Any new spartan unit in the making?

[Kampfduck]

hi.
some months ago there was a topic about sparta in this
specific period, and if it should have an own unit, and how this
unit should look. After that it became very quit around the new
spartans. Any change that the team has worked on a new spartan
soldier/unit?

greetz

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Definitely. We are still debating the one shown to us so far - equipment, armor, etc. It's very tricky to try to get one to accurately represent what we think they would have been like in 272 BC. Some folks will have 479 BC Spartans in their head and will be upset if they aren't depicted that way. Some people will want the famous Spartan "Spartan-ness" to be present in the unit, regardless of the situation of the Spartans in 272 (e.g., the standard service as mercenaries they participated in, the statements that the king in 272 (Areus) introduced 'luxury' into Sparta, etc.). Some folks will want really bland ones, some will want really flashy ones. It's complicated. We are trying to come to some agreement, but don't expect us to show the unit till it's ready. :grin:

[jerby]

sounds like that Pie/cake speech from some time ago.

EB is making Pie. but soem of us would have liked Cake better. some will say Pie sucks and cake rules. everybdoy wants somethign else. some get what they want, pie. but whatever the case, EB is making Pie, a good pie. so people will say:" hmm, I like Cake better than Pie. but damn this sure is a good pie" or perhaps even "this is the best Pie ever"

[Kull]

sounds like that Pie/cake speech from some time ago.

EB is making Pie. but soem of us would have liked Cake better. some will say Pie sucks and cake rules. everybdoy wants somethign else. some get what they want, pie. but whatever the case, EB is making Pie, a good pie. so people will say:" hmm, I like Cake better than Pie. but damn this sure is a good pie" or perhaps even "this is the best Pie ever"

In this case, it will definitely be "the best Pie ever". :2thumbsup:

[khelvan]

We might as well solicit the various explanations for going either way with the look of the Spartiates now, so as to avoid a little bit of the sh*tstorm that will happen when we reveal them, no matter what we choose.

Our current working version, which has generated a LOT of heated debate, looks rather extravagant. Worked bronze cuirass, with elaborate bronze trimmings and the like. It is, in fact, the best looking unit we've done yet (in my opinion). However, the debate over how rich they should look is, as I said, rather heated. So, we might as well get the ball rolling here and get all the sources laid out for going either way. People may even have sources we haven't read, which will help the decision making process.

[paullus]

Just to clarify, the Spartan unit is meant to be a sort of agema equivalent, right? That is, not at all a common unit, or even the main unit to be recruited at Sparte.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

They are spartiates - property owners and citizens of Sparta. They existed in small numbers (400 - 1000 ?) around the time of our game (with only about 100 as large scale property owners at the start possibly), and then reforms in the 240's opened it up a lot more to other Lakonians and greatly increased their numbers (but diluted them also in some senses). These men had more than likely also served as mercenaries (often led by their own king) in places like Egypt and South Italy and Crete.

[paullus]

Righto. And now I understand the problem in depicting the suckers. Most served in more traditional hoplite roles when serving as mercenaries, but in a few of the surviving battle narratives (eg Sellasia) they seem to fight more as Makedones. So at Sellasia, the perioikoi seem to fight more as traditional hoplites, while the Spartiates fight in a phalanx match with Antigonos' phalanx. The same may be the case at Mantinea. But even if this were the case (these are just two examples, and not conclusive by any means), surely you might expect a more traditional unit, like that Akrotatos had with him in attacking the Chaonians?

[Chester]

Just do what you people have always done, go with the most historically sound choice. It's a shame that the Spartan is really nice looking, you may have to nerf it, and that could hurt the skinner.

Definately go with what the EB greek historian feels is the most accurate look. If people want pretty units, they already have lots of them. I feel EB greeks and successor states have some of the most beautiful units in the game, or in a mod period. So don't feel guilty about it.

[khelvan]

Well, that's the thing. We have multiple Greek historians and we have a rather lengthy unresolved internal debate going on about it. Thus, the more information we bandy about, be it here or internally, the better.

[Moros]

sounds like that Pie/cake speech from some time ago.

EB is making Pie. but soem of us would have liked Cake better. some will say Pie sucks and cake rules. everybdoy wants somethign else. some get what they want, pie. but whatever the case, EB is making Pie, a good pie. so people will say:" hmm, I like Cake better than Pie. but damn this sure is a good pie" or perhaps even "this is the best Pie ever"
Hmm...Pie... :drools like Homer:
Pff who would want cake anyway. tsss cake.

[Mithradates]

I was wondering when did the spartans loose the cloaks and long hair was it after the helots system was removed or even earlier?

[jerby]

Hmm...Pie... :drools like Homer:
Pff who would want cake anyway. tsss cake.
imagine the poor bastards who like pudding:no:

[EdwardL]

A while back I posted some historical info concerning the spartans that gave some insight to the history of their Military and way of life from 338 BC up to 1834 AD. Hope this helps..


The quality of training and valour of the Spartans did not deteriorate through time, in withering decay as some here might believe.. It went through reforms and attempts of reform that merited the Spartan soldiers with renewed excellence..



The end of Sparta

After the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) Phillip of Macedon marched through the Peloponnese, welcomed by all the cities but when he reached Sparta they refused him to enter. Phillip did not try to take by force the city and left. Sparta was the only Greek city that did not take part in the League of Corinth, which was formed in 337 BC, under Macedonian control.
In 331 BC, king Agis, the grandson of Agesilaos, raised a revolt against Macedonia, but he was defeated and killed.
In the end of the 4th century BC, Sparta build a wall for the first time in her history, which was enclosing its four central villages and Acropolis.
When in 280 BC, the Celts invaded from the north overrunning Macedon, king Areus of Sparta, who had tried to unite the cities of Peloponnese, led an army into central Greece. During his reign the first coins of Sparta was issued, three hundred years later from the rest of Greece.
In 272 BC, king Pyrros of Epeiros could easily have taken the city after defeating the Spartans. Sparta became a dependency of Macedon, regained independence under the tyrants Machanidas (207 BC) and Nabis (195 - 192 BC).
In 265 BC again, having formed an alliance with Athens, Achaea and Elis and some Arcadian cities, gave battle against Macedon but lost it and in his retreat was killed (Chremonidean war).
The son of Areus, Akrotatos, in 260 BC leading the Spartan army against Megalopolitans, he was defeated and himself killed.
In 244 BC, Agis IV came to the throne and starting a series of changes. He proposed all debts to be cancelled, and to redistribute all land, in parts of 4500 citizens and 15000 Perioikoi. He also insisted on strict Lykurgian training in the citizens for the remained 700 equals (omioi) and 2000 hypomeiones and selected perioikoi. He found in his proposals strong resistance and Agis was put in trial and executed in 241 BC.
The next king of Sparta Kleomenes III, began to reign in 236 BC. He married the widow of king Agis and also tried to impose his ideas. In 227 BC, in a revolt he killed four ephors and exiled eighty of his opponents. That it was the first time the ephorate was abolished in Sparta. He then redistributed the land into 4000 lots and perioikoi as well as hypomeiones occupied them. He also started to enforce the Lykurgos training and habits, under the guidance of his friend philosopher Sphairos. All these changes brought results and Kleomenes had many military successes. Argos and most of Argolid and eastern Arcadia was conquered.
The Achaean league under Aratos of Sikyon, with the promise of giving him back Corinth, allied with king Antigonos of Macedon and recovered Argos and several Arcadian cities. In his turn Kleomenes captured and destroyed Megalopolis (223 BC).
In 222 BC, at Sellacia, between Sparta and Tegea, a battle took place. The Spartan army was numbering 10,000 and that of Antigonos and his allies 30,000. At this long and horrid battle, Spartans fought bravely. The whole Spartan army fell, except 200 men. King Kleomenes fled to Egypt.
The following years, a series of revolts started at Sparta, king's ephors were killed or exiled.
In 206 BC, the tyrant Nabis, a descendant of Demaratos, who had fled in Persia in 490 BC, took the throne. An able but ruthless man, he confiscated the properties of the wealthy and gave them to the poor. By setting free slaves, he managed to acquire an army of 10,000 men and he also extended his social reforms to Argos. It was Nabis who foreseeing the incoming dangers fortified Sparta for the first time in her history.
When the Roman commander Flamininus invaded Laconia and laid siege to Sparta, after a few days of fighting a non honorable truce was accepted by Sparta, in which was loosing all the Perioikic cities on the coasts and her fleet.
Later with the pretence of helping Sparta, the Aitolians sent a thousand soldiers to kill Nabis and secure Sparta. They managed to kill him but they all were massacred from the Spartans. After Nabis assassination, Sparta was forced by Philopoemen to become a member of the Achaean league. Her walls were razed and the laws of Lykurgos repealed.
Under the Romans in the 2nd century AD, Laconia as a province of Achaea was allowed to revert to a Lykurgian regime.
In 396 AD, the city was destroyed by Alaric.
In the 9th century AD, the Slavs invaded and the population was forced to migrate to Mani.
The Byzantines refound a town and named her Lacedaemonia but her importance had been lost by 1248 AD and disappeared from history totally, by 1834 AD.
Today the city of modern Sparta occupies the very same territory of the ancient city.


One would think that in EB should be followed a reform for the Spartans such as that of Marian reforms for Romans.

[Moros]

imagine the poor bastards who like pudding:no:
well aren't there pies who have a layer of pudding? hmmm.
pudding pie...

[Xanthippus]

In 222 BC, at Sellacia, between Sparta and Tegea, a battle took place. The Spartan army was numbering 10,000 and that of Antigonos and his allies 30,000. At this long and horrid battle, Spartans fought bravely. The whole Spartan army fell, except 200 men. King Kleomenes fled to Egypt.
The following years, a series of revolts started at Sparta, king's ephors were killed or exiled.

I was under the impression that the Macedonian numbers were a little bit lower? And also Kleomenes' brother didn't use his location to the proper advantage, and that contributed to the end result. Greek history isn't really my cup of tea, though.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

In 272 BC, king Pyrros of Epeiros could easily have taken the city after defeating the Spartans. Sparta became a dependency of Macedon, regained independence under the tyrants Machanidas (207 BC) and Nabis (195 - 192 BC).
In 265 BC again, having formed an alliance with Athens, Achaea and Elis and some Arcadian cities, gave battle against Macedon but lost it and in his retreat was killed (Chremonidean war).Ummm. The Spartans defended their city from the Epeirotes until reinforcements could arise and the Macedonians even came down to take a shot at Pyrrhus too. There was no dependancy to the Macedonians that took place after that battle. Within three years we have clear proof that the Macedonians and Spartans were at odds, and within seven the Macedonians are attacked at Corinth by a Spartan army. That is the part of this text that pertains most to our game situation and it's just dead wrong.

[jerby]

well aren't there pies who have a layer of pudding? hmmm.
pudding pie...
this is getting too complicated for me :shame:

next thign we need is a pie-cake to make the confusion whole...

[Moros]

this is getting too complicated for me :shame:

next thign we need is a pie-cake to make the confusion whole...
a pie wich has a layer of puddig is complicated? they exist tough, I've eate a lot of them. But never eard about a pie-cake tough.

Oh well you can't help it, you are just Dutch. (here we go again, long time tough)

[paullus]

You would think it wouldn't be tooo terribly difficult, with the battle against Pyrrhus taking place in the exact year of the EB start. But its quite problematic. Here are a couple of thoughts I have:
1) Sparta has gotten wealthier, and many Spartiates *may* have had lax discipline compared to their forbears.
2) Some sort of elite Spartan unit existed. Mentioned in Plutarch's Pyrrhus, they kill Ptolemaios in a rear guard action in the Argolid before being crushed by Epirote cav. These would probably be the unit EB would want to create. Funny thing about this unit, one of the soldiers in it (the one who killed Ptolemaios) is described as a Kretan, so unless he was a special case (he is noted for his size and skill), the "epilektwn lakedaimoniwn" (Plut. Pyrrh. 30.6) may not have even been composed of equals at that time (perhaps because the numbers were so small).
B2) If we take these as the unit, they are noted as impetuous, and HIGHLY effective.
C) Spartan units eventually fight as phalangites...these could be represented through existing units.

[jerby]

a pie wich has a layer of puddig is complicated? they exist tough, I've eate a lot of them. But never eard about a pie-cake tough.

Oh well you can't help it, you are just Dutch. (here we go again, long time tough)
not gonna start again, drank some belgian beer . ate some belgian chocolat. some of my sports-equipment came from belgium. so it's all good. I see now that you can't help living in an inferior country ~;)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's mostly the question of things like embellishments on the armor - if we have a metal cuirass instead of a linen one, could it have engravings on it? Could the greaves have some decoration? Is the helmet purely smooth, or would some design on it be acceptable? Some low level Hellenic units even have helmet decoration, so is it too strict to say these can't?

We pretty much have agreed to drop any pattern on the cloak and any fancy border on it - that was the big first move.

[Kampfduck]

We pretty much have agreed to drop any pattern on the cloak and any fancy border on it

hmm,
but wasnt it mentioned before, that spartan hoplites didnt were there cloaks when they go to battle?

[Dayve]

Make them naked like the Gaestae.

[Urnamma]

It's mostly the question of things like embellishments on the armor - if we have a metal cuirass instead of a linen one, could it have engravings on it? Could the greaves have some decoration? Is the helmet purely smooth, or would some design on it be acceptable? Some low level Hellenic units even have helmet decoration, so is it too strict to say these can't?

We pretty much have agreed to drop any pattern on the cloak and any fancy border on it - that was the big first move.

We all know my opinion ;)

[Imperator of rome]

I would rather see the more historical unit....looks kinda odd when Spartans have outdated equipment.

[QwertyMIDX]

The question isn't so much whether or not to use a historian skin, the question is what exactly is historical. We're debating that at the moment.

[paullus]

Can you really say "what exactly is historical"? We're dealing with several hundred years of pretty significant changes--political, social, economic and presumably military. Historically, the elite of the equals in 272 probably looked different from the elites in 222, and so on. Even within the soldiers in 272, some of the soldiers probably had fancier cuirasses than others. And unless you know of some Hellenistic period greaves or tomb paintings or reliefs or cuirasses from Sparta, then its all pretty speculative anyway.

And may I suggest being willing to make a small stretch by including "beauty" as a factor in discerning reasonability/accuracy, especially in a speculative case like this one.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

My thoughts pretty much paullus. We are going to err, of course, in our depiction. Too many variables to account for especially given the restrictions of our game engine. But I'm willing to err a little more on the side of having more elaborate gear than erring too much on the other side (plus, I like countering the general idea most folks have of the artistically-deprived Spartans, which isn't the case).

I would note that any elaborate metalwork would probably have come from outside of Lakonia at this time though. I haven't mentioned this internally yet, but today I've been reading a little more about "Lakonian artistic production and the problem of spartan austerity". Lakonian metalwork itself really did suffer at this point in their history (especially as compared to the boom in the sixth century), but as these men have mostly served as mercs, much of their armor was acquired outside of Lakonia.

[Forgus]

Continuing the internal struggle outside - though I sworn to remain silent -
To me a metal cuirass - well probably, fancy graves? - maybe. Helm fit for a king - hmmm, if you say so. But these together? Hardly. Pompous enough for a monach in Persia...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

From what I've heard, one of those three will also be simplified Forgus, in addition to the cloak. So maybe we can all come to an agreement, or at least closer to one. I'm anxiously awaiting the screenshots. :grin: I do think a little discussion out here is a good thing.

[paullus]

As far as luxuries, you could look at it this way: many of these guys (may) have served in the armies of Seleukus or Ptolemy etc, and been well paid. In the case of Ptolemy especially, they could very well have been paid the money to afford or even straight-up given very nice equipment. How do you think the first couple of Ptolemy's (nearly) blew the bank? I mean, I haven't seen the concepts you guys are throwing around, but a well-accoutred (though not gaudy) soldier seems pretty reasonable.

And what are you thinking for the shields? A hoplon I hope, but what would you put on it?
And just what did you mean by "a helm fit for a king"?
Thanks!

[Sarcasm]

As far as luxuries, you could look at it this way: many of these guys (may) have served in the armies of Seleukus or Ptolemy etc, and been well paid. In the case of Ptolemy especially, they could very well have been paid the money to afford or even straight-up given very nice equipment. How do you think the first couple of Ptolemy's (nearly) blew the bank? I mean, I haven't seen the concepts you guys are throwing around, but a well-accoutred (though not gaudy) soldier seems pretty reasonable.

And what are you thinking for the shields? A hoplon I hope, but what would you put on it?
And just what did you mean by "a helm fit for a king"?
Thanks!

The first spartan skin used a muscle cuirass with ornate stomach, an ornate pilos helmet and very ornate greaves as well, all bronze.

It wore a red tunic underneath, and a *very* beatifull cloak on top of everything.

As armament it carried an hoplon with bronze sheeting and traditional lambda, plus a spear.

****************

As for my personal opinion, a combat unit could not have possibly have that kind of luxury. Perhaps a close bodyguard of a few dozen men, but that's all.

I believe even as mercenaries they wouldn't be able to afford everything quite like that (afterall, our mistophoroi aren't even equipped with bronze). The most attested piece is surely the helmet, and that may stay in its current form, but the other things should be simplified.

[Sarcasm]

EDIT: Weird double post, one with an edit and one without...

[Kampfduck]

any news about these guys? will they be implanted in version 0.8?

cheers

[-Praetor-]

Wait just a minute: This units are going to serve as a regular recruitable unit, or as a mercenary???

I think that both units should be substancially different. If the team is creating only the Spartan Citizen-Soldier (non-mercenary), it shouldn`t mix elements that the spartan mercenaries used with elements that the regional unit used, and vice-versa.

What i`m saying, is that plz be careful by not mixing two units that historically may have been very different, and portraying them just as plain "Spartans".

Nevertheless, given the true excellence of the team`s previous work, I trust they will choose the most histrically accurate choice available.

Bye.

[fallen851]

I'll be happy with any Spartan that doesn't have a red cloak on.

Which reminds me, who did the research for CA on this period?

The Spartans never wore their red cloaks in combat!

[fallen851]

We pretty much have agreed to drop any pattern on the cloak and any fancy border on it - that was the big first move.


Uhh this is getting bad, there won't be a cloak will there be?

All the sources I've read say the Spartans never wore their cloaks in combat, they left them in the camp.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

There are cloaks on the unit. I didn't supply the specs for the unit equipment - maybe the person who did will post, but I doubt it unless the conversation gets heated.

[Avicenna]

I'll be happy with any Spartan that doesn't have a red cloak on.

Which reminds me, who did the research for CA on this period?

The Spartans never wore their red cloaks in combat!

I think the Spartans did. I don't think the objective was to have them look terrifying only in front of their allies and subordinates in the camp. They were meant to terrify the opposition.

[fallen851]

I think the Spartans did. I don't think the objective was to have them look terrifying only in front of their allies and subordinates in the camp. They were meant to terrify the opposition.

Great. They did not wear them in combat, they do not have arm holes, so they would have to "peel" the cloak back in combat, meaning it would get in their way and fight them everytime they did anything. Secondly the wind wouldn't do them (or the people behind them) any favors.

They used the cloaks as blankets at night and for protection from the weather. They did not wear them in combat.

As John Warry reports on page 47 of Warfare in the Classical World: "The red cloak seen in the illustration was the charateristic Spartan uniform. It was discarded in battle."

And on page 52 he states: "The enveloping cloak could also serve as a blanket, but it was not worn in battle."

Twice he quite clearly states the cloak was not worn in battle. I remember reading some other sources repeating the above, I'll find them if necessary, but I thought this was established...

Sadly it seems the sterotypical image of the Spartan has many people here fooled (much like the sterotypical image of King Arthur with 13th century armor).

[Elthore]

thats john warry's opinion, and im sure he wasnt a spartan:idea2:

[abou]

Well, that Warry book is awesome, but remember that a long cloak can really get in the way of body movement and is something that can get caught on objects. Granted it looks cool; however, is there really any practical reason to have it on during battle?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The version of the spartan hoplite that we present is about as far from the stereotypical version of a spartan as one can imagine. It is a unit that serves most of their time as mercenaries in distant places, that are well armed and decorated. They may irritate some people who want a Thermopylai soldier out of the pages of Herodotos, but I don't think there will be many people complaining that they are too stereotypically Spartan. You may have the market cornered on that argument.

[Idomeneas]

I think the Spartans did. I don't think the objective was to have them look terrifying only in front of their allies and subordinates in the camp. They were meant to terrify the opposition.

many scholars support that they didnt wore the cloaks in battle. But even if there were not scholars supporting it a simple visit in greece would be enough to prove that there is no possible way to wear a cloak under the summer sun. The armour by itself is enough to exhaust you from heat. Wear a cloak also... you must be crazy..

I will inform you that even the army helmets are a pain in the ass today in mid summer. In very hot days they issue orders to remove them in guard duty.

[VandalCarthage]

You guys are misunderstanding; our unit doesn't have the full red cloak of Spartan tradition, just a small one.

[abou]

You guys are misunderstanding; our unit doesn't have the full red cloak of Spartan tradition, just a small one.Can it be pink?

[Avicenna]

Great. They did not wear them in combat, they do not have arm holes, so they would have to "peel" the cloak back in combat, meaning it would get in their way and fight them everytime they did anything. Secondly the wind wouldn't do them (or the people behind them) any favors.

They used the cloaks as blankets at night and for protection from the weather. They did not wear them in combat.

As John Warry reports on page 47 of Warfare in the Classical World: "The red cloak seen in the illustration was the charateristic Spartan uniform. It was discarded in battle."

And on page 52 he states: "The enveloping cloak could also serve as a blanket, but it was not worn in battle."

Twice he quite clearly states the cloak was not worn in battle. I remember reading some other sources repeating the above, I'll find them if necessary, but I thought this was established...

Sadly it seems the sterotypical image of the Spartan has many people here fooled (much like the sterotypical image of King Arthur with 13th century armor).

... and he obviously has a greater knowledge of the Spartans than the Greek historians? I forgot who it was, since my books are back at school.

The cloak was over one of the shoulders (left, I believe) and then under the other, the right one, so it wouldn't get in the way of the arm with the spear held in its hand.

I really don't think that my exam course will be less reliable than your reading of a British or American book. ~;)

Anyway, Lykourgos said that the cloak served to make handsome men more so and ugly men more terrifying. Unless they can telepathically reach their opponents, this shows that they wore them into battle to instill fear into their opponents.

[fallen851]

You guys are misunderstanding; our unit doesn't have the full red cloak of Spartan tradition, just a small one.

Ok, so it has a small cloak, which isn't traditional for a Spartan unit if I understand what you said correct, and you said it quite clearly, but I think you stated it incorrectly? And the cloak was used as blanket, is it big enough to be that?

Warry uses Thucycdides, Xenophon, and Plutarch as his main sources for that chapter.

I looked into Lykourgos, who Plutarch wrote a biography of, so I'm sure Warry is very familiar with him.

But enough with sources, would you wear your blanket in battle? Too often I think people read into sources as if they are end-all be-all arguements. We need to think "Does this make sense?"

I don't think so. It would be hot, it would blow in the wind into spear points, in melee combat, someone could easily grab it from a distance and drag another one down, and it would just get in you way... it simply doesn't make sense. Who would wear a blanket around them?

Spartans weren't dumb, they would not sacrifice combat ability to "scare their enemies" or whatever. The rest of their battle array was designed for protection and mobility, why hamper that?

I'd say that if EB wanted to err on the side of caution, it would remove the cloak. The sources may differ (I haven't looked at this indepth, but the sources I've read said they were discarded), but one thing is for sure, wearing a cloak in battle is not an advantage.

[Fondor_Yards]

Well I don't know much about the spartans of this time period, but what's wrong with a cloak. Kleruchoi agema and elite african pikemen have them, and I think it's hotter in north africa's deserts then in greece. Which brings up the question if they should have 1.

And I doubt someone can grap their cloaks in combat. If it did, it would be their phalanx was already shattered or they were behind them, which meant they were dead anyways. Unless it's 9 foot long cloak, I don't see how it would get in the way of the spearpoints. Plus in a tight phalanx formation, the wind shouldn't be moving their cloak at all. And a small cloak would not have been a blanket, it would have been a cloak.

Of course I don't know much, but that's just using common sense.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Warry uses Thucycdides, Xenophon, and Plutarch as his main sources for that chapter.

I looked into Lykourgos, who Plutarch wrote a biography of, so I'm sure Warry is very familiar with him.

It sounds very much like the sources cited are talking about fifth century spartans.

[abou]

Which is a problem because in the time frame that EB takes place Warry concentrates on the Successor States and Rome against Pyrrhos. There really isn't any mention about the Spartans or their equipment after the Peloponnesian War and conflicts with Thebes.

Then again, the Spartans really didn't do anything from my understanding so Warry's lack of coverage is not out of place.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

There is a vast range of ways Spartans of this period could be depicted. THere is going to be very little way anyone could say certain versions along that range would be incorrect.

[Yun Dog]

Im no historian

but I think there something else to be considered when thinking about armor

I would image armor would be handed down through generations - particularly in a militaristic society - I would envisage the eldest son being given the armor of the father who inheritied it from his father

it would be like a prized family heirloom, kept polished and stored in oil skins

so I think it is possible that any particular soldier could posses fairly elaborate armor be it somewhat antique

so when faced with the choice of armor styling it would be reasonable to err to older or antique armor over perhaps later models for this reason

also given the pride the spartans took in their physical appearance - I think it would also be reasonable to assume that some artistry wouldve gone into their families armor - simplicity in design but done beautifully - I would imagine.

and as there is little hard evidence - I think there is some room for artistic licence here - we shouldnt fall into the trap of making them resemble peasants because we thought them to live in primitive times - some of the most primitive people have the most elaborate, colourful and beautiful ceremonial dress - look at the tribes of PNG

[fallen851]

There is a vast range of ways Spartans of this period could be depicted. THere is going to be very little way anyone could say certain versions along that range would be incorrect.

Yes he is talking about 5th century Spartans, however it doesn't make much sense that later they would suddenly decide to keep their cloaks in combat.

And I think your also correct, that there is very little anyone could say would be incorrect, and I did not say there is a "set" way a Spartan should look except for the fact they should not be wearing cloaks in combat. That is like saying Principes wore Lorica. It just didn't happen. It doesn't make any sense why they would do that.

My point Fondar is you want to have every advantage in combat possible. If you've ever seen the UFC fight between Royce Gracie and Kimo Leopold, where Royce essentially destroys Kimo by pulling his hair and thereby holding his head while he punches him in the face, you realize this. If Kimo hadn't had a pony-tail for looks, he may not have lost. It would be very easy to grab a part of the Spartan cloak and rip him to the ground (just like it was easy for Royce to grab Kimo's hair), especially if your weapons (such as some of the ones the Persians used) were unable to pierce his armor.


This thread is done, I can bring all the evidence in the world, I can have people agree or disagree, and I'll never change the minds of the people in EB, who consistently fall on ad-hoc arguments despite my challenges.

Oh well, I'll just have to mod the Spartan myself.

[Ludens]

This thread is done, I can bring all the evidence in the world, I can have people agree or disagree, and I'll never change the minds of the people in EB, who consistently fall on ad-hoc arguments despite my challenges.
I think you are being a bit oversensitive here: TA's remark (the one you cite) was not specifically directed at you, but at everyone in this thread. I am quite sure that the 5th century Spartan hoplite did not wear his cloak into battle. However, this does not mean that 3th century Spartan hoplite did the same. Especially not when the cloak had been shortened so it was not as much of a liability. Other peoples did wear their cloaks into battle and they must have had some reason to do that, even one as simple as not leaving it in the camp to be stolen or looted.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

This thread is done, I can bring all the evidence in the world, I can have people agree or disagree, and I'll never change the minds of the people in EB, who consistently fall on ad-hoc arguments despite my challenges.

Oh well, I'll just have to mod the Spartan myself.
I don't get the drama over the cloak. If you feel the unit is so wrong, the unit that no one here has seen yet (gah), then feel free to mod it any way you like for your personal build. But you act consistantly like EB is so wrong-minded and deaf to comments or criticism - this month because there will be a cloak on this one unit. I know you like a lot of the aspects of the mod, but seriously, it gets rather tiring to see you get upset about something in the mod, that we are making for free, voluntarily, and then get dramatic about it and tell folks you are going to make your own version (be it a whole new stat system or this unit or whatever) and depart in a huff. Where is "all the evidence in the world" for a third century (lack) of a Spartan cloak? I recently saw another depiction of the spartan unit for the third century (that is about as opposite as anyone could imagine from ours) by a very well known skinner/modeler, and it has a cloak too. I don't think I've seen any versions of the unit without them. But *we* won't listen to anyone and are like some big machine that (somehow, for free) runs roughshod over anyone's comments or thoughts on anything. :shrug:

[Slider6977]

Excellently stated TA. Discussion on the subject is fine, but when you have a person such as this, when opinion is not opinion at all, it is fact, its pretty useless 'discussion'.



This thread is done, I can bring all the evidence in the world, I can have people agree or disagree, and I'll never change the minds of the people in EB, who consistently fall on ad-hoc arguments despite my challenges.

Oh well, I'll just have to mod the Spartan myself.

Last time I checked, I was living in the 21st century, don't know about you. And where is all the evidence in the world to make your point right. It doesn't exist. It is just opinion, and while you complain that you will never change anyones mind, its also true that in your mind your opinion is fact, and no one will ever be able to change YOUR mind. The FACT is, you can not nor never possibly know what they wore in battle, so why attack people that do not share your view on such, especially people who offer their time to provide you will a mod as realistic as POSSIBLE.

Anyway what a great point to make on your 10,000 th post TA :laugh4: .

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We *all* do agree that there is no way we can know for sure what third century spartans looked like. That is good. Our version of the unit will not be liked by some folks, for sure. Like we were mentioning, there is a range of possibilities. Ours is on the higher end of the range for a few different reasons. CB's recent spartans are on the other end. I can't say that all of our details are right, since most of our information does come from earlier periods (for the sparties). But some things we do know about them that greatly affected our view of the unit was that they fought with the king of sparta, and the served as mercenaries from Sicily and Italy and Greece to Crete and probably in much more distant places on occasion too. They used their money to support their families back home, as the helot business had closed up shop by this point in time. Plus this is the third century, not the fifth, so some changes in armor and helmets and such would be obvious. Sparta at this time had just begun to permit the minting of coins and had a reputation acquired with our starting king of allowing more luxuries than at any previous period. Plus, we felt like maybe taking things a little further (not much more for this point though) to get the point across that these are *not* Thermopylai Spartans, and that they have changed quite a bit in many respects. It's a fairly elite unit too, and although that didn't affect the way the unit was directly created, I'm personally glad I have a unit I can look forward to recruiting instead of feeling like it's a step down from my other units. Well, that's just a few general words to further prepare folks for the spartans when they are released. I'm sure there will be plenty more discussion. :grin: No problem talking about possibilities here though, as long as we realize what we know and what we don't.

[Fondor_Yards]

Yes he is talking about 5th century Spartans, however it doesn't make much sense that later they would suddenly decide to keep their cloaks in combat.

And I think your also correct, that there is very little anyone could say would be incorrect, and I did not say there is a "set" way a Spartan should look except for the fact they should not be wearing cloaks in combat. That is like saying Principes wore Lorica. It just didn't happen. It doesn't make any sense why they would do that.

My point Fondar is you want to have every advantage in combat possible. If you've ever seen the UFC fight between Royce Gracie and Kimo Leopold, where Royce essentially destroys Kimo by pulling his hair and thereby holding his head while he punches him in the face, you realize this. If Kimo hadn't had a pony-tail for looks, he may not have lost. It would be very easy to grab a part of the Spartan cloak and rip him to the ground (just like it was easy for Royce to grab Kimo's hair), especially if your weapons (such as some of the ones the Persians used) were unable to pierce his armor.


This thread is done, I can bring all the evidence in the world, I can have people agree or disagree, and I'll never change the minds of the people in EB, who consistently fall on ad-hoc arguments despite my challenges.

Oh well, I'll just have to mod the Spartan myself.

Your telling in the 230 years or so from 500 BC to 270 BC*game* the spartans didn't change their outfits or equipment at all? The EB team said they are not bringing the giant cloak blankets you were talking about. They said they were bringing smaller one.

And yes I have seen UCF, but that hardly applies here. Spartans did not fight 1v1 combat all over the battle field, they fought in a phalanx. I like to see some persian*why did you even say persian, the persian empire has been dead for over 100 years at this point* try to grab a spartan's cloak while he's being stabbed by 10 spears.

If you don't like the way EB shows their units, then don't play it. Did you ever stop for a second and think, maybe you were wrong. EB puts countless hours of work in each unit, I doubt they will have units wearing giant blanket cloaks. Other units in game have small cloaks on them as well, which is what they will have.

[fallen851]

Did you ever stop for a second and think, maybe you were wrong (sic).

This seems to be the center of the arguement against me.

Do I think I am wrong? No I don't because I base my opinion on trust sources and logic.

I haven't seen anyone bring up trusted sources that say they wore cloaks.

I haven't seen anyone refute my reasons why wearing a cloak in combat would be a burden.

Where are the sources?

If you guys have them, that is great, in that case I will be wrong, and I'll be the first one to say it. But why are you wasting your time attacking me, (or blindly supporting the EB team when you have no clue if they have the sources or not), why not just show me the evidence?

And if there are no sources, why not explain to me why cloaks are such a benefit, and why they would have become shorter.

I don't really ask for much, I just want evidence.

Almost every arguement you guys have used with me on this subject and others is ad-hoc, you don't give me the reason why you decided (the sources, the logic), you simply defend what you've decided by telling me ad-hoc arguements, for instance, other modders have done the same with the cloak on the Spartan. Well that is a logical fallacy, just because a lot of people believe in God, doesn't mean he exist. I'm so sick of crap arguements like that from the EB team. Tell me why you choose to put the cloak on the first place, why did you do it? And if it was just for show, then that's fine too, but don't claim the Spartan is realistic.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

"Crap arguments"? You might not like what other EB fans have said to you, but EB members could give a flip about you or your complaints when you label us and our posts this way.

I would be surprised if anyone other EB member feels like wasting their time talking to someone who continually disrespects us in this manner. It's hard to keep coming back to contribute to a discussion (and it's hard to keep people coming back period) if it is framed so boorishly.

[Ludens]

fallen851, you are making a big deal out of nothing. This was a perfectly friendly and instructing discussion until you got upset because TA did not accept your fifth-century evidence as conclusive for the dressing habits of third-century Spartan hoplites. Please drop the accusations. All they do is turn friendly discussions into angry ones.

[Fondor_Yards]

fallen851 you haven't given us any evidence that they DIDN'T wear cloaks into combat during EB's timeframe. Wearing a small, thin cloak would not have been a burden. They said they are NOT weaing the large cloaks that can doble as blankets that your talking about. I'm not blindly supporting them. I'm supporting them since your side of the discussion makes less sense. Information about them over 200 years before hand is not important. That's like describing the outfit a 1800 era soldier and a 2000 era soldier. If you want pure realism, go play RTR. EB never said it was about 100% historical accuarcy.

[Geoffrey S]

While I'd like to see more information on why the Spartan unit is going to be designed the way it is, including sources, I also cannot see the relevance of applying sources pre-dating the EB timeframe by almost two hundred years.

It is fine and well explaining why the unit isn't going to be designed in a certain way, but it'd be more informative seeing sources showing why it is the way it is.

If you want pure realism, go play RTR. EB never said it was about 100% historical accuarcy.
Um, what? :dizzy2:

[menander]

If you want pure realism, go play RTR. EB never said it was about 100% historical accuarcy.
What.

The.

Hell.

?

[Geoffrey S]

Ok, so it has a small cloak, which isn't traditional for a Spartan unit if I understand what you said correct, and you said it quite clearly, but I think you stated it incorrectly? And the cloak was used as blanket, is it big enough to be that?

Warry uses Thucycdides, Xenophon, and Plutarch as his main sources for that chapter.

I looked into Lykourgos, who Plutarch wrote a biography of, so I'm sure Warry is very familiar with him.

But enough with sources, would you wear your blanket in battle? Too often I think people read into sources as if they are end-all be-all arguements. We need to think "Does this make sense?"
But really, it seems you keep assuming that said cloak as it will be depicted in EB will be the huge, full cloak that the spartans slept in according to fifth century sources; the kind of cloaks as they were depicted in the original CA spartan hoplite.

But VandalCarthage has specifically stated that this is not the size of cloak that will be used in EB. Along with the fact that Spartans were not as spartan as may be assumed at the start of the EB game, it would be reasonable to assume they no longer slept in their cloaks but had other equipment for that (what a luxury!), that a cloak will be depicted more like on this unit (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/p/3D/mak-silvers.jpg) than like the original unit in RTW. Certainly not a full-length body cloak.

[VandalCarthage]

Ok, so it has a small cloak, which isn't traditional for a Spartan unit if I understand what you said correct, and you said it quite clearly, but I think you stated it incorrectly? And the cloak was used as blanket, is it big enough to be that?

No, it's not, and I said nothing incorrectly - you've just been defining the word cloak for yourself in a very narrow fashion, this whole argument:

Cloak:
1. A loose outer garment, such as a cape.
2. Something that covers or conceals: a cloak of secrecy.


But VandalCarthage has specifically stated that this is not the size of cloak that will be used in EB. Along with the fact that Spartans were not as spartan as may be assumed at the start of the EB game, it would be reasonable to assume they no longer slept in their cloaks but had other equipment for that (what a luxury!), that a cloak will be depicted more like on this unit than like the original unit in RTW. Certainly not a full-length body cloak.

Thanks for listening ~;)


If you want pure realism, go play RTR. EB never said it was about 100% historical accuarcy.

That doesn't even really bear discussion...

[-Praetor-]

Fondor, your arguments in your last post were quite good, till this.


If you want pure realism, go play RTR. EB never said it was about 100% historical accuarcy.

ROFLMAO :laugh4:

PS: BTW, yes it did say that.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

we all ready have a Spartan unit. me of course!

[Fondor_Yards]

*mutters before going back into the shadows* :sweatdrop: :hide:
Well...it at least it drew attention to the post....

[fallen851]

"Crap arguments"?

Well you try to convince me I should back off my arguement because the game is "free".

I can imagine it now:

EB Member: So what should the Spartan model/skin look like?
TA: Well it the game is free, so if they don't like it they don't have to play it.
EB Member: Oh so that makes it realistic?

You can fill in the blank. That is a crap arguement. That isn't how the conversation went, so I want to know how the conversation went. What historical evidence did you guys use to create the look of this Spartan?

Same with your arguement "well other Spartans look a certain way..." as I pointed out before.

Ludens it should be very clear to you, that I began arguing with evidence, will TA is making excuses of why I should not argue "well the game is free, well you know there are many opinions, well you know other Spartans look this way". That is disrespectful, because he isn't respecting what I say, but then you expect me to respect him? And the same thing has happened in the past when I've brought up things, members of the EB team have tried to blow me off with similar arguements. I don't mind being wrong, I don't need TA to accept my evidence, I just want to know his evidence!

All I wanted was an arguement like "here is the evidence we used" to back up statements like this:


would be reasonable to assume

So can some brave soul, tell me why it would be reasonable to assume the Spartans wore a short cloak in combat?

[Fondor_Yards]

I don't mind being wrong, I don't need TA to accept my evidence, I just want to know his evidence!

You haven't shown any evidence. That's the problem.

[Ludens]

Ludens it should be very clear to you, that I began arguing with evidence, will TA is making excuses of why I should not argue "well the game is free, well you know there are many opinions, well you know other Spartans look this way". That is disrespectful, because he isn't respecting what I say, but then you expect me to respect him? And the same thing has happened in the past when I've brought up things, members of the EB team have tried to blow me off with similar arguements. I don't mind being wrong, I don't need TA to accept my evidence, I just want to know his evidence!
Respect is a two-way thing. This was a friendly and respectful discussion until you made your accusations, all because of a comment that probably wasn't even directed at you. I think this thread should be closed. It's not going to resolve anything.

[Geoffrey S]

All I wanted was an arguement like "here is the evidence we used" to back up statements like this:

-quote-

So can some brave soul, tell me why it would be reasonable to assume the Spartans wore a short cloak in combat?
I'd appreciate it if you did exactly the same, without resorting to irrelevant fifth century sources such as Xenophon.

To answer your question, a short cloak would not get in the way, certainly not as much as the full cloak originally in the game; certainly in an ordered shieldwall/phalanx this would be of little consequence, where most movement would be directed forward. Spartans didn't wear cloaks into battle in the fifth century? That's fine, and you're correct in stating that the sources say that specifically, but it is no longer relevant twohundred years later. Also, authors constantly emphasise the disciplined nature of the Spartans, particularly someone like Xenophon, and it is in their interests to emphasis their toughness with such examples as sleeping in their cloaks and not wearing them to battle. It makes them a more dramatic opponent in written works, much as classical sources frequently depict celts as barbarous, bloodthirsty warriors. It adheres to the stereotype readers wanted.

But two hundred years later, the hoplites cannot be compared to their predecessors. Sparta had changed, wealth was no longer as strongly opposed, and a cloak would likely be seen as a permitted luxury. They were no longer fighting directly for their city, but as mercenaries, and would come into contact with luxury unknown in their city. I agree, a full cloak would interfere with combat and should not be implemented, but a short cloak would not. Later sources do not state they wore cloaks, but they also don't state that they didn't; as has been made clear by EB members, a realistic depiction could go either way (traditionally spartan, or more decorated), and this is the decision they've made.

Personally I'm looking forward to seeing what all this fuss is about. I'd love to see sources on third century Spartans, but although I've seen little from EB members on that matter, their conjecture is more plausible than yours, and quite frankly provided in a far politer manner. But judging from your reaction to stats and the Yuezhi, that is your style.

[paullus]

Well, I'll just throw in that I've been looking at grave stelae and marble reliefs of soldiers and battle scenes at museums and sites in turkey and bulgaria for the past couple of weeks, and while I haven't seen anyone I could identify as a 3rd century bc Spartan, I do have a few observations:

1) The short cloak (or long cloak) is VERY common on soldiers, especially on Gauls/Thracians and on Hellenistic elites, especially cavalry, but also some infantry. If its a common artistic feature of elites, it may well have been a common real-life feature, too.
2) How do you figure a cloak is any more dangerous than the tunics many soldiers wore? And as far as heat, which do you think is hotter: chain and plate armor exposed directly to the sun, or said armor under cover.

Hope that helps. And for my own interest, would you say the Spartans are more or less ornamented than the general? How do they compare?

[VandalCarthage]

I think the hitch of this whole discussion is that Dave and I are the only ones who have actually seen the damn thing. This has really been a shoot first ask questions later situation, and fallen, as far as I can tell - everyone of your legitimate concerns has been addressed promptly and politely, so I'd suggest kindly dropping this until you've seen the unit.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We *all* do agree that there is no way we can know for sure what third century spartans looked like. That is good. Our version of the unit will not be liked by some folks, for sure. Like we were mentioning, there is a range of possibilities. Ours is on the higher end of the range for a few different reasons. CB's recent spartans are on the other end. I can't say that all of our details are right, since most of our information does come from earlier periods (for the sparties). But some things we do know about them that greatly affected our view of the unit was that they fought with the king of sparta, and the served as mercenaries from Sicily and Italy and Greece to Crete and probably in much more distant places on occasion too. They used their money to support their families back home, as the helot business had closed up shop by this point in time. Plus this is the third century, not the fifth, so some changes in armor and helmets and such would be obvious. Sparta at this time had just begun to permit the minting of coins and had a reputation acquired with our starting king of allowing more luxuries than at any previous period. Plus, we felt like maybe taking things a little further (not much more for this point though) to get the point across that these are *not* Thermopylai Spartans, and that they have changed quite a bit in many respects. It's a fairly elite unit too, and although that didn't affect the way the unit was directly created, I'm personally glad I have a unit I can look forward to recruiting instead of feeling like it's a step down from my other units. Well, that's just a few general words to further prepare folks for the spartans when they are released.
I was hoping that this was some good information that might lead to interesting discussion actually. :embarassed:

[Musopticon?]

While I do agree that tight realism is a must(that's the mod's focus, right?), if no sources of that time exist, it would be better for the team to feel free to extend some artistic freedom than to squabble over something so minor as cloaks.

If you feel that cloaks woud add a lot to the unit, or even little, add them by all means. If you can't make it look historical, make it look good. I have every trust on you that you are prudent enough to make it even roughly accurate and use that freedom on moderation, i.e no horns on german helmets.

my2zots

[fallen851]

I love this thread, I promise myself I won't respond, but then I just... have to.

I did show evidence. 5th century evidence, indeed, but let us make this very simple.

I have no evidence, I'm only trying to disprove, now do you (since your the one trying to prove) have any evidence?

See you can say the alignment of certain moons in the galaxy are giving you a headache, and when I ask "show me evidence", you can respond "show me evidence that they aren't!" Sadly I cannot prove that the moons are not giving you a headache, but that alone is not proof that they are.

That is essentially what is going on here, there is no evidence so you guys are guessing.

I don't think Spartans wore cloaks and here is my reasoning:

It is certainly one thing for Mithridates soldiers to go into battle in cremonial dress, only to break and run for the hills when the Romans threw their pilums. In fact, a lot of people back then wore stupid things in combat that hampered their ability to fight. But that doesn't mean that everyone did.

Which reminds me again of the Gracie vs Leopold fight I spoke of earlier. For many years in mixed martial arts, people spoke of what "could" but no one really figured anything out, until leagues like the UFC, and Pride actually had people compete. This draws a strong parrell, Mithridates had no clue what he doing, and he faced an army that was experience and "enlightened". Plenty of barbarian armies had this problem.

It doesn't make sense that the Greeks, particularly the Spartans (who had shunned luxuries for centuries), would do such a thing. They knew what had happened in the past. Sure they could mint coins and have luxuries, hell they can wear whatever. Except when they are in battle, I think they would do the same thing they had done previously. Whose call would it have been to say "lets throw on a small red cloak!"? In fact, is was your call, because the more I think about it, the more incredibly stupid that idea would have been to them back then.

It is one thing to mint coins. It is quite another to immitate Mithridates.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I understand your position. Seriously, I do. I don't understand how you care this much about the blasted cloak/mini-cloak/whatever-it-is given the lack of information about their dress/armor/equipment in the third century of the unit as merc soldiers. There were pages and pages of arguments about the unit in development, and not one post worried with the cloak.

How stupid is it for the unit to have a cloak, you ask? How stupid is it for all units in RTW to have no extra clothes in the winter for battles? How stupid is the thick stuff in the deserts? It's something we really don't think about much cause we can't have an affect on these changes or the temperature/depiction/etc. No units' clothing has anything to do with these variations - we just focus on armor/weapons mostly. Aren't there cloaks on other units at the same latitude? Why the three play tragedy over the cloak on this particular unit? The argument that Hellenes especially before the Peloponnesian war fought in the summer only is understandable - but in RTW they fight at all times, right? Then sometimes, we have too little clothing on them! Gasp! Sometimes too much!

Write this off again as "you have no evidence they did" all you want. You are one person having a fit about a cloak on one unit we don't have hardly any specifics about at all and which is in a mod that people volunteer to create for themselves mostly but also for education and enjoyment of many more folks. A *fit*. I feel very very strongly about helping make sure people understand where in general we are coming from and why we have chosen to do things the way we have. There aren't many other members that care enough to post a lot on the open fora much anymore really. Some really take criticism too hard I think, but the types that mod are quite varied, and to each their own. But that is why I am here still, trying to make people understand and see things from the pov that we have taken. Sometimes no amount of talking matters though.

So please try to enjoy the other aspects of the mod you don't feel we totally screwed up so horribly. That's about the only advice I can give I'm afraid at this point.

[Ludens]

I did show evidence. 5th century evidence, indeed, but let us make this very simple.

I have no evidence, I'm only trying to disprove, now do you (since your the one trying to prove) have any evidence?

(...)

That is essentially what is going on here, there is no evidence so you guys are guessing.
True. You've got a point here. However, you are extrapolating on available evidence, and that is only possible if the same conditions apply. Your sources are not even talking about the same kind of cloak, so are they really relevant?

Similarly, you cannot compare modern-day martial arts with third-century phalanx warfare. When in close-combat you cannot get behind the Spartan opposing you to start tugging at his cloak, because he is backed up by others Spartans next to him and behind him. The only way to grab his cloak would be to reach past him, thereby exposing yourself. If the Spartan formation broke up, then it would be a vulnerability, but if that happened the battle was lost already.

Does any of this prove that third-century Spartans wore cloaks? No, off course not. However, not everything in Europa Barbarorum has a basis in fact, simply because there are too many gaps in the record. IIRC several units of elite Hellenic soldiers wore cloaks, so perhaps the Spartans did as well. Also, according to TA's earlier post the team wanted to make a statement about the Spartan. These are the reasons for including the cloak. Does that answer your question?

[paullus]

So TA, will there be a rare, pricy Spartan merc unit too?

and ps- if any of yall pray, send one up for me, i got some sort of nasty insect bite and the rural medical peeps arent much for quality help. thanks.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We've thought about it. Right now the unit is just for KH recruitment. But there has been discussion about it. We will have to wait and see.

[abou]

We've thought about it. Right now the unit is just for KH recruitment. But there has been discussion about it. We will have to wait and see.
Those would probably look completely different, wouldn't they? Granted, it brings up several problems mentioned in this thread, but I imagine a recruited Spartan unit would appear rather spartan; however, a mercenary version, a group that would probably earn a lot of money and have no place to store material effects, would have more lavish equipment.

By the way, when did the Corinthian helmet fall out of use? It seems that every Greek unit has an Attic-type helmet. I imagine vision and hearing were the big motivators for that.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, seeing how these units that are recruited by KH *are* (at least previously) mercs (think of them as mercs prior to your recruiting them, then they stay under your command), they will seem somewhat lavish compared to some other regular hoplites. But yes, an even more decorated type unit to serve as mercs was considered and still might be (maybe a chance a least, but for now not being included).

[VandalCarthage]

That is essentially what is going on here, there is no evidence so you guys are guessing.

Is that not indeed what you're doing? There are copious amounts of social and martial trends and precedants that could lead one towards a number of conclusions; you take the outdated specifics of their appearance in battle, while we designed ours along the lines of an evolving population, as well as numerous actual archeaological examples of Spartan equipment. To quote another historian, "the Spartans did use archers," and were likewise not too steeped in their own traditions to shun everything the same traditions didn't necessarilly applaud.

[Tyfus]

Hey TA and other EB modders don't let sad, angry little people like Fallen get to you. If he's got a stick up his A#* about a little cloak then that's his problem. I think your team makes great choices and personally I can't wait to see the new unit.

Keep rockin' it hardcore:2thumbsup:

[Musopticon?]

Don't feel all ganged up, Fallendude. No one hates you.

It's just that this stuff happens when you get all passionate on Teh Internets.

[Avicenna]

Is that not indeed what you're doing? There are copious amounts of social and martial trends and precedants that could lead one towards a number of conclusions; you take the outdated specifics of their appearance in battle, while we designed ours along the lines of an evolving population, as well as numerous actual archeaological examples of Spartan equipment. To quote another historian, "the Spartans did use archers," and were likewise not too steeped in their own traditions to shun everything the same traditions didn't necessarilly applaud.

Didn't they just start to use archers more because of the embarassing defeat at Sphacteria? Anyway, I don't think the Spartans of that age were too steeped in their tradition. That was the classical age, when they were still in their utopia. I'd think that the freeing of helots changed the Spartans a lot, and they'd need to adapt to survive, so changing by then isn't surprising.

[Kampfduck]

so maybe to bring down all the fuzz a little bit, maybe you could show us the new spartan/spartan merc ?:2thumbsup:
...

[Trithemius]

so maybe to bring down all the fuzz a little bit, maybe you could show us the new spartan/spartan merc ?:2thumbsup:
...

Smooooooooth ~;)