February Preview!

[MeinPanzer]

First and foremost, literary sources, good as they may be for getting a picture of the people at that time can't be considered 100% accurate, as writers of that time would call things with one name, whereas they would be called something different by another. This must not be the case with Polybios, as he was Hipparchos of the Achaike Sympoliteia (Achaian League) from 170-169 BCE.

And, it should be noted, both the Achaean military, with which Polybius was intimately familiar, and its neighbours (as in, e.g., the Aitolians) employed both thureophoroi and thorakitai, so there is good reason to think that his testimony is accurate.

This is further complicated when one takes into account that when a "barbarian" faction would assault, it would sometimes incorporate in its host heavy infantry, lighter infantry, gaesetae (naked men with just a thureos), spearmen and swordsmen, all of them combined. How do you call them? I guess one would have to pick by either percentage of each composing element, or their role in the battlefield. This would have been a challenge to the historian back then, that is for sure.

This is irrelevant because only Greek troops are referred to as thorakitai in the literary sources. We are dealing with a clear description of a battle group composed of homogeneous units, and not a mixed rabble.

Then, something unimaginably simple comes along... Archaeological finds.
When you have thureos (meaning literally door in ancient greek) carrying troops who are clad in muscle cuirass like the following...it is difficult to classify them (found in present day Anatolia IIRC) as NOT heavy. The fact that they carry the thureos and are armored (thorax in greek) would deffinitely mean that they are thorakitai.

And yet we, for instance, have a representation of a javelineer, clearly a light soldier, who wears a metal muscled cuirass on an Alexandrian funerary stele. His only armament is a handful of javelins and a cuirass, so would he be a heavy soldier?

didn't you mention, IIRC, in a thread a long time ago that all/almost all thureophoroi were without body armor?

I did, but I must explain why I think this whole debate is fundamentally flawed. Thorakitai and thureophoroi are just terms from the literary sources. We clearly have archaeological evidence that shows units carrying thureoi, and so we somehow have to attempt to match these up with the archaeological record. We do not have any sources, such as funerary stelae, which directly link up any representation of a soldier with either of these titles, as far as I am aware.

In the aforementioned passage in Polybius (10.29), he mentions a unit composed of thorakitai and thureophoroi. Now, we must deduce from this that though these soldiers were similarly armed, there was a distinction between them that warranted giving them different names. Since, presumably, being armed with a thorax and a hoplite's shield would make you a hoplite, and being armed with a thorax and a pelte would make you a peltast (as in Iphicrates' peltasts, or the definition of the peltast described by Asclepiodotus), it follows that the reason these men are called thorakitai is because they were armed with a thorax and a thureos, a new combination of arms that required a distinct name. Therefore, we can deduce from the literary evidence that what distinguished the thureophoros from the thorakites was a cuirass. Some authors may have used thureophoros as a blanket term to describe unarmoured and armoured men carrying thureoi, but if you are employing both terms, as the EB does, it only makes sense to keep them as mutually exclusive, or else the entire sense of the word thorakites is lost.

[Ibrahim]

I did, but I must explain why I think this whole debate is fundamentally flawed. Thorakitai and thureophoroi are just terms from the literary sources. We clearly have archaeological evidence that shows units carrying thureoi, and so we somehow have to attempt to match these up with the archaeological record. We do not have any sources, such as funerary stelae, which directly link up any representation of a soldier with either of these titles, as far as I am aware.

In the aforementioned passage in Polybius (10.29), he mentions a unit composed of thorakitai and thureophoroi. Now, we must deduce from this that though these soldiers were similarly armed, there was a distinction between them that warranted giving them different names. Since, presumably, being armed with a thorax and a hoplite's shield would make you a hoplite, and being armed with a thorax and a pelte would make you a peltast (as in Iphicrates' peltasts, or the definition of the peltast described by Asclepiodotus), it follows that the reason these men are called thorakitai is because they were armed with a thorax and a thureos, a new combination of arms that required a distinct name. Therefore, we can deduce from the literary evidence that what distinguished the thureophoros from the thorakites was a cuirass. Some authors may have used thureophoros as a blanket term to describe unarmoured and armoured men carrying thureoi, but if you are employing both terms, as the EB does, it only makes sense to keep them as mutually exclusive, or else the entire sense of the word thorakites is lost.

I see now. thanks.

[paullus]

the plan is actually to have a mix of armored and unarmored men among the thureophoroi, but that adjustment to the unit has not been completed as yet, partly because we never decided on the proper ratio.

as for connections to actual units, a papyrus from 197 BC attests a Kretan hyperetes (junior officer) of the second epilektoi thorakitai. its one of our best, if not only, attestations of units of specifically "thorakitai" in Hellenistic armies.

[Phalanx300]

I'm wondering, does the February Preview means that there will also be a March preview?

And I can't wait to see the Spartans for EB2 .

[desert]

They will play flutes whenever you click on them.

[MeinPanzer]

the plan is actually to have a mix of armored and unarmored men among the thureophoroi, but that adjustment to the unit has not been completed as yet, partly because we never decided on the proper ratio.

as for connections to actual units, a papyrus from 197 BC attests a Kretan hyperetes (junior officer) of the second epilektoi thorakitai. its one of our best, if not only, attestations of units of specifically "thorakitai" in Hellenistic armies.

That's a papyrus where the Cretan is mentioned as the kurios of a woman, right? I read it a long time ago but I've forgotten the citation for it. Anyway, the unfortunate thing is that we don't have any depictions of soldiers connected with the word thorakit, which would allow us to determine what they were equipped with beyond their thorakes.

Anyway, could you maybe explain briefly why you are going with some armoured thureophoroi? That's one thing I've always been a bit puzzled about in relation to the EB thureophoroi given the nature of the (rather limited) evidence.

[chairman]

While I do not profess to have anywhere near the knowledge or experience of Keravnos, Paullus or Meinpanzer, I feel that there is a certain amount of common sense that can be applied to this issue. What is defined as Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, instead of two discrete categories, is actually sets of many points on a continuam of armor or lack thereof, with Thureophoroi being towards the lighter and Thorakitai being towards the heavier, but with a mix.

So here is a possible analysis of the continuam.

Peltastai: javelins, pelte, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thureophoroi: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thorakitai: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, greaves, & one the following: linen, leather or metal plate thorax or mail or muscle cuirass.

So there is an overlap between Thureophoroi and Thorakitai, which is only natural.

This is just my concept based on what I read in this and other threads and my understanding of Hellenistic warfare. If any of this doesn't fit, please correct me so that I can better understand.

Chairman

[geala]

The problem is that many pictures of soldiers with a thureos show them without armour, but with helmet and spear (and sometimes javelins). I would see them as heavy infantry because they were able to fight the enemy toe to toe in the same manner I would count a naked Celt with sword and scutum as heavy infantry. You don't necessarily need armour for it.

I would prefer these thoureophoroi would have no armour in EB, too. With armour I would name them thorakitai. And I would give the peltastai a round pelte with less defence and slightly less melee stats or even get rid of them. I always have the problem to distinguish the peltastai from the thoureophoroi and decide what unit I shall use. In the end I nearly never ever use thoureophoroi because peltastai have more or less the same performance in melee and can shower the enemy with javelins.

[MeinPanzer]

While I do not profess to have anywhere near the knowledge or experience of Keravnos, Paullus or Meinpanzer, I feel that there is a certain amount of common sense that can be applied to this issue. What is defined as Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, instead of two discrete categories, is actually sets of many points on a continuam of armor or lack thereof, with Thureophoroi being towards the lighter and Thorakitai being towards the heavier, but with a mix.

So here is a possible analysis of the continuam.

Peltastai: javelins, pelte, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thureophoroi: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thorakitai: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, greaves, & one the following: linen, leather or metal plate thorax or mail or muscle cuirass.

So there is an overlap between Thureophoroi and Thorakitai, which is only natural.

This is just my concept based on what I read in this and other threads and my understanding of Hellenistic warfare. If any of this doesn't fit, please correct me so that I can better understand.

Chairman

This argument doesn't work for the very reason I posted earlier - why would a thureophoros wearing armour be anything but a thorakites? As far as we can tell, what made a thorakites a thorakites and not a thurephoros was that he wore a thorax. The evidence we have makes it apparent that this is a binary opposition - if you carry a thureos and don't wear a thorax, you are a thureophoros; if you carry and thureos and do wear a thorax, you are a thorakites.

But from our evidence it's apparent that the normal equipment of a thureophoros was javelins or spear, thureos, sword, and helmet. The standard equipment of a thorakites was javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, and a metal muscled or an organic cuirass. I can only think of one, very exceptional example of a representation of a soldier equipped with thureos as well as greaves.

[Phalanx300]

They will play flutes whenever you click on them.

That would be nice, though you aren't on the EB team right so your just joking around .

[paullus]

Hmm, several points on which to catch up.

1. Alexandrian stele of the thorakites - the soldier, an Epeirote, is shown in a classic dueling style known (perhaps) best from a number of south italian tombs that show duelers in armor with cloaks and javelins, and only rarely with shields. The stele fits far better with the duel theme than with a warfare theme, and I don't think we'd assume that the duelers from the Paestum tombs lacked shields if they wanted them.

2. Light thureophoroi - we're actually showing a sort of continuum, but its still up for some changes. For example, we've already implemented and previewed the euzonoi, an unarmored unit (save for a few helmets) equipped with thureoi and javelins. But we also know that there are a couple of depictions of thureophoroi in tube-and-yoke corselets, several in possible flexible leather garments, others in chain mail, and others in full muscled cuirasses. Now, we've been considering several ways of working through these things. From a Ptolemaic perspective, I see quite a few different outlays of gear, based on the full range of sources at my disposal. The Sidon stelai seem consistent with mercenary troops outfitted for mobile roles, carrying equipment bestowed by the king and packed off for campaign. We should differentiate these from the standing army troops recruited in Egypt itself (also--confusingly--called misthophoroi some of the time) who were from landed or (for lack of a better term at the moment) "small business" backgrounds, who, by nature of the period of their service and proximity to markets, had greater opportunity to diversify their equipment by purchasing, from their own funds or from their stipend, a different helmet or piece of armor. There are also equipment differences--we see 3 types of weapons pretty frequently, but as I'm sure you know, there are only 2 weapons allowed in-game. I have to leave in a minute actually, but it boils down to this: the gap between full thorakitai and euzonoi was too large, and we didn't feel comfortable lumping every type of armor ever shown worn by a soldier carrying a thureos into a single unit, so the thureophoroi are meant to bridge that gap. As I've said, they'll not, at release, wear as much armor. 30-60% (debated) will wear some form of lighter armor, and all will have helmets.

3. Greaves - That's actually due for change. You'll notice that the bodies of the thureophoroi are the same as those of the hoplitai. The thureophoroi will wear a variety of boots, so bear with us. I think there are actually also a few helmet changes for the thureophoroi that haven't been put into place, even though the model changes have already been prepared. It takes some work, and we've been doing a lot of work on a lot of other cultures. These things will get sorted out when we get back around to the Hellenes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup. We kind of have a round robin schedule: each 'culture' receives 'focus' in turn, and the focus has passed from the Hellenes to "I-will-not-tell-you-now-wait-for-previews-instead".

[MeinPanzer]

Hmm, several points on which to catch up.

1. Alexandrian stele of the thorakites - the soldier, an Epeirote, is shown in a classic dueling style known (perhaps) best from a number of south italian tombs that show duelers in armor with cloaks and javelins, and only rarely with shields. The stele fits far better with the duel theme than with a warfare theme, and I don't think we'd assume that the duelers from the Paestum tombs lacked shields if they wanted them.

I would have to say that I disagree. Were he facing an opponent in a duel, I would agree, but he is simply posed in a combative stance, and I can't think of a single other painted stele depicting a soldier in arms where the man is shown with only partial equipment, whether from Alexandria, Sidon, Cyprus, or Demetrias. There is also the Hellenistic gem Sekunda shows in his Seleucid Montvert title which shows a man identically equipped, with only muscled cuirass and javelin or spear.

2. Light thureophoroi - we're actually showing a sort of continuum, but its still up for some changes. For example, we've already implemented and previewed the euzonoi, an unarmored unit (save for a few helmets) equipped with thureoi and javelins. But we also know that there are a couple of depictions of thureophoroi in tube-and-yoke corselets, several in possible flexible leather garments, others in chain mail, and others in full muscled cuirasses.

What do you mean when you refer to "possible flexible leather garments"?

Now, we've been considering several ways of working through these things. From a Ptolemaic perspective, I see quite a few different outlays of gear, based on the full range of sources at my disposal. The Sidon stelai seem consistent with mercenary troops outfitted for mobile roles, carrying equipment bestowed by the king and packed off for campaign.

Are these not presumed to be the stelae of members of the garrison? They all seem to be light-to-medium infantrymen, mostly thureophoroi and peltasts - exactly the kind of mercenaries that were a dime a dozen and could be used to man garrisons. How is their armament indicative of being packed off for campaign?

We should differentiate these from the standing army troops recruited in Egypt itself (also--confusingly--called misthophoroi some of the time) who were from landed or (for lack of a better term at the moment) "small business" backgrounds, who, by nature of the period of their service and proximity to markets, had greater opportunity to diversify their equipment by purchasing, from their own funds or from their stipend, a different helmet or piece of armor.

But the mercenaries of Sidon, garrisoned near one of the most prominent port cities in the eastern Mediterranean and surely paid a stipend, would have been able to diversify their arms as well, and perhaps even had more disposable income to spend on arms than a clerouch who was tied financially to his life at home in Egypt.

There are also equipment differences--we see 3 types of weapons pretty frequently, but as I'm sure you know, there are only 2 weapons allowed in-game. I have to leave in a minute actually, but it boils down to this: the gap between full thorakitai and euzonoi was too large, and we didn't feel comfortable lumping every type of armor ever shown worn by a soldier carrying a thureos into a single unit, so the thureophoroi are meant to bridge that gap. As I've said, they'll not, at release, wear as much armor. 30-60% (debated) will wear some form of lighter armor, and all will have helmets.

If we look at depictions of soldiers, we can basically establish two classes: those with cuirasses (whether tube-and-yokes, muscled, or mail) and those without. For the rest, these two groups are very similarly equipped, bearing helmets, swords and spears/javelins. We know from Polybius that there were two classes of similarly-classed infantrymen, thureophoroi and thorakitai. The difference in name seems to suggest that the latter wore cuirasses while the former did not. What is the difficulty, then, in making those with helmet, sword, javelins, and thureos a unit called thureophoroi, while those with helmet, sword, javelins, thureos, and cuirass a unit called thorakitai? Variety could be provided for both with different kinds of helmets and cuirasses. As Polybius (and most likely other ancient historians) recognized, the greatest difference was between men with no armour and men with armour. Ordinarily I would agree with you on this point, but in this case the dichotomy in both the archaeological and literary sources seems extremely clear cut.

3. Greaves - That's actually due for change. You'll notice that the bodies of the thureophoroi are the same as those of the hoplitai. The thureophoroi will wear a variety of boots, so bear with us. I think there are actually also a few helmet changes for the thureophoroi that haven't been put into place, even though the model changes have already been prepared. It takes some work, and we've been doing a lot of work on a lot of other cultures. These things will get sorted out when we get back around to the Hellenes.

Good to hear, and I look forward to seeing the results!

[paullus]

I'll be sticking to my guns on the Epeirote stele. I don't think you have to judge the stelai just by the eastern mediterranean environment, its also worth bearing in mind the subject, in this case a native of far western Greece, and an immigrant to Egypt from a nation that had for several generations been heavily involved in southern italy, were depictions of dueling men using their cloaks as a shield were common. As for the single character vs the two, the distinction I would make is between the duels depicted on Italic funerary monuments to memorialize funeral games, and a depiction of a man who may have been a successful martial athlete of some sort. How many good examples of warriors using their cloaks as shields are known from the Hellenistic period that aren't part of highly idealized mythical scenes?

As for the garrison-members of Sidon, I agree, they were your run of the mill dime a dozen mercenaries, but I would add equipped at state expense for a hasty campaign. And considering they died and were buried in Sidon during the short Ptolemaic tenure, I don't think your hypothetical reasoning that they would have the time to customize their arms as well would apply.

Gotta run again, I'll have to get back to it later.

[geala]

...I have to leave in a minute actually, but it boils down to this: the gap between full thorakitai and euzonoi was too large, and we didn't feel comfortable lumping every type of armor ever shown worn by a soldier carrying a thureos into a single unit, so the thureophoroi are meant to bridge that gap. As I've said, they'll not, at release, wear as much armor. 30-60% (debated) will wear some form of lighter armor, and all will have helmets.

...

That sounds reasonable enough for me. It's still a game and we don't know enough to be too dogmatic about the question wether not single soldiers in a mostly unarmoured unit wore light forms of armour.

Will the thoureophoroi have the "prec" stat or will they be true javelineers? If not the latter, why should I take thoureophoroi instead of thorakitai? They will surely be cheaper and faster moving I presume.

[MeinPanzer]

I'll be sticking to my guns on the Epeirote stele. I don't think you have to judge the stelai just by the eastern mediterranean environment, its also worth bearing in mind the subject, in this case a native of far western Greece, and an immigrant to Egypt from a nation that had for several generations been heavily involved in southern italy, were depictions of dueling men using their cloaks as a shield were common. As for the single character vs the two, the distinction I would make is between the duels depicted on Italic funerary monuments to memorialize funeral games, and a depiction of a man who may have been a successful martial athlete of some sort. How many good examples of warriors using their cloaks as shields are known from the Hellenistic period that aren't part of highly idealized mythical scenes?

I can't think of any depictions of Hellenistic soldiers employing their cloaks, but it could reasonably be said that if he were not equipped with a shield, he might have used his cloak in that way. This kind of argument is obviously circular, though. I like your idea but I think a close examination of such Italian depictions and this stele would be in order.

As for the garrison-members of Sidon, I agree, they were your run of the mill dime a dozen mercenaries, but I would add equipped at state expense for a hasty campaign. And considering they died and were buried in Sidon during the short Ptolemaic tenure, I don't think your hypothetical reasoning that they would have the time to customize their arms as well would apply.

If they were even hired by the Ptolemies at all - for all we know, these men could have been the mercenaries who were garrisoned at Sidon under the Seleucids who went over wholesale to the Ptolemies after conquest.

[Africanvs]

Simply amazing work.

[BeeSting]

Absolutely beautiful... Long live EB!

[Decimus]

Awesome cant wait

[Irishmafia2020]

I just saw this preview... and I am blown away. Wow! It looks as if you are really taking advantage of the MTW2 engine's possibilities. Very impressive work!

[Megas Methuselah]

I already commented somewhere in here earlier, but I have to say it again: wow. The battlefield is going to look amazing! I love the variety! Any sense of false uniformity is now gone! Only EB would convince me to buy Kingdoms, and when EB is ready, I will.

Keep up the good work, guys.

[paullus]

someone did a calculation on the number of variations possible among the hoplitai. across all the different skins, with all the different configurations of greaves, helmets, shields, armor, and faces, there were something like 12000+ total possible combinations.

[Meneldil]

This is where we need a "ZOMG" smiley.

[Megas Methuselah]

This is where we need a "ZOMG" smiley.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

First, awesome preview.
Second:
"Antigonos Monopthalmos owed his surname to one of these devices."
One word: ouch.

[anubis88]

First, awesome preview.
Second:
"Antigonos Monopthalmos owed his surname to one of these devices."
One word: ouch.

You know i'm gonna shoot you for reviving this thread?

I forgot it was still january, and thought that the EB team just gave a new preview!!!

One better come out soon to extinguish my rage!!

[Cybvep]

Actually, a second February preview is a very nice idea ;)

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Especially since they haven't shown any off in a while.

You know i'm gonna shoot you for reviving this thread?

You don't have an Oxybeles do you? Monopthalmos isn't a very catchy surname for a Parthian.

[Lusitani]

I thought this was a new preview...grrrrrrrrrrrr

V.

[Gustave]

Especially since they haven't shown any off in a while.

We will show a LOT of stuff in the next previews... I can't say more, of course .