February Preview!

[Ibrahim]

I'd be curious to hear which source groups thureophoroi with heavy infantry, because one of the only sources that I know in which a specific categorical mention of thureophoroi is made is Polybius' account of the crossing of the Elburz range, in which he classes both thureophoroi and thorakitai in with the light infantrymen.

didn't you mention, IIRC, in a thread a long time ago that all/almost all thureophoroi were without body armor?

well, look on the bright side: the units are still WIP, so if you can bring all your evidence together in a focused post, maybe they will see about it.

[MeinPanzer]

First and foremost, literary sources, good as they may be for getting a picture of the people at that time can't be considered 100% accurate, as writers of that time would call things with one name, whereas they would be called something different by another. This must not be the case with Polybios, as he was Hipparchos of the Achaike Sympoliteia (Achaian League) from 170-169 BCE.

And, it should be noted, both the Achaean military, with which Polybius was intimately familiar, and its neighbours (as in, e.g., the Aitolians) employed both thureophoroi and thorakitai, so there is good reason to think that his testimony is accurate.

This is further complicated when one takes into account that when a "barbarian" faction would assault, it would sometimes incorporate in its host heavy infantry, lighter infantry, gaesetae (naked men with just a thureos), spearmen and swordsmen, all of them combined. How do you call them? I guess one would have to pick by either percentage of each composing element, or their role in the battlefield. This would have been a challenge to the historian back then, that is for sure.

This is irrelevant because only Greek troops are referred to as thorakitai in the literary sources. We are dealing with a clear description of a battle group composed of homogeneous units, and not a mixed rabble.

Then, something unimaginably simple comes along... Archaeological finds.
When you have thureos (meaning literally door in ancient greek) carrying troops who are clad in muscle cuirass like the following...it is difficult to classify them (found in present day Anatolia IIRC) as NOT heavy. The fact that they carry the thureos and are armored (thorax in greek) would deffinitely mean that they are thorakitai.

And yet we, for instance, have a representation of a javelineer, clearly a light soldier, who wears a metal muscled cuirass on an Alexandrian funerary stele. His only armament is a handful of javelins and a cuirass, so would he be a heavy soldier?

didn't you mention, IIRC, in a thread a long time ago that all/almost all thureophoroi were without body armor?

I did, but I must explain why I think this whole debate is fundamentally flawed. Thorakitai and thureophoroi are just terms from the literary sources. We clearly have archaeological evidence that shows units carrying thureoi, and so we somehow have to attempt to match these up with the archaeological record. We do not have any sources, such as funerary stelae, which directly link up any representation of a soldier with either of these titles, as far as I am aware.

In the aforementioned passage in Polybius (10.29), he mentions a unit composed of thorakitai and thureophoroi. Now, we must deduce from this that though these soldiers were similarly armed, there was a distinction between them that warranted giving them different names. Since, presumably, being armed with a thorax and a hoplite's shield would make you a hoplite, and being armed with a thorax and a pelte would make you a peltast (as in Iphicrates' peltasts, or the definition of the peltast described by Asclepiodotus), it follows that the reason these men are called thorakitai is because they were armed with a thorax and a thureos, a new combination of arms that required a distinct name. Therefore, we can deduce from the literary evidence that what distinguished the thureophoros from the thorakites was a cuirass. Some authors may have used thureophoros as a blanket term to describe unarmoured and armoured men carrying thureoi, but if you are employing both terms, as the EB does, it only makes sense to keep them as mutually exclusive, or else the entire sense of the word thorakites is lost.

[Ibrahim]

I did, but I must explain why I think this whole debate is fundamentally flawed. Thorakitai and thureophoroi are just terms from the literary sources. We clearly have archaeological evidence that shows units carrying thureoi, and so we somehow have to attempt to match these up with the archaeological record. We do not have any sources, such as funerary stelae, which directly link up any representation of a soldier with either of these titles, as far as I am aware.

In the aforementioned passage in Polybius (10.29), he mentions a unit composed of thorakitai and thureophoroi. Now, we must deduce from this that though these soldiers were similarly armed, there was a distinction between them that warranted giving them different names. Since, presumably, being armed with a thorax and a hoplite's shield would make you a hoplite, and being armed with a thorax and a pelte would make you a peltast (as in Iphicrates' peltasts, or the definition of the peltast described by Asclepiodotus), it follows that the reason these men are called thorakitai is because they were armed with a thorax and a thureos, a new combination of arms that required a distinct name. Therefore, we can deduce from the literary evidence that what distinguished the thureophoros from the thorakites was a cuirass. Some authors may have used thureophoros as a blanket term to describe unarmoured and armoured men carrying thureoi, but if you are employing both terms, as the EB does, it only makes sense to keep them as mutually exclusive, or else the entire sense of the word thorakites is lost.

I see now. thanks.

[paullus]

the plan is actually to have a mix of armored and unarmored men among the thureophoroi, but that adjustment to the unit has not been completed as yet, partly because we never decided on the proper ratio.

as for connections to actual units, a papyrus from 197 BC attests a Kretan hyperetes (junior officer) of the second epilektoi thorakitai. its one of our best, if not only, attestations of units of specifically "thorakitai" in Hellenistic armies.

[Phalanx300]

I'm wondering, does the February Preview means that there will also be a March preview?

And I can't wait to see the Spartans for EB2 .

[desert]

They will play flutes whenever you click on them.

[Phalanx300]

They will play flutes whenever you click on them.

That would be nice, though you aren't on the EB team right so your just joking around .

[MeinPanzer]

the plan is actually to have a mix of armored and unarmored men among the thureophoroi, but that adjustment to the unit has not been completed as yet, partly because we never decided on the proper ratio.

as for connections to actual units, a papyrus from 197 BC attests a Kretan hyperetes (junior officer) of the second epilektoi thorakitai. its one of our best, if not only, attestations of units of specifically "thorakitai" in Hellenistic armies.

That's a papyrus where the Cretan is mentioned as the kurios of a woman, right? I read it a long time ago but I've forgotten the citation for it. Anyway, the unfortunate thing is that we don't have any depictions of soldiers connected with the word thorakit, which would allow us to determine what they were equipped with beyond their thorakes.

Anyway, could you maybe explain briefly why you are going with some armoured thureophoroi? That's one thing I've always been a bit puzzled about in relation to the EB thureophoroi given the nature of the (rather limited) evidence.

[chairman]

While I do not profess to have anywhere near the knowledge or experience of Keravnos, Paullus or Meinpanzer, I feel that there is a certain amount of common sense that can be applied to this issue. What is defined as Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, instead of two discrete categories, is actually sets of many points on a continuam of armor or lack thereof, with Thureophoroi being towards the lighter and Thorakitai being towards the heavier, but with a mix.

So here is a possible analysis of the continuam.

Peltastai: javelins, pelte, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thureophoroi: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thorakitai: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, greaves, & one the following: linen, leather or metal plate thorax or mail or muscle cuirass.

So there is an overlap between Thureophoroi and Thorakitai, which is only natural.

This is just my concept based on what I read in this and other threads and my understanding of Hellenistic warfare. If any of this doesn't fit, please correct me so that I can better understand.

Chairman

[geala]

The problem is that many pictures of soldiers with a thureos show them without armour, but with helmet and spear (and sometimes javelins). I would see them as heavy infantry because they were able to fight the enemy toe to toe in the same manner I would count a naked Celt with sword and scutum as heavy infantry. You don't necessarily need armour for it.

I would prefer these thoureophoroi would have no armour in EB, too. With armour I would name them thorakitai. And I would give the peltastai a round pelte with less defence and slightly less melee stats or even get rid of them. I always have the problem to distinguish the peltastai from the thoureophoroi and decide what unit I shall use. In the end I nearly never ever use thoureophoroi because peltastai have more or less the same performance in melee and can shower the enemy with javelins.

[MeinPanzer]

While I do not profess to have anywhere near the knowledge or experience of Keravnos, Paullus or Meinpanzer, I feel that there is a certain amount of common sense that can be applied to this issue. What is defined as Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, instead of two discrete categories, is actually sets of many points on a continuam of armor or lack thereof, with Thureophoroi being towards the lighter and Thorakitai being towards the heavier, but with a mix.

So here is a possible analysis of the continuam.

Peltastai: javelins, pelte, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thureophoroi: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, with or without: simple helmet, greaves, linen or leather thorax.

Thorakitai: javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, greaves, & one the following: linen, leather or metal plate thorax or mail or muscle cuirass.

So there is an overlap between Thureophoroi and Thorakitai, which is only natural.

This is just my concept based on what I read in this and other threads and my understanding of Hellenistic warfare. If any of this doesn't fit, please correct me so that I can better understand.

Chairman

This argument doesn't work for the very reason I posted earlier - why would a thureophoros wearing armour be anything but a thorakites? As far as we can tell, what made a thorakites a thorakites and not a thurephoros was that he wore a thorax. The evidence we have makes it apparent that this is a binary opposition - if you carry a thureos and don't wear a thorax, you are a thureophoros; if you carry and thureos and do wear a thorax, you are a thorakites.

But from our evidence it's apparent that the normal equipment of a thureophoros was javelins or spear, thureos, sword, and helmet. The standard equipment of a thorakites was javelins or spear, thureos, sword, helmet, and a metal muscled or an organic cuirass. I can only think of one, very exceptional example of a representation of a soldier equipped with thureos as well as greaves.

[Cybvep]

Actually, a second February preview is a very nice idea ;)