Factions and units - info and descriptions

Still on the units and that you spoke only in the end of your post:

Quote:

---

I think that all other Gallic and Iberian units recruited by Carthage should be made mercenaries to reflect their off and on status in Carthaginian armies. Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen wouldn't be that bad though..

---

I disagree. Carthage had Iberian territories from where to recruit troops, though they were payed as if mercenaries and directly lead by one of their own people (as the numidians btw). Carthage did not held any Gallic territories from where to recruit so your idea of a "Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen" seems way off...

=================

Quote:

---

Building Changes:
Astarte and Tanit are distinct. Astarte is the consort of Milquart, and Tanit of Baal (-Hammon is superfluous. Baal with Astarte and Tanit with Milquart.

---

Hmm I'll go with you. And are you suggesting 4 deities for Carthage? If not we must decide yourself which 3 will be final and I don't think leaving Baal and Tanit out is advisable. These 2 were the 2 chief deites in Carthage. Remember that Carthage by 270BC has nothing to do with Tyre... where Melqart and Astarte were the chief deites but NOT in Carthage. Coins and many other proofs show that Tanit was the chief goddess of Carthage, and the consort of Baal-Hammon:

Here's another source that backs my last assertion:
"The chief deity was Baal Hammon, the community's divine lord and protector, who was identified by the Greeks with Cronus and by the Romans with Saturn. During the 5th century a goddess named Tanit (the equivalent (not the same then but just equivalent ~;) ) of the Phoenician goddess Astarte) came to be widely worshipped and represented in art. It is possible that her name is Libyan and that her popularity was connected with the acquisition of land in the interior, as she is associated with symbols of fertility. These two overshadow other deities such as Melqart, principal deity of Tyre, identified with Heracles, and Eshmoun, identified with Asclepius."

from: http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-religion.htm
(this is a nice link with MANY other external links and sources on this issue btw)


If you insist with Astarte and if it is possible, we can put in the 4 deities then. And perhaps making the same temple as the prerequisit for both the SB Inf and Cav units would be advisable too....it wouldn't be necessary if it was possible to build more than one kind of temple per city. Is it doable though? If not, we can adopt your suggested atributes for mounted troops to Melqart also:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Graphic...sel_564_ha.jpg
Obv. head of Melqart
Rev. head horse; in field palm tree; in Punic script 'ommachanat' (= in the camp or people of the camp, meaning army headquarters)



---

Quote:

---

Aqueducts: (a huge city like Carthage with advanced city planning would have something similar)

---

Agreed but not aqueducts. Carthage's system was one of underground LARGE and numerous cisterns who kept waters in great quantities (excelent to prevent long draughts and long sieges) and distributed water all around. Here's something about that and the planned urbanization of Carthage you also refered:


"Archaeologists think that Carthage had an ‘urban’ character very early in its history and the arrangement of houses suggests that, by the end of the 8th century, there was already an urban plan in existence. This means Carthage was probably a planned city from the start, rather than being built up bit by bit in a higgledy-piggledy way. Evidence suggests that many Phoenicians cities were built or rebuilt to plans, particularly from the beginning of the fifth century.
...
There was also a coastal residential district, with formal street planning. The Greek historian Diodorus speaks of wealthy estates, which were well-irrigated and planted with vines, olives and fruit trees.
...
Because Carthage was later completely destroyed by Rome, little evidence has been found for the city. None of the temples on the Acropolis survive, but archaeologists have excavated a house on the Byrsa Hill. It dates from a period covering 200 years, from the eighth to the sixth centuries BC. When it was built, it consisted of a long rectangular building. There was a large enclosed courtyard at the front with a man-made well and four rooms at the back. The walls were made of mudbrick and were built on top of a stone foundation. The interior of the house was reorganized a number of times. It was probably two stories high and the roof would have been made of baked clay tiles. Archaeologists found evidence that offerings to the gods had been placed with the foundation. These were a clay oil lamp and pottery bowl and later a ceramic bottle was added, possibly with a burnt offering inside.

Other excavations in Carthage have shown that houses usually had a central courtyard with a well or impluvium (stone basin for collecting rainwater) in the centre. Rainwater was then stored underground. A colonnade would have surrounded the courtyard and led to the rooms of the house. Basic plumbing was usually present as a stone channel, which carried sewage into the street gutters.

A house would have had a kitchen which was usually long and narrow and would have had a hearth in one corner. The bedrooms were small and windowless and may have been upstairs. Houses would probably have had store rooms, service quarters and possibly shops at the front of the house. Archaeologists think that there were also multistory housing blocks. They have worked this out by studying the thickness of house walls, the number and capacity of underground cisterns under each house and the amounts of mosaic pavement material which must have come from at least two stories. The Greek historian Appian mentions buildings of six storeys."

As you see, instead of aqueducts I suggest Underground (Large) Cisterns.. maybe 2 new levels for small and large cisterns?



---

Quote:

---

Execution square could be changed to Sacrificial Site of Moloch, then Large Sacrificial Site, then Huge Sacrificial site... You get the picture. Same effect. Moloch sacrifice of children was common in Carthage.

---

And this I disagree. The sacrifice of children in Carthage is yet to be proved, contrary to what many sources say, and in the light of the evidence we have I believe there was no premeditated killings of children. Here's a self-explanatory article:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Carthag...-sacrifice.htm

Conclusions one can take from the evidences available to us:

- Polybius, especially, and Livy too(though this is not so reliable once he was an 'enemy' of Carthage and born almost 100 years after Carthage's destruction) are the two most ancient and reliable sources and neither mentioned the issue. Both had no reasons to hide something so hedious about Carthage... quite the contrary;

-the assumption of the child sacrifice came later, way later, and was backed up by romans;

-the 'famous' bronze image of Cronus "extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire" was in fact made up by Diodorus (the one who started the carthaginian myth) who "was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths, specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king's enemies were roasted alive";

-not even one inscription mentioned the deliberate killing of the child

-foreigners' inscripted vows exhisted and I agree definitely they wouldn't 'offer' their healthy child just because they were passing through

-born dead or young obituaries were considered to be 'recalled' by Baal to his 'home' for being special, and so it would be a dishonor to the Gods to be buried in a normal cemetery (and several other religions happen to do this too)

- the archaelogical discoveries that mention 20.000 urns in a timespan of at least 200 years are far from conclusive contrary to some people. In a large population such as Carthage (700.000 in its end but thought to have more than 1.000.000 in its zenith) plus the inumerous foreigners that also made their 'sacrifices' this is NOT a large number. In fact, it backs the idea that they were 'premature deaths' or 'born deads' with a special burial, coz medical technology was far less evolved than today and they occured much more than today. If you make your math those were less than 2 a week...

Add these facts to the known hate romans had towards Carthage and their desperate try to find morale excuses after the destruction of the city and the consequent genocide of its population when they represented no risk whatsoever to them. A 'moral' possible excuse to do it, even if made up, was very welcome to excuse the roman barbaric unmerciful act at the eyes of the other local/regional populations(especially the subjugated ones who could revolt) and to enhance their 'civilised' superior (aka nazism) wannabe status.

I imagine this has been discussed elsewhere, as I've seen Carnyx descriptions, but the Carnyx should at least accompany Gallic generals, if not most units. My question is, are their horse mounted officers? I imagine so, as there are horse mounted commanders for armies without generals, but I don't know if those operate the same way 'officers' do in the export_unit file.

Quote:

---

I disagree. Carthage had Iberian territories from where to recruit troops, though they were payed as if mercenaries and directly lead by one of their own people (as the numidians btw). Carthage did not held any Gallic territories from where to recruit so your idea of a "Some sort of recruitable Gallic swordsmen" seems way off...

---

Ok, I'll take your word for it on this one. Don't know a lot about the Gauls, just know that they were in Hannibal's army. There should definitely be more Gallic mercenary types then... Vanilla barbarian mercenaries suck.

Quote:

---

Hmm I'll go with you. And are you suggesting 4 deities for Carthage? If not we must decide yourself which 3 will be final and I don't think leaving Baal and Tanit out is advisable. These 2 were the 2 chief deites in Carthage. Remember that Carthage by 270BC has nothing to do with Tyre... where Melqart and Astarte were the chief deites but NOT in Carthage. Coins and many other proofs show that Tanit was the chief goddess of Carthage, and the consort of Baal-Hammon:

---

Yes, I'm suggesting four deities. The suggestion about the temples producing both sacred bands... Remember, each sacred band was 'of a particular God'. Cavalry belonged to Astarte, Infantry belonged to Baal, essentially.

Quote:

---

Agreed but not aqueducts. Carthage's system was one of underground LARGE and numerous cisterns who kept waters in great quantities (excelent to prevent long draughts and long sieges) and distributed water all around. Here's something about that and the planned urbanization of Carthage you also refered:

---

Good info! I know they didn't have aquaducts, but I was thinking that since they were such an advanced city, their building tree should reflect it. I think we should work on this next. If you need any help with the Iberian building tree, I always love researching stuff I don't know already.

Quote:

---

And this I disagree. The sacrifice of children in Carthage is yet to be proved, contrary to what many sources say, and in the light of the evidence we have I believe there was no premeditated killings of children.

---

Well, I know the mainland Phoenicians had the sacrifices... I know they did happen at some point in Carthage too. Some historians have posited that they contiued in Carthage after they were ended in Tyre. I was just thinking about something that could replace the moronic 'Secret Police' set of buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

In the first Punic war, a Spartan general reorganized the Carthaginian army and itroduced the Sarissa. I forget which text I read it in...

---

Don't bother searching mate. Go to the primary source (Polybius, the single existing main source of those times) that the other 'historians' base their assumptions from:

from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...lybius/1*.html

"Just about this time there arrived at Carthage one of the recruiting-officers they had formerly dispatched to Greece, bringing a considerable number of soldiers and among them a certain Xanthippus of Lacedaemon, a man who had been brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience.
...
Acting on this authority, he sent the elephants forward and drew them up in a single line in front of the whole force, placing the Carthaginian phalanx at a suitable distance behind them. Some of the mercenaries he stationed on the right wing, while the most active he placed together with the cavalry in front of both wings."

According to the main sources, they formed a phalanx. Period. One could assume they were pike phalanxes but then I ask you to reflect on this:

"The evidence for the shields of Carthaginian citizen troops is summarised in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars", by Duncan Head:

It depends on the date of your army. The Sacred Band at Krimisos in 341 BC are described (in Plutarch's "Life of Timoleon") as wearing iron cuirasses and bronze helmets, with huge round white leather shields - probably plain white, with no blazons. Then there is a big gap lacking in reliable evidence, until the Third Roman-Punic War.

Between these points, Greek-style hoplite-shields do appear in Carthaginian art, so it is probable that the citizen troops carried these.

For Carthaginian citizen troops of the first and second Roman-Punic wars, I would be inclined to use hoplite shields, painted white, with individual blazons mixing Greek emblems and motifs taken from Carthaginian art such as horses, palm-trees, the "Hand of Baal" and the "Sign of Tanit"."


One thing seems to be sure, the 'Sacred Band' Inf had large shields which suggests the use of hoplites and not pikes since as you personally and correctly suggested, using pikes meant using smaller shields.

---

Quote:

---

The red crest was to differentiate them as Carthaginian troops. Don't remember where I heard that.

---

Could be... but I would apreciate having something confirming it as historical. If not, I think a white or black crest would be more advisable to keep them in touch with the rest of the carthaginian army colours.

---

Quote:

---

Aymar said they should be differentiated somewhat. I was thinking along that line, and that Carthaginian officers would 'whip them into shape' so to speak when it comes to discipline and battle order.

---

I tend to disagree. The Iberian (and Numidian, greek, gallic etc) batallions were hired/recruited along with their original 'field commanders'. The carthaginian officer corps would command above these 'field commanders' but not directly with the troops in most cases. Comprehensible regarding also the different languages that all these people had. I agree that the recruited ones could be forced to an higher degree of "discipline and battle order" but also remember that that would be compensated by the fact that they were fighting for another country. Concluding, trying to avoid overcrowding of similar units which obviously means more work.


---

Quote:

---

Then lets get rid of the burghers and give them Iberian Cavalry! Describe them, man!

---

Lol... man ~;)! I think we should keep both since there was a punic civic cavalry that is missing in the game. Something alongside the 'Long Shield Cav' but with perhaps more morale. About the Heavy Iberian Cav I will have to do some more research since their description is varied. Some even say they were heavily armoured so I'll have to look better into that.

---

Quote:

---

I think there is a way to make them [SB units] only available in Carthage.
...
The suggestion about the temples producing both sacred bands... Remember, each sacred band was 'of a particular God'. Cavalry belonged to Astarte, Infantry belonged to Baal, essentially.

---

This is a problem then. If one makes as you say, it won't be able to train both types of units since we can only build one type of temple per city... and since the SB units should be only buildable in Carthage we have a problem. As I asked before... is it possible to allow building more than one temple per city? If not we should reconsider about puting both types of SB units trainable for the same temple.

---

Quote:

---

I don't know about this... The Balearics were a seperate culture from the Iberians... And they were better skirmishers per se (insofar as we are only describing javelin throwing and skirmishing). This is probably our only contention..

---

Ok, we can put in the Balearic skirmishers. These would have slightly more skirmishing qualities like speed, stamina and ammo (javelins) than the Iberian Caetrati (aka 'Iberian Infantry') who would have better charge and melee attack/defense stats. The Lybian javelineers would remain the lower quality skirmishers.


===================

Quote:

---

Yes, I'm suggesting four deities.

---

If possible, I'm with you then.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I know the mainland Phoenicians had the sacrifices... I know they did happen at some point in Carthage too

---

The only somewhat suspicious evidence some people base their assertions on regarding the phoenicians are the quotes from the Bible:

"He [the late- seventh-century B.C. Judahite king Josiah] defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Moloch" (2 Kings 23:10)."

So strong a connection has been presumed between such biblical passages and the Punic sanctuaries that these sacred grounds in Carthage and elsewhere are now called Tophets. The fact is, however, that the biblical passages do not mention sacrifice. They only refer to passing children through fire. And the fact is that during the early 1st millennium, cremation was introduced in Phoenicia and had spread to the colonies by the beginning of the 8th century (including Carthage). This continued for three centuries (alongside burial) and then burial started to be the main way, especially amongst the upper-classes who were quite exquisite during this ceremonies. Archaeology suggests that a ceremonial meal took place over the grave. Incense may have been burnt as well. The body was washed, perfumed and wrapped in cloth bandages. The wealthy were elaborately dressed and their clothes fastened with clothing pins (fibulae). Embalming was only used occasionally. Possessions were also buried, such as useful items of pottery, e.g. jugs, bottles, plates and cups. The dead wore jewellery - earrings, bracelets, rings and beads and rich luxury items, for example imports from Etruria. Sometimes were placed magic items such as ritual razors in the tomb, and also painted ostrich eggs to protect the dead during their journey to the afterlife. Also buried were items which the dead could use in the afterlife, so toys were buried with children, iron weapons and armour with men and cosmetic containers and weaving implements with women. Cemeteries were usually placed well away from settlements and with a natural barrier, such as water, in between. Children were usually buried in their own cemetery away from adult cemeteries.


If you read my conclusions from the other post, adding to these ceremonial burial rituals, which involved for sometime cremation (especially between the 8th century BC and the 5th century BC) what I see is children having their own special cemeteries due to their 'early recallings' by the Gods.

Quote:

---

One thing seems to be sure, the 'Sacred Band' Inf had large shields which suggests the use of hoplites and not pikes since as you personally and correctly suggested, using pikes meant using smaller shields.

---

You're right. They did indeed use long spears, not pikes. My misreading came from my mistranslation of a particular passage last year. I got the case of the nouns wrong. One was in nominative, the other in accusative, you know the story with such things... :embarassed: There are Greek sources other than Polybius though. Most of them are fragmentary.

Quote:

---

Lol... man ! I think we should keep both since there was a punic civic cavalry that is missing in the game. Something alongside the 'Long Shield Cav' but with perhaps more morale. About the Heavy Iberian Cav I will have to do some more research since their description is varied. Some even say they were heavily armoured so I'll have to look better into that.

---

Sweet. Maybe we should get rid of long shields?

Quote:

---

This is a problem then. If one makes as you say, it won't be able to train both types of units since we can only build one type of temple per city... and since the SB units should be only buildable in Carthage we have a problem. As I asked before... is it possible to allow building more than one temple per city? If not we should reconsider about puting both types of SB units trainable for the same temple.

---

We could just have the sacred band infantry trainable by barracks. That'd eliminate the problem ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Ok, we can put in the Balearic skirmishers. These would have slightly more skirmishing qualities like speed, stamina and ammo (javelins) than the Iberian Caetrati (aka 'Iberian Infantry') who would have better charge and melee attack/defense stats. The Lybian javelineers would remain the lower quality skirmishers.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

The only somewhat suspicious evidence some people base their assertions on regarding the phoenicians are the quotes from the Bible:

---

Nope... There are some primary texts that support it. I really don't see why sacrificial sites would increase law and order though.. In any case, it doesn't matter. Let's find something to redo the secret police crap. Who ever heard of Punic Secret Police?

Quote:

---

I tend to disagree. The Iberian (and Numidian, greek, gallic etc) batallions were hired/recruited along with their original 'field commanders'. The carthaginian officer corps would command above these 'field commanders' but not directly with the troops in most cases. Comprehensible regarding also the different languages that all these people had. I agree that the recruited ones could be forced to an higher degree of "discipline and battle order" but also remember that that would be compensated by the fact that they were fighting for another country. Concluding, trying to avoid overcrowding of similar units which obviously means more work.

---

So lower morale but better discipline?

Is it possible for a temple to provide a bonus to only a single troop type, but not allow the building of that soldier? That way, you could make the Carthaginian sacred bands buildable by a regular barracks, but have the proper temple provide a bonus to the bands that would be trained for it? Or perhaps, a weapon bonus for the type of weapon the band would be using (do they all use heavy?)

The Egyptian Pantheon should be changed to reflect Ptolemaic realities. Sarapis, Aesklepios, Isis and Horus should be used.

Oh please do NOT call Imitation Legionaries Thureophoroi
that would sound SO stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Oh please do NOT call Imitation Legionaries Thureophoroi
that would sound SO stupid.

---

We are not calling them anything, as they never existed!

They should be replaced by Thureophoroi who have the advantage of actually having existed.

Quote:

---

Maybe we should get rid of long shields?

---

I agree. The new 'Iberian Heavy Cav' could be sort of the 'Long Shields' but with a Scutum (oval shield here instead of that weird one from the 'Long Shields', or again a round Caetra) and better armour. The 'Round Shields' would be renamed 'Iberian Light Cavalry' and given a javelin becoming fast skirmishing cavalry.


Here's a nice description:
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/...s/HAT8055a.JPG
"They carried a small round central handgrip shield called a caetra or, more rarely, a larger oval scutum shield. They were armed with a javelin or spear and a sword, which was often the distinctive curved falcata. The four figures in this set are thus attired and armed, and all aspects have been properly sculpted. One of the men carries his caetra on his back, which is correct, and the man with the scutum is wearing armour, which marks him out for a heavier role than the rest."
from: http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/...=HAT&code=8055

Another possible models for 'Iberian Light Cav':
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/ima...e_05_large.jpg
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/sp3.jpg

and for the 'Iberian Heavy Cav':
http://www.andy.watkins.dsl.pipex.co...ins/car030.jpg
from: http://www.andy.watkins.dsl.pipex.co...incarthage.htm



My final suggestions:

Iberian Light Cav:
Non armoured (except for a metal/bronze helmet and maybe a small round chest plate);
Fast and tireless (not as much as Numidians but still higher than other standard cavs);
Ranged unit (javelins, but less deadly from range than the highly skilled Numidians);
Weak charge;
Good melee attack (here the falcatas do their 'dirty' work unlike the numidians ~;) )
Available at 'Stables' (first tier). Recruitable in Iberia only (?).


Iberian Heavy Cav:
Armoured (body armour, greaves, bronze helmet);
Powerful charge (spear as primary weapon);
Very Good melee attack (again the falcatas are crucial);
Very Good Morale.
Available at 'Elite Cavalry Stables' (3rd tier). Recruitable in Iberia only (?).
These were the famed units that crossed the Alps with Hannibal and campaigned during 17 years fighting decisively in each battle and yet sustaining very little losses. Hannibal himself was the Heavy Cavalry Commander since very young age before becoming the Chief-Commander.



More pics of main Iberian units:
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armieso...ish/index.html


---

And for the 'Punic Citizen Cavalry', here's some models:
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/ima...e_04_large.jpg
and
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/car3.jpg

Not as drilled as the 'Heavy Iberian Cav' but still a good reliable Heavy Cav.
Available at 'Cavalry Stables'. Recruitable in Carthage only (?).


========

Quote:

---

We could just have the sacred band infantry trainable by barracks. That'd eliminate the problem.

---

hmm Sacred Band units were religiously connected. I suggest making both units (cav and inf) trainable under both the temples of Baal and Astarte. I dont know for sure but I think Carthage starts already with the temple of Baal. And since Baal was the chief deity, "the Ruler of the Universe", I think a temple to him should be enough as a requirement for the SB units. Besides, you haven't brought me your sources that claim SBCav were strictly trained under Astarte.. I found nothing of the like yet. Are you sure on that?~

---

Quote:

---

So lower morale but better discipline?

---

If you guys insist with different Scutari units for Iberia and Carthage, ok.


====


And now back to the issue of Elite African Infantry. I've been making huge research on Carthaginian units and the vast majority depict that even the roman mail armoured ones never left their spears. Afterall, you haven't brought me neither any PRIMARY sources to back your view. I repeat, why would troops who fought in spear formation for a long time. with GREAT success so far, drop their spears, in the middle of a war in such hostile environment? Why would Polybius (single existing source of those days covering the issue) not mention it while he was talking exactly about the subject only mentioning the armour as captured? And I also repeat, they always had swords with them from the start (exactly from the same short design as the roman ones and arguably even better regarding the famed iron/steel minerals' quality from Iberia) so I suggest leaving them with the spears, but also give them high stats while fighting with the swords since they had made good use of them so far... like during the mountain fights (ie Alps) and the several rush charges from ambushes (ie Trasimene). They were named by some "the most powerful fighting machine" of those days... either with their spears or with their swords I might add ~;)

http://www.michtoy.com/MTSCnewSite/b...s/8020-2-2.jpg
Model for our 'Poeni (or Liby-Phoenician) Infantry' without mail armour...

http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/ima...e_03_large.jpg
http://www.aandaminiatures.co.uk/images/car2.jpg
... and above another models for our mail-armoured 'Elite African Infantry'.

My suggestions:

Town Militia --> Barracks

Iberian Caetrati & Lybian Spearmen --> Militia Barracks

Iberian Scutari & Liby-Phoenician/Poeni Infantry --> City Barracks

Elite African Infantry & Sacred Band Infantry* --> Army Barracks

*plus Awesome Temple of Baal or Astarte

(there ain't no 'Royal Barracks' as you suggested before in your post ~;) )

==============

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

There are Greek sources other than Polybius though. Most of them are fragmentary?

---

Regarding the punic wars and close to its timeline? Which?

---

Quote:

---

Nope... There are some primary texts that support it [Phoenician child sacrifices].

---

Which?

---

Quote:

---

Let's find something to redo the secret police crap. Who ever heard of Punic Secret Police?

---

Well, Carthage was a civilised nation. They must have had some sort of law enforcement so I don't find it that inapropriate.

First of all lemme preface this post. I've enjoyed our little argument thoroughly so far. It is this sort of argument in which both parties learn something and really contribute to the historical unit tree by vigorous research. My hat is off to you so far, my friend. :bow:

Quote:

---

I agree. The new 'Iberian Heavy Cav' could be sort of the 'Long Shields' but with a Scutum (oval shield here instead of that weird one from the 'Long Shields', or again a round Caetra) and better armour. The 'Round Shields' would be renamed 'Iberian Light Cavalry' and given a javelin becoming fast skirmishing cavalry.

---

Sweet.

Quote:

---

Not as drilled as the 'Heavy Iberian Cav' but still a good reliable Heavy Cav.

---

I'd say these guys should be classified as medium cav for game balance.

Quote:

---

And now back to the issue of Elite African Infantry. I've been making huge research on Carthaginian units and the vast majority depict that even the roman mail armoured ones never left their spears. Afterall, you haven't brought me neither any PRIMARY sources to back your view. I repeat, why would troops who fought in spear formation for a long time. with GREAT success so far, drop their spears, in the middle of a war in such hostile environment? Why would Polybius (single existing source of those days covering the issue) not mention it while he was talking exactly about the subject only mentioning the armour as captured? And I also repeat, they always had swords with them from the start (exactly from the same short design as the roman ones and arguably even better regarding the famed iron/steel minerals' quality from Iberia) so I suggest leaving them with the spears, but also give them high stats while fighting with the swords since they had made good use of them so far... like during the mountain fights (ie Alps) and the several rush charges from ambushes (ie Trasimene). They were named by some "the most powerful fighting machine" of those days... either with their spears or with their swords I might add

---

Ah, but PRIMARY sources confirm my argument, especially in regards to Cannae.

'to look at them, one might have thought the the Africans were Roman soldiers, their arms were largely Roman, having been ....'

Now, arms generally means arms and armor. Let's take it to the Latin.

' Afros Romanam magna ex parte crederes aciem: ita armati erant; armis & ad Trebiam caeterum magna ex parte, ad Thrasymenum captis.'

Note that he uses the word for weapons, twice. Let us use some logic in regards to Cannae as well. The double envelopment that was completed by the Africans and the Iberian Heavies was a quick affair. The phalanx formation is notably slow and inflexible. Therefore, sword armed infantry would have been far better than spear. Polybius gives the same account. Hannibal knew that these tactics would work far better against the mobile Romans. Polybius gives a similar account. In the Greek, he uses a similar word that can be interpreted as arms, being either armor, weapons, or both. The University of Chicago translation translates it as 'armor', but a reasonable argument can be made that it should be arms (both armor and weapons).

Quote:

---

(there ain't no 'Royal Barracks' as you suggested before in your post )

---

Carthage doesn't have it... yet. They could indeed, with but a simple edit of the export buildings txt file. That way they don't get their uber-units faster than everyone else. Note the helmets on your Elite African infantry models. They look Roman or Gallic enought to me.

Good models for Liby-Phoenicians.

Also, just as a game consideration, why not have the Elite Africans with swords and the Sacred Band with spears. Why have two phalanx units at the top of the tree?

Quote:

---

Regarding the punic wars and close to its timeline? Which?

---

Get back to you on that one. There are some lesser known Greeks around the time of Polybius.

Quote:

---

Which?

---

I'll find the exact sources for you. Mostly inscriptions/relief. Gotta head to the library for the exacting details. ~;)

Quote:

---

hmm Sacred Band units were religiously connected. I suggest making both units (cav and inf) trainable under both the temples of Baal and Astarte. I dont know for sure but I think Carthage starts already with the temple of Baal. And since Baal was the chief deity, "the Ruler of the Universe", I think a temple to him should be enough as a requirement for the SB units. Besides, you haven't brought me your sources that claim SBCav were strictly trained under Astarte.. I found nothing of the like yet. Are you sure on that?~

---

Yes, I'm sure. You're right, they were religiously connected. I think the cities directly around Carthage (Thapsus?) should be able to train them too. That might get rid of our problem. Punic citizenry did own large estates, after all.

If you want, PM me your AIM or MSN handle and we can discuss it real time. That way we could have a complete unit list hammered out by the end of the week.

There is scanty evidence that imitation legionaries existed.

But, considering how widely the legionary was adapted, there's a good chance that they did exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

But, considering how widely the legionary was adapted, there's a good chance that they did exist.

---

If you have any sources I would love to see them as it would make our job easier if they did exist. Militaries by their natures are very conservative and rarely adopt foreign ideas quickly. They will eventually if forced to do so.

I think CA got the concept of imitation legionaries from Nick Secunda's view on the subject, but he is using evidence that is thin to non-existent.

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

---

That seems to be the basis for the imitation Legionaries altogether, which is terribly flimsy evidence, as a precursory javelin throw was not a purely Roman style of fighting by any means. To the contrary, many many cultures employed such a tactic in their military. It is notable, again, that most of the accounts don't really explore the weapons or armor employed, aside from the throwing of javelins first. In this sense, there is no proof of the use of a Roman style scutum, a short sword, etc.

I do recall that Gallatia eventually had imitation Legionaries. They used a Gallic-style oval shield though, I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

If you have any sources I would love to see them as it would make our job easier if they did exist. Militaries by their natures are very conservative and rarely adopt foreign ideas quickly. They will eventually if forced to do so.

I think CA got the concept of imitation legionaries from Nick Secunda's view on the subject, but he is using evidence that is thin to non-existent.

Latin authors on seeing troops who threw javelins and charged home their attack would remark to their latin readers that they fight in the Roman style.
This does not mean they were Legionaries.

---

I don't think they existed either. As far as I'm concerned, it's another unit that can be scrapped in favor of a more interesting historical one. Maybe we should compile a list of units that can be scrapped, so we can have more room for new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

I don't think they existed either. As far as I'm concerned, it's another unit that can be scrapped in favor of a more interesting historical one. Maybe we should compile a list of units that can be scrapped, so we can have more room for new ones.

---

Sounds like a good idea to me!
1. Egyptian Chariot Archers; yet to see proof they existed-Scythed chariots, yes but nothing on Chariot Archers
2. Early Hellenic General units; the Basilikon Agema did not change significantly from alexanders time. One unit should be enough.
3. Onagers of all types simply did not exist at all! 3rd century AD
4.Nubian Spearmen/Cavalry/Desert Axemen
5.Peasants; if we can make one unit for all civilized factions and one for the barbarian factions we could free up a lot of slots.
6.one unit of Scythed Chariots for the Hellenic factions should do.

Some other units that can be gotten rid of:

British Head Hurlers (I assume no one wants these pieces of crap)
Scythian Head Hunting Chicks
Amazon Chariots (wtf?)

We should also consider the Wardogs and Cataphract Camels. They existed but they were rare and were not line units. Including them without some limitations would not be historical. There are also a number of civilian workers/female citizens/etc I guess populate the cities? They could probably be replaced by generic units.

Yes, when you go to the city view, not during a battle, there are little peasant people. It's an aesthetic, and by removing all but some generics, we'd free more space for additional units.

Do we have a master list or sticky that we could post unit candidates for what to include in the game? Some idea about what others are doing might prevent duplication of efforts. For example I have Tarantine Light Cavalry which originally hearald from the greek parts of southern italy. They should perhaps be available to Romans as part of their cavalry auxiliaries list.

BTW Ranika very interesting post about Irish troop types.

I didn't believe that Tarantine cavalry were used by the Romans as auxiliaries? But then, I suppose they likely did, as Greek cavalry was rightly reknowned, and the Romans would've been foolish to not make use of the indigenous cavalries.

And thank you. I've studied Celtic cultures in general, but my particulars are the Gauls, and the Gaels, especially, from their inception in Ireland, to modern issues, especially in military aspects. So little in known about Irish soldiers in the dark ages by most, but it's quite well chronicled, due to the massive amount of books produced in Ireland during the dark ages (the Irish golden age, actually, as they were unaffected by the dark ages, and had just recently begun to write). It upset me how they were portrayed in Viking Invasion, with the anachronisms of having gallowglass, and redudant units (kerns and dartmen), and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

First of all lemme preface this post. I've enjoyed our little argument thoroughly so far. It is this sort of argument in which both parties learn something and really contribute to the historical unit tree by vigorous research. My hat is off to you so far, my friend. :bow: .

---

Thx for the nice words. Idem ~:)

Quote:

---

I'd say these guys should be classified as medium cav for game balance.

---

Ok... though Aymar is already wary of bringing too many units so this may be left out. But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... Carthage will only get cavalry to the center Med in acceptable recruting/transport times when it gets Sacred Band. Ok that they can get Numidian mercs but there ain't that many available, especially if those who sometimes appear happen to die in battles, which is probable since Numidian cav mercs ain't exactly shock troops for needed flank attack/defense in pitched battles.

---

Quote:

---

Ah, but PRIMARY sources confirm my argument, especially in regards to Cannae:

'to look at them, one might have thought the the Africans were Roman soldiers, their arms were largely Roman, having been ....'

Now, arms generally means arms and armor. Let's take it to the Latin.

' Afros Romanam magna ex parte crederes aciem: ita armati erant; armis & ad Trebiam caeterum magna ex parte, ad Thrasymenum captis.'

---

Are those Polybius' words? If they are not I find them non reliable..especially if they are from Livy who was totally biased towards romans. Saying they were armed totally like romans would be typical of Livy who would then self-conclude that the roman weapons were prefered to those of the carthaginians and consequently better...

Quote:

---

Let us use some logic in regards to Cannae as well. The double envelopment that was completed by the Africans and the Iberian Heavies was a quick affair. The phalanx formation is notably slow and inflexible. Therefore, sword armed infantry would have been far better than spear. Polybius gives the same account.

---

If you reread Polybius you will find the African units stationed in the flanks never really had to move that much in consequence of the backward movement of Hannibal's center line. And the phalanx formation is only "slow and inflexible" when the spears are down. Put your spears up and you have a "fast and flexible" unit, especially when we're talking of some of the most experienced units this world has ever seen.

"The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...lybius/3*.html

Quote:

---

Also, just as a game consideration, why not have the Elite Africans with swords and the Sacred Band with spears. Why have two phalanx units at the top of the tree?

---

I agree... but that argument isn't valid for our suposedly historical mod right? Again, I just don't see why they would drop their spears to the garbage when they perfected fighting that way for years and with excelent results! That doesn't mean they ONLY fought that way and that they wouldn't be as good with swords since for several occasions they did so and with equally great results. I know that in rtw phalanxes suck since they take ages to reform and are slow and buggy when told to charge (like raising their spears :dizzy2: ) and I more than anyone would like to fix it.. but not to the expense of nonjustifed units.

Quote:

---

In the Greek, he [Polybius] uses a similar word that can be interpreted as arms, being either armor, weapons, or both. The University of Chicago translation translates it as 'armor', but a reasonable argument can be made that it should be arms (both armor and weapons).

---

Then I guess you have to take that argument to Chicago's experts. If you convince me you have the reason I concede ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Carthage doesn't have it... yet. They could indeed, with but a simple edit of the export buildings txt file. That way they don't get their uber-units faster than everyone else.

---

Well, Carthage never lasted to the Marian Reforms...so they didn't have their own 'reforms' if you get my point.

Besides I think it's more than logical the way I suggested since we have to balance the fact that Carthage is one...romans are 4. Carthage gets quality sooner, romans get numbers sooner. Just like the way it was historically. Finally, if one faction can give the whole power of rome an hard time, that one should be Carthage. Curiously I always said (since I heard that Carthage wouldn't have a Senate in RTW) that an historically represented unified Carthage would be just too powerful for rome. Unified they would have the generals, the money, the elite troops and most of all a coordinated command between Hamilcar(1st PW) or Hannibal (2nd PW) and the carthaginian Senate's main party, that of Hanno surnamed the 'rich' and his greedy/corrupt followers who were more interested in their personal wealth that in winning the wars.

Quote:

---

Note the helmets on your Elite African infantry models. They look Roman or Gallic enought to me.

---

They look carthaginian to me ~:)


=========

Quote:

---

Get back to you on that one. There are some lesser known Greeks around the time of Polybius.

---

Covering the punic wars even if sparsely?! Geez I really would like to get a grab on those!


=========

Quote:

---

I think the cities directly around Carthage (Thapsus?) should be able to train them too. That might get rid of our problem. Punic citizenry did own large estates, after all.

---

That would work ~:wave:

We have 300 units to play with, and some ahistorical ones that exist which may be safely deleted. This is far more than MTW. Assuming 30 factions that means we only start to get in trouble when we get to about 8 or so unique units per faction. How many are we talking about now?

It may be useful to start faction-specific threads if this one starts to get too cluttered, and keep this for general or common information.

I thought we'd planned for almost entirely unique units for every faction? Though, truly, there must be 'generic' units for some if we plan on all 30 factions, and there must be some compromise reached, in that case. If it comes to it, what units would be fine to 'duplicate', for what factions?

"didn't believe that Tarantine cavalry were used by the Romans as auxiliaries? But then, I suppose they likely did, as Greek cavalry was rightly reknowned, and the Romans would've been foolish to not make use of the indigenous cavalries."

I don't know that they did or didn't, which is one reason I would like to see a sticky master list as it would open things up to criticism, in a nice way ~:) .

As you said it makes sense that the Romans used such troops when they took over the south but history doesn't always make sense.

"But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... "

That is not going to happen until we crack the codes that control movement and other aspects of the game engine. As it stands now changing the stats for naval units even drastically makes little difference to the outcome. The potential for drastically increased movement exists as is evidenced when you win a battle you get free movement afterwards, so it should be possible.

Quote:

---

Ok... though Aymar is already wary of bringing too many units so this may be left out. But if Iberian cavs become only trainable in Iberia and the ships' movement doesn't increase DRASTICALLY (especially carthaginian ships considering their expertise in ancient seafaring)... Carthage will only get cavalry to the center Med in acceptable recruting/transport times when it gets Sacred Band. Ok that they can get Numidian mercs but there ain't that many available, especially if those who sometimes appear happen to die in battles, which is probable since Numidian cav mercs ain't exactly shock troops for needed flank attack/defense in pitched battles.

---

I think they can be left in, especially if we get rid of long shields. We'll never get up to 30 factions... some would be far too weak.

Here's a list of our Carthaginian & Influenced Area Mercenary units so far:

Libyan Spearmen: Agreed upon
Iberian Caetrati :Agreed upon
Scutarii (Carthaginian) : Agreed upon
Balearic Light Infantry : Agreed upon (Mercenary Unit)
Liby-Phoenician Infantry : Agreed upon
Elite African Infantry: Disputed
Sacred Band Cavalry: Agreed upon
Iberian Heavy Cavalry: Agreed upon
Iberian Light Cavalry: Agreed upon (shared with Iberia)
Sacred Band Infantry: Agreed upon
Carthaginian Burgher Cavalry: Agreed upon
Skirmishers: Agreed upon
All the Elephants: Agreed upon

We should definitely start working on the descriptions and actual unit info. PM me with an aim or MSN handle or an email address and we can get that cooridinated. Or we can start a Carthage topic here. Whichever you prefer.

Quote:

---

Are those Polybius' words? If they are not I find them non reliable..especially if they are from Livy who was totally biased towards romans. Saying they were armed totally like romans would be typical of Livy who would then self-conclude that the roman weapons were prefered to those of the carthaginians and consequently better...

---

No, it's Livy. Polybius wrote in Greek. More on this below.

Quote:

---

Then I guess you have to take that argument to Chicago's experts. If you convince me you have the reason I concede.

---

Well, that's a little unfeasible... Tell you what, I can take it to a Classics prof and have him look at the Greek if you want a second opinion. I'm 100% sure that the word used can be translated as weapons/arms in Polybius. Livy was indeed biased toward the Romans, and this is why I find my argument convincing. The Romans of Livy's time carried Gladius Hispanicus. If he read good primary accounts that described their (the Africans) arms, he would have said they were armed like Romans. You're being a little harsh though. Livy is still a pretty good source. Livy also goes on about how great the 'flower of his infantry' was, which would seem to suggest the same. Fabius Pictor describes them as fighting 'in the Roman style' as well.

Quote:

---

Besides I think it's more than logical the way I suggested since we have to balance the fact that Carthage is one...romans are 4. Carthage gets quality sooner, romans get numbers sooner. Just like the way it was historically. Finally, if one faction can give the whole power of rome an hard time, that one should be Carthage. Curiously I always said (since I heard that Carthage wouldn't have a Senate in RTW) that an historically represented unified Carthage would be just too powerful for rome. Unified they would have the generals, the money, the elite troops and most of all a coordinated command between Hamilcar(1st PW) or Hannibal (2nd PW) and the carthaginian Senate's main party, that of Hanno surnamed the 'rich' and his greedy/corrupt followers who were more interested in their personal wealth that in winning the wars.

---

I don't think it's unreasonable to give them the last level of barracks. I like your argument though. So what would be the barrack levels of the units then?

Quote:

---

Covering the punic wars even if sparsely?! Geez I really would like to get a grab on those!

---

There's some Fabius Pictor around, even though he's a bit pro-roman (since he is a Roman, go figure).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, though a little later in time, uses sources now unavailable to us and was as professional or even more so than Polybius. His works are translated.

There are a couple that write in the time of Scipio Aemilianus, pretty contemporary with Polybius. Lemme find them for ya. Can you read Ancient Greek?

For the modders working on the Ptolemaic Egypt. :bow:



Ptolemaic Soldiers

Example:
http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Ptolemaic/ptol_08.jpg
There is a banner/flag also

Click here for more of the Ptolemaic Empire soldiers

Quote:

---

Some of the current units can be alter to fit since locals would have been used to fill out the ranks.

---

That is not true, the locals were so terrible and unreliable the Ptolemaic Dynasty never depended on them. With regard to the army, the greater bulk of troops were from the Macedonian land-owning classes, with very, very few natives in the Ptolemaic army, if there at all.

For all intensive purposes Egypt was an occupied naton, ruled over by Macedonians who made up the core of its army to prevent the temptation of rebellion.