EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
I have heard that EB does not include "Imitation Legions" or "Romanized Infantry" as described by several ancient historians because the team believes that these troops were in fact Thuerophoroi (Heavy Peltasts).
I found this argument to be very interesting. Personally, I believe that the Successor Kingdoms and Pontus saw merit in using heavily armored swordsmen in their contacts with the Romans as well as the Galatians. While "Imitation Legions" is defiantly not the best term to describe them, I do not believe they were Thuerophoroi either. Thuerophoroi were a part of Hellenistic armies way before Polybius describes Seleucid troops "equipped in the Roman style". The Macedonians and the Greek cities also used Thuerophoroi extensively and they were never said to have soldiers similar to Roman Legionaries.
Mithridates of Pontus was also said to have equipped his soldiers as heavy swordsmen similar to the Roman troops. This was because his phalanxes (the Brazen Shields) were not very successful in combat against the Legions during the course of the First Mithridatic War. This is understandable, as they were made up of freed slaves conscripted into the army without much training. Macedonian phalanxes had to be comprised of well trained men to be effective. Armies of heavy swordsmen were more flexible and required far less drilling to be effective in combat.
Anyways, I would like to see an EB team member post the reasoning behind their choice of not having any "Romanized" troops in Hellenistic armies. I'm not trying to criticize EB, I was just curious....
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
i think the vanilla Silver Shield legions are the Thorakitai Agyraspiday. but i dont no fo sho. these units were armed the same way but invented way before rome did.
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
This is not a simple question and, in a way, semantics (what does "equipped in the Roman manner" exactly means? How and by who was the term used?) has a lot to do with it.
In a nutshell: the troops are there, we just don't call them "Imitation Legions" or "Romanized infantry". We consider that a major misnomer because we do not believe those troops arose as a direct consequence of the contact between Rome and the Hellenistic states.
Let's elaborate a bit.
Archaeological or iconographic evidence (Sekunda's claims nothwistanding) does not really show radically new gear or troop types after the Roman-Hellenistic contact. Supposed hallmarks of Roman influence such as oval, scutum-like shields, or mail armor were present among Hellenistic troops since much earlier. Thus, the oval shield, which the Greeks called thureos/thyreos is considered a Celtic influence and is typically linked to the Galatian invasion of 281 BC (which substantially predates Roman-Hellenistic conflicts). Certainly it first appears in Greek contexts shortly after that. A similar thing can be said of mail armor. Another notorious Celtic development and, again, shown to have been used by Hellenistic troops decades before they fought Romans.
In the same direction points out a very notable absence from the equipment of the supposed "Imitation legionaries": the pilum was NOT copied. Therefore, the alleged Roman influences in equipment are actually items (oval shields, mail armor) that were already present before the Romans came and that can be ascribed to other influences (possibly Celtic) on Hellenistic military. Meanwhile, the one very distinctive piece of equipment whose adoption by Hellenistic troops (had it ever happened, of course) would in all likelyhood have needed the "Roman influence" explanation was notably NOT adopted.
What to make, then, of the references to Hellenistic soldiers "equipped in the Roman manner" in the sources? This requires to, first, examine what really were Thureophoroi and how they looked and, then, the authors using that term.
What was a Thureophoroi?. You seem to equate them to heavy peltasts. That's an oversimplification. Yes, they could play that role, but that's not their definition and, plausibly, was not their main function either. Going down to basics, a Thureophoroi is simply a bearer of a thureos , i.e. oval, almond-shaped, shield. The great majority of Hellenistic depictions of soldiers wearing a thureos , do not actually show them wielding javelins, but a single spear, taller than its wielder (a thrusting spear, then). Also, this fragment from Polybius, speaking of the army of the rebel Seleucid satrap Molon, suggests that Thureophoroi could be "heavy" or at the very least, battle-line troops, not skirmishers: "He did however divide his cavalry between his two wings, guessing what the disposition of the enemy would be; and stationed the thureophoroi and Gauls, and in short all his heavy-armed men in the space between the two bodies of cavalry. His archers, slingers, and all such kind of troops he placed on the outer flank of the cavalry on either wing". There is some evidence, however, that Thureophoroi could also use javelins too and, plausibly, they were dual role troops.
Now, who tended to make those references to "Roman-style troops"? They were authors from and/or writing for a Roman millieu. Now picture this, you see a Hellenistic trooper with an oval shield and mail armor. If you are Roman and not an expert in Hellenistic military terminology you think "Hey, just like our lads". Even if you were such an expert or a Greek and knew better, but you were writing in a world where Roman troops are widespread, you might still say "equipped in the Roman manner" to quickly convey a mental image in your readership without going into a lengthy description. Obviously, a reference to Roman-style gear would be both unlikely and of little descriptive value in a Hellenistic world not yet familiar with Roman troops. Thus, Thureophoroi had certainly been present in Hellenistic armies for quite long, but relating their appearance to that of Roman troops only made sense when the looks of the latter became widely known throughout the Mediterranean. That happened when Rome defeated Hellenistic states and annexed their territories.
And that's basically the rationale for our decission. In summary: 1) the items of military gear allegedly appearing due to Roman influence are demonstrably present substantially before the Hellenistic-Roman military contacts and 2) the references to troops "equipped in the Roman manner" could simply reflect the convergence in appearance of independent military developments.
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
To be most clear, it should maybe be noted that there were (sort of) imitation legionaries, but they were actually trained at the request of Romans to their clients, not a seperate culture purposely imitating them; this is the case with two Galatian legions, and I believe some Numidians.
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angadil
Supposed hallmarks of Roman influence such as oval, scutum-like shields, or mail armor were present among Hellenistic troops since much earlier. Thus, the oval shield, which the Greeks called thureos/thyreos is considered a Celtic influence and is typically linked to the Galatian invasion of 281 BC (which substantially predates Roman-Hellenistic conflicts). Certainly it first appears in Greek contexts shortly after that. A similar thing can be said of mail armor. Another notorious Celtic development and, again, shown to have been used by Hellenistic troops decades before they fought Romans.
Very true, the Galatians did introduce mail armor and the Thureos....equipment also shared in common with the "Polybian" (Pre-Marius) Legions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angadil
What was a Thureophoroi?. You seem to equate them to heavy peltasts. That's an oversimplification. Yes, they could play that role, but that's not their definition and, plausibly, was not their main function either. Going down to basics, a Thureophoroi is simply a bearer of a thureos , i.e. oval, almond-shaped, shield. The great majority of Hellenistic depictions of soldiers wearing a thureos , do not actually show them wielding javelins, but a single spear, taller than its wielder (a thrusting spear, then).
True...like the Seleucid Elephant guards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angadil
There is some evidence, however, that Thureophoroi could also use javelins too and, plausibly, they were dual role troops.
This makes sense....there are precendents for it. The Hypapists and Argyaspids were known for using different weapons on different occasions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angadil
Now, who tended to make those references to "Roman-style troops"? They were authors from and/or writing for a Roman millieu. Now picture this, you see a Hellenistic trooper with an oval shield and mail armor. If you are Roman and not an expert in Hellenistic military terminology you think "Hey, just like our lads". Even if you were such an expert or a Greek and knew better, but you were writing in a world where Roman troops are widespread, you might still say "equipped in the Roman manner" to quickly convey a mental image in your readership without going into a lengthy description. Obviously, a reference to Roman-style gear would be both unlikely and of little descriptive value in a Hellenistic world not yet familiar with Roman troops. Thus, Thureophoroi had certainly been present in Hellenistic armies for quite long, but relating their appearance to that of Roman troops only made sense when the looks of the latter became widely known throughout the Mediterranean. That happened when Rome defeated Hellenistic states and annexed their territories.
This answers another question I had....Why would Polybius, a Greek, describe soldiers "equipped in the Roman style" if it were not true? Your explaination makes perfect sense, and after some thought, I'd like to add that he was writing mostly for a Roman audience, which also helps to explain why he made that questionable comparison.
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
Was Polybius that Greek Romanophile? I can never remember..
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthippus of Sparta
"equipped in the Roman style"
well, that would be a n9ice explainasition for outsiders.
btw, (in game) the thureophoroi is ( afaik, as always) a 'light skirmisher' the 'imitation legionare' is the Torikatai argyraspydai (the bad ass seleucids with ninja-caps for their mouth).
still, i agree wiht you its an interesting debate (to listen to) but its also a difficult issues since , practically all, troops were versatile. pezetairoi sometimes skirmished. thureophoroi sometimes melee'ed. Hypaspistai did it all. it's hard to keep track
Re: EB: "Imitation Legions" = Thuerophoroi?
Polybius wrote for a primarily Roman audience, since he did write from Rome.
Thureophoroi were indeed a form of heavy infantry, or as Balezal Bar-Kochva calls them: 'semi-heavy' infantry. They used their javelins directly before the charge. This type of light infantry has a few sources.
1) Ekdromoi. The Athenian Ekdromoi Hoplitai (Outrunner Hoplites) were lightly armed and armored hoplites who caught and killed Peltasts. They were armed with a shorter spear than other hoplites, and fought outside the regular phalanx battle order.
It is important to note that most ancient Greek troops (before Philip) didn't really use tactics per se. The only exception was when some generals would use more peltasts or make their left wing overstrong in order to turn the enemy flank. Even at Leuctra, we have the Thebans simply making use of more light troops and strengthening their left wing.
2) Hypaspistai: The heavily armored shock troops of the Macedonians were another great influence to break with the tradition of the static phalanx, at least for some troops. Thought the Hypaspists were heavily armored (ancient authors conclude that they are lighter than the phalanx. This author tends to believe that this meant they carried no huge pike and were 'lighter on their feet', meaning more mobile). They were often shock troops, which meant that they were the ones to storm fortresses and the like (along with the Agrianians, who will also be in EB)
3) Gauls: The Galatians were a huge influence to the development of non-phalanx heavy troops. They fought in the same manner as the Thureophoroi: with a short melee weapon, javelins, and an oval shield. That they were so effective against the armies of Macedon (albeit a shell of the army's former power) is a testament to their power. The Greeks adapted to this by taking the celtic sheild and hellenizing it. THe plywood (yes plywood) thureos is lighter than the aspis and gives superior protection.
Add this together, and you have close-fighting infantry with some sort of armor (whether scale, mail, or linen) fighting with spears, javelins, and ovular shields in a non-phalanx formation. While some might consider this Roman, I consider it practicality, among the Hellenic virtues.
