The Carthage Thread

@Boris Gudenuf So the Quadrireme was developed in Syracuse?
Have revised the earlier post - what I get for posting from memory instead of going to my database!

The Quiquereme, and also the bolt-throwing catapult (Katapelta = "shield piercer") and the crossbow (gastrophetes = 'belly bow' because it had to be braced against your stomach to pull the bow back) were all invented between 410 and 400 BCE in Dionysius of Syracuse's "Workshop" on Ortygia island in Syracuse's harbor. This institution hired mechanics and 'engineers' from all over the Greek world to develop new weapons for the Tyrant of Syracuse (Dionysius), which included most famously the new type of warship, artillery, and defensive weapon - note that in the same century, roughly, the crossbow became the 'standard' missile weapon in China, while in the Mediterranean basin it remained a minor wall-defense weapon and was rarely used in field battles at all until the late Medieval period. In fact, in Roman times it is most commonly mentioned in accounts as a hunting weapon rather than a military one.

I keep mentioning the Ortygia Workshop over the years for two reasons:

1. It could be a rare Science or Military-enhancing Wonder for the Classical Era in Civ VII

2. It was the basis for a great historical novel by L. Sprague DeCamp, The Arrows of Hercules, which I highly reccomend!
 
The bireme is perfectly appropriate as a UU for a Phoenician civ. The Phoenicians invented it (and the trireme). They were prolific shipbuilders and sold many to others across the Mediterranean, which is partly why the bireme became ubiquitous.
If it later became ubiquitous, then shoud it be a UNIQUE unit.
 
If it later became ubiquitous, then shoud it be a UNIQUE unit.
It depends on how we are defining 'Unique Units' - which I don't believe we ever have.

Yes, the bireme configuration of oared ships became ubiquitous - but frequently only after some modification, like the Liburnian or the much later Byzantine Dromon - both 'bireme' ships.

The original bireme was a distinctly Phoenician invention and was associated with them as such at the time. Is that enough for a Unique?

The Trireme may have been Phoenician invention but it is most famously associated with the Greek naval victories of the Persian and Peloponesian Wars. Is that enough to make it a Greek Unique? - Especially since some of those victories (Salamis, for one) were won against largely Phoenician fleets (in Persian pay).

I am seriously asking, because right now the definition of Unique Unit seems to be all over the map. In Civ VI the Bireme is a Phoenician Unique, the Dromon a Byzantine Unique, but the Trireme does not appear at all (although it did in previous Civ versions). The Quadrireme appears as a generic ranged unit, although in fact it had little more ranged effect, and that all man-powered bows or javelins - than a trireme or other earlier ship type.
 
It depends on how we are defining 'Unique Units' - which I don't believe we ever have.

Yes, the bireme configuration of oared ships became ubiquitous - but frequently only after some modification, like the Liburnian or the much later Byzantine Dromon - both 'bireme' ships.

The original bireme was a distinctly Phoenician invention and was associated with them as such at the time. Is that enough for a Unique?

The Trireme may have been Phoenician invention but it is most famously associated with the Greek naval victories of the Persian and Peloponesian Wars. Is that enough to make it a Greek Unique? - Especially since some of those victories (Salamis, for one) were won against largely Phoenician fleets (in Persian pay).
It is easy, the Phoenician/Carthaginian civ would need more a naval UU than Greeks.
Greece have a lot more of options for gameplay design including UU candidates, while Phoenicia/Carthage is more dependent of the naval trade and mercenaries in the case of Carthage, so is better to let the later ones to keep the innovative naval units.
I am seriously asking, because right now the definition of Unique Unit seems to be all over the map. In Civ VI the Bireme is a Phoenician Unique, the Dromon a Byzantine Unique, but the Trireme does not appear at all (although it did in previous Civ versions). The Quadrireme appears as a generic ranged unit, although in fact it had little more ranged effect, and that all man-powered bows or javelins - than a trireme or other earlier ship type.
The whole "meele" and "range" ships could be replaced by "light" and "heavy" ships. Specially in a model of "limited stack" where units are parts of fleets (also armies/garrisons) to have less but more significative military groups instead of absurd time consuming carpets of units like "AT-Crew" :crazyeye:
 
If they INVENTED it and it’s not in the game otherwise, yes.
That's a dubious notion. Ubiquity is almost the opposite of uniqueness, by definition. A unique unit should not only be an innovation, and iconic of a civ, but also something only that civ - or almost only them - used motively.
 
That's a dubious notion. Ubiquity is almost the opposite of uniqueness, by definition. A unique unit should not only be an innovation, and iconic of a civ, but also something only that civ - or almost only them - used motively.
So you say. That’s your opinion, not a fact. There’s no prescriptive definition of unique unit.

And speaking of dubiousness, your opinion here is verifiably false given that the bireme is in fact a unique unit in the game already.
 
So you say. That’s your opinion, not a fact. There’s no prescriptive definition of unique unit.

And speaking of dubiousness, your opinion here is verifiably false given that the bireme is in fact a unique unit in the game already.
So, in the same post, you point out my statement is an opinion (which I had never denied, and didn't state otherwsie, but the tone of your post is accusatory as though I had claimed objective quality), and then tell me my opinion is, "verifiably false," because of what's already been done been in game, when we're discussing views and desires - and changes and new ideas - we'd like to see in the future. This is highly and blatantly disingenuously, and hurts your own credibility to even type it.
 
Bireme as a Phoenician (city-states) invention is pretty solidly established, but the Trireme not so much: there is still on-going debate whether it was a (rather natural) development of the bireme by the Phoenicians or the Greeks, since it spread so fast that it largely replaced both monoremes and biremes as the standard warship all over the eastern Mediterranean and as far west as Carthage.

The fairly well-established origins of 'iconic' classical ships are:

Pentekonter ("50-oared") - the ultimate monoreme, mentioned by Homer in the Iliad and thus attributed to the Greeks
Bireme - archeological and written evidence attributes it to the Phoenician city-states of the Levant
Trireme - Either Phoenician or Greek, but whichever it was the other adopted it virtually instantly.
Quadrireme - invented around 400 BCE in the Ortygia workshop in Syracuse, the first of the larger-than-trireme Polyremes
Quinquereme - origins somewhat cloudy, but appeared within 50 years after the Quadrireme in Carthage and Greece and quickly replaced the Quads and other smaller ships because the Quinquereme was a strong and stable enough hull to mount small catapult bolt-throwers - the first real ship-borne 'artillery'
Deceres (or Decireme) - the largest Polyreme known to have been used in actual battle: at the culminating naval battle of Actium, the flagships of Anthony's, Cleopatra's, and Octavian's fleets were all Deciremes.
Liburnian - the 'classic' combination type: used both oars (bireme configuration) and sails, was invented by the Liburnii of the southern Dalmatian coast and adopted in various forms by pirates, Imperial Romans, and smugglers

1. Was Pentekonter the first warships Romans adopted? and did they commissioned Greek Colonies around them to build? did it becomes scout vessels very quickly and compared to Lemboi and Liburniae, did it becomes inferior to the two?
2. So should Bireme stood as Phoenician UU? since everyone else also use one too.
IMAO If there's Naval Scout in Civ6. Bireme should be one since it has been quickly relegated to this task once Trireme shown up and saw uses by everyone in Medit.
3. Is Quadrireme the first 'Multibanking' Polyreme? (One oar is worked by at least two men). what is the oarsmen configurations of Quadrireme when it first came to be? 2-1-1 , 2-2 or 4? (Four men works one oar)
4. Did Quinquereme becomes multipurpose warship in place of Both Quadrireme and Trireme? the Romans classified this as the 'Lowest of Heavyweights' and Quadrireme 'Top of the Lightweight class' or did 3 and 4 a part of Shock Units (both being relatively fast compared to the Five, and good at ram attacks while Quinqueremes are either boarders or tower ships (relatively large amount of archers) and being bad at rams? (so having smaller ram that is more of deco and less of a weapon? )
5. Did Octavianus also have Deciremes? didn't Hexareme the biggest he has, and instead he compensated his handicapped situations (of having much less heavy polyremes) with large amounts of light ships--Liburnia in particular.
6. did Liburnia replaced Trireme in the Imperial Era? or is it becomes 'Multibank Trireme' with 2-1 or 3 configurations? and did it eventually evolved into Dromon by the latter days of the Roman Empire?
 
1. Was Pentekonter the first warships Romans adopted? and did they commissioned Greek Colonies around them to build? did it becomes scout vessels very quickly and compared to Lemboi and Liburniae, did it becomes inferior to the two?
2. So should Bireme stood as Phoenician UU? since everyone else also use one too.
IMAO If there's Naval Scout in Civ6. Bireme should be one since it has been quickly relegated to this task once Trireme shown up and saw uses by everyone in Medit.
3. Is Quadrireme the first 'Multibanking' Polyreme? (One oar is worked by at least two men). what is the oarsmen configurations of Quadrireme when it first came to be? 2-1-1 , 2-2 or 4? (Four men works one oar)
4. Did Quinquereme becomes multipurpose warship in place of Both Quadrireme and Trireme? the Romans classified this as the 'Lowest of Heavyweights' and Quadrireme 'Top of the Lightweight class' or did 3 and 4 a part of Shock Units (both being relatively fast compared to the Five, and good at ram attacks while Quinqueremes are either boarders or tower ships (relatively large amount of archers) and being bad at rams? (so having smaller ram that is more of deco and less of a weapon? )
5. Did Octavianus also have Deciremes? didn't Hexareme the biggest he has, and instead he compensated his handicapped situations (of having much less heavy polyremes) with large amounts of light ships--Liburnia in particular.
6. did Liburnia replaced Trireme in the Imperial Era? or is it becomes 'Multibank Trireme' with 2-1 or 3 configurations? and did it eventually evolved into Dromon by the latter days of the Roman Empire?

First, remember always that Rome was never a 'naval power'. Like Russia, she was always focused on her army as the basis of her conquests and defense, and only went to sea when she had a very pressing reason.
Second, there is a language problem with finding the details of Roman ships. The Romans referred to all galleys (oar-powered ships) as navis longa, or "long ships". Consequently, the Latin accounts rarely tell us what kind or size of galley they are talking about: except from context, they could be referring to anything from a pentekonter to a polyreme and rarely elaborate or provide details.

1. The Romans had no navy at all until 311 BCE, after they conquered Campania, the area that included Neapolis, or Napoli, a major port (and former Greek colony, hence the Greek name for the city). In that year they appointed the duumviri navales ("two men to deal with naval matters"), their first officials with anything to do with the sea. They each commanded a squadron of 10 ships, but they weren't Roman, they were hired from the Greek city-states of southern Italy (and probably some from the newly-acquired Greek port cities like Neapolis). The date is far too late for Pentekonters as a major warship, so it is usually assumed that they were Triremes, but there is no direct evidence, either archeological or literary.
3. As far as we know the Quadrireme was the first multi-banked polyreme. The archeological evidence (for both the Phoenician bireme and the Phoenician/Greek trireme) indicates one man per oar on those ships, and Greek literary evidence provides no distinction among oarsmen except by the position of the oars - the three banks of oarsmen on a trireme each had a different title, but there is no indication of more than one man per oar or any word referring to a 'second' oarsman on an oar. The 'Marsala Ship' found off Sicily is the only ancient/classical polyreme wreck found so far, and it was a Carthaginian quadrireme from about 240 BCE. That ship had 2 banks of oars with 2 men on each oar, total of 280 oarsmen. Whether other configurations were used at other times or in other naval forces we just do not know.
4. The Quinquereme became the 'standard' heavy warship because, as I posted earlier, it was the first polyreme that was sturdy and stable enough to carry light 'artillery' - bolt or stone throwing catapults. It never completely replaced lighter ships, though: at Actium over half of the Roman (Octavian's) fleet were Quadriremes or Liburnians, and according to one source of the total in all three fleets (Octavian's, Anthony's and Cleopatra's) less than half were Quinqueremes or heavier ships.
5. Most Roman 'flagships' were hexaremes or Hexeris ('sixes'), and according to Pliny and Aelian were invented in Syracuse around 360 - 350 BCE, when Dionysius II of that city had one as his flagship. Several Roman fleets are also recorded with Hexaremes as flagships for the consuls as well as one of the Ptolemies of Egypt. Some accounts state that Octavian had nothing larger than a Hexareme at Actium, while others say his only Decereme was his flagship.
6. The Trireme was replaced after the 4th century BCE by several ships. In the Roman Imperial fleet, whose main opponents were pirates and other light craft, the Librunian became the warship of choice: fast enough to catch a pirate, heavy enough to outfight it. The Hemiolia appeared among the Greek states in the early 4th century BCE (360 - 380 BCE), which apparently (no pictures or examples have been found) was a Trireme with 1.5 banks of oars removed to make way for more marines, so that it was effectively a 3/4 Bireme. They had a slimmer and longer hull than a trireme or bireme, and so, according to accounts, were even faster than the other 'light' ships. The navy of Rhodes, one of the great naval powers of the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean, developed the Trihemiolia, which was a trireme with half of one bank of oarsmen missing, a "two-and-a-halfer" if you will. From a relief sculpture it has been deduced that the hull was lower and lighter than the 'classic' trireme, so that it was as fast as the trireme but could carry more marines with only 144 oarsmen instead of 200+.
The Imperial Roman Liburnian was a bireme configuration that also used sails to augment the oars, was a cataphract, or fully-decked hull with a sharp pointed bow for more speed. At Actium Octavian's Liburnians were fitted with rams, but the later Imperial fleets apparently did not use them, since their main tasks did not involve fighting larger and slower warships, but lighter and faster pirates.
 
That's a dubious notion. Ubiquity is almost the opposite of uniqueness, by definition. A unique unit should not only be an innovation, and iconic of a civ, but also something only that civ - or almost only them - used motively.
I agree with what you are saying, to an extent. It's why I would have a problem with the Cataphracts being the Byzantium UU, and the Hussars being Austria's UU in Civ 5. The latter is at least more appropriately a Hungarian UU in this iteration.

When speaking of Phoenicia, however, I'm not sure exactly what kind of unique unit that you could give them besides an early game naval unit, even it was used by others. As others have said at least they most likely invented the Bireme.

P.S. I'm also giving Babylon a pass because even though they have "Assyrian shock troops" as their UU at least they took a break from the Bowmen.
 
First, remember always that Rome was never a 'naval power'. Like Russia, she was always focused on her army as the basis of her conquests and defense, and only went to sea when she had a very pressing reason.
Second, there is a language problem with finding the details of Roman ships. The Romans referred to all galleys (oar-powered ships) as navis longa, or "long ships". Consequently, the Latin accounts rarely tell us what kind or size of galley they are talking about: except from context, they could be referring to anything from a pentekonter to a polyreme and rarely elaborate or provide details.

1. The Romans had no navy at all until 311 BCE, after they conquered Campania, the area that included Neapolis, or Napoli, a major port (and former Greek colony, hence the Greek name for the city). In that year they appointed the duumviri navales ("two men to deal with naval matters"), their first officials with anything to do with the sea. They each commanded a squadron of 10 ships, but they weren't Roman, they were hired from the Greek city-states of southern Italy (and probably some from the newly-acquired Greek port cities like Neapolis). The date is far too late for Pentekonters as a major warship, so it is usually assumed that they were Triremes, but there is no direct evidence, either archeological or literary.
3. As far as we know the Quadrireme was the first multi-banked polyreme. The archeological evidence (for both the Phoenician bireme and the Phoenician/Greek trireme) indicates one man per oar on those ships, and Greek literary evidence provides no distinction among oarsmen except by the position of the oars - the three banks of oarsmen on a trireme each had a different title, but there is no indication of more than one man per oar or any word referring to a 'second' oarsman on an oar. The 'Marsala Ship' found off Sicily is the only ancient/classical polyreme wreck found so far, and it was a Carthaginian quadrireme from about 240 BCE. That ship had 2 banks of oars with 2 men on each oar, total of 280 oarsmen. Whether other configurations were used at other times or in other naval forces we just do not know.
4. The Quinquereme became the 'standard' heavy warship because, as I posted earlier, it was the first polyreme that was sturdy and stable enough to carry light 'artillery' - bolt or stone throwing catapults. It never completely replaced lighter ships, though: at Actium over half of the Roman (Octavian's) fleet were Quadriremes or Liburnians, and according to one source of the total in all three fleets (Octavian's, Anthony's and Cleopatra's) less than half were Quinqueremes or heavier ships.
5. Most Roman 'flagships' were hexaremes or Hexeris ('sixes'), and according to Pliny and Aelian were invented in Syracuse around 360 - 350 BCE, when Dionysius II of that city had one as his flagship. Several Roman fleets are also recorded with Hexaremes as flagships for the consuls as well as one of the Ptolemies of Egypt. Some accounts state that Octavian had nothing larger than a Hexareme at Actium, while others say his only Decereme was his flagship.
6. The Trireme was replaced after the 4th century BCE by several ships. In the Roman Imperial fleet, whose main opponents were pirates and other light craft, the Librunian became the warship of choice: fast enough to catch a pirate, heavy enough to outfight it. The Hemiolia appeared among the Greek states in the early 4th century BCE (360 - 380 BCE), which apparently (no pictures or examples have been found) was a Trireme with 1.5 banks of oars removed to make way for more marines, so that it was effectively a 3/4 Bireme. They had a slimmer and longer hull than a trireme or bireme, and so, according to accounts, were even faster than the other 'light' ships. The navy of Rhodes, one of the great naval powers of the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean, developed the Trihemiolia, which was a trireme with half of one bank of oarsmen missing, a "two-and-a-halfer" if you will. From a relief sculpture it has been deduced that the hull was lower and lighter than the 'classic' trireme, so that it was as fast as the trireme but could carry more marines with only 144 oarsmen instead of 200+.
The Imperial Roman Liburnian was a bireme configuration that also used sails to augment the oars, was a cataphract, or fully-decked hull with a sharp pointed bow for more speed. At Actium Octavian's Liburnians were fitted with rams, but the later Imperial fleets apparently did not use them, since their main tasks did not involve fighting larger and slower warships, but lighter and faster pirates.
1. This means 'Roman Pentekonter' is already extinct or mis-labelled? https://naval-encyclopedia.com/antique-ships/roman-ships
pentacontere_romaine.gif

^ This one. (or even if ship of this design including carpentry works shown here) ever exists in Roman Navy Glossary? I might think this one is scout or may actually be multibanked even. it might be multibanked Bireme or Trireme instead of being Pentekonter (that means 100-150 oarsmen, roughtly on part with single banked biremes and triremes respectively)
and even if the Romans used Pentekonters as geniune moners. then they must be scout vessels until the Romans conquered any pirate tribes and incorporated these pirate ship designs to their 'navy' and use one as scout vessels in place of Pentekonters.
This wood plankings are significantly different to Olympias. is this Romans, or late Greeks?
2. After Quinqueremes became standard 'Ships of the Line' of the Medits. What roles Quadriremes are relegated to? (pre existigns and purpose built).
A. Transport
B. Shock Attackers (Serious rammers, if so, ones described in Civ6 as archer ship is utterly wrong, the Four is (maybe) too small to mount any naval artillery of that time, while the Five (especially the Romans) can even support add ons like Corvus, Harpax, and even Archer Towers

And what are materials that made these Archer Towers mounted on these polyremes? Stone or Wood? or Stone with wooden core? or Wood with metal (bronze or iron) shealth?
most polyreme arts and models seems to depict these towers as being 'stone'. I don't really think it these are actually stone towers. it will add unneccessary weight or it may not be possible to assemble stone towers on a polyreme deck this way.
or is it?

And about design. did the tails of the later galleys became thinner, and instead making of plankings, now only consists of a single piece of wood jutting out of a keel? so when did this design emerge and replacing plank tails of Olympias type?
quinquereme_rome_imper.gif

hellenistic-era-warships-ef681d74-e63d-46ab-ba48-e2b4e7497a9-resize-750.jpeg

T085_1.jpg

2. Did Romans ever divide 'Army' and 'Navy'? or did they simply organize navy as parts of Legion?
3. And By the Imperial Era
3.1. Did Liburnia reconfigured as Multibank Trireme or becomes Multibank Bireme?
3.2 Did larger polyremes remainings are all dismantled?
4. About Dromons. what are the functions of a very very long spar jutting out of a front? is it works in place of rams?
liburne_byzantine.gif

Dromon.jpg
 
Last edited:
My take on UU is that the unit itself doesn't have to be something that was unique or particularly related to a civ, but that it should represent something that was unique or particularly associated to the civilization - even if not the unit itself.

For example, while a bireme is not a uniquely Carthaginian/Phoenician thing, Carthage/Phoenicia is certainly remembered (for good reasons) as the foremost naval power of the ancient world. This is something unique or particular to Phoenicia and a naval UU would as a result be quite appropriate - because even if the unit itself is not uniqueley carthago-phoenician, it represents something particular to carthage/phoenicia. The bireme, as a naval unit that we know was invented by Phoenicians, is probably the best choice for the role, even if it did end up becoming ubiquitous.

(And as I recall we're a little lacking in knowledge of specific Phoenician words since we only have a limited sets of inscriptions so we may not have the option of using whatever the Phoenician name for bireme was)
 
My take on UU is that the unit itself doesn't have to be something that was unique or particularly related to a civ, but that it should represent something that was unique or particularly associated to the civilization - even if not the unit itself.

For example, while a bireme is not a uniquely Carthaginian/Phoenician thing, Carthage/Phoenicia is certainly remembered (for good reasons) as the foremost naval power of the ancient world. This is something unique or particular to Phoenicia and a naval UU would as a result be quite appropriate - because even if the unit itself is not uniqueley carthago-phoenician, it represents something particular to carthage/phoenicia. The bireme, as a naval unit that we know was invented by Phoenicians, is probably the best choice for the role, even if it did end up becoming ubiquitous.

(And as I recall we're a little lacking in knowledge of specific Phoenician words since we only have a limited sets of inscriptions so we may not have the option of using whatever the Phoenician name for bireme was)
You put your finger (or keyboard) right onto the unspoken specific about Unique Units:

They are Uniquely Identifiable with a particular Civilization.

So, in this ancient/classical naval context:

The Bireme is Uniquely Identified with Phoenicia
The Trireme is Uniquely Identified with Greece - even though they may or may not have 'invented' it.
The Liburnian was Uniquely Identified as a pirate vessel - even though Imperial Rome largely adopted it also

And later, in the context of Land Units:

The Cataphract is Uniquely Identified as Byzantine, even though it was a steppe nomad 'invention' over 800 years before there was a Byzantine state.
The Hoplite is Uniquely Greek, even though the same equipment and weapons were adopted by Etruscans and the early Roman Republic
The Legion IS Rome, as much as any Unique Unit anywhere, any time.

Although there are depictions and descriptions of Phoenician ships and shipping in Greek, Assyrian, Persian, Egyptian accounts and records and in the Old Testament, as far as I know we do not have a single specific Phoenician word for a ship, only foreign words like the Greek Bireme. On the other hand, Bireme is the word by which the Phoenician warship galleys are known, so not to use it would simply confuse the gamer, rather like insisting on Trieres instead of Trireme.
 
The Cataphract is Uniquely Identified as Byzantine, even though it was a steppe nomad 'invention' over 800 years before there was a Byzantine state.
The Cataphract to me sounds different than the other ones you mentioned, probably because it's not like it was a Byzantine invention. In that regards the Greek fire Dromon, seems much more appropriate to use.
A cataphract would be better suited for an Iranian steppe nomad civ, or a generic Classical heavy cavalry unit, in my opinion. Though in Civ 6 they gave us the Tagma, for Basil II, which was basically a Cataphract all but in name.
 
The Cataphract to me sounds different than the other ones you mentioned, probably because it's not like it was a Byzantine invention. In that regards the Greek fire Dromon, seems much more appropriate to use.
A cataphract would be better suited for an Iranian steppe nomad civ, or a generic Classical heavy cavalry unit, in my opinion. Though in Civ 6 they gave us the Tagma, for Basil II, which was basically a Cataphract all but in name.
Very astutely, Civ VI used the Tagma as the Byzantine UU, because the Tagmata were the professional core of the Byzantine Army as established by Constantine V in the late 8th century, and continuing to the time of Basil II in the 10th century CE, by which time they had become virtually the entire mobile field army. 'Tagma' is usually translated as brigade or regiment (in the modern Greek Army it means a battalion-sized unit), because each tagmata was between 1000 and 4000 men (and by Basil II's time, one of the Tagmata was also called the Varangian Guard, while another was composed entirely of mercenary 'Frankish' knights from western Europe)

Except for such later examples as the Varangians and mercenaries like the knights, though, virtually all the Tagma were units of heavy (cataphractoi) cavalry, so that 'Tagma' and Cataphract, at least in the Byzantine sense, in practice meant the same thing.

IF Civ VII were to distinguish between generic Cataphracts and Unique Byzantine Tagma, then the Cataphract could well be another steppe pastoral Unique or horse-based 'barbarian' camp unit, available to be hired as mercenaries (the earliest mention of armored men on armored horses, or cataphracts, is the Massagetae Scythian contingent of the Persian Army at Gaugamela in the early 4th century BCE) . Specifically, the Safavid Persians also fielded Cataphracts copied from their steppe and Byzantine neighbors, and the Imperial Roman Army had numerous units of Equites Sarmatii Lanciarii, mounted Sarmatian (armored) lancers, or cataphracts - one of which was stationed in Britain and may have provided some of the basis for the stories about 'King' Arthur and his armored knights - at least one historical novel assumed as much!
 
For Carthage and seeing that I missed out in a long topic, why not bring back Hannibal this time? He crossed the apls with elephants to attack Rome. It would seem so cool to see how they design Hannibal in these latest versions.
 
For Carthage and seeing that I missed out in a long topic, why not bring back Hannibal this time? He crossed the apls with elephants to attack Rome. It would seem so cool to see how they design Hannibal in these latest versions.
You are probably correct, from an iconic, and even great leader, sense. So many here seem to be intent on a woman who probably existed, but we know practically nothing about her as she did, only from mythologized Greek stories, instead of a much more documented, and commonly well-known, leader. It seems like the Dido group are not only pushing a heavily mythologized leader, but avoiding talking about an - :cooool:elephant in the room. :p
 
Back
Top Bottom