Thureophoroi and other heavy/medium foot.

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
Rekila
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Galiza

Thureophoroi and other heavy/medium foot.

Post by Rekila »

We have begun to collect the armies for a future campaign based on the second Punic War and 1st Macedonian War. For something I think I read here in the forum (but can’t find now) I get the impression that Thureophoroi were classed As HF/Mf to cope with older interpretations but that the authors think that they were heavy foot more likely. Is that the case? Especially, for the Second Punic War period.
Another possibility is that they form an intermediate category, sometimes (or in some armies) being the main infantry force, in the role of heavy foot; others, specially in armies with more typical heavy foot, like pikemen, in an auxiliary function and so better represented as Medium Foot. In that case I’m thinking in basing them in MF bases but with the same number of figures as Heavy foot to distinguish them of other MF (with lesser figures) . So they can be deployed as heavy or medium Foot depending of the circumstances. The same with other HF/MF, like Gallic. I have also contemplate the possibility of basing them in 6x2.5 bases (28mm) but don’t think that necessary.
Thanks in advance. All opinions will be very welcome
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Thureophoroi and other heavy/medium foot.

Post by nikgaukroger »

Rekila wrote:We have begun to collect the armies for a future campaign based on the second Punic War and 1st Macedonian War. For something I think I read here in the forum (but can’t find now) I get the impression that Thureophoroi were classed As HF/Mf to cope with older interpretations but that the authors think that they were heavy foot more likely. Is that the case? Especially, for the Second Punic War period.
Reading this site will explain the thinking behind the HF option - http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates1.html - there are 2 parts.


Another possibility is that they form an intermediate category, sometimes (or in some armies) being the main infantry force, in the role of heavy foot; others, specially in armies with more typical heavy foot, like pikemen, in an auxiliary function and so better represented as Medium Foot. In that case I’m thinking in basing them in MF bases but with the same number of figures as Heavy foot to distinguish them of other MF (with lesser figures) . So they can be deployed as heavy or medium Foot depending of the circumstances. The same with other HF/MF, like Gallic. I have also contemplate the possibility of basing them in 6x2.5 bases (28mm) but don’t think that necessary.
Thanks in advance. All opinions will be very welcome


IMO as long as they aren't going to be confused with other troops your plan is OK.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Rekila
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Galiza

Post by Rekila »

Thanks for the answer. I’m thinking definitively to take the second option, putting them in Mf bases with HF numbers. The same for the Gallic and even others barbarians, like the celtiberians that are not MF/HF to keep visual coherence and reuse them if necessary.
JadedMantis
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Post by JadedMantis »

I have my Roman Auxilia based on MF bases with HF numbers (still undecided as to which way they should be used) while the Lanciari that are always MF are 3 to a base.
That seems to work fine for me.
Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”