But their melee capability should be slightly higher than militia hoplites. And this unit should be armed with spears and have hoplites wall skill. This unit should have similar, or slightly less ammo compared with other javelinmen units. I think those two can be replaced by single thureophoroi unit.

In game, there are two thureos units thureos spearmen and hoplites. So thureophoroi can be described as hoplites with quite low amour stat with many javelin.

But their biggest differences with ordinary skirmishers are that, they protect much under armed skirmishers and, most of all, if situation calls, they can joined rank of hoplitai and fight as hoplites. They supposed to hurt enemy with their javelin and try to flank enemy. Generally not amoured but some were amoured. So, if hoplites units in hoplites wall formation can deliver accumulating morale penalty to frontally engaging foe but cannot kill much actually, that would be very historically sound, imo.Īnd thureophoroi, as far as I know, they were basically heavy skirmishers armed with thureos sheild, long thrusting spear and some javelins. If men are so much pushed back and cannot maintain their rank anymore, they will easily loose will to fight and runaway regardless how many of them actually be killed. Because hoplites formation focused on mighty pushing power, rather than kill enemy down. To make hoplites units more historically fit, they can route lesser enemy units quickly not by kill but by morale shock. 'The Introduction of hoplite tactics to Rome is associated in Roman historical tradition with the penultimate king of Rome Servius Tullius (traditional dates 578-534 BC)'ĮDIT: Also some of your sources are very old.įorm in which it was delivered to the Hellenic Society He was Assistantĭirector at the British School at Athens, Greece, and then a lecturer in Ancient Having left the military, he went back to University and completed aīA and PhD in Ancient History at the university of Newcastle. NIC FIELDS started his career as a biochemist before joining the Royal 'During Rome's 'age of kings', there was no appreciable military difference between the Romans and their neighbour' Many scholars still continue to teach outdated ideas, even ones that have been proven incorrect. It has been my experience that military historians have a better understanding of the subject than 'regular historians' who may be slower to more specialized knowledge.

Please quote text for me that backs your statements.Īlso I never stated 'what military historians say'. On the main issue, however, what 'military historians' say, according to you, is incorrect, judging from evidence drawn from regular history and archaeology. Whether or not the Romans used 'hoplites' is all up to how you define a hoplite - is it just a guy with a spear and a shield who fights in a formation, or is it the Greek warrior with the specific equipment, namely, thorax, aspis, etc.? I, and much of the scholarship on the issue, would argue that the Romans did not in fact field 'hoplites' per se, since the hoplite denotes a very specific type of formation-fighting warrior. Currently he is Head of the Department of Mediterranean Archaeology at Gdansk University, Poland, and is co-director of excavations at Negotino, Republic of Macedonia.' He has worked in Australia, at Monash University and the Australian National University, and later in England at Oxford and Manchester Universities, and at Torun University in Poland. 'Nicholas Sekunda was awarded his BA in Ancient History and Archaeology in 1975, and his PhD in 1981, both by the University of Manchester. Also archaic Greece predates the time period to a time when hoplite warfare was at its peak. Roman Republic 509 BC–27 BC, Wrong time period?

2K A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britanniaĭid you know Romans originally fought as hoplites?.

846 A Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai.

Hoplite shield refrence