This is unedited.
I'll be adding an analysis of the hasmonean military in the near future. This is posted from a mobile device since I am stranded at the hospital. This will be modelled based on previous research threads and will be based primarily on several books in my library, as well as the primary source, Josephus.
On a brief note, the Hasmonean army, very early on, had Cavalry, and even the Macedonian Phalanx. I will provide evidence for this based on inference, chronology, and circumstantial evidence found in the 1st and 2nd books of Maccabees, and Josephus.
The Army 170s-120
First let's discuss the use of Phalangites in the Hasmonean army. Until recently, I would have never put the words "Jewish Phalanx" together.
I must first point out that the Jews living in the Levant at the time did not revolt because of internal politics between Hellenized Jews, and traditional ones. This is a modern theory, and it does make sense, considering that the Seleucids had previously been magnanimous toward the Jews. It is also true that I Maccabees is incorrect in stating that Hellenism was being imposed upon "All of the Land". It wasn't. But it was being imposed in the Levant, since it was a piece of real estate Antiochus IV was bound and determined to hold on to. being "Hellenized" is true, but it was tied to loyalty to the Seleucid monarchy. We must remember that the Jews had been influenced by Hellenism for well over a century prior to the revolt. Jewish philosophy post-Alexander shows the influence of Greek thought, and that the Jews were some how opposed to the majority of Hellenistic culture is not true. That Jews were exclusivist, and opposed to intermingle with others, is only true in a very limited sense. Greeks and Romans had their own purification rituals and laws. So for Greeks to somehow view Jews as legalistic, or stringent in their laws and customs, is unlikely. In fact, universalism is much more important in Greek thought than Jewish. with a few, rare exceptions, the laws of the Torah exclusively to the Jews. The laws of the Torah were only once imposed upon another people, The Idumaeans. This may in fact be due to the Hasmonean priesthood's misinterpretation of Universalism, which significantly influenced Jewish thought post-Alexander, and not simply for the sole reason of assimilating the Idumaeans, though it was probably the primary purpose. So now we know that the "Hellenism" in Judaea, was quite prevalent, and it was only the the banishment of Jewish Law from the Jews themselves, and the possible imposition of Greek religion, that stirred the revolt. It is not a far cry to assume that the Jews in Judaea were exposed to Hellenistic weaponry and tactics in the century and a half between the Maccabee revolt and Alexander's conquest.
Now on the the "Jewish" Phalanx. I assume you guys are familiar with the argument in favor of a Macedonian Phalanx used by Judah's successors, but let's recap anyway. I'll summerize Bar-Kochva's argument.
Jonathan fought a battle near "Azotos" in which the I Maccabees describes it as lasting from morning to night, with two lines of infantry. That Thorakitai could withstand a Macedonian Phalanx that long is unlikely. So we the Jewish heavy infantry must have been armed in a similar (I would argue VERY similar) to the Seleucid line. Eleazar had fought at Beth Zacariah, in which Josphus claims that the Jewish infantry fought with an elephant "before the phalanx of both sides met". Of course, phalanx usually just means a line of infantry, but it never referred to light infantry. So we can conclude that the Jewish infantry was armed in a manner that could match phalagites, and elephants. Is there really any formation c. 160 other than the Phalangial Phalanx that can evenly match the Phalanx on relatively flat ground? Not really. The battle of Magnesia vs the Roman legions, succeeded only when the Seleucid cavalry was either driven off or outflanked. Even when Macedon was conquered by Rome, it was described by a Roman commander (X) as the most terrifying infantry formation he had ever seen. During the battle of Azotos, Jonathan was surprised by Seleucid horse archers, in which he told his main line of infantry, (Macedonian Phalanx, or something extremely similar), to stay put. This is not behavior for light infantry and if they did not have shield, and more importantly, armor, they would have been decimated. So we must conclude that they were either Phalangites, or so similar to phalangites as to function in the same manner, or very well trained Legionaries. But that they were "legionaries" has about a zero % chance of being true, so we are left with the former.
Now for cavalry. I must first start with a solid assumption in ancient warfare. That is that virtually all societies used cavalry, including those who did not place much importance on them. Greek Hippeis, were wealthy nobles who fought on horseback, the nature of hoplite warfare ends up being a contest of attrition, (and wills), without a "hammer" component. If the majority of Greek City state warfare was a matter of attrition, the male populace would have been adversely effected and would have left it's mark upon history, due to high casualties. Excluding high casualties, the battles would be very inconclusive, and the Peloponnesian war shows these effect, but no others. I am not an expert on that conflict, but I am sure there were a few of "decisive" battles. A good commander is likewise, not interested in a battle of attrition.
II Maccabees describes a Jewish Horsemen, named Dositheus, chased an attempted to kill the Seleucid commander Gorgias at the battle of Elesa. Dositheus was obviously accompanied by a unit of cavalry, since only a madman would chase a cavalry unit alone. I Maccabees also describes Simeon commanding a unit of cavalry in a battle c. 138. So we must conclude they had cavalry, and they probably had some type of heavy cavalry, probably borrowed from the Seleucids, since the Hasmonean cavalry left a good account of themselves vs the Seleucid cavalry.
The types of troop available of the early Hasmonean army are as such.
Light Cavalry, Heavy/ Semi-Heavy Cavalry, High quality slingers, varying skirmishers, Heavy Phalangial-like troops, and light to heavy Spear and Swordsmen.
On a final note on the Hasmonean arry, c. 160-120, we must remember that the books of Maccabees are good histories, but are biased, so as to portray the battles won as won only with Divine internvention. So it is probable that the numbers of the Hasmonean troops are diminished in the account, though I do not doubt they were probably outnumbered somewhat, and the odds were stacked against them. This is why the Seleucid troops are described in some detail, while Jewish armament is deliberately vague, so as to make them out to be poorly equiped, and rag tag, so to speak.
Hasmonean Arms and Armor c 160-120
History: Historians Post your work here
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Valkar
Bookmarks