New Unit - What is it?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

This shouldn't be too terribly difficult. But there are three questions here for those folks who play and follow the mod:

1. What is the unit depicted?
2. What faction does it belong to? (It is a faction variant skin)
3. Who skinned/modelled it?


https://img71.imageshack.us/img71/3593/guess1bo2.png

Enjoy! There will be a little reward if it's figured out. :2thumbsup:

[Olaf The Great]

I'm going to assume Seleucid's (because I'm biased against the color grey)
Its some sort of Medium Peltast.
I have no idea.

[BigTex]

It's a Baktrian medium peltast. As to who skinned it, no earthly idea.

I'll take a wild guess though, the indian peltast reskinned for saka?

[Imperator]

RTR has something like this on their forums too, it's a fun way of releasing some cool new skins. Ok, lemme think...

is it a medium peltast? heavier than antakotai (sp) but less armoured than peltastai
It looks pretty Eastern Seleukid or Baktrian to me.
uh...I have NO clue as to who skinned it.

EDIT: dang- Olaf beat me to it. alright, never mind I don't know what that beauty is- is it in .81?

[Bava]

Hm, medium peltast, Ptolemy, Spirit_of_Rob?

[Geoffrey S]

Some kind of peltast for the Saka Rauka; I'd also guess Spirt of Rob.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Two of the the three answers have been guessed correctly, but by no one together yet. :grin:

[Kugutsu]

Indo-greek peltast, Bactria, Spirit of Rob?

Edit: The lack of shield is strange. I thought skirmishers usually had small shields. I guess the armour makes up for it...

[Bava]

A small hint perhaps? At least for the faction...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Someone will get the 1 of the 3 that hasn't been guessed yet, but we picked this one because we knew it would be fun to watch the guesses, so no more hints! :grin:

[abou]

1. Medium or heavy peltast.
2. Very much Eastern Greek because of the scales and helmet. Since they are iron scales I am going to say Seleukid, but if they were bronze it would be a Baktrian unit.
3. Style looks similar to Spartan Warrior's others so I am going to say that he did the unit.

[Bava]

You wouldnt be so mean and show us a mounted unit without the horse, would you?


Hippoakontistai , Arche Seleukia, Spirit_of_rob?

Edit:Changed from Baktria to Seleukia

[Caesar Vastator]

1)Medium-Heavy skirmisher cavarly
2)Seleukids
3) ???

PS: is the gift the release of the 0.81 patch??:2thumbsup:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's actually brand new - it won't be in the 0.81 patch, but the next one. Cut off on new units for 0.81 has been made already.

[Fondor_Yards]

Baktrian, Some sort of Peltast, and oh god how are we suppost to know this....guys should really put their name somewhere on their skins........um antiochus epiphanes?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Kugutsu is closer than anyone so far. He's got the faction and the artist right. And he's even on track - at least puzzled by the right thing - with his questions about the unit itself.

[Tuuvi]

maybe it is some sort of a theuroperoi(sp?) type unit?

[Spoofa]

Light infantry? :laugh4: Bactria, Spirit of Rob

[Kull]

Candlestick, Drawing Room, Colonel Mustard? :clown:

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I must say:
Skirmisher, Bactria, Spirit of Rob

[CountArach]

Candlestick, Drawing Room, Colonel Mustard? :clown:

HAHAHA! It's a bit like that... :grin:

Saka, Saka-Greek Peltast, Spirit_of_Rob (Great man, love his work :2thumbsup: )

[Bava]

Hm, if i remember correctly the peltasts on elephants normally dont have shield... so javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant (please translate into ancient greek ~D), Baktria, S_o_R?

But i think Kull already won ( he is supposed to know it, right?)...

[Thaatu]

Xaxiphaxiphrataxi, Bartix, God.

Umm.. I mean:

Ekdromoi hoplitai, Bactria, Spirit_of_Rob

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hm, if i remember correctly the peltasts on elephants normally dont have shield... so javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant (please translate into ancient greek ~D), Baktria, S_o_R?
ding-ding-ding
We have a winner. :2thumbsup: "javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant" is ok, because the unit doesn't have a name by itself, it is part of the elephant unit (which is named already). They keys were the fact that it doesn't have a shield, and that it has no greaves (since they will be protected). Rob has done some great variants, for Mercenary, Baktria, Seleukid, Carthage, Epeiros, Macedon, and Ptolemies.

Here is another one of the variants, whose faction you can easily figure out:
https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8658/elecarthjn7.png

[spirit_of_rob]

Those who said spartan warrior are also sort of right as it set of as one of his models and textures altered where it was needed :)

[Zenith Darksea]

Oh, so it's an elephantakontistes then! If that is a valid compound word.

[MiniMe]

"javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant" is ok, because the unit doesn't have a name by itself, it is part of the elephant unit (which is named already). They keys were the fact that it doesn't have a shield, and that it has no greaves (since they will be protected). Rob has done some great variants, for Mercenary, Baktria, Seleukid, Carthage, Epeiros, Macedon, and Ptolemies.

:beam: :beam: :beam:
Are you saying that EB team is planning to introduce javelineers-on-elephants in 0.82 and there would be different textures for every elephant-breeding nation?
elephant-killer_elephant... with, perhaps, TWENTY javelins...
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
fantastic news!!!

Are you going to replace unarmoured_elephants_with_archers with these or you are going to add a third specie?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Those archers will be gone I believe. We won't have two sets of elephants like that (arches in one and javs in the other).

[Caesar Vastator]

The second "javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant" posted that should belong to Chartage it's awesome!

[Watchman]

His shoulder guards seem to sport that Carthie illuminati-triangle symbol thing, so I figure it does.

'S hot.:biker:

[Conqueror]

Will the elephant rider javelins have greater range and/or attack than infantry-thrown javelins (due to the elevated position)? What about the number of volleys they can throw? One would think that a lot of javelines could be carried in a howdah...

Anyway, that's an awesome skin and a unit I'll want to experiment with :elephant:

[Fondor_Yards]

The second "javelin-throwing-guy-on-elephant" posted that should belong to Chartage it's awesome!


It does, look at the symbol on his shoulder pad thing.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Will the elephant rider javelins have greater range and/or attack than infantry-thrown javelins (due to the elevated position)? What about the number of volleys they can throw? One would think that a lot of javelines could be carried in a howdah...
A good point, but they also don't get to run and throw too, so that would limit them to balance it out maybe. If someone with some real knowledge on the subject could speak up it might be good.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Wow, cool idea guys. Beautiful texture too. Keep up the great work.

[Kralizec]

EDIT: nevermind

[fallen851]

Gah, waste of space, waste of words, stop reading!

My question was answered, this is meaningless, why are you reading!

[Oleo]

It's actually brand new - it won't be in the 0.81 patch, but the next one. Cut off on new units for 0.81 has been made already.

:inquisitive:

[Birka Viking]

awesome skin and a unit..:2thumbsup:
Cheers

[Tellos Athenaios]

Here is another one of the variants, whose faction you can easily figure out:
https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8658/elecarthjn7.png

Carthage, definitely: I recognise the symbols which were also used for African (elite?, memory...) Pikemen.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A good point, but they also don't get to run and throw too, so that would limit them to balance it out maybe. If someone with some real knowledge on the subject could speak up it might be good.

Not real knowledge, but throwing spears is part of 'athletics' at school: main reason why javelimen on foot can hurl their spears so far away would be because they can move their limbs in such a way that they can max out the momentum of their javelins. Elephant riders on the other hand would fall of their elephant, or get teribbly seasick if they tried to do so.

On a side note: didn't greek skirmishers use some kind of device which allowed for even more accelaration of their javelins?

[Watchman]

A looped thong tied to the shaft, yes. Acts as a sort of lever for the throw if I've understood correctly. Not quite a real spear-thrower, but helps a bit and easier to handle I'd imagine (since the "aid" isn't a separate device).

[BigTex]

They used a sort of Atl Atl but instead of a stick, used a leather strap.

Edit: Watchmen got it.

[Eduorius]

Plz forgive me, but I am confused now. There are no elephant with tower and archers in EB? We are only going to have elephants with towers and javalins? Or both?


By the way I once rode an Indian elephant when I went to Bush Gardens. I think that being inside one of those elephant towers can be a more stable base for archers and javelin throwers. So I think in my conclusion that at least it gives you a longer range and power with arrows thanks to the height of the beast. I dont know with javalines because I have never thrown one, but I think you need more body movement to make a good shot.

Thanks =)

[-Praetor-]

A good point, but they also don't get to run and throw too, so that would limit them to balance it out maybe. If someone with some real knowledge on the subject could speak up it might be good.

The javelineers, will they get substantially more javelins than their foot cousings? To be honest, I would love that they get a lot more.

1º Because they can`t do the usual procedure of skirmishers, that is to pick up an already used javelin ,and throw it back. So, they cannot replenish themselves of proyectiles

2º The size on the towers. They can carry a lot :grin:

An also, try to put the max number on their towers please (well, if it`s an african foreste elephant, then there`s no much more to do). They look cool!!! :grin:

Cheers!

[shlin28]

Are there going to be any more previews like this?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Maybe. That was a sort of cool one though since it had no greaves, no shield, and an interesting helmet. A harder one to guess.

[MeinPanzer]

1. Medium or heavy peltast.
2. Very much Eastern Greek because of the scales and helmet. Since they are iron scales I am going to say Seleukid, but if they were bronze it would be a Baktrian unit.
3. Style looks similar to Spartan Warrior's others so I am going to say that he did the unit.

There is no evidence that any Seleukid or Baktrian units beyond kataphraktoi wore scale armour.

[Watchman]

I'm under the very strong impression scale armour was loved to death out East. Plus the Greeks had been using similar techniques for reinforcing and/or decorating the linothoraxes for quite a while as well, hadn't they ?

And why not ? Scale is good. As metal armour goes it's pretty cheap and cheerful to make and easy to maintain, and gives good protection. Plus you can make it out of quite a few other materials as well.

Given the extant local infrastructure and workforce skilled in making that sort of armour, the Seleucids and Bactrians would have had to be crazy to not make use of it as well.

[MeinPanzer]

I'm under the very strong impression scale armour was loved to death out East. Plus the Greeks had been using similar techniques for reinforcing and/or decorating the linothoraxes for quite a while as well, hadn't they ?

Your impression would be incorrect. Some Greeks had been wearing composite cuirasses (linen or leather and scale or lamellar together in the same cuirass), but that was very uncommon in the east and was mostly favoured around the Italian peninsula. Alexander famously wears a composite cuirass on the Alexander Mosaic, of course, but this is the latest and farthest eastern example known to me.


And why not ? Scale is good. As metal armour goes it's pretty cheap and cheerful to make and easy to maintain, and gives good protection. Plus you can make it out of quite a few other materials as well.

Why not? Because the wearing of scale cuirasses in the east is not borne out by the archaeological evidence. Linen or leather cuirasses were cheaper to make than metal armour of any kind, and even then it's very apparent that Greek artisans preferred metal muscled cuirasses to any other kind.


Given the extant local infrastructure and workforce skilled in making that sort of armour, the Seleucids and Bactrians would have had to be crazy to not make use of it as well.

You'll have to provide some evidence for the "infrastructure and workforce skilled in making that sort of armour."

[QwertyMIDX]

Umm, they were using scale armor in Egypt as early as 1500, and it was of course very popular with the steppe people (although not always of metal obviously). There's scale armor for charioteers in Syria by about 1400. To quote Albert E. Dien "Scale armor had a long history in the Near East and was almost exclusively the armor of the steppeland nomads." Scale armor had a very long history in the east and the steppes.

[MeinPanzer]

Umm, they were using scale armor in Egypt as early as 1500, and it was of course very popular with the steppe people (although not always of metal obviously). There's scale armor for charioteers in Syria by about 1400. To quote Albert E. Dien "Scale armor had a long history in the Near East and was almost exclusively the armor of the steppeland nomads." Scale armor had a very long history in the east and the steppes.

You're right, and to continue, Assyrians made widespread use of scale armour, as did numerous other Near Eastern peoples (including the Achaemenid Persians to a limited extent). But the Seleukids did not.

[Sarcasm]

That's quite a statement for such short posts. I sugest you do better.

[MeinPanzer]

That's quite a statement for such short posts. I sugest you do better.

If you think that I am wrong, I invite you to present evidence to the contrary.

[Sarcasm]

Don't worry.











It's coming.

[Watchman]

You'll have to provide some evidence for the "infrastructure and workforce skilled in making that sort of armour."The same bunch who'd been making the stuff for the Persians and whoever else for millenia. Duhhh. They didn't exactly disappear into thin air upon Alexander taking over the place now did they ?

And they still needed to sell their wares to eat. And the Seleucids and Bactrians and sundry needed armour for their soldiery.

Do the math.

I've also been told the linothorax composite cuirass had a nasty habit of getting close to the sale prices of monolith bronze plate in the more intricate versions. Something about some fairly difficult and time-consuming construction phases, and presumably messing around with all those glues and fabric layers could get kind of complicated as well.

It was lighter and rather more comfortable though (which is what it developed for in Egypt, back in the day).

But particularly given the proliferation of massed archery there something tad more solid was likely quite welcome out East, and solid bronze plate was pretty heavy and expensive (reads as For Elite Guys Mostly). The local patterns of scale armour had for fairly obvious reasons been thoroughly tested in the conditions and were both cheaper and lighter, and were used by local auxiliaries in any case.
To fail to make use of them as appropriate would have been quite idiotic, and both the Seleucids and Bactrians lasted a tad too long to have been rank idiots.


Your impression would be incorrect. Some Greeks had been wearing composite cuirasses (linen or leather and scale or lamellar together in the same cuirass), but that was very uncommon in the east and was mostly favoured around the Italian peninsula. Alexander famously wears a composite cuirass on the Alexander Mosaic, of course, but this is the latest and farthest eastern example known to me.It was pretty much the standard wear for Hetairoi in some variation by what I understand, as well as extremely popular among the various Greeks for both infantry and cavalry use (shows up a lot in vase paintings for example). Alexander's pezhetairoi likely wore something similar - there's a mention in the sources of the men burning their old cuirasses upon receiving new ones, and that's obviously only doable with fabric ones.

One Seleucid cuirass shown among the spoils in the Pergamon reliefs incidentally looks an awful lot like a linothorax BTW. And Magnesia was a fairly late event in Seleucid history.

I don't quite grasp the point of that whole segment anyway, though. You seem to be suggesting the Eastern Greeks wore neither derivations of local scale armour nor the Hellenic linothorax - surely you're not claiming they all traipsed around in solid bronze plate ?

And why would only the Cataphracts use scale armour anyway ? And why did scale cuirasses rather akin to linothoraxes in overall cut and appereance remain so common in former Seleucid territories and nearby regions then ?

[QwertyMIDX]

There are those irksome Indo-Greek coins of Menader too, with the king himself in scale and then the one with athena in scale.

[MeinPanzer]

The same bunch who'd been making the stuff for the Persians and whoever else for millenia. Duhhh. They didn't exactly disappear into thin air upon Alexander taking over the place now did they ?

And they still needed to sell their wares to eat. And the Seleucids and Bactrians and sundry needed armour for their soldiery.

Evidence for Achaemenid Persian scale armour is very slight, based largely on about a dozen pieces or clusters of scale found within the entire expanse of the empire. It seems that the Macedonians probably would have been aware of scale armour well before the time of Alexander, but they simply preferred metal muscle or linen/leather cuirasses. Smiths are have to be flexible in their skill by nature, and I doubt that any one smith could only produce scale or lamellar armour. It seems likely that suits of scale armour were very rare in amongst the Achaemenid Persians, being reserved for very elite soldiers or officers, and that they simply started making types of armour favoured by the Seleukids when they took over. Smiths could create many different types of armour, and it's very apparent given the archaeological record that the Seleukids did not make use of lamellar or scale armour.


I've also been told the linothorax composite cuirass had a nasty habit of getting close to the sale prices of monolith bronze plate in the more intricate versions.

I've honestly never seen sources for prices of ancient armour, at least not in the Hellenistic period. Could you provide a source for that?


Something about some fairly difficult and time-consuming construction phases, and presumably messing around with all those glues and fabric layers could get kind of complicated as well.

I would imagine so, but that still didn't stop many, many Etruscan soldiers from buying and wearing them.


It was lighter and rather more comfortable though (which is what it developed for in Egypt, back in the day).[.quote]

And the linothorax was even lighter and more comfortable still.

[quote]But particularly given the proliferation of massed archery there something tad more solid was likely quite welcome out East, and solid bronze plate was pretty heavy and expensive (reads as For Elite Guys Mostly).

Bezalel Bar-Kochva and numerous others have argued this, but the simple matter of fact is that if archery was so common in the east that it required men to wear such armour, traces of it would survive in the archaeological record one way or another.


The local patterns of scale armour had for fairly obvious reasons been thoroughly tested in the conditions and were both cheaper and lighter, and were used by local auxiliaries in any case.

Again, this is pure speculation without evidence.


To fail to make use of them as appropriate would have been quite idiotic, and both the Seleucids and Bactrians lasted a tad too long to have been rank idiots.

It's very clear that the other forms of armour employed by the eastern Hellenistic armies suited them just fine.


It was pretty much the standard wear for Hetairoi in some variation by what I understand, as well as extremely popular among the various Greeks for both infantry and cavalry use (shows up a lot in vase paintings for example).

There is not a single piece of evidence other than the Alexander mosaic to suggest that Hetairoi wore armour composite or scale armour. The reason it shows up in lots of vase paintings is: A) It was favoured by early (i.e. Classical) Greek soldiers, and so appears in Attic vase paintings and B) It was still favoured in Italy into the 4th C. BC, and so continued to be depicted on Italian pottery after the tradition of Attic pottery painting largely ceased.


Alexander's pezhetairoi likely wore something similar - there's a mention in the sources of the men burning their old cuirasses upon receiving new ones, and that's obviously only doable with fabric ones.

Exactly, meaning they wore linothoraxes. There's no evidence they ever wore composite cuirasses.


One Seleucid cuirass shown among the spoils in the Pergamon reliefs incidentally looks an awful lot like a linothorax BTW. And Magnesia was a fairly late event in Seleucid history.

Of course- dozens of Seleukid sources illustrate the linothorax. It was commonly worn- just not the composite cuirass.


I don't quite grasp the point of that whole segment anyway, though. You seem to be suggesting the Eastern Greeks wore neither derivations of local scale armour nor the Hellenic linothorax - surely you're not claiming they all traipsed around in solid bronze plate ?

No, I said that eastern Greeks didn't wear scale armour or composite (that is, armour made from linen or leather and scales or lamellar). They definitely wore linothoraxes.


And why would only the Cataphracts use scale armour anyway?

Probably because the kataphrakt was probably adopted wholesale from the Parthians, who clearly did make use of scale armour. Besides this, though, the only evidence for Seleukid soldiers of any kind wearing scale armour comes from a 1st C. BC terracotta figurine from Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris thought to show a kataphrakt.


And why did scale cuirasses rather akin to linothoraxes in overall cut and appereance remain so common in former Seleucid territories and nearby regions then ?

Because they were commonly worn.

[Watchman]

What, there's a meaningful difference between "composite cuirass" and linothorax ? I was under the impression the former was just the latter with more metal bits added for improved protection (with due increase in cost and weight) as per customer request, and fell under the same term ?

Anyway, the Acheamenids took over the old Asyrian and Babylonian haunts wholesale back in the day. Would you like to provide a logical explanation as to why exactly they wouldn't have drawn up on the existing pool of skilled armourers for their own use, all the more so given the missile-heavy part of the world they were operating in ? Troops protected from the weapons of their enemies are more confident and aggressive, and obviously don't die as fast; while the mass levies were disposable enough the Persians had considerable bodies of regular troops and warrior aristocracy as well, both having both means and a reason to be armoured.

You might also want to try explaining away Xenophon's lenghty discussions about the armour of Persian cavalry and their mounts in his Peri Hippikes, occasional references to too flimsy Greek cavalry javelins breaking upon striking armoured Persian troops in melee, the repeated references to Persian (and some Scythian/Massagetae) armoured shock cavalry in the sources on Alexander's campaigns...


I would imagine so, but that still didn't stop many, many Etruscan soldiers from buying and wearing them.The point being ? Solid bronze plate was damn expensive too, but that didn't keep the Greek farmer-soldiers from commonly wearing it during certain periods.
Kept the poorer folks out of the hoplite phalanxes though, but them's the breaks.


And the linothorax was even lighter and more comfortable still.Which is what I was talking about. The Egyptians didn't invent scale armour, but they did develop the linothorax from their old fabric cuirasses for the use of the Greek mercenaries who through somwhat complicated developements ended up as military settlers there in the centuries before the rise of the Achaemenids.


Again, this is pure speculation without evidence.Says you. As armour goes scale is relatively simple to construct and maintain, and judging by the regions it's been popular in (albeit lamellar usually sidelined it later on) it performed well enough against missiles. Feel like explaining the Bactrian and Massagetae proto-cataphracts that gave Alex's cavalry trouble at Gaugamela then ?


It's very clear that the other forms of armour employed by the eastern Hellenistic armies suited them just fine.And those were ?


Probably because the kataphrakt was probably adopted wholesale from the Parthians, who clearly did make use of scale armour.But if the linothorax was so good it was used instead of scale, why didn't they wear that instead ? Or bronze plate armour, which gave better protection than either scale or layered fabric ? Certainly given that the kataphraktoi were without the slightest doubt mind-bogglingly expensive ot equip in any case, and already seriously loaded down with protective gear, quibbling about the greater weight and expense would have been rather odd...


There also seems to be a bit of a logic hole here. If the characteristically Hellenic types of armour - solid bronze and linothorax not covered with scales - were so good and readily enough available that the Eastern Greek armies had no need for the "intermediate level" provided by scale armour, why did the Parthians keep wearing scale despite taking over the Seleukid production centers...? Or the post-Seleukid principalities like Palmyra and the Herodians add thorough scale coverings to their cuirasses ? It's not like either of the two was excessively difficult to make, and skilled armourers could always find employement; nevermind that the Parthians certainly dealt with Hellenic armour enough to be fully aware of its capabilities and it is difficult to see why they would not have picked up useful pieces of war gear when they met them...

Scale armour was also commonly used by the heavy cavalry of the steppe nomads whom the Persians, Armenians and various Central Asian nations had close contacts with (related languages didn't exactly hurt the cultural and technological exchange); I'd really like to see a logically tenable explanation why the Persians, with their far greater manufacturing capabilities, wouldn't have happily copied that along with the early saddle and other useful stuff from their nomad cousins if we now assume they for some incomprehensible reason hadn't been using it nonstop since when the Achaemenids were but a little mountain principality between the Assyrians, Medes and Elamites...

[MeinPanzer]

Originally Posted by Watchman
What, there's a meaningful difference between "composite cuirass" and linothorax ? I was under the impression the former was just the latter with more metal bits added for improved protection (with due increase in cost and weight) as per customer request, and fell under the same term ?


Yes, you've got it right. Composite cuirasses are linothoraxes with scale or lamellar bits added to them.




Anyway, the Acheamenids took over the old Asyrian and Babylonian haunts wholesale back in the day. Would you like to provide a logical explanation as to why exactly they wouldn't have drawn up on the existing pool of skilled armourers for their own use, all the more so given the missile-heavy part of the world they were operating in ?


Perhaps because, like the Greek tendency over time towards lightening the armour of the Hoplite, the Persians tended towards lighter types of armour to achieve greater mobility? It seems very clear from all the evidence concerning Achaemenid Persian warfare that they preferred to use lighter-equipped troops, even when they were familiar with, as you say, both previous Near Eastern and Scythian styles of armour as well as Greek styles.




Troops protected from the weapons of their enemies are more confident and aggressive, and obviously don't die as fast;


This is true, but armour also weighs down the warrior.



while the mass levies were disposable enough the Persians had considerable bodies of regular troops and warrior aristocracy as well, both having both means and a reason to be armoured.


True, yet in the main they chose not to wear armour heavier than the linothorax.




You might also want to try explaining away Xenophon's lenghty discussions about the armour of Persian cavalry and their mounts in his Peri Hippikes, occasional references to too flimsy Greek cavalry javelins breaking upon striking armoured Persian troops in melee, the repeated references to Persian (and some Scythian/Massagetae) armoured shock cavalry in the sources on Alexander's campaigns...


Some later Persian cavalry did certainly wear limited elements of scale armour, such as parapleuridia, but those are akin to the kataphrakts in the Hellenistic armies in that they constituted only a very tiny part of the overall forces. Massagetic cavalry were also clearly armoured, but they are an entirely different subject altogether.




The point being ? Solid bronze plate was damn expensive too, but that didn't keep the Greek farmer-soldiers from commonly wearing it during certain periods.


Exactly my point... it wasn't a matter of cost, but of taste.




Says you.


No, says the archaeological record!




As armour goes scale is relatively simple to construct and maintain, and judging by the regions it's been popular in (albeit lamellar usually sidelined it later on) it performed well enough against missiles. Feel like explaining the Bactrian and Massagetae proto-cataphracts that gave Alex's cavalry trouble at Gaugamela then ?


No need to explain, because as I said before, there is clear evidence of use of scale or lamellar armour for kataphraktoi by Achaemenid, Baktrian, Massagetic, Sakae, Seleukid, and Parthian armies. They still only constituted a tiny portion of the armies, though.




And those were ?


Linothorax, metal muscled cuirass, the plain metal cuirass.




But if the linothorax was so good it was used instead of scale, why didn't they wear that instead ?


There is an overall trend, from the 6th down to the 3rd C. BC, towards lighter armed soldiers in almost all arms of Greek militaries bar the cavalry. Metal armour was heavy, and, at least according to our sources, soldiers operating in a phalanx did so just fine without heavy armour. The only two depictions of phalangites operating in a phalanx in combat are Seleukid, from the 2nd C. BC, and both show soldiers wearing only chitons, wearing only pilos helmets, and carrying the large Macedonian shield and sarissa.




Or bronze plate armour, which gave better protection than either scale or layered fabric ?


They still sometimes did wear bronze plate armour.




Certainly given that the kataphraktoi were without the slightest doubt mind-bogglingly expensive ot equip in any case, and already seriously loaded down with protective gear, quibbling about the greater weight and expense would have been rather odd...


For kataphraktoi, at least, mounted on sturdy Nisaean horses. Not so for your average cavalry- or infantrymen, such as the above peltast/akontiste.




There also seems to be a bit of a logic hole here. If the characteristically Hellenic types of armour - solid bronze and linothorax not covered with scales - were so good and readily enough available that the Eastern Greek armies had no need for the "intermediate level" provided by scale armour, why did the Parthians keep wearing scale despite taking over the Seleukid production centers...?


We don't even know that the Parthian's didn't adopt solid plate. Some of the figurines found in the Parthian east which are attributed to Seleukid cataphracts (for those of you with the Sekunda Montvert title on the Seleucid army, you can see two examples in figures 32-34) could just as easily be Parthian. Evidence for Parthian soldiers before the 1st C. AD or so is very sparse, and oftentimes ambiguous in nature.

Even so, it seems simply that Macedonians preferred certain types of armour for combat- despite some adoption of enemy weaponry and equipment by the Hellenistic armies, they still stayed very much "Macedonian" in equipment until the end. Perhaps this was nationalistic, or maybe it was just tradition.




Or the post-Seleukid principalities like Palmyra and the Herodians add thorough scale coverings to their cuirasses ?


Keep in mind that there is a sizeable gap- mid 1st C. BC to 1st C. AD- in which the Romans also adopted various types of metallic armour. I'm not saying the tradition of wearing scale or lamellar armour died out in all areas- it seems to have persisted amongst the Parthians, Sakae, and numerous others- but it just fell out of widespread favour in this period.




It's not like either of the two was excessively difficult to make, and skilled armourers could always find employement; nevermind that the Parthians certainly dealt with Hellenic armour enough to be fully aware of its capabilities and it is difficult to see why they would not have picked up useful pieces of war gear when they met them...


And see my comments before that they might have. Those heads from Old Nisa that clearly wear Hellenistic helmets and the fact that Parthians are said to have incorporated some Seleukid soldiers into their army after conquering Mesopotamia could indicate that Parthians did make use of a lot of Greek equipment.




Scale armour was also commonly used by the heavy cavalry of the steppe nomads whom the Persians, Armenians and various Central Asian nations had close contacts with (related languages didn't exactly hurt the cultural and technological exchange); I'd really like to see a logically tenable explanation why the Persians, with their far greater manufacturing capabilities, wouldn't have happily copied that along with the early saddle and other useful stuff from their nomad cousins if we now assume they for some incomprehensible reason hadn't been using it nonstop since when the Achaemenids were but a little mountain principality between the Assyrians, Medes and Elamites...



The early saddle postdates the Achaemenid Persians by a little bit, so they couldn't really have adopted it, but as I wrote earlier, the Persians did have a very small portion of their cavalry armed in scale armour. Still, it was but a tiny portion a massive amount of troops that appear to have been equipped with linothorax or no armour at all.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't think I've seen scale armour being represented as widespread in EB, so I can't really see what the issue is. And besides, wouldn't elephant riders A) be extremely rare and B) consist of native troops armed in native rather than Greek fashion?

[QwertyMIDX]

There's tons of scale in EB, not on the Seleukids outside their catas though. This is a Baktrian/Indo-Greek fellow, and they did wear scale according to the coins I mentioned.

EDIT: Oh a few regional eastern cav units the seleukids get have scale too.

[Geoffrey S]

Sorry, I meant not widespread on Greek units outside of Baktria, which is the subject on which the discussion originated. Should have made myself clearer.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

For kataphraktoi, at least, mounted on sturdy Nisaean horses. Not so for your average cavalry- or infantrymen, such as the above peltast/akontiste.I hardly think we have scale on akontistai. There's no need to exaggerate our argument that much to strengthen your own. This is also not just an average peltast. The point that scale armor weighs light units down so they can't run isn't really at issue with this unit - as they aren't running anywhere but are stationary atop a moving object.

[MeinPanzer]

I don't think I've seen scale armour being represented as widespread in EB, so I can't really see what the issue is. And besides, wouldn't elephant riders A) be extremely rare and B) consist of native troops armed in native rather than Greek fashion?

Well, even if only a few units within the Seleukid army are depicted with scale armour, they are historically inaccurate.

First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army. Secondly, they would simply be regular troops from within the army, and so would be equipped most likely in the Greek fashion.

[Sarcasm]

Yeah, that's exactly what you want to do with an Elite part of your army, filling it with substandard javelinmen.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well, even if only a few units within the Seleukid army are depicted with scale armour, they are historically inaccurate.

First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army. Secondly, they would simply be regular troops from within the army, and so would be equipped most likely in the Greek fashion.

Plus that's a Baktrian elephant rider, not a seleukid one. I think our Seleukid one might have chainmail on, but definatly not scale.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We're talking about Baktrian elephants here, not Seleukid. So how would Baktrian elephant riders be armed/armored? The only thing we know for sure (or that we have direct evidence for) is the helmets. We got that right (the famous plate with Baktrian elephants and soldiers). The rest has got to be up in the air somewhat. If they were armored with helmets like they are depicted on the plate, then it would be absolutely bizarre to depict them as akontistai, with fancy helmets. So how would they be depicted then? Nikonorov doesn't give any hints in his text. This is all he says about them:


Elephants: The third fighting force in the composition of the Graeco-Bactrian army was the elephants which, as I have already argued, may have appeared in Bactria under Seleucid rule. War-elephants were definitely possessed by Euthydemus I, for elephants are referred to by Polybius (XI, 34,10) as being transferred by this king to the Seleucid, Antiochus III, according to terms of their peace treaty concluded in 206 BC after the latter's two year siege of the Bactrian capital Bactra/Zariaspa. In this connection, especially worthy of note are two silver phalerae, now kept in the Hermitage collection and convincingly identified by K V Trever (1940, pp. 45-48) as pieces of Graeco-Bactrian workmanship, which depict war-elephants, each carrying a mahout and a tower (thorakion) with two soldiers inside (Fig 16a,b and PI 2). After Euthydemus' son, Demetrius 1, began to conquer lands lying in northwestern India, the military employment of elephants by the Greeks settled on either side of the Hindukush was bound to increase. It must be more than mere chance that Demetrius portrayed himself as crowned with elephant-scalp headgear (Fig 16c,d). The Milindapanha mentions war-elephants in the army of Menander. In addition, iron hook-like goads, by means of which the mahouts drove the animals, were found at Ai Khanum and in an Indo-Greek (?) deposit of Bhir Mound at Taxila (Fig 14c,d).

So were they Iranian/Greek/Indian soldiers? What type of equipment did they use (outside of the helmet)? All of that is really unknown. We went with what we felt was a good guess at this. You say "First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army." Again, we are talking about Bactria here but still this is something almost all our members would disagree with I think. You hold an extreme view here. We did not even depict them as armored as Nikonorov does (who has a plate of a Greek, with a helmet much like the one we show, a very long spear, metal cuirass, greaves, heavy ptyrges, and a long sword). We think that a bit much, and don't have them as elite as that individual, but in between the two, with more local influence when it comes to the armor. I really don't see what is so crazy about our rendering of this unit. It seems quite moderate to me.

[Geoffrey S]

Is the soldier in the first post the driver or one of the two chaps in the tower? What MeinPanzer seems to be arguing, and he may have a point, is that while the driver could be armoured in the manner of the depicted unit the javelinmen in the tower could be simple akontistai.

[QwertyMIDX]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Phalera.jpg

[Teleklos Archelaou]

These are the guys in turribus. Just like the phalera depicts - with these helmets.

Nikonorov's book (like an Osprey) depicts a non-armored/non-weapon-bearing Iranian or Indian (I can't tell really) driver with the spur to steer the elephant, then a very heavily armored and armed greek in the tower, with an Iranian or Indian archer/javelin-thrower (no armor or helmet at all) behind him. He shows two units that way. We can't have the variation - if we have units in the towers they have to be the same, and they have to share models with all the other factions, so we have them armored in different ways for all the factions, but all armored somewhere slightly above what you might find in a peltast (that's not the rule, but an observation of the units). It's not akontistai/toxotai, but it's not Baktrion Agema either. People can get really unhappy about it if they like, but it seems reasonable to us.

[Geoffrey S]

No, that makes sense. Thanks for making things clearer.

[MeinPanzer]

I hardly think we have scale on akontistai. There's no need to exaggerate our argument that much to strengthen your own. This is also not just an average peltast. The point that scale armor weighs light units down so they can't run isn't really at issue with this unit - as they aren't running anywhere but are stationary atop a moving object.

They wouldn't need to be heavily armoured because they were provided a lot of protection by the howdah itself. And if you're going to follow that logic, why not just armour them with metal muscled cuirasses? If they don't have to move, that provides them with the greatest defense.


Plus that's a Baktrian elephant rider, not a seleukid one. I think our Seleukid one might have chainmail on, but definatly not scale.

Okay, that I didn't realize, but even so, Baktrian elephant riders should not have scale armour either. Seleukid elephant riders should not be armoured in mail either. I'm guessing you got that from the passage in 1 Maccabees 35 which says:


And they distributed the beasts among the phalanxes; with each elephant they stationed a thousand men armed with coats of mail, and with brass helmets on their heads; and five hundred picked horsemen were assigned to each beast.

Note that they mean a contingent of infantry stationed around the elephants, not riding them. The only mention of the elephant riders is in 1 Macc. 38:


And upon the elephants were wooden towers, strong and covered; they were fastened upon each beast by special harness, and upon each were four armed men who fought from there, and also its Indian driver.


If they were armored with helmets like they are depicted on the plate, then it would be absolutely bizarre to depict them as akontistai, with fancy helmets.

Their helmets are by no means fancy (being a variant of Boeotian) and there are other depictions of akontistai in wearing helmets in the Hellenistic period.


So were they Iranian/Greek/Indian soldiers? What type of equipment did they use (outside of the helmet)? All of that is really unknown. We went with what we felt was a good guess at this. You say "First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army." Again, we are talking about Bactria here but still this is something almost all our members would disagree with I think. You hold an extreme view here. We did not even depict them as armored as Nikonorov does (who has a plate of a Greek, with a helmet much like the one we show, a very long spear, metal cuirass, greaves, heavy ptyrges, and a long sword).

It should be noted that Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor in hsi Montvert title, and should not be trusted at all (and I'm glad you haven't).


We think that a bit much, and don't have them as elite as that individual, but in between the two, with more local influence when it comes to the armor.

Again, I'm guessing you are going to point to the Indo-Greek coins for evidence of scale armour being worn. Indo-Greeks had, in the latter centuries of the Hellenistic age, increasing contact with Indo-Saka groups, and it's clear from Indo-Saka coins that they (like most nomads) employed heavy cavalrymen wearing plate armour. Any Indo-Greek kings wearing scale or plate armour would inevitably be cavalrymen, as was traditional for kings in most ancient armies. The wearing of scale or plate armour by kataphraktoi is no secret, and I said so earlier (see the armour from Ai-Khanoum, for instance). However, only people as rich as a king or his philoi would be able to afford such armour. There is absolitely no evidence for any other kind of scale armour being worn, and there is not a single piece of evidence to support composite cuirasses being worn at any point in time in the Hellenistic period as far east as Baktria.


I really don't see what is so crazy about our rendering of this unit. It seems quite moderate to me.

It's quite accurate except for the composite cuirass, that's all. If you changed it to a linothorax it would be much more accurate.


Nikonorov's book (like an Osprey) depicts a non-armored/non-weapon-bearing Iranian or Indian (I can't tell really) driver with the spur to steer the elephant,

As was apparently commonplace with all war elephants. The most heavily armed the drivers seem to have got was wearing a helmet.


then a very heavily armored and armed greek in the tower,

All we know is that he wears a helmet and carries a javelin. We have no other indication that he is armoured at all.


with an Iranian or Indian archer/javelin-thrower (no armor or helmet at all) behind him.

And we have no indication that this guy is an Iranian or Indian at all, either. The hairstyle is indicative of some eastern Greeks, and so we can't say for sure whether he's a local or a Greek.


He shows two units that way. We can't have the variation - if we have units in the towers they have to be the same, and they have to share models with all the other factions, so we have them armored in different ways for all the factions, but all armored somewhere slightly above what you might find in a peltast (that's not the rule, but an observation of the units). It's not akontistai/toxotai, but it's not Baktrion Agema either. People can get really unhappy about it if they like, but it seems reasonable to us.

It just seems really strange to choose a type of armour- a composite cuirass- which has no archaeological basis for existing within hundreds of miles of that area at that time and to assign it to that figure.

[Kugutsu]

I have a couple of questions (more about the actual nature of the unit than EBs interpretation of it):

1) Why did they put javelineers on elephants? Surely archers are far better suited to working from a small enclosed space like the tower. Pull your arm back too far with a javelin and you're going to impale your buddy. Also without a run up you cant really put that much force behind a javelin, whereas a bow doesnt rely on momentum.

2) Why didnt they give the driver armour? Surely of all the people on the elephant, he's the important one. The skirmishers on top are a nice add-on, but the whole point of using elephants is to use the beast itself. Leaving the bloke who tells it where to go perched out front with virtually no protection seems a little silly...

3) Is that plate pic the main source for the unit? Because I cant see how you can draw any conclusions about the guys on the tower, except for the helmet. They could be naked in there for all we can see. I didnt even realise the weapons they were holding were supposed to be javelins, I thought they were swords - but then whats the point of having a sword when you are a good six feet above the heads of the people you are fighting.

[MeinPanzer]

I have a couple of questions (more about the actual nature of the unit than EBs interpretation of it):

1) Why did they put javelineers on elephants? Surely archers are far better suited to working from a small enclosed space like the tower. Pull your arm back too far with a javelin and you're going to impale your buddy. Also without a run up you cant really put that much force behind a javelin, whereas a bow doesnt rely on momentum.

Because the evidence shows men with javelins sitting in the howdahs of war elephants. I don't think it would be too hard to use them without killing the other riders. And a lot of evidence seems to indicate that many armies made use of javelins without run ups, as you seem to think. For instance, look at the effectiveness of Roman use of pila while standing stationary.


2) Why didnt they give the driver armour? Surely of all the people on the elephant, he's the important one. The skirmishers on top are a nice add-on, but the whole point of using elephants is to use the beast itself. Leaving the bloke who tells it where to go perched out front with virtually no protection seems a little silly...

This comes directly from the archaeological evidence. The most armour drivers are ever depicted as wearing is a helmet.


3) Is that plate pic the main source for the unit? Because I cant see how you can draw any conclusions about the guys on the tower, except for the helmet. They could be naked in there for all we can see. I didnt even realise the weapons they were holding were supposed to be javelins, I thought they were swords - but then whats the point of having a sword when you are a good six feet above the heads of the people you are fighting.

There are two of these silver phalerai, both showing very similar war elephants, and yes they are pretty much the only evidence for Baktrian war elephants. And you are right that we can't tell how they are armoured at all beyond the one man wearing a helmet, but those are definitely javelins by their sides.

[Watchman]

I don't think Kugutsu is asking after evidence or if it was done, he's wondering about the why.

Which I do as well at times. For example much later Mughal war elephants might for example carry a well-armoured arquebusieur in the howdah - but the mahout still wore about loinclotch. Given how important the guy was for the continued functioning of the war elephant team it seems very counterintuitive he was left so vulnerable in such an exposed position, and one can only assume there were valid reasons for doing so because pretty much everyone seems to have done it.

Armouring the fighting-crew in the howdah/tower makes perfect sense though. The sides of the structure obviously protect their legs and lower body, but in order to use their weapons - whatever those now happened to be; javelins appear to have been extremely common, even among "archer" peoples, which is another question mark - they'd have to expose their upper bodies, arms and heads to enemy missiles and on occasion probably also sufficiently long spears.

One suspects the elephant-riders were trained specialists and in any case they were both important for the continued effectiveness of the elephant team (since their job included keeping infantry trying to swarm the beast preoccupied) and far as one can tell virtually impossible to replace in battlefield conditions in the case of casualties, ergo minimizing losses among them would come across as solid military thinking. Moreover, given the expenses incurred by a single battle-trained elephant to its owner the cost of providing the fighting crew with decent body armour would obviously be so low in copmarision as to be nigh irrelevant, and any beast large enough to be able to carry both the fighting-platform and its occupants on its back would presumably not even notice the weight added by body armour.

[MeinPanzer]

One suspects the elephant-riders were trained specialists and in any case they were both important for the continued effectiveness of the elephant team (since their job included keeping infantry trying to swarm the beast preoccupied) and far as one can tell virtually impossible to replace in battlefield conditions in the case of casualties, ergo minimizing losses among them would come across as solid military thinking.

There's no reason to think they required any more training, or were any harder to replace, than other akontistai. There wasn't a whole lot to firing from the back of an elephant, other than as you say trying to keep enemies as far away from the beasts as possible, but they almost always had special guards of dozens or hundreds of men to help with that anyway. They would be far easier to replace than, say, a heavy cavalryman. The minimization reason for the heavy defense (which often included hanging shields on the sides of the howdahs) was simply to keep the men up top operating as long as possible.


Moreover, given the expenses incurred by a single battle-trained elephant to its owner the cost of providing the fighting crew with decent body armour would obviously be so low in copmarision as to be nigh irrelevant, and any beast large enough to be able to carry both the fighting-platform and its occupants on its back would presumably not even notice the weight added by body armour.

Both of these points are true, but you also have to think of some other problems. When you have heavy armour on, or armour at all for that matter, your flexibility is greatly reduced. Even the linothorax would have reduced flexibility and made actions within a howdah turret more awkward. When you have four men crammed into a tiny box on the back of an elephant along with all the weaponry they will need, and they all have to be throwing javelins or firing arrows, armour would limit their range of movement, and probably wouldn't provide an amount of defence proportional to their limited mobility (considering the already heavily protected turret walls).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, we disagree then about the body armor for this unit I guess. Worse things happen at sea, I always say. :laugh4:

We are using a type of body armor that is common for some types of units for this faction, but there is no direct evidence that elephant riders wore them (we certainly admit this). You think it's too much of a stretch, while we think it's speculative but possible, especially given our lack of certain knowledge of the unit. You say Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor, and you say that it's impossible to have this armor for this unit. You apparently know more about the unit than the only peson who has ever published widely on the matter and more than any of us. Entirely possible, but keep in mind that in reconstructing all the units we have, that we do the best job we think we can, and we certainly do have to speculate on some, like this one.

Have you gotten a chance to play a campaign in EB yet MP? Hope so and hope you've gotten some enjoyment from it.

[MeinPanzer]

We are using a type of body armor that is common for some types of units for this faction, but there is no direct evidence that elephant riders wore them (we certainly admit this).

Please provide me with a single shred of evidence that composite scale cuirasses were worn by any units within the Seleukid army.


You think it's too much of a stretch, while we think it's speculative but possible, especially given our lack of certain knowledge of the unit. You say Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor, and you say that it's impossible to have this armor for this unit.

I don't say that it's impossible, but I think it's unlikely- and I think if they wore any armour, it was a linothorax, like almost every other light element of almost every other Hellenistic army in existence at this time.


You apparently know more about the unit than the only peson who has ever published widely on the matter and more than any of us. Entirely possible, but keep in mind that in reconstructing all the units we have, that we do the best job we think we can, and we certainly do have to speculate on some, like this one.

I think having armour on this unit is fine. Any speculation on my part about whether they wore armour or not is just speculation. However, having this unit wear a composite cuirass is just entirely inaccurate and illogical.

And while Nikonorov covers all the evidence for Baktrian elephants, he omits and misinterprets many, many sources for his coverage of other elements of the other armies he discusses in his book.


Have you gotten a chance to play a campaign in EB yet MP? Hope so and hope you've gotten some enjoyment from it.

I enjoy both EB and RTR, but I find it always detracts from the experience just a little bit when I see a unit which is unnecessarily inaccurate.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Trying to be good natured about this. Oh well.

[QwertyMIDX]

It's still not a Seleukid unit, it remains Baktrian/Indo-Greek, and it's just scale, not a composite cuirasses. With the evidence of scale armor on indo-greek coins, the lack of evidence as to the body armor (of any type) wore by greek troops on elephants we went with something that we feel is reasonable, and allows a bit of variety into the equipment of the elephant riders.

We have the greek style rider for 6 factions as well as merc skin. IIRC only one, the Baktrian/Indo-Greek has scale, one has chain (Seleukid as mentioned) 3 have some form of linothorax, one has leather, and one has padded cloth. I don't feel we are being massively inaccurate here...

[keravnos]

Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

=

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/loricahamata2.jpg

Good enough for us.

So far as the unarmored mahut thing, well, it was something common for the people of the time, and place. The mathuras, which were conquered after heavy fighting in 180 BC but rebelled in 100 BC used their elephants in the way shown below...

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/mathuraelephant.jpg

and a reconstrucion of the Mathuran elephant coprs...

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/fig_indian_elephant.jpg

[Sarcasm]

Kos, can't seem to able to see those photos there mate. Anything special I gotta do to see them?

[MiniMe]

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/fig_indian_elephant.jpg
Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

[Zaknafien]

no there doesnt, ive sat on an elephant's back myself, "bareback" as it were.

[spirit_of_rob]

unless you want to sing soprano however i wouldnt recommend going to fast hehe :clown:

[Zaknafien]

heh. very true..and granted i was like 11 at the time.. hey maybe those chaps are eunuchs.

[MeinPanzer]

It's still not a Seleukid unit, it remains Baktrian/Indo-Greek, and it's just scale, not a composite cuirasses.

But you do have the Baktrian Pheraspidai wearing a composite cuirass.


With the evidence of scale armor on indo-greek coins, the lack of evidence as to the body armor (of any type) wore by greek troops on elephants we went with something that we feel is reasonable, and allows a bit of variety into the equipment of the elephant riders.

For the reasons I stated before (that it's only clear from the coins that Indo-Greek kataphraktoi wore scale) it is not reasonable to put a very expensive piece of armour on what is essentially a light soldier, even if composite cuirasses were known to have been worn by Baktrians. I understand you want variety, but don't you still want to keep it accurate?


We have the greek style rider for 6 factions as well as merc skin. IIRC only one, the Baktrian/Indo-Greek has scale, one has chain (Seleukid as mentioned) 3 have some form of linothorax, one has leather, and one has padded cloth. I don't feel we are being massively inaccurate here...

As I mentioned before, the Seleukid riders shouldn't be in mail, either.


Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

1. True.
2. True.
3. Yes, Baktrians had contact with Indians, who did make use of iron, and iron scale cuirasses. However, it is very clear from Indian texts that only the king wore scale armour.
4. I wouldn't call it the panzer corps of the time at all. Many people have made the comparison of elephants in the ancient world to tanks in the modern world and it's a very poor comparison. And I don't necessarily think they demanded "the best" for the soldiers fighting from the back of the elephant. As I'd said before, it's very apparent that the skill needed to fight from the back of an elephant was fairly minor.
5. Because there is no evidence that any troops other than rich aristocrats made use of scale armour.

You can argue this all day, but the fact of the matter is that in the Seleukid, the Baktrian, the Indo-Greek, and the Mauryan Indian armies any scale or lamellar armour that was worn was done so by the aristocracy who were almost without exception mounted (be it on a horse or, as an Indian king, a chariot or an elephant). And I doubt that in a force like the Baktrians, with what could only be described as a limited pool of valued Greek aristocrats with training and equipment needed for the hetairoi, they could spare some for riding on the back of an elephant.


Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

The Sanchi reliefs are very clear in showing that the Mauryans did not employ a howdah of any kind on their elephants and that they all rode "bareback" (though, of course sitting on a carpet).

[MiniMe]

eunuchs :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

[MeinPanzer]

eunuchs :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

1 Maccabees 43:


And Eleazar, called Avaran, saw that one of the beasts was equipped with royal armor. It was taller than all the others, and he supposed that the king was upon it.

His assumption "that the king was upon it" was, of course, entirely unfounded, because Seleukid kings never rode elephants.

There is also a fragment of a metal figurine, the provenance and date of which I have never been able to find, though it is definitely Hellenistic, which shows an armoured elephant. This is what all reconstructions of armoured elephants are invariably based on. The metal hoops are based on some terracotta figurines showing a Seleukid elephant with a Galatian warrior in its trunk and which were made to commemorate the victory of Antiochus I in the "Elephant Battle." In fact, what are interpreted as metal leg defences may simply be the artist's interpretation of the folds in an elephant's skin, since similar hoops are modelled around the neck as well.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well being Greek as fast east as the Baktrian or Indo-Greek kingdoms were during the hieght of said kingdoms meant you were of a fairly high class. We also know that greeks rode elephant so...

In fact the Baktrians wouldn't have had normal greek akontistai, they would have employed easterners in that role.

[Eduorius]

The elephants of the Sucessor had armor. In the book of John Warry about ancient warfare he says that the Ptolemies used armor for their African elephants so that they could have a chance against the bigger Indian elephants used by the Seleucids at Raphia.

What I am not sure its about the mahout (the elephant rider) using armor. I have always read that the elephant panicked when he lost his riders, but I am not sure how easy elephants lost their riders. You understand me?

Without protection they could easy be killed by a well placed javaline or arrow, but illustrations I have found dont show them with much protection. I hope people dont get angry but if it is for me, while having so many elephants and factions that use them, I vote for having elephants without armored mahouts and some elephants with armoured mahouts.

http://members.tripod.com/joseph_berrigan/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hydaspes4.gif

http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/2025a1.jpg

http://www.ancientbattles.com/indianelephants/Indian_EL_01.jpg

As you see its also a matter of interpretation as in the illustrations above there are 2 Indian elephants with unarmored riders, but there is one illustration that has a rider with a linothorax and a Greek helmet.

[MeinPanzer]

Well being Greek as fast east as the Baktrian or Indo-Greek kingdoms were during the hieght of said kingdoms meant you were of a fairly high class. We also know that greeks rode elephant so...

Not necessarily. Some Greeks were higher class, but not all. Remember that many of the Greeks who ended up in Baktria were simply mercenaries, which meant that they would not have been particularly wealthy unless given land and made into katoikai.


In fact the Baktrians wouldn't have had normal greek akontistai, they would have employed easterners in that role.

Probably for some, but again, many poor mercenaries ended up in Baktria, so it's not impossible that Greeks operated as lighter-armed soldiers.

[MeinPanzer]

The elephants of the Sucessor had armor. In the book of John Warry about ancient warfare he says that the Ptolemies used armor for their African elephants so that they could have a chance against the bigger Indian elephants used by the Seleucids at Raphia.

Actually, none of the elephants at Raphia were armoured, and there's no evidence at all for Ptolemaic elephants wearing armour.


What I am not sure its about the mahout (the elephant rider) using armor. I have always read that the elephant panicked when he lost his riders, but I am not sure how easy elephants lost their riders. You understand me?

Without protection they could easy be killed by a well placed javaline or arrow, but illustrations I have found dont show them with much protection. I hope people dont get angry but if it is for me, while having so many elephants and factions that use them, I vote for having elephants without armored mahouts and some elephants with armoured mahouts.

http://members.tripod.com/joseph_berrigan/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hydaspes4.gif

http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/2025a1.jpg

http://www.ancientbattles.com/indianelephants/Indian_EL_01.jpg

As you see its also a matter of interpretation as in the illustrations above there are 2 Indian elephants with unarmored riders, but there is one illustration that has a rider with a linothorax and a Greek helmet.

As I posted earlier in this thread, the most armour a mahout is ever shown with is a helmet. It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

"It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation."

Like the only modern published book on the Bactrian army depicts? Why bash us about the head and face for taking a less extreme depiction than he does? Again, your akontistai with helmets on one side, his Bactrian Agema on the other - we feel our depiction of the riders is acceptable.

[MeinPanzer]

"It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation."

Like the only modern published book on the Bactrian army depicts? Why bash us about the head and face for taking a less extreme depiction than he does? Again, your akontistai with helmets on one side, his Bactrian Agema on the other - we feel our depiction of the riders is acceptable.

I was writing about mahouts in that post, not riders.

[Eduorius]

Actually, none of the elephants at Raphia were armoured, and there's no evidence at all for Ptolemaic elephants wearing armour.


Well Warry says they did and for me it makes sense being the Seleucid Indian elephants bigger than the Ptolemaic African elephants. Also as it makes sense to me that if you are the rider of an elephant and you know that the beast gets crazy if you are killed just with a well placed missile that you should have some type of armor for protection. If there is no evidence I dont know, but having so many types of elephants in EB it makes sense to me to have both.

[QwertyMIDX]

Not necessarily. Some Greeks were higher class, but not all. Remember that many of the Greeks who ended up in Baktria were simply mercenaries, which meant that they would not have been particularly wealthy unless given land and made into katoikai.

I didn't mean they had been nobles before getting there, I meant that that in these kingdoms Greeks formed the upper-classes while the lower classes tended to be made up of natives. Baktria wasn't a Greek state, it was a state run by a Greek elite.

[MeinPanzer]

I didn't mean they had been nobles before getting there, I meant that that in these kingdoms Greeks formed the upper-classes while the lower classes tended to be made up of natives. Baktria wasn't a Greek state, it was a state run by a Greek elite.

Have you read Samarkhand to Sardis by Kuhrt and Sherwin-White? This is largely an older idea that is now being reexamined. Many of the mercenaries who were placed in Baktria from Alexander's army would have constituted the upper class, yes, but not the later Greeks and Macedonians who travelled there to serve as mercenaries. While Greek-speakers had a much better chance of entering the upper class, they didn't do so simply by virtue of their ethnicity.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

He said "tended". That's correct. While the older ideas of a strict division are being reexamined, and rightly so, the distribution is not totally equal, and I doubt Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would argue that it was (I don't see them arguing that it was at the very least). Especially in 272 when our game begins. Keep in mind we can't have reforms for all units, and though sometimes we make concessions to the need to use a unit throughout the length of our mod's timeframe, we do also tend to portray units as they were at the beginning of our mod's timeframe instead of at the end. There are no Baktrian reforms (they take up building complex space) other than the cataphract ones.

[Watchman]

About the war elephants' mahout thing. I've been wondering if those guys, in the case they didn't wear much in the way of armour, could lie flat on the neck of the 'phant and make themselves really small targets when they didn't specifically need to sit up for some reason (a helmet would probably defend most of what was left exposed to most enemies) ? Not that I knew jack all about how one goes about "mahouting" the big animals mind you, but it would make sense if one assumes they more or less never wore much armour. Body armour would after all mess with the flexibility needed to do that, and a type heavy enough to be of genuine use would probably cause some top-heaviness and balance problem; armoured cavalrymen had to deal with that too, and unlike horsemen people sitting on the necks of elephants can't start using saddles and such to help out...

[QwertyMIDX]

Have you read Samarkhand to Sardis by Kuhrt and Sherwin-White? This is largely an older idea that is now being reexamined. Many of the mercenaries who were placed in Baktria from Alexander's army would have constituted the upper class, yes, but not the later Greeks and Macedonians who travelled there to serve as mercenaries. While Greek-speakers had a much better chance of entering the upper class, they didn't do so simply by virtue of their ethnicity.


I have indeed. I never said that every greek was upper-class, merely that the greeks tended to disproportionaly upper-class while the lower-classes were disproprotionally not greek, which I think Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would agree with. We're obviously not talking about some strict dichotomy, just a general trend.

[MeinPanzer]

He said "tended". That's correct. While the older ideas of a strict division are being reexamined, and rightly so, the distribution is not totally equal, and I doubt Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would argue that it was (I don't see them arguing that it was at the very least). Especially in 272 when our game begins. Keep in mind we can't have reforms for all units, and though sometimes we make concessions to the need to use a unit throughout the length of our mod's timeframe, we do also tend to portray units as they were at the beginning of our mod's timeframe instead of at the end. There are no Baktrian reforms (they take up building complex space) other than the cataphract ones.

I have indeed. I never said that every greek was upper-class, merely that the greeks tended to disproportionaly upper-class while the lower-classes were disproprotionally not greek, which I think Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would agree with. We're obviously not talking about some strict dichotomy, just a general trend.

So we're in agreement then that some Greeks occupied the lower classes and thus the poorer elements of the army?


About the war elephants' mahout thing. I've been wondering if those guys, in the case they didn't wear much in the way of armour, could lie flat on the neck of the 'phant and make themselves really small targets when they didn't specifically need to sit up for some reason (a helmet would probably defend most of what was left exposed to most enemies) ?

I've thought about this, too, and I think you're right- Indian elephants especially have big noggins, and if a man has his legs and some of his lower body behind the elephant ears, and tried to keep as much of the rest of him as possible behind the head, he would probably be fairly well protected.


Not that I knew jack all about how one goes about "mahouting" the big animals mind you, but it would make sense if one assumes they more or less never wore much armour. Body armour would after all mess with the flexibility needed to do that, and a type heavy enough to be of genuine use would probably cause some top-heaviness and balance problem; armoured cavalrymen had to deal with that too, and unlike horsemen people sitting on the necks of elephants can't start using saddles and such to help out...

Yeah, this seems logical- the soldiers occupying the turret would probably have had some sort of rudimentary ladder system to get up onto the turret, while the mahout would have to maneuver all over the place while preparing the elephant for battle and during battle, too.

[Sarcasm]

On armour of the mahouts...

Throughout history they seem to have stayed completely unarmoured. Even during the Portuguese wars in the region, they remain vulnerable to arrows from native auxiliaries of both the Europeans and the Turks.

[QwertyMIDX]

So we're in agreement then that some Greeks occupied the lower classes and thus the poorer elements of the army?


Sure, some greeks were in the lower classes, but the vast majority of the lower classes would have been natives, thus most lighter (i.e. poorer) troops would have been native. Why would we show the abberation rather than the norm? Why would the greeks have put the fairly few poor greeks into the howdah instead of the more numerous, and probably more experienced, locals?