Chaonian Agema and IIllyrioi Thorakitai

[MiniMe]

Could somebody, please, post some evidence on existence of Chaonian Agema and IIllyrioi Thorakitai.

I've just read a very interesting and complete book about Pyrrhos:
1. All his Pezhetairoi phalanx were of macedon origin;
2. Thorakitai were not mentioned at all;
3. Chaonian tribe was in decline already and they weren't supporting Pyrrhos with some significant bodyguard Agemas.

Perhaps I'm wrong about it, but from my point of view, Epeiros wasn't such a unique kingdom different from Diadochi, so perhaps:
1. Greek Thorakitai&Thureophoroi need to be added to their army roster;
2. Chaonian Agema and IIllyrioi Thorakitai&Thureophoroi need to be removed.

Best regards,
MiniMe.

[Thaatu]

I've just read a very interesting and complete book about Pyrrhos:
Which book was it? Btw, you shouldn't say "have to". It means you're demanding, which if I intrepid right, you're not. Strong words seem to bring out the worst in people.

[bovi]

Nevermind.

[MiniMe]

Which book was it?
Р.В. Светлов "Пирр и военная история его времени" which means
R.Svetlov "Pyrrus and war history of his time period"
R.Svetlov is a war historian from Sanct Petersburg university, I'm afraid you won't find this book in english.


Btw, you shouldn't say "have to". It means you're demanding, which if I intrepid right, you're not. Strong words seem to bring out the worst in people.
Oh! Thanx for correcting me, my english is still far from perfect.
Of course I wasn't demanding, I was suggesting =)

[Brightblade]

It won't happen, Minime. Every unit has been researched appropriately and proven to exist for a reason. Just because YOU read ONE book in Russian (never translated, already means its doubtful in historical relevance) that doesn't say they EXISTED, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The game already reflects that Pezhetairoi are recruitable in Macedon not in Epeiros...

so just forget about it, in my humble opinion

plus Chaonion Agema is the best looking elite phalanx!

[goolasso]

It won't happen, Minime. Every unit has been researched appropriately and proven to exist for a reason. Just because YOU read ONE book in Russian (never translated, already means its doubtful in historical relevance) that doesn't say they EXISTED, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

So which is the evidence (books) of yours?

[MiniMe]

Just because YOU read ONE book in Russian (never translated, already means its doubtful in historical relevance) that doesn't say they EXISTED, doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Brightblade, I wasn't stating they didn't exist ;-)
Indeed, my knowledge of this matter is based on one book only, that's why I was asking for other sources of information.


plus Chaonion Agema is the best looking elite phalanx!
However beautiful, their 14 armor is a little bit too much, I'm afraid.

One more thing:
Why should IIllyrioi Thorakitai (that use same gear and tactics as KH Thorakitai) be more powerful than KH Thorakitai?
Why presume that IIllyrioi were physically stronger than Hellenes?
Lets put it this way: would you agree with statement that Spanish heavyweight boxer is better than Irish heavyweight of same experience?

Best regards,
MiniMe.

[Brightblade]

I believe in regards to your Thorakitai question, the strength is related more towards the Illyrians being a semi 'barbaric' civilization with the warrior culture being more prominent amongst regular Illyrians than the normal citizen soldiers of Greece


Your boxer comparison is irrelevant to the issue because boxerswould probably spend an equal amount of time training to be a better boxer and his normal non boxing time would be spent doing things unrelated to fighting

An Illyrian tribe on the borders of stronger foes and more barbarians to the north would probably have to fight more to survive than a Greek citizen soldier in Athens during peacetime, all things equal

If you want historical references as to why a certain unit is included, you'd better ask the EB team to provide them, but I think by now all these units that have been in the mod for so long have already been justified (both within internal EB member discussion situations and by us the players)

I mean if you see a new unit pop in next build and you want to ask for sources I'm sure they'll oblige if they have time, but you can always rest assured (and I can, too) that the team ALWAYS has historical references to back up all their unit inclusions.

goolasso, way to sound totally dumb in asking, I'm not an EB member, just a beta tester, thus finding historical sources is not my priority.

[Kongeslask]

A remark on the subject of this book MiniMe mentions and its author: This page http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/249509/ contains a short presentation of this Svetlov fellow. From what it claims, he is a professor at the department of history of philosophy at the institute of philosophy at the St. Peterburg state university. He apparently lectures on such subjects as neoplatonism and gnosticism, and seems not to have any special qualifications in "physical" history or archeology. He has also written a book called "Войны античного мира. Походы Пирра" - "Wars of the antique world. The campaigns of Pyrrhos". Seems to be a "popular" work.

I would infer from this that his word should not carry greater weight than those of specialists on the subject of the Epirote kingdom.

[goolasso]

goolasso, way to sound totally dumb in asking, I'm not an EB member, just a beta tester, thus finding historical sources is not my priority.

Then don't talk about historical evidence. Let the right people do it...

[Foot]

It won't happen, Minime. Every unit has been researched appropriately and proven to exist for a reason. Just because YOU read ONE book in Russian (never translated, already means its doubtful in historical relevance) that doesn't say they EXISTED, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The game already reflects that Pezhetairoi are recruitable in Macedon not in Epeiros...

so just forget about it, in my humble opinion

plus Chaonion Agema is the best looking elite phalanx!

This is certainly not our policy brightblade, we will gladly help anyone who asks with the intention of listening. We are far more hostile to people who question our evidence with no intention of listening to our response.

Minime, we'll try and get someone to talk to you about this as soon as possible.

Foot

[MiniMe]

Minime, we'll try and get someone to talk to you about this as soon as possible.
Manythanx =)

[Geoffrey S]

If you want historical references as to why a certain unit is included, you'd better ask the EB team to provide them, but I think by now all these units that have been in the mod for so long have already been justified (both within internal EB member discussion situations and by us the players)
I have to disagree rather strongly with that viewpoint. Within reason, yes, older research that is still present must have some merit to it. However, using your view means that older research would remain unchallanged or that important nuances would not be investigated in the assumption that research has apparently stood the test of time and doesn't need revising. If applied to history as a whole this would lead to some extent a stagnation of historical research. I understand that in EB there isn't time to constantly reasses older material, but that doesn't mean that there is no need to do so. Questions such as those posed my MiniMe could lead to refreshing reinterpretations, and at the very least interesting information for those outside EB.

[paullus]

Sheesh, will someone just post the relevant story, you know, the one where the CHAONIAN AGEMA leads an assault alongside Pyrhhos' son on Sparta? Then we can just get over this ridiculousness. Oh, and its section 28.1 for those who to look it up. The agema is also mentioned in a few of the battle narratives v. the Romans, and again the Chaonians figure prominently.

[keravnos]

On Plutarch's Pyrrhus chapter when Pyrrhos' and son are preparing anight assault on Sparta the following is written,

1



Pyrrhus himself, in person, advanced with his foot to force through
the shields of the Spartans ranged against him,

and...

2



Ptolemy, his son,
with two thousand Gauls, and some choice men of the Chaonians, went
around the trench, and endeavored to get over where the wagons were.

So far as NOT having a pike Epirote army, well, that is plain wrong. More some hours from now.

[Ravenic]

I'm sure EB has an Epirus expert, or something of that nature, and they're waiting to consult him.

[Sarcasm]

In Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus


He now marched away directly for Lacedaemon, and being advised by
Cleonymus to give the assault as soon as he arrived, fearing, as it
is said, lest the soldiers, entering by night, should plunder the
city, he answered, they might do it as well next morning, because
there were but few soldiers in town, and those unprovided against
his sudden approach, as Areus was not there in person, but gone to
aid the Gortynians in Crete. And it was this alone that saved the
town, because he despised it as not tenable, and so imagining no defence
would be made, he sat down before it that night. Cleonymus's friends,
and the Helots, his domestic servants, had made great preparation
at his house, as expecting Pyrrhus there at supper. In the night the
Lacedaemonians held a consultation to ship over all the women into
Crete, but they unanimously refused, and Archidamia came into the
senate with a sword in her hand, in the name of them all, asking if
the men expected the women to survive the ruins of Sparta. It was
next resolved to draw a trench in a line directly over against the
enemy's camp, and, here and there in it, to sink wagons in the ground,
as deep as the naves of the wheel, that, so being firmly fixed, they
might obstruct the passage of the elephants. When they had just begun
the work, both maids and women came to them, the married women with
their robes tied like girdles round their underfrocks, and the unmarried
girls in their single frocks only, to assist the elder men at the
work. As for the youth that were next day to engage, they left them
to their rest, and undertaking their proportion, they themselves finished
a third part of the trench which was in breadth six cubits, four in
depth, and eight hundred feet long, as Phylarchus says; Hieronymus
makes it somewhat less. The enemy beginning to move by break of day,
they brought their arms to the young men, and giving them also in
charge the trench, exhorted them to defend and keep it bravely, as
it would be happy for them to conquer in the view of their whole country,
and glorious to die in the arms of their mothers and wives, falling
as became Spartans. As for Chilonis, she retired with a halter about
her neck, resolving to die so rather than fall into the hands Cleonymus,
if the city were taken.

Pyrrhus himself, in person, advanced with his foot to force through
the shields of the Spartans ranged against him, and to get over the
trench, which was scarce passable, because the looseness of the fresh
earth afforded no firm footing for the soldiers. Ptolemy, his son,
with two thousand Gauls, and some choice men of the Chaonians, went
around the trench, and endeavoured to get over where the wagons were.
But they, being so deep in the ground, and placed close together,
not only made his passage, but also the defence of the Lacedaemonians,
very troublesome. Yet now the Gauls had got the wheels out of the
ground, and were drawing off the wagons toward the river, when young
Acrotatus, seeing the danger, passing through the town with three
hundred men, surrounded Ptolemy undiscerned, taking the advantage
of some slopes of the ground, until he fell upon his rear, and forced
him to wheel about. And thrusting one another into the ditch, and
falling among the wagons, at last with much loss, not without difficulty,
they withdrew. The elderly men and all the women saw this brave action
of Acrotatus, and when be returned back into the town to his first
post, all covered with blood and fierce and elate with victory, he
seemed to the Spartan women to have become taller and more beautiful
than before, and they envied Chilonis so worthy a lover. And some
of the old men followed him, crying aloud, "Go on, Acrotatus, be happy
with Chilonis, and beget brave sons for Sparta." Where Pyrrhus himself
fought was the hottest of the action and many of the Spartans did
gallantly, but in particular one Phyllius signalized himself, made
the best resistance, and killed most assailants; and when he found
himself ready to sink with the many wounds he had received, retiring
a little out of his place behind another, he fell down among his fellow-soldiers,
that the enemy might not carry off his body. The fight ended with
the day, and Pyrrhus, in his sleep, dreamed that he drew thunderbolts
upon Lacedaemon, and set it all on fire, and rejoiced at the sight;
and waking, in this transport of joy, he commanded his officers to
get all things ready for a second assault, and relating his dream
among his friends, supposing it to mean that he should take the town
by storm, the rest assented to it with admiration, but Lysimachus
was not pleased with the dream, and told him he feared lest as places
struck with lightning are held sacred, and not to be trodden upon,
so the gods might by this let him know the city should not be taken.
Pyrrhus replied, that all these things were but idle talk, full of
uncertainty, and only fit to amuse the vulgar; their thought, with
their swords in their hands, should always be-

"The one good omen is King Pyrrhus's cause," and so got up, and drew
out his army to the walls by break of day. The Lacedaemonians, in
resolution and courage, made a defence even beyond their power; the
women were all by, helping them to arms, and bringing bread and drink
to those that desired it, and taking care of the wounded. The Macedonians
attempted to fill up the trench, bringing huge quantities of materials
and throwing them upon the arms and dead bodies, that lay there and
were covered over. While the Lacedaemonians opposed this with all
their force, Pyrrhus, in person, appeared on their side of the trench
and wagons, pressing on horseback toward the city, at which the men
who had that post calling out, and the women shrieking and running
about, while Pyrrhus violently pushed on, and beat down all that disputed
his way, his horse received a shot in the belly from a Cretan arrow,
and, in his convulsions as he died, threw off Pyrrhus on slippery
and steep ground. And all about him being in confusion at this, the
Spartans came boldly up, and making good use of their missiles, forced
them off again. After this Pyrrhus, in other quarters also, put an
end to the combat, imagining the Lacedaemonians would be inclined
to yield, as almost all of them were wounded, and very great numbers
killed outright; but the good fortune of the city, either satisfied
with the experiment upon the bravery of the citizens, or willing to
prove how much even in the last extremities such interposition may
effect, brought, when the Lacedaemonians had now but very slender
hopes left, Aminias, the Phocian, one of Antigonus's commanders, from
Corinth to their assistance, with a force of mercenaries; and they
were no sooner received into the town, but Areus, their king, arrived
there himself, too, from Crete, with two thousand men more. The women
upon this went all home to their houses, finding it no longer necessary
for them to meddle with the business of the war; and they also were
sent back, who, though not of military age, were by necessity forced
to take arms, while the rest prepared to fight Pyrrhus.

[Sarcasm]

Greek bastard....beat me to it.

[MiniMe]

"...some choice men of the Chaonians..."
Good, thanx, that's what I was asking for.

[mAIOR]

But whre is the description on their equipement and battle formation??
I'd love to know :)


Cheers...

[Sarcasm]

Nevermind, I'm keeping out of this before I go nuclear.

[keravnos]

@ Sarcasm... :laugh4:

Hey, it is my ancestors we are talking about...:yes: :2thumbsup:

@mAIOR, Unfortunately Plutarch isn't Jane's 272 BCE. We have to make due with what we have.

[paullus]

And what we have is often something like what we have with the Chaonians. We may get a few scattered references in literary sources, and we can try to match up what we know there with what we can find in archaeological materials: actual weapons and armor, or depictions of soldiers in stelae, reliefs, coins, etc. We usually have to make a fair number of educated guesses.

For example, here's how things worked for the Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi, previewed in the May Preview. We start with the handful of literary references to them. As far as I know we have no pictoral evidence for what they looked like, so that gets skipped and we move on to archaeological evidence. Now, we know that there are a number of rhomphaia blades that have been recovered--I've actually helped unearth one myself. They're all metal, only very slightly curved, very long, and very heavy. So that's where we get the blade size and shape. Many of these blades were discovered along with a particular type of helmet, the Phrygian helmet with extended cheek pieces used to make a sort of facemask. Because nearly half the Rhomphaia blades appeared with these helmets, that's an easy call for using that sort of helmet with the rhomphaiaphoroi. We also know that several types of jewelry were associated with a few of these graves, fibulas and torcs and the like, so we tried to get those in, though those small details can be difficult at times. We also know that a fair number of the warrior burials with rhomphaia's have featured armor of some sort, and while many of the finds are not nearly so orderly (they've been plundered, or they aren't even in graves to begin with), we can deduce that, if a soldier could purchase a hefty iron blade like the rhomphaia (NOT cheap) and the really really nice helmets several of these guys wore, they could easily afford the sorts of body armor that we can track in a few of the cases, so we included several types of body armor which we know were used in the area of Thrace. We then use clothing patterns for the actual clothes themselves based on some examples of Thraikian dress. Does that mean that even one ancient guy wielding a rhomphaiaphoroi looked exactly like any one of the 6-7 variants of that unit that will be in EB? No. But a great many of them probably looked very similar. And that's sufficient for me. Similarly for the description, we use wealth and activity types to place soldiers within what we know of their society. The Rhomphaiaphoroi, like the Chaonians, are pretty wealthy soldiers for the societies, but are also quite warlike, and, at least for the rhomphaiaphoroi, its an indicator of their position that they are infantry, not cavalry, which had become the arm of the real elites from the Odrysian kingdom onward. Hope that helped, because if we need an ancient historian telling us who the guys were in a unit and what stuff they wore, that's only gonna yield 1/10 of the units we have, tops (and most of them Roman).

[Brightblade]

Man, some people really need to lighten up, what's with the attacks on something I write that says *I think*, *I'm pretty sure* and others to that effect?

What I mean to say is that stuff IS there for a reason, and it is my HUMBLE OPINION that the EB team does its homework (from what I have seen, however limited my view is), and if you want to hear more about it, you're free to ask but must be patient because the stuff has probably been discussed before. S'what I meant to say :)

As for challenging past historical work, Geoffrey you make a rather general point about what I was referring to. And I agree with your point, but in this specific case I was talking about two specific units which are already included and included for a reason.

I should really begin to put... (THIS IS ENTIRELY MY OPINION) beneath every single I post so people don't get so belligerent.

Have a beer and chill.

Best, BB

[MeinPanzer]

I'm kind of surprised that Greek thureophoroi aren't included in the Epirote list, considering that an exquisitly detailed stele dating to the 3rd C. BC showing a thureophoros (most likely an officer) with a Greek name was found in Apollonia.

[paullus]

Because of model sharing you can't have both a factional Epeirote thureophoroi and an Illyrian thureophoroi, both available from the Epeirote factional MIC. They do have access to thureophoroi as a regional unit, though I suppose the requisite regional MIC level may be unattainable for most governments the Epeirotes would install. That may be something we need to look into, but I'm not sure there's a good solution because of model sharing constraints. Most of those problems will disappear when we move over to EB2.

[mAIOR]

Thx for the reply I was much more enlightened.

@Keravnos: I know that :) I jst wanted to know if they had any writing that told what kinda equipement they wore (like some guy talking about hypaspist saying htey were armored in these words "as the defenders poured hot sand over the assailants, it got into the armor cavities and caused terrible injury" something like this.) or did they based themselves more on the archeological findings. I got my answer and I'm deeply satisfied with it (I know it's impossible to be sure what these units look like. I was only intriged at how you did your models wich are explendid by the way).

@Brightblade: I wans't attacking anyone. I even inserted a smilie in my post so it couldn't be missinterpreted. I had a doubt and asked for enlightment. That's not an attack.

@paullus: Thanks again for the reply deeply apretiated.

Cheers...

[Brightblade]

Sorry all, guess Im jumpy today. Too much caffeine and an 11 hour workshift doing numbers drives a man nuts sometimes.

My bad for being anal.

Best as always,

BB

[QwertyMIDX]

I'm kind of surprised that Greek thureophoroi aren't included in the Epirote list, considering that an exquisitly detailed stele dating to the 3rd C. BC showing a thureophoros (most likely an officer) with a Greek name was found in Apollonia.

Yeah, we've been trying to give them both since day one, but model sharing and MIC issues have caused problems. Hopefully we eventually come up with something but the RTW engigne does cause problems pretty regularly.

[Geoffrey S]

As for challenging past historical work, Geoffrey you make a rather general point about what I was referring to. And I agree with your point, but in this specific case I was talking about two specific units which are already included and included for a reason.
Heh, it's a general point I've had a lot of discussions about with tutors and fellow students. Basically, I believe that it can be worthwhile to revisit previously used sources, because perhaps they can be reinterprated in a meaningful way in the light of other more recent research; a tendency I see a lot is to rely too heavily on secondary sources, which runs the risk of compounding an overlooked error. In this light, a topic on my mind at the moment, I also believe questions such as those of the opening poster can be useful.

Not always, but sometimes such a topic may throw up something new on a particular well-established unit; in this particular case too much is clearly drawn from only one source and a rather broad conclusion (certain units should be removed/added) is reached, but the approach could be interesting.

[Sarcasm]

Heh, it's a general point I've had a lot of discussions about with tutors and fellow students. Basically, I believe that it can be worthwhile to revisit previously used sources, because perhaps they can be reinterprated in a meaningful way in the light of other more recent research; a tendency I see a lot is to rely too heavily on secondary sources, which runs the risk of compounding an overlooked error. In this light, a topic on my mind at the moment, I also believe questions such as those of the opening poster can be useful.

Not always, but sometimes such a topic may throw up something new on a particular well-established unit; in this particular case too much is clearly drawn from only one source and a rather broad conclusion (certain units should be removed/added) is reached, but the approach could be interesting.

By all means then, enlighten us on what units should be withdrawn and which should be added. Justification gets you points.

[Geoffrey S]

Damn last-minute changes to a post. The line about adding/removing units was referring to what the opening post recommended and that I thought that was a rather extreme conclusion, not what I think should happen in EB.

[MiniMe]

By all means then, enlighten us on what units should be withdrawn and which should be added. Justification gets you points.

Sarcasm, I believe your sarcastic remark was also addressed to me.

I regret that my proposal on "what units should be withdrawn and which should be added" in the first post of this tread offended you in such way.

I respect EB team for brilliant mod you've done and constantly perfect.
I understand EB team "paternal" feelings when somebody is criticizing their own creation that cost them dearly.
I wasn't trying to insult EB team or undermine your qualifications.

Best regards,
MiniMe.

[Brightblade]

I believe it's time to break out the conciliatory cigars, pass the barb womens around, and break out the ancient oakwood kegs :)

[Foot]

Sarcasm, I believe your sarcastic remark was also addressed to me.

I regret that my proposal on "what units should be withdrawn and which should be added" in the first post of this tread offended you in such way.

I respect EB team for brilliant mod you've done and constantly perfect.
I understand EB team "paternal" feelings when somebody is criticizing their own creation that cost them dearly.
I wasn't trying to insult EB team or undermine your qualifications.

Best regards,
MiniMe.

No, no. Sarcasm was referring to Geoffrey S not your first post. Don't worry, we are not offended by you asking.

Foot

[Thaatu]

The thread of misunderstanding. Quite absurd.

[Sarcasm]

https://img185.imageshack.us/img185/911/captaindl7.jpg

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: ROFL :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Brightblade]

LOL Thaatu... he got ya good :P:sweatdrop: :smash: