How accurate are the conclusions in this article?

[QuintusSertorius]

I've been reading this article, The Evolution of Hellenistic Infantry (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html), which starts with Iphikrates and goes on down through Philip II, Alexander and the Diadochi. It makes some interesting claims, based on readings of Nepos, Diodorus, Curtius, Polybius and others.

Of particular interest is the assertion that thureophoroi weren't halfway-house skirmisher-line troops. That they were spearmen (only), not javelin-men as well. The author seems to think that while Philip had phalangites who could be retasked as skirmishers, there weren't really any others who performed a dual-role.

Thoughts?

[fomalhaut]

heres the footnote of that claim

The thureophoroi he cites in his evidence as "Roman style" troops all carry small thureoi rather than large Roman scuta and not a single example carries a pilum as we would expect of the typical Roman soldier. A very few wear mail, but this in no way means they are "Roman": mail was a Celtic introduction to the Mediterranean area, so this is hardly conclusive given the Greeks' military contact with the Romans postdated that with the Galatians. Sekunda would have us believe the Seleucid army at Beth-Zacharia "must" be equipped in the Roman manner because it is in mail, but many non-Roman troops wore mail, and as he himself states in other works, many Roman themselves did not.

i don't know much about this, but i am assuming theurophoroi could be just as ambigous or broad a term as peltast hence conflicting evidence.

[Olaf The Great]

There's a difference between a normal javelin and a pilum.