Quote Originally Posted by Foot
Anatolians was very fond of their axes, and whilst these represent men drawn from all corners of asian population, axes are certainly not unsuitable. Perhaps a sword would have been more generic, but I cannot understand why axes would be so unsuitable. They were particularly common in anatolia and not unknown elsewhere, they represent poorer equipment than a sword (fulfilling a desire to represent the pantodapai phalangitai as being drawn from the poorer indigenous populations of this region), and they add a bit of variety to the mix of units. Isn't stressing this problem ever so slightly pedantic. Perhaps we could revise the description somewhat to indicate that the use of axes here does not represent the idea that this unit was equipped with axes, but rather represents the above points. Would that be satisfactory?

Foot
If you can provide me with evidence of Anatolian soldiers using axes in warfare, then I would agree that it is not unsuitable. However, as far as I've seen there is none whatsoever for men using them in combat, and so it is plainly inaccurate, especially for such a numerous unit. It would be far more accurate to simply depict them as being equipped with swords. And I fail to see the correlation between poorer elements of the empire and use of axes, as you imply.