Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields? [Archive]

paullus

01-21-2007, 08:22

Several dozen (I think close to 50) funerary stelai from western Asia Minor, all dating to the 2nd C. BC, that show cavalrymen with almost uniform equipment: helmets, shields, linothorax, greaves, and sword (spears, of course, were wielded, but are not shown).

Hmmm...I'm thinking of the stelai and reliefs I have pictures of from museums across Turkey, and while I can think of a few cavalrymen with shields, I'm not sure there's a strong reason to identify them with hetairoi, nor do they seem to outnumber those using a two-hand grip on their spears. Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply. I've got a series of photos I can post if necessary, but not now because its rather late and I'm teaching at church tomorrow. If you have photos, please show them. Swords, even axes, and elements of armor like helmet and linothorax/bronze cuirass and greaves are all well-represented, but I'm having trouble finding a shield in my collection.

The above coin from Cibyra.

A 2nd C. BC cup from Syria showing some Parthian archers attacking heavy Greek cavalrymen carrying shields.

First off, how do we know the Kibyra cavalryman is from the hetairoi?

Second, I'd love to see a 2nd bc cup from Syria of Parthian ANYTHING, especially archers, because as far as I know the only representations of Parthians show them looking more like Galatians than much of anything else.

A cavalry shield (a round, rimless shield with a spindle and boss like a thureos) on the Pergamon weapon reliefs - a type of shield only ever carried by cavalry in the Hellenistic period.

Aren't we using this shield in our Thraikian hippeis? I haven't actually gotten to play in a couple of weeks, so I could be wrong, but I thought that's what we were using. The only other place than the Pergamon reliefs where I've seen that shield is on Thraikian horsemen stelai (most of which have no shield, however) and the Pydna relief, which also probably depicts a Thraikian cavalryman.

Several dozen funerary reliefs from neighbouring Bithynia showing heavily armed cavalrymen wearing linothorax and helmet and shield and wielding sword and spear.

1. So are we talking about cavalrymen carrying shields or HETAIROI CARRYING SHIELDS? Because I challenge you to present the least evidence that there was a class anywhere near Hetairoi in the Bithynian kingdom.

2. I'm also EXCEEDINGLY skeptical about "several dozen funerary reliefs" of that topic. I've been to several sites in Bithynia and several museums containing artifacts from Bithynia, and have never seen as many as a dozen containing that sort of information, much less several dozen.

3. You've offered to post stelai. The ones I'd most like to see are some of these dozens from Bithynia, one or two of the asia minor stelai depicting a cavalryman with aspis...BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, this Syrian cup with the Parthians!

MeinPanzer

01-21-2007, 09:39

Hmmm...I'm thinking of the stelai and reliefs I have pictures of from museums across Turkey, and while I can think of a few cavalrymen with shields, I'm not sure there's a strong reason to identify them with hetairoi, nor do they seem to outnumber those using a two-hand grip on their spears.

I'd like to see some pictures of the ones holding their spears two-handed, because in my research I've found those to be particularly rare.

And this is my reasoning: Hetairoi were the aristocracy of the Hellenistic kingdoms, the king's friends, and were heavily armed to match their high status. Men who were able to afford lavish funerary reliefs, and maintaining their expensive arms and armour, were just these. Now, I can't think of a single image that is labels a Hellenistic cavalryman as being a hetairos, but I think it is a very fair assumption that these heavily armed cavalrymen were, if not hetairoi, their equivalent in surrounding city states and kingdoms. It is very evident that particular styles of troops were popular at certain times and in certain areas, and it's evident from these sources that the popular equipment of the heavy cavalryman in and around Asia Minor (one of the richest and most populated portions of the Seleukid empire in the latter years) at this time was helmet, linothorax, greaves, sword, large round shield (some Argive, some large round rimless shields with central boss/spines). Hetairoi were the heaviest-armed cavalrymen beneath the kataphraktoi, and so it makes sense that these heavy cavalrymen would at least be parallels of Seleukid hetairoi.

Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply.

That's true- it seems that in many cases the full panoply was abbreviated for the purposes of conserving space. However, the most common items shown are shields.

I've got a series of photos I can post if necessary, but not now because its rather late and I'm teaching at church tomorrow. If you have photos, please show them. Swords, even axes, and elements of armor like helmet and linothorax/bronze cuirass and greaves are all well-represented, but I'm having trouble finding a shield in my collection.

Posting them all would be time consuming... is it possible that if I contact you by email we could trade images? I'd like to see if I can find corroborate different stelai. As far as these stelai, I have some 38 scans, each one containing 1-6 individual stelai (and most contain at least 4).

First off, how do we know the Kibyra cavalryman is from the hetairoi?

See my explanation above.

Second, I'd love to see a 2nd bc cup from Syria of Parthian ANYTHING, especially archers, because as far as I know the only representations of Parthians show them looking more like Galatians than much of anything else.

Well, they are some sort of nomads. They have very Silen-like faces; Rostovtzeff doesn't explain who he thinks the figures are, but for the 2nd C. Syrian, the most likely enemy would be Parthian.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/cup.jpg

Upper left is one of the barbarians about to be ridden down by a Greek in the upper right. Lower left is a Greek chasing a barbarian horse archer. Some of the details are hard to make out, but Rostovtzeff acquired an admirable amount of information on it and writes a bit about the costume and look of the figures.

Aren't we using this shield in our Thraikian hippeis? I haven't actually gotten to play in a couple of weeks, so I could be wrong, but I thought that's what we were using. The only other place than the Pergamon reliefs where I've seen that shield is on Thraikian horsemen stelai (most of which have no shield, however) and the Pydna relief, which also probably depicts a Thraikian cavalryman.

Does it have laurels running around the edge? It's a fragment of the reliefs, not one on display and one that's rarely published AFAIK.

And is that a Thrakian stele where the horseman carries a round shield? Could you please post it? And no, the Pydna relief definitely depicts a Macedonian heavy cavalryman, and thus probably a hetairos as well.

1. So are we talking about cavalrymen carrying shields or HETAIROI CARRYING SHIELDS? Because I challenge you to present the least evidence that there was a class anywhere near Hetairoi in the Bithynian kingdom.

These I included to show an example that at this time a particular panoply was popular with the aristocratic cavalrymen of the Hellenistic kingdoms. It is documented that the Bithynian kings made a big effort to Hellenize themselves, and it is evident that they had very close contact with the Seleukids.

2. I'm also EXCEEDINGLY skeptical about "several dozen funerary reliefs" of that topic. I've been to several sites in Bithynia and several museums containing artifacts from Bithynia, and have never seen as many as a dozen containing that sort of information, much less several dozen.

15 really important ones, perhaps a dozen more relatively unimportant ones. There are some REALLY good ones too, like battle scenes with 4 or 5 figures, but I'm currently writing an article on the Bithynian army, so I promise I'll post the stuff (and the article) when I finish it (which should be fairly soon, I'm about 3/4 finished). The really good stuff is almost all in the Archaeological Museum Bursa, which has hundreds of stelai which are not on display, and apparently they've only published a fraction of the total number they have.

3. You've offered to post stelai. The ones I'd most like to see are some of these dozens from Bithynia, one or two of the asia minor stelai depicting a cavalryman with aspis...BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, this Syrian cup with the Parthians!

Again, if I contact you via email it would be easier to transfer many pictures.

Fondor_Yards

01-21-2007, 17:51

Well pretty much all hellenistic cavarly that use a 2-handed kontos don;t use a shield. Both early Seleukid hetairoi and later seleukid heavy cavalry don't use one. This unit has to share a model with both Macedonian and Ptol Hetairoi.

What if you shared the carthagian sacred band cavalry model with the seleucid hetairoi? They carry shields, and use the kontos as well.

Bonny

01-21-2007, 18:20

What if you shared the carthagian sacred band cavalry model with the seleucid hetairoi?

Not neccessary, you can put a shild to the existing Heteiro model if it may be decided to do so. (model change is not a good thing, The helm for example is part of the model)

They carry shields, and use the kontos as well.

They are not using the Kontos (Kontos is afaik a sarmartian weapon), Hetairo are using the Xyston (regarding the Sauromatae Preview Thread the Kontos was developed after fighting against Xyston armed hellenic heavy Cav) and I don't know which weapon the Sacred band cavalry is using but it was decided to change the anim to a one handed grip, to avoid the clipping.

Teleklos Archelaou

01-21-2007, 19:08

Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply.

That's true- it seems that in many cases the full panoply was abbreviated for the purposes of conserving space. However, the most common items shown are shields.So when the stelai show shields they are correct and give us an accurate depiction, but when they don't show shields they are incorrect and don't give an accurate depiction? That seems fair.

MeinPanzer

01-21-2007, 20:04

They are not using the Kontos (Kontos is afaik a sarmartian weapon), Hetairo are using the Xyston (regarding the Sauromatae Preview Thread the Kontos was developed after fighting against Xyston armed hellenic heavy Cav) and I don't know which weapon the Sacred band cavalry is using but it was decided to change the anim to a one handed grip, to avoid the clipping.

The xyston was wielded in one hand.

So when the stelai show shields they are correct and give us an accurate depiction, but when they don't show shields they are incorrect and don't give an accurate depiction? That seems fair.

Here are my thoughts on it:

There are many, many stelai. All of the complete stelai show the same equipment; namely, helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield. Sometimes, the incomplete panoply is shown, which usually is just a helmet and shield, but also includes any combination of these (sometimes greaves and helmet, shield and greaves, helmet and shield and greaves, etc.). Now, if you judge the body of stelai as a whole- all the stelai from the 2nd C. BC from western Asia Minor- it becomes very apparent that given the consistency in workmanship but given limited space, that it had been decided to limit the panoply to a few pieces. It's apparent that if the artist has shown only, say, greaves and a cuirass, that a cavalryman would obviously not go into battle wearing only greaves and a cuirass; therefore it's apparent that it was not uncommon for the equipment to be abbreviated for the purposes of these stelai.

Urnamma

01-21-2007, 20:10

MeinPanzer

01-21-2007, 21:29

Don't confuse the xyston of the Hellenistic age with that of Alexander. If you don't like the analogy, then look at the Sarissae of the same period.

The xyston lance, or what are called xyston lances, go up in length substantially. Correspondingly, we see a rise in depictions of heavy cavalry using two handed lances. Ergo... The two handed lance offers some advantage over the one handed lance, and they're changing accordingly. Most of the successors were quick to change suit.

Yes, the xysta appear to increase in length during this period, but there's also some evidence that Macedonian haevy cavalry (probably hetairoi) and other heavy cavalry from Asia Minor actually wielded javelins instead. The most notable is a funerary cist, now in the museum of Kilkis, which shows on one side a cavalryman riding to the left with his groom behind. He wears a helmet and carries a large round shiekd. His groom on foot also wears a helmet and may be carrying a thureos. On the opposite side can be seen two Argive shields, and on the other two sides are represented a linothorax and two spears, and a helmet and a kopis.

Also, could you please post just one or two of these two-handed lance sources?

If we had an Attalid faction ingame, however, they would still use the one handed lance.

Sorry, but Pergamene cavalry used lance and shield, too:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/pergamoncavalry.jpg
2nd C. BC, from Pergamon.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/mysian.JPG
2nd C. BC, from Mysia.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/bronzebattlescene.jpg
2nd C. BC bronze plate, from Pergamon. Note that the cavalrymen carry large round shields and thrust with their long lances in their right hands. Note also on the left one of the only representations of phalangites fighting in a phalanx, and with a standard. This is thought to show fighting at Magnesia, where the with the cavalry being both Pergamene or one Roman one Pergamene.

Grand Lord of Poop~

01-21-2007, 21:38

so perhaps we should add shields to those cavalrymen should they prove to be accurate? :inquisitive:

Teleklos Archelaou

01-21-2007, 21:54

MeinPanzer

01-21-2007, 22:17

We do have a cavalry unit with shield for some of these factions, but it's not a compainion cavalry unit. It's done but not in the build yet. I don't see why those charging cavalry are clearly hetairoi (I liked the images though for sure).

The thing is that there's no clear evidence for hetairoi, obviously. But what I am trying to show is that after the middle of the 3rd C. BC, the normal equipment for heavy cavalryman was large round shield (either Argive or rimless with a spine), a helmet, a cuirass, and into the 2nd C. BC, greaves. This was the norm, from Sicilian cavalry to Samnite cavalry to Roman cavalry to Athenian cavalry to Macedonian cavalry to Bithynian cavalry to Pergamene cavalry (and probably a few I'm forgetting). It makes sense, then, that the heaviest "non-specialist" (i.e. non-cataphract) cavalry, the hetairoi, would be equipped like this. It's perfectly logical that this group is so well represented in expensive funerary art because they would have been the ones who were able to afford to maintain a horse and buy expensive arms and armour. It also makes a lot of sense that the Seleucid "satellite" states (Pergamon, Bithynia, Mysia before it was absorbed by Pergamon, and the various powerful city states in and around Ionia) would follow in line with the Seleucid military. After all, many of these areas would have provided troops for the Seleucids at one point or another from the 3rd to the 2nd C. BC.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 00:13

Sarcasm

01-22-2007, 00:21

It also looks to me like their shield *might* be swung across the back of the cavalrymen. A hoplon-like grip would also look like something similar though...

Iberians too were really fond of the dragoon concept too, so it wasn't that uncommon.

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 00:45

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 00:51

A book on ancient cavalry warfare (Philip Sidnell's Warhorse for the record; interesting read) I've been reading lately pointed out that around the time the Romans started pushing into the Balkans and Greece there's a lot of pictures and depictions of Hellenic cavalrymen with shields, armour and standard cavalry spears, as well as armoured cavalrymen with xystons who never carry shields.

The main catalyst for the reintroduction of the cavalry shield seems to have been Pyrrus of Epirus- his employment of Italian mercenary cavalrymen (mainly Tarentines) who used the Argive shield on horseback spread through his campaigns. He was probably the one to bring it back to the Balkans and reintroduce the cavalry shield to the Macedonians. The Romans were likewise affected by their contact with Pyrrhus, and at some point enacted a reform to begin using the "Greek" cavalry shield in place of the flimsy oxhide popanum shield and the sturdy Greek cavalry spear, with buttspike, in place of their flimsy Roman cavalry spear. It's also interesting to note that the equipment of Sicilian cavalrymen of the 3rd C. BC seems to have influenced Roman cavalrymen quite a bit as well.

The author suggests a balance issue to be the reason - body armour alone makes a rider top-heavy; a decent-sized shield more so to the left, plus the device is a bit tricky since it's on the arm you hold the reins with when the other one uses weapons; a xyston, even if the Alexander-era ones were well enough balanced to be used one-handed, is still a quite heavy and awkward device and takes a lot of practice to handle. The argument goes that the horsemen couldn't handle both a shield and a xyston at once without becoming dangerously unbalanced,

Even if you are unsure about the Cibyra coins, look at that Pergamene battle plate I posted earlier- those are clearly cavalrymen carrying xysta and large round shields, proving that hypothesis wrong.

Sidnell suggests the adoption of the Scythian saddle from the Thracians as the catalyst).

There seems to be no evidence that the Scythian saddle was adopted westward of the Thracians before the 1st C. BC.

As for the Kiburan coin, I'm wondering if it could be that the lancer doesn't have the shield strapped onto his back to protect his rear in the swirling cavalry melee rather than on his arm for more active use ?

Look at the size of those shields- that would be incredibly awkward, and would do little good to a cavalryman who was trying to maneuver with an already cumbersome lance.

I understand this trick was used relatively widely here and there (Thracian heavy cavalry apparently did it a lot at one point),

What's the evidence for this?

and it would have the bonus that in a pinch the horseman could dismount, sling it from his back, and fight as a heavy infantryman -

I don't think there's any mention of Greek cavalrymen doing this in battle accounts, and it seems very unlikely. When soldiers did this in battle, it was notable enough that most ancient authors pointed it out.

the Roman equites were apparently particularly fond of that move for example.

Do you have some sources for this?

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 01:02

I think assuming a uniform military system for the Seleukids would be a dangerous thing to do. The requirements of warfare on the eastern fringes were very different from those in asia minor or those along the shifting front with the Ptolemies or even those required for internal supression of rebellions.

Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that. But Asia Minor was a major population centre within the empire, and probably provided many of the wealthiest members of the empire, and so the equipment of the heavy cavalry of this area would largely be indicative of the equipment of Seleucid heavy cavalry in general. Still, the hetairoi were one unified force within the empire, and so when they were employed, they most likely would have been equipped the same, whether fighting in the west or east or within the empire.

Sarcasm

01-22-2007, 01:05

Do you have some sources for this?

Battle of Cannae for example. Try the campaigns in Hispania too. :book:

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 01:13

But your still assuming that these cavalry men for Asia minor are hetairoi, not more generic greek middle-heavy cavalry (which is fairly likely, especially seeing their employment in states that weren't proper succesor states). You're also assuming one of two other things, that the armament of the far west would have been that adopted when the hetairoi were deployed in a unified force (strang considering that the east was the focus of cavalry warfare) or that the hetairoi always fought a unified force, which is surely not the case. As nobles they had lots of non-military duties to discharge and the nobles of Asia minor certinly weren't marching to the far east every time some heavy cavalry was deployed.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 01:32

But your still assuming that these cavalry men for Asia minor are hetairoi, not more generic greek middle-heavy cavalry (which is fairly likely, especially seeing their employment in states that weren't proper succesor states).

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?

You're also assuming one of two other things, that the armament of the far west would have been that adopted when the hetairoi were deployed in a unified force (strang considering that the east was the focus of cavalry warfare)

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.

or that the hetairoi always fought a unified force, which is surely not the case.

They quite often did when called up for major campaigns.

As nobles they had lots of non-military duties to discharge and the nobles of Asia minor certinly weren't marching to the far east every time some heavy cavalry was deployed.

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians.

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 02:06

Watchman

01-22-2007, 02:12

Battle of Cannae for example. Try the campaigns in Hispania too. :book:There's one cavalry fight in one of those early Macedonian wars too. The respective squadrons were apparently unable to penetrate into each others' ranks so the battle turned into a static slugging match; some of the eques of the rear ranks then dismounted and made their way through the press to pitch in at the front line, which took the Macs quite by surprise - plus adding infantry into a cavaly melee in general tended to swing the odds anyway.

Ditto at Cannae, except men from both sides apparently did this (given the geography of their homeland one suspects the Iberian horsemen in particular were quite used to occasionally dismounting for fighting in bad terrain to boot) when the big horse fight at the river flank initially turned static.

Mind you, in that case some of the Romans may also have decided to sell their lives dearly when it became apparent they were going to lose, and dismounted to make running away impossible; I understand the Mongols for example also had a habit of doing their "desperate last stands" on foot.

The eques also apparently occasionally left their horses to stabilize crumbling infantry lines; this not only added fresh men into the line to stiffen it, but also encouraged the infantrymen when they saw the nobles fighting at their side as equals in the face of crisis. Greek cavalrymen are known to have done this on occasion as well, although before they started carrying shields they obviously needed to loot or loan some first.

And no, I don't quite feel like digging up the references from the book right now. It's kinda late in the night.

There seems to be no evidence that the Scythian saddle was adopted westward of the Thracians before the 1st C. BC.The Greeks are to the south of them for the most part though, aren't they ? And there were the Persians and Celts who most likely also knew of the device, who could for their part have helped the Hellenes pick it up as well. I've seen it mentioned that the first shields to turn up in the hands of Hellenic cavalry in pictorial cources have and awfully Celtic look to them.

Which reminds me, does anyone know when did the Celts start using saddles ? And I don't mean the famous four-horned type now (which was a relatively late device anyway, if I've understood correctly); it seems quite unlikely they'd have suddenly pulled that advanced thing out of nowhere, rather than developing it from some earlier type, most likely the simple Scythian one.

The main catalyst for the reintroduction of the cavalry shield seems to have been Pyrrus of Epirus- his employment of Italian mercenary cavalrymen (mainly Tarentines) who used the Argive shield on horseback spread through his campaigns. He was probably the one to bring it back to the Balkans and reintroduce the cavalry shield to the Macedonians. The Romans were likewise affected by their contact with Pyrrhus, and at some point enacted a reform to begin using the "Greek" cavalry shield in place of the flimsy oxhide popanum shield and the sturdy Greek cavalry spear, with buttspike, in place of their flimsy Roman cavalry spear. It's also interesting to note that the equipment of Sicilian cavalrymen of the 3rd C. BC seems to have influenced Roman cavalrymen quite a bit as well.This is from Polybius, right ? I understand he launches into the discourse on the matter in the middle of describing the Second Punic War, but anyway. If I've understood correctly when exactly the Romans started copying Greek cavalry weapons is still very much a questionmark - but it's not like they hadn't had contact with the assorted Greek colonies on the Italian peninsula long before Pyrrhus, when it comes to that. And what I've seen mentioned of Roman cavalry in those murky wars of very early Republican times before they started writing stuff down at least seems to suggest the equites of the time were capable of both effective shock action and dismounting to fight as infantry, which would suggest relatively robust gear.

Look at the size of those shields- that would be incredibly awkward, and would do little good to a cavalryman who was trying to maneuver with an already cumbersome lance.I dunno, the one-handed technique used with the xyston is pretty straightforward isn't it ? Kinda linear stabby. So long as the shield on the man's back doesn't get in the way of his right arm I don't see much of a problem there. I'm sure the exact position could also be readily adjusted so the thing's more to the left, giving more protection to the vulnerable rear left side and shoulder and less in the way of the right arm - as long as it's attached properly, it shouldn't interfere much with the movements of the body either.

Besides, infantrymen could fight with two-handed axes with kite shields slung on their backs. A cavalryman ought to be able to handle a slung round shield with a spear.

As for two-handed lance techniques, should that for some reason become an issue, I'm pretty sure about the only kind of shield you can manage with them is some rather small one strapped somewhere around the elbow or higher; didn't them steppe nomads use this approach a fair bit with archery at least ? Cataphracts apparently usually didn't bother though.

Even if you are unsure about the Cibyra coins, look at that Pergamene battle plate I posted earlier- those are clearly cavalrymen carrying xysta and large round shields, proving that hypothesis wrong.The Kibyra coins look a lot like the shield was slung across the back incidentally - you'd think they were rather more forward if they were wielded in hand, no ? But these seem to be positively behind the horsemen. The Pergamene link gives a 404 so it's not of much use I'm afraid. The Mysian link (middle one) works; what's to say that those guys aren't hippeis-type cavalry though ? My layman's eyes see no ready reason to assume their spears are xystons instead of some shorter type.

I don't think there's any mention of Greek cavalrymen doing this in battle accounts, and it seems very unlikely. When soldiers did this in battle, it was notable enough that most ancient authors pointed it out.IIRC there was one case involving some Spartan horsemen and allied hoplites in a pinch. The Spartans appropriated shields from the fallen and went to stiffen the faltering line, and eventually got killed to a man - as the enemy saw only the allies' symbols on the shields, the Spartan "killer rep" obviously didn't faze them much. I can try to look up the reference in the morning.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 02:21

I'll respond more fully later, but I would like to point out that Syria isn't in asia minor last time I checked. One would also assume western forces would be the major elements at Magnesia (being the west), which is what Livy's list says.

Of course Syria isn't in Asia Minor, but Phrygia and Lydia are exactly the two areas where the majority of the stelai I'm talking about came from. And I'd think that for as major a battle as Magnesia the entire forces of the empire would be mobilized, barring garrison troops of course. If you don't think that they utilized troops from the other portions of the empire, there are some literary mentions of kings having to wait for troops to arrive before embarking on campaigns.

I'll write a response to you, Watchman, in a little bit.

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 02:35

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?

How about the more traditional cavalry using an overhand spear but with a shield and bronze curiass? They were certinly medium-heavy.

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.

No but there is reason to believe that those fighting in the east would probably have had a somewhat different armament than those in the west.

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians.

It seems like your definition of Asia minor is becoming very broad to support your stances. Asia Minor is pretty much limited to modern day turkey, the peninsula between the med and the black sea more specifically. Syria and Mesopotamia are not a part of it, and are probably a large source of manpower than Asia minor. Anyway, like I said before the fact that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians is just as good evidence (in my opinion better) that in western campaigns were forces made up the majority of the forces (and vice versa in the east) than that the vast majority of hetairoi were from the west.

Of course Syria isn't in Asia Minor, but Phrygia and Lydia are exactly the two areas where the majority of the stelai I'm talking about came from. And I'd think that for as major a battle as Magnesia the entire forces of the empire would be mobilized, barring garrison troops of course. If you don't think that they utilized troops from the other portions of the empire, there are some literary mentions of kings having to wait for troops to arrive before embarking on campaigns.
Of course they used troops from other parts of the empire, but to assume that forces from the closer regions wouldn't arrive in larger numbers stands in contradiction to every example of pre-modern warfare I can think of where we know anything about. Please stop acting like I'm talking about absolutes when I'm talking about trends. We're both historians here and we both know that responsible historians talk about trends not absolutes these days.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 02:35

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?And here I thought the hetairoi were the Macedonian elite heavies... originally. It seems sensible enough that later Successor elite squadrons drawn from the nobility would keep using the prestigious name, although I would imagine the the Philippo-Alexandric "page" system had to go already on practical grounds. Doesn't mean they were the only shock cavalry around or the only ones who fought with the xyston though. The long lance was much too useful a weapon for there to not be non-hetairoi users, and the somewhat lighter and more all-purpose hippeis pattern apparently existed alongside the specialized lancers.

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.But hetairoi dwelling in the east would probably tend to have a little different taste for details of equipement than ones whose estates lay in, say, Asia Minor, no ? Anyway, they might also have possessed several different weapon complements for different campaign purposes - didn't you yourself mention Companions sometimes using javelins earlier ?

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians....weren't the Seleucids' more eastern holding by that point pretty much enough of a mess that they either couldn't support hetairoi-grade cavalry anymore, or that whatever they could maintain was needed on the local front though ? IIRC the Seleucs had a major war with the Parthians only some half a dozen years before Magnesia... They apparently also picked up the cataphract idea during that one, and this new type of elite shock cavalry would obviously have hogged estates and other resources from the older hetairoi type - any idea of where those Seleuc catas at Magnesia were raised from, geographically ? I'll throw a guess that many of them would have been re-equipped hetairoi from the eastern regions, where the line between the xyston and the heavier kontos had probably also been blurring for a while.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 02:46

There's one cavalry fight in one of those early
The Greeks are to the south of them for the most part though, aren't they ?

Southwest, but I meant west in general.

And there were the Persians and Celts who most likely also knew of the device, who could for their part have helped the Hellenes pick it up as well. I've seen it mentioned that the first shields to turn up in the hands of Hellenic cavalry in pictorial cources have and awfully Celtic look to them.

Probably could have had access to it, but right down into the 1st C. BC, we still only see cavalrymen with shabracks. And those first shields look Celtic because both the Celts and the Greeks picked them up from Italian peoples.

Which reminds me, does anyone know when did the Celts start using saddles ? And I don't mean the famous four-horned type now (which was a relatively late device anyway, if I've understood correctly); it seems quite unlikely they'd have suddenly pulled that advanced thing out of nowhere, rather than developing it from some earlier type, most likely the simple Scythian one.

I couldn't help you there; none of my Celtic sources show saddles.

This is from Polybius, right ?

The bit about swapping out the oxhide shields and spears for sturdier Greek types is, yes.

I understand he launches into the discourse on the matter in the middle of describing the Second Punic War, but anyway. If I've understood correctly when exactly the Romans started copying Greek cavalry weapons is still very much a questionmark - but it's not like they hadn't had contact with the assorted Greek colonies on the Italian peninsula long before Pyrrhus, when it comes to that.

Yes, the date of the equipment reform is unknown. And the Greeks did have contact with the Italian peoples, but it's just that the reappearance of cavalry shields in Greek armies happens to conspircuously coincide with Pyrrhus' employment of Italian mercenaries, and their subsequent use in the Balkans.

And what I've seen mentioned of Roman cavalry in those murky wars of very early Republican times before they started writing stuff down at least seems to suggest the equites of the time were capable of both effective shock action and dismounting to fight as infantry, which would suggest relatively robust gear.

They were probably something akin to mounted hoplites back then, but this is pure speculation, of course. There's no clear image of Roman cavalry at all until about the 2nd C. BC.

I dunno, the one-handed technique used with the xyston is pretty straightforward isn't it ? Kinda linear stabby. So long as the shield on the man's back doesn't get in the way of his right arm I don't see much of a problem there.

My problem with it is that the arms of the cavalrymen on the Pergamene plate are very far back, and with a shield of that size, they'd probably be knocking their elbows on the shield.

I'm sure the exact position could also be readily adjusted so the thing's more to the left, giving more protection to the vulnerable rear left side and shoulder and less in the way of the right arm - as long as it's attached properly, it shouldn't interfere much with the movements of the body either.

Besides, infantrymen could fight with two-handed axes with kite shields slung on their backs. A cavalryman ought to be able to handle a slung round shield with a spear.

The problem I have with this is that Greek cavalry clearly didn't dismount too often in combat, if it was worthy of specific mention in literary references, it would be very cumbersome to carry such a large shield. I'm fairly sure that the artist on the Cibyra coins just chose to show the edge of the shield a bit farther back so that it wasn't hidden by the rider; lots of ancient sources do that (having grips all over the place).

As for two-handed lance techniques, should that for some reason become an issue, I'm pretty sure about the only kind of shield you can manage with them is some rather small one strapped somewhere around the elbow or higher; didn't them steppe nomads use this approach a fair bit with archery at least ? Cataphracts apparently usually didn't bother though.

Late Sassanid, Avar, and Byzantine cataphracts all carried small shields strapped to the upper left arm. I agree that if a lancer was wielding a lance two-handedly, he wouldn't have a shield.

The Kibyra coins look a lot like the shield was slung across the back incidentally - you'd think they were rather more forward if they were wielded in hand, no ? But these seem to be positively behind the horsemen. The Pergamene link gives a 404 so it's not of much use I'm afraid. The Mysian link (middle one) works; what's to say that those guys aren't hippeis-type cavalry though ? My layman's eyes see no ready reason to assume their spears are xystons instead of some shorter type.

I switched the Pergamene image over to my hosting- it should work for you now. Those riders are undeniably carrying xysta and large round cavalry shields.

IIRC there was one case involving some Spartan horsemen and allied hoplites in a pinch. The Spartans appropriated shields from the fallen and went to stiffen the faltering line, and eventually got killed to a man - as the enemy saw only the allies' symbols on the shields, the Spartan "killer rep" obviously didn't faze them much. I can try to look up the reference in the morning.

I meant more Hellenistic sources, since we are discussing whether these figures would have carried shields on their backs to be able to dismount and fight.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 02:56

For the record, the first Pergamene link still comes up 404. The second one works though.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 03:10

How about the more traditional cavalry using an overhand spear but with a shield and bronze curiass? They were certinly medium-heavy.

As I said before, there is definitely evidence that some of these heavy cavalrymen used javelins in combat as well as, or in place of, the xyston. It wouldn't surprise me if, like the hypaspists, they could switch between weapons.

No but there is reason to believe that those fighting in the east would probably have had a somewhat different armament than those in the west.

Which sources do you have for this?

It seems like your definition of Asia minor is becoming very broad to support your stances. Asia Minor is pretty much limited to modern day turkey, the peninsula between the med and the black sea more specifically. Syria and Mesopotamia are not a part of it, and are probably a large source of manpower than Asia minor.

Actually, the Syria of Livy- Seleukis- was bordering Cilicia, and so was partly southwestern Asia Minor. That doesn't change the fact that many of them were apparently from Lydia and Phrygia, though.

nyway, like I said before the fact that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians is just as good evidence (in my opinion better) that in western campaigns were forces made up the majority of the forces (and vice versa in the east) than that the vast majority of hetairoi were from the west.

By the second century BC, the Seleucids didn't control a large portion of the east. By this time, the Parthians were well underway eroding Seleucid control of the east, and it's clear that Mesopotamia was not the bedrock of the empire it once was. The last bastion of populous cities under the control of the Seleucids was Asia Minor.

Of course they used troops from other parts of the empire, but to assume that forces from the closer regions wouldn't arrive in larger numbers stands in contradiction to every example of pre-modern warfare I can think of where we know anything about.

We're not talking about other troops, we're talking about the hetairoi, the king's chosen companions who were crucial to the Seleucid battle line.

Please stop acting like I'm talking about absolutes when I'm talking about trends. We're both historians here and we both know that responsible historians talk about trends not absolutes these days.

I'm not talking about absolutes, either; I'm talking about the majority of evidence supporting a particular point.

And here I thought the hetairoi were the Macedonian elite heavies...

We could bicker about what constitutes "heavy" or "medium-heavy" all day long. All that matters are the original sources, and not modern classifications.

originally. It seems sensible enough that later Successor elite squadrons drawn from the nobility would keep using the prestigious name, although I would imagine the the Philippo-Alexandric "page" system had to go already on practical grounds. Doesn't mean they were the only shock cavalry around or the only ones who fought with the xyston though. The long lance was much too useful a weapon for there to not be non-hetairoi users, and the somewhat lighter and more all-purpose hippeis pattern apparently existed alongside the specialized lancers.

Of course there were other users of the xyston in this time period, but since we don't have mentions of significantly different equipment for the hetairoi until Magnesia, there's no reason to think that they were so unique as you seem to think.

But hetairoi dwelling in the east would probably tend to have a little different taste for details of equipement than ones whose estates lay in, say, Asia Minor, no ?

Probably, as is shown by the Bactrian heavy cavalry. Still, read my quote about the composition of the hetairoi at Magnesia. The east was not a major part of the empire after the end of the third century.

Anyway, they might also have possessed several different weapon complements for different campaign purposes - didn't you yourself mention Companions sometimes using javelins earlier ?

Yes, hetairoi appear to have used javelins in some case, as I mentioned earlier.

..weren't the Seleucids' more eastern holding by that point pretty much enough of a mess that they either couldn't support hetairoi-grade cavalry anymore, or that whatever they could maintain was needed on the local front though ?

Exactly my point.

IIRC the Seleucs had a major war with the Parthians only some half a dozen years before Magnesia...

Antiochus III's expedition to the east?

They apparently also picked up the cataphract idea during that one, and this new type of elite shock cavalry would obviously have hogged estates and other resources from the older hetairoi type - any idea of where those Seleuc catas at Magnesia were raised from, geographically ?

According to Sekunda, from Media and amongst the Iranians, which is logical. So therefore, there would be no estates to hog up. He says that the Nisaean horses at Daphnae are probably cataphracts, because big horses like Nisaeans were needed to bear cataphract armour, and that the riders were probably Iranians.

I'll throw a guess that many of them would have been re-equipped hetairoi from the eastern regions, where the line between the xyston and the heavier kontos had probably also been blurring for a while.

Probably not, since the number of Hetairoi don't take a major hit immediately after the introduction of cataphracts like the argyraspides did after the introduction of the Romanized infantry regiment.

VandalCarthage

01-22-2007, 03:27

At the risk of sounding obtuse; when quote battles get this large, you know you're wrong.

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 04:30

I think what it actually means is that the evidence isn't conclusive.

antiochus epiphanes

01-22-2007, 04:45

Teleklos Archelaou

01-22-2007, 04:56

Just curious, do any other mods have hetairoi with shields? Like RTR - the other realism mod for this time period?

Sarcasm

01-22-2007, 04:59

Just curious, do any other mods have hetairoi with shields? Like RTR - the other realism mod for this time period?

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6374/11xx2.jpg

Eduorius

01-22-2007, 05:27

Without shields they remind me of Alexander movie. With shields they look kind of weird.

Dont know about evidence but can someone grab a shield and a kontos with 2 hands at the same time?

Sarcasm

01-22-2007, 05:33

They're from Res Gestae. And you can have a shield I guess, just not a very large one, or grab it with the hand. You have to strap it to the arm.

Eduorius

01-22-2007, 06:00

Yeah but you saw the shield in the stone carving? That thing looks like a hoplite shield! How can you charge effectively with that?

Grand Lord of Poop~

01-22-2007, 06:20

yea but isn't this mod about historical accuracy?? so if it is accurate, we should add shields to those cavalrymen, shouldn't we??

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 07:06

it seems this is getting reduntant......since i want to stay on topic basically what your saying is that cause of the couple of coins and stone releifs of pergamum cavalry units, the hetairoi for the seleucids should have shields?

I agree, this is getting redundant. The bottom line is that you don't have to portray the hetairoi any particular way- the evidence for them is ambiguous enough- but I think that the particular popularity of equipment for heavy cavalrymen all around the Greek world (I've posted a handful of sources, there are literally dozens upon dozens more) is reason enough to portray them carrying shields in battle. It would seem very peculiar to me if many of the city states under Seleucid rule, all of their neighbours, and their enemies fielded elite heavy cavalrymen who wore helmets, carried shields, and wore cuirasses, but they did not. They wielded the xyston, and yet these other reliefs clearly show xyston-wielding cavalrymen carrying large round shields. Surely, being heavily armoured as they were, they would want the greatest defense, such as that afforded by a shield.

Even if you don't change the hetairoi to portray them wearing shields, there should be way more shield-bearing cavalry in the game. No Greek cavalry do not carry shields, but there is clear evidence for them doing so (most importantly, a handful of armour tokens found with cavalry records in a well in the Athenian agora that show helmets, greaves, shields, and cuirasses on them); none of the Macedonian cavalrymen carry shields, yet there are many funerary reliefs of Macedonian nobles showing cavalrymen carrying large round shields and wearing helmets and cuirasses. There are others, too.

I just find it disappointing that a mod that's put so much attention into the details has overlooked such a large matter of equipment.

Fondor_Yards

01-22-2007, 07:21

They are not using the Kontos (Kontos is afaik a sarmartian weapon), Hetairo are using the Xyston (regarding the Sauromatae Preview Thread the Kontos was developed after fighting against Xyston armed hellenic heavy Cav) and I don't know which weapon the Sacred band cavalry is using but it was decided to change the anim to a one handed grip, to avoid the clipping.
My bad, thought Kontos refered to all long two handed lancers from this time.

No Greek cavalry do not carry shields, but there is clear evidence for them doing so (most importantly, a handful of armour tokens found with cavalry records in a well in the Athenian agora that show helmets, greaves, shields, and cuirasses on them); none of the Macedonian cavalrymen carry shields, yet there are many funerary reliefs of Macedonian nobles showing cavalrymen carrying large round shields and wearing helmets and cuirasses.

Hippeis, Machimoi Hippeis, Hippakontistai, Hippeis Tarantinoi, Illyrioi Hippeis, and Baktrian Bodyguards, are all greek or under heavy greek influence/control and carry shields. It's not like no one uses cavalry shields.

QwertyMIDX

01-22-2007, 07:29

We just did another Macedonian cav unit with a shield, and there's a greek cavalry regional for italy planned (may or may not go in, model space and all) with a shield as well.

Wandarah

01-22-2007, 12:04

Mienpanzer continues to make a lot of sense to me. Third thread in a row. Well done man.

spirit_of_rob

01-22-2007, 14:20

yea but isn't this mod about historical accuracy?? so if it is accurate, we should add shields to those cavalrymen, shouldn't we??

It is about accuracy yes, but we also have to maintain the interesting gameplay, for me what is really important is lots of different types of units staying away from things like "clone armies" of the catholic nations in M2TW. As noted there is antoher cavalry unit which does have a large shield which have just been finished.

Also from a gameplay P.o.V. Hetairoi from my experiance fighting agaisnt them pack a formidable punch as it is lol

Eduorius

01-22-2007, 14:38

paullus

01-22-2007, 15:13

That's precisely it Eduorius. The Companion cavalry do not have to be, and in fact most likely are not, the same as the cavalry we see in western asia minor. As MeinPanzer has pointed out, most of the companions came from Syria, with a smaller number from Asia Minor. We also know that Pergamon fielded cavalry at Magnesia (where the Seleukids showed up with hetairoi) and none of the sources identify these Pergamene cavalry (who I think all of us agree would be best depicted with shield and one-hand grip) as hetairoi. The identification between the two is 1) unnecessary, and 2) probably inaccurate.

I'm also still unsure how the hippeis in-game are not VERY SIMILAR to these horsemen.

antiochus epiphanes

01-22-2007, 15:23

. No Greek cavalry do not carry shields,
I just find it disappointing that a mod that's put so much attention into the details has overlooked such a large matter of equipment.
umm what about the hippeis for the koinon hellinon? and the mistophoroi hippeis, and the hippeis tarantnentoi. so actually we did look into details before we made this mod.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 15:27

I have a little question. Bases in the stone carvings how can we know that those are companion cavalry the ones portrayed and not some special medium cavalry units with shields?Or a particular local variation of the Macedonian-pattern lancer, if for some reason in a limited goegraphical region at some point the extra protection (and/or accompanying option to fight as a heavy infantryman if needed) of a shield on top of the heavy armour was determined to be worth the extra encumberance and due training and practice needed to deal with it ?

Greek and Persian shock cavalry did long right fine without shields, as did lancers whether of the xystophoroi or cataphract strain. Non-lancers at some point adopted shields (I've seen passing mentions the Persian ones picked them up soon after the Persian Wars), but lancers seem to have preferred going without and trusting in heavy armour and the reach advantage instead.

Now, choice of combat gear isn't usually done on grounds of "just because", but on the basis of what is seen as possible and necessary. The old Greek and Middle Eastern horsemen must've had a decent reason to not carry something as obviously useful as a shield, and conversely something must have changed for them to pick it up.
The original Macedonian lancers didn't use shields either, doubtless for a good reason; if their colleagues later on started to, in any case in limited area, there must have been some pressing reason to - since they could just as well also have gone the cataphract route and loaded up on body armour instead (which, if I've understood correctly, is indeed the solution most of them pursued; one could also theoretize both lines of developement were pursued for different reasons in different regions).
The difference in weight increase cannot have been major, at least as far as any horse fit for heavy cavalry duty is concerned, and in the equation against the large shield would also stack the sheer awkwardness imposed by its dimensions, it occupying the arm that holds the reins, and the further skew in the heavy cavalryman's already somewhat embattled sense of balance (as between the armour and the lance he'd have been pretty top-heavy already) the way it forms a big heavy mass on one side imposed.

What, then, would have been the factor to tilt the cost-benefit equation in favour of the shielded lancer ? Improved cavalry gear providing a more secure seat and hence negating some of the weight-distribution issue (eg. it is difficult to see why the more eastern Hellenic cavalry wouldn't have picked up the obviously useful early saddle) ? New tactical problems for which the shield was deemed a suitable response ?

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 19:02

Well people have always drawn Heitaroi without shields and ftom what I have read the firsts cavalry shields were similar to the hoplite shield.

I am in favor of some units having shield, but I prefer to see the Companion without shields.

I have a little question. Bases in the stone carvings how can we know that those are companion cavalry the ones portrayed and not some special medium cavalry units with shields?

Thanks=)

I'll lay out my reasoning again just to be clear:

By the time of Magnesia, Livy tells us that the Companions were drawn from Lydia, Phrygia, and Syria (Syria being the ancient name for Seleucis, which was north of Syria today and bordering on Cilicia).

We unfortunately have barely any archaeological information for the equipment of heavy cavalrymen from Syria or the east, and not much at all from Phrygia.

We do have a large amount of information from funerary stelai from Lydia (western Asia Minor). Now, these stelai were very lavish and were clearly very expensive to buy. The huge majority of these stelai represent deceased heavy cavalrymen. These men would have been wealthy Macedonian members of Greek cities within the region who could buy and maintain horses and horse equipment; in other words, exactly the kind of people who would join the Companion cavalry.

Livy describes the Companions at Magnesia as being fairly uniformly equipped.

Therefore, it seems very plausible that these Lydian heavy cavalrymen, being wealthy enough to afford a lot of armour and a horse and living in one of three parts of the empire from which the Companions were apparently drawn, were Companions. If so, these stelai represent our only sources for the equipment of the Companions, and since they were apparently fairly uniformly equipped, it seems logical that all the Companions carried shields.

That's precisely it Eduorius. The Companion cavalry do not have to be, and in fact most likely are not, the same as the cavalry we see in western asia minor. As MeinPanzer has pointed out, most of the companions came from Syria, with a smaller number from Asia Minor.

This isn't what I quoted at all. Livy says they are drawn from Lydia, Phrygia, and Syria. That's it. He doesn't say any one of those three provided any more than the others.

We also know that Pergamon fielded cavalry at Magnesia (where the Seleukids showed up with hetairoi) and none of the sources identify these Pergamene cavalry (who I think all of us agree would be best depicted with shield and one-hand grip) as hetairoi. The identification between the two is 1) unnecessary, and 2) probably inaccurate.

The Companions occupied the role of the heaviest cavalry within the Seleucid army until the introduction of cataphracts. The heaviest élite cavalry of neighbouring states Bithynia (a state known for actively Hellenizing itself after the Seleucids), Mysia/Pergamon (a state which was once part of the Seleucid empire), and Ionian city states (which fluctuated in and out of Seleucid control) are very uniformly equipped. You have to understand that for almost all of the Seleucid empire, evidence is extremely spotty; the evidence from east of Mesopotamia is all over the place, the evidence from the Levant is a little better but not much so, and the evidence from Phrygia eastwards is likewise poor. The best source we have for archaeological information on the Seleucid army comes mostly from western Asia Minor (Lydia); therefore, we must use it and logic to deduce much of what the other army could have looked like. It seems that if these states, with such close ties to the Seleucids, fielded an élite of their heaviest cavalry who were equipped with shields, that they were probably aping the Seleucid practice.

If the Companions were using the xyston at this point, as I think we all agree they did, and it was possible for them to carry the shield and the xyston in battle, which I think I've established, then why would they leave themselves at a disadvantage and not carry shields?

Or a particular local variation of the Macedonian-pattern lancer, if for some reason in a limited goegraphical region at some point the extra protection (and/or accompanying option to fight as a heavy infantryman if needed) of a shield on top of the heavy armour was determined to be worth the extra encumberance and due training and practice needed to deal with it ?

Which was so decided by the majority of the lancers in the Hellenistic world east of Sicily.

Greek and Persian shock cavalry did long right fine without shields, as did lancers whether of the xystophoroi or cataphract strain. Non-lancers at some point adopted shields (I've seen passing mentions the Persian ones picked them up soon after the Persian Wars), but lancers seem to have preferred going without and trusting in heavy armour and the reach advantage instead.

During the 4th C. BC, yes, but as soon as it became common for this style of cavalry to bear shields, almost everyone in the eastern Mediterranean followed suit.

Now, choice of combat gear isn't usually done on grounds of "just because", but on the basis of what is seen as possible and necessary. The old Greek and Middle Eastern horsemen must've had a decent reason to not carry something as obviously useful as a shield, and conversely something must have changed for them to pick it up.
The original Macedonian lancers didn't use shields either, doubtless for a good reason; if their colleagues later on started to, in any case in limited area, there must have been some pressing reason to - since they could just as well also have gone the cataphract route and loaded up on body armour instead (which, if I've understood correctly, is indeed the solution most of them pursued; one could also theoretize both lines of developement were pursued for different reasons in different regions).

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.

What, then, would have been the factor to tilt the cost-benefit equation in favour of the shielded lancer ? Improved cavalry gear providing a more secure seat and hence negating some of the weight-distribution issue (eg. it is difficult to see why the more eastern Hellenic cavalry wouldn't have picked up the obviously useful early saddle) ? New tactical problems for which the shield was deemed a suitable response ?

There seems to have been an up-armouring of cavalry through the 3rd C. BC, as I stated before, probably caused by Pyrrhus's reintroduction of the shielded cavalryman to the east, and, paradoxically, a down-armouring of the infantry.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2007, 19:58

Watchman

01-22-2007, 21:32

If the Companions were using the xyston at this point, as I think we all agree they did, and it was possible for them to carry the shield and the xyston in battle, which I think I've established, then why would they leave themselves at a disadvantage and not carry shields?The combination being unwieldy in the extreme and possibly exposing the horseman to an unacceptable level of risk of flat out falling off his mount, perhaps ? Helpful equestrian gear like a saddle would help remedy this, but then again it'd also have allowed more complete armour - see below.

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.What I've read of it pointed out the issue of how much armour a horseman can have is not so much one of the horse's actual load-bearing limit (although the higher that is the better, obviously), but how that weight actually applies onto the horse's back. Xenophon for example considers it almost a prequisite for a warhorse to be "double spined", that is, have prominent muscle ridges running along the spine proper to take the weight (he was writing before the wide adoption of saddles, although he may have been aware of their existence). An actual saddle allows the weight to be spread more evenly and in a controlled manner onto the parts of the animal that can best take it, besides its other benefits.

Much the same way as a well-designed backpack allows you to carry a lot of stuff relatively easily and comfortably.

As for horse barding, raw load issues aside the big problem with more complete types - such as those more-or-less complete scale trappers cataphracts tended to use - is heat retention; horses can overheat themselves to death when pushed to their limits for extended times even without a layer of armour in the way.

As a side note, what the Chinese were after were Ferghanan horses, not Niseans. Although they doubtless gladly rustled all of the latter they encountered as well.

There seems to have been an up-armouring of cavalry through the 3rd C. BC, as I stated before, probably caused by Pyrrhus's reintroduction of the shielded cavalryman to the east, and, paradoxically, a down-armouring of the infantry.Well, there were the Galatians as well. Celtic cavalry normally fought "shielded" didn't they ? And those fellows must've made quite an impression in general to boot.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 21:34

Hello,

While I am not an expert on Hellenistic equipment I feel quite qualified to make some comments here.

To begin with Livy is a very dubious source for pretty much anything, not all is all his surviving work far removed temporally from the time of writing but he lacks any apparent experience in anything, from the Roman Senate to any form of military endevour he is repeatedly shown to be incorrect in detail.

Livy was also either unable or unwilling to criticise his sources, his entire account of the Second Punic War probably lies entirely on Polybius, who while fairly reliable, is not perfect. Added to which Livy seems fond of "padding out" his work and re-ordering things to make them fit his understanding of history. Just look at the 10 books he devotes to Hanabal and the corresponding length of the books in Polybius. There is no way, almost two centuries later, Livy could have discovered all those extra details to pad out his history.

Livy is in no way qualified to comment of Greek affairs or any military affairs. He probably says they were uniformly equipped because Roman Auxilliaries from the same area were uniformly equipped in his own time.

He mentions that the Hetairoi were like the cataphracts but "with less armour for themselves and their horses, but not otherwise dissimilar in dress." This and a number of other details are clearly taken from previous texts, as you've said, probably Polybius. Polybius is our best source for Hellenistic warfare, and so I am confident that if any literary source on this period is to be trusted, it is him.

If your arguement about Magnesia rests on Livy saying that the Companions were uniformly equipped you'll have to come up with other evidence to support that A) They were uniformly equipped and B) They were even all Companions.

If you want to throw Livy and Polybius out the window, you'd better be prepared to toss out a whole slew of other evidence, too.

As to the carrying of a shield with a xyston, with the shorter version, yes it would be possible but any two handed version would have made carrying a shield virtually impossible, in the first case it would need to be strapped on, which would make it hard to drop and unwieldy and would restrict the lancer to only being able to use his lance on his right side.

You do not understand what the xyston is. It was a spear used during Alexander's time which was lengthened during the Hellenistic period. There are no two versions of it, and no "two handed" version. There is just the xyston, and it was clearly wielded one handed. And the shield was used with a grip like that of the Argive shield, with the arm passed through it, allowing the left hand to also grip the reins. Again, arguing about this is pointless because that Pergamon battle plate clearly shows that the xyston, used one handed, and the large round cavalry shield were used by Hellenistic cavalry in battle.

This would be a serious disadvantage against a lancer not carrying a shield. In the second case as someone who rides I can tell you that without stirrups you need to maintain your balance and a heavy shield strapped to your arm would hinder you quite a lot.

Apparently it worked quite well because it was widely adopted in the armies of the eastern mediterranean.

Bear in mind that any shield which allowed two handed use of the xyston would need to have it's edge above the wrist, which would prevent you from parrying a blow and make it only effective against missiles and you still run the risk of having your hand skewered. If you tried to block a blow with a shield like that I can imagine several nasty things happening, including breaking your elbow.

Again, the xyston was wielded one hand with a shield, not two-handed.

MeinPanzer

01-22-2007, 22:01

The combination being unwieldy in the extreme and possibly exposing the horseman to an unacceptable level of risk of flat out falling off his mount, perhaps ? Helpful equestrian gear like a saddle would help remedy this, but then again it'd also have allowed more complete armour - see below.

Again, if it was so unwieldy and made the horseman so vulnerable, why would so many wealthy and aristocratic citizens of numerous states equip themselves that way?

What I've read of it pointed out the issue of how much armour a horseman can have is not so much one of the horse's actual load-bearing limit (although the higher that is the better, obviously), but how that weight actually applies onto the horse's back. Xenophon for example considers it almost a prequisite for a warhorse to be "double spined", that is, have prominent muscle ridges running along the spine proper to take the weight (he was writing before the wide adoption of saddles, although he may have been aware of their existence). An actual saddle allows the weight to be spread more evenly and in a controlled manner onto the parts of the animal that can best take it, besides its other benefits.

That seems reasonable. Still, one would expect the number of Hetairoi to decline after the introduction of cataphracts if indeed they were drawn from the Companions.

As for horse barding, raw load issues aside the big problem with more complete types - such as those more-or-less complete scale trappers cataphracts tended to use - is heat retention; horses can overheat themselves to death when pushed to their limits for extended times even without a layer of armour in the way.

Of course, there is Procopius's whole schtick about not pushing the cataphracts to charge too soon or else they literally die before they reach the enemy!

As a side note, what the Chinese were after were Ferghanan horses, not Niseans. Although they doubtless gladly rustled all of the latter they encountered as well.

Note that I said Nisaean and other eastern horses.

Well, there were the Galatians as well. Celtic cavalry normally fought "shielded" didn't they ? And those fellows must've made quite an impression in general to boot.

Actually, the only shielded Celtic cavalry I can conjure up off the top of my head are cavalry carrying thureoi. The only image of a Galatian cavalryman that I know of is from a Bithynian stele. None of his weaponry or equipment is shown but he wears a kilt and has long hair and a moustache. Celtic cavalry were probably equipped with large round shields, but I've never seen any sources for that (most sources which have been identified as "Gallic" in the past are in fact misidentified).

Watchman

01-22-2007, 22:02

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.One issue with this argument is that already Classical Greek cavalrymen, without the assistance of any sort of saddle or similar aid and mounted on the somewhat lackluster horses most of the peninsula could produce, could manage straight solid bronze cuirasses plus greaves plus helmet plus weapons, no problem. Ditto for the scarce Thracian heavies to the north, as well as the various Italians.

That's pretty heavy armour if you ask me.

The Successor hetairoi, with access to much better mounts and saddles to boot, should've had no trouble at all wearing at least that much and throwing in some extra bits if necessary. The EB unit description speaks of mail sleeves, but adding reinforcing metal scales to the pteruges and pinions of the cuirass to better protect the upper arms and legs or adopting some version of the type of segmented armour cataphracts wore on their limbs (which can be made out of rawhide for lightness and low cost) sound like perfectly credible alternatives as well - and indeed it would have been strange if creative individuals had not been experimenting with such alterations on their own accord. These guys bought their own gear after all.

One thing that bugs me about the coins and steles put forth is the sheer size of the shields. Not that cavalry shields couldn't be fairly large, but when they were they tended to be long - oval, hexagonal, teardrop and so on. After all, unlike a hoplite the horseman cannot protect the side of his companion so a large round shield offers no real benefit - conversely a long one defends both the left leg and much of that side of the horse as well, and needs not be moved around much to achieve that (always a bonus given that the same hand hold the reins).

Another is the singular lack of horse armour. The Hetairoi started using barding pretty early, didn't they ? It's both a very sensible thing for heavy cavalry to do given how expensive and good targets for archery (*cough*Parthians*cough*) big warhorses are as well as simply useful for the shock role, and also how they're described by Livy at Magnesia.

And the sorts of senior aristocrats who made up the Hetairoi squadrons could presumably have been able to afford both all the war gear and the necessary horseflesh.

Could it be that instead of Hetairoi the shielded lancers in the pictures are of the junior Hellenic lancer arm, the prodromoi ? Those fellows needed to be fairly lightly equipped to maintain speed and stamina, and as lesser landed aristocracy were presumably also more strapped for cash to spend on defensive gear. Yet they had the unenviable job of for example chasing after Parthian and nomadic horse-archers and other skirmishers, where they were bound to get shot at a lot. Adopting a shield as a countermeasure would sound like both a fairly effective and above all cheap way to keep down the casualties, and presumably to also give an advantage in the melee, without compromising either the performance of the mounts or the presence of the long xyston (I'm obviously going by the "balance issue" paradigm here).

Just a theory, but it seems sensible enough to me.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 22:25

Again, if it was so unwieldy and made the horseman so vulnerable, why would so many wealthy and aristocratic citizens of numerous states equip themselves that way?You may have noticed I'm fairly specifically arguing against them having done that, or in any case in the way you claim... ~;p

That seems reasonable. Still, one would expect the number of Hetairoi to decline after the introduction of cataphracts if indeed they were drawn from the Companions.Cataphracts kind of have their limitations. Anyway, I'm willing to accept the argument the catas were drawn from amongst the Persian-Iranian aristocracy - many of those guys were probably already familiar with the kontos to begin with, so it'd really just have been a question of altering their defensive gear and tactics.

Of course, there is Procopius's whole schtick about not pushing the cataphracts to charge too soon or else they literally die before they reach the enemy!:laugh4: I think we can safely dismiss that one as poppycock. Still, the heat problem is real enough and in combination with the sheer inertia and mass all the armour imparted on the horse doubtless resulted in stamina and mobility problems. Catas seem to have been pretty sucky at pursuit for example (both at Magnesia and on several other occasions the Romans fought them under diverse standards) and tired quickly, which besides sheer logic would rather seem to underline the point. As straightforward battering rams and shock troops the catas were clearly quite excellent, but that seems to pretty much have been it (aside from those also carrying bows being doubtless very difficult for light-cavalry skirmishers to deal with) - they were a very specialized type of cavalry after all. The Seleucids apparently didn't get that one worked out fast enough, unlike the catas' original users.

Anyway, one can see why the less encumbered and therefore more agile Hetairoi would've been kept around on the side as well, as more flexible elite shock cavalry.

Note that I said Nisaean and other eastern horses.Fair enough, but all I've read about it has said quite specifically the Chinese were interested in the Ferghanans. Which probably had something to do with the breed being found rather closer to them than the Nisean.

Actually, the only shielded Celtic cavalry I can conjure up off the top of my head are cavalry carrying thureoi. The only image of a Galatian cavalryman that I know of is from a Bithynian stele. None of his weaponry or equipment is shown but he wears a kilt and has long hair and a moustache. Celtic cavalry were probably equipped with large round shields, but I've never seen any sources for that (most sources which have been identified as "Gallic" in the past are in fact misidentified).The thureos looks like it'd make a pretty decent cavalry shield, or starting point for the developement of one, you know...

Namenlos

01-22-2007, 22:31

--message deleted because of a fundamentally flawed argumentation.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2007, 22:46

He mentions that the Hetairoi were like the cataphracts but "with less armour for themselves and their horses, but not otherwise dissimilar in dress." This and a number of other details are clearly taken from previous texts, as you've said, probably Polybius. Polybius is our best source for Hellenistic warfare, and so I am confident that if any literary source on this period is to be trusted, it is him.

I said you must find outside evidence to support what Livy says, which is NOT using Polybius. If Polybius and Livy agree then that just means Livy isn't playing fast and loose with Polybius. Find my the corresponding passages in both texts, then show me how Polybius knows what he says. Then we can begin to talk of a level of certainty. All you have is an arguement to which can be applied a counter arguement.

If you want to throw Livy and Polybius out the window, you'd better be prepared to toss out a whole slew of other evidence, too.

If you are uncrittical of your sources you are not a historian. I am throwing out nothing. I am merely stating that if something appears only in Livy that is not evidence.

You do not understand what the xyston is. It was a spear used during Alexander's time which was lengthened during the Hellenistic period. There are no two versions of it, and no "two handed" version. There is just the xyston, and it was clearly wielded one handed. And the shield was used with a grip like that of the Argive shield, with the arm passed through it, allowing the left hand to also grip the reins. Again, arguing about this is pointless because that Pergamon battle plate clearly shows that the xyston, used one handed, and the large round cavalry shield were used by Hellenistic cavalry in battle.

Do not patronise me. The xyston of Alexander's time was shorter and more wieldy. The longer xyston would have to be wielded either two-handed or couched, otherwise the lancer would not be able to transmit his weight onto the point. Since it wasn't wielded couched one-handed it would have to have been two handed.

Apparently it worked quite well because it was widely adopted in the armies of the eastern mediterranean.

Show me an example of a lancer, with no real saddle or stirrups, fighting with a lance two-handed and a shield strapped to his arm.

Again, the xyston was wielded one hand with a shield, not two-handed.

The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion dissagrees, unless of course everyone else is talking about the Kontos.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2007, 22:53

Oh, I should also say that I think it is highly unlikely that any ancienct cavalry actively fought whilst holding the reins. There is far too much danger of a sudden instinctive movement causing the horse to shy, which would get you killed. Besides which reins are a very inefficient means of controling a horse, although very easy to master. If you know how to fight from horseback you also know how to ride with just heels and knees.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 23:07

True, but the ancient horsemen also needed to use their legs to hold on to the animal didn't they ? I'm pretty sure that could get in the way of issuing very precise commands with them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2007, 23:31

I think you'd be surprised. There are horsemen today at the school in Vienna who ride without stirrups, much of a saddle or reins. It's all part of the training for horse and rider.

Zaknafien

01-22-2007, 23:38

I havent chimed in on this vaunted debate since my expertise does not lie in Hellenistic warfare. But I can come forth and say that Wigferth is right as far as it goes, regarding Livy. Using Livius as an only source is flawed, as he had no practical military knowledge and as we all know was quite selective with his own source texts, throwing some out and editing others that he did use, including Polybius.

Watchman

01-22-2007, 23:47

I think you'd be surprised. There are horsemen today at the school in Vienna who ride without stirrups, much of a saddle or reins. It's all part of the training for horse and rider.Fair enough. Although I do seem to recall seeing mentions, in the context of Medieval warfare, about some types of military tack having two sets of reins, long and short, one of which was specifically for combat...
:shrug:
It's probably safe to assume there was a whole lot of variation as to how the horses were controlled in combat and leave it at that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-23-2007, 00:02

Fair enough. Although I do seem to recall seeing mentions, in the context of Medieval warfare, about some types of military tack having two sets of reins, long and short, one of which was specifically for combat...
:shrug:
It's probably safe to assume there was a whole lot of variation as to how the horses were controlled in combat and leave it at that.

You're right, I had forgotten that. All I'm saying is it can be done, I've seen it done and the doing included "airs" which is getting the horse to rear, kick, buck, etc with a view to stunning or killing infantry.

Watchman

01-23-2007, 00:13

:sweatdrop:
That's people for you - creative.

...anyway, I guess we can consider this tangent closed ?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-23-2007, 00:26

Yeah sorry, please return to the purpose of the topic.

:2thumbsup:

MeinPanzer

01-23-2007, 02:43

Okay, this response is going to be massive so I'm going to have to split it into several posts.

One issue with this argument is that already Classical Greek cavalrymen, without the assistance of any sort of saddle or similar aid and mounted on the somewhat lackluster horses most of the peninsula could produce, could manage straight solid bronze cuirasses plus greaves plus helmet plus weapons, no problem. Ditto for the scarce Thracian heavies to the north, as well as the various Italians.

Yes, obviously the horses could bear it. However, a solid bronze cuirass, greaves, a helmet, and weapons is nowhere clear to the weight of a scale trapper, chamfron, cheir (both for legs and arms) or parapleuridia, a helmet, a solid bronze cuirass or scale cuirass, and the contus, so your comparison doesn't really make sense.

That's pretty heavy armour if you ask me.

Heavy, but definitely not as heavy as the armour of later cavalrymen.

The Successor hetairoi, with access to much better mounts and saddles to boot, should've had no trouble at all wearing at least that much and throwing in some extra bits if necessary.

As I said, there's no evidence of "access to better saddles." But I agree with you on the second point, and I think that that's why they could wear so much equipment (helmet, cuirass, greaves, shield, xyston, sword, and limited horse armour).

The EB unit description speaks of mail sleeves, but adding reinforcing metal scales to the pteruges and pinions of the cuirass to better protect the upper arms and legs or adopting some version of the type of segmented armour cataphracts wore on their limbs (which can be made out of rawhide for lightness and low cost) sound like perfectly credible alternatives as well - and indeed it would have been strange if creative individuals had not been experimenting with such alterations on their own accord. These guys bought their own gear after all.

The only arm defences Seleucid cataphracts seem to have worn was cheir; no evidence for mail has been found. Your second point is pure speculation.

One thing that bugs me about the coins and steles put forth is the sheer size of the shields. Not that cavalry shields couldn't be fairly large, but when they were they tended to be long - oval, hexagonal, teardrop and so on. After all, unlike a hoplite the horseman cannot protect the side of his companion so a large round shield offers no real benefit

Yes it does- it covers more area than a thureos and so offers much more protection for their mount.

- conversely a long one defends both the left leg and much of that side of the horse as well, and needs not be moved around much to achieve that (always a bonus given that the same hand hold the reins).

Could be, but the fact of the matter is that they chose to use shields this big.

Another is the singular lack of horse armour. The Hetairoi started using barding pretty early, didn't they ?

Absolutely zero evidence before Magnesia, and even then they were probably up-armoured along with the introduction of cataphracts post-205 BC.

It's both a very sensible thing for heavy cavalry to do given how expensive and good targets for archery (*cough*Parthians*cough*) big warhorses are as well as simply useful for the shock role, and also how they're described by Livy at Magnesia.

I don't deny that they used some horse armour at Magnesia; it says so right in Livy.

And the sorts of senior aristocrats who made up the Hetairoi squadrons could presumably have been able to afford both all the war gear and the necessary horseflesh.

Again, Livy says they could.

Could it be that instead of Hetairoi the shielded lancers in the pictures are of the junior Hellenic lancer arm, the prodromoi ?

Why would they be prodromoi? By any account, prodromoi had to be lightly equipped to be able to function as they were supposed to. Plus, I can't think of a single mention of prodromoi as late as the 2nd C. BC, unless anyone else knows of one?

Those fellows needed to be fairly lightly equipped to maintain speed and stamina, and as lesser landed aristocracy were presumably also more strapped for cash to spend on defensive gear. Yet they had the unenviable job of for example chasing after Parthian and nomadic horse-archers and other skirmishers, where they were bound to get shot at a lot. Adopting a shield as a countermeasure would sound like both a fairly effective and above all cheap way to keep down the casualties, and presumably to also give an advantage in the melee, without compromising either the performance of the mounts or the presence of the long xyston (I'm obviously going by the "balance issue" paradigm here).

I highly doubt that prodromoi would have carried a large shield such as this.

You may have noticed I'm fairly specifically arguing against them having done that, or in any case in the way you claim... ~;p

Then how do you explain the Pergamon battle plate?

:laugh4: I think we can safely dismiss that one as poppycock.

Perhaps, but Procopius would know, wouldn't he? There're also mentions of horses coughing blood after being pushed too hard; Ferghanans I think, actually.

Fair enough, but all I've read about it has said quite specifically the Chinese were interested in the Ferghanans. Which probably had something to do with the breed being found rather closer to them than the Nisean.

I think so, but I didn't mean to say that the Chinese were going after the Nisaeans. I wrote that sentence poorly.

The thureos looks like it'd make a pretty decent cavalry shield, or starting point for the developement of one, you know...

It did- it was used by Celts, various Italian tribes, Romans, Macedonians, Thracians, and others as a cavalry shield.

MeinPanzer

01-23-2007, 03:00

I said you must find outside evidence to support what Livy says, which is NOT using Polybius. If Polybius and Livy agree then that just means Livy isn't playing fast and loose with Polybius. Find my the corresponding passages in both texts, then show me how Polybius knows what he says. Then we can begin to talk of a level of certainty. All you have is an arguement to which can be applied a counter arguement.

Livy's account is thought to be based on Polybius's account of Magnesia, which is lost.

If you are uncrittical of your sources you are not a historian. I am throwing out nothing. I am merely stating that if something appears only in Livy that is not evidence.

I can't really comment on it because that's not my area of expertise, but numerous scholars who I've read have put forth evaluations of Livy's account of Magnesia.

Do not patronise me. The xyston of Alexander's time was shorter and more wieldy. The longer xyston would have to be wielded either two-handed or couched, otherwise the lancer would not be able to transmit his weight onto the point. Since it wasn't wielded couched one-handed it would have to have been two handed.

Oh really? Did you even look at the Pergamene battle scene from a bronze plate I posted earlier? Look at the leftmost charging cavalryman: he carries a large round shield in his left hand and holds his right arm at a 90 degree angle backwards to thrust one handedly with his xyston.

Show me an example of a lancer, with no real saddle or stirrups, fighting with a lance two-handed and a shield strapped to his arm.

Again, they used the xyston one-handedly.

The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion dissagrees, unless of course everyone else is talking about the Kontos.

I don't need the overwhelming opinion of scholars to agree with me when I have primary archaeological evidence.

I havent chimed in on this vaunted debate since my expertise does not lie in Hellenistic warfare. But I can come forth and say that Wigferth is right as far as it goes, regarding Livy. Using Livius as an only source is flawed, as he had no practical military knowledge and as we all know was quite selective with his own source texts, throwing some out and editing others that he did use, including Polybius.

He's all we have in this case. Evaluation of ancient literature is not my strong point, but after reading Bar-Kochva's evaluation of Livy in both "The Seleucid Army" and "Judas Maccabaeus," I'm fairly sure that his account of Magnesia is considered to be solid.

paullus

01-23-2007, 06:08

MeinPanzer:

The most important piece of evidence you're using is a sketch of a bronze plate. When was the sketch made? How closely can it be verified? What was the size of the bronze plate? How accurate are the details?

On the issue of horse: I still think its best to see these aspis-bearing horsemen as fitting within the EB depiction of hippeis, tarantinoi, and the unit waiting-in-the-wings. You say that the aspis would make them too heavy to take on a lighter role, like that of the prodromoi, yet the Tarantinoi carried, at various times, either the aspis, or a smaller round shield like that carried by the EB hippeis.

Oh, and I'm not sure that Bar-Kochva's approval of Livy means all that much, honestly...

MeinPanzer

01-23-2007, 06:53

MeinPanzer:

The most important piece of evidence you're using is a sketch of a bronze plate. When was the sketch made? How closely can it be verified? What was the size of the bronze plate? How accurate are the details?

That sketch is taken directly from Altertümer von Pergamon I published in 1912, pp. 250-251. I've never found any other images of the original, and it's thought that it may be lost. The bronze plate was 24 cm long (thought to perhaps be a belt buckle). The details cannot be verified because no other images of it exist that I know of.

On the issue of horse: I still think its best to see these aspis-bearing horsemen as fitting within the EB depiction of hippeis, tarantinoi, and the unit waiting-in-the-wings. You say that the aspis would make them too heavy to take on a lighter role, like that of the prodromoi, yet the Tarantinoi carried, at various times, either the aspis, or a smaller round shield like that carried by the EB hippeis.

The Argive shields carried by the Tarentine cavalry (the original, ethnic Tarentines, not the later troop-type) appears to have been the average size, 90 cms. On top of this, it's hard to tell from the Tarentine coins if any of the figures are shown wearing cuirasses or not, so they were probably lighter equipped than any of these cavalrymen.

And for those of you who thought that the Cibyra coin showed a cavalryman with a shield slung on his back, look at the upper-left Tarentine coin:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Tarantines4bw.jpg

It's clear that artists shifted shields shown behind the rider backwards to make them more visible

Oh, and I'm not sure that Bar-Kochva's approval of Livy means all that much, honestly...

I'm not able to go back and compare the original documents myself, so I have to trust in scholars who have done so and published their work in a peer-reviewed form. Bar-Kochva has done so, and specifically on the topics of Seleucid battles, most prominently Raphia and Magnesia, and their treatment in literary sources. Bar-Kochva's treatments of the battles are considered to be among the most important secondary treatments published.

Since both Livy and Appian's accounts of Magnesia share many points but omit others (and both include some less-believable and some more reasonable details that the other does not), we can't be so sure if either is really credible. However, if you're honestly suggesting that we should not use the accounts of either as sources for information on Magnesia, then the disposition of cataphracts in the Seleucid army and a number of other matters are not to be trusted.

paullus

01-23-2007, 07:14

No, I'm not suggesting we throw out Livy, I'm saying that Bar Kochva tends to be less critical--and some might say, more inventive--in his use of ancient sources than many scholars would prefer, so his "go ahead" for Livy on Magnesia is not really all that significant in my mind. I do think we can use Livy, and the places where he screws up (crosses traditions, leaving footprints behind) can help us create a clearer narrative.

Yeah, I just found the plate, but I'm showing a 1913 date for Conze et al. No biggie, but its too bad its lost.

Re: Tarantinoi--I'm not seeing that much similarity between the Kibyra coin and the Tarantinoi. The latter have shields evenly placed across the torso, while on the Kibyran coin the shield really does seem to be behind the rider. And is that a bell cuirass on the bottom left? I didn't think Tarantinoi wore much armor generally, especially a heavy cuirass, but it does look like he may be. Perhaps a city elite.

MeinPanzer

01-23-2007, 07:36

Yeah, I just found the plate, but I'm showing a 1913 date for Conze et al. No biggie, but its too bad its lost.

Conze et al? What's the name of that publication? The original source is Altertümer von Pergamon, of course, because that was the original archaeological report for it. The plate may not be lost (fingers very tightly crossed) because the importance of the plate was not realized by the original authors, and it has only been written about a little bit, so it could have been stored away in some museum in Germany and forgotten about. Now it is coming to the fore a bit more in publications.

Re: Tarantinoi--I'm not seeing that much similarity between the Kibyra coin and the Tarantinoi.

My comparison was in response to those who said the Cibyra cavalryman could not be holding the shield because it was so far back, but look at how far back it is on the first Tarentine coin- it's not as extreme, but his arm could not fit through the central grip of that shield in his pose unless he was straining his arm backwards.

The latter have shields evenly placed across the torso, while on the Kibyran coin the shield really does seem to be behind the rider.

As I said, I was only referring to the upper left coin, where the shield is seen on the other side of the rider.

And is that a bell cuirass on the bottom left? I didn't think Tarantinoi wore much armor generally, especially a heavy cuirass, but it does look like he may be. Perhaps a city elite.

I thought it may be too, but it looks like the "edges" could just be a defined deltoid muscle and a well-shaped edge to the oblique muscle.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-23-2007, 11:02

Livy's account is thought to be based on Polybius's account of Magnesia, which is lost.

No proof, no evidence. No point.

I can't really comment on it because that's not my area of expertise, but numerous scholars who I've read have put forth evaluations of Livy's account of Magnesia.

I can, Livy has no practical experience of anything, his account is broadly right but any details are suspect, not wrong but suspect.

Oh really? Did you even look at the Pergamene battle scene from a bronze plate I posted earlier? Look at the leftmost charging cavalryman: he carries a large round shield in his left hand and holds his right arm at a 90 degree angle backwards to thrust one handedly with his xyston.[/qutoe]

Prove he's a companion. Prove that isn't a shorter xyston.

[quote]Again, they used the xyston one-handedly.

The Companions used the Kontos then? shifty the definitions around won't help you.

I don't need the overwhelming opinion of scholars to agree with me when I have primary archaeological evidence.

If you wish to go against the mass of opinion you must first actively disprove that mass before putting foward your theory.

He's all we have in this case. Evaluation of ancient literature is not my strong point, but after reading Bar-Kochva's evaluation of Livy in both "The Seleucid Army" and "Judas Maccabaeus," I'm fairly sure that his account of Magnesia is considered to be solid.

If you are not going to evaluate a source yourself then don't use it. If I said, "Someone told me about a coin showing a Companion wielding his xyston two-handed," then what would you say.

Secondary literature is not valid evidence, it merely positions you relative to the academic debate.

O'ETAIPOS

01-23-2007, 11:26

Asklepiodotus writes that only some heavy cavalry used shields.

Asklepiodotus, Techne Taktike 1.3

"Now the cavalry which fight at close quarters uses, similairly, a very heavy equipement, fully protecting both horses and men with defensive armour, and employing, like hoplites, long spears for which reason this arm of service is also called the spear-bearing(doryphoroi)and the lance-bearing(xystophoroi) or even shield-bearing(thureophoroi) cavalry, when it sometimes carry large shield(aspis) for the purpose of protecting the mount as well as rider."

We may assume that he is over generalising on equipment here, but we can clearly see, that he understands that major part of heavy cavalry was not using shields.

Watchman

01-23-2007, 13:29

As for the first Tarentine coin, the shield is still more or less credibly in line with the left shoulder; I can well visualize the pose the artist is trying to communicate, even if the left arm has been left out (doubtless to avoid cluttering up the coin as well as the limits of the medium). The major difference to the Kibylian coin is that in the latter the shield is clearly too far behind the left shoulder; no matter how you look at it at that angle of the body the left arm simply cannot fit inside its circumference properly.

Why would they be prodromoi? By any account, prodromoi had to be lightly equipped to be able to function as they were supposed to.Because a shield, even a fairly large one, is still lighter than heavy body armour. Plus way cheaper and easier to jettison in a pinch if you need a bit of extra speed.

When you look up military history you will often run into the curious tendency of lighter cavalry being much more fond of shields in general than their heavy colleagues, who are quite often perfectly willing to make do entirely without - and this is specifically a question of encumberance and finances. The lights are per definition required to range far an wide and generally run all over the place; they have to keep the load down to preserve the stamina of both man and beast (the heavies really just need enough to deliver a couple of charges in a fight, and can thus afford to compromise this aspect; the catas are and extreme example). Moreover the budget they can spend on war gear is invariably rather modest - if not else then because the richer guys who can afford more go to the heavy squadron by default - and a shield has ever been the "cheap and cheerful" way for otherwise lightly equipped warriors to defend themselves. All things considered it's also relatively light.

Which is why I would imagine it was a suitable device for late prodromoi, or whatever the types of troops who took care of their job now were called at the time. For a man on a budget and needing some extra protection for both himself and his mount, but extra armour and even light nonmetallic barding being out of the question (the latter due to the waste heat retention issue if nothing else), a large shield would seem to be a very sensible compromise solution. Cheap, protective, and not so heavy any decent horse was really going to notice.

Perhaps, but Procopius would know, wouldn't he? There're also mentions of horses coughing blood after being pushed too hard; Ferghanans I think, actually.Horses can be worked to death or permanently crippled by being pushed too far quite easily, and knowing how to avoid this is one aspect of good horsemanship. This is partly a bit of design issue in the animal - they overheat easily - and partly the fact that unlike for example asses and mules, which flatly refuse to comply once they've had enough, horses will try to keep going when coaxed until they drop dead.

Cataphract horses, heavily encumbered and miserably hot under their armour as they are, obviously cannot be expected to keep up good pace for any greater distance without becoming blown or worse. They're not intented either of course; I'm under the impression catas normally maneuvered at quite slow pace and only picked up any velocity when they delivered their battering-ram charge.

Yes it does- it covers more area than a thureos and so offers much more protection for their mount.I'd rather like to hear the logic behind the claim that a big aspis-lookalike round shield covers more of a horse than an oval thingy like the thureos. With a large round shield on horseback much shield area is wasted protecting the thin air around the rider, no ? There's no benefit in the thing extending far to the sides, unlike there is for close-order infantry.

Vertical lenght, however, is quite useful, since it allows the shield to be used to cover both the head of the rider, his lower leg and the side of the mount economically. Why do you think fully developed large cavalry shields have always been of the long type, anyway ?

Taken at face value the size of shields in the pictures you've provided would really suggest a bit of an experimental setup, and one somewhat confused when it comes to the qualities required of good large cavalry shields (which we with the benefit of hindsight know better, and on which topic the Celts and Romans seem to have been pursuing better alternatives).

paullus

01-23-2007, 16:48

@O'Etairos, I hadn't read the original Greek before for that Asklepiodotos. That's bizarre:

"Or sometimes called...thureophoroi, because they bear the aspis"

Do you think he's just gotten late enough that for him aspis just means shield, so he can equate the thureos and the aspis?

@MeinPanzer - I'm still not seeing the connection between the shield on even just the upper left coin and the Kibyran coin. You are, however, probably right about the man on the lower left, it may just be the design making him look armored. Oh, and your PM box is still full.

Watchman

01-23-2007, 23:22

Absolutely zero evidence before Magnesia, and even then they were probably up-armoured along with the introduction of cataphracts post-205 BC....and the coins and stelae you're basing your argument on are all from 2nd century BC or later. Assuming the Hetairoi were going for barded horses by that time, wouldn't this mean the fellows in the pictures with their singularly unarmoured horses are some other class of cavalry then ? ~;p

Your second point is pure speculation.Guilty as charged. So, however, is your argument. It is essentially based on taking a handful of pictorial evidence that...
A) comes from the Western end of the Hellenic world
B) is specifically dated to 2nd century BC onwards
C) cannot actually be reliably taken to represent Hetairoi in the first place instead of just guessing it does
D) allows several quite different interpretations
...and taking it as positive proof that the Hetairoi and other xystophoroi in general all over the Hellenic world from around 3rd century BC onwards used large round shields combined with the old underarm one-handed xyston technique, did not wear more armour that simple linothorax (or something that looks like it - wasn't the scale-lined version usually made with textile covering ?) plus the usual greaves and helmet, and by implication didn't use horse armour either.

Seems like one big house of cards built on some rather liberal interpretation and excessive generalization to me, no offense.

Allow me to present the - purely speculative - theory I have regarding the evolution of xystophoroi heavy lancers in general and the Hetairoi elite thereof in particular after Alexander's conquests and death.

The original Hetairoi under Philip and Alex had one major advantage when it came to equipement - the lenght of the xyston. Even with the one-quarter to one-third of the thing that had to be left trailing behind as counterweight the lance still handily outreached the shorter dual-purpose spears (called dory by the Greeks) just about all other contemporary cavalry used; this obviously gave them a major edge in a head-on clash, maybe even sufficient for them to lighten their armour when the conquest of Persia progressed (there's some mentions they may have; although it could also be argued this was for speedy stikes over long distances rather than major set-piece battles). Already at Gaugamela this edge was being countered; Arrian writes longer spears had been distributed to unspecified Persian units, and the Bactrian and Saka proto-cataphracts present certainly had some sort of long lance - whether these were straight copies of the xyston or a form of indigenous early kontos is somewhat beside the point, although in the later case the Bactrains and Saka were likely employed as instructors for the newly-equipped lancers.
As things went not too many Hetairoi apparently took part in the big cavalry melee against the proto-cataphracts and their support squadrons, and the Persians lost anyway.

After the break-up of the empire after the Big A's death the Hetairoi and their ilk suddenly had a quite different problem to tackle - namely, each other in the endemic wars between the Diadochi. Obviously, the reach advatage evened out in these clashes. Moreover those fighting in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau against rebellious locals, nomad and Parthian raids and whatnot found themselves butting heads and fighting alongside with the proto-cataphract kontophoroi as well as swarms of very annoying horse-archers.

I would argue this sent them down the more or less same path of military evolution the Iranian, Persian and assorted nomadic proto-cataphract shock cavalry had begun pursuing somewhat earlier for the exact same reasons.

They were for one up against what were essentially their identically equipped peers in head-on clashes in the Diadochi wars; to start seeking some sort of advantage, in equipement, fighting technique or both, would be the natural reaction.

For another the two-handed technique used with the kontos is probably superior to the one-handed underarm technique of the lighter xyston - two hands allow more control over the weapon and more power into the thrust, and may have also allowed using more of the long weapon's lenght to skewer the enemy as less may have been needed to act as a counterweight behind the grip point.

For a third they were without doubt regularly exposed to some quite unpleasant massed archery, also from nimble horse-archers whom they couldn't really catch and probably shouldn't really chase after either, lest they suddenly find themselves hit by cataphracts. This sort of ranged threat tended to nigh universally motivate heavy cavalrymen to load up on armour to weather the storm, so to speak.

For a fourth they were exposed to influences of Persian, Iranian and nomadic methods and tools of warfare, in the hands of both their enemies and their local auxiliaries; frontal horse barding for example went back to Classical Greek times in Persia and was likely even older among the Scythians and the seminomadic Central Asian peoples (like the Bactrians), and had been developed for some very good reasons - namely, increased tactical survivability and ability to charge home through incoming missile fire and long pointy things aimed at the chest of the poor mount, allowing charges to be delivered with that much more security and confidence. More or less the same goes for the more complete types of personal armour developing among the cataphracts.

For a fifth they could afford it.

In short, particularly the Seleucid xystophoroi would have had ample reason as well as opportunity to start grasping their lances two-handed (the increase in control and reach being logically that much greater with the relatively light and balanced xyston, and the extra power behind the thrust can't have hurt) and adopt increasingly heavy defences for both man and horse, both to better survive the massed archery they could be nigh certain to encounter sooner or later and to better live through a melee against both others of their kind and the "covered men" of the East and the steppes.

Between the generally good horse pool available and the wealth they had for aquiring war gear they should also have been able to realize such alterations of war gear without particular problems. Moreover, there were ample pools of man- and horsepower to serve in the light and medium cavalry role - Iranians, Persians, Egyptians, wandering Greeks and Macedonians, mercenaries, sundry native tribesmen, whatever - requiring more mobility and less war gear, flexible all-purpose troops but also not the match of dedicated lancers in a head on clash. Ergo, it would make sense for the Hetairoi and other Hellenic lancers (with the exception of the Prodromoi, if they were still around in some form) to develop their equipement and techniques to further enchance their competence in their particular expensive specialty field, and leave the all-purpose stuff to lesser troops not trained and equipped to the degree required for heavy shock action head on.

The hypothetical "up-armouring" of the Seleucid Hetairoi on the side of developing the cataphract arm before Magnesia was, I would suspect, a rather longer process of accepting useful military influences that hed been going on for a while, particularly among the cavalry normally stationed in the troubled eastern and north-eastern parts of the realm. As the Seleucids doubtless took those soldiers to other fronts as necessary (and possible, if those parts were quiet) the influences would presumably have spread to other areas and by extension the cavalry of other Diadochi - nothing convinces someone it's about time to reassess his war gear like butting heads with someone wearing superior stuff, after all. And in any case the more lands the Seleucids lost in the East the more the Hetairoi and other lancers of the remaining parts had to cope with the Parthian cataphracts and horse-archers, and if they had any sense at all made the appropriate adjustements to their harnesses to cope if they for some reason hadn't done so previously.

A purely speculative theory, but I would claim it is a logical one. Proof to the contrary will of course be gladly discussed.

MeinPanzer

01-24-2007, 00:31

I can, Livy has no practical experience of anything, his account is broadly right but any details are suspect, not wrong but suspect.

Livy didn't have experience with much, but his sources did. And can you comment on why his source for Magnesia is suspect?

Prove he's a companion.

I'm not trying to prove that either is a Companion.

Prove that isn't a shorter xyston.

Look at the length of them; xysta don't get much bigger than that in art.

The Companions used the Kontos then? shifty the definitions around won't help you.

Perhaps if you want to debate about this you should learn some of the most basic facts about the equipment of the hetairoi.

If you wish to go against the mass of opinion you must first actively disprove that mass before putting foward your theory.

I actively disproved the theory that horsemen did not wield the xyston one-handed while holding a shield in the other hand when I posted that image.

If you are not going to evaluate a source yourself then don't use it. If I said, "Someone told me about a coin showing a Companion wielding his xyston two-handed," then what would you say.

I would say that claim is totally different in nature than an ancient author drawing from other sources to write a passage in his book.

Secondary literature is not valid evidence, it merely positions you relative to the academic debate.

Since obviously not everyone can take the time to painstakingly evaluate the details of numerous ancient texts and read the original manuscripts to evaluate which portions are corrupt and which are drawn from other sources, secondary sources written by authors who have been able to do that and which discuss this topic are extremely valuable.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-24-2007, 00:47

Livy didn't have experience with much, but his sources did. And can you comment on why his source for Magnesia is suspect?

I can't prove anything about his source because I don't know what it is. Therefore it is supsect. Disbelief by default.

I'm not trying to prove that either is a Companion.

Then how do you hope to demonstrate that Companions carried shields?

Look at the length of them; xysta don't get much bigger than that in art.

Ah, but what is the artist depicting. Carving a long thin pointy stick is quite hard, rather like big axes or large free-standing shields.

Perhaps if you want to debate about this you should learn some of the most basic facts about the equipment of the hetairoi.

I don't, but you are saying the xyston was NEVER used two handed, others say that later Greek cavalry used their lances two-handed. If that lance isn't a xyston it would be a kontos. Unless there is a third, as yet unclassified cavalry lance in the area. That is my point.

I actively disproved the theory that horsemen did not wield the xyston one-handed while holding a shield in the other hand when I posted that image.

No, because the depiction on the coin may not even be holding his shield and in any case the medium is not condusive to accuracy, very difficult to show the left arm over the horse.

I would say that claim is totally different in nature than an ancient author drawing from other sources to write a passage in his book.

On the Contrary, Livy's Ab Urbe Conditia is barely less removed from the things he is writing about than a modern history of Rome. All the evidence we have suggests the entire work was written in Italy with little or no original research. In any case I was reffering to your uncrittical use of Livy to draw your conclusions.

Since obviously not everyone can take the time to painstakingly evaluate the details of numerous ancient texts and read the original manuscripts to evaluate which portions are corrupt and which are drawn from other sources, secondary sources written by authors who have been able to do that and which discuss this topic are extremely valuable.

No, by all means use secondary authors but if you use an ancient source you check it your self, at least in translation. Otherwise you are just spouting someone else' opinion and not thinking for yourself. That is not scholarship.

MeinPanzer

01-24-2007, 01:28

Asklepiodotus writes that only some heavy cavalry used shields.

Asklepiodotus, Techne Taktike 1.3

We may assume that he is over generalising on equipment here, but we can clearly see, that he understands that major part of heavy cavalry was not using shields.

I'll see if I can get a hold of a copy of Asclepiodotus tomorrow to evaluate the Greek in that sentence... seems mighty strange that thureophoroi horsemen would be the ones to carry large shields.

At any rate, this strengthens in my argument. If the carrying of large shields by cavalrymen was not a widespread thing, as this passage suggests, and yet a large amount of representations of Hellenistic horsemen on costly funerary stelai show them carrying shields, then this means that the majority of a fairly small minority of cavalrymen who carried shields were wealthy and élite.

As for the first Tarentine coin, the shield is still more or less credibly in line with the left shoulder; I can well visualize the pose the artist is trying to communicate, even if the left arm has been left out (doubtless to avoid cluttering up the coin as well as the limits of the medium).

That was a poor example; I have some better ones here. My point was that changing the grips of shields to make them more or less prominent or perhaps simply out of laziness was quite common in Hellenistic art. Here's another Cibyra coin, this one the shield's even farther back; I don't even think you could argue that that was hanging on his back. The artist wanted the shield to be visible, and so it was shifted back, to ridiculous amounts, as in this example.
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/067/enlarged/670763.jpg

Beyond this, if a rider was actually carrying such a large round shield on his back, it just wouldn't be very practical. He would constantly be hitting his arms on the edges of the shield. What if the cavalryman dismounts? He would have to struggle to remove the shield to be able to fight properly, and would be at a distinct disadvantage with it on.

Because a shield, even a fairly large one, is still lighter than heavy body armour. Plus way cheaper and easier to jettison in a pinch if you need a bit of extra speed.

When you look up military history you will often run into the curious tendency of lighter cavalry being much more fond of shields in general than their heavy colleagues, who are quite often perfectly willing to make do entirely without - and this is specifically a question of encumberance and finances. The lights are per definition required to range far an wide and generally run all over the place; they have to keep the load down to preserve the stamina of both man and beast (the heavies really just need enough to deliver a couple of charges in a fight, and can thus afford to compromise this aspect; the catas are and extreme example). Moreover the budget they can spend on war gear is invariably rather modest - if not else then because the richer guys who can afford more go to the heavy squadron by default - and a shield has ever been the "cheap and cheerful" way for otherwise lightly equipped warriors to defend themselves. All things considered it's also relatively light.

Which is why I would imagine it was a suitable device for late prodromoi, or whatever the types of troops who took care of their job now were called at the time. For a man on a budget and needing some extra protection for both himself and his mount, but extra armour and even light nonmetallic barding being out of the question (the latter due to the waste heat retention issue if nothing else), a large shield would seem to be a very sensible compromise solution. Cheap, protective, and not so heavy any decent horse was really going to notice.

I agree that with the generl up-armament of the later Hellenistic period they would carry shields, but it seems that they probably would have carried thureoi, not large and cumbersome shields. Have a look at this sarissophoroi lancer (Roman, 1st C. BC):

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/sarlancer.jpg

And compare the coverage to the cavalrymen on the Pergamon battle plate.

I'd rather like to hear the logic behind the claim that a big aspis-lookalike round shield covers more of a horse than an oval thingy like the thureos. With a large round shield on horseback much shield area is wasted protecting the thin air around the rider, no ? There's no benefit in the thing extending far to the sides, unlike there is for close-order infantry.

Vertical lenght, however, is quite useful, since it allows the shield to be used to cover both the head of the rider, his lower leg and the side of the mount economically. Why do you think fully developed large cavalry shields have always been of the long type, anyway ?

First of all, that Asclepiodotus passage, if it is in fact literally meant as it is translated, states that sometimes the thureos was swapped for other shields (which basically means round cavalry shields) to provide more protection. Instead of just covering an area none-too-wide beside the cavalryman and a little of his horse or, if he movied it, parts of his horse's head and neck, a large round cavalry shield could protect the rider's body and a larger portion of his mount's body- look at the Pergamon battle plate and that is evident.

Taken at face value the size of shields in the pictures you've provided would really suggest a bit of an experimental setup, and one somewhat confused when it comes to the qualities required of good large cavalry shields (which we with the benefit of hindsight know better, and on which topic the Celts and Romans seem to have been pursuing better alternatives).

I don't understand what you mean with this point? And as for Romans pursuing better alternatives...

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/romanlancer.jpg

2nd-1st C. BC Roman.

Oh, and I found another item which I'd forgotten about. Obviously not evidence for hetairoi carrying shields, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/votiverelief.jpg

Found in Campania, now also thought lost (:no:). Thought to represent Seleucid or perhaps Bactrian soldiers. Note the long sleeves and trousers.

Oh, and your PM box is still full.

Sorry about that, I emptied it. Send me all the mail you'd like!

Watchman

01-24-2007, 21:54

That was a poor example; I have some better ones here. My point was that changing the grips of shields to make them more or less prominent or perhaps simply out of laziness was quite common in Hellenistic art. Here's another Cibyra coin, this one the shield's even farther back; I don't even think you could argue that that was hanging on his back. The artist wanted the shield to be visible, and so it was shifted back, to ridiculous amounts, as in this example.If you ask me the Tarentine coins are of way better workmanship anyway - with the side effect that they also make much better bases for deduction, since the content of the pictures is fairly readily perceivable. If the artists who made the Cibyran and other late coins were willing to play so fast and loose with the placement of the shield (and as we can deduce from the Tarentinian specimen, they could also have displayed them differently... considerations of space, or just low artistic standards ?), nevermind now clearly weren't too concerned with getting minor things like proportions just right, then where can we actually start trusting their work as a source anyway ? How much can we assume to be representation of reality, how much is sheer artistic convention, and how much is blunt lack of skill ? I can think of at least two ways to carry a large round shield the artist could have tried to represent on top of the standard strapped-to-the-forearm method...

Oh, and I found another item which I'd forgotten about. Obviously not evidence for hetairoi carrying shields, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/votiverelief.jpg

Found in Campania, now also thought lost (:no:). Thought to represent Seleucid or perhaps Bactrian soldiers. Note the long sleeves and trousers.If that's a battle scene, isn't the shielded cavalryman at the front either lifting his arm in preparation for a sword strike, or alternatively wielding a spearm in the overarm manner (which the stance would really mostly suggest) ? The latter totally sucks for spears of xyston dimensions...

MeinPanzer

01-25-2007, 02:59

...and the coins and stelae you're basing your argument on are all from 2nd century BC or later. Assuming the Hetairoi were going for barded horses by that time, wouldn't this mean the fellows in the pictures with their singularly unarmoured horses are some other class of cavalry then ? ~;p

I've thought about this as well, and many of the horses of the soldiers have absolutely no horse equipment- no reins, no securing straps, sometimes even no shabrack, despite their riders being depicted in full panoply. In these cases, I think that the omission of any horse furniture or armour would be for artistic purposes. Others that do show that I can't account for.

Guilty as charged. So, however, is your argument. It is essentially based on taking a handful of pictorial evidence that...
A) comes from the Western end of the Hellenic world
B) is specifically dated to 2nd century BC onwards
C) cannot actually be reliably taken to represent Hetairoi in the first place instead of just guessing it does
D) allows several quite different interpretations

A) Yes, and if Livy's comment about the hetairoi being drawn from Lydia and Phrygia is in fact correct, then pictorial evidence from the western portion of the Seleucid empire would be fine evidence for Companions.

B) Yes, these are all 2nd C. BC or later, but that still covers what, three fifths of the RTW timeline?

C) Though they may not specifically be hetairoi, as I've stated many times, I showed those to establish that it was common for the heavy and élite cavalry of western Asia Minor to carry shields.

D) Again, many of those others I included in my argument (Bithynian, Pergamene, etc.) were included for the purpose of C).

...and taking it as positive proof that the Hetairoi and other xystophoroi in general all over the Hellenic world from around 3rd century BC onwards used large round shields combined with the old underarm one-handed xyston technique, did not wear more armour that simple linothorax (or something that looks like it - wasn't the scale-lined version usually made with textile covering ?) plus the usual greaves and helmet, and by implication didn't use horse armour either.

I think it's very reasonable proof for an unit which otherwise has no archaeological evidence as to its equipment in this period, and even if it isn't direct evidence, it establishes the atmosphere of equipment for wealthy heavy cavalrymen within the borders of the Seleucid empire in this period. And the change was some time in the 3rd C. BC, but I couldn't say when. Also, there are examples of these heavy cavalrymen also wearing muscled cuirasses, not just linothoraxes.

Seems like one big house of cards built on some rather liberal interpretation and excessive generalization to me, no offense.

It isn't the most solid theory, but I find it more plausible than the alternatives.

Allow me to present the - purely speculative - theory I have regarding the evolution of xystophoroi heavy lancers in general and the Hetairoi elite thereof in particular after Alexander's conquests and death.

The original Hetairoi under Philip and Alex had one major advantage when it came to equipement - the lenght of the xyston. Even with the one-quarter to one-third of the thing that had to be left trailing behind as counterweight the lance still handily outreached the shorter dual-purpose spears (called dory by the Greeks) just about all other contemporary cavalry used; this obviously gave them a major edge in a head-on clash, maybe even sufficient for them to lighten their armour when the conquest of Persia progressed (there's some mentions they may have; although it could also be argued this was for speedy stikes over long distances rather than major set-piece battles). Already at Gaugamela this edge was being countered; Arrian writes longer spears had been distributed to unspecified Persian units, and the Bactrian and Saka proto-cataphracts present certainly had some sort of long lance - whether these were straight copies of the xyston or a form of indigenous early kontos is somewhat beside the point, although in the later case the Bactrains and Saka were likely employed as instructors for the newly-equipped lancers.
As things went not too many Hetairoi apparently took part in the big cavalry melee against the proto-cataphracts and their support squadrons, and the Persians lost anyway.

After the break-up of the empire after the Big A's death the Hetairoi and their ilk suddenly had a quite different problem to tackle - namely, each other in the endemic wars between the Diadochi. Obviously, the reach advatage evened out in these clashes. Moreover those fighting in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau against rebellious locals, nomad and Parthian raids and whatnot found themselves butting heads and fighting alongside with the proto-cataphract kontophoroi as well as swarms of very annoying horse-archers.

I would argue this sent them down the more or less same path of military evolution the Iranian, Persian and assorted nomadic proto-cataphract shock cavalry had begun pursuing somewhat earlier for the exact same reasons.

They were for one up against what were essentially their identically equipped peers in head-on clashes in the Diadochi wars; to start seeking some sort of advantage, in equipement, fighting technique or both, would be the natural reaction.

For another the two-handed technique used with the kontos is probably superior to the one-handed underarm technique of the lighter xyston - two hands allow more control over the weapon and more power into the thrust, and may have also allowed using more of the long weapon's lenght to skewer the enemy as less may have been needed to act as a counterweight behind the grip point.

I agree up until this last paragraph. There's absolutely no evidence that the contus was picked up by any other cavalry than the cataphracts, and even then probably not before 205 BC and the expedition to the east. Not to mention that the contus two handed vs. the xyston one handed with shield is not so clear cut a comparison; without cataphract-level armour, it seems that using the contus two-handed became too vulnerable in the later Hellenistic period.

For a third they were without doubt regularly exposed to some quite unpleasant massed archery, also from nimble horse-archers whom they couldn't really catch and probably shouldn't really chase after either, lest they suddenly find themselves hit by cataphracts. This sort of ranged threat tended to nigh universally motivate heavy cavalrymen to load up on armour to weather the storm, so to speak.

For a fourth they were exposed to influences of Persian, Iranian and nomadic methods and tools of warfare, in the hands of both their enemies and their local auxiliaries; frontal horse barding for example went back to Classical Greek times in Persia and was likely even older among the Scythians and the seminomadic Central Asian peoples (like the Bactrians), and had been developed for some very good reasons - namely, increased tactical survivability and ability to charge home through incoming missile fire and long pointy things aimed at the chest of the poor mount, allowing charges to be delivered with that much more security and confidence. More or less the same goes for the more complete types of personal armour developing among the cataphracts.

For a fifth they could afford it.

In short, particularly the Seleucid xystophoroi would have had ample reason as well as opportunity to start grasping their lances two-handed (the increase in control and reach being logically that much greater with the relatively light and balanced xyston, and the extra power behind the thrust can't have hurt) and adopt increasingly heavy defences for both man and horse, both to better survive the massed archery they could be nigh certain to encounter sooner or later and to better live through a melee against both others of their kind and the "covered men" of the East and the steppes.

Here's the problem I have with your conclusion. If the Companions wielded the xyston two handedly, they would still be at a significant disadvantage because of their lighter armour for themselves and their mounts and because of their shorter weapons. If they were essentialy converted into cataphracts light, with less armour and less massive weapons, while they could obviously afford to armour them all, why wouldn't they do so? It seems to me that vulnerability caused by the decreased armour for rider and horse could easily be countered by carrying a shield and receiving the benefits that that affords them; as I stated before, such large cavalry shields afforded significant protection for both mount and rider. And I don't think that wielding the xyston one-handedly would have been so awkward if so many cavalry converted that style of warfare.

Between the generally good horse pool available and the wealth they had for aquiring war gear they should also have been able to realize such alterations of war gear without particular problems. Moreover, there were ample pools of man- and horsepower to serve in the light and medium cavalry role - Iranians, Persians, Egyptians, wandering Greeks and Macedonians, mercenaries, sundry native tribesmen, whatever - requiring more mobility and less war gear, flexible all-purpose troops but also not the match of dedicated lancers in a head on clash. Ergo, it would make sense for the Hetairoi and other Hellenic lancers (with the exception of the Prodromoi, if they were still around in some form) to develop their equipement and techniques to further enchance their competence in their particular expensive specialty field, and leave the all-purpose stuff to lesser troops not trained and equipped to the degree required for heavy shock action head on.

Again, the problem I have with this is why they would change the Companions over to light cataphracts, rather than converting the well-trained and highly motivated royal cavalry into full-blown cataphracts.

The hypothetical "up-armouring" of the Seleucid Hetairoi on the side of developing the cataphract arm before Magnesia was, I would suspect, a rather longer process of accepting useful military influences that hed been going on for a while, particularly among the cavalry normally stationed in the troubled eastern and north-eastern parts of the realm.

The Companions, at least in the campaign against Molon in 220 BC and at Raphia in 217 BC, were not yet up-armoured, as Polybius (who was careful to mention cataphracts when they first appeared, and their armour) does not bother to mention anything of that nature. At Panion in 200 BC, Polybius specifically mentions the armour of the cataphracts but only calls the Companions "horse guards." So they were reformed some time between 200 and 192 BC.

As the Seleucids doubtless took those soldiers to other fronts as necessary (and possible, if those parts were quiet) the influences would presumably have spread to other areas and by extension the cavalry of other Diadochi - nothing convinces someone it's about time to reassess his war gear like butting heads with someone wearing superior stuff, after all. And in any case the more lands the Seleucids lost in the East the more the Hetairoi and other lancers of the remaining parts had to cope with the Parthian cataphracts and horse-archers, and if they had any sense at all made the appropriate adjustements to their harnesses to cope if they for some reason hadn't done so previously.

I don't understand what you mean with your first point; do you mean to suggest that other successors (i.e. the Ptolemies, the Antigonids, etc.) picked up armoured cavalry from the Seleucids?

MeinPanzer

01-25-2007, 06:36

Asklepiodotus writes that only some heavy cavalry used shields.

Asklepiodotus, Techne Taktike 1.3

We may assume that he is over generalising on equipment here, but we can clearly see, that he understands that major part of heavy cavalry was not using shields.

I looked back through Asclepiodotus today and here are my thoughts.

Sekunda very plausibly argues in "The Seleucid Army" that Techne Taktike is based, at least in part, on Posidonius' experience in the Seleucid army in the 2nd C. BC. However, it has very clearly been stripped down to the bear bones, and it's clear that Asklepiodotus has little military experience from his writing, which is almost purely philosophical and rhetorical in nature. Therefore, it must be treated with care.

The divisions of three which are so prevalent (three classes of infantry, three branches of the mounted forces, three branches of cavalry) seem entirely artificial. As C.A. and W.A. Oldfather wrote in their commentary on Techne Takitike, "[The divisions by three] seem to be a trace of earlier rhetorical training."

The infantry, at least for the most part, seem to fit within his general classification scheme, being heavy infantry (his hoplites), light infantry (psiloi), and the intermediate of peltasts (the existence of which are widely debated, but for which some evidence exists). The cavalry, however, don't quite fit. His divisions are: cavalry fighting from afar, up close, and intermediates.

Those fighting from afar are simple enough (mounted archers), but the other two categories are clearly muddied and artificially divided. The intermediates are again bizarrely divided into two groups, "some with bows and some with javelins, the former using the general equipment of the light cvalry , and the others that of the heavy cavalry." Other than their placement in the battle line ("on their flanks [they] do their fighting"), it's hard to imagine how the former are any different from the first division of the cavalry. At any rate, Asclepiodotus divides those who carry javelins once more into two groups: "of this intermediate variety [of akontists], who in a narrower sense are called the light cavalry (elaphroi), after hurling their javelins fight at close quarters, but when they merely hurl their javelins from a distance, they are called Tarantine cavalry."

For the "close-in fighting cavalry" he says that they use "similarly [to the phalangites] heavy equipment" and have "man and horse covered on all sides" and carrying "long spears, like the hoplites." He then goes on to say that because of this, "this arm of the service is also called the spear-bearing (doruphoros) and the lance-bearing (xustophoros) cavalry." Finally, he says "or even the shield-bearing cavalry (thureophoros), when it, sometimes carries the shield (aspis) for the purpose of protecting the mount as well as the rider."

There are a number of parts of this passage which are hard to interpret. The mention of "long spears" is hard to pin down. Asclepiodotus mentions them (doru makros) in his description of the infantry, calling the sarissa the "long spears (δόρασι μακροίς) of the type which will here be called ‘Macedonian.'" We may presume that he will call the sarissa the Macedonian spear from now on, but he doesn't do that in this passage. Instead, he talks about the "long spears, like the hoplites." If he in fact means the sarissa, or perhaps not exactly the sarissa but a spear similar in length to it, then I think he may be writing about the cataphracts. However, this could also be evidence for the xyston becoming as long as the sarissa in the later Hellenistic period.

And in fact, he says in the next clause that the cavalry, because of bearing this "long spear," like the sarissa, "are called xustophoroi and doruphoroi." The former makes sense, but the latter does not. I am inclined towards thinking that doruphoroi could by to xustophoroi as doruphoroi is to sarissophoroi; that is, a non-technical and generalized term sometimes thrown about which Asclepiodotus felt it was important to include to clear up that these two names in fact meant the same type of cavalryman.

The mention of thureophoros, though, is truly bizarre. The Oldfather Loeb translation reads "even the shield-bearing cavalry, when it, sometimes, carries unusually long shields," and offers the example of Xenophon's Anabasis, i.8.9 as stating that Egyptian gerrophoroi were equipped with "poderesi xulinais aspisin," but I think that if Asclepiodotus knew enough about types of shields to be able to call this cavalry type a thureophoros, that he would know that the type of shield carries is (obviously) called a thureos.

My explanation? I think that in his effort to neatly categorize the different elements of the army, Asclepiodotus has crammed basically every type of heavy cavalry into the category of "close-fighting cavalrymen," except for heavy cavalrymen, apparently with armoured horses and riders as well, who wielded javelins (some of whom didn't close in for combat, others who did). His writing style tends towards brief sentences which are incredibly dry and to the point. I think that thus he might have confounded cataphracts, xustophoroi, thureophoroi, and shield-bearing heavy cavalrymen into a single confusing definition.

So, in conclusion, while Techne Taktike probably has some specifically Seleucid elements, it's been passed through too many hands, and the form that we have arrived in the hands of a writer with seemingly no military experience, and has been thus muddied. The description of the cavalry seems too nebulous for the details of distinctions between cavalry (even heavy and light, in some cases) to be worth much consideration.

O'ETAIPOS

01-25-2007, 11:54

It is not that muddy as you try to present it.

division is probably artificial, but rather clear:

1. close-combat cav
2. javelin cav
a. heavy armed
b. light armed
3. horse archers

It's functional division instead of one based on amount of metal warrior wear.

as for Thureophoroi cav carrying Aspis - for I C BC non-military man both of those terms mean the same - just different names of shields. Just like pistol and revolver which mean simply a gun to many.

The main reason I put this here is the way this "shield cavalry" is introduced, way that mean shields were not that common (there won't be need to distiguish them as different from xystophoroi and doryphoroi)

While there are many problems with this Taktike, it is still better source than Livy (who you believe fully) on Hellenistic military. Livy was worse informed and his knowledge of military matters was even lower.

MeinPanzer

01-25-2007, 18:51

It is not that muddy as you try to present it.

division is probably artificial, but rather clear:

1. close-combat cav
2. javelin cav
a. heavy armed
b. light armed
3. horse archers

It's functional division instead of one based on amount of metal warrior wear.

Well, that should look more like:

1. Heavily armoured close-combat cavalry.
a. Xustophoroi/doruphoroi.
b. Thureophoroi.
2. Intermediate cavalry.
a. Heavily armoured horse javelineers.
I. Tarantines.
II. Javelineers that throw from afar and engage in combat.
b. Horse archers.
3. Horse archers.

Only he has either folded in cataphracts with all other heavy cavalrymen, indicating that he does not distinguish between hetairoi, other heavy cavalry regiments at this point, and cataphracts, or he has simply omitted cataphracts, which would be strange because he specifically includes other almost exclusively Seleucid elements. And why the bizarre difference between horse archers who are "intermediate light bowmen" and horse archers that are simply "light bowmen"?

Tarentines, according to all sources we know, also were equipped with shields, so unless they too by the first century had evolved into some sort of cataphract akontistai cavalry, "heavily armoured" in their description indicates carrying a shield.

I also think that part of this is largely prescriptive. Asclepiodotus was a philosopher, and he was writing a treatise on a type of army which was (by then) largely a thing of the past. There is perhaps some nostalgia from Posidonius in there, but most of it is probably "how an army should look on paper and how it should operate on the parade ground" (the latter being clearly shown in the description of maneuvers and marching orders in the latter portion of the book). His description of which elements should be armoured is probably not an actual list of which units were armoured in reality.

as for Thureophoroi cav carrying Aspis - for I C BC non-military man both of those terms mean the same - just different names of shields. Just like pistol and revolver which mean simply a gun to many.

So if he means "thureos" when he writes "aspis," where do the actual large round cavalry shields fit in there? Evidence from the Seleucid empire right down into the 1st C. BC indicates that while the thureos was popular with cavalrymen, the large cavalry shield was carried by cavalry.

The main reason I put this here is the way this "shield cavalry" is introduced, way that mean shields were not that common (there won't be need to distiguish them as different from xystophoroi and doryphoroi)

But since Asclepiodotus's descriptions and divisions seem to be missing elements and artificially distinguishing between others, I wouldn't trust his opinions of which cavalry did (or rather, probably should) carry shields, either.

While there are many problems with this Taktike, it is still better source than Livy (who you believe fully) on Hellenistic military. Livy was worse informed and his knowledge of military matters was even lower.

You need to take both on a passage-by-passage basis. Some of Techne Taktike, such as descriptions of officer ranks, duties, and positions, for instance, is more reliable than others, like the divisions of the chariot corps. Since both seem, at least on some levels and in some areas, to be based on Polybius (Livy drawing heavily from his histories, Asclepiodotus drawing heavily from his treatise on tactics), they ironically are probably about equal in value when you strip them down to their bare bones.