Suggestions and guide to the heavy hellenistic infantry

[MiniMe]

I shall adress some of your suggestions

Given this information I would suggest the following: we already have a unit that fights with the sarrisa, the phalanx. So you could use the Royal Guard in the second way. As a mobile elite force (fighting with spear and/or* sword) able to execute special operations, secure the flanks of the phalanx, and fight where phalanx couldn't (hills for example). Slso the Royal Guards should be able to be recruited only in the capital of each hellenistic nation.
*I would suggest an option that could allow the Royal Guard to fight with spears OR with swords (If this was possible)

EB Successors armies have such units. Thet are elite, armed with spear and sword and can be recruited in their capitals. Their name is... hypaspists.

The Greek light infantry like akontistai should be able to be draft in all the places the Greeks ruled.

in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled

The Baktrian Army should fight like the rest of the hellenistic armies using phalanx etc.

EB Baktria has phalanx

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.

The Agrianians were famous akontistai and not pelekiphoroi.. They followed Alexander in Asia and fought bravely but I don't think they are ever mentioned to be used by any hellenistic nation..

let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...

[Perseas]

'let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...'

The Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek history was the period between the DEATH of Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC. How can you talk about these things if you know nothing about them? Let someone else speak. Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation because the hellenistic era hadn't even started(!) during the rule of Alexander.

'You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.'

I talked about the Royal Guard not the Phalanx itself.. these are competely different units!.. Argyraspides are the Royal Guard not the Phalanx.. Sometimes they just used this formation..

'in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled'

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

[Spendios]

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

Do you really think seleucids would waste their greek settlers in crappy skirmishers units when they had plenty of locals to fill this role ?

[anubis88]

Although Alexander's army wasn't from the helenistic era, it was a hellenistic army.... The Diadochi armys were modeled after alexanders...

So Minime is right

[MiniMe]

Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation ...

Ouch. Me thought his dad solved this matter after he took Φώκαια seat for himself in Ἀμφικτίων around 346 BC. Stupid me. Let's go no further I know where it would take us

.. these are competely different units!... Sometimes they just used this formation..

Ah! this explains it all. Ok then

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

Let us not forget that there is a difference between
HELLENIC ( of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc., esp. before the time of Alexander the Great.)
and
HELLENISTIC (of or pertaining to the Greeks or their language, culture, etc., after the time of Alexander the Great, when Greek characteristics were modified by foreign elements.)

(defintions from edictionary)

There was no Hellenistic State until after Megas Alexandros. Philippos II secured for Makedonia a place as a Hellenic State. The Diadochoi were Hellenistic, not Hellenic. But Philippos and Megas Alexandros were Hellenic, not Hellenistic.

Also, pertaining to the supposed contradictions here:

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

Perseas makes no contradiction. When he says "The phalanx was never equipped this way", he means in the Roman Manner, as is quite obvious from his post. He is not contradicting himself, but rather speaking of two different things.

[MiniMe]

HELLENIC
HELLENISTIC

overlooked that, my mistake

Perseas makes no contradiction.

He does, even though you don't see it

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode and next proceeds to claim that the phalanx was not equipped in some way some it of its members most definitely (by earlier remarks) were...

Yes, that's a typical text book excersise of point out, using a truth table, that the following statement is a contradiction.

-------

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not?

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

I believe the contradiction is inadvertent. Remember, Perseas is Greek, so English is not his first language.

What I believe he is trying to say is that until 168 BC, no Hellenistic units used Roman style armour at all, and after said date, typically only Thorakitai and Seleukid Argyraspides. But the Pezhetairoi never did, so the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi is an inaccurate unit.

[MiniMe]

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not?

er.. may be

Ok, bellydance for everyone just to celebrate my 20X20+2 post

[CirdanDharix]

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode

Actually, the Hypaspistai/Argyraspidai of Alexander were the inspiration, but not the progenitors, of the Hellenistic units with the same names, since Antigonos Monophthalmos, realising that their cupidity made them more of a threat to their own commander than to the enemy, got rid of the original corps after it had betrayed Eumenos of Kardia to him. Thus, there isn't a contradiction to say that the Hypaspistai were renamed, and then mention them under that name. However, I must say much of Perseas' posts seem based on an over-simplistic representation of Hellenistic military organisation.