Printable View
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesar Vastator
It does, look at the symbol on his shoulder pad thing.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
Wow, cool idea guys. Beautiful texture too. Keep up the great work.
EDIT: nevermind
Gah, waste of space, waste of words, stop reading!
My question was answered, this is meaningless, why are you reading!
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
awesome skin and a unit..:2thumbsup:
Cheers
Carthage, definitely: I recognise the symbols which were also used for African (elite?, memory...) Pikemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
On a side note: didn't greek skirmishers use some kind of device which allowed for even more accelaration of their javelins?
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).
They used a sort of Atl Atl but instead of a stick, used a leather strap.
Edit: Watchmen got it.
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 =)
The javelineers, will they get substantially more javelins than their foot cousings? To be honest, I would love that they get a lot more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
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!
Are there going to be any more previews like this?
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.
There is no evidence that any Seleukid or Baktrian units beyond kataphraktoi wore scale armour.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.Quote:
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.
You'll have to provide some evidence for the "infrastructure and workforce skilled in making that sort of armour."Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Don't worry.
It's coming.
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 ?
There are those irksome Indo-Greek coins of Menader too, with the king himself in scale and then the one with athena in scale.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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?Quote:
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 would imagine so, but that still didn't stop many, many Etruscan soldiers from buying and wearing them.Quote:
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.
[quote]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.
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.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).
Again, this is pure speculation without evidence.Quote:
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.
It's very clear that the other forms of armour employed by the eastern Hellenistic armies suited them just fine.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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).
Exactly, meaning they wore linothoraxes. There's no evidence they ever wore composite cuirasses.Quote:
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.
Of course- dozens of Seleukid sources illustrate the linothorax. It was commonly worn- just not the composite cuirass.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 ?
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.Quote:
And why would only the Cataphracts use scale armour anyway?
Because they were commonly worn.Quote:
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 ?
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...
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.Quote:
I would imagine so, but that still didn't stop many, many Etruscan soldiers from buying and wearing them.
Kept the poorer folks out of the hoplite phalanxes though, but them's the breaks.
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.Quote:
And the linothorax was even lighter and more comfortable still.
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 ?Quote:
Again, this is pure speculation without evidence.
And those were ?Quote:
It's very clear that the other forms of armour employed by the eastern Hellenistic armies suited them just fine.
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...Quote:
Probably because the kataphrakt was probably adopted wholesale from the Parthians, who clearly did make use of scale armour.
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Says you.
No, says the archaeological record!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
And those were ?
Linothorax, metal muscled cuirass, the plain metal cuirass.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Or bronze plate armour, which gave better protection than either scale or layered fabric ?
They still sometimes did wear bronze plate armour.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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...
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?