Thureophoroi as offensive spearmen

[marioslaz]

I'm not an expert of hellenistic Greek armies, since I like more classical era. Anyway, something sound me strange about Thureophoroi classified as Offensive Spearmen. I made a simple research and I found an article in Wikipedia (click here) which is in line with my memories. Classifying such troops Offensive Spearmen means, IMO, put them out of their historical role, because they become shock troop unable to shoot, the opposite of their main role, support troops who may also hurl javelins to their enemies.

[lawrenceg]

I think the list writers decided to follow the theory described here:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates2.html

which in summary is:

Originally a peltast was a light javelinman with a small shield (pelta)
THen Ipicrates equipped troops with a long spear, body armour and a pelta, fighting as a phalanx like hoplites. Because these had a pelta, they were called peltasts.
Then these troops adopted the thureos from the Galatians and became thureophoroi. Their tactical role did not change, they still fought with the long spear in a phalanx.

[rbodleyscott]

I think the list writers decided to follow the theory described here:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates2.html

which in summary is:

Originally a peltast was a light javelinman with a small shield (pelta)
THen Ipicrates equipped troops with a long spear, body armour and a pelta, fighting as a phalanx like hoplites. Because these had a pelta, they were called peltasts.
Then these troops adopted the thureos from the Galatians and became thureophoroi. Their tactical role did not change, they still fought with the long spear in a phalanx.

Except when some of them were deployed as skirmishers with javelins, when they were called Euzonoi and would be LF under FOG. According to the theory (and the evidence underpinning it) they did not perform both roles in the same battle.

[Jhykronos]

Luke's excellent thesis runs on quite a bit of admitted speculation on the evolutionary signifigance of the Iphikratean reforms, and historians' use of words like "euzonoi".

I prefer a simpler (compatible) explanation:

In the classic period, you have hoplites with spear and argive shield and peltasts with javelins and oval or crescent pelte.

Cue the Celtic migrations, with their nifty central-bossed laminate shields (thureos).

Now you have hoplites with spears and thureos, peltasts with javelins and thureos, and probably a number of professional mercenaries or dedicated citizens willing to go both ways, depending on circumstances.

I mean, it's not like wargamers have ever blinked at the Carthaginian Thureophoroi being heavy spearmen.


Actually, the one that has always bothered me is Thorakitai. I've always had trouble swallowing that Polybius would use a whole new term to describe a minority of thureophoroi who happened to be wearing armor, but otherwise apparantly had identical tactical status and function. (Not that I disbelieve that there -were- armored thureophoroi, just that they are necessarily who P was referring to...)

[marioslaz]

Luke's excellent thesis runs on quite a bit of admitted speculation on the evolutionary signifigance of the Iphikratean reforms, and historians' use of words like "euzonoi".

I prefer a simpler (compatible) explanation:

In the classic period, you have hoplites with spear and argive shield and peltasts with javelins and oval or crescent pelte.

Cue the Celtic migrations, with their nifty central-bossed laminate shields (thureos).

Now you have hoplites with spears and thureos, peltasts with javelins and thureos, and probably a number of professional mercenaries or dedicated citizens willing to go both ways, depending on circumstances.

I mean, it's not like wargamers have ever blinked at the Carthaginian Thureophoroi being heavy spearmen.

I read Luke's article, as other works. There are many interesting points, but I never found satisfactory. IMO, hoplon is consequent to spear, not the opposite. Hoplite formation have in combination of spear and shield his strength and weakness: many spear heads which poke out from shield wall are a formidable weapon, but spear is very cumbersome and limit a lot manoeuvrability. Shield is very heavy, but it isn't so important in limiting manoeuvrability as spear. Also, spear limits a lot your actions when you are in melee, because you risk to hurt a friend instead of an opponent. With this in mind, now let's ask ourselves why to change shield. Oval shield protect better the owner, because human body fit better in an oval shape instead than in a round one, but oval shield cannot be interlocked with shields of your comrades. IMO, substituting only shield means weaken your strength without strengthen your weakness, because you have a formation without wall shield, but still with little manoeuvrability. All change if you think, at the same time, to shorten spear. If spear is reduced to a "light spear" you improve significantly manoeuvrability of unit and in conjunction with an oval shield, or a scutum, you permit to your warriors a more flexible fight, where you can exalt the fencing skill and you can even change fighters of front line to let them rest (about this see many experimental archaeology works). Light spears was in use by many peoples: Persians, Italy and also by Celts as I will say further on, all cultures with which Greeks had many important contacts, with particular attention to Italy and Celt.
Italy in the 4th century BC was theatre of a lot of development in military weapons and tactics. This development originated scutum and pilum, as weapons, and Roman legionaries as unit/tactic. This is a well known story. What is likely less known is how much this development spread. In a small town near my city there is a very interesting museum, dedicated to an archaeological site. This site was a settlement originally of Umbro-Etruscan people, to whom added Celt starting from 4th century BC. The arrive of Celt doesn't appear to be a traumatic event, like an invasion, but instead there are a lot of signs of integration between the two people. Celt become a dominant class, the warrior class, in this new community, but this appears more like a consequence of natural attitude, than an imposition by the winner of a struggle for the supremacy. Why do I talk about this community? Because the museum is a font of important archaeological evidences. In tombs of warriors, the weapons found as funeral set are: shield (destroyed because in wood) sword, helmet, spear and javelins. Of spear and javelins remain just heads, but we can anyway affirm that spear was near as long as man's height, while javelins were very shorts, something like a big arrow (I would say near a meter - 3 feet and 4 inches). More interesting, in many tombs were found javelin heads pilum shaped. Don't think to Roman pilum of Mario's legionaries, this javelins could be defined proto pilum, because they have a long and narrow heads, but they have an insertion on pole like ordinary javelins. This is an extraordinary historical proof. We already know, from other archaeological finds, pilum was at first an Etruscan weapon, but this is a proof of spreading of military tactics, a proof very important because Celt were dominant as warriors in confront of Etruscan, so this is a case where stronger learn from weaker.
With this in mind, I think is not impossible to hypothesize Greek looked to Italic and Celt units when they developed Thureophoroi. It's also likely Greek developed this new unit starting from peltast rather than hoplite, and so this new unit retained also the skill to fight as skirmishers, perhaps due to a double training which has been maintained. I agree about this double role couldn't be used at the same time, so an unit of such troops could be set or as skirmishers or as fighting, but likely the same unit was trained to set both as skirmishers and as fighting unit, and the role in a specific battle was chosen accordingly to overall tactic.
This is the reason because I think Thureophoroi should be defined as MF protected average light spear, swordsmen like many Italic warriors.

[tadamson]

Isn't the key part of the argument that most thureophoroi were mercenaries hired as line of battle troops by leaders who already had lots and lots of skirmishers. They seem to replace mercenary hoplitai in the general scheme of things.

[marioslaz]

I don't think someone woke up a day and said to a peltast: now get this spear, this shield and you become a thureophoroi. The born of a new unit IMO is a process quite complicated, because you need to train men to fight with a new scheme. Also the new scheme to adopt it's not a simple decision: or you have a model from which you get inspiration, as I think was the case of Greek thureophoroi, or you need to test a totally new scheme, but in the last case chance of failure are higher and to obtain a proficient unit you could wait years.