" as a generic name)" Euzonoi-This may have meant light infantry or it may have meant a Thuroephoroi acting in a Peltast style of fighting as the term Peltast becomes rarer after the Alexandrian period when Agrianian(not the ethnic definition) tends to replace the term.

"--(probably) "Nyssaioi" from the country of Margiani in between Parthia and Bactria (could be Nyssians in english, I'm not sure)" The book may be refering to the Nisean breed of horse and by extention a heavy cavalry unit?

"("clerouchoi" is not a military term)." This was land granted for the express purpose of raising a regional army reserve and the troops so raised were called Cleruch Cavalry and Cleruch Infantry. How this is not to be considered a military term escapes me.

You and the information you have can certainly be helpful; But maybe a little less quick on the draw!

Urnamma

11-10-2004, 07:11

Maybe I can be of some help here ~D

Vasiliki Ili

What language is this? Basilikoi Illoi would be the Greek.

"("clerouchoi" is not a military term)." This was land granted for the express purpose of raising a regional army reserve and the troops so raised were called Cleruch Cavalry and Cleruch Infantry. How this is not to be considered a military term escapes me.

Well, strictly speaking, Kleruchoi is not a military term at all. Kleros is a something drawn by lot, and echo is a verb meaning have. 'Having been aportioned by lot' is the strict meaning of Kleruchoi. In Ptolemaic Egypt or Selucid Syria it would mean that the men were given land by lot in reward for service. It was used in Athens for something entirely different.

Heteroi Cavalry

Should be Hetairoi. Interestingly enough a Hetairos could also be a homosexual prostitute. 'Companion' is diverse in its meaning. ~:cool:

Agema Foot Guards;"In peace time and war time the seleucids had a Royal Guard that was made from both cavalry and infantry."

He's right, it should be Agemata.

There is no 'C' in Greek. Kataphraktoi, please.

The Kataphraktoi were certainly not Gallatian. Greeks probably, but not Gallatians.

Euzonoi

Generally means light infantry. It's a fine and all encompasing term. Worthy of note, there may not have been Thracians at all in the Selucid army. Anyone who was a peltast could have been called a Thracian, just as anyone who was an archer in the Cretan style could be called a Cretan Archer.

"later they included asians still fighting in the Macedonian way." These were called Pantodopoi. Levy Greeks were later called this as well.

Perfectly correct. Pantodopoi is a great term. The Asiatic troops were never of good quality.

Nestor, if your sources are in Greek, I'd be delighted to sink my teeth into them. Are they online? If not, can you give me book titles?

Nestor

11-10-2004, 12:17

You and the information you have can certainly be helpful; But maybe a little less quick on the draw!
Sorry about the impression I gave to you, it wasn't my intention :bow:
I shall try first to clarify what I have found about the Selucid army. Bear in mind that I am translating from Greek into English while Greek is my native language. I will give the names also in Greek so that you can search about them.

PART ONE
ROYAL GUARDS
--"Βασιλική Ίλη"=?"Royal Ala/Squadron, Vasiliki Ili" cavalry (cannot really translate this, sorry :embarassed: ). Greek Historians think that it is not certain if this name could specify only the Syrrians, Phrygians, Lydians in the royal guard cavalry or it is more generic and covers all of the cavalry in the royal guard, including "Hetairoi" cavalry. This was actually the use of the term before the campaigns of Alexander the Great.
--"Εταίροι"="Hetairoi" cavalry. This was the new name for part of the Royal .......(?) cavalry.
--"Υπασπισταί"="Hypaspistai" infantry. I cannot find the term "argyraspidai" (I would be grateful if you can guide me). I read that Alexander the Great in 326 BC received golden and silver coated "panoplies" for 25000 men. The "Hypaspistai" were just 2000 so they couldn't be the only ones that used them and I didn't find any mention of a new infantry unit using them.

PART TWO
CAVALRY
i) HEAVY CAVALRY
--"Αγήματα"="Agemata" of Macedonian or Thessalian origin
--"Κατάφρακτοι"="Kataphraktoi" (thanx URNAMMA :bow: ) Greeks and Galatians (I could easily forget about the Galatians ~;) )
--"Νυσαίοι" from Margiani. They were riding big horses. Greek Historians are not certain about them. (They were from the city "Νύσα" in Margiani. Their name and the name of their city looks suspiciously like "Διόνυσος"="Dionysus". In their tradition they were descendants of his army from the time the Greek god campaigned in Asia).

ii) LIGHT CAVALRY
--"Ταραντίνοι"="Tarantinoi" horse-javelinmen, not all of them actually from "Τάρας"="Taras"="Tarentum"
--"Ιπποτοξόται"="Hippotoxotai(?)"="Horse Archers" from various nations of the empire.
--"Θράκαι"="Thracians" probably "prodromoi" armed with a "sarissa". "Πρόδρομοι"="Prodromoi" was just a pronoun in Greek for the cavalry that was "in front" of the main cavalry forces.

PART THREE
INFANTRY
i) HEAVY INFANTRY
--"Φάλαγξ"="Phalanx" or "Μακεδόνες"="Macedons". It's a unit exactly like the "Φάλαγξ Πεζεταίρων"="Phalanx of Pezhetairoi" of Macedon (could it be "pezetairoi"? looks more like the Greek word) They were refering to them just with a shortened name ("Phalanx") or with the ethnic name ("Macedons").
--Mercenary "Οπλίται"="Hoplites" Greeks, Galatians and others (I can again forget I have ever read about Galatians ~D )

ii) LIGHT INFANTRY ("evzonoi")
--"Θράκαι"="Thracians"="Peltasts"
--"Κρήται"="Cretans"="Archers"
--"Αγριάναι"="Agrianes"="Javelinmen"
--"Κύπριοι"="Cypriots"="Slingers"
They were using the ethnic name to express the way they were fighting. Probably the original units where from those regions but they would still call the "Archers" in their army: "Cretans" even if they were from other regions.

PART FOUR
VARIOUS
--Indian elephants
--Scythed chariots ("Δρεπανηφόρα άρματα")
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, about some specific differences I see in the naming of some units, or misunderstandings (Please, don't burn me, it's just a discussion :bow: )

Agema Foot Guards
Didn't find anything about an "agema" on foot

Heteroi Cavalry; This was the new name of Companion Cavalry not Agema Royal Guards
Didn't find anything about "Agema Royal Guards". In my readings they are two different things: "agemata"=ordinary heavy cavalry made of Macedons and Thracians AND "Royal Guards" cavalry="Vasiliki or Basiliki Ili" if it was a generic term or "Royal Guards" cavalry="Vasiliki Ili"+"Hetairoi" if the term is specific.
"Companions" is just a translation of the word "Hetairoi", it doesn't exist in Greek.

Hypaspistai-Argyraspides;"In addition to the pezhetairoi existed an elite formation of hypaspistai or shieldbearers. These men can almost certainly be identified with the socalled argyraspides or silvershields from the later part of Alexander's reign." Hypapists is the older term for these troops
I wrote a few things about them but I suspect that we have a misunderstanding because in Greek we can use the word "argyraspides" as a pronoun for "Hypaspistai". Then, we can shorten our phrase by using the same word as a noun if everybody knows who we are refering to.

"("clerouchoi" is not a military term)." This was land granted for the express purpose of raising a regional army reserve and the troops so raised were called Cleruch Cavalry and Cleruch Infantry. How this is not to be considered a military term escapes me.
"Clerouchoi" could be soldiers in the "Vasiliki Ili-Hetairoi" cavalry OR in the "Agemata" OR in the "Phalanx". I didn't say they are not in the army, I'm just saying that they are not a specific unit.

What language is this? Basilikoi Illoi would be the Greek
Βασιλική Ίλη

Should be Hetairoi. Interestingly enough a Hetairos could also be a homosexual prostitute. 'Companion' is diverse in its meaning
I think I wrote "Hetairoi" in the first place, but anyway, there's something else I would like to point out: "Hetaira" was an heterosexual prostitute much like a geisha in Japan. They were educated women. One of them was "Aspasia", the wife of Pericles, the leader of the Athenians in the Golden Era of Athens, when Acropolis was built ~;)

There is no 'C' in Greek. Kataphraktoi, please
There was actually a "c" in Greek. It was the "sigma". Originally they were writing it as "c", it was used by the Byzantines and you can still, rarely, find it in modern greek writing. "Kataphraktoi" looks much better though!

Generally means light infantry. It's a fine and all encompasing term. Worthy of note, there may not have been Thracians at all in the Selucid army. Anyone who was a peltast could have been called a Thracian, just as anyone who was an archer in the Cretan style could be called a Cretan Archer.

No difference there. Could make the modificatition easier by using units that can exist in other factions.

Perfectly correct. Pantodopoi is a great term. The Asiatic troops were never of good quality

Pantodapoi actually means "from everywhere". I didn't find the term, sorry. It's also a pronoun and this could again cause problems. I suspect the original phrase was "pantodapoi Hoplitai"=Hoplites from everywhere.

Nestor, if your sources are in Greek, I'd be delighted to sink my teeth into them. Are they online? If not, can you give me book titles?
My sources are Greek History books about Alexander the Great and the successor states. They mostly use Arriano, Diodoro, Curtius and others trying to explain the inconsistencies. What I found on the Internet is just confusing.

No hard feelings I hope. I cannot oblige anyone to accept my suggestions and I wouldn't want to. They are posted here just because I find the forums more interesting than the game. ~:cheers:

EDIT: "Thureophoroi", soldiers using a shield that looks like a door ("Θύρα"-"Thura") The common use was to describe the roman legionaries. Noone would like the name for them, don't you think so? ~D

Aymar de Bois Mauri

11-10-2004, 16:24

Hey, Nestor!!! Care to join EB? :grin2:

Urnamma

11-10-2004, 16:59

There was actually a "c" in Greek. It was the "sigma". Originally they were writing it as "c", it was used by the Byzantines and you can still, rarely, find it in modern greek writing. "Kataphraktoi" looks much better though!

Are you talking about the sigma within a word: σ ?

"Clerouchoi" could be soldiers in the "Vasiliki Ili-Hetairoi" cavalry OR in the "Agemata" OR in the "Phalanx". I didn't say they are not in the army, I'm just saying that they are not a specific unit.

They don't have to be a specific unit, but usually the only people that got land for service were wealthy mercenaries that could afford a horse and the trip over to the eastern Successor States. They were almost exclusively a cavalry formation.

I think I wrote "Hetairoi" in the first place, but anyway, there's something else I would like to point out: "Hetaira" was an heterosexual prostitute much like a geisha in Japan. They were educated women. One of them was "Aspasia", the wife of Pericles, the leader of the Athenians in the Golden Era of Athens, when Acropolis was built

Sharrukin mispelled it Heteroi. That would be a different term all together. 'The guys that are the same'

Pantodapoi actually means "from everywhere". I didn't find the term, sorry. It's also a pronoun and this could again cause problems. I suspect the original phrase was "pantodapoi Hoplitai"=Hoplites from everywhere.

Pantodapoi could also mean 'Men from Everywhere' if used as a noun. Perhaps 'Pantodapoi Stratiotes': Soldiers from Everywhere. They were pikemen, remember, not necessarily hoplites.

--"Φάλαγξ"="Phalanx" or "Μακεδόνες"="Macedons". It's a unit exactly like the "Φάλαγξ Πεζεταίρων"="Phalanx of Pezhetairoi" of Macedon (could it be "pezetairoi"? looks more like the Greek word) They were refering to them just with a shortened name ("Phalanx") or with the ethnic name ("Macedons").

Well, you have to remember that rough breathing indicates an 'h' when transliterated into English...

--Mercenary "Οπλίται"="Hoplites" Greeks, Galatians and others (I can again forget I have ever read about Galatians )

Well, my problem with that is that the Galatians usually fought like any other Gauls, as a slashing sword armed infantry. They might have used a phalanx at some point, but were mostly hired to do what they did best. Slashing sword armed infantry are ever a bane of pikemen.

The Spanish showed this against the Swiss many a time.

Βασιλική Ίλη

Thank you! I was tired, I forgot that Βασιλική took feminine endings.

My sources are Greek History books about Alexander the Great and the successor states. They mostly use Arriano, Diodoro, Curtius and others trying to explain the inconsistencies. What I found on the Internet is just confusing.

Ah, sweet. I have some Diodoros that I am reading right now. ~D

No hard feelings I hope. I cannot oblige anyone to accept my suggestions and I wouldn't want to. They are posted here just because I find the forums more interesting than the game.

Your suggestions are great! It's always good to have more than one source of information. And yes, we are obliged to take suggestions that are historically correct!

EDIT: "Thureophoroi", soldiers using a shield that looks like a door ("Θύρα"-"Thura") The common use was to describe the roman legionaries. Noone would like the name for them, don't you think so?

Well, you have to remember, in an ancient context that might not have been a derogatory name. Plenty of things are formed into words by combining descriptive terms, something that doesn't appeal to modern thought. In any case, Thurephoroi isn't a bad term for the soldiers in question.