"Credible Epirote/Pyrrhic List?" Topic

Based on discussions here I've tried to sketch out a credible early Pyrrhic list as the basis for a future mini order.

It's largely based off the Aventine range with the phalangites coming from Warlord. Skirmishers and hoplitai are models I already own. The overall troop selection is intended to:
i) broadly reflect historical composition;
ii) allow for morphing into other Successor armies; and,
iii) allow for satisfying combined arms play.

I'd appreciate any feedback on any major gaffes or omissions.

Primary system would be Hail Caesar, though I'm waiting for War & Conquest to arrive.

EPIROTE LIST

Pyrrhus & General
Agema heavy cavalry (12)
Heavy cavalry Pyrrhic lancers (12)
Medium/Light cavalry, Greek/Tarentine (12)
Light cavalry w/ javelins (6-12)

Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)

Hoplitai (16)
Hoplitai (16)

Elephant (no headdress) + Crew

LIGHT TROOPS
Light infantry armed with spears/javelins (theureophoroi standing in as Oscans) (18)
Archers (8)
Slingers (16)
Javelineers (16)

Some outstanding questions:
1. I know there's some debate about whether or not Pyrrhus brought back the theuros from his Italian experience, but I figure the theurophoroi models could be used as both Oscans and later 'true' theurophoroi for other Diadochoi armies.
2. Would argyraspides-like phalangites with cast shields be used by Pyrrhus? I may make one unit up out cast-shield phalangites so that they could later be used as Seleucids.

I would make it possible to do what he did, and alternate your pikemen with non-pikemen in the main line in italy.

its an open question whether these should be hoplites or not, since they seem to be southern italian infantry – and may even be thureophoroi types, if you think that a viable representation of sanmites (I'm not convinced on that score),
so one more hoplite unit to give that option (and if you like thureophoroi, then why not do three of those for the change option too).
having more hoplites also works (for me) for sicilian rasied citizens, and seems reasonable to expect in greece too.

Also, some peltast types – these were the basic mercenary from the greek world by this stage (since anyone who could afford to be a hoplite didnt need to become a mercenary), and provided a useful function on the battlefield, so would have been present

for the cast shields, I think having half our units of and half the other will allow an easy way to identify macedonian recruited phalangites from Epiriot raised ones – which also allows an easy way to mix quality types if your rules do that

for me, I would keep tarantine cavalry to a light cav with javelin role – but I would expect a unit of greek-ish heavy/medium cav to be there anyway – so numbers wise its the same.

and I'd be sorely tempted to do a second elephant unit with howdas, so you have the option of either -or (my rules choice has weak and strong elephants, so its sensible for me to have both)

lastly, if JJ says anything different, then do that.

ether

I use Successor armies in War & Conquest, its a great set of rules that work extremely well for our given period in history.

Time it right, and your heavy cavalry will make some devastating charges, while your pikemen lock the enemy into killing zones.

May your dice always be kind – descendant of Alexander.

Raglan

I would love to include more than one elephant, but that would probably exceed historical proportions (not to mention HC list guidelines, though that's less important than historical precedent). If there is evidence to the contrary, I'm more than happy to field more elephants, but I don't think there is, unless it would better model tactics like multiple elephant charges from different angles (I have some vague memory of this, could be wrong).

Elephants aren't too powerful anyway in HC since the rules expect you to field more than one, even though usually you'll probably be limited to just one per ten other units. Still, I doubt my local group would mind, and Nellies are one of the main reason I am going the Successor route. Hmmm…

I don't think Pyrrhus used peltasts, at least they're in none of the lists I've found (including JJ's). Though the theurophoroi/Italiate light infantry probably fulfil a similar role. In any case, my javelineers are kitted out with crescent pelte.

Agree with light cavalry as Tarentines. The medium cav was labelled as such since that's just Aventine's convention. I would use those as Thessalian or allied Greek medium cav.

I'll probably hold off getting more than one unit of theurophoroi unless I'm convinced that they formed significant proportions of battlefield troops. These are times of recession :)

Raglan – that's very good to hear. I'm looking forward to poring over the rules. I'm hoping to blaze a path on the tabletop with pike and hoof.

On another note, supposing no one takes a close look at any PYR standards, this list could serve as an Antigonid or other early Diadochoi army in a pinch, right? (I plan to swap out phalangite command stands with the standard of the appropriate Diadochi later).

Looks good to me.

Light infantry armed with spears/javelins (theureophoroi standing in as Oscans) (18)

These could also be used as Cineas' 3,000 infantry sent as an advanced force to Trantum.

I was thinking an either-or-option for the elephants, not both at once, as you are quite right about proportionality.

But all of the lists I have use Peltasts with this army, and indeed with every Helenistic army (in varying proportions) – if I remember, i'll check the DBMM ones as well when I get back to the shelf they are on.

no doubt someone can post what the (so dull I didn't bother buying them) FoG lists have too.

Hi ether- good to see another budding Epirote. I have started building up my Pyrrhus army and they will be one of my main painting projects for 2013.

For pikemen he had a mix of Macedonian and ethnic Epirote (incl Thesprotoi, Molossian & Ambrakiot) Phalanxes. I plan on using the classic starburst for shields for former and the ones with Pyrrhic symbol for the latter.

But as others have pointed out to me before, we only know that symbol from coins and have no way of knowing that used on shields/banners etc. Therefore you could quite easily stick to either the classic starbursts or more generic of Successor symbols. This would make it easier to morph your army into any of the early Successors armies.

Re Peltasts, I understand that Pyrrhus had approx 4,000 Aetolian, Acarnanian and Athamanian mercenaries, and that these were primarily equipped as Peltasts.

Re Thureophoroi, AFAIK we don't have a definitive date on when they were introduced, other than during the time of Pyrrhus.

For myself I plan on sticking with Peltasts for earlier battles such as Heraclea and Asculum, maybe add Thureophoroi for Sciliy and Beneventum, and definitely have them for his campaigns in Macedonia and Greece. To me a sliding scale of introduction makes more sense rather than overnight conversion.

Cheers

James

It is generally assumed that Greeks did not use the thureos in great numbers until after the Galatian invasion-- which occured while Pyrrhus was in Italy-- so based on that no thureophoroi in his Italian adventures. Samnites and Oscans used the scutum large and small-- a different curved shield- but some were similar to the thureos in size and shape.

Others say that the Acheans used a thureos style shield much earlier and that it fits their light infantry fighting style. But this may be garbled up by lack of direct evidence, and again attention paid in sources much later than Pyrrhus' time… so they may be anachronistic.

For me its easy the peltasts in Pyrrhus' army would be typical buckler and crescent shielded types… or helmeted types with round shields.
JJ

Pyrrhus & General
Agema heavy cavalry (12)
Heavy cavalry Pyrrhic lancers (12)

---> Pyrrhus's Agema was small. His Thessalian contingent was numerous.

Medium/Light cavalry, Greek/Tarentine (12)
Light cavalry w/ javelins (6-12)

Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)
Sarissa Phalangites (32)

Hoplitai (16)
Hoplitai (16)

----> Tarentines or other Southern Italians work

Elephant (no headdress) + Crew

----> Probably should have a tower if it matters

LIGHT TROOPS
Light infantry armed with spears/javelins (theureophoroi standing in as Oscans) (18)

-----> Oscans are more colorful

Archers (8)

-----> Cretans are listed

Slingers (16)

------> Acarnanians Achaeans Aetolians probably… maybe some Rhodians

Javelineers (16)

-------> Seems like a good enough list for a start.

Thanks!

I reckon I can easily retask the heavy lancers and medium cavalry as two types of Thessalians, giving a 2:1 ratio of Thessalians to Epirote Agema.

The hoplitai are existing models. Just a budget issue.

The elephant will definitely have a tower, just no head armour as that seems more Seleucid.

Are Oscans best identified by their often circular breastplate?

Weren't some Thracians already using theuros-like shields prior to the Galatian invasion? Would such Thracian mercenaries be used by Pyrrhus? If shields are a real stickler, I'm thinking of working out a practical way to do shield swaps, maybe with pins/wire. That way the same figures could serve in one era/area as peltasts and in another as theurophoroi. Crescent pelte /-> theuros? Again, it's a budget issue.

Archers are already Cretan models.

wargame insomniac/James – Great to hear. Look forward to following your progress. Have you got good orders of battle?

The thracians question is a real can of worms.

You can start with the excellent 'Gods of Battle' (Chris Webber, Pen and Sword), which covers a lot of the ground (excellent book, get it now before it goes out of print if you can)

This site

link

Luke Ueda-Sarsson, has three particularly relevant articles – the two in Iphikrites, and one on Illyrians (the overlooked chaps in the story of the thureos).

short answer for me is – one or two per unit, but basically none until after pyrrhus, so leave them as the oval pelta. sorry, but for me, they are not interchangeable with thureophoroi in any way. They are, however, dispensible on budget grounds (and given your rules choices, probably for the best as the lists you mention don't seem to encourage them)

JJ is quite right to differentiate the Samnite scutum from the thureos.

this links to someone else who has nicked the osprey samnite illustrations.

tinyurl.com/cxev68q

chest plates, interesting feathers, heavy full greves, scutum, tunics that look like late 80's shorts with the high side thing, Large oval shields – quite unique, which is appealing (but if cost is an issue, just stick with the hoplites). and again, not interchangeable with thureophoroi for me, but JJ seems happy with it, so go with him.

agree on the elephant armour / crests.

I think your good to go though as you are, so get stuck in and have some fun with it.

who makes oval pelta? haven't come across them in manufacturers, only in Osprey illustrations.

As an alternative, though, my sense is that the crescent shield was starting to fade out by this time. Would a small round aspis do?

crescent, sorry – long day