Printable View
Ordovicion or Silurion, the later may be better, but the former seems to have had a stronger connection with Ireland. And then there was that island where later the priestly class made their last stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Despite the long-lost Belgae in Wiltshire and Hampshire, Belerion sounds way too Belgy further west?'
the Celtic Name for Regensburg was „Radasbona“, „Ratasbona“ or „Ratisbona“Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Bleah! You're right, of course - Soroviodurum is Straubing. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teutobod II
Im in no way as expert as you two in the field of anicent celtic langauges of britain but i always thoguht Ynys-mon was wrong. That it is indeed the modern welsh spelling for Anglesey. Anglesey im presuming being a more germanic perhaps Norse word for the island.
I could be wrong but the modern name of Ynys Mon is also descended from the Irish for Inish món. Or that modern Gaeilge and Cymraeg both have Inish and Ynys respectivly for the english word of Isle/Island
Anyways Elmeticos and Cmacq this is indeed and intresting thread which i have followed after the previous argument over the Celtic naming. The Names in which Elmetiacos provided for Britons i can use for minor characters in my A.A.R
Cheers:book: :book: :balloon2:
Oh yes! GIrth like Esus!!!! hahahahahahahahahaha i only just picked up on that
I think, like some other names on the map, the (c)ouw's are the result of a little too much creativity. Unfortunately, this leaves us with the problem of what to use instead. More -mrogis names? This link:Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
http://www.ieed.nl/cgi-bin/query.cgi...ic&root=leiden
points to a database query (go a bit easy on it... it keeps being busy, what with all the thousands of students of proto-Celtic out there) which says, after Pokorny, that the mrog- root means country rather than border... wonder why the online PrC-English went for "border"? I knew it might not be 100%; University of Wales hosts the site but I don't think they created the list. In any case, mrogi- is just the root and can't be pasted onto things without any grammatical rules: Boiomrogis or Boimrogis might be better.
Proto-Celtic and early Gaulish plural of *keiwo- would be *keiwoi. Gaulish would be *Cêvi. Btw, Wikipedia's Gaulish Language page has a handy table of Gaulish declensions, but the dental and S stems are missing from it.
-ou(w) is the dual genitive in proto-Celtic. I think the dual was gone by our period. I can't find a reason for these endings. :inquisitive:Quote:
it occurs to me that couw could be some form of -cum ??? (with a dropped nasal on an unstressed word-final?) but this isn't likely eh? there is a notable lack of that suffix which one would think would find its way into the game somewhere are homage, it's like if no German province had the familar '-land'
could -ouw be some genetive plural so just - 'of the x'?
is this totally unrelated? maybe i sound like an idiot, trying to be helpful... oh well.
Considering the current Luso expert wanted to scrap them almost immediately...Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus
Not to mention the fact that the Basque country (as far as i remember) was never a nation that could produce the wealth to outfit soldiers like those heavy spear dudes. They have been more historically interested in preserving themselves, not military conquest.
And I'm no expert, but would it be a stretch to assume that life changed little in the Basque country in the time during the Roman era and Charlemagne? Besides Christianity appearing.
Modern Basque? No, it's just a long-lasting language.Quote:
A beginner's question, but isn't Basque a re-constructed language?
In modern day Gipuzkoa/Pamplona or Ireland.Quote:
Oh dear, I don't think I've ever "meet" the Dosidataskeli before. What are they/which province can you find them? And ... well actually, I suppse when you answer those questions, I will know why they are getting axed.
@LOBF. thanks for the answers, sir. I think I found the pics by the artist whose names escapes me now (shame on me) . Although the unit looks cool, if it didn't exist, so be it. I never saw these in-game so no loss to me if they are not in EB 1.1!
The Lusos don't have a "reform" in the game, and from what I know of Iberian history in the EB time frame, there is really no need to give them one. Is this a correct assumption?
Ok, no more side-topic questions. We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.
*grabs popcorn, pulls up chair*
The only thing I can suggest for Attuaca is Uerturio which is supposed to be the Pictish version of Fortriu/Fortrenn, but that's a kingdom rather than a city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shylence
Please, don't put me in the same class as Elmeticos as my level of comprehension of the Kelt Lingos is elementary at best. I however, do have a very good understanding the archaeology and associated Latin and Greek literary sources.
If your responding to the post in which I indirectly brought up the Ordovices association with Ireland and their control of Anglesey, you're correct. In the late 1st century AD the Latins recorded it as Mona, which no doubt is where the Welsh mon was derived. Now, there is no way that as similar to OI, or some other Q-Kelt, it actually was Mo-na or 'that which is greater,' or 'greater not?'
5 - Units (Irish & Continental Celtic)
The area of units, their capabilities and their names is the most controversial one, so I've saved it til last. In this first post, I'll try to tackle Eleutheroi which have been given some sort of Celtic identity.
Cladaca (Goidelic Light Infantry)
Vellinica (Goidelic Levy)
Cruvamendica (Goidelic Cavalry)
Ordmalica (Goidelic Shock Infantry)
Eiras (Goidelic Nobles)
Dubosaverlacica (Ebherni Armoured Shock Infantry)
Other than the "Vellinica" my assessment is that all of these units are pure fantasy, without any basis whatsoever. No Irish warriors were equipped with armour of any sort until the Viking period. Even in assessing a later period Lloyd Laing in The Archaeology of the Late Celtic Period in Britain and Ireland 400-1200AD remarks, 'The only armour apparently possessed in the Celtic West [Ireland] was the shield - round target-like shields are depicted in the Book of Kells - and shield bosses are know from Lagore, Ballinderry 2 and Lough Faughan.' Lagore's occupation is dated to c.600-1000, Ballinderry 2 to 500-700 and Lough Faughan uncertain, but roughly the same period. A full milennium after the EB period, still no metal armour, not even metal helmets. Look at the description of Cu Chulainn getting ready for a battle in the Tain Bo Cuailgne; this is pure myth, of course, but that's the point: here is Ireland's greatest warrior putting the Best Armour In The World EVAH!!! and there's no metal at all - just 27 layers of leather. If even fantasy armour wasn't metal, what chance real armour was?
The "Shock Troops" thus become impossible. A big, heavy, Dungeons & Dragons style hammer is hardly a realistic weapon in the first place. There was a late mediaeval war hammer, but it wasn't really a hammer at all; more of a pick axe with one end blunt and was created to deal with plate armour. Neither would there have been "fish scale" armour worn by a masked elite.
So what could we have to make units in Ireland more interesting, with some basis in reality?
The Vellinica can be renamed Keternâ - a (dodgy) conjectural root of the mediaeval Irish Ceithern (Anglo-Irish "Kern")
How did the elite warriors fight? We now come to the Irish chariot controversy. The Ulster cycle is full of chariots. Some scholars recently began to suggest that this was not due to any true reflection of historical Celtic warfare, but because the monks who wrote down the tales were influenced by Greek epics and so furnished their heroes with chariots. They pictured a chariot as something like a cart. To me, this is all wrong, one step away from saying, "Ha, ha - those thick Paddies imagining their great heroes in hay carts!" Why were no other Homeric images borrowed? Why don't Cu Chulainn and Fergus and the rest go around in bronze armour? Not only that, but we have a small collection of words to do with chariots that aren't fully understood and characters like Laeg who are in the stories just to drive chariots - did the mediaeval scribes make up new characters and make up new words? Nah, I say give the Irish chariots. :whip:
Cidainh (currently a British unit) Erretes
Later Roman account mention Areani, foreign mercenaries used in Britain to spy on the movements of troublesome Picts, Attecotti and Scots. Vanilla RTW turned them into Roman ninjas called Arcani, but the word seems to be based on proto-Celtic *φarjâno- for a guard or watch. Perhaps an Irish fast-moving, hiding unit based on these could be introduced - Arianoi ?
Finally, two suggestions based purely on Tain Bo Cuailgne references; firstly to a cual geithe - sheaf of spears, as some kind of military strategy or formation with another to heavy, two handed spears so we might have a more defensive, armour-less phalanx type unit forming a big mass of long spears; secondly a reference to a cranntabhal, or staff sling, raising the possibility of a unit of staff-slingers whose range would be relatively short but more damaging.
The older form of cual geithe would be something like Couglas Gaesu.
A cranntabhal unit might be called Qrannotroqaloi.
Balroae (Caledonian Skirmishers)
Immanae ("Ambushers")
Silurae Birnae (Siluri Warband)
Drwdae (Druids)
Calawre (Champions)
Kluddargos (Sword Masters)
Balroae and Siluri Birnae Rextunaites (surprise attackers: rextu- "sudden fury")
Immanae Gaisonaites Ieieses (younger spearmen)
Calawre Catuviroi (battle heroes)
The Calawre/Catuviroi have too much armour; archaeology suggests that only at the very end of the EB period did the Britons begin using mail in any quantity; there was never "bronze scale".
Drwdae and Kluddargos are fantasy units. The Druids are never recorded anywhere as picking up weapons and fighting - in fact to do so would have undermined their status since they were supposed to remain impartial and aloof from tribal conflicts. There were never any two handed swords in Britain before the Crusades; 70cm was the typical length of a Celtic sword.
Milnaht - To me, this looks like a fantasy unit again.
I don't know much about Gaulish warfare, so in most cases I can only offer new terms:
Batacorii Gaisonêdes Belganom (Belgic spearmen)
Taramannos Marcages (horsemen) (description is fantasy)
Remi Mairepos - see note below
Gaelaiche Gaisonêdes (spearmen)
Bagaudas - such a name did exist, and did mean "guerilla" but not til the 3rd Century AD... hmm...
Brihentin - Maglomarcages (noble horsemen, "knights")
Solduros - Côsicingeti (guard warriors) these look doubtful... any sources?
note - Caesar says about the Remi that the Romans took them totally by surprise, surrounded their camp and they surrendered without a fight. We know nothing about them as a fighting tribe and this unit for me has "fantasy" written all over it. Anyone know different?
Iosatae Tropalonêdes (sling-fighters)
Sotaroas Laciconêdes??? this suggestion is very weak... I don't think there were any Celtic bowmen
Lugoae Alionêdes (secondary fighters)
Bataroas Voclionêdes (northern fighters)
Botroas Dexsonêdes (southern fighters)
Gaeroas Gaisonêdes (again!) (spearmen)
Uirodusios Merecingeti (mad warriors) or Mextumedues (intoxicated by slaughter (mwahaharr!))
Cidainh Erredes (charioteers - borrowed into Latin as Essedes)
Golberi Curoas Nêdes Allomrogibi (fighters with the foreigners) warning - hypothetical instrumental case
Enoci Curoas Cledonêdes Allomrogibi (sword fighters with the foreigners)
Teceitos Bêalinêdes (axe fighters) see note below
Kluddacorii Cledocorion (sword-army)
Mori Gaesum - this is close enough
Appea Gaedotos, Noricene Gaecori - are these Celtic? They seem to have the Irish word for "spear" in there
Tekastos Beialineides (let's re-spell Bêalinêdes!)
Cordinau Orca Korioturkoi (army-boars - K's to look Graeco-Celtic...)
Kludda Lugiae - fantasy unit
Clona Tekonac - doubtful if the Cantabrians spoke a Celtic language. If they did - Bealineizes
Roscaithrera - this isn't translated but if it's meant to be round shields, Krubeskeizoi
Eponireidam - again no translation: Celtiberian equivalent of Marcages could be Markakes
Clona Gosnasio - no translation... Gaisuneizes for "spearmen"?
note - There's no evidence that Celts fought with axes... OTOH there's nothing to say they didn't... my re-enactment friends seem to agree an axe is nasty against shields but not good to defend with. Possibly a low defensive skill factor is in order.
Dosidataskeli - an unpronouncable fantasy unit.
Liguriae - Examples of units with Celtic names that shouldn't have.
Again, any and all comments welcome. Next up and finally, the Gauls and the tricky subject of the Britons...
EDIT - cingetoi, not cingedes
A reconstruction based on a reconstruction based on the Latin Ver-tur-ion-es? Which are you going with, Woolf's Moray or the discredited Strathearn placement? Otherwise its all very post EB. A more mainstream location for a capital would be somewhere near or around Falkirk? Its important to note that the EB time frame is well before the construction of any roman walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Also thank god you killed the skippy Kerns, lumbering Gallowglasses, and nasty bit of amour near altogether. The only element of metal armour I know of was the cup-shaped shield-boss? Looks like you've done your home work (and then some) here. Its all very well sorted out and very realistic, good work.
You used the shield for defense anyway, didn't you ? That's what the thing is carried for, doubly so with intentionally tip-heavy "mass" weapons like axes and maces (which intentionally trade improved impact power and, yes, "armour busting" ability - not to forget the low cost - for agility).Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
:inquisitive:
...or would you be trying to argue an axe is an unviable weapon...? 'Cause I'm going to open a can of historical whoopass on ya if you are. :rockstar:
I totally agree that axes are overrated- defensive value such as that of the sword is very important... a good warrior doesnt die right away and thus can kill more total.... i think most sword-fighting is similarly innacurate as we know it, because wide-swings are just asking for an easy kill by your opponentQuote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
so this doesnt mean anything? or did Caesar's Marian legions carry these as their standard melee weapon of choice?
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_...nustrophy2.jpg
"It's a commerative coin of Caesar's about the Gallic war, showing the Gallic kit, note the axe." (true, as Sarcasm has pointed out, it is a common symbol... could easily be a fasces.)
https://img92.imageshack.us/img92/30...e2smxu9.th.jpg
"These are Irish La Tene objects, but you can see two axeheads there, one is a smaller socket axe head, the larger one is a later La Tene Irish axehead, probably from right before or the beginning of the Gadelic invasions or early Gaelic period."
https://img170.imageshack.us/img170/...caxeqe8.th.jpg
"Here you can see a British Celtic axe. The blade from the handle out would be maybe about eight inches. This is a socket-axe head, specifically, with an oval socket."
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/...caxebq1.th.jpg
"And this one is a continental Celtic axe, which was since bought by a private group, but, still, here it is to look at, and get an idea of variety we have to play with for Celts with axes. This would be a more regular axe type, with a wide head probably mounted on a longer grip than the little hatchets."
I'm wondering if the numismatic depiction in your post was fasces-esque? Possibly representing a trophy of the authority of a conquered state or enthos.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
darn you, you quoted me before i put an edit ~:) that's what i get for posting and re-editing rather than waiting until finished ~;p
I could have asked if it was Fascist, instead?
No, i like Fasc-esque.:yes:
It looks like a fasces to me... the coin is saying, "Here's a picture of Gaulish acoutrements - the clothes, the horned helmet, the figure-8 shield, the carnyx... and we killed their owners and put them on display! Rome rules! There's our symbol triumphant!"
The axes are interesting, but of course, when you only have the head, it's a tough call whether the weapon was used to chop wood or to chop enemies. Hard to tell from pics, but I would say the first one is more likely to be a wood axe, the second more likely to be a weapon: battle axe heads are generally lighter and sharper because you have to swing them about much more in a fight - unlike swords, battle axes are best kept in constant motion. With this in mind, if the Celts used axes in combat, then it's likely there were specialist axemen because you'd need to practice a lot to build up the muscles and stamina to do this.
On the Pictish capital, I can't do do any better, I'm afraid.
Regarding the Briton units, shouldn't they have a unit of champions or some sort of elite infantry? Or does the absence of the Cwmyr in your list mean that you agree with this unit?
http://billed.hum.au.dk/antik/img/scaled/DM%20021.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
From the grave monument of the julii in Glanum near St. remy.
Not exactly solidly dated but its proberly from the julio-claudian era, seems to have been done by local artist (meaning either local greeks from massila or gauls of some sort), same artist proberly did the arc in orange and some stuff in arles.
Its not solid proof but certainly indicates that atleast some gauls were using axes.
You keep saying 2-handed swords are fantasy but look here :
Quote:
https://img132.imageshack.us/img132/...nishti2.th.jpg Ignore the bottom left; those on the extreme are two-handed swords from Britain and Ireland's iron age.
https://img132.imageshack.us/img132/...mpleqg2.th.jpg And ornate hilts.
Awesome thread is awesome. :yes:
I don't think those depicted are actually two-hand types. The tangs are far two short to be two-hand types as the wood handle would soon break. To be sure we need a scale. Of the hilts a motley group indeed, yet in common these are all single-hand grips; some are late bronze age, others early iron age, and some later? All have type names and are chronologically ordered as per seriation and in some cases are pinned down calendrically by an association (physical or stylistically) with a diagnostic ceramic type, which in turn may or may not be dendro-ed. I'm just saying, Radio-carbon sucks big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I've not dealt with playable Britons in that post, only Eleutheroi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Devils and details, as we may want to become a little more familiar with this edifice from Glann's town? In fact, these panels (overall four all told) do not depict battles between romans and kelts, nor do they bare the weapons or dress there of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aromir
While just how Celtic the Cantabrians were is debatable, they were most certainly heavily influenced by them, and also used bipenne axes. Currently I'm in Prague and haven't my computer here, but there's quite a few sources for them using axes.
And modern Basque is most certainly a constructed language. There were quite a few dialects during the period where we can actually call them Basques, and in this period they were much less unified. The language itself has evolved plenty since then. Their way of war was much like the central and eastern north of the peninsula.
I see no two handed grips here; for a start, these swords are not all in the same collection; it's an image of just about every Celtic sword ever discovered cut and pasted. Therefore, we've no idea whether they are all on the same scale or not and even if they are, there is no great variation in blade or hilt size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I'm not denying the Cantabrians specifically fought with axes, just that they should have Celtic names to describe their units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Saying Basque is "constructed" makes it sound as if Basque is like Esperanto. If it's constructed, then so are English, French and Spanish.
I thought what the guy was asking was whether or not the language was one that dieed out, then was reconstructed for modern Basques to speak. I was saying it was a continuous language. Of course it evolved, all languages do. Er Olde English is practically impossible to read and if you go back further it's like another language entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
And Sabino Arana did some language inventing of his own, but not nearly enough to consider his language constructed.
6 - Aedui, Arverni, Cassi
Continuing the treatment of Celtic units.
Before we go any further, I've just noticed the following Pontic & Galatian units are Galatian Celts (will this never end?!) and in need of re-naming:
Galatikoi Kluddolon Kledobereikoi
Galatikoi Lavotuxri Troumbomarkages
Galatikoi Tindanotae Merekiggetoi
I've simply chosen older forms of Gaulish with a Greek look. I can only do the Gaulish; they may want a Greek descriptor... what did the Pontics speak?
Most of the Aedui and Arverni units are also Eleutheroi and so I dealt with them above. An excess of armour seems to feature again, although this isn't as much of an error as it is for British and Irish Celts. More than one Roman writer said that the Gauls had formerly fought in the same way as the Britons, so in 272BC, two centuries before Caesar, perhaps there ought to be less armour and more chariots? This would necessitate one of those reform scripts, though and I'm in the dark about those.
Neitos look a bit like an imitation legion and the name actually means a fight or quarrel, not warriors. There are two words which could be used instead; Nêdes (fighters) or Cingeti (warriors) - the latter is part of the name of Vercingetorix "True Warrior King".
Carnute Cingetos are a fantasy unit. There's nothing to suggest a link to the god Cernunnos and the Carnutes were a tribe, not a political/religious organisation.
Leuce Epos - Barcamarcages (onrush riders)
Curepos - is there a difference from the Leuce Epos? Bitaminis (said to mean "swarm of bees")
Arjos - Catuvalli (battle lords)
Now the Britons...
As with the Irish, some of the Cassian units are fantasy. There is, for instance, nothing to differentiate warriors from the English Midlands from those elsewhere. It is not very likely that separate units of swordsmen existed; the "Celtic longsword" as I've already pointed out, shouldn't be envisaged as being as large as the later pattern-welded Viking broadswords or those of mediaeval knights. The average length of a blade was around 70cm and many had blunt tips so couldn't be used for thrusting. It seems to be reasonable to suppose that swords were very much secondary weapons for use when spears were broken, or as status symbols. Also: you can't cut off someone's head with a spear! We have lots of sling stones from the British iron age, but note: only stones not lead bullets, so the slings would have inferior penetration to Mediterranean ones. However, I don't think the Britons were organised enough to create whole units of slingers, so no Iaosatae. Bows were not used as weapons in this period according to any evidence, so the Sotaroas should go.
What can we discover about the way the Britons actually fought? We have only archaeology to go on plus not always reliable accounts from Roman authors. Welsh heroic literature, unlike the Irish, is of no use since it recalls a much later period. Caesar was a propagandist and a good deal of what he says in unreliable, but what he does say is that the Britons of the 1st Century used a mixture of cavalry and chariots - chariots presumably were beginning to be replaced by cavalry as had happened in Gaul - and that they threw missiles. Chariot and rarer horse burials confirm this. He also says that his own slingers at one point proved instrumental in driving back the Britons... if true, this would support the idea that the Britons didn't concentrate slingers in separare units and/or only used inferior ammunition.
More Roman snippets suggest additional information about the Britons' methods: during Boudicca's rebellion, Tacitus and Dio Cassius the Roman legions were able to use their pila to disrupt the British attack which suggests two things; firstly that the missiles the Britons used were short ranged and intended to be hurled immediately before charging (otherwise the Romans would have suffered almost as badly from the return-fire) and secondly that at least some of the Britons fought in formation, not as some kind of screaming, wild mob. What sort of javelins the Britons used can't easily be confirmed by archaeology because the shafts tend not to survive. The fact Suetonius chose to fight with a forest at his back (in RTW this is asking to be ambushed!) reinforces the idea of British reliance on chariots and solid formations: wild skirmishers would be helped by a forest.
What about those other two clichés of their methods of warfare; scythed chariots and women warriors? We've no archaelogical evidence for scythed chariots. Caesar doesn't mention them, but other Roman writers maintained the Britons did use them and even gave them a name - Covin(n)i. Archaeology might tell us whether there were women warriors or not - if we find a female skeleton buried with a sword, spear and shield boss, there we have a warrior-woman. Only, as I type this I'm reading a bitterly critical essay pointing out that archaeologists don't bother sexing skeletons, always assuming a male if weapons are found and a female if domestic items are found. Hmm. Roman writers' descriptions of the women of Britain and Gaul seem a bit too close to "Red Sonja" type fantasy warrior women (in their Celtic chainmail bikinis...) and are of little help, although we do have Tacitus' account of the attack on Anglesey '...with women flitting between the ranks. In the style of Furies, in robes of deathly black and with dishevelled hair, they brandished their torches' (Military History.com tries to make them naked and painted - they weren't) and Suetonius facing Boudicca: "There," he said, "you see more women than warriors".
Casse Unit Suggestions:
Gaisonaites (spear fighters) Basic spearmen, large-ish shield, spear, one pre-charge javelin, no armour.
Gaisonaites Tropalobi (spearmen with slings) as above but with slings rather than javelins. Slings will have less ammo and be slightly less damaging.
Gaisonaites Ieieses (younger spearmen) skirmishers - younger warriors being introduced to fighting. Worse in hand-to-hand combat but carry more javelins.
Maxtemedui or Merecingetoi naked nutjobs. One javelin, one spear, high morale, impetuous, no armour (obviously)
Erretes (chariot fighters) Usual two horse chariot, lots of javelins, can fight well but not charge
Raimos Catucarom (lead chariot) General unit in a chariot as above
Controversial Units:
Cerbocovinni (scythed chariots) I know someone has them because I've fought them... same stats?
Brannognatas (raven daughters) Anglesey style madwomen with torches, dishevelled hair and black robes; raise morale and frighten, ridiculously high morale themselves, but not very effective in combat and no armour.
Reform I (later historical/pseudo-historical) Units:
Marobarkonaites (great spearmen) Copies of the Irish cual geithe, a shieldless phalanx.
Prannotropaloi (staff slings) Copies of the Irish staff slingers, if used.
Marcoges (riders) Skirmish cavalry along Gaulish lines.
Baialinaites (axe fighters) if we want them...
Reform II ("what if") Units:
Agramarcoges (slaughtering riders) proper fighting cavalry along Gaulish lines
Cruppeloi (armoured men - dodgy root) mail armour, shield, one spear, one javelin and a sword for backup
Cruppeloi Anbristani (unbreakable armoured men) the Marobarkonaites with armour added.
Tropalonaites (sling fighters) proper slingers
And that's it.
EDIT - Cinget(o)i not Cingedes