"Relic's Thorakites Command" Topic

Hello folks. I wanted to share a some pictures of a command set I've just finished painting, Relic Miniatures' Thorakites Command.

Personally I've never gamed with Macedonians or Successors, or any phalanx-based force, and I've been wondering what peoples' experiences are. Do you find yourself having to fill the same niches to support your phalanxes as the historical armies did? Do you find your thureophoroi and thorakites perfoming their historical roles, or do they get dedicated to other functions?

Anyway, these are a great set of figures and I'm really looking forward to getting the rest of the unit done up soon. More pictures here:
link

Regards, James

James

Very timely as I have just got some of these good looking chaps in – very nice paint job by the way. Interesting shield pattern.

As far as your question is concerned, unless you have a fair bit of terrain, phalanxes are fine on their own, with cavalry and skirmishers. I find most rules do not reward fielding 'loose order' troops. They get 'done' by close order infantry.

I was planning to use these guys for my Hellenistic Greeks – especially under Hail Caesar, which classes them as heavy infantry.

Thanks again for the post, will come in very handy.

Garry

Great work – I really do love those shields and the colors.

Great brush work on some great looking figures!

Very nice figures and painting!!!! Mike Adams

Nice job! I have mine ready to go as soon as i get my painting break in a couple weeks.

As for the battlefield role of thureophoroi and their armored counterparts thorakites we have little actual data. We know this style of soldier became the norm after hoplites became redundant and the Celtic (Galatian) invasion of Greece made the use of the oval shield more common.

The fact that they are mercenaries makes their dress and use less discernible in later Successor armies. For example it is very possible that many of the Asian troops at Raphia were armed as thureophoroi-- so thureophoroi vs. thureophoroi on the Seleucid left flank and Ptolemaic right flank. My guess is that thureophoroi and thorakites formed into a phalanx like formation in a battleline, but were useful because in th emost common actions in between battles they could be skirmishers, or loose order troops as needed, especially useful in sieges.

In Alexander's day the phalangites could perform these dual roles, but in the Successor armies the phalangites appear to stay out of these tasks and allow the mercenaries to do the dirty work. Although we do hear of a company of phalangites defending a city to great effect at Atrax during the Macedonian wars, but that is one of the few references. The fact that the Antigonids had difficulty retainign quality mercenaries as thureophoroi was a major problem for them, as their wars with Rome dragged on they had to use Illyrians, Gauls, and Thracians, all of whom had merits in particular roles, but were not solid multi-role infantry like the thureophoros.

This is my link:

link

I'm looking forward to comparing the excellent new Relic figures to both Aventine's and Polemarch's fine figures… among all of these ranges we have no shortage of excellent thureophoroi style troops… even the Old Glory figures and Newline (above link ) are some of their very best.

JJ

Thanks for the kind words guys. And JJ, thanks for the awesome link – great info!

Mithridates, it's interesting that rule sets typically don't reward fielding troops in that particular historical role. I wonder what kind of mechanic one would need to make to encourage more historical troop mixes, to make sure that the thureophoroi/thorakites' niche is really there? Interesting question anyway…..

- James

Excellent job of painting on some very nice sculpts.

Doug

Great sculpts, amd great painting!

Cheers, Simon

James

No easy answer – I remember a game of Hail Caesar where my opponent fielded some cavalry, skirmishers and 6 phalanxes! I had a balanced force with thureophoroi as well as phalanxes. As the table was quite small and terrain insignificant the result was not a pretty one!

Options could be to pre-set the armies or set up a scenario.

Garry

On the simulation side, I think you would need rules that limit the manoeuverability of the phalanx and its need for even ground, possibly even a stiffer penalty for attacks to its flanks and rear.

Hail Caesar, for example, is very laissez faire in turning for the sake of ease of play.

Unless you are simulating phalanx v legion in Italy or parts of Greece commanders usually picked flat ground, so terrain penalties may not come in often.

You could limit a phalanx's turning ability to, say 45 degrees in a given round, impose an extra -1 penalty on attacks to its flanks and rear (reflecting the difficulty of bringing pikes to bear).

This might give enough of a tactical advantage for troops such as theurophoroi to serve as hinges for pike phalanx blocks. The phalanx would still enjoy the usual superior advantages granted in most rulesets for a head-on attack.

Maybe also especially penalize the phalanx when it is being attacked on its proverbially vulnerable right flank? And there would have to be room for maneuver on the flanks too… I like the idea of maneuverability penalties and bonuses to emphasize the different infantry roles.

But I think you're probably right Mithridates, scenario set up is probably the most practical way to encourage historical deployments.

James

JJ, was interested in your comment re Raphia. I was tempted to cast the Greeks as thureophoroi, but read they were described as hoploitoi.

Had hoploitoi, by this time, become a term that could be used to describe troops no longer equipped with hoplons, but perhaps fighting in line of battle?

Cheers, Simon

Raphia and hoplites… that's a hard one to answer.

My guess is that there were no hoplites-- of the standard we know… ie large round shield armored dudes by 217 BC. I cant say for sure though… and I will admit I used my hoplites in my Panium battle OOB as my homage to the last of the hoplite… but even here the scanty detail simply that the Aetolian 'hoplites' were more agile than the opposing phalanx in the undulating ground.

link

The last time that hoplites seem to be anwhere near common is the Chremonidean War 267 BCE – 261 BCE, which is contemporary with other hoplites that serve in Punic armies (most notably under Xanthippus in 255). But there gear is also not clear, and some greek cities were switching to Macedonian gear. There is certainly no direct evidence either way, and wargamers tend to like to prefer that Xanthippus' style force could still be around 38 years later…. but it seems more likely to me that these Greeks were simply thureophoroi, or thorakites-- albeit with linen armor, and they simply fought in a hoplite formation since it was a pitched battle. Hoplite after all just means fully equipped, just as phalanx can also be use to describe a battleline…. by 217 BCE a fully equipped dude like an armored thureophoros was a hoplite for all intents and purposes.

My that's my inconsistent opine.
JJ

Thanks JJ, that's a great answer. I'll ponder it, but I'm inclined to go with the Thureophoroi, as you suggest, for the reasons you describe, and because I love Thureophoroi!

cheers, Simon

The Seleucids used Thorakitai as assault troops, eg clifftops etc according to Bar Kochva, owing to armour and skills in a variety of situations.

I see them as the successors to the multi-role Macedonian hypaspists.

Sort of remind me of a hybrid of Triarii and Princeps. Spear/shield/throwing spear. Skirm with some staying ability.

As an aside, in Impetus Thorakitai are very good troops. They fight very tough but being rated as LI they move well too. Only downside is that they cost of a lot of points. I have waited for these boys for a long time. Didn't know that the command had come out.

It's hard to model Thorakitai in Hail Caesar properly I'm finding.

I just want to say…nice figures.