Slitherine

I read a few books about pyrrhus and i think the have a lot of mistakes.
a) thureophoroi: why the epirote list dont have this guys? many of other armies near epiro and in the samne ages have this troop, late macedonians, late seleucide, hellenistic greeks, and epiro, no?? This guys dont like the epiro weather?? too cold.
b) Pyrrhus was saved when he was a children for the king of the illirians, glaucias. And become his father in law. Why pyrrhic list dont have illirians allies, maibe medium or light foot. Or when he was in sicily where are his siciliotes allies?
c) Pyrrhus only have elephants in italia, was been a present for him was send his allied Ptolemy Ceraunus, king of macedon.
d) The tarentines have a very popular and well prepared cavalry, tarentine cavalry. They were no from tarento, but the name was a cavalry with light weapons but a large shield. Maybe L. horse/average or superior/ protected/drilled/ javelins/ L.spear.

I think this list is a literal copy from the DBM list, and dont have a revision like other.

Sources:
The Life of Pyrrhus by Plutarch
Pyrrhus, King of Epirus by Petros E. Garoufalias
Greece and Rome at war by Peter Connolly
Warfare in the Ancient World by John Warry

bye.

pirro wrote:I read a few books about pyrrhus and i think the have a lot of mistakes.
a) thureophoroi: why the epirote list dont have this guys? many of other armies near epiro and in the samne ages have this troop, late macedonians, late seleucide, hellenistic greeks, and epiro, no?? This guys dont like the epiro weather?? too cold.

Oddly, unlike most other Hellenistic armies I don't think Pyrrhos is attested as having used any. A bit unusual so maybe we did miss them out.

pirro wrote:
b) Pyrrhus was saved when he was a children for the king of the illirians, glaucias. And become his father in law. Why pyrrhic list dont have illirians allies, maibe medium or light foot. Or when he was in sicily where are his siciliotes allies?

Any actual attested alliances where they fought together? Or is this just speculation?

pirro wrote:
c) Pyrrhus only have elephants in italia, was been a present for him was send his allied Ptolemy Ceraunus, king of macedon.
d) The tarentines have a very popular and well prepared cavalry, tarentine cavalry. They were no from tarento, but the name was a cavalry with light weapons but a large shield. Maybe L. horse/average or superior/ protected/drilled/ javelins/ L.spear.

IMO that would over-egg them.

pirro wrote:
I think this list is a literal copy from the DBM list, and dont have a revision like other.

Given that the DBM lists are very well researched I have no issue with the FoG list being very similar as the same sources are used.

Strictly speaking Pyrrhus had elephants before he got to Italy :}

The tarentine was a type of cavalry, yes, and I have seen no evidence they were much better then any other shielded javelin armed cavalry. There are very few superior light horse in FOG not even the veteran Numidians with Hannibal.

As for the allies/thureophoroi I don't miss them though I see no reason for them not to be available.

We accept the view that thureophoroi were developed after the Galatian invasion of Greece in 280 BC, and presumably took some time to really catch on. Pyrrhos died in 272 BC. So although it is possible that he may have fielded some thureophoroi, we don't know that he did, and it is not at all unlikely that he didn't.

Sicilian allies are covered by the 24 bases of hoplites allowed in the list, just as Pyrrhos's Tarantine allied phalanx is covered in the main list.

The Pyrrhic list isn't too bad. The difficulty is that the more you know the less satisfied you are likely to be. Most of the quibbles I have are in respect of interpretation. That said it would have been nice to have had the option to upgrade part of the phalanx as Macedonian phalangites (even so "bog-standard" is still a valid interpretation).

My main disappointment is the lack of an upgrade for Thessalian cavalry and not enough elephants. I understand that Pyrrhus had only 20 in Italy but he appears to have used them on each wing of the battle line. Hannibal had 30 elephants at the Trebia and used his the same way. There isn't much of a difference in numbers really and I haven't looked at how many elephants each base is supposed to represent, so I wish there was the option for more bases whilst in Italy.

Another point is the assumption that in the list Pyrrhus' heavy cavalry must ditch the xyston rather than making it optional.

As for thuroephoroi there isn't any evidence that he used any such troops and I have never seen any evidence that Illyrians were used. Even in his Greek campaigns there is no mention of them whilst it does specifically mention Aetolian, Akarnanian, and Athamanians etc.

malekithau wrote:Strictly speaking Pyrrhus had elephants before he got to Italy :}

The tarentine was a type of cavalry, yes, and I have seen no evidence they were much better then any other shielded javelin armed cavalry. There are very few superior light horse in FOG not even the veteran Numidians with Hannibal.

As for the allies/thureophoroi I don't miss them though I see no reason for them not to be available.

Maybe was not a superior Lh, but yes protected Lh.

Salute.

I am reconciled to the fact that I will just have to use the list as a basis and amend or alter as I see fit. That of course, is what wargaming is about.

Lists are useful in competitions and I am satisfied that using the list I will still be able to field an army that is representative of Pyrrhus but I regret that it will not quite be the famous army that made a great impression in the history of Rome.

pirro wrote:
Maybe was not a superior Lh, but yes protected Lh.

In general for mounted to qualify as Protected we also look for at least a proportion to have body armour as well as a reasonably substantial shield and I don't think armour was used by these chaps. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Luke U-S's Slingshot piece on Tarantines has illustrations of varying shield sizes as well.

FWIW IMO Protetced isn't really worth having for LH - not that that is an argument for or against a classification

nikgaukroger wrote:

pirro wrote:
Maybe was not a superior Lh, but yes protected Lh.

In general for mounted to qualify as Protected we also look for at least a proportion to have body armour as well as a reasonably substantial shield and I don't think armour was used by these chaps. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Luke U-S's Slingshot piece on Tarantines has illustrations of varying shield sizes as well.

FWIW IMO Protetced isn't really worth having for LH - not that that is an argument for or against a classification

To add to Nik's remarks, it is worth adding that we apply a rather more stringent requirement for Light Horse to count as Protected than we do for Cavalry. The "preferred" list classification for LH is Unprotected, and we only have them as Protected when we really cannot avoid it - e.g. for Spanish jinetes with padded akheton and shield.

You are entitled to disagree with this approach, but it is designed in conjunction with the rules to give LH their correct historical effect, and it has been applied consistently throughout the army lists. Tarantines have not been singled out for unfair treatment, nor is their classification as Unprotected an oversight.

As stated in the rule book, the troop descriptions in the rules are only guidelines. We will not apply them unthinkingly or rigidly, but classify troops in such a way as to give what we deem to be the right historical effect. While we will not be adding any "special rules" in the army list books, we regard the troop classifications in our army lists to be as much a part of the rules system as the rule book itself. The rules and army lists are designed to be synergistic in achieving historical outcomes.

When I first started playing FoG I tried using pritected light foot and quickly realised that to be honest there is very little point in paying the extra points for protected on light troops. Armour only makes a difference for skirmishers when they are in melee, protected is a significant advantage there but how often are your light horse in melee?

After playing a few more games I have found that there is a role for protected lights in that they can to a certain extent hunt down other lights but even then it is really risky. Given the choice between unprotected lights and protected I will generally only choose protected if there are a few points spare that I can't find a use for elsewhere.

hammy wrote:I will generally only choose protected if there are a few points spare that I can't find a use for elsewhere.

Just out of curiosity what do you think of armoured lights such as some of the Spanish Jinete types?

ethan wrote:

hammy wrote:I will generally only choose protected if there are a few points spare that I can't find a use for elsewhere.

Just out of curiosity what do you think of armoured lights such as some of the Spanish Jinete types?

i've been looking at those lists, and like the idea. but specifically as hunter/killers for other lights.

if someone's going to field ottomans on me, i'll place a lot of uneven ground, then get the medium foot and LH into the flanks. KN to take care of others.

theoretically, mind.

ethan wrote:Just out of curiosity what do you think of armoured lights such as some of the Spanish Jinete types?

I've wondered about that too. The extra 3 points per base buys you a melee POA if your opponent is protected or armoured, but it's wasted if your opponent is unprotected or heavily armoured. Most skirmishers are unprotected, so I figure the armour's value would be in melee after a flank/rear charge vs. HF, MF, or Cav. Is that worth 12 points (at least) per BG?

rtaylor wrote:

ethan wrote:Just out of curiosity what do you think of armoured lights such as some of the Spanish Jinete types?

I've wondered about that too. The extra 3 points per base buys you a melee POA if your opponent is protected or armoured, but it's wasted if your opponent is unprotected or heavily armoured. Most skirmishers are unprotected, so I figure the armour's value would be in melee after a flank/rear charge vs. HF, MF, or Cav. Is that worth 12 points (at least) per BG?

I am still to be convinced that armoured is worth it although in period there are a fair few protected lights so it may have some value.

I expected to dominate the skirmish battle with them at Leeds but in the end the games were won by our armoured infantry and knights.

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed by the pyrrhic list being as there are no greek/itallian Allies available .The fact that the Cavalry and phalanx cannot be upgraded to ooops elite cav/superior inf and the xyston cavalry optional thing is a bit resrictive for me . I geuss when it comes to tourneys everyone will bring selucids or ptolemy.I remember reading that the Tarentine cavalry was thought by some to be introduced by pyrrhus .Well i hope you guys take another look at his list and are open to some small changes .If not then we pyrrhic's will just have to soldier on .

As someone who onlt really knows the Pyrrhic army from the DBM lists I can't see anything missing from the FoG list.

The light cavalry battle group can be Tarentines. The Samanite, Lucian or Brutians are the Italians that fought with him.

I could certainly field almost the exact same army that I used when I won the Warfare DBM Rise of Rome comp with this list. It might even be pretty good in FoG. One to try at the club perhaps.

pyrrhus wrote:I have to admit I was a bit disappointed by the pyrrhic list being as there are no greek/itallian Allies available.

They are in the list, they are included in the main list rather than as separate allied contingents. As we (following the opinion of Hannibal) also rate Pyrrhos highly, we felt that he had the ability to exert his authority over these allies.

phalanx cannot be upgraded to elite

Nobody's phalanx can be upgraded to Elite. On what basis do you feel that Pyrrhos's phalanx was better than that of the other early Successors?

As Hammy says, the Tarantines are already there. The reasons for their classification are discussed in an earlier post.

Sorry I meant SUPERIOR. My mistake . I do believe the cavalry should have the ability to be elites ,and that some of the palangites should be able to be upgraded to superior .If Pyrrhus can exert his authority over his allies .I believe he would have followed common hellenistic pratice and have a guard unit of cavalry (the elites ) and one of the infantry (the superiors) thats all I am saying just a little bit more spice to the list .Dont get me wrong I like the list for the most part .I just looked forward to few upgraded units . patrick

Pyrrhus has always been one of my favorite commanders of the ancient world and consequently I have spent a fair amount of time researching his campaigns and have fielded a Pyrrhic army on a number of occassions. While there are certainly a few nits to pick with the current list, it is, in my opinion fairly good at representing the army he took to Italy. As far as the absence of thureophoroi is concerned it must be remembered that most thureophoroi of the period were mercenaries and Epirus was bog poor and simply incapable of recruiting mercenary soldiers in large numbers. Many of Pyrrhus's troops, including a large chunk of his phalanx, were on loan from other Successors.

While I concur that there is no basis to classify any of Pyrrhus's phalanx as elite, I think there should be some room to upgrade a portion of the phalanx to superior representing the native Epirots and/or the loaned Macedonians. The upgraded phalanx would of course be somewhat balanced off by the downgraded Tarantine contingent.

Just my two cents/pence.

Kent