I was just wondering if they will be featured in EBII as I never understood why they were missing in EB1

Was their non-existence intentional or a mistake?

Reply

I think it was intentional, something about how they never made use of the Thorakitai and instead developed more armoured phalangites.

Reply

I think it's because the thorakitai are quoted four times in ancient texts. In the Achaean league and in the Seleucid army.

Reply

Well in EB we have Epeirote, Seleukid, Hellene, Ptolemaic and Baktrian Thorakitai. There probably is a special reason why they did not develop their infantry like other pre-alexandreian Hellenes to the Thorakitai.

~Fluvius

Reply

Unlike in almost all the other Hellenistic kingdoms, we find next to no evidence for use of thureos-bearing troops of any kind beyond "ethnic" mercenaries like Thracians and Galatians in the Antigonid army. Our only evidence is really a handful of late Hellenistic (2nd-1st c. BC) bowls featuring Homeric reliefs which depict Greek and Trojan soldiers as a mixture of hoplites or peltastai and thureophoroi. These could be Macedonian troops, but this seems pretty unlikely, and they very well could be based on the appearance of other troops, like mercenaries or allies. If they are Macedonians, then they may represent a response to Roman domination which saw the Macedonians training as thureophoroi instead of phalangites due to limited military capability and lack of resources.

Reply

but if maks did not had any native thureos equpied infantry would that not exclude the thureoporoi as well? historically i think most of the phalangites were trained to fight both ways and were equped as the need required (both in phalanx and close quarter), but there is no way to represent in TW. there would be at least 3 weapon types and 2 shield types for 1 type of unit, plus they could not be interchangable after deployment (no way to caary sarissa + aspis + javelines at the same time)....

Reply