New unit - Thracian Mercenaries

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Over at the official site. Doesn't look too bad - nice weapon. Looks like there's gonna be a lot of bare flesh on the battlefield http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Let's see what Nowake and Rosacrux have to say about historical accuracy...

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
"Expert at Hiding in Forests"

Yay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif I missed this line. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
_

[Spino]

Shouldn't this guy be wearing some kind of shirt or cloak? And weren't the Thracians known for their colorful outfits?

It doesn't make much sense to wear a helmet like that if you're going into combat with next to nothing on. He looks like a skirmisher that spent all his savings on a helmet

Anyway I do love the helmet, it looks stellar.

[Basileus]

eh wheres the body hair hehe, looks quite good i like the helmet aswell.

[[DnC]]

Gonna go check it out now.

Cheers BKB http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[The Wizard]

Looks like a well done rhomphaia-weilding unit of theuropheuroi. The shield is very nice and Thracian, as is the helm, but the rhomphaia looks a bit short for a 'poleaxe weapon'.

Not sure about his outfit though... if there's any outfit to speak of... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif



~Wiz

[Leet Eriksson]

This unit smells like the Ghazi,it has an anti-armour weapon,and is not armoured.

[Oleander Ardens]

@ Wizard: Sorry to correct you but this isn't a unit of Thureophoroi as it doesn't carry a thureos, the gallic shield which gave such units their name...

There is a rather big discussion going one how the rompheia looked like and how often it was used. There are some different possible shapes for it, but I think the one chosen by CA is good.

[Nowake]

The unit is .. surprising. The rhomphaia is well depicted, the shield works, but .. this is not Mortal Kombat I hope.

The helmet is a phrygian model, well made but has no point. The thracians were pretty well dressed, and wear at least pants. And those greaves .. you have a naked pedestrian guy with greaves. And phrygian helmet. Again .. Mortal Kombat or Total War? IIRC, Conan the barbarian was cimmerian. Maybe he's some type of gladiator http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Longshanks]

@Nowake,

The greaves are accurate, though I agree he should be better clothed. He should be clad at least in a tunic.

First marched the Thracians, who he [Nasica] himself tells us, inspired him with the most terror; they were of great stature, with bright and glittering shields and black frocks under them, their legs armed with greaves, and they brandished as they moved straight and heavily ironed spears over their right shoulders."

---Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paulus

[Longshanks]

This image depicts a Thracian peltast, but it better portrays Thracian costume:

http://members.tripod.com/great-bulgaria/Bulgaria/Thracian.jpg

[The Wizard]

Gah? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz

[Spino]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ May 15 2004,13:19)]This image depicts a Thracian peltast, but it better portrays Thracian costume:

http://members.tripod.com/great-bulgaria/Bulgaria/Thracian.jpg
Exactly what I was looking for Longshanks, thanks

[The Wizard]

I can't see it, hence the Gah... :\



~Wiz

[Spino]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 15 2004,15:06)]I can't see it, hence the Gah... :\



~Wiz
The picture is there Wizard but it cannot be displayed. Either right click on the url below and select 'Save Target As' to save the picture to your hard drive or copy the url into your browser's address bar and hit enter. Once the image loads you can right click on the pic and save it to your hard drive if you like... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

http://members.tripod.com/great-bulgaria/Bulgaria/Thracian.jpg

[The Wizard]

Yeah, tried that just after I posted it. Now it shows on the board as well...

Well, I'd rather see our little rhomphaia-weilding peltast (thanks Oleander http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) wearing that rather than the strange combination of big Thracian helmet, half-naked Thracian, and big bad weapon...



~Wiz

[oblivious maximus]

finally, i like it.

[Kraxis]

I certainly like him, and he has the historical accounts on his side, but he should most certainly be dressed more. The only 'naked' Thracians I know of were either slingers or young warriors with clubs (taken main from the Men-at-arms series of Osprey).

I had as said, expected more clothes, but also no shield, at least slung on the back like peltasts did at times.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ May 15 2004,18:05)]@Nowake,

The greaves are accurate, though I agree he should be better clothed. He should be clad at least in a tunic.

First marched the Thracians, who he [Nasica] himself tells us, inspired him with the most terror; they were of great stature, with bright and glittering shields and black frocks under them, their legs armed with greaves, and they brandished as they moved straight and heavily ironed spears over their right shoulders."

---Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paulus
Longshanks

You misunderstood. I wans't complaining about the greaves, I was complaining about the naked guy wearing greaves. As I said in my previous post:

you have a naked pedestrian guy with greaves

No point to that, isn't it? If he were a nobleman or a regular warrior (who would be normal to have a rhomphaia), he should be dressed. If he were a young man or part of the light troops (and the weapons don't show that in any case) he could not afford greaves. A naked guy like him would be armed with an akinakes (thracian short straight sword), and a small shield, maybe a leather cap, at most

This kind of nonsense combination I only saw in games like Mortal Kombat, really.

[shingenmitch2]

Okay, I'll start off by saying I like the unit a lot. I didn't think we'd get a unit like this. So for that alone I give it a huge
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

But, let's cover the accuracy problems for the heavy thracian infantry:

Helmet -- absolutely perfect. A++++

Shield -- mostly wrong. He is using the pelte that the Thracian peltast would use. (i.e. a guy in a tunic, with wicker pelte, couple of javelins, perhaps a spear, and a thracian-fox-skin cap). The pelte, being wicker, really could only stop missles and wouldn't stand up well to the type of fighting the heavy Thracian inf. would be enaging in. This Thracian should be using a medium-sized oval shield -- which, to my understanding, is the Theuros shield. It wasn't celtic, AFAIK, but was actually more Illyrian in design. Okay, I will concede that if he couldn't get hold of a Theuros shield, I guess he'd grab a pelte instead of having nothing...

Rhomphia -- it's okay. What he is shown with is a bit too much falx-like for my taste (but i'm just quibbling). The Rhomphia photo's I've seen had very little curve, the blade is relatively thin, long and has a slight hook towards its point. It was pointy enough to be able to be used as a spear if it had to.

Armor (or lack thereof) -- is most probably incorrect. Again, the peltast might wear a loin cloth (but would likely have a tunic and cape). The heavy Infantry may or maynot have greaves, but would most certainly have a tunic. A solid chunk of these heavy inf would be wearing a basic linothorax cuirass. (standard Greek cuirass)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 17 2004,08:52)]Okay, I'll start off by saying I like the unit a lot. I didn't think we'd get a unit like this. So for that alone I give it a huge
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

But, let's cover the accuracy problems for the heavy thracian infantry:

Helmet -- absolutely perfect. A++++

Shield -- mostly wrong. He is using the pelte that the Thracian peltast would use. (i.e. a guy in a tunic, with wicker pelte, couple of javelins, perhaps a spear, and a thracian-fox-skin cap). The pelte, being wicker, really could only stop missles and wouldn't stand up well to the type of fighting the heavy Thracian inf. would be enaging in. This Thracian should be using a medium-sized oval shield -- which, to my understanding, is the Theuros shield. It wasn't celtic, AFAIK, but was actually more Illyrian in design. Okay, I will concede that if he couldn't get hold of a Theuros shield, I guess he'd grab a pelte instead of having nothing...

Rhomphia -- it's okay. What he is shown with is a bit too much falx-like for my taste (but i'm just quibbling). The Rhomphia photo's I've seen had very little curve, the blade is relatively thin, long and has a slight hook towards its point. It was pointy enough to be able to be used as a spear if it had to.

Armor (or lack thereof) -- is most probably incorrect. Again, the peltast might wear a loin cloth (but would likely have a tunic and cape). The heavy Infantry may or maynot have greaves, but would most certainly have a tunic. A solid chunk of these heavy inf would be wearing a basic linothorax cuirass. (standard Greek cuirass)
I really don't understand how can you say that you like the unit if it is fundamentally wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif

That doesn't make sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 17 2004,10:49)]I really don't understand how can you say that you like the unit if it is fundamentally wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif

That doesn't make sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
I think you should redefine your understanding of the word 'fundamentally'. It means the absolute basis. In this case the absolute basis is a warrior armed with a rhomphia and possibly a shield. Armour, greaves and helmets are just addons.
Granted, the correct assembly of such addons will create a more positive feeling of the unit, but it will not mean it is fundamentally wrong.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 17 2004,11:39)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 17 2004,10:49)]I really don't understand how can you say that you like the unit if it is fundamentally wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif

That doesn't make sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
I think you should redefine your understanding of the word 'fundamentally'. It means the absolute basis. In this case the absolute basis is a warrior armed with a rhomphia and possibly a shield. Armour, greaves and helmets are just addons.
Granted, the correct assembly of such addons will create a more positive feeling of the unit, but it will not mean it is fundamentally wrong.
Ok. But with this definition we can say the same of EVERY unit they've released, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Aymar,

Krax basically answered for me. I'm just happy that CA produced a heavy Thracian with rhomphia and Phrygian helmet. This was one of the unit types I figured we'd never see. So any other problems I have with it are totally minor/secondary.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 17 2004,14:38)]Hi Aymar,

Krax basically answered for me. I'm just happy that CA produced a heavy Thracian with rhomphia and Phrygian helmet. This was one of the unit types I figured we'd never see. So any other problems I have with it are totally minor/secondary.
Ok. I understand your point. But that doesn't mean that that unit shouldn't be improved quite a lot.

[Nowake]

Yup, I agree with Aymar. It'll totally ruin it for me to have light armoured heavy infantry, don't you agree? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Kraxis]

I didn't say it couldn't be better, it most certainly can, but it is only in details it is incorrect.

For instance the Bull Warrior can't be classed as fundamentally wrong as he has no fundament. He is invented... Personally I think he is one of the better invented units now they have to invent some.

The Druid could possibly be classed as fundamentally wrong depending on how you view celtic/gaul society.
And the old pharaonic units are fundamentally wrong, they did not exist and were not likely to be reinvented (like the Carthagenian Sacred Band for instance).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Nowake is right about:


Quote[/b] ]light armoured heavy infantry
Where is the logic in this? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

Kraxis wrote:


Quote[/b] ]I didn't say it couldn't be better, it most certainly can, but it is only in details it is incorrect.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't like this look to be in the final release. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif



Quote[/b] ]For instance the Bull Warrior can't be classed as fundamentally wrong as he has no fundament. He is invented... Personally I think he is one of the better invented units now they have to invent some.
I don't agree. The basis is not very bad, but the name and helmet are ludicrous. There are other corrections, but let's not be too demanding. But why invent, I ask? Since there are so many good concepts taken from History, why invent one ridiculous one? If you have to invent, at least make it credible. The IBW isn't one for sure... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif



Quote[/b] ]The Druid could possibly be classed as fundamentally wrong depending on how you view celtic/gaul society.
And the old pharaonic units are fundamentally wrong, they did not exist and were not likely to be reinvented (like the Carthagenian Sacred Band for instance).
Preciselly. The Druids should be different and the Pharaonic units shouldn't be in the game at all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Nowake]

For instance the Bull Warrior can't be classed as fundamentally wrong as he has no fundament. He is invented... Personally I think he is one of the better invented units now they have to invent some.


Ah, Kraxis wants to play the sophist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif Well, if the fundament for a game like Total War is historical accuracy than IBW is fundamentally wrong. And through the feeling of historical reality TW has drawn many people up untill now, me included.

[Kraxis]

Ok, if there are so many accounts of Iberian/Celtiberian/Lusitanian elite units then I would like to see them. All I have heard from others is that there aren't any specific account of any unit.
There are the big oval shielded Celtiberians, the smaller round shielded Iberians, the Balearic Slingers and Hispanic Cavalry.

Of course there were more than this, but honestly the accounts doesn't say. If they don't say much besides what I have just presented, what should CA do? Let the Iberian faction have just five units?
Yes, the helmet (though Oleander claims to have seen a pic of such a helmet) and name is bad, but the rest is fitting for an Elite unit.

We can't use historical accuracy for anything if it doesn't provide us with what we need in terms of quantity.

[shingenmitch2]

GAH,
I've lost track about who comes down on which side of this discussion....

Seems to me there are 3 categories of units:

1 - Perfect:
historical unit, accurately armored/ depicted, correct for time.
(Roman Triarii)

2 - Acceptable
historical unit, with some inaccuracies in armor/ depiction
OR
perfectly portrayed unit, that is a bit anachronistic
(Thracian heavy or a well done Hoplite would be here)

3 - Poor/Crappy
historical unit that is anachronistic AND has problems with the accuracy of its armor (Yule Brenner Pharoh archers)
OR
invented unit or unit with fanatasy armor.
(The Druid starts getting into this realm, the dog/pig units also start getting into this area because I can see that they might have too much importance in the game)


Ibero Bull Warrior, for me, hovers somewhere between Poor and acceptable.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ May 19 2004,02:34)]Ah, Kraxis wants to play the sophist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif Well, if the fundament for a game like Total War is historical accuracy than IBW is fundamentally wrong. And through the feeling of historical reality TW has drawn many people up untill now, me included.
Wise words. Many people are are forgetting the realistic appeal that was one of the reasons for the success of the TW series... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 19 2004,06:53)]Ok, if there are so many accounts of Iberian/Celtiberian/Lusitanian elite units then I would like to see them. All I have heard from others is that there aren't any specific account of any unit.
There are the big oval shielded Celtiberians, the smaller round shielded Iberians, the Balearic Slingers and Hispanic Cavalry.

Of course there were more than this, but honestly the accounts doesn't say. If they don't say much besides what I have just presented, what should CA do? Let the Iberian faction have just five units?
Yes, the helmet (though Oleander claims to have seen a pic of such a helmet) and name is bad, but the rest is fitting for an Elite unit.

We can't use historical accuracy for anything if it doesn't provide us with what we need in terms of quantity.
I don't know how many times I have to post these links, but here they go again:

Los Iberos (http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos.htm)

Iberian Units (12th Post) (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14218;st=150)

Enjoy...

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] ]“The Lusitanians are the strongest amongst Iberians; to war, they carry very small shields, made out of Esparto (a natural hard vegetable fiber), with which can easely defend their bodies. During battle they wield it skilfully, moving it from one side to the other of their bodies, defending themselves with hability from every blow that falls upon them. They also use spears, entirely made of iron with harpoon-shaped tips, and ware helms and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians; they trow their spears with precision and to a great distance, very frequently causing grevious wounds. They are swift while moving and fast while running, so they flee and chase quickly (…). With these light armours, being able to run very fast and being very sharp-minded, they can only be defeated with difficulty.

Diodorus Siculus of Sicily, Sicilian historian, 80 BC - 20 AD


“They say that the Lusitanians are skilled in ambushes and chasses, swift, quick and sthealthy; they wield small shields two feet wide and concave in their outside, being manouvered with the help of two straps around the neck, and, so it seems, without grips. Beyond that they use daggers or knifes. Most of them wears linen armours and leather caps, very few others mail armours and three feathered helms. Some infantrymen also use greeves, and each of them carries several short spears; some of them with bronze tips.”

Strabo of Amasya (Pontus), Greek historian, 63 BC - 24 AD

This is the only part that actually mentions the armament of the Lusitanians.
It doesn't say much really as both accounts are very broad.
But from them we can actually piece the Bull Warrior together.
The shield, greaves and armour are mentioned the last two as only used by those lucky few. About helmets it only mention they 'wear helms'. The helmet is out of bounds in size but apparently helmets were used. The sword is mentioned 'and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians', and that the Bull Warriors sword is.
So all the complaining about him boils down to him having a stupid name and a rather strange helmet. Yes indeed a very inaccurate unit that should at once be removed from the game at once. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Just because he doesn't fit your idea of an Iberian (using it as a loose term here) warrior, then that doesn't mean he is incorrect.
Actually the Bull Warrior seems to be more correct than the Thacian guy as he has simply gone past common sense in his way to equip himself. But eithers equipment is equally correct (here I will make an equality of the BW helmet and TM shield).

If these two are the only sources we really have on them, then I can only say that every unit will be invented. Besides those Hannibal used of course. The accounts are so wague that every man could be using everything and nothing at the same time. It does say that when a man has this he would mostly not have this, but most certainly have this. It says, they could be equipped with X, Y, Z, A, B and C. It seems the javelin is the only certainty in a very chaotic world.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 19 2004,19:11)]
Quote[/b] ]“The Lusitanians are the strongest amongst Iberians; to war, they carry very small shields, made out of Esparto (a natural hard vegetable fiber), with which can easely defend their bodies. During battle they wield it skilfully, moving it from one side to the other of their bodies, defending themselves with hability from every blow that falls upon them. They also use spears, entirely made of iron with harpoon-shaped tips, and ware helms and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians; they trow their spears with precision and to a great distance, very frequently causing grevious wounds. They are swift while moving and fast while running, so they flee and chase quickly (…). With these light armours, being able to run very fast and being very sharp-minded, they can only be defeated with difficulty.

Diodorus Siculus of Sicily, Sicilian historian, 80 BC - 20 AD


“They say that the Lusitanians are skilled in ambushes and chasses, swift, quick and sthealthy; they wield small shields two feet wide and concave in their outside, being manouvered with the help of two straps around the neck, and, so it seems, without grips. Beyond that they use daggers or knifes. Most of them wears linen armours and leather caps, very few others mail armours and three feathered helms. Some infantrymen also use greeves, and each of them carries several short spears; some of them with bronze tips.”

Strabo of Amasya (Pontus), Greek historian, 63 BC - 24 AD

This is the only part that actually mentions the armament of the Lusitanians.
It doesn't say much really as both accounts are very broad.
But from them we can actually piece the Bull Warrior together.
The shield, greaves and armour are mentioned the last two as only used by those lucky few. About helmets it only mention they 'wear helms'. The helmet is out of bounds in size but apparently helmets were used. The sword is mentioned 'and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians', and that the Bull Warriors sword is.
"wear helms" is a little bit different from: "an helm with two large horns and a large metallic disk linking them"

As for the sword, I can forgive that.



Quote[/b] ]So all the complaining about him boils down to him having a stupid name and a rather strange helmet. Yes indeed a very inaccurate unit that should at once be removed from the game at once. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No. Modified. Name and helm...



Quote[/b] ]Just because he doesn't fit your idea of an Iberian (using it as a loose term here) warrior, then that doesn't mean he is incorrect.
No. As I've said, the helm should be a full copper helm with the Bucula face mask. They should be called Celtiberian Guard (Celtiberian Ambacti)

Something like this: These men are of higher birth, forming the faithfull followers of Celtiberian chieftans and bound religiously by a promisse of loyalty. They are used to war and so, are skilled and brave. Wearing full protection bronze helmets (with a crest of horse's mane) with the Bucula (bronze face mask) and a round bronze breastplate over their Sago, as well as bronze Ocrêas (greaves), these men are used to combat and have as main weapons the Solifera (a full-metal heavy javelin), the Falcata and the Coetra, as well as the Machoera or Rhanda. They are skilled, hardy and very competent in hand-to-hand combat, which makes them effective against the best troops the enemy has to offer.

Armed with Solifera.
Solifera very good against armour.
Very good attack.
Good defense.
Very good morale.
Ambush capabilities.

A quite better unit, isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]Actually the Bull Warrior seems to be more correct than the Thacian guy as he has simply gone past common sense in his way to equip himself. But eithers equipment is equally correct (here I will make an equality of the BW helmet and TM shield).
No, I don't think so. However, I don't know enough about Thracians to comment.



Quote[/b] ]If these two are the only sources we really have on them, then I can only say that every unit will be invented. Besides those Hannibal used of course. The accounts are so wague that every man could be using everything and nothing at the same time. It does say that when a man has this he would mostly not have this, but most certainly have this. It says, they could be equipped with X, Y, Z, A, B and C. It seems the javelin is the only certainty in a very chaotic world.
To bad you don't read spanish. The spanish site is prolific in info on units specs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif Too bad either that the site about Lusitanian weapons has gone down in these last couple of days. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-bigcry.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 20 2004,05:35)]They should be called Celtiberian Guard (Celtiberian Ambacti)

Something like this: These men are of higher birth, forming the faithfull followers of Celtiberian chieftans and bound religiously by a promisse of loyalty. They are used to war and so, are skilled and brave. Wearing full protection bronze helmets (with a crest of horse's mane) with the Bucula (bronze face mask) and a round bronze breastplate over their Sago, as well as bronze Ocrêas (greaves), these men are used to combat and have as main weapons the Solifera (a full-metal heavy javelin), the Falcata and the Coetra, as well as the Machoera or Rhanda. They are skilled, hardy and very competent in hand-to-hand combat, which makes them effective against the best troops the enemy has to offer.

Armed with Solifera.
Solifera very good against armour.
Very good attack.
Good defense.
Very good morale.
Ambush capabilities.

A quite better unit, isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
Yes, it is indeed a better unit, but remember this. We are many from many cultures with many interests. They are few and quite possibly can't take in the details of every single faction. We will always be able to point out inaccuracies because of our diversity.

I didn't know of that warrior you presented, and I know hell of a lot of things. It is arrogant to say so, but I think most people would agree.

So given their abilities, I would say the Bull Warrior is rather good. He is for the most part correct. He could be much better, but he will fill a fitting role.

I don't say we should just lay on our backs and give in, but accept that CA can't do everything to the same standard. Yes it is a major pain.
We can just hope that CA does their best, and hopefully listen to us a few moer times yet, as happened with the Night Raiders.

[shingenmitch2]

When I posted a listing of my ratings of the units I acknowledged that the Iberian Bullsh*t Warrior, was actually quite acurate with virtually everything except 1 big thing.

That damn helmet... I've seen numerous reconstruced Celt-iberian helmets and not seen one that comes close to that. As a war helmet that is quite large and impractical and the only thing it comes close to is the goddess Hathor/ Isis headress from EGYPT. Thus in depiction of a celtiberian, I think it sits as a significant error -- regardless of all the other nice things about the unit.

Also the unit name is highly suspect.

I would estimate that this unit is as easily ridiculeable as the Yule Brenner Pharoh warriors of Egypt. At least their headress EXISTED (even if it was reserved for pharohs and possibly generals).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,09:29)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 20 2004,05:35)]They should be called Celtiberian Guard (Celtiberian Ambacti)

Something like this: These men are of higher birth, forming the faithfull followers of Celtiberian chieftans and bound religiously by a promisse of loyalty. They are used to war and so, are skilled and brave. Wearing full protection bronze helmets (with a crest of horse's mane) with the Bucula (bronze face mask) and a round bronze breastplate over their Sago, as well as bronze Ocrêas (greaves), these men are used to combat and have as main weapons the Solifera (a full-metal heavy javelin), the Falcata and the Coetra, as well as the Machoera or Rhanda. They are skilled, hardy and very competent in hand-to-hand combat, which makes them effective against the best troops the enemy has to offer.

Armed with Solifera.
Solifera very good against armour.
Very good attack.
Good defense.
Very good morale.
Ambush capabilities.

A quite better unit, isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
Yes, it is indeed a better unit, but remember this. We are many from many cultures with many interests. They are few and quite possibly can't take in the details of every single faction. We will always be able to point out inaccuracies because of our diversity.
True. But, due to that fact, CA can capitalize on that, don't you think?



Quote[/b] ]I didn't know of that warrior you presented, and I know hell of a lot of things. It is arrogant to say so, but I think most people would agree.
Agree on what? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif



Quote[/b] ]So given their abilities, I would say the Bull Warrior is rather good. He is for the most part correct. He could be much better, but he will fill a fitting role.
Give him another helm and another name, and I'll agree.



Quote[/b] ]I don't say we should just lay on our backs and give in, but accept that CA can't do everything to the same standard. Yes it is a major pain.
We can just hope that CA does their best, and hopefully listen to us a few moer times yet, as happened with the Night Raiders.
Let's hope they listen more... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 20 2004,12:44)]When I posted a listing of my ratings of the units I acknowledged that the Iberian Bullsh*t Warrior, was actually quite acurate with virtually everything except 1 big thing.

That damn helmet... I've seen numerous reconstruced Celt-iberian helmets and not seen one that comes close to that. As a war helmet that is quite large and impractical and the only thing it comes close to is the goddess Hathor/ Isis headress from EGYPT. Thus in depiction of a celtiberian, I think it sits as a significant error -- regardless of all the other nice things about the unit.

Also the unit name is highly suspect.

I would estimate that this unit is as easily ridiculeable as the Yule Brenner Pharoh warriors of Egypt. At least their headress EXISTED (even if it was reserved for pharohs and possibly generals).
Agreed, except for the name. It is not suspect, it is a stupid invention. Another thing, the long Celtic sword wasn't that common. The prefered one was the Falcata...

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] ]and ware helms and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians

Doesn't that mean a longsword? Wasn't the Falcata an Iberian weapon?

[The Wizard]

The kopis had the same shape, and was developed on the other side of the Mediterranean.

I think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 20 2004,15:09)]The kopis had the same shape, and was developed on the other side of the Mediterranean.

I think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz
Yes, pretty similar, a bit shorter than the Falcata IIRC, but the Kopis was not the only sword the Greeks and Macedonians used. There was also longer versions of much the same sword. I compiled a list sometime ago here, but I can't remember them.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,15:04)]
Quote[/b] ]and ware helms and a sword very similar to the Celtiberians

Doesn't that mean a longsword?

Quote[/b] ]the long Celtic sword wasn't that common.
Not common. I never said it wasn't used... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]Wasn't the Falcata an Iberian weapon?
Yes. I think all Iberian populations used it. As Lord Wiz said, The Greeks had the Kopis. It is believed that the Hispanic populations copied the Greek's sword after establishing trade with them. On the other hand some Spanish state it was the other way around... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,15:22)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 20 2004,15:09)]The kopis had the same shape, and was developed on the other side of the Mediterranean.

I think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz
Yes, pretty similar, a bit shorter than the Falcata IIRC, but the Kopis was not the only sword the Greeks and Macedonians used. There was also longer versions of much the same sword. I compiled a list sometime ago here, but I can't remember them.
The Spartans used a short thin stabbing sword called Xiphos:

Spartan Sword (http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/sword.htm)

Pay no attention to what is written about Spartan tactics. It's a replicas site, not a history one. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Kraxis]

Yes, the Xiphos. But I seem to remember a sword named like Machaia or something like that. A longer Macedonian sword, believed to have been equipped by the phalangites of Alexander.

[The Wizard]

Well, the only Macedonian infantry to use swords of any notability were the shield bearers. But I've said that a million and one times now, I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Krax, foot companions used daggers, which were carried on the hip, in the crush if their pike had broken, or if they simply couldn't use the weapon anymore. It was even more a last ditch defence weapon than the way Greek hoplites (exempting Lachedaemonians) used swords.



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 20 2004,17:23)]Well, the only Macedonian infantry to use swords of any notability were the shield bearers. But I've said that a million and one times now, I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Krax, foot companions used daggers, which were carried on the hip, in the crush if their pike had broken, or if they simply couldn't use the weapon anymore. It was even more a last ditch defence weapon than the way Greek hoplites (exempting Lachedaemonians) used swords.



~Wiz
I know the later phalangites had big daggers, but the earlier troops were more versatile than that.

I actually found a sword that is Macedonian and a bit larger than either Kopis or Xiphos.

Macedonian sword (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/img_B1273c.html)

But it was more common for them to use the Machaira (that was the word I was looking for). While the word itself means 'knife' or similar, Xenophon maintains that a cavalryman should use it as opposed to the Xiphos.

It is basically a slimmer and longer version of the Kopis, a recurved saber or falchion.

The dagger the phalangites were to use later was the Encheiridion sword, a weapon not much bigger than a dagger. Its name even means dagger.
But initially the foot companions were equipped with the Machaira.

[Kraxis]

Also found this...

Guy that has made his own hoplite panoply (http://www.larp.com/hoplite/weapons.html)

The straight sword returns, and he refers to Connoly for its looks. Besides this I sumbled onto those straight swords time and again where they were called Hoplite Swords. I simply guessed that people had been mixing up the kopis with the xiphos, but now it seems that either a straight sword was used as well or even Connoly is mistaken.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,23:53)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 20 2004,17:23)]Well, the only Macedonian infantry to use swords of any notability were the shield bearers. But I've said that a million and one times now, I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Krax, foot companions used daggers, which were carried on the hip, in the crush if their pike had broken, or if they simply couldn't use the weapon anymore. It was even more a last ditch defence weapon than the way Greek hoplites (exempting Lachedaemonians) used swords.



~Wiz
I know the later phalangites had big daggers, but the earlier troops were more versatile than that.

I actually found a sword that is Macedonian and a bit larger than either Kopis or Xiphos.

Macedonian sword (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/img_B1273c.html)

But it was more common for them to use the Machaira (that was the word I was looking for). While the word itself means 'knife' or similar, Xenophon maintains that a cavalryman should use it as opposed to the Xiphos.

It is basically a slimmer and longer version of the Kopis, a recurved saber or falchion.

The dagger the phalangites were to use later was the Encheiridion sword, a weapon not much bigger than a dagger. Its name even means dagger.
But initially the foot companions were equipped with the Machaira.
No they weren't.

Foot companions under Philip and Alexander were taught to use their sarrisai and only their sarissai, unless these were broken or useless in the crush.

They were not expected to drop their pike once close enough, get out their sword, and join the melee, and they never did. They weren't like the Gallic phalanxes that Caesar mentions in his De Bello Gallico.

For that, foot companions were bad in scaling walls and assaulting cities. And also, their specialisation in weilding the sarissa and not both sarissa and kopis resulted in the fact that should a gap be exploited (and gaps were common), a phalanx of foot companions was in real big trouble.

The 'sword' they did have can be easily considered a dagger, and pretty damn useless to a foot companion once it comes to it. As I have stated before: a last ditch weapon for foot companion.



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

I never meant they would drop the pike, but that they could indeed be used for attacking cities and fighting in forests or hilly terrain. Initially...

Article on dual purpose of phalangites (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html)

While this article mainly revolves around the javelin/pike adoption, it clearly proves that the phalangites could do more than just stand there and point a pike. They could take cities and fight in mountains, situations where a pike is useless, but javelins and swords are great.
Also the Iphikratan influence should not be ignored. As the article points to, Phillip most likely learned about Iphikrates reforms very intimately. He basically copied the Iphikratan hoplites with his phalangites, and those hoplites (Iphs) were equipped with longer swords. If Phillip copied more or less everything else, he quite possibly also copied the sword.

Eventhough Alexander was reckless and quite possibly didn't care much about the troops wellfare, it doesn't mean he didn't understand the problems it would mean if he sent badly equipped or trained troops to fight in terrains out of place.
It would make as little sense to him as us, to send troops armed with an Encheiridion and javelins to take a city, a more substantial weapon would be needed. The Machaira. And basically he had more than enough troops with a dagger and javelins or at least teh possibility to raise them, so there must be a reason for the use of the phalangites. I can only reason they were better trained and better armed and more likely to come out alive.

[Rosacrux]

If you read the accounts about Alexander's battles (both before and during his Asian expedition) you'll find numerous accounts where the pezeteroi fought without the sarissa.

Indeed, Philipos trained his infantry in the use of sarissa but before that, the bulk of the Macedonian army was armed not as hoplites (they had hoplites alright but relatively few - the Macedonian social and political structure did not favor the hoplite which is a city-state invention) but as peltasts, with Javellins and swords.

Their training and expertise in that kind of warfare - very common in the area, due to the proximity with the specialists Thracian and the equally lightly equiped but highly mobile and ferocious Illyrians - preceded the establishment of the phalanx formation and the use of the pike in Macedonia.

I have an article somewhere... it's called "Commando action by Alexander's foot companions", but it's nothing like that - it describes mainly seiges and mop-up expeditions into mountainous and "wild" areas, carried out by regular foot companions of Alex's army. I'll try to find it a post a few examples on the multi-role phalangites.

So, Kraxis is right about their veritable role, yet Wiz is right about the sword: they didn't adopt a longer sword, they carried only a quite short one (machera or egchiridion, not kopis, the latter was used by the Macedonian cavalry in that timeframe under the name "hippiki kopis" and possibly in a shorter version by the hypaspists). Their pike had a second point in the butt ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) and when the main point was broken or cut off, they used it as a spear. They rarely used their swords in pitched battle (a 70 cm. sword is pretty useless in a forest of 6 m. pikes), but they used light infantry tactics when needed, as they were proficient in those too. And that's when they used their swords and the javelins they carried along.

[Rosacrux]

BTW there seems to be quite a confusion regarding "what is what" in the Greek vocabulary for swords. The interpretations vary and sometimes we find different passages in the same text (or by the same author) that describe the same sword with two different words or two different swords with the same word.

There are several words associated with swords in ancient Greece and those are:

- Aor (ah-ohr): In use during the Mycenean era, meant the typical sword of the Mycenean world, with the leaf-shaped, double-edged blade. The word remained in use until the 6th century BC, at least.

- Fasganon (Fah-sgha-nohn): Another Mycenean word, that survived to Homer times (he uses it in the Iliad). Meant the same sword as Aor.

- Xiphos (ksee-phos): The standard word for sword, in use since the times of the Mycenean dialect, in most classical dialects, in Koene Greek, even in modern Greek. Usually it refered to the standard short sword ("Chalkidean" sword, the later evolution of the Mycenean leaf-shaped fasganon) but also to the various types of double edged swords in the Greek world.

- Kopis (koh-pees): Unlike the previous types, this one is a typical single-edged blade, curved, mainly used for cuts. There is little confusion about this term, as it seems applicable to a very particular type of weapon. The kopis had also a cavalry ("hippiki") variant, which was longer.

- Machera (Mah-cheh-rah): The most "mysterious" term. In various passages in Xenophon, we learn about machera as an alternative to kopis, but in a later passage it's used in conjunction with xiphos and even egchiridion. Plutarch is even more confusing. Many seem to agree that Machera was mainly the short stabbing sword that was used mostly by the Pelloponesian initially, but that's not a given.

- Eghiridion (eh-gchee-ree-dee-ohn): Usually this one means "large knife" and as such is depicted in most occassions. But even here we have quit a confusion, since - in Plutarch for instance - we have the words "machera", "xiphos" and "eghiridion" used to describe the same sword

As you can see this whole thing is rather confusing.

An interesting article about the use of Greek swords (and some of the confusion regarding their names) can be found in this address (http://www.hoplites.co.uk/pdf/hoplite_swordsmanship.pdf) but even that article misses some information.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 21 2004,03:31)]They rarely used their swords in pitched battle (a 70 cm. sword is pretty useless in a forest of 6 m. pikes), but they used light infantry tactics when needed, as they were proficient in those too. And that's when they used their swords and the javelins they carried along.
I never meant that they would try to use the sword in the pikeman role, but if push came to shove, they could defend themselves competently in a swordfight.

The way I have understood the foot companons so far is that they were usable in most areas as they were rather versatile.
And being equipped with a smaller shield and generally lighter armour than a hoplite they would be more fleet, meaning a swordfight would become more individual where a cutting weapon, or at least a weapon that could both stab and cut would be preferable, over a stabbing weapon such as the Spartan sword (I'm deliberately avoiding the names now). Thus the recurved saber or falchion mentioned in the article I posted would be a perfect weapon.

I have a hard time believing the foot companion would use the buttspike of their pike as a spear. It was a bit flanged counterweight, and to put it at the other end it would seriously overbalance the pike and make it virtually impossible to wield. It could perhaps be used as a twohanded short stabbing weapon, stabbing downwards, but hardly anything that can compare to a spear.

[shingenmitch2]

The machiara has been described as a falchion. I've seen black-vase illustrations that show greek soliders weilding a falchion-like weapon. It appears single edged with a strait back and the blade widens towards the tip. However there is no curve or re-curve to the blade so it was not the kopis. I believe it to be the mysterious machiara.

My understanding of the Xiphos is that it refers to the leaf-blade sword of the greeks. It is the sword that Kraxis's picture showed.

Amyr that maybe a reconstruction of the Spartan sword, but they have incorrectly labeled it the xiphos. The Spartan sword is only shown in limited illustrations/statues and accounts of it make it sound like a large dagger. I have not seen an official name for it, but it may very well be the Eghiridion of which Roseacrux wrote.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 21 2004,03:57)]- Machera (Mah-cheh-rah): The most "mysterious" term. In various passages in Xenophon, we learn about machera as an alternative to kopis, but in a later passage it's used in conjunction with xiphos and even egchiridion. Plutarch is even more confusing. Many seem to agree that Machera was mainly the short stabbing sword that was used mostly by the Pelloponesian initially, but that's not a given.
That is very interesting, Rosacrux Specially this part:

Many seem to agree that Machera was mainly the short stabbing sword that was used mostly by the Pelloponesian initially, but that's not a given.

I say this because the Lusitanians (and I believe other Iberian tribes) used a long "dagger" called Machoeira. It was effectivelly a thin short stabbing sword. Maybe it is just like the Kopis-Falcata origin, brought by the Greek merchants to the Iberian Peninsula and then copied.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 21 2004,10:39)]Aymar that maybe a reconstruction of the Spartan sword, but they have incorrectly labeled it the xiphos. The Spartan sword is only shown in limited illustrations/statues and accounts of it make it sound like a large dagger. I have not seen an official name for it, but it may very well be the Eghiridion of which Roseacrux wrote.
I didn't know that. So, the site is only good for pics.

BTW, everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif nice links...

[The Wizard]

BTW Rosa, what is the Greek designation for the shield bearers? And Royal shield bearers?

Was it hupaspistoi (since ancient Greek did not have an igrek)? I didn't like Greek when I had it, and I've since let it drop from my courses (only Latin now), but I do know that companions were hetairoi, foot companions/phalangites pezhetairoi (the 'h' made by the mark on the 'e'), but not the names of the shield bearers and the part of the shield bearers serving as the infantry of the agema...

And AFAIK and have read, the ones doing the commando work were the shield bearers... Pir-Sar anyone?



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 21 2004,10:39)]The machiara has been described as a falchion. I've seen black-vase illustrations that show greek soliders weilding a falchion-like weapon. It appears single edged with a strait back and the blade widens towards the tip. However there is no curve or re-curve to the blade so it was not the kopis. I believe it to be the mysterious machiara.
Yes, that is the weapon I refer to... Well, the author of the article refers to them, but I had the belief of that weapon prior to reading it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Those weapons also look longer than most Kopis swords, though of course it is not a given fact.


Quote[/b] ]My understanding of the Xiphos is that it refers to the leaf-blade sword of the greeks. It is the sword that Kraxis's picture showed.
That certainly explains why so many sites claim that the straight leafshaped swords are 'hoplite swords'. Good for stabbing and cutting, but not as good at cutting as the Kopis or Machaira, but better at stabbing.


Quote[/b] ]Amyr that maybe a reconstruction of the Spartan sword, but they have incorrectly labeled it the xiphos. The Spartan sword is only shown in limited illustrations/statues and accounts of it make it sound like a large dagger. I have not seen an official name for it, but it may very well be the Eghiridion of which Roseacrux wrote.

Hey, I was the first one to refer to that sword... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Quote[/b] ]The dagger the phalangites were to use later was the Encheiridion sword, a weapon not much bigger than a dagger. Its name even means dagger.

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

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ May 17 2004,23:39)]No point to that, isn't it? If he were a nobleman or a regular warrior (who would be normal to have a rhomphaia), he should be dressed. If he were a young man or part of the light troops (and the weapons don't show that in any case) he could not afford greaves. A naked guy like him would be armed with an akinakes (thracian short straight sword), and a small shield, maybe a leather cap, at most

This kind of nonsense combination I only saw in games like Mortal Kombat, really.
And perhaps Ancient Greek art?.

www.mystudios.com/art/ancient/greek/greek-sarpedon-vase.html



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

[Nowake]

Greek art protected the greeks minds from the horrible reality, as Nietzsche said, so it's perfectly understandable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ May 24 2004,02:44)]Greek art protected the greeks minds from the horrible reality, as Nietzsche said, so it's perfectly understandable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Oh, Nietzsche was just jealous of all those beautiful Greek nude male bodies... that's why he spent all his life in Italy, chasing after some (Italian) alternatives http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Greek art cannot be labeled "realistic" or "non-realistic" - it was both. It was just as complicated as art is nowadays. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Nowake]

Yes, but it depicted the idealised form of the human body. In every form. You don't see there a statue of a starving children. Greek art (sculpture) was dedicated to Apollo, the god of light and perfection. The music, on the other had, was for Dyonisus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[shingenmitch2]

The Greek art may have been idealized, but it is also quite accurate. Their artists might have stylized things a bit, left off some details or "covered over some warts." But in general, they drew and sculpted what they saw and rarely invented details. Depictions of their arms and armor, as well as those of their enemies/ neighbors (Thracian, Scythian, Persians) are usually precise as supported by actual artifacts.

The only exception might be their depiction of mythological creatures, but there again they were illustrating stories and doing so in a very literal way. They used what they were familiar with as reference. One statue of Pegasus is an absolutely gorgeous horse with well done bird's wings attached.

In Nowake's example, Apollo might be idealized, but he is also a dead-on accurate representation of human form.

[Nowake]

As I said, it idealised the human body; I didn't said it made things up, just that it showed human body in utter perfection. This is why I find the ancient period and the rennaissance so "seductive": they were not afraid to aim for perfection. Apollo's statues of anquity and Michellangelo's David show that plently.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 21 2004,11:57)]BTW Rosa, what is the Greek designation for the shield bearers? And Royal shield bearers?

Was it hupaspistoi (since ancient Greek did not have an igrek)? I didn't like Greek when I had it, and I've since let it drop from my courses (only Latin now), but I do know that companions were hetairoi, foot companions/phalangites pezhetairoi (the 'h' made by the mark on the 'e'), but not the names of the shield bearers and the part of the shield bearers serving as the infantry of the agema...

And AFAIK and have read, the ones doing the commando work were the shield bearers... Pir-Sar anyone?



~Wiz
Just saw this, Wiz.

Shield bearers would be hypaspistae (pronounced “ee-pah-spee-steh”), those were the agema infantry too. To be precise, one of the three taxis (each of 1.000 men, unlike the standard pezeteri taxis) of the hypaspistae was the agema (“agema ton hypaspiston”). There was no different designation, AFAIR. They really avoided the epithets like “royal” etc. (being Greek and all) so I would be rather surprised to have them designated as “hypaspistae vasileos” or anything similar. They do used the term “vasiliki ili” for Alexander’s personal contigent of heteroi cavalrymen, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif