Some constructive suggestions on units and other ;)

[Meneldil]

Well, I don't see any real problem with Phalanx.

Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?

Well, Armenia was a part (or a kind of protectorate) of the Seleucid Kingdom for about 30 years, so well, why wouldn't they use a kind of Phalanx formation ? Since they probably fought in the Seleucid army, they might aswell have learnt how to use such a formation.

Germans: If Ceasar said that they had AK-47s should the CA put them in?

Errrr.. Apart from the fact that Ceasar's opinion is probably no more biased than your, he didn't say "German are fighting as a greek phalanx", he said they fought in packed formation with long spears while using their shield as an overall protection, kinda as what will be known later as a shieldwall. Since there's no shieldwall formation, I guess phalanx will be alright, depending of EB team's decision.

Nubians: Well what can i say?

Well, I can say that Nubians were for a long time the best warriors in Egyptia army (though probably not anymore in 270BC ), and that they were more disciplined than many other people.
I'm not saying that they used a phalanx formation, but well, you seem to be thinking that since they lived in a desert, they were savages, which is not true. They might aswell have used a kind of shieldwall formation, or something like that (anyway, I don't think Nubians can use the phalanx ability with RTR 5.0).
You don't really have any argument. Those factions/units probably never used phalanx, but saying "Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?" doesn't sound like a good way to prove it.

About the Hoplite 'overhand spear' thing, I'm pretty sure that EB team is already thinking about it, since we all know it can be done. It's probably the same thing for the phalangites holding their pikes with 2 hands rather than one (though I'm not sure it will be as easy as the overhand spear).

[hellenes]

Well, I don't see any real problem with Phalanx.



Well, Armenia was a part (or a kind of protectorate) of the Seleucid Kingdom for about 30 years, so well, why wouldn't they use a kind of Phalanx formation ? Since they probably fought in the Seleucid army, they might aswell have learnt how to use such a formation.



Errrr.. Apart from the fact that Ceasar's opinion is probably no more biased than your, he didn't say "German are fighting as a greek phalanx", he said they fought in packed formation with long spears while using their shield as an overall protection, kinda as what will be known later as a shieldwall. Since there's no shieldwall formation, I guess phalanx will be alright, depending of EB team's decision.



Well, I can say that Nubians were for a long time the best warriors in Egyptia army (though probably not anymore in 270BC ), and that they were more disciplined than many other people.
I'm not saying that they used a phalanx formation, but well, you seem to be thinking that since they lived in a desert, they were savages, which is not true. They might aswell have used a kind of shieldwall formation, or something like that (anyway, I don't think Nubians can use the phalanx ability with RTR 5.0).
You don't really have any argument. Those factions/units probably never used phalanx, but saying "Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?" doesn't sound like a good way to prove it.

About the Hoplite 'overhand spear' thing, I'm pretty sure that EB team is already thinking about it, since we all know it can be done. It's probably the same thing for the phalangites holding their pikes with 2 hands rather than one (though I'm not sure it will be as easy as the overhand spear).

Are there ANY quotes pictures or depictions of armenian INFANTRY fighting in HOPLITIC fashion?
A solution is possible: The creation of a special formation or animation that would depict spearmen apart from the greek phalanx...

Hellenes

[Urnamma]

Hellenes: you are mistaken on the hoplon thing. Being a historian, I find it interesting that so many people are bitterly divided on this.

To the wargamers, it's a shield. They don't know Greek though, so we can really sort of brush over their opinion.

To a modern Greek and to some non-professional classicists it means 'weapon or weapons'.

In ancient Greek, a Hoplon is a shield. A Hoplite is a hoplon bearer. If he were simply a weapon bearer, why would we have Strateotes, Peltastes, Thureophoros, etc. However, the plural of Hoplon does indeed mean, not only more than one hoplon, but a set of hoplite gear.

The phalanx underwent a radical change in the mid 4th century. The spear was lengthened and used underhand, and the shield was changed to the lighter thureos. The Macedonians used their Sarissae with two hands.

A lot of people, by 270 B.C. had copied the Phalanx formation. It was a damn good formation. Armenia was a hellenized kingdom (not populated by Greeks, but taking a lot of Greek developments and using them).

Nubians might feature in the EB, but were not important at all past the Saite dynasty, far before the start of the game.

[hellenes]

Oplopoios= Weaponsmith
Oplizo= Arm (Verb)
Oplizmos= Arms
Oplitis= Man At Arms-Hoplites

The word means actually that a weapon and NO greek modern or ancient historian has ever reffered to the shield as "Hoplon"...
ASPIS= Shield
Like Argyraspides= Sliver Shields
Hypaspistes= Shielp Bearers

The Armenians as far as i know were very defensive on retaining their culture and were far from bein hellenized and had a cultural pride but if they used that formation they must have been equipped in a greek sarissa phalanx style...

Hellenes

[Byzantine Prince]

As for the greek cities its the fact that as "greek" the other cities were the makedonians were the SAME

The Greek_Cities considered the macedonians non-greek(even though they were). The greek_cities also had several wars with Macedon. The greeks got allied with the Romans and the destroyed most of the Macedonian army in the south. Then Rome was free to finally destroy Macedon and smuther the greek cities.

[hellenes]

The Greek_Cities considered the macedonians non-greek(even though they were). The greek_cities also had several wars with Macedon. The greeks got allied with the Romans and the destroyed most of the Macedonian army in the south. Then Rome was free to finally destroy Macedon and smuther the greek cities.

Some politically challenged half greeks like Demosthenes (whos mother was Scythian) not all the people were in the same bag.
The Makedonians participated in the Olympic Games thats enough for me to be considered greek...
Well the Spartans allied with Persia to defeat Athens in the Peloponnesean War but thats doesnt mean that the Atheneans didnt consider Spartans as non greeks...

Hellenes

[Urnamma]

The word means actually that a weapon and NO greek modern or ancient historian has ever reffered to the shield as "Hoplon"...

Except the Liddell-Scott dictionary... which is the best and most acreditted source on ancient Greek...

Words come to mean other things over time.

Aspis is a general term meaning shield. A shield is an aspis.

Think about it, why do we call Peltasts, Thureophoroi, etc by the name of their shields. That was Greek naming convention. Strateot(eta)s was the term for a soldier, or 'man at arms'.

[Byzantine Prince]

Some politically challenged half greeks like Demosthenes (whos mother was Scythian) not all the people were in the same bag.
The Makedonians participated in the Olympic Games thats enough for me to be considered greek...
Well the Spartans allied with Persia to defeat Athens in the Peloponnesean War but thats doesnt mean that the Atheneans didnt consider Spartans as non greeks...

Hellenes

Taht is not my point dude. My point is they were separate states taht had war with eachother while the greek_cities were in alliance with themselves. They were however in attroscious war with Macedon!!! Why don't you get it?!?!?