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

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

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?

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.

[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.

[-Praetor-]

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

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.

[Africanvs]

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.

[Nachtmeister]

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.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

That's full Makedonian martial glory.

[Rilder]

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.

[Africanvs]

*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.

[geala]

...
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.

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.

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.

[Slaists]

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 ;)

[Cambyses]

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.

[Ludens]

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.

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).

[antisocialmunky]

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. '

[MeinPanzer]

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.

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.

[geala]

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.

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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).

[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 (or similar; don't get upset, my Greek is a bit rusty ) -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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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 )- 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.

[geala]

Hehe, your replies are too fast for my edits.

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.