Greek names for stuff (Q?)

[chairman]

Ok, so I have a new group of units that I'm working on. They're the Galatians that were hired by the Ptolemies and Seleukids and settled as klerouchoi. I want an infantry and a cavalry unit with another agema unit for the Ptolemies. I used some of the Ptolemaic units from EB as the name basis. Here is what I have put together so far:

Galatikoi Klerouchoi (Galation infantry swordsmen essentially the same as in EB)

Galatikoi Klerouchikon Hippeon (Galatian cavalry as a mix between the EB Galatian cavalry and hellenistic medium cavalry)

Galatikoi Klerouchikon Agema (Elite Galatian guard unit serving under the Pharoah utilizing some hellenic equipment but not pikes)

The thing that I realized is that the 'ikon and 'eon endings designate a specific unit like a regiment rather than general term for a troop type. This is fine for the agema unit, but I'm wondering for cavalry unit, if I want to be a more general title, should I change it to "Galatikoi Klerouchoi Hippeis"?

I'm also thinking of introducing a Celtic-influenced Hellenistic unit called Hippothureophoroi. Would this name be correct?

Any advice or suggestions is welcome. Thanks in advance.

Chairman

[chairman]

Now I've got some Thrakian units that I'm working on. As I already mentioned, my form of peltests are more based on the 5th rather than 3rd century. So what might I call more armored, short rhompaia-wielding peltasts of the later period? I used the placeholder of Thrakioi Thureophoroi, but that seems more like a spear armed unit than rhompaia armed. And I'm hesitant to use a Thrakioi Drepanai for the reason that this is almost only scythe armed rather than rhomphaia, javelin and pelta equipped. Any suggestions welcome.

The other unit I'm working on is an Odrysian guard cavalry unit. So far I have it as Odrysai Basilikon Hippeon. It would be a medium armored unit of simple short-lancers with-or-without javelins.

Chairman

[keravnos]

Ok, so I have a new group of units that I'm working on. They're the Galatians that were hired by the Ptolemies and Seleukids and settled as klerouchoi. I want an infantry and a cavalry unit with another agema unit for the Ptolemies. I used some of the Ptolemaic units from EB as the name basis. Here is what I have put together so far:

Galatikoi Klerouchoi (Galation infantry swordsmen essentially the same as in EB)

Galatikoi Klerouchikon Hippeon (Galatian cavalry as a mix between the EB Galatian cavalry and hellenistic medium cavalry)

Galatikoi Klerouchikon Agema (Elite Galatian guard unit serving under the Pharoah utilizing some hellenic equipment but not pikes)

The thing that I realized is that the 'ikon and 'eon endings designate a specific unit like a regiment rather than general term for a troop type. This is fine for the agema unit, but I'm wondering for cavalry unit, if I want to be a more general title, should I change it to "Galatikoi Klerouchoi Hippeis"?

I'm also thinking of introducing a Celtic-influenced Hellenistic unit called Hippothureophoroi. Would this name be correct?

Any advice or suggestions is welcome. Thanks in advance.

Chairman

Some advice on the names if I may,
Galatikoi Klerouchoi Hippeis would be correct here

and
Agema Klerouchon Galaton would be the correct way to transilterate...
ΑΓΗΜΑ ΚΛΗΡΟΥΧΩΝ ΓΑΛΑΤΩΝ which would be as the Ptolemaioi would speak it.

Hippothureophoroi would be stretching it a bit. I haven't seen any of that in any ancient texts I have read, used like that. Thureophoroi hippeis would suffice I think.

Oh, and it is, "Hieros Lochos" not "Heiros lochos".

I absolutely love the concept you and your brother are cooking up. Best of luck with it.

I will respond on the Marines thread in a while, just gathering up some stuff, as all of this discussion does bring some hidden gems into the surface.

[chairman]

Thanks; on the Galatians, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Also thanks for correcting the Hieros Lochos.

Yeah, for the Galatian cavalry, that's what I thought. And the AKG sounds good too.

This is a bit of a different question. In the current Materia Celtica thread, Elmetiacos made the proposition that the galatian units should be renamed in Galatian Keltic instead of celtic derived greek (for non-klerouchoi galatians in galatia). Would using greek like EB does be acceptable? Or should I ask one of the celtic members on this? Any input on this is welcome.

About our game, I actually think that the concept is older than EB itself, since the original concept was developed by my younger brother back in the days of MTW. One funny quirk is that since neither of us has the ability to start programming, we have had to concept the game while we watch major companies like CA implement ideas that we had thought of. That's not to say they "stole" any of our stuff, LOL , just that we feel unable to actually use our research. However, it has given me time to build up quite a database of ideas and units.

One of the things that I've considered while playing EB is the idea that under Philip II and Alexander, the pez were closer to EB's deuteroi than the pezhetairoi, since Philip's phalangites were inspired by his cousin(?), Iphikrates. From what I have researched, the Makedonian armies only gained heavy armor late in Alexander's reign and under the Diadochi, leading to slower, clunkier battle tactics. Several units in EB were affected by this: Peltastai, Prodromoi, Pezhetairoi, Thureophoroi, Hypaspitai, and Hetairoi.

EB has given me such inspiration since it is the result, not of major gaming corporations, but of genuinely enthusiastic fans! There is still hope for our game.

Chairman

[chairman]

Does anyone know what to call the Persian national units that Alexander organized along Makedonian lines in the later part of his reign? I have read sources calling them Persian Silver Shields, but "Persikoi Argyraspidai" doesn't sound right. I know that some of them were armed as phalangites, others as hoplite kardakes, and others still as heavy archers to be placed in with the phalanx (maybe coming up right behind or maybe even in between the ranks). Obviously, Alexander didn't accomplish this whole project, but I remember that at least some of these units had been formed, and were used by the Diadochi (I'm guessing Seleukus since he didn't have the royal troops yet).

Thanks in advance

Chairman

[Tellos Athenaios]

Epgionoi? Perhaps?

[abou]

TFrom what I have researched, the Makedonian armies only gained heavy armor late in Alexander's reign and under the Diadochi, leading to slower, clunkier battle tactics. Several units in EB were affected by this: Peltastai, Prodromoi, Pezhetairoi, Thureophoroi, Hypaspitai, and Hetairoi.

Oh, certainly not! We may see the adoption of heavier armor (sometimes; wait for EB2 ), but we definitely see just as much flexibility, if not more.

[chairman]

@TA: that word looks familiar, and IIRC doesn't it have something to do with ancestry or something? It's on tip of my tongue and I can't remember (this is why I need to learn greek). "sons of ....". Oh well.

@Abou: I did'nt mean that Diadochi armies weren't flexible, I was just illustrating the increase in armor under the Successors. Under Philip II and Alexander, we hear of hoplites and phalangites "running" and such (can't remember where I read this), but under the Successors, we see slower, more sterotyped battles with the phalanx unable to act in an offensive role. I think that our image of a purely defensive phalanx comes from historians who were writing after the death of Alexander. The phalanx often was used in offensive roles in the earlier period, fully capable of crossing large distances quickly with ease, while Pyrrhus and Philip V are often criticized for trying to use the phalanx as an attacking force. I'm not trying to get into an argument here or even terribly challenge any of EB's statements. I apologize if that's what it looked like. I understand my inferiority when it comes to research on the subject compared to EB's historians.

I do remember reading that while peltasts had gained armor over the course of the 5th and 4th centuries, the hoplite had lost armor, especially the majority of citizen hoplites. This partially explains the ease with which the Makedonians were able to defeat the allies at Chaeronea, since the lightly armored allied hoplites were vulnerable to the pikes of the phalanx.

Thanks though for taking interest in my questions.

Chairman

[chairman]

Keravnos: do you know what the greek form would be for "paeonian", as in the Paeonian squadron that served with Alexander? I'm considering a cavalry unit from Paeonia/Dardania to represent this.

Also, can someone explain to me what the "asthetairoi" were exactly? Wikipedia describes them as "chosen pezhetairoi", "elite bodyguards of the Macedonian kings". However, this doesn't make much sense in light of the hypaspitai and other agema. IIRC, someone once mentioned them as being drawn from cities of Makedon rather than the rural areas.

Thanks for any insight.

Chairman

[Korlon]

One difference could be that the Asthetairoi wielded sarissas while the Hypaspistai did not.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Keravnos: do you know what the greek form would be for "paeonian", as in the Paeonian squadron that served with Alexander? I'm considering a cavalry unit from Paeonia/Dardania to represent this.

Also, can someone explain to me what the "asthetairoi" were exactly? Wikipedia describes them as "chosen pezhetairoi", "elite bodyguards of the Macedonian kings". However, this doesn't make much sense in light of the hypaspitai and other agema. IIRC, someone once mentioned them as being drawn from cities of Makedon rather than the rural areas.

Thanks for any insight.

Chairman

If you'd like to wait till later in the week (Wednesday?) I'll comment on Philip/Alexander army and Asthetairoi. There are some strange ideas floating around that do not really fit evidence.
I have so many work now that I can't distract, sorry.

[keravnos]

Keravnos: do you know what the greek form would be for "paeonian", as in the Paeonian squadron that served with Alexander? I'm considering a cavalry unit from Paeonia/Dardania to represent this.

Also, can someone explain to me what the "asthetairoi" were exactly? Wikipedia describes them as "chosen pezhetairoi", "elite bodyguards of the Macedonian kings". However, this doesn't make much sense in light of the hypaspitai and other agema. IIRC, someone once mentioned them as being drawn from cities of Makedon rather than the rural areas.

Thanks for any insight.

Chairman

Alexanders' Hetairoi cav. division was organised into 8 "ilai" (plural). Each "ile" (singular) had 200 Hetairoi other than the last one which was called "Basilike ile" or "royal squadron" and numbered 400 hetairoi.

Thessalikoi hippeis (Alexanders' other heavy cav. division) had also 8 "ilai", 7 of 200 horsemen each with the last one called "Pharsalike ile" numbering 400 horsemen.

If Paiones were admitted into the "Hetairoi" which is how Alexandros' would have done it, they would be undoubtedly be spread among the "ilai", and be Hetairoi among all others, Macedonians thraikians what have you.

If they were to be alone, fighting under their commander, they would be part of the Allied horsemen (which would be all the other horsemen allies of alexander, which we do not have so much information on). In which case they would be called "Paionikoi hippeis".

I think that both happened. That the Paionian King's brother (a liege of Phillipos II and Megas Alexandros and all other Makedones king up until Perseus) did fight and was one of the best Hetairoi along with the higher nobility of his kingdom, wheras lower nobility, richer landowners would form the "Paionikoi hippeis" and fight along with the rest of the "Allied cav."

So far as Asthetairoi are concerned, I think that O'ETAIPOS knowledge in the field is much better than mine and as such I will wait for him to speak, and I think you should too.

[abou]

@Abou: I did'nt mean that Diadochi armies weren't flexible, I was just illustrating the increase in armor under the Successors. Under Philip II and Alexander, we hear of hoplites and phalangites "running" and such (can't remember where I read this), but under the Successors, we see slower, more sterotyped battles with the phalanx unable to act in an offensive role.

Well, do we?

At Pydna we see the phalangites able to fight uphill and throw the Romans back in the first clash. There was a forced march of the Argyraspides and Hypaspistai in the moments up to the clash at Arius. We also see rapid alterations in the formation and marching over rough ground during the fighting at Beith-Zacharia.

The phalanx has always been used as an anvil for the cavalry hammer - or at least it should. It was never meant to be used in a strictly offensive role and that wasn't the case with Alexander or Philip.

The Diadochoi were intense guys. They really don't get the study they should.

[chairman]

Abou, I concede my position. You have convinced me, and I will keep your points in mind the next time I run across an account of Diadochi warfare. It is just too clear an example of how much propaganda the Succussors have to fight agianst just to be fairly represented in the history books, from the classical writers themselves to modern historians.

Now, if we understand that the Diadochi's phalangites were just as mobile as those under Alexander, should phalanxes in RTW be better represented by not having speed penalties? Or is this actually accurate?

On a related note on the topic of phalangites, does anyone have any info on the asthetairoi? Any help would be appreciated.

Chairman