|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 8, 2022 14:08:21 GMT
I’m I think we need to refer to the definitive source on the matter: the 2004 Oliver Stone movie Alexander the Great. Here it is clearly stated that the Macedonians did not regard themselves as Greeks……but rather rustic goat herds with Irish accents.
Actually Oliver Stone insisted on the accents as he considered that the Macedonian relationship with the Greeks was similar to the Irish relationship with the British…..so Stevie’s Glasgow kiss might not be too far from them
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 8, 2022 19:47:14 GMT
An interesting discussion...were the Macedonians ‘Greeks’? A difficult question to answer after 2500 years, particularly with the added spice of modern politics in a world tinged with nationalism. It's becomes more complicated when you consider that the Ancient Greeks divided themselves into four separate ethnic groups: Dorians, Achaeans, Ionians, Aetolians, rather than a pure "race". These ethnic groups are thought to have arrived on the Greek peninsula at different times rather than being four concurrent tribal groups. Macedon was certainly at the edge of the "Greek world", surrounded by Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, etc. Not dissimilar to Syracuse and the other Greek cities in eastern Sicily. We see in those cities a natural admixing of Sicels and Greeks and I am sure this would have occurred on the frontiers of Macedon, Thessaly and Akarnania as well. So it's best to go to the experts, and who are better qualified to determine who qualified as ancient greek and the ancients themselves? Alexander I of Macedon (who claimed Argive descent) had his claim to "Greekness" adjudicated by a court of Elean hellanodikai in order to compete at the Olympic Games and was considered Greek-enough to be allowed. Alexander ISo this question is actually 2500 years old. But if the priests of Zeus, at the most holy religious festival, are satisfied then that's enough for me, particularly as Macedon was neither rich nor powerful at that time to obviously corrupt the process (I'm looking at you, Rome!). But it was still discussed amongst the southerners, particularly the Athenians, so much so that Thucidydes also wrote about it, in agreement with the priests, 100 years later. (Seems bigotry is an old pastime as well.) It is so human to continue this discussion after so many years. Imagine the chat room banter if Philip and Demosthenes had internet access? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 9, 2022 9:16:53 GMT
I'll add my bit if it helps.The Antagonism between the Greeks and Macedonians stems mainly from the writings of Arrian...a Roman writer and long after the time of Alexander.
Scholars have added their opinions over the years mostly supporting that the Greeks and Macedonians had few differences and that it was more the Political differences that really told them apart.In language,culture and education their was little to tell them apart.Of note to is that several Macedonian cities were originally Greek colonies created mainly from Chalcis and Athenian settlers and still maintained links with their former cities prior to the rise of Phillip II and Alexander.
|
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 10, 2022 18:11:15 GMT
By the way, I ordered the Xyston stuff and am now thinking about colour schemes. The images I could find suggest a lot of white overall, with shields being bronze or white. How about other colours? Greens, reds, blues, were those a thing too? And is the weird light blue scheme from Warlord's Sacred Band a thing, because it seems like a stretch to me. I should add, I'm not too strict about historical accuracy - it is much more important to me to have the units look different, have a good overall look, etc. So I'm aiming for a general accuracy, doesn't have to be perfect.
Well, the bronze will be bronze and the iron will be iron. Other than that, there is little more hard fact, which seems perfect for your overall effect. The linothorax is usually considered white but may also be off-white or beige, particularly if the theory that it was stiffened with ceramic is true and it had seen some years. It would have been decorated and perhaps reinforced with metal at weak spots. The pteruges hanging down may have been from the same material or from leather and also decorated. Researching Persians recently showed me that available dyes were red, yellow, crimson, purple, sand, beige, brown, black and blue. Of course different shades of these colours would be present. It was interesting and surprising to read that green was quite difficult at this time. Horsehair crests are usually considered as single or combination colours of red, black and white (again beige or simply bleached would be present). Shields could be intricate with whatever background colour as either the bronze could be painted or may only have been around the rim. Centrally distributed shields would likely have been plainer than personal shields. All this of course is conjecture. This youtube link discussing the absence of a word for blue in ancient greek was fascinating and raises the possibility that blue was indeed present but simply not called blue as we would. Blue in Ancient Greece
So you're pretty free with your palette and can have some fun and inspiration as you paint. Enjoy! Cheers Jim That seems pretty straightforward, thank you very much for the info.
The whole colour-thing is indeed a fascinating topic; if you want to know more of that, the Word Color Survey is the central page for it. If you'd like to read the actual scientific works, Berlin & Kay's stuff may be hard to find, but there is a rather nice, comprehensive article by Robert McLaury, which I have used in classes before and which is more recent. If you're interested, I can send it to you  .
And now, concentrate, people!  The Macedonian discussion is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is particularly well placed in this thread and I am still trying to get my head around what terrain to take. I'm leaning towards 2 plough and 2 hills, because I don't care about movement speed so much (I think), but really want to be in good going with most of my army. Thoughts? 
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 10, 2022 18:39:36 GMT
That seems pretty straightforward, thank you very much for the info.
The whole colour-thing is indeed a fascinating topic; if you want to know more of that, the Word Color Survey is the central page for it. If you'd like to read the actual scientific works, Berlin & Kay's stuff may be hard to find, but there is a rather nice, comprehensive article by Robert McLaury, which I have used in classes before and which is more recent. If you're interested, I can send it to you .
And now, concentrate, people! The Macedonian discussion is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is particularly well placed in this thread and I am still trying to get my head around what terrain to take. I'm leaning towards 2 plough and 2 hills, because I don't care about movement speed so much (I think), but really want to be in good going with most of my army. Thoughts? 
You must have some Bad or Rough Going (or a river or Waterway) - and the Plough doesn't count. If you really want to create a billiard table, you could go for a minimum size hamlet, which would give you a piece of rough going, and 2 gentle hills. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2022 20:04:08 GMT
Very well then...let’s talk terrain. I’d go along with Menacussecundus, with a slight variation. Compulsory Terrain: yes, a Rough Going BUA Hamlet, as small as possible, placed in some obscure out of the way corner actually touching a table edge. That’s fulfilled the Rough/Bad Going requirement where it can do no harm. Optional Terrain: I’d have two small areas of Plough rather than Hills. Why have Gentle Hills that the enemy can grab and make use of? Er...and that’s about it! If the enemy has Knights (say a II/12 Alexander army) you might want to go for a large Hamlet and three large Enclosures/Scrub/Boggy areas instead of the Plough to rob your opponent’s Knights their ‘quick kill’ in Good Going. This also helps to rob their Pikes of rear-support as well. If the enemy has lots of Warbands (say a II/30a Galatian army) then avoid placing any Bad Going at all costs! If the enemy has lots of Light Horse, Cavalry or Light Chariots (say a II/5c Thessalian army) then go after them with your Spears. They will only be able to flee once as a second flee will take them right off the table! I'd also make sure that the Psiloi (of which the II/5c Theban army has at least two of) ends up behind in reserve. From there they'll have the speed to use their Threat Zones to prevent your opponent from exploiting any gaps that may appear in your battleline. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 10, 2022 20:36:10 GMT
You can also consider a Waterway to anchor one flank against non-littoral enemies. Then you get to choose Ps or Cav to hold the other flank or place in reserve to fill holes in the phalanx.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 10, 2022 22:24:51 GMT
Very well then...let’s talk terrain. I’d go along with Menacussecundus, with a slight variation. Compulsory Terrain: yes, a Rough Going BUA Hamlet, as small as possible, placed in some obscure out of the way corner actually touching a table edge. That’s fulfilled the Rough/Bad Going requirement where it can do no harm. Optional Terrain: I’d have two small areas of Plough rather than Hills. Why have Gentle Hills that the enemy can grab and make use of? Er...and that’s about it! .................. Although quite a lot of people play it that you can't have plough and a BUA. For an army whose home terrain is arable, the choice is either a BUA or 2 plough and a player can only take extra plough as an optional feature if they already have some plough (the compulsory). |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2022 23:56:37 GMT
Ah!...controversy time.  Joe Collins, one of the original developers and a member of the FAQ Team, says we have all been getting the “2 Plough” wrong, and it should come as a pair for a single compulsory pick. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/24288/ for a brief summery, and fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2184/extra-plough-wording-solved But before we get in trouble for going off topic (again!), let’s just keep it simple:- Pick two small Plough as your compulsory choices, and a small piece of Rough Going plus another extra small piece of Plough as your 2 optional choices. (So 3 x Plough and 1 x Rough...a little more Plough wouldn’t hurt too much ) |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 11, 2022 13:17:22 GMT
Ah!...controversy time. Joe Collins, one of the original developers and a member of the FAQ Team, says we have all been getting the “2 Plough” wrong, and it should come as a pair for a single compulsory pick. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/24288/ for a brief summery, and fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2184/extra-plough-wording-solved But before we get in trouble for going off topic (again!), let’s just keep it simple:- Pick two small Plough as your compulsory choices, and a small piece of Rough Going plus another extra small piece of Plough as your 2 optional choices. (So 3 x Plough and 1 x Rough...a little more Plough wouldn’t hurt too much )Interesting. When I read that passage, it seemed pretty clear that a compulsory choice is between 1 BUA and 2 Plough together (because all the others said 1-2 instead). "Extra Plough" implies to me that you have to have some already. Benefits of being late to the party, I suppose. So. I could legally take 2 Plough (compulsory), 1 BUA (optional), 1 extra Plough or 1 Scrub (optional). I'd have Rough Going too. If I needed to defend a flank wirh terrain, I'd swap one optional pick for a Difficult Hill or a Wood and all would be well. Sounds workable.
|
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 11, 2022 13:25:23 GMT
Very well then...let’s talk terrain. I’d go along with Menacussecundus, with a slight variation. Compulsory Terrain: yes, a Rough Going BUA Hamlet, as small as possible, placed in some obscure out of the way corner actually touching a table edge. That’s fulfilled the Rough/Bad Going requirement where it can do no harm. Optional Terrain: I’d have two small areas of Plough rather than Hills. Why have Gentle Hills that the enemy can grab and make use of? Er...and that’s about it! If the enemy has Knights (say a II/12 Alexander army) you might want to go for a large Hamlet and three large Enclosures/Scrub/Boggy areas instead of the Plough to rob your opponent’s Knights their ‘quick kill’ in Good Going. This also helps to rob their Pikes of rear-support as well. If the enemy has lots of Warbands (say a II/30a Galatian army) then avoid placing any Bad Going at all costs! If the enemy has lots of Light Horse, Cavalry or Light Chariots (say a II/5c Thessalian army) then go after them with your Spears. They will only be able to flee once as a second flee will take them right off the table! I'd also make sure that the Psiloi (of which the II/5c Theban army has at least two of) ends up behind in reserve. From there they'll have the speed to use their Threat Zones to prevent your opponent from exploiting any gaps that may appear in your battleline. Very interesting, I hadn't thought about it that way. So, when I camp out with Sp in Rough Going against Kn, I don't get my sweet bonusses, but they don't get to kill me easily, since I still have a better combat factor. Same for Pk bonusses. That's asubtlety I hadn't picked up on, yet...
That leaves Wb as the last source of fear. Do I just keep them out of terrain (or ideally only the supporting ones in it), try to overlap them and pray? I also thought of taking them on with my Cv to maybe soften them up a bit, but I feel they will be very busy already  .
By the way, I will probably go 2x8Sp, 5xSp, 2xCv, 3xPs, because I feel the third Ps will be more useful overall than an additional Sp. Also, I'll get to use the peltasts from my box.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2022 14:00:32 GMT
So. I could legally take 2 Plough (compulsory), 1 BUA (optional), 1 extra Plough or 1 Scrub (optional). I'd have Rough Going too. If I needed to defend a flank with terrain, I'd swap one optional pick for a Difficult Hill or a Wood and all would be well. Sounds workable. Hmmm...not quite I’m afraid Skalde. All the other home regions have a BUA as optional... ...but Arable has a BUA as compulsory. But all is not lost. You must have at least 1 compulsory, and can have up to 2. So it’s 1 BUA, or 2 Plough (and if you agree with Joe Collins, have both). Then you can choose 2 or 3 optional features. And at least one of the above must be Rough, Bad, a River or Waterway. Don’t forget you could also take a Road if you like. Roads don’t benefit or penalize any troops, and will limit the invader’s choice when it comes to selecting base-edges (and always roll and place a Road last, once you have rolled for and placed all other features, so you can channel the enemy either towards or away from the other terrain). As for Warbands...yes, they are a threat (which is why I love ‘em  ). But they do have their weaknesses. To get the rear-support means they’ll have a shorter battleline. Cavalry is superior, as Wb only has a combat factor of 2 against them. And Psiloi can’t be killed by Wb, they just flee if doubled. Basically, don’t be overlapped by Wb, and always try to overlap them yourself. This is surprisingly easy to do with a CF of 4+1 for side-support against a CF of 3+1 for rear-support...even in Rough going, where neither support is allowed. And because of their 'quick kill', and a +1 for being uphill... ...well, you can see why I wouldn't place any Hills! It’s the initial Warband charge that is the most dangerous. Survive that and your Spears will have the advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 11, 2022 14:11:18 GMT
So. I could legally take 2 Plough (compulsory), 1 BUA (optional), 1 extra Plough or 1 Scrub (optional). I'd have Rough Going too. If I needed to defend a flank with terrain, I'd swap one optional pick for a Difficult Hill or a Wood and all would be well. Sounds workable. Hmmm...not quite I’m afraid Skalde. All the other home regions have a BUA as optional... ...but Arable has a BUA as compulsory. But all is not lost. You must have at least 1 compulsory, and can have up to 2. So it’s 1 BUA, or 2 Plough (and if you agree with Joe Collins, have both). Then you can choose 2 or 3 optional features. And at least one of the above must be Rough, Bad, a River or Waterway. Don’t forget you could also take a Road if you like. Roads don’t benefit or penalize any troops, and will limit the invader’s choice when it comes to selecting base-edges (and always roll and place a Road last, once you have rolled for and placed all other features, so you can channel the enemy either towards or away from the other terrain). As for Warbands...yes, they are a threat (which is why I love ‘em ). But they do have their weaknesses. To get the rear-support means they’ll have a shorter battleline. Cavalry is superior, as Wb only has a combat factor of 2 against them. And Psiloi can’t be killed by Wb, they just flee if doubled. Basically, don’t be overlapped by Wb, and always try to overlap them yourself. This is surprisingly easy to do with a CF of 4+1 for side-support against a CF of 3+1 for rear-support...even in Rough going, where neither support is allowed. It’s the initial Warband charge that is the most dangerous. Survive that and your Spears will have the advantage. Damn it, slipped a line to the next one! I could have sworn there was a BUA in the optional features, too. My bad .
A road sound good, but unfortunately I don't have one and have not really decided how I want to make one. But then, I can just take 2 Plough (compulsory) and 2-3 of either 1 extra Plough, Scrub (functionally the same as a hamlet, right?) or Difficult Hills...Right?
The anti-Wb-strategy sounds reasonable, though. I'll show those barbarians.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2022 15:26:52 GMT
Sounds good. Just a few extra thoughts. Surely you can find a bit of brown cloth, felt or card for a road? And be careful about mixing Plough with other terrain. If you want an open Good Going battlefield, why have Rough? If you want a Rough Going battlefield, then why have Plough?. Specialize...go for one type or the other...not a mixture of both. And good luck against the Warbands...you’re going to need it. |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 11, 2022 15:51:16 GMT
Sounds good. Just a few extra thoughts. Surely you can find a bit of brown cloth, felt or card for a road? And be careful about mixing Plough with other terrain. If you want an open Good Going battlefield, why have Rough? If you want a Rough Going battlefield, then why have Plough?. Specialize...go for one type or the other...not a mixture of both. And good luck against the Warbands...you’re going to need it. Yeah, but I have all this nice neoprene terrain, some brown felt would really kill the mood for me . I'm willing to sacrifice some gameplay value for prettiness. And as for the terrain mixing: If it was just my choice, I'd be fighting on a plain, but I have to take at least some Rough/Bad, which Plough doesn't count towards. So I'll end up with at least one Rough/Bad in addition to anything else I might take right? Or have I gotten it mixed up again? 
|
|
.
The Macedonian discussion is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is particularly well placed in this thread and I am still trying to get my head around what terrain to take. I'm leaning towards 2 plough and 2 hills, because I don't care about movement speed so much (I think), but really want to be in good going with most of my army. Thoughts? 
.
).
