Post your suggestions for new units !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

It's the other way around. Rhomphaioi are the big evil two-handed thing. The falx is shorter, and could be wielded with one hand (not for long, but still).

---

What sources are you basing this distinction on? I've never heard the falx described or depicted as anything other than a two-handed weapon (unless you want to argue that large sicae were called falxes). The difference between the romphaia and the falx, it seems, was entirely in the shape of the blade (straighter versus strongly curved) and in the primary people who used it (Thracians versus Dacians).

Quote:

---

Herodian of Antioch, book IV, chapter XIV, line 3:
"Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from camels."

---

And from Herodian IV.14.3 - Nisibis, AD 217:

"Meanwhile Artabanus was upon them with his vast and powerful army
composed of many cavalry and an enormous number of archers and
kataphrakts who fought on camels, jabbing with long spears (possible
corrupt text, but the camels and the long spears are secure).

15.2-3:

"The barbarians caused heavy casualties with their rain of arrows and
with the long spears of the kataphraktoi on horses and camels, as the
wounded the Romans with downward thrusts. But the Romans had easily
the better of those who came to close-quarters fighting. And when the
size of the cavalry andthe numbers of the camels began to cause them
troublem they pretended to retreat and then threw down caltrops and
other iron devices with sharp spikes sticking out of them. They were
fatal to the cavalry and the camel-riders as they lay hidden in the
sand, not seen by them. The horses and the camels trod on them and
(this applied particularly to the camels with their tender pads) fell
onto their knees and were lamed, throwing the riders off their backs.
As long as the eastern barbarians are riding on horses or camels they
fight bravely; if they dismount or are thrown they are easily taken
prisoner because they do not resist in close-quarters fighting. And
further, they are hindered from running away (if this were necessary)
by the loose fodls of their clothes hanging around their legs."

Needless to say, both of these mentions postdate the EB timeframe by several centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shub niggurath

My new suggestions :


Phrygian heavy cavalary
Bythinian light cavalry
Pisidian slingers
Cilician infantry
Cilician cavalry
Pamphylian light infantry

Machimoi Epilektoi
Nubian Kleruchoi
Libyan Wildmen
Libyan Chariotry
Cyprus Light Phalanx
Ptolemaic Felt Cataphract

Gedrosian Light Infantry
Characene Slinger
Parthian Camel Cataphract
Elamite Camelry
Babylonian Light Phalanx
Caspian Javelinists

Blue Celtiberians

---

I am sure you are just joking, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

And from Herodian IV.14.3 - Nisibis, AD 217:

---

So what is the difference between Herodian 4.14.3 and Herodian 4.14.3 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollheit

Herodian of Antioch, book IV, chapter XIV, line 3:
"Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from camels."

---

that's from 217AD (the events, not the Author). I believe EB wants info from 272BC-14AD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollheit

So what is the difference between Herodian 4.14.3 and Herodian 4.14.3 ?

---

Oops, didn't see that. I keep my citations all together and I just copied the two together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

that's from 217AD (the events, not the Author). I believe EB wants info from 272BC-14AD

---

True, but still, I don't think the idea to have Parthian camel cataphracts is stupid enough to make someone "die from the inside".

Quote:

---

True, but still, I don't think the idea to have Parthian camel cataphracts is stupid enough to make someone "die from the inside".

---

Oh, if you only knew...

It´s not as much dying per say as a sploding from the inside.

And no, I will not tell you what a sploding is. You should know, noob.

It's what happens to me when someone misspells "per se"?

Yeah, sorry. I know it´s really spelled persay. :yes:

Guys, let's stop the arguing now, kay?

We were not arguing, move along.
I am just one of a nit-picky nature.

one of a nit-picky nature on a forum frequented by many for whom English is not a first or even second language? learn some forbearance.

i think we'll not be including cataphract camelry. some of the other suggestions are probably more viable. what about pergamon? what new units shall we give them? galatian kataphraktoi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

i think we'll not be including cataphract camelry. some of the other suggestions are probably more viable. what about pergamon? what new units shall we give them? galatian kataphraktoi?

---

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?

Possible Galatian heavy cavalry that adapted eastern horse barding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?

---

The Galatian Heavy Cavalry is what I went with in my version of Magnesia.

The cataphract is unfortunately... broad. I wonder what TPC would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?

---

I don't think Paullus was being very serious; seeing his remark about camelry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I don't think Paullus was being very serious; seeing his remark about camelry...

---

Regardless of whether he was serious or not, I'm just curious what his take on the Galatikoi kataphraktoi of Appian's account is.

He's going to be away for a couple of days, so it might take a while to respond.

Foot

Lemme guess. Another one who got trampled by the FOOT!!!!

Sorry, I´ll try to stop saying that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the term cataphract simply mean "armoured"? I am under the impression that in history it was used for heavy cavalry as well as the completely-armoured cavalry we now associate with cataphracts. Historically, camels weren't used in close combat, and Herodian's text also suggests they skirmished rather than performed charges, so it wouldn't make sense to weigh them down with armour. Most likely their riders wore armour, but not the camels. The same goes for the Galatian cataphracts.

Incidentally, there are little unit slots left and EB2 will include 10 new factions that need unique units as well, so I'll doubt we'll see many new units in EB2 that are not related to those factions. Just posting suggestions is not enough, you'll have to make a good case when, where and why they should be implemented.

AFAIK, Cataphract as in kataphraktos means 'fully covered', whereby 'covered' impicitly requires substitution, e.g. "nees kataphraktoi" (fully decked ships). This is in case of armour, obviously, part of debate: for instance if anyone said "hippeis kataphraktoi" (litt.: fully armoured horsemen) should that suggest the horse was covered also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Incidentally, there are little unit slots left and EB2 will include 10 new factions that need unique units as well, so I'll doubt we'll see many new units in EB2 that are not related to those factions. Just posting suggestions is not enough, you'll have to make a good case when, where and why they should be implemented.

---

Actually, not needing to use the merc trick to recycle models freed a lot of unit slots. I don't know if even most members realize this.

Do you mean to say that the total limit in EBII could be higher than 500? Because if you do, this is news to not only me but also just about every member of these boards that I know of. However, I have heard that the higher model limit will allow EBII to different looking soldiers for each unit as well as maybe more officers per unit. There was another cool trick for the new model limit that I can't remember but it was much less ambitious than what I think you are suggesting.

Chairman

No, he's saying that in EBI we had to waste unit slots on using the merc trick to give certain units to certain factions. This saves about 12 units (if I remember correctly - or something like that number). Spendios, our unit hoarder, has recently freed up a further 7, I think.

Foot

Good man Spendios. Have a manly pat on the back.

The man knows his EDU.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BozosLiveHere

Actually, not needing to use the merc trick to recycle models freed a lot of unit slots. I don't know if even most members realize this.

---

Yeah, in EB1 for instance; we have one slot 'wasted' on having both a rebel (slave) Ioudaioi Taxeis *and* and a rebel (slave) Peltastai Indohellenikoi.

EBII :

Name: Numidian reformed infantry (wip)

Factions: Numidia (and Massaesyli if included) with reforms; as local unit at high MIC level for at least Romani and Qarthadast, maybe some hellenistic nations as well

Equipment: rounded scutum, short gladius-like sword hung from baldric, simple helmet of greek or roman types, short spear, maybe javelin, linothorax of leather or chainmail with leather or cloth pteruges, short tunic and trousers, sandals

AoR: Kirtan, Siga, Ippone, Utica, Kart-Hadast, and Adrumento; possibly Lixus and Sala as well

History: based on the Syphax's infantry trained by Scipio's centurion in the Second Punic war

Sources: Osprey MAA 121 Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC by Terence Wise, pg.14, and Osprey MAA 243 Rome's Enemies (5): The Desert Frontier by David Nicolle, plate A1.

........

I know that this is not enough to completely convince the team to add this unit, though I guess that you may already be considering this unit. Either way, I hope this helps you make a decision. I apologize that my only sources are Osprey, but those are the ones I have on hand, and the 2nd source includes a picture of a Numidian prince with heavy Greek, Carthaginian or Roman influence on armor and weapons that I thought fit the general concept.

Chairman

What is wrong with Osprey books - now that it has been mentioned a few times in this thread - I´ve always thought they were of good enough quality but please enlighten me if I´m mistaken ? Or did you mean you wanted more sources than only Osprey ?