Historical accuracy questions

[HumphreysCraig00]

I have just had a few quick battles in E.B. and a couple of thing I want to clear up.

I am probably wrong I just want to know if you looked these up and what proof you have.

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

6) Most of the greek forces seemed to be wearing illrian pattern helmets, but werent chalcidian helmets more common around 300-100Bc in greece?


As I said this is more so I can be better educated rather than saying you are wrong. and if I improve the mod by noticing an un-noticed innacuracy then thats a plus.



Also as an aside all the aspi equiped troops when I play on the 2nd, maybe 3rd LOD thier shields float around behind and to the right of them and when they run spin in giant circles around them, is this a known bug?

Or do you want a screenie?

[HumphreysCraig00]

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

[MeinPanzer]

I have just had a few quick battles in E.B. and a couple of thing I want to clear up.

I am probably wrong I just want to know if you looked these up and what proof you have.

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

There's a lot of debate about the equipment of the hypaspists and the conclusion that most come to is that they were probably heavily equipped as phalangites but could also switch roles to function as lighter troops as well. It's probably safest just to depict them as a heavy phalanx, though.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

What do you mean? Also, to remember how to spell Hypaspist- their name literally meant "under a shield"- hypo (like a hypodermic, "under the skin," needle) and aspis (shield) combine with an agent suffix to make Hypaspist.

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

The Hypaspists were converted to the Argyraspides towards the end of Alexander's life (I can never remember when, exactly).

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

Recruited when? During the early empire?

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

There's no way to know how they actually looked; we only have Polybius's description of them as having three black or purple feathers crowning them.

[HumphreysCraig00]

Thank you for the answers.

[quote]Recruited when? During the early empire?[/quote[

Well if they recruited diferent types in different periods then Id like to know all of them lol but I didnt have a specific period in mind when I stated that.

[Watchman]

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

The ones that look like Corinthian helmets lifted up ? Yeah, they were really made to look like that. "Italo-Etruscan" or something along those lines is what the type's usually known as. I think there have been a couple of specimen excavated here and there.

'S a fashion thing you know. One assumes the Italians liked the Corinthian look but found the original design too restrictive.

Imitation designs were incidentally issued to some elite Napoleonic cavalry forces as well.

[Geoffrey S]

About the triarii helmets, someone posted a screenshot of them in the bug forum looking strange at high details; that may be what is being referred to.

[Fondor_Yards]

1) Also as an aside all the aspi equiped troops when I play on the 2nd, maybe 3rd LOD thier shields float around behind and to the right of them and when they run spin in giant circles around them, is this a known bug?

Yea that's a funky bug, but I think it's known. Baktrian Agema also have this bug, as well as Agema Hellenikon *probably due to their shared model*.

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

Hmm, they seem to be just as good as most other meele fighters for me. What difficulty are you playing on, and who were they fighting.


Also to see some of the new roman auxillia units you get can after the marian and augustian reforms, look here. They are very kick ass, almost makes me want to play as those dirty romans.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=64068

[Xtiaan72]

Humphreys has a point. In most of my readings of Alexander hypaspists are depicted as lighter troops that were often detached from his main body of troops. They were capable of keeping up with Alexander's cavalry on long forced marches. This would lead one to believe they weren't carrying big lumbering pikes.

I just did some fishing on the internet and found a couple of contrary sources. One said that by the time the reached India they did indeed carry 12 foot pikes and were fully armoured. ( although that isn't a long pike by Macedonian standards).

Another source said they were adapted to fight guirella warfare in Afganistan and Baktria. But it doesn't clarify what that change in equipment was.

They should probably be depicted as a hoplite that can fight better than a hoplite when not in phalanx formation. They should definately still be pretty effective when not in phalanx formation. In other words, they should be more versatile than a standard hoplite. A fast, light hoplite?

But I'm talking out of my ass here because I haven't played as Macedon and maybe they are depicted as a versatile unit...

[QwertyMIDX]

Well first, our hypaspistai are exactly that, they use the same formation as our classical hoplites. They might be like in .80, but they are in the internal version and .8 was the first pat of the transition to using our new classical hoplite formation. Second, the issue with equipment for a lot of these successor units is that troops could fight in more than one role, and often did. Unfortunately RTW doesn’t allow you to re-arm your best warriors for the needs of the situation.

[Xtiaan72]

Second weapons are modeled and there is a formation button. So technically couldn't they just fight really well with their second weapon when out of phalanx formation?

[Fondor_Yards]

Second weapons are modeled and there is a formation button. So technically couldn't they just fight really well with their second weapon when out of phalanx formation?

They don't fight in the RTW style phalanx formation. They fight a very tight group of spearmen. And they do have swords as a secondary weapon, and do kick a lot of ass with it.

[O'ETAIPOS]

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

I know at least 4 different theories about Hypaspist equipment. This super light is one of less probable and is based on inability of heavy armed troops to do what Hypaspist did. This is obviously wrong, as this "heavy equpment" was not heavier than this of modern soliders, or roman legionares.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

What do you mean?

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

Argyraspids were oldest and most experienced soliders (in Makedonia) and elite "standing army" of Selekids. On most ocasions they appear as pikemen.

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

In EB you can recruit classical hoplites and peltasts, you can't recruit hypaspistai. at first romans were not "recruiting" auxiliary soliders. They ordered client states to send forces, the composition was more up to the sending state decision.

6) Most of the greek forces seemed to be wearing illrian pattern helmets, but werent chalcidian helmets more common around 300-100Bc in greece?

most common were different forms of "Attic" helmets (some called "attico-thracian or "thracian") - and this type is mostly used in EB.

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

they were not trained to do so, as for long time it was considered unnecesary. In fact for the most time majority of hoplite armies were almost untrained, as they were militias.

[Thaatu]

1.) Didn't hypaspists fight on the right flank of the battle line, as the right hand of the phalanx? If so I would say they needed more armour against phalanx armies. Could be wrong though...

2.) You must have mixed up the units, for pezhetairoi are "a high class phalanx who are also well equipped and trained for melee".

3.) The argyraspidai were the elite corps of the pezhetairoi.

[Watchman]

1.) Didn't hypaspists fight on the right flank of the battle line, as the right hand of the phalanx? If so I would say they needed more armour against phalanx armies. Could be wrong though...

Most sources I've seen agree on if nothing else on the hypaspists, or in any case Philip's and Alex's original ones, to have acted as a mobile "link" between the pike line and the Hetairoi. Sort of as backup for the cavalry, to prevent an unacceptable disjointing of the line as the horsemen inevitably outpaced the pikemen and, presumably, elite flankers who started rolling up the enemy line from the side once the Hetairoi had punched thrhough.

Anyway, the big limiter on phalangite mobility was the need to mainatin formation integrity without which the sarissae were next to worthless for most purposes. The Hypas were presumably either armed with something else - "hoplite" type weapons loadout would seem sensible - not requiring quite as rigid maintenance of ranks or so much better drilled they could be more maneuverable than the grunts. In either case they should've been able to wear anything up to bronze plate and still be more agile than the rank-and-file pike units; it's not like that armour is so heavy anyway, especially for elite soldiers.

Dunno how exactly the Successors used theirs though.

[HumphreysCraig00]

-About the triarii helmets, someone posted a screenshot of them in the bug forum looking strange at high details; that may be what is being referred to.

No I was refering to them looking like pushed up corinthians, though I have noticed the bug you speak of too.

-Hmm, they seem to be just as good as most other meele fighters for me. What difficulty are you playing on, and who were they fighting.

No I mean in reality, appently thier equiptment made them poor individual fighters (just thier equiptment, nothing to do with thier individual proficiency) but I cant see how.

-Also to see some of the new roman auxillia units you get can after the marian and augustian reforms, look here. They are very kick ass, almost makes me want to play as those dirty romans.

Again I was talking about real life not the game, but I have read that the romans used more heavily armoured versions of heavy peltast type hellenistic forces as auxilaries from the hellenistic provinces as they most closely mirrored the legionary infantry way of war.

This is obviously wrong, as this "heavy equpment" was not heavier than this of modern soliders, or roman legionares.

You have to take into accout that modern soldiers are both physically stronger and more durable, due to both lifestlye improvements (a more nutritious and reliable food system) and better training.

And.

Modern soldiers equiptment in fight is actually quite light, in combat they wil only carry at most 40 lbs.(they drop thier bergans/rucksacks)

I cant remember how heavy a roman legionaire is but something around the region of 40-50 lbs combat wieght comes to mind, Im sure you know though.

A greek hoplites equiptment (With bronze curass and such) is supposed to be around 70 lbs from the sites ive read, so If the hypaspists were heavily aurmoured they would tire quickly, even if they were as fit as modern elite soldiery..

Meanwhile if they were lightly to not armoured this would be more achievable.

Still these are just my observations, they probably mean diddly FA.

-What do you mean?

WHat I meant is from what ive read and seen they would act like a strong phalanx usually but if needs be or if it would be better they could drop thier sarissas and charge with just thier sidearms and still be effective (the normal phalangite had a poor sidearm which meant he had trouble when close in)

But that seems to be wrong.

[Zaknafien]

That's uh, not quite true. and my equipment is heavy as hell, by the way.