Questions about Seleukid units.

[Imperator]

1. Why do the Thorakitai Arguraspidai (who I presume represent the Romanized infantry mentioned during the battle of Beith-Zacharia and in the Daphnai parade) wear mail face-veils? What primary evidence do you have for this?

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?

2. Why do the Thureophoroi wear armour? It was very clear in the sources that the Thureophoroi and Thorakitai were distinguished from one another (as at the crossing of the Elburz range) by the one wearing armour and the other not. On top of this, the majority of the evidence for thureophoroi mercenaries within the Seleukid empire show them without cuirass or greaves but with helmets.

3. Why do the Pantodapai Phalangitai use axes as a sidearm in combat? Is there any evidence at all for this?

4. Why do you show units wearing some sort of studded leather jerkin (as in the case of Thureophoroi and Iudaioi Taxeis) when no archaeological evidence for such an armour exists? Wouldn't a common linothorax be much more accurate?

guys chill- he's got some good points, and clearly knows what he's talking about- no need to bash him, historical hyper-accuracy is why we're here. Even EB can be wrong sometimes (not often though). now, to business:
1) That is a good point, can a team member step forward and answer the man, he's got sources!
2)That seems, from the discussion, like it's a little more controversial. Again, I'd be interested in seeing how EB took this passage and came to their conclusion...
3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...
4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

All in all, MeinPanzer does certainly have some seriously good questions and real evidence behind them. Let's be civil and leave it to the guys who made the mod to defend it, they know why the units look the way they do. And, who knows, maybe this guy's right. It's a dark day for EB when we can't take any historical criticism on our units and put ego before accuracy.

[Ludens]

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?

In this thread, I asked a related question about the TA and I think the response would answer your question as well.

[Tellos Athenaios]

About point 2:
Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

About point 2:
Thorax is the acient greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

Unfortunately Angadil isn't around anymore to handle some of the many varied areas he was very knowledgeable in (successors wasn't his main area of knowledge - he was the Steppe-Daddy around here for ages). RL stuff took him away from modding, but we miss him.

[MeinPanzer]

3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.

4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

Within the empire, two main types of armour can be seen: leather or linen cuirasses (the kind with shoulder yokes and those leather fringes, or pteruges, at the shoulders and bottom). which were the most common, and then metal muscled cuirasses. There probably were also metal non-muscle cuirasses, but it is unfortunately almost impossible to distinguish in many sources between linen, leather, and metal armour (though this topic has been discussed quite a bit). For almost all non-officer, non-heavy troops, the linen or leather cuirass would have been the standard form of armour.

In this thread, I asked a related question about the TA and I think the response would answer your question as well.

Thanks, that actually cleared up the reasoning behind dividing the arguraspides units as was done. However, I'm still curious what "very recent archaeological evidence" they drew on, especially if it supports having a mail face veil like the one shown.

However, I find this statement:

Our TA are indeed a sort of inner elite. There are references to guard units of 1.000 men which seem to have had even higher status. Authors are not unanimous and some claim those would refer to the cavalry section of the Royal Guard, while for others they would apply to the infantry guard and they would indicate the existence of "an elite within the elite".

To be a bit strange, since many scholars consider this "elite within the elite" to have been the hupaspistai, not some other unit.

Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax.

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

[Foot]

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.

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

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

From my Ancient Greek - Dutch dictionary, it has included only commonly used words, with their usual translations + a few exceptional meanings, always distinctively marked as being exceptional (which is not the case with the following, so you may ingnore this as well)...

Θωραξ:
1 armour, cuirass, "harnas" - that is a "suit" made of armour no matter what sort of armour is used, but refers for the most part to the heavy metal equipment of medieval knights

χιτων
1 chiton (a sort of clothing)
2 (...)
3 (used as) armour
χαλκους χιτων = bronze used as armour > bronze armour

The English word "armour" can be translated into Dutch in two different ways, either you take the Dutch "pantser" which actually means the entire "suit", or you use the word "bepantsering" which either refers to the fact that certain equipment is worn which provides protection or just means "protective equipment/skin (in the case of animals, such as the crocodile)". You'll see from the above that the sort of armour you are refering to (armour in general, thus not the "suit") would be commonly refered to as "... χιτων" (the Dutch word "bepantsering"); while the Θωραξ has a more specific meaning - that of either the cuirass or all of the armour a particular soldier is wearing as a whole (the "pantser" word).

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

[MeinPanzer]

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

In english, thorax is usually translated as cuirass, which doesn't necessarily have any connotations of metal. A cuirass can be made of leather, linen, or other organic materials, and so while the thureophoroi as is wear some sort of jerkin, it could be called a cuirass.

A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

[Urnamma]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

[Foot]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry? An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown. It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms. Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.

Foot

[Urnamma]

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Now, a soldier with an (expensive) metal helmet, an (expensive) sword, javelins, a large spear, greaves (expensive), good boots, and all that other stuff, is going to, what, not have enough drachmae left over for some inexpensive but effective body armor?

[Urnamma]

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

[Kugutsu]

Why were swords so much more expensive? Is it because of the amount of metal or because of the techniques needed to make them?

[MeinPanzer]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

I think it is safe to say that anyone who could afford A) some sort of body armour and B) a helmet could also afford a sword. Even common Persian archers, being as numerous as they were, could afford to own swords. It is illogical to say that they would just use what is cheap and handy because there is no evidence of axes being wielded by these people in combat; would you argue that because hoes were handy they would have used those?

Besides, if you were going to reconstruct a unit which was comprised of many non-Greek peoples from throughout the empire, logic would tell you that the majority would be Iranians; therefore, it would probably be much more accurate if you provided the pantodapai phalangitai with sagarises or akinakes.

You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

I'm not trying to attack you guys or anything; I think EB is by far the best RTW mod out there, and the EB team has done a spectacular job working on a mod that is incredibly advanced when compared to the majority of mods out there, which is why I'd like to see it be as accurate as possible. If I didn't, why would I even put effort into asking these questions?

Also, barely ever offer proof? I offer proof when asked to offer it, as I did in the hetairoi shield thread numerous times. It just seems that the EB team gets very defensive about anyone questioning their reconstructions. It would be much simpler if you simply provided proof on your own behalf.

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon.

They probably used pitchforks and scythes in agriculture, too. Is that good enough to equip a few EB units with them? I sincerely hope you have better evidence than that for equipping a unit with an axe.

Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Because there is no proof for it, and because it's not even probable. If you don't care about small details like that, why even bother with historical accuracy?

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry?

If you claim to be a historically accurate mod, then I would hope that you would be pedantic, yes. Ancient history, and especially the reconstruction of such small details as weaponry and equipment, rely on such limited evidence that you pretty much have to be pedantic.

An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown.

But you haven't even proved that axes were used as weapons within the areas levied from. Again, please provide proof that Hellenistic soldiers of any kind used axes in warfare.

It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms.

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it.

Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.

See the top of this post.

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Are you saying that waistbands of scales for composite cuirasses have been found within the Seleucid empire? Where? And no, I'm not saying I don't believe linen armour was there- there is tons of archaeological representational evidence for that. I'm saying I think the form of the armour you have portrayed on some units at the moment is not supported by evidence.

Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

Yet despite this, the commonest levies of the predecessors of the Seleucids, the Achaemenid Persians, could afford to buy swords.

[MeinPanzer]

Why were swords so much more expensive? Is it because of the amount of metal or because of the techniques needed to make them?

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

[Sarcasm]

Talking strictly on peninsular weaponry, the amount of iron ore necessary to produce a sword would be relatively large as the efficiency of the smelting process was low, resulting in a small quantity of usable iron. Further, the quality of the metal was not always the best, most not usable for weapons as complex to make as swords [not unless you didn't want a good sword anyway, which was definitely not the case in this particular location I'm talking about].

On the process of actually forging the sword, you needed a swordsmith to do the thing, not your everyday blacksmith that produced the agricultural implements for the communities [and that could easily make a mediocre spear or a javelin head]. It is a complex fabrication technique that requires a specialized forge and set of skills that was simply not available everywhere. Time was also a factor, since it is a time consuming process, especially when talking about those that weren't mass-produced. Time is, and was, money.

[Sarcasm]

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

A metal helmet would *not* be more expensive than a sword.

[Kugutsu]

Out of curiosity: How did the romans make swords in the quantities to arm all their legions? And other cultures with large standing armies? Did they still rely on artisanal swordsmiths, just lots of them, or had they developed methods of mass production?

Edit: and if they mass produced their swords, were they of lower quality?

[MeinPanzer]

A metal helmet would *not* be more expensive than a sword.

The price of both would depend on the quality, but the cheapest swords were probably less expensive than average quality helmets (as the pantodapai phalangitai have been reconstructed with).

[Sarcasm]

Romans in later times had fully developed armament factories owned by private corporations that were contracted by government to make cheap, good quality and easily reproducible swords. Just like today.

Dunno about hellenistic cultures, but they probably had some sort of smaller scale factories too.

@ MeinPanzer: On the axes, you should search Attic pottery for Persian representations. You'll find that they are either using a Greek kopis, an Akinakes or....surprise, surprise, an axe.

[Aristophanes]

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

I'd like to see your proof that the majority of lower-class Achaemenid troops carried swords. Do you have any historical account, or is your source an artists' rendering which is highly open to interpretation a) when it is first produced and b) when it is unearthed ?

Talking strictly on peninsular weaponry, the amount of iron ore necessary to produce a sword would be relatively large as the efficiency of the smelting process was low, resulting in a small quantity of usable iron. Further, the quality of the metal was not always the best, most not usable for weapons as complex to make as swords [not unless you didn't want a good sword anyway, which was definitely not the case in this particular location I'm talking about].

On the process of actually forging the sword, you needed a swordsmith to do the thing, not your everyday blacksmith that produced the agricultural implements for the communities [and that could easily make a mediocre spear or a javelin head]. It is a complex fabrication technique that requires a specialized forge and set of skills that was simply not available everywhere. Time was also a factor, since it is a time consuming process, especially when talking about those that weren't mass-produced. Time is, and was, money.

Quite.

I wonder whether pantodapai phalangitai generally wore helmets, and, if they wore them, whether they would be bronze, iron, leather or linen.

[Sarcasm]

The price of both would depend on the quality, but the cheapest swords were probably less expensive than average quality helmets (as the pantodapai phalangitai have been reconstructed with).

Of course it depends on the quality, but assuming they are both of the same calibre, then a helmet would be less expensive. Poor quality swords tend to be short, or downright glorified daggers.

Also, a state may offer a piece of the kit, that may be more affordable than it usually is. Later armies used this method when they tried to achieve uniformity.

[MeinPanzer]

@ MeinPanzer: On the axes, you should search Attic pottery for Persian representations. You'll find that they are either using a Greek kopis, an Akinakes or....surprise, surprise, an axe.

I'm looking at dozens of representations of Persian soldiers in Duncan Head's The Achaemenid Persian Army right now, and I can see plenty of depictions of sagarises, but no axes. Can you post some that specifically show axes?

I'd like to see your proof that the majority of lower-class Achaemenid troops carried swords. Do you have any historical account, or is your source an artists' rendering which is highly open to interpretation a) when it is first produced and b) when it is unearthed ?

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...sianswords.bmp
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...ianswords2.bmp

I wonder whether pantodapai phalangitai generally wore helmets, and, if they wore them, whether they would be bronze, iron, leather or linen.

This is presuming that pantodapai phalangitai were even generally poor. We don't know that they weren't drawn from the wealthier non-Greeks within the empire, as was done for the cavalry, and as would be fitting in this case considering the necessity for certain heavy equipment to be able to fight in a phalanx. The poor non-Greeks could probably only afford enough equipment to fight as psiloi or akontistai.

[MeinPanzer]

Of course it depends on the quality, but assuming they are both of the same calibre, then a helmet would be less expensive. Poor quality swords tend to be short, or downright glorified daggers.

Also, a state may offer a piece of the kit, that may be more affordable than it usually is. Later armies used this method when they tried to achieve uniformity.

I was talking mainly about the quality of sword in comparison to the helmets worn by the pantodapai phalangitai, which are fairly elaborate.

There is some evidence for both the Ptolemies and Seleucids providing costume and equipment to troops, but they only seem to have done so for standing troops (i.e. royal guards).

[Sarcasm]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...lin%20F%202331

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it...

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry?

If you claim to be a historically accurate mod, then I would hope that you would be pedantic, yes. Ancient history, and especially the reconstruction of such small details as weaponry and equipment, rely on such limited evidence that you pretty much have to be pedantic.

Actually, the answer is that we don't have to. We can say we are historically accurate, and there is absolutely positively no test we have to prove to anyone. No one buys our product. No one regulates it. We are creating hundreds of units here, and there will be some errors that get through that are serious and there will be some errors that get through that really don't matter much (that strap went under the other one for Aitolian units!), just like there will be some things that we have to take educated guesses at. One key element of this issue is that we are talking about units that have been created already: modelled, skinned, UI cards and info pics made for them, and then included in the mod. Insisting on details on a theoretical depiction of a unit is one thing, when a unit is already done and we are trying to work on others though, insisting that one detail or aspect of a unit *must* be this way, when we think something is either debatable, clearly goes our way, is fuzzy, is speculative, or whatever, but insisting on that one point, and another, and another, in succession, each day, really does get tiring for us to have to stop and try and deal with. For someone's own personal mod, or reconstruction, or drawing of a unit, or whatever, I can understand an absolute necessity to have something depicted a very specific way like they want, but you are laying down your interpretation over and over as the only possible way, from the hetairoi shield to the Anatolian axe to the parthian bodyguard to the thorakitai chain veil, to whatever the next ten things are. So, back to the first point here: we actually don't have to convince you. There has been no one since this mod started who has said we are wrong in so many different ways on these units. I think we've done pretty well convincing people, every other person, on these units too, and it's not some sort of "hoodwink" job at it either. Some people might not agree but don't post - I don't see them though, but I can talk about the people who do post. We have answers for people who post asking about questions - but there is a point where it really does hurt (productivity, morale, time, work on new units, etc.) much more than it helps to have to totally satisfy one person. And just because we don't do that, it doesn't mean we "fail" at being "historically accurate" (whatever that means).

[MeinPanzer]

Actually, the answer is that we don't have to. We can say we are historically accurate, and there is absolutely positively no test we have to prove to anyone. No one buys our product. No one regulates it. We are creating hundreds of units here, and there will be some errors that get through that are serious and there will be some errors that get through that really don't matter much (that strap went under the other one for Aitolian units!), just like there will be some things that we have to take educated guesses at. One key element of this issue is that we are talking about units that have been created already: modelled, skinned, UI cards and info pics made for them, and then included in the mod.

I understand that, and I know that units that have already be completed won't be changed. I'm simply hoping that by bringing this up, you can consider it for EB2 when you approach these same units once again.

Insisting on details on a theoretical depiction of a unit is one thing, when a unit is already done and we are trying to work on others though, insisting that one detail or aspect of a unit *must* be this way, when we think something is either debatable, clearly goes our way, is fuzzy, is speculative, or whatever, but insisting on that one point, and another, and another, in succession, each day, really does get tiring for us to have to stop and try and deal with.

Just because an issue is fuzzy or unclear (and so many concerning Hellenistic soldiers are), it doesn't mean you can just choose any solution and go with it. You haven't effectively proven that poorer levies would have carried axes in combat.

For someone's own personal mod, or reconstruction, or drawing of a unit, or whatever, I can understand an absolute necessity to have something depicted a very specific way like they want, but you are laying down your interpretation over and over as the only possible way, from the hetairoi shield to the Anatolian axe to the parthian bodyguard to the thorakitai chain veil, to whatever the next ten things are.

The hetairoi issue is fuzzy, and could go either way. The axe, Parthian bodyguard, and chain veil issues are all very clearly answered by the evidence, especially the latter two. No one has provided a smidgeon of evidence for the chain mail veil, by the way, not even a reasoning for it.

So, back to the first point here: we actually don't have to convince you. There has been no one since this mod started who has said we are wrong in so many different ways on these units. I think we've done pretty well convincing people, every other person, on these units too, and it's not some sort of "hoodwink" job at it either.

When asked to provide some evidence, or even any evidence, on three of the four issues above, you've provided none. That's hardly convincing.

Some people might not agree but don't post - I don't see them though, but I can talk about the people who do post. We have answers for people who post asking about questions - but there is a point where it really does hurt (productivity, morale, time, work on new units, etc.) much more than it helps to have to totally satisfy one person. And just because we don't do that, it doesn't mean we "fail" at being "historically accurate" (whatever that means).

Most of the people who do post aren't as familiar with the evidence as I am. I study this quite a bit and I've collected Hellenistic archaeological evidence for some time. I don't ask that you satisfy me, I ask that you consider the evidence (or lack thereof) and reconstruct the units accordingly.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...n%20F%202331

This looks like some sort of hybrid sagaris/axe. I've never seen this type of weapon before, but it seems to have been very uncommon when compared to the representation of Persian archers carrying swords or sagarises.