Lion.Kanzen

Ops , you can move those, sorry but I'm posting in. My ipad

What unit is this? The source is The Plomaic Army by nick Sekunda and Angus Mc Bride.

Hellenistic Rise of Nation mod. Egypt.

The Ptolemaic Baris (also Ptolemaic Acra) was a citadel maintained by Ptolemaic Egypt during its rule of Jerusalem in the 3rd century BC. Described by only a few ancient sources, no archaeological remains of the citadel have been found and much about it remains a matter of conjecture. After the conquest of Babylon by the Persian Empire, Cyrus the Great allowed the Jews to return to their native land and rebuild Jerusalem, sacked by Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BC. While rebuilding the city's fortifications, the Persian administration also constructed a new citadel north of the Temple Mount enclosure, as part of a general Persian effort to bolster the empire's defences.[1] This citadel is the Biryah (Hebrew: בירה) referred to in Nehemiah 2:8 and 7:2, appearing as the Baris in Greek translations of the Septuagint. The origin of the word is not entirely clear, but may have been borrowed into Hebrew from Assyrian birtu or bistu meaning a citadel or castle within a city, or a fort located at a strategic position outside a city. It may also derive from the Old Persian baru, meaning 'fort'.[2] Basically The Jerusalem Acra was a Persian style but later was Greek under the name as Antonia Fortress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acra_(fortress) For Fortress Antiochus IV Epiphanes ascended the Seleucid throne in 175 BCE. Shortly afterward, the Emperor was petitioned by Jason for appointment to the position of High Priest of Israel—an office occupied by his brother Onias III. Jason, himself thoroughly Hellenized, furthermore promised to increase the tribute paid by the city and to establish within it the infrastructure of a Greek Polis, including a gymnasium and an ephebion.[4] Jason's petition was granted, yet after a three-year rule he was ousted by Antiochus and forced to flee to Ammon.[5][6] In the meantime, Antiochus IV had launched two invasions of Egypt, in 170 BCE and again in 169 BCE, and routed the Ptolemaic armies.[7][8][9] Antiochus' victories were short-lived. His intent to unify the Seleucid and Ptolemic kingdoms alarmed the rapidly expanding Roman state, which demanded that he withdraw his forces from Egypt.[9][10] With Antiochus engaged in Egypt, a false rumor spread in Jerusalem that he had been killed. In the ensuing uncertainty, Jason gathered a force of 1,000 followers and attempted to take Jerusalem by storm. Although the attack was repulsed, when word of the fighting reached Antiochus in Egypt, he suspected his Judean subjects of exploiting his setback as an opportunity to revolt. In 168 BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes marched on and sacked Jerusalem, looting the temple treasury and killing thousands of its residents.[11][12][13] Reversing his father's policy, Antiochus IV issued decrees outlawing traditional Jewish rites and persecuting observant Jews. Temple rituals were discontinued, Jewish observance of Sabbath prohibited, and circumcision outlawed.[14][15] Herodian Citadels The three towers of the Herodian citadel. From left to right, the Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne The Antonia was Jerusalem's main fortress, dominating the Temple Mount and housing the city's garrison. It was built by Herod over the Hasmonean Baris before 31 BCE and was named after Mark Antony. It shared the same features as the Hellenistic tetrapyrgion, although rectangular. In each of its corners stood a tower, one of which was taller than the others.[52] The Herodian Citadel stood at the present site of the Tower of David. Herod built the citadel, sometimes referred to as the "Towers Citadel", on a hill already fortified in Hasmonean times. Herod built three towers at the site, naming them Hyppicus, Phasael and Mariamne, after his friend, brother and wife. It was at the Hyppicus that the "first wall", approaching from the south, turns east towards the Temple Mount, and also where the "third wall", constructed in the mid-1st century CE, would meet the "first wall". Josephus provides a detailed description of the towers in the fifth book of his Bellum Judaicum, commenting: “ These were for largeness, beauty, and strength beyond all that were in the habitable earth. ” —Josephus, The Jewish War V, 156.[53] .And we have the Legionaries XD

may be this Faction Deserves an Embassy system.

Most cavalry units of the Hellenistic era were moderately armored and would be armed with javelins or/and lances. Cataphracts were introduced to the Hellenistic world by the Seleucids in the late 3rd century BC and are attested to have been used, probably in a lighter version and for a very limited time, also by the kingdom of Pergamon. Antiochus III was able to field an extraordinary 6.000 men in Magnesia, the first testimony of cavalry gaining victory over the closed ordered ranks of a competent infantry, yet to no avail. The Seleucids also had moderate access to horse archers from their eastern borders, although they never fielded them in large numbers. The Ptolemies also deployed heavy armored lancers, never cataphracts, probably because of the high temperatures prevalent in their empire. In Macedonia, armored lancers were also deployed, after the tradition of Alexander's Hetairoi, yet their capability could not compare to this of their predecessors. In the rest of the Greek world, cavalry maintained its traditional equipment of javelin and short lance. Apart from the cavalry types used by the Greeks, the Hellenistic kingdoms also used cavalry from subordinate and allied barbarian states, which varied in quality, armor and equipment. Mercenary cavalry troops were also employed including Thracians, Armenians, and even Berbers. No cavalry formation is unfortunately mentioned in the existent descriptions of cavalry battles, but all ancient Greek tactical manuals, including Asclepiodotus' Techne Taktike written in the 1st century BC, clearly and in detail describe the wedge and the rhombus formations, stating that they were in use at least at the time of their compilation beside the more common square and rectangular formations. Thus, we have to accept the probability that they were used throughout the Hellenistic era. Other formations attested and probably used were the Tarantenic circle, employed by the Tarentines proper and the Scythian formation, attested in use by the Scythian horse archers. Both were skirmishing formations and facilitated continuous harassment while at the same time providing the required mobility to avoid enemy charge

Roman influence on Hellenistic warfare[edit] Reforms in the late Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies re-organised them and tried to add some Roman aspects to formations. This however would not be out of place as some Roman style tactics were used by Pyrrhus of Epirus in his campaigns against the Romans and by Antigonus Gonatas at Sellasia in 222 BC. Pyrrhus and Antigonus both placed units of lighter troops in between the units of their phalanx. This was after Pyrrhus had 'observed the formation of the Roman legions and noticed how mobile they were and how unwieldy were his own forces...He therefore adapted his own formation to the Roman model, deploying light mobile detachments alongside the phalanx'.[14] Philopoemen too used this tactic at Mantinea in 207 BC, making his phalanx more flexible.[15] Much is made of Polybius' description of 5,000 Seleucid infantryman in 166 BC armed in the 'Roman' fashion at a parade at Daphne. 'Romanized' troops are also mentioned in battle against the Maccabee's.[16] These reforms were probably undertaken by Antiochus IV because of several factors. Firstly Antiochus IV had 'had spent part of his early life in Rome and had acquired rather an excessive admiration for Rome's power and methods'.[17] Secondly to re-train the army in this manner would allow it to perform better in the Seleucid empire's eastern satrapies beyond the river Tigris, which of high importance to Seleucid rulers from Antiochus III through to Demetrius II. Thirdly changing their equipment and training would add to their fighting capability and efficiency, hence making the army more maneuverable. Stelae from Hermopolis shows a Ptolemaic unit which showed them having a standard-bearer and other staff attached to the unit. This unit was like a Roman Maniple, being composed of 2 smaller units led by a Hekatontarch (i.e. a Centurion). This title of Hekatontarch appeared around the 150's BC. As well as this Asclepiodotus describes in his 'Tactica' a new institution, the Syntagma. The Syntagma had a standard-bearer, other staff and was composed of 2 smaller units led by Hekatontarchs. The Phalangarkhia, also described by Asclepiodotus, was about the size of a Roman Legion in strength. The potential Roman influence would have been great. In Ptolemaic Egypt Roman adventurers and veterans are found commonly serving under the Ptolemies. Romans are found in Ptolemaic service as early as 252/1 BC.[18] The Ptolemaic army was odd in that out of all the Hellenistic armies the Ptolemaic was the only army where you could find Romans in Greek service. As Sekunda suggests 'such individuals would have spread knowledge of Roman military systems within the Ptolemaic military and political establishment'.[19] However there are numerous aspects of the Roman army that were not carried into the Ptolemaic and Seleucid ones. For example the differentiation of the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, or the integration of light-armed troops into the infantry structure. Hence because of this, there was no Hellenistic equivalent to the Cohort. Instead of this there was a system of larger units which had no relation to Roman organization . In terms of equipment, most of these so-called 'Romanized' troops did not abandon their traditional spear for a sword and pila, weapons so vital to the Roman way of war. In this sense, we can only assume that the Hellenistic kingdoms did reform and re-organize their troops in some regards along Roman lines, but these appear to be superficial at best. By the time of Mithridates VI we are told that the Pontic army had troops armed in the Roman fashion and by 86 BC Mithridates had created an army of 120,000 such troops.[20] This was after an alliance between Mithridates and Sertorius, an enemy of Sulla, in which Sertorius sent a military mission to reorganize Mithridates' army along Roman lines.[21] These 'Roman' troops fought alongside the Pontic phalanx. 'Legions' of this sort are described by Julius Caesar in his campaigns against Juba in Numidia [22] and alongside Deiotarus of Galatia whilst in the Middle East.[23] If anything, these forces, as described by N. Sekunda, are nothing more than ersatz-legions. http://en.wikipedia....lenistic_armies

Diadoch Map

Diodotus, governor for the Bactrian territory, asserted independence in around 245 BC, although the exact date is far from certain, to form the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. This kingdom was characterized by a rich Hellenistic culture, and was to continue its domination of Bactria until around 125 BC, when it was overrun by the invasion of northern nomads. One of the Greco-Bactrian kings, Demetrius I of Bactria, invaded India around 180 BC to form the Greco-Indian kingdom, lasting until around AD 20. The Seleucid satrap of Parthia, named Andragoras, first claimed independence, in a parallel to the secession of his Bactrian neighbour. Soon after however, a Parthian tribal chief called Arsaces invaded the Parthian territory around 238 BC to form the Arsacid Dynasty — the starting point of the powerful Parthian Empire. By the time Antiochus II's son Seleucus II Callinicus came to the throne around 246 BC, the Seleucids seemed to be at a low ebb indeed. Seleucus II was soon dramatically defeated in the Third Syrian War against Ptolemy III of Egypt and then had to fight a civil war against his own brother Antiochus Hierax. Taking advantage of this distraction, Bactria and Parthia seceded from the empire. In Asia Minor too, the Seleucid dynasty seemed to be losing control — Gauls had fully established themselves in Galatia, semi-independent semi-Hellenized kingdoms had sprung up in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, and the city of Pergamum in the west was asserting its independence under the Attalid Dynasty.

Wonder sounds its very cool, sorry team but I may ask to Matias something I want to ear a sound I wuold if he can make A sound that when you research next phase. I all find examples, if it's possibly.

Do videos, and Blogs is good idea, even you can use your text as Audio text when you play. something attractive. or a German Wikia about 0.A.D, a Fb and Twitter page etc.

You can contribute first, obviously you can join in credits. For now we need Seleucids, and Later Empires, Parthian, Goths etc.

Year, im with you in thst, Kushan was one most important Empires that had contact with Parthians/Sassanids, China(Han), Mauryan/Gupta and Rome. I will edit this with map of first century, civilization.

Forgiven but try to divulge to your friends and collaborating may be when other programmer enter to project can resolve this problem.

I wanna see in game, the size and try to build.

Because Philip IV oracle, tell him use Silver and he can conquer everiyhing. 'Romanized' infantry[edit source] In 166 BC, at the Daphne Parade under Antiochus IV, the Argyraspides corps is only seen to be 5,000 strong. However 5,000 troops armed in the Roman fashion are present and they are described as being in the prime of their life, perhaps denoting their elite nature.[11] It is possible that the missing 5,000 men of the Argyraspides were the 5,000 'Romanized' infantry marching alongside them. The training of a segment of the royal guard in "Roman' methods was probably down to several factors. Firstly Antiochus IV had 'spent part of his early life in Rome and had acquired rather an excessive admiration for Rome's power and methods".[12] Secondly the future wars that the Seleucids might be fighting would probably be in the eastern satrapies against mobile enemies and other large areas of land. Training troops in this way would add to the overall efficiency and capability of the army and make it more manoeuvrable. Indeed the 'Romanized' troops are seen facing the Maccabees at the Battle of Beth Zechariah in 162 BC.[13] Thirdly the defeat of the Antigonids at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC was a great culture shock, showing the complete destruction of the Macedonian military system at the hands of the Roman legion. It has been suggested that the fact that these 5,000 men are marching at the head of the army was meant to show Antiochus IV's intention of reforming the entire Seleucid army along Roman lines, though whether or not this complete reform actually took place is unknown.[14] The true extent of the adoption of Roman techniques is unknown, some have suggested that the infantry are in fact more likely to be Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, troops armed with an oval shield of the Celtic type, a thrusting spear and javelins.[15]

Natsata you are great artist, I see your work in deviant art. why you ask that Crooker? You see the Enrique's Shield? See it at tell me for whst units are?

Next year guy XD.

is possibly do it?

Tim lives in Orlando, May be I can meet him this year. this years I will go to Washington and Orlando

I mean in Rise and Fall Empires at Wars, have to make a group of soldiers can fight as a single unit formation.

I think can be for focus attack the tower can shoots all arrows a single unit.