weird-ass units

i came across the Minimal-greek-mod today. i saw some nice, but weird, units.

The mod agrued that hypaspistai werent phalangites or hoplites. due to their versatily role threw history the might very well have changed since Alexander (the time in wich they were prett 'clearly' hoplites or phalangites) so they used Hypaspistai asskirmishes-infantry and shock-inf. having 4 javs and a short sword and a big hoplon. there even was a Corinthian hypaspistai. wich was comparable with the spartan hoplite (in guality)

they talked abotu greeks using thessalian-cavalry. why i dont doubt they sometimes used it. but i was under teh impression the 'allied hellenes' never used a cavalry arm.

and last but not least:Krypteia....
these where young men recruited by the temple of Nike (.....) and where a step up from Thureophoroi. they were in smaller number and masters in stealth and ambushing.

whats EB's take on these units? will soem be featured? or are they crap and not true?



doubting the last part...
the site also states that alexandersd Hypaspistai slowly became known as SIlver shields (argyraspidai). so is this not true, or is EB using two units for what was one?(doubt EB is wrong..)
another thing, direct quote:

Quote:

---

They were 10,000 strong and fought as the right flank of the phalanx for example at Raphia under Antiochus III. This is the unit that was re-equipped as Roman legionaries under Antiochus IV (as represented in RTW - good research, CA).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

The mod agrued that hypaspistai werent phalangites or hoplites. due to their versatily role threw history the might very well have changed since Alexander (the time in which they were pretty 'clearly' hoplites or phalangites) so they used Hypaspistai as skirmishes-infantry and shock-inf. having 4 javs and a short sword and a big hoplon. there even was a Corinthian hypaspistai. wich was comparable with the spartan hoplite (in guality)

---

No one knows exactly how Hypaspistai fought. We do know that they perform different roles throughout their existence, and so, they should have been tactically flexible, capable of acting in the both roles you have written here. We know, for example, that some of Alexander's troops (namely Hypaspistai and Hetaroi) wore less armour (or lighter armour) in peace keeping campaigns or low-intensity conflicts. We also know that Macedonian phalangites, were trained to fight as peltasts as well as fighting with the sarissa at some point their history.

However, the game engine cannot properly represent this, and so we have to stick with what was their main role in battle, being a hoplite-type of soldier, but armoured in bronze/mail and good with a sword (at this point probably a longsword adopted from the Galatians). Oh and let's not forget that in the game's period, Hypaspistai were almost extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

they talked abotu greeks using thessalian-cavalry. why i dont doubt they sometimes used it. but i was under teh impression the 'allied hellenes' never used a cavalry arm.

---

Thessalians were greek themselves, not Macedonians. They were subject to Macedonia for a long time though. Also, the polis used cavalry, just not in large numbers and certainly not in a decisive manner. Mainly because of terrain and economical reasons (no large land-owner aristocracy that existed in the northern areas, like Macedonia or Thessaly, who could support a heavy-cavalry arm).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

and last but not least:Krypteia....
these where young men recruited by the temple of Nike (.....) and where a step up from Thureophoroi. they were in smaller number and masters in stealth and ambushing.

---

No idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

doubting the last part...
the site also states that alexandersd Hypaspistai slowly became known as SIlver shields (argyraspidai).

---

The silver shields were initially a veteran division of the Hypaspistai, slowly they "just" became veteran/elite phalangites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

another thing, direct quote:

Quote:

---

They were 10,000 strong and fought as the right flank of the phalanx for example at Raphia under Antiochus III. This is the unit that was re-equipped as Roman legionaries under Antiochus IV (as represented in RTW - good research, CA).

---

---

They are refering to Thorakitai. Immitation legionaires did not exist in that form.

The only ones that might be considered as them, would be Numidian troops, trained by Roman advisors (who fared poorly....) and Galatians rearmed/reorganized to fight in the Roman manner, by Roman commanders.


BTW...care to post some links?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

and last but not least:Krypteia....
these where young men recruited by the temple of Nike (.....) and where a step up from Thureophoroi. they were in smaller number and masters in stealth and ambushing.

whats EB's take on these units? will soem be featured? or are they crap and not true?

---

They were the most ruthless Spartan youths who were selected to go on night raids into Helot territory and cull those Helots who either became the most physically dangerous or most likely to cause problems by their actions. It was legal for them to kill Helots at will and they were especially feared. They were certainly dangerous, but they were basically a bunch of older teens who killed non-combatants in their sleep. I've not seen any evidence that they were used in any battles or even in any "covert" state missions other than killing slaves. I have no idea if they were still around in any form by the early third century BC, *but* the chief reason for their existence was mostly gone by that time -- the suppression of the Messenian Helots (since Messenia had been freed from Spartan control by the Thebans and remained at liberty thanks to the efforts of the peoples of Megalopolis and the rest of the Peloponnese). They will not be units in EB. Hope this has been helpful! ~:)

Oh! Those guys! Didn't link Kriptès with Krypteia...the Spartan death squad...of course...duh...:square:

ok, thnx, everyone.

I got a link, its https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46285
but where to donwload it: TWcenter..~:( wich is down...
but will thessalian cav be available as a regional unit?
is there evidence of the kripteia being thureophoroi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Thessalians were greek themselves, not Macedonians. They were subject to Macedonia for a long time though. Also, the polis used cavalry, just not in large numbers and certainly not in a decisive manner. Mainly because of terrain and economical reasons (no large land-owner aristocracy that existed in the northern areas, like Macedonia or Thessaly, who could support a heavy-cavalry arm).

---

Although I dont want to interfere in the discussion I have to correct a false statement: The Makedones were Hellenic without ANY proved cultural distinction with the rest of the hellenes.

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerby

and last but not least:Krypteia....
these where young men recruited by the temple of Nike (.....) and where a step up from Thureophoroi. they were in smaller number and masters in stealth and ambushing.

---

What Teleklos has said about this is true. First of all, the Krypteia were Spartans. Second of all, the Krypteia were not some elite commando units. They were simply the secret police. The Gestapo, the StaSi, the Homeland Security, the.. you name it. "Krypteia" means "hidden". Much like the Japanese Shinobi, they kept an eye on potential troublemakers. The purpose was to quell any helot uprising before it could even start to grow. So most of their activities revolved around observation and monitoring. They would go to the suspected helots during the night, drag them out - which interrupted their sleep - and simply kill them.

The Krypteia were also used as a strategic intelligence service, and as couriers carrying secret documents. The Spartans had a staff-shaped device for decoding encrypted messages. The device was called the "skytale." It was a stick wrapped with narrow strips of papyrus, leather, or parchment. The message was written on the wrapping; then the strip was removed and passed to the messenger. Only when it was rewound around a stick with the exact same diameter as the skytale could the message be deciphered.

http://www.ryanannhunter.com/webimages/skytale.jpg
http://www.sics.se/~fredrik/telesys/...L09/img008.GIF

Here is an example from Diodorus:
'The skuta/lh was a staff used for writing in code. The Lacedaemonians had two round staves of identical size, the one kept at Sparta, the other in possession of commanders abroad. A strip of paper was rolled slantwise around the staff and the dispatch written lengthwise on it; when unrolled the dispatch was unintelligible, but rolled slantwise round the commander's skytale it could be read. Even if Gylippus had found the dispatch he could not have read it.'

-you may consider it a primitive "enigma" machine. ~:)


The Krypteia was also a period in the learning experience that kids of -proper- Spartan citizens would have to go through. At the age of 7, you began training for military service. At the age of 10, you would go through a period of "krypteia" where you were temporarily banned from the city and forced to live in the forest alone. The purpose of this was to teach the children to become self-sufficient in the wild, and to become devious and clever thieves. Because the only way for them to get food was to steal from the city - or to hunt prey - which you were unlikely to do at 10. And so, you had to steal, but if you got caught, you would get a nasty lashing or some other form of punishment. The point was that you WOULD steal, but you should not be caught stealing..

And so the 'Krypteia' was 3 things:
1) A secret police murdering people who gave the faintest hint of dissention.
2) Military intelligence service.
3) A hardcore "boy scout" period at the age of 10.

They were most certainly not battlefield ninjas. :bow:

well, in the mod. they are a unit of 20 men. dressed as thureophori, and can hide anywhere. so I can see how they got to that, but its just not completly right. but this has taught me a lot. thansk guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Although I dont want to interfere in the discussion I have to correct a false statement: The Makedones were Hellenic without ANY proved cultural distinction with the rest of the hellenes.

Hellenes

---

That's irrelevant. The southern hellenes thought of themselves as greeks and thought of their northern cousins as macedonians....barbarians even. The fact that they were not culturaly distinct has no relevance as to how they felt about each other.

Yeah, Peloponesian and Attic greeks actually despised Makedonians as barbaric, rich goat keepers. Just read Demosthenes' "Phillipics" to see how much they both hated and feared anything coming from Pella, and how they were even tempted of allying with the so-hated Persians before becoming part of the Makedonian dominion.

And, three....two....one.... (shields eyes, pauses, waits)

Don't worry I won't go into another of these discussions. They are like the flue, they come in seasons. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

And, three....two....one.... (shields eyes, pauses, waits)

---

:laugh:

is it going to get bloody?

I believe we were considering Galatian imitation legionarres for a Roman regional, as the Galatians had actual imitation legionarres, though they tended to use Celtic equipment. They were more or less just organized in the Roman manner, but Celtic heavy infantry equipment was already fairly similar to Roman equipment, aside from the sword, though Celts used a number of types of shortswords and longswords. I do hope we can include that unit, it'd be pretty neat. I don't know enough about the Numidians to comment.

The Theurophoroi are sometimes mistaken by wargamers as imitation legionarres. Why I don't know; they seem to be more an imitation (if of anything) of Celtic soldiers (with the adoption of Celtic equipment and such).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

The Theurophoroi are sometimes mistaken by wargamers as imitation legionarres. Why I don't know; they seem to be more an imitation (if of anything) of Celtic soldiers (with the adoption of Celtic equipment and such).

---

On the same basis that one could call non-Romans equiped like legionaires "imitation legionaires", one could argue that legionaires were "imitation Celts" ~;)

Roman legionarres weren't that similar to Celtic warriors. They used Celtic equipment, to an extent, but also Celtiberian and other equipment. Greeks in this period adopted more than equipment. They had men who fought like Celts did. That's actual imitation. Just looking like something or using the same equipment doesn't make an imitation; it also means operation.

Which is precisely why "imitation legionaires" is a misnomer ~:cool:

Quote:

---

And, three....two....one.... (shields eyes, pauses, waits)

---

My thoughts exactly... :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Yeah, Peloponesian and Attic greeks actually despised Makedonians as barbaric, rich goat keepers. Just read Demosthenes' "Phillipics" to see how much they both hated and feared anything coming from Pella, and how they were even tempted of allying with the so-hated Persians before becoming part of the Makedonian dominion.

---

Well as far as Dimosthenis who was a POLITICAL ENEMY of Phillip II and whos mother was SCYTHIAN his "speeches" are under heavy critisism and are quite weak...
Some SOURCES and quotes

The Persian king Mardonius says : (From the Histories of Herodotus Book 7, Paragraph 9.1-2).


"We know the manner of their battle- we know how weak their power is; already have we subdued their children who dwell in our country, the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians. I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle. [...] Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars, as I learn, and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly [...]. Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. The Greek custom, then, is not good; and when I marched as far as the land of Macedonia, it had not come into their minds to fight."

The Sicilian historian Diodoros says in his history about King Philip of Macedonia (Diodoros, Historical Library 16.95.1-2)
"Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.

Isocratis, one of the most impotant orators of ancient Greece says in his speach "To Philip" addressed to King Philip II of Macedonia (Paragaraph 127):


"Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Greece your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned."

Aeschines (On the Embassy 2.32) gives evidence of the Macedonian king Amyntas taking part at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks:

"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".

Pausanias writes in his book "Description of Greece" (10.3.3):

"The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians."
and also in his book "Phokis" (8,2 & 4):
"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "

I leave to the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Hellenes

Then how do you explain the totally different styles of warfare? And I really don't get what your saying... most of them are either allies of Macedon (thus just as biased as Dimosthenis, and didn't really have much of a choice). And if Dimosthenis being half Scythian discredits him, then where does that leave a Persian King?)
Besides, wasn't Macedon exlcuded from many of the wars and treaties of the other city states?

And just out of curosity, why is it always the foriegn historians that are wrong, about Macedon as well as Greek language and other things? Are Greeks always right about the land they live in's history, and everyone else is obviously wrong? If so, why?

In any case, no need to defend the "greekness" of a people that lived at the same place you do. Especially as that was 2300 years ago. The ethnicities who live in Macedonia today are quite dissimilar to the phenotypes present in Macedonia at the time of Alexandros and Philippos. Anthropological studies of skulls (and of course the odd marble busts), show that at a certain point in history, foreign ethnicities displaced the inhabitants of Macedon. This was the Slavs and the Bulgars who started to move in. Then the Huns, Ostrogoths etc. Don't pretend the original Macedonians are somehow in kinship with you, since that is not given.

In any case, prior to Philippos and Alexandros, the Greeks excluded the Macedonians from the "Greek" label. It doesn't matter if the Macedonians thought of themselves as Greeks.. We all know they spoke the same language, in different dialects, but the subjective opinion of the Greeks was such that they considered the Macedonians as 'barbarians' - not entirely accepted into the 'greek' club.

Today's Greeks also certaintly have different ethnicities mixed in.

Somehow, "Pandora's Box" keeps coming to mind.... ~;)

Do we really have to start this? Is it so difficult for anyone to see how greek mentality of these days with city states worked? And if those legendary allien Mcedonians were convinietly (*sp?) no greek where are their scriptures where are their unic monuments? Why all including a resent calendar find are in greek language and has the same customs? About dialects thats something common even today! Try to speak with a highlander of Crete! if you understand anything write me!

50 years of propaganda and an american recognition are not enough to erase history. Thats my opinion and you all know what i mean. Lets end it here.

KHELVAN! LOCK DOWN THIS THREAD QUICKLY! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! :help:


Seriously, let's not start this, please. Every thread here is very interesting until all the fights start. Then we end up with incredibly long, obscure refrences, fights about 3,000-year old history, and unbelieveably irritating mudslinging. And in the end, it doesn't accomplish everything, because everyone ends up either pissed of and unconvinced or bored and irritated. So stop it now, for the sake of everyone else here.

Yeah, and then I feel left out, because nobody cares who lived around Warsaw 2000 years ago and I don't have anybody to fight with :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

Yeah, and then I feel left out, because nobody cares who lived around Warsaw 2000 years ago and I don't have anybody to fight with :)

---

You are just not looking hard enough, eadingas... believe me ~;) If you're really itching for it so badly, just let me know and I'll find you something. And if 2000 years ago just doesn't work, just look closer to our times. Or further back. Whatever. You'll always find something.

And now a feeble attempt to steer this back into historical discussion. IIRC, during the Lamian war the Thessalians siwtched allegiances and fought with the coalition of Greek cities against their former Macedonian allies/overlords. Apparently the Thessalian cavalry gave their Macedonian counterpart a good run for their money too.

Well, I don't see any followers of Great Slavianism around here, and they'd be the only ones who could have anything to say on this matter, with their fantasies about ancient Slavs fighting Roman armies etc. :)

The most weird point is that im speaking with quotes from various sources while others present purely personal opinions without backing them with evidence...

From "A History of Macedonia"
by Malcom Errington (Philipps-Universitat in Marburg, Germany)
University of California Press, 1993

Page 3
"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names may be regarded nowadays as certain."

Page 4
"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II."

From "Alexander's empire"
by John Pentland Mahaffy (University of Dublin, Ireland)
G Putnam's sons, London, 1881

Page 8
"... for with Alexander the stage of Greek influence spread across the world. "

From "The Western Experience"
by Mortimer Chambers (University of California),
Raymond Grew (University of Michigan),
David Herlihy (Harvard University),
Theodore Rabb (Princeton University)
and Isser Woloch (Columbia University)
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2nd edition , 1997

Page 79
"THE MONARCHS OF MACEDONIA:
Macedonia (or Macedon) was an ancient, somewhat backward kingdom in northen Greece. Its emergence as a Hellenic power was due to a resourceful king, Philip II (359-336), whose career has been unjustly overshadowed by the deeds of his son, Alexander the Great".


But I have one last question: Who was allowed to participate in the OLYMPIC GAMES?
...Because Makedones did participate...

Hellenes

@hellenes

Quote:

---

The most weird point is that im speaking with quotes from various sources while others present purely personal opinions without backing them with evidence...

---

Citing "quotes from various sources" is one thing, but as far as this is some kind of “evidence” from you part is quite another, since all these “quotes” are, IMHO, ambiguous.

Quote:

---

"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names may be regarded nowadays as certain."

---

saying that “may be regarded nowadays as certain” is not exactly what one might call certain..

Quote:

---

"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II."

---

unless people are either famous or notorious, no one has much to say about them.. There is not really that much said about the Macedonians in the few centuries of previous Greek history anyway..

Quote:

---

"... for with Alexander the stage of Greek influence spread across the world. "

---

since Alexander was under “Greek influence” himself, that’s hardly surprising..

Quote:

---

Macedonia (or Macedon) was an ancient, somewhat backward kingdom in northen Greece. Its emergence as a Hellenic power was due to a resourceful king, Philip II (359-336), whose career has been unjustly overshadowed by the deeds of his son, Alexander the Great".

---

it was a "somewhat backward kingdom in- what we today call- northern Greece", as for “Its emergence as a Hellenic power “ well.. one usually trades “upwards” culturally..

Quote:

---

But I have one last question: Who was allowed to participate in the OLYMPIC GAMES?
...Because Makedones did participate...

---

IIRC, "Macedones did not participate" per se, only few members of the royal family did and that was not always a “given” with the then “Olympic Committee”.. I am sure you know what I mean..

By the way, I am Greek. ~;)

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_megas

@hellenes


Citing "quotes from various sources" is one thing, but as far as this is some kind of “evidence” from you part is quite another, since all these “quotes” are, IMHO, ambiguous.
saying that “may be regarded nowadays as certain” is not exactly what one might call certain..

unless people are either famous or notorious, no one has much to say about them.. There is not really that much said about the Macedonians in the few centuries of previous Greek history anyway..

since Alexander was under “Greek influence” himself, that’s hardly surprising..


it was a "somewhat backward kingdom in- what we today call- northern Greece", as for “Its emergence as a Hellenic power “ well.. one usually trades “upwards” culturally..


IIRC, "Macedones did not participate" per se, only few members of the royal family did and that was not always a “given” with the then “Olympic Committee”.. I am sure you know what I mean..

By the way, I am Greek. ~;)

O_Stratigos :bow:

---

Γεια σου πατριωτη!!!

Now either the sources I quote are falsified or I cannot understand what do you mean by "ambiguous".
As for the Olympic games if the Royal family was participating how that makes them not Hellenic?
My position is same as Idomenease's: 50 years of propaganda and an american recognition are not enough to erase history.

Hellenes

I think there is some confusion here because it is probably more accurate to say that the macedonians became hellenised. around the time of phillip and alexander.

it is true that the southern greeks thought of the macedonians as a bit backward, this is because they were early on (500BC ish)

however, phillip, when he was a young man was a prisoner of the Thebans and it is thought that it was in thebes that he learnt about hoplite warfare - particularly with pikes - as it was at the time of the thebans beating the spartans (leuctra?) that he was a prisoner there.

upon his release he went back to macedonia and raised a new hellenic style army, bound it into a real kingdom and then conquered all of southern greece (essentially).

so I think that this is the stage at which the macedonians are transformed from an irritating northern border nation into a massive power that the southern greeks must now recognise as macedon had just conquered them. They were hugely powerful and so of course they would have a say in how things were run in greece it was no longer possible to ignore them.

suffice to say - ithink it is more accurate to say that hellenism was spread to the north by phillip and then all the way to the east by alexander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

As for the Olympic games if the Royal family was participating how that makes them not Hellenic?

---

Because they forced their admission? ~;)

Nero also pariticipated in them. Was he Greek? ~:rolleyes:

Olympic games were the best political instrument to get admitted as Greek and avoid rebellion against Macedonian rule, the same than participating in the Delphi rites. Philip and Alexander knew too well. So the Macedonian owners of Greece decided to participate in them. Who was to oppose them? ~;)

And I bet they even won many crowns there... ~D

Of course, they were completely hellenized by then. But to be hellenic is not the same than being a hellene. As being Spanish-American and speak Spanish doesn't convert you into a Spaniard, despite cultural coincidences.

Maybe the fact that they were Dorians makes them as greek as the spartans or corinthians? Thats why they collaborated during pelloponesian war. Maybe cause king Alexandros warned the greeks of Mardonius plans the night before Platea battle, explaining his risky act as care for his compatriots?
Many speak of the dialect. Do you know that spartans talked differently also?
You know Η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ is in attic Η ΤΗΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ. and thats a minor difference. There are differences even in syntax. Dorian passages were my school nightmares trust me.
Do you know that Kime Eboic greeks had slightly different alphabet (some letters) and its the one latin comes from?
Do you know that Makedones comes from makednoi meaning tall men?

Should i add that every bit of scripture is in greek and every bit of art also?
They were ''hellenized'' during Philips or Alexanders years when they were superpower of Balkans? Isnt that crazy? Why they didnt spread their ''macedonian culture'' instead of greek? Romans had many ellements from greece but they spread roman civilization.

Greek problem with unity is a known issue through time. Its our bane if you may say. All the ''facts'' of macedonian non-greek people are based on Demosthenes. Nobody cares that those speeches had Athenian propaganda agenda.

The fact that macedon was backward that doesnt make it non greek. Plataeans were poor also they even had old fashion shields deriving from the homeric 8shaped ones. That makes them non greek?

I think that the whole issue has gone too far. If anyone wants to really argue then bring the big guns and so many ancient passages and finds that will shut me up. Till then.....
:book:

krypteia's were the spartan deathsquad. not neccisarily skirmishers.

i just made a cool unit. i was so annoyed by the eggy archers (they had 10 in every army) that i changed them. now the act like legionares, but instead of pilums they do it with bows.

They throw bows? :)

wow, that impresive. and the shock-unit throws ever bigger bows? does it bend on impact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

They throw bows? :)

---

it's intimidation.. psychological warfare, if you will. basically they are saying, "we're such badasses, that we'll give you our weapons, and still kill you!"

they don't throw bows, wat ta fak (please don't warn me for this).

they fire the arrows with the bows (you guys still following me) and then charge the enemy. hey that's smart. now i won't be showered by 10 eggy elite archers for 400 volleys long but for just 40.

Yeah, the number of arrows just has to be reduced ~;)

Why are the archers 'eggy'?

Is this some form of Classical warfare that passed me by or what?

Idomeneas, I was under the impression that Macedoians had a lot of Illyrian and Thracian blood as well as Dorian...

Quote:

---

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."

Arthur Koestler

---

@hellenes

Γεια σου και ‘σενα πατριωτη!

I did not mean to imply anything about your sources, what I said was that the quotes that you posted where ambiguous, in the sense that they could be taken to mean something else as well, i.e. what I myself wrote.

@Idomeneas

Bringing big guns and various sources means: one cites sources supporting one’s point of view, then the other cites sources supporting their own point of view, and on and on.. meanwhile all these “sources” are mostly motivated by political, nationalistic or monetary reasons or is simply someone’s - no matter how eminent a person- point of view. In the end, sadly, no one will change their adopted positions not even by one iota..
Also the “bane of the Greeks” IMHO, is not so much what you said it is, but rather two other things ; that we rest far too much on moldy laurels and our persistent attitude to blame others for our own misfortunes, especially the British for the first half of the 20th century and then the Americans after that..

Anyway, as others said earlier, this is hardly the place for such a topic-debate, this thread is about: “weird ass units” ~D

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous_joe

Why are the archers 'eggy'?

Is this some form of Classical warfare that passed me by or what?

---

eggy = Egyptian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Idomeneas, I was under the impression that Macedoians had a lot of Illyrian and Thracian blood as well as Dorian...

---

well i cant be sure about anyones family tree but what is important is that the main population was of greek origin. Foe example Themistocles mother Avrotonon was thracian that doesnt make him non greek.

Anyway my frustration derives from the fact that when somebody tries to make some crazy theory to excuse his existance mostly in political and geographic level (you know who imean) i feel obligated to respond.
Some years before theories of non greek macedonians would be laughed at. Now they are fashionable. I wonder why. Anyway i leave it here as it is not this threads or forum's area. If you like to further discuss it we can talk it over in backroom ~:)

Alexander's mother Epirot, so the Greeks were happy to call him a barbarian.


PS. thanks for explaining eggy. ~;)

greeks were happy to call anything that wasnt born in southern Greece Barbarians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous_joe

Alexander's mother Epirot, so the Greeks were happy to call him a barbarian.


PS. thanks for explaining eggy. ~;)

---

Well to be true that couldnt be an issue even in ancient standaeds cause Molossoi were as it was believed descendents of Neoptolemos son of Achilleus. They were Pelasgoi in origin and that makes them more ancient than anybody except the Arcadians. Anyway the whole issue during ancient times started as a propaganda trying to boost Athenian spirit and offcourse the eternal localistic rivals between state-cities. How ironic that their own Iphicratians turned back as boomerang in the form of Macedonian phalanx.

For the view of Epeirotes as barbaroi, we can thank/blame the eighth and seventh century Greek colonists. When they arrived with their prior colonial experience and maritime focus and polis centered life, they branded the Epeirotes as barbarians. Maybe blame Thucydides in this too - his claim that the Aitolians armed themselves "just like barbarians" (1.5.3-6.2) influenced other people. The Aitolians, he said, were similar to the "Ozoloan Locrians, the Acarnanians, and those in the continental lands (i.e., Epeiros)". But Thucydides isn't making stuff up entirely. The reasons for his viewpoint probably had a lot to do with the colonists who settled near the Aitolians and (by sea) related to other peoples their encounters with people who certainly didn't see eye-to-eye with them. He sees things from the point of view of the people of Ambracia and Amphilochian Argos, the inhabitants of these colonies. And it's very interesting to note that he says that the people of Amphilochian Argos which really was not a colony, but a much older city with a Trojan war era foundation story, needed citizens, and asked some of the people of Ambracia (which was a more recent colony) to come in and join them. Thucydides says that "adopting the Ambracians' language, they became Hellenes". It was not the blood but the change of language and colonization that mattered to him. Thucydides would have classified the non-Hellenized Amphilochians as barbarians, but those with the culture and language suddenly are Hellenes. So does it even matter what Thucydides thought anyway? What did the people of Epeiros think? They believed the nostoi stories that Pyrrhus/Neoptolemos was the ancestor of their ancient (Molossian) kings.

I'm not saying that there are any simple answers. Or that I have them, but neither way is it clear cut and either way it all depends on the point of view of whoever seems to be talking at the moment. If people want to go by blood or by customs or by whatever, they're likely to get different answers in different places. If someone asks me were the Epeirotes greek, I'll just say "sorta" and smile. It will invariably lead to a "why?", which will then lead to a much more accurate and interesting discussion of the nuances, and the more folks know, the better. ~:)