v 1.2 Macedonian Peltastai (Elite): assault role must be a joke, right?

The description of these suggests they excel at killing opponents on city walls with their javelins. That must be a joke... At best, they are able to get a couple kills by throwing javelins up onto the walls (from a close range), missing most. I think, the game mechanics simply does not allow to use missiles for such a role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

The description of these suggests they excel at killing opponents on city walls with their javelins. That must be a joke... At best, they are able to get a couple kills by throwing javelins up onto the walls (from a close range), missing most. I think, the game mechanics simply does not allow to use missiles for such a role.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by export_units.txt; line 2619

They excel in assault where their javelins can scatter defenders from breaches in defenses made by your siege engines.

---

(Emphasis added.)

So far I don't see any proposition of them throwing anything up, or onto anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

(Emphasis added.)

So far I don't see any proposition of them throwing anything up, or onto anything else?

---

Ok, I might have misread it about these particular ones then. I will double check when home. I remember though one of the peltastai descriptions praising them for being able to pepper enemy covering behind/on walls. In either scenario javelin efficiency would be quite negligible.

Also, the only time javeliners would be able to do substantial damage THROUGH a breach in the wall would be if the enemy had turned their backs or the right side towards the breach. In other cases, the shields would be pretty effective protecting the defenders against the javelin rain (a few kills at most if the defenders were facing the breach from inside).

Javelins never seem to take out as many soldiers as I thought they would. In general, even a division of Akonistai parked in the rear of an enemy deuteroi phalanx only seems to knock out a handful of phalangites, even after throwing all six. Sure, they're not elites, but one would expect more casualties on the enemy's part if they're being struck by a storm of javelins from the rear. :inquisitive:

But when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, the Peltastai Makedonai are killers. They hack away at the famed Spartiartai and other infantry units as well. They're so threatening that I often send in phalangites to take care of them rather than risk my other infantry units including the elites. And on walls, these things are a terror. Factions such as KH don't have very many soldiers that can stand up to them.

I dunno. On level ground, I've had a fresh unit of Akontistai kill half a unit of Argies through flank fire.

BTW, are we still doing that old Bartix thing?

Well, they are excellent when they man the siege tower....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novellus

Javelins never seem to take out as many soldiers as I thought they would. In general

---

Unless your Romani and a single unit wanders in front of your army. :beam:

Don't complain about javelin skirmisher efficency if you use them ahistorically.
They are supposed to harass troops in front of your phalanx, not act like human mortars...

But they hardly do anything. And the Macedonian Peltastai are pretty good, its just that most dedicated elite skirmishers aren't that great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

But they hardly do anything. And the Macedonian Peltastai are pretty good, its just that most dedicated elite skirmishers aren't that great.

---

I'm beginning to surmise, that because of all the extra armor everything has in EB (to make battles longer etc., which is a good thing imo) all missile units need a re balance. They just can't get through the extra armor. And Archers are pretty much a complete waste of time (ok IF you manage to run some archers all the way around and shoot a unit point blank in the back, they will do at least some damage, but if you can safely flank with Archers, you've pretty much won anyways..AND I severly doubt Archers were ever really used in this way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewski

. And Archers are pretty much a complete waste of time

---

From what I've seen archers are pretty good against light infantry and other missile units, not to mention the moral hurting flaming arrows. Also enemy ranged infantry tend to focus on your archers meaning less damage to your main line infantry. Remember Every enemy you kill at range is one less your men on the frontline have to face. :beam:

Battles lasting longer has more to do with lowered lethality of the various weapons. EB aims for historical accuracy in battles and in antiquity archers would not fight heavy infantry but missle troops and unarmoured skirmishers. That battlefield role they accomplish rather good. There is a historical reason, why in the Western Mediterranian there was not very much of an sophisticated archery tradition: in the West infantry tended to be better armoured (talking about Italy, Greece and Gaulk to a certain extent) and thus not that vulnerable to archers. Different combat doctrine.

What would happen if we give all archers a higher attack? Would the AI start to spam them in huge numbers only because they have a high attack and are cheap or would the army composition stay as it is now?

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

probably it will spam them.

There are several threads on here describing the best way to use missile troops. They are far from useless! Of course they are weaker against heavy infantry, but that doesnt make them bad - just like cavalry charging at spearmen head on and losing doesnt make them bad.

Try using a horse archer faction - you will soon learn how to get the best from your range troops, and have more heroic victories than you know what to do with...

The balance is just fine how it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

Battles lasting longer has more to do with lowered lethality of the various weapons. EB aims for historical accuracy in battles and in antiquity archers would not fight heavy infantry but missle troops and unarmoured skirmishers. That battlefield role they accomplish rather good. There is a historical reason, why in the Western Mediterranian there was not very much of an sophisticated archery tradition: in the West infantry tended to be better armoured (talking about Italy, Greece and Gaulk to a certain extent) and thus not that vulnerable to archers. Different combat doctrine.

---

Sorry, but that isn't really accurate in game terms (while I agree with the historical notes). If you look at RTW base files, you'll find EB "equiv" units have on average 2 or 3 times the Defence of those. Some of the weapons have lower attack, but most actually are higher. Its the extra armor, defence and higher morales that are really responsible for longer battles.

An average Archer in RTW is 7 missile attack (Elites are up to 11). In EB, Archers are generally around 3 missile attack. Because even Skirmishers have (compared to RTW) pretty decent armor/ and or shield/defence, Archers even struggle relatively vs them. If the point was to make Archers ineffective vs most units, then its been accomplished, with venom. I just think they've been pushed too far to the side of becoming useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewski

Sorry, but that isn't really accurate in game terms (while I agree with the historical notes). If you look at RTW base files, you'll find EB "equiv" units have on average 2 or 3 times the Defence of those. Some of the weapons have lower attack, but most actually are higher. Its the extra armor, defence and higher morales that are really responsible for longer battles.

---

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewski

An average Archer in RTW is 7 missile attack (Elites are up to 11). In EB, Archers are generally around 3 missile attack. Because even Skirmishers have (compared to RTW) pretty decent armor/ and or shield/defence, Archers even struggle relatively vs them. If the point was to make Archers ineffective vs most units, then its been accomplished, with venom. I just think they've been pushed too far to the side of becoming useless.

---

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

---

You partly right, that of course the lethality is much lower, but the higher def/armor and lower attack is also part of the equation too. It doesn't matter how
lethal an attack is, if it misses ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.



They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

---

On topic of archers:

I usually bring two to four units with me depending on the faction I'm playing and enemy. They always score 150-200 kills per battle (unless enemy brought an extremely heavy army) which puts them at the top of the list of killers after the battle. They also get experience very fast.

I position them on my flanks so they can shoot at enemy side. I also sometimes hold fire until enemy is in the right place so I don't waste ammo. In big battles there's usually no chance to manouvre them behind enemy line... but if enemy makes enough mistakes sometimes it's possible and in such cases they basically are screwed.

Finally, if enemy brings a very heavy army, I just shoot flaming arrows at them. Even morale tanks like Extraordinarii or Triarii after such a rain of fire start having second thoughts about the battle. It doesn't give many kills but the difference between enemy units that were shot with fire arrows and those who weren't is noticable.

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

---

Unfortunately, my Graphics can't really handle Huge Unit size adequately. Tried it for a while, but the mid battle freezes/ lack of control was too frustrating. I also found, that the camera doesn't really pan out far enough to get a proper view of the battlefield (with huge units), and if you put a 20 stack Army in a straight line, it covers virtually the whole battlefield ! Which kinda gives the idea, that the game wasn't really designed to be played with huge unit sizes.

So in short, No ;)

Archers are great. :) Also, just so you gus know, all missiles have 1 lethality meaning if it successfully strikes a unit, it dies. So its a little different balancing these guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

---

You are completely wrong about the calvary charges on that part, I hate using calvary and on large they are absolutely devastating if used right. Ranged units aren't too bad either, at least not the levy ones, like the Toxotai. And even Toxotai are useful early on as cheap range support.

blimey.... ive just fought a siege battle with those very same elite mak units attacking and they probably killed 4 to 1 against my light italian merc spearmen (the ones in white), routed a regular classic hoplite, some galatican swordmen etc etc. I won but there wasnt much left of my army. A force of those and some mak phalanx are pretty unbeatable. Brilliant morale. I'm playing as rome, seen off carthage and now against Macedonia its the first time in EB1.2 that i've been up against anything as good as those and the reformed phalanx. BTW, are phalanx units suposed to have such amazing attack stats? the ones I was fighting against had something like 19 attack and 30 something defense. And I have Camillian troops - at best :(. Can't be right can it?

they must be extremely experienced troops

I found a rather practical use for archers in which slingers don't excel that much
assault battles against wooden walls
they keep other missile troops away from your ramming men or better kill every skirmisher that thinks about throwing a javelin at my elephants
for some reason they shoot better at walls then slingers
its propably the thing that when you sling a rock in a bow and it lands it doen't have thet much force anymore
but an arrow stays pointy no matter if its slowed down by friction

It's due to the ballistics - whatever is thrown from a sling, it's trajectory is rather flat, thus anything on its way can stop the missile/bullet. Arrows fired by archers have their trajectory more peaked, thus are able to fly over the wall and hit the poor guys behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Stalin

It's due to the ballistics - whatever is thrown from a sling, it's trajectory is rather flat, thus anything on its way can stop the missile/bullet. Arrows fired by archers have their trajectory more peaked, thus are able to fly over the wall and hit the poor guys behind it.

---

well, it depends how far a slinger wants to shoot. i find it rather unrealistic how the game engine shows the slingers shooting stones over huge distances in straight line. gravity works on stones too... at such distances, unless aimed much higher, the stones would have hit the ground long time before reaching their target.

Nope; think about the stones/lead balls as ancient "armour-piercing, high-speed projectiles" - these being shot fro modern tank guns also have high speed and flat trajectory, while being able to fly on quite long distances (2-3 km) - due to high speed and horizontal acceleration.

I find the Peltastai Makedonikoi to be pretty good troops if you can afford them. I have found them to be a strong alternative to regular peltastai but due to their lower numbers, the unit seems to diminish quickly. I have not tried them in an assault role, such as storming walls. I usually use Agrianians for that. I'll have to try them out and see how they fare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

You are completely wrong about the calvary charges on that part, I hate using calvary and on large they are absolutely devastating if used right. Ranged units aren't too bad either, at least not the levy ones, like the Toxotai. And even Toxotai are useful early on as cheap range support.

---

I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

I find the Peltastai Makedonikoi to be pretty good troops if you can afford them. I have found them to be a strong alternative to regular peltastai but due to their lower numbers, the unit seems to diminish quickly. I have not tried them in an assault role, such as storming walls. I usually use Agrianians for that. I'll have to try them out and see how they fare.

---

Don't let yourself be misled by their name. They are not Peltastai. They are an elite assault infantry, the creme da la creme. I imagine they fare pretty bad as Peltastai.

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

@Cyclops. Here's a small explaining on the name, from the February preview:

Quote:

---

The need of heavy, steadfast and sufficiently mobile assault troops in the Hellenistic kingdoms was fulfilled by units like the Peltastai Makedonikoi. This unit's name ressembles that of the unarmoured and pelte-equipped Thracian skirmisher of the fifth century. However, these troops, aside from their name, have little in common with that extremely mobile light infantry unit. They were equipped with reinforced linen and leather thorakes, a heavy shield 60cm in diameter, richly adorned helmets, greaves, good quality blades and a clutch of javelins.

These units were richly adorned, and were made up of the best men the kingdom had to offer: noblemen's sons in their prime physical condition, relentlessly trained to become an elite special unit.

Mindful of the fact that such a heavily outfitted, highly trained unit could not run around the battlefield performing the simpler task of the older Peltastai, the Strategos of the Diadochoi utilized these troops in fortress assaults, where their javelins could pepper wall defenders and their equipment enabled them to fight in such lethal environments. They were also utilized to carry out special tasks, such as exploiting gaps in the enemy line and hitting the enemy hard from their rear or their flank. They were some of the best assault troops available, and could be used as such if the situation called for it.

However, these troops were not as heavily armoured as their cousins, the Hypaspistai, and while both were considered as Agema and belonged to the Basilike Ile or royal squadron, it should not be confused as to what function corresponds to who in the battlefield.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kO1LYrMa1w

Peltastai does not nominally refer to the shield, but to their extreme mobility. They evolved from being an elite skirmisher, to an extremely mobile assault troop.

Quote:

---

Don't let yourself be misled by their name. They are not Peltastai. They are an elite assault infantry, the creme da la creme. I imagine they fare pretty bad as Peltastai.

---

I would say the Hypaspistai are the "creme da la creme," and if they aren't petastai, why are they called peltastai? [1] At any rate, that is how I use them and they work quite well for that purpose. That is, harass enemy flanks with javelins then charge in to the flanks or rear. Any time I have tried to use them as "elite assault infantry" I find that even though they have nice stats their small unit size makes them less useful than many other units, especially considering their high price.

[1] Posted this before I read k raso's message. Interesting post.

I have always wondered why EB chose to make elite units have such a small number of men. Surely there would be less units of them in an army, but would a unit of them be so much smaller? I find it almost eliminates the purpose of recruiting them. Even though they are better troops, they are always so outnumbered it seems to make little difference in the end.

From the last unit description of p. makedonikoi I read (EB1.1) I would say that they are not meant as a stronger alternative to normal peltastai... Rather something like "differently equipped hypaspistai" or those predestined to serve with the argyraspides... Young macedonian aristocrats trained at their weapons from youth and doing not many other things... So, they would take part in skirmish operations (moderately) and then, after retreating behind own lines and closing of the opposing battle lines, attack the enemy where the fight is becoming decisive.
However, in-game and apart from unit descriptions, they don't really have the stamina to serve as normal peltastai, do they? I mean, they once* actually slaughtered a somatophylakes unit of my KH army while the s. were in def-mode, fully formed up and well rested. Had to pull them out to avoid loosing the general and got a lot of other units decimated before they finally routed... So they should be a "ultra-heavy-nuclear-tank" unit, not some light sprinters. If they had a lot of stamina AND such a high def value, I would consider them game-spoilingly overpowered (see similarity to the *removed* Vasci shock troops, anyone?).

*City battle in Pella, the p.makedonikoi (2x) were the only units blocking that particular avenue and I needed six units to get past them... And no, I was not using any psiloi against them.

That's full Makedonian martial glory. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

---

If you had read my post you'd see that Even though I hate using calvary, there is no effectiveness lost by being on large unit size, they are absolutly devastating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nachtmeister

*City battle in Pella, the p.makedonikoi (2x) were the only units blocking that particular avenue and I needed six units to get past them... And no, I was not using any psiloi against them.

---

I find their greatest weakness to be their small number of men due to the fact that they are easily flanked and surrounded without support. In narrow streets when one can only strike at them from the front, I magine they are quite good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

...
Peltastai does not nominally refer to the shield, but to their extreme mobility. They evolved from being an elite skirmisher, to an extremely mobile assault troop.

---

I'm not sure about this. They used a shield of similar dimension as the phalangites and also the latters was often called pelte although it had nothing to do with the light peltai of the psiloi peltasts. I think at least partly they were called peltastai because of the use of a pelte styled (but massive) shield. It would be consistent as the hypaspists were also called after their shield type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Stalin

Nope; think about the stones/lead balls as ancient "armour-piercing, high-speed projectiles" - these being shot fro modern tank guns also have high speed and flat trajectory, while being able to fly on quite long distances (2-3 km) - due to high speed and horizontal acceleration.

---

Slaists is absolutely correct in what he said, the trajectory of sling bullets is not realistically depicted. When you speak of high speed bullets, do you know about the velocity of a sling bullet? It is near 30 to 50 m/s (similar to arrows, compare this to a modern rifle bullet with 750 to 1000 m/s) and that is very low speed. And take into account: if you fire a rifle with a medium bullet (f.e. .308 Winchester, the former 7,62 Nato round, travelling at about 800 m/s v0) horizontally, the bullet will hit the ground in approx 500 m; you can only achieve the range of 3 km if you fire at an angle of about 35 degree in the air. Now try a flat trajectory with a sling ... ~;) For slings in general, look at www.slinging.org, there is a lot of nice information available about its performance or search for some of my boring lections about it on this forum. :beam:

Nevertheless meanwhile I play EB again with the original stats for slings, even if the ap stat is debatable (I had it removed prior and increased the attack). It's just more fun cause slingers so are different from archers and both have its purpose. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Stalin

Nope; think about the stones/lead balls as ancient "armour-piercing, high-speed projectiles" - these being shot fro modern tank guns also have high speed and flat trajectory, while being able to fly on quite long distances (2-3 km) - due to high speed and horizontal acceleration.

---

Well... a stone thrown from a sling would never achieve the speed of a gun-powdered bullet/cannon ball, especially, the modern ones...

As to the sling efficiency against armour: i think, there was a reason by middle ages no european/muslim army unit was specializing in throwing stones around anymore ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well... a stone thrown from a sling would never achieve the speed of a gun-powdered bullet/cannon ball, especially, the modern ones...

As to the sling efficiency against armour: i think, there was a reason by middle ages no european/muslim army unit was specializing in throwing stones around anymore ;)

---

Well yes, that would be the invention of the crossbow/gunpowder...

Seriously though, the armour worn by EB era troops is radically different than that of the medieval times. Sling shots are effectively a type of ranged blunt trauma, which the standard linen/leather armours of the time didnt protect against very effectively. Compare that to the high quality steel armours of medieval europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

I would say the Hypaspistai are the "creme da la creme," and if they aren't petastai, why are they called peltastai?

---

There is no accepted nomenclature for Hellenic unit types. Partly this is because we don't know that much about them and partly, indeed, because the terms appear to change meaning over time. Peltast is a perfect example. Originally, it must have referred to skirmishers carrying a Thracian-style crescent-shaped shield (the pelte). During the Persian wars it was used for akontistoi-style troops (levied, poorly equipped skirmishers/arrow-fodder), lateron it meant heavier, professional skirmishers. The term disappears from the record somewhere around Alexander's time (Alexander's skirmishers are indicated as Thracians or Agrianians), and when it appears again, it refers to the bodyguards of Hellenic kings. I also recall a reference of peltasts being the first to enter an besieged town. So the term was associated with both elite and assault units; I guess that's how the Peltastai Makedonike were postulated.

I don't know how professional, non-elite skirmishers were called during EB's time-frame, but I guess the team stuck with peltastai because that is the known term. In the mod the Peltastai Makedonike were originally called Pheraspidai (a conceptual name).

Well they are a 'Heavy Peltastai' sort of unit. I see Peltast as a generic loose order fighter who was armed with missiles that over time was adapted to heavier and heavier roles and eventually began to merge with normal heavy infantry. The only thing that really was unique about them was they still fought in loose order.

My guess is that they were sent in for very specific tasks like to take out units of heavy infantry that became disordered because they were the best at fighting in loose order. While the heavy peltastai might not be able to break a disciplined unit, if they were able to draw unit out of formation with their missiles and engage soldiers in 1 on 1 they would win because of their superior experience fighting outside of a formation.

Probably the very reason why peltastai were adapted into heavier and heavier roles was that they were able to draw heavy infantry out of formation which was very important fighting in the Hellenic world(if you go to western europe where people fought in looser formation, you notice that there aren't as many elite heavy skirmisher types) with phalangites and whatnot. However, the lighter peltastai couldn't exploit that effect and have to wait for the commands to notice and have the heavier formation fighters to roll in. So hellenic tacticians started training and equipping men that could on the spot leverage their ablity to draw men out of battle order without the aid of the heavy infantry. Eventually they organized elite corps of infantry that could do this so they could employ that effect in a extremely reliable manner. That's my theory anyways.

Back on track: You should use them to explot parts of the enemy line that are already falling apart since RTW can't simulate 'disordering. '

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

I'm not sure about this. They used a shield of similar dimension as the phalangites and also the latters was often called pelte although it had nothing to do with the light peltai of the psiloi peltasts. I think at least partly they were called peltastai because of the use of a pelte styled (but massive) shield. It would be consistent as the hypaspists were also called after their shield type.

---

It's a case of the shield changing but keeping the same name. Classical peltasts used the classic pelte which seems to have been introduced by the Thracians- a light, crescent-shaped shield. The form apparently changed throughout the Classical period, so that when Iphicrates made his reforms, his men were called peltasts after their shields (according to Diodorus), which at that point (early 4th c. BC) may still have been crescent shaped (but that all depends on how you interpret Diodorus' comment, as he calls them "symmetrical"), but were otherwise quite heavily armed. In the Hellenistic period, pelte came to refer to the so-called Macedonian shield, which was the small, shallow, rimless shield about 60 cm in diameter, as it probably resembled what the pelte turned into at the end of the Classical period. Units bearing this shield - phalangites and some elite units - therefore came to be called peltastai or peltophoroi.

And as far as I know "peltastes" was also more or less a synonym for "mercenary" in the 3rd and 2nd century what gives ground to many speculations about gear and fighting. :beam:

A question: when were the hypaspistai called peltastai? A hypaspist for me is someone "under/behind the aspis", the elite unit was named after the big shield which they often used instead of the smaller phalangite pelte. I didn't know that this changed later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

A question: when were the hypaspistai called peltastai? A hypaspist for me is someone "under/behind the aspis", the elite unit was named after the big shield which they often used instead of the smaller phalangite pelte. I didn't know that this changed later.

---

FYI: Hypaspistai means "guards". Consider it the Greek equivalent of Praetorians (in the original meaning of soldiers-who-guard-the-general's-tent).

A guard? You mean in the 3rd century? Ok. But earlier it was imho more an elite taxis for special tasks and the connection between phalanx and cavalry. I think, hypaspistes comes from hyper aspides (or similar; don't get upset, my Greek is a bit rusty :sweatdrop:) -under the (aspis)shield- and refers to the shields used.

Then: were the hypaspistai later also called peltastai (perhaps when the term "hypaspistai" became just a synonym for "guards")? I ask this because it was said in the thread and I can't still believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

A guard? You mean in the 3rd century? Ok. But earlier it was imho more an elite taxis for special tasks and the connection between phalanx and cavalry. I think, hypaspistes comes from hyper aspides - under the (aspis)shield (don't get upset, my Greek is a bit rusty :sweatdrop:)- and refers to the shields used.

Then: were the hypaspistai later also called peltastai (perhaps when the term "hypaspistai" became just a synonym for "guards")? I ask this because it was said in the thread and I can't still believe it.

---

Hypaspistes means guard. Ergo: hypaspistai (plural) means guards. That's all I meant.

Hehe, your replies are too fast for my edits. :beam:

I don't think that "hypaspistes" meant "guard" in the 4th century, at least not from the beginning. But I will try to check it first in my dictionaries.