Questions about Seleukid units.

[MeinPanzer]

I have a few varied questions about Seleukid units.

1. Why do the Thorakitai Arguraspidai (who I presume represent the Romanized infantry mentioned during the battle of Beith-Zacharia and in the Daphnai parade) wear mail face-veils? What primary evidence do you have for this?

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?

2. Why do the Thureophoroi wear armour? It was very clear in the sources that the Thureophoroi and Thorakitai were distinguished from one another (as at the crossing of the Elburz range) by the one wearing armour and the other not. On top of this, the majority of the evidence for thureophoroi mercenaries within the Seleukid empire show them without cuirass or greaves but with helmets.

3. Why do the Pantodapai Phalangitai use axes as a sidearm in combat? Is there any evidence at all for this?

4. Why do you show units wearing some sort of studded leather jerkin (as in the case of Thureophoroi and Iudaioi Taxeis) when no archaeological evidence for such an armour exists? Wouldn't a common linothorax be much more accurate?

[Lovejoy]

Do you really have all this knowledge in your head - or do you look it up? :P

Maybe you should write/alter some descriptions, if you have time, for EB. They would surely appreciate it. And you seem to have the knowledge to do so. :idea2:

[Digby Tatham Warter]

That Panzer chap sure does love to question the accuracy of the EB's research when something to catch his eye arises.
I don't remember such keen debate since the female archeologist(sorry can't remember her name)who questioned Karthadastim having pikemen!

Anyway I enjoy such indepth debate, and marvel at the detail of peoples knowelge base, although I do confess that at times I struggle to keep up.

[HFox]

*Pulls up a seat, gets out the popcorn and beer and prepares to watch the show* :cheerleader:

[MeinPanzer]

Do you really have all this knowledge in your head - or do you look it up? :P

Maybe you should write/alter some descriptions, if you have time, for EB. They would surely appreciate it. And you seem to have the knowledge to do so. :idea2:

Hellenistic armies are my area of interest. I collect archaeological information on them and read about them as much as possible.

I would love to write some descriptions for units.



I don't remember such keen debate since the female archeologist(sorry can't remember her name)who questioned Karthadastim having pikemen!

Well, Carthaginians having pikemen is a topic of contention, but Carthage is not my strong point and so I'm not going to pick that topic over.

[Watchman]

Interest is all fine and good, but you know 'Panzer, you really need to work on your delivery. The opening of this thread alone is "in your face" enough to make me feel annoyed, and I'm just on the consumer end...
It's not like it'd actually be a major effort to make use of less... shall we say, confrontational phrasing, and I'm pretty sure it'd markedly improve the tone of the discussion to follow - or for that matter bring that discussion about, as people aren't as likely to turn away out of sheer irritation.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Leaving that aside, from the few earlier debates I got the very strong impression the archeological material available on Seleucid war gear was very limited, and what there was is rather open to interpretation. So why the... positivist tone, when so much is fuzzy ?

[paullus]

MeinPanzer, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about ancient history, but you should learn how not to be an ass. Someone who's been on the team longer and is more knowledgeable about archaeological excavations in Seleukid territories, etc will be preparing a more comprehensive response, but for now, here are some of my thoughts:

I'll pose you these questions regarding your statements re: the thureophoroi:
On thureophoroi:
a. "Its very clear in the sources" --yeah? Like in Polybios on the Elburz crossing where he says that the third group moving through the pass were the thorakitai and thureophoroi? WOW. Good point. Oh, and while the name thorakitai DOES imply that they wear armor, does the name thureophoroi imply that they do not? No, not at all. In fact, they're employed in very similar roles.
b. Armor: I know that you know that we have depictions of thureos-wielding soldiers in the linothorax, and others in chain. Do you think we should eliminate one of those figures, and have just one represent thorakitai? I suspect you would rather have both, and a third "unencumbered" thureos-wielding soldier. Am I right? I would like that too.
c. "Majority of evidence within the Seleukid empire": oh? Such as? We have the Sidon stelai, concerning which I am inclined to follow other scholars in identifying as Ptolemaic. What's the other evidence you're talking about on thureophoroi in the Seleukid empire? Please not Galatian terracottas.

There's more to be said on this topic I'm sure, and certainly much to be said on the other points you've raised. But please, you owe people--many of whom do historical work professionally, and many of whom have devoted years to this project--a little more respect.

[MeinPanzer]

Interest is all fine and good, but you know 'Panzer, you really need to work on your delivery. The opening of this thread alone is "in your face" enough to make me feel annoyed, and I'm just on the consumer end...
It's not like it'd actually be a major effort to make use of less... shall we say, confrontational phrasing, and I'm pretty sure it'd markedly improve the tone of the discussion to follow - or for that matter bring that discussion about, as people aren't as likely to turn away out of sheer irritation.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Point taken. I will try to make my comments less confrontational.


Leaving that aside, from the few earlier debates I got the very strong impression the archeological material available on Seleucid war gear was very limited, and what there was is rather open to interpretation. So why the... positivist tone, when so much is fuzzy ?

The evidence is fuzzy, yes. However, the evidence is very clear in what it does not show, and that includes a number of items currently shown on EB units. The mail face veil in particular is very baffling, because I don't think I've ever seen any evidence for such a thing from anywhere in the ancient world before around the 3rd C. AD.

[Watchman]

In all fairness, the more Eastern appereances of mail have puzzled me slightly as well - I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've read has suggested it took fair a while before the stuff spread there in any quantities.
(One wonders if the proliferation of powerful bows had anything to do with it.)
On the other hand, I've always assumed the relevant EB folks have done their homework and debated the matter to death long ago anyway before implementing it, so...

[Thaatu]

(Just keep the fire extinguishers ready.)

I want a good, clean fight. No eye gauging, no biting, no hitting below the belt.
And now, in the red corner...!



HFox, pass me some of that popcorn, will you?

[MeinPanzer]

In all fairness, the more Eastern appereances of mail have puzzled me slightly as well - I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've read has suggested it took fair a while before the stuff spread there in any quantities.
(One wonders if the proliferation of powerful bows had anything to do with it.)
On the other hand, I've always assumed the relevant EB folks have done their homework and debated the matter to death long ago anyway before implementing it, so...

I know of four instances of chainmail being depicted in a Seleucid context. This is one, describing the battle of Beith Zacharia in 162 BC:


And they divided the beasts into their formations and with each elephant they positioned a thousand men armoured in chain and bronze helmets on their heads.

Here it literally says "armoured in chains (or rings)."

Another is the description of the Daphnai parade in 167 BC in Polybius 30.25.3. He again mentions a picked force of 5000 men armed "in the Roman fashion" in mail.

The third instance is on the Pergamene weapons reliefs, which do show two mail cuirasses. One is positioned beside many thureoi, spears, and a carnyx, implying that it is Galatian; the other is identical in form and is shown behind what looks to be a Celtic-style sword, so it too is probably Galatian.

The final instance is the famous painted stele of Salmas of Adada from Sidon in the 2nd C. BC. It shows a man with a bronze helmet, a thureos, a spear, and what appears to be an iron mail cuirass. It is unclear whether the Sidon stelai show Ptolemaic or Seleucid mercenaries, and of the many found, Salmas is the only one wearing mail.

The only two instances of mail being worn by a significant amount of men in the Seleucid army refer to the same unit (imitation legionaries) which existed for what seems to be around half a century at most.

[Bava]

IIRC, the unit description for the Thorakitai Agyraspidai mentions a western influence (a copy of the lusotannian "tank" unit, hence the slightly inferior stats).

[Watchman]

Didn't the Romans have a bad habit of calling just about all "civilized" non-phalanx melee infantry with some sort of large-ish shield "copy legionaires"...?

[MeinPanzer]

MeinPanzer, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about ancient history, but you should learn how not to be an ass. Someone who's been on the team longer and is more knowledgeable about archaeological excavations in Seleukid territories, etc will be preparing a more comprehensive response, but for now, here are some of my thoughts:

I'll pose you these questions regarding your statements re: the thureophoroi:
On thureophoroi:
a. "Its very clear in the sources" --yeah? Like in Polybios on the Elburz crossing where he says that the third group moving through the pass were the thorakitai and thureophoroi? WOW. Good point. Oh, and while the name thorakitai DOES imply that they wear armor, does the name thureophoroi imply that they do not? No, not at all. In fact, they're employed in very similar roles.

Do you not consider Polybius a major source? The difference between the two is implied by the fact that he says the Cretan shieldbearers were followed by thorakitai AND thureophoroi. That implies that they were differently equipped somehow- and the mention of one wearing a thorax and the other not being mentioned as wearing one strongly suggests that the thureophoroi did not wear armour. And while they are employed in similar roles, they are not the same roles, which again implies a difference in equipment.


b. Armor: I know that you know that we have depictions of thureos-wielding soldiers in the linothorax, and others in chain. Do you think we should eliminate one of those figures, and have just one represent thorakitai? I suspect you would rather have both, and a third "unencumbered" thureos-wielding soldier. Am I right? I would like that too.

Yes, you are right. I'd like to see a thorakitai unit and a thureophoros unit, as well as an imitation legionary unit (whatever you'd like to call it, whether you think it was drawn from the Arguraspides or not). The thorakitai would be equipped with helmet, linothorax, thureos, sword, and fighting spear; the thureophoros would be equipped exactly the same but without the linothorax; and the imitation legionary would be equipped with a bronze helmet, a mail cuirass, a sword, a thureos, and two javelins.


c. "Majority of evidence within the Seleukid empire": oh? Such as? We have the Sidon stelai, concerning which I am inclined to follow other scholars in identifying as Ptolemaic. What's the other evidence you're talking about on thureophoroi in the Seleukid empire? Please not Galatian terracottas.

A number of figurines from Nippur show thureophoroi who are clearly not Galatians. The clearest examples show a figure wearing a puffy sort of tunic, a helmet, and a thureos; none of these wear armour. A terracotta diorama of soldiers dueling from Pergamon shows two soldiers fighting with thureoi and swords but wearing no armour. There is a votive plaque from Asia that shows a phalangite and a thureophoros wearing an exomis fighting with a sword, but no armour. And once again, if you look at the states around the periphery of the empire who were sometimes under the Seleucid aegis, you can see numerous examples (most notably, Bithynian and Mysian). As far as non-Celtic thureophoroi goes, this is the majority of evidence; the other artifacts showing armoured thureophoroi are the Myrina figurines showing a thureophoros wearing a muscled cuirass and a stele from Samos showing a thureophoros with a linothorax.


There's more to be said on this topic I'm sure, and certainly much to be said on the other points you've raised. But please, you owe people--many of whom do historical work professionally, and many of whom have devoted years to this project--a little more respect.

I don't understand how by simply and straightforwardly asking a question I am being disrespectful.

[MeinPanzer]

IIRC, the unit description for the Thorakitai Agyraspidai mentions a western influence (a copy of the lusotannian "tank" unit, hence the slightly inferior stats).

That would probably be Roman influence.


Didn't the Romans have a bad habit of calling just about all "civilized" non-phalanx melee infantry with some sort of large-ish shield "copy legionaires"...?

Polybius, who provides us with the information about the contingent "armed in the Roman fashion," doesn't. He is very careful to distinguish between different armaments- thorakitai, thureophoroi, and others. He distinctly calls them "armed in the Roman fashion" because they wear mail.

[QwertyMIDX]

It's actually more a propensity of modern historians. The roman authors usually say "armed in the roman manner" which we read as 'imitation legionaries' but seems to refer to, basically as you said, fairly well armored troops (most often mail), with large shields, who didn't fight in a phalanx (with the caveat that this almost always done with respect to hellenisitc forces). The EB team's stance has long been that when roman authors make the claim that some troops are "armed in the roman manner" we should treat it very caustiously and that it most likely refers to troops fighting as thorakitai or in some other celtic influence manner (i.e wearing mail).

EDIT: It is important to note that it doesn't often if even mean fighting in a maniple or using a gladius.

[MeinPanzer]

It's actually more a propensity of modern historians. The roman authors usually say "armed in the roman manner" which we read as 'imitation legionaries' but seems to refer to, basically as you said, fairly well armored troops (most often mail), with large shields, who didn't fight in a phalanx (with the caveat that this almost always done with respect to hellenisitc forces). The EB team's stance has long been that when roman authors make the claim that some troops are "armed in the roman manner" we should treat it very caustiously and that it most likely refers to troops fighting as thorakitai or in some other celtic influence manner (i.e wearing mail).

EDIT: It is important to note that it doesn't often if even mean fighting in a maniple or using a gladius.

There are a number of factors which make me think that Polybius knows what he is talking about. He was a Greek man who had experience both in a Greek army (that of the Achaean league) and observing the Roman army in action (on campaign with Scipio Aemilianus), but he was probably writing for a Greek audience. He is also often very careful, as I said previously, in his classification of troops- he makes a distinction between thorakitai and thureophoroi, for instance. Polybius, of all the writers of Hellenistic history, would know what "armed in the Roman manner" meant, considering his experience with the Roman army. Considering all this, and the fact that Polybius only once calls any unit in the Seleucid army "armed in the Roman manner," I think that he specifically meant a unit modelled after the Roman legionary. So, knowing that the Seleucids had had a few nasty runins with legionaries, and that less than a half a century later they were employing men wearing chainmail and bronze helmets at Beith Zacharia and a unit which was called "Roman" by a man who would have been very familiar both with thureophoroi and thorakitai and the Roman legionary, it follows logically that these were imitation legionaries.

[paullus]

Re: Chain mail. One of the EB members has personally excavated chain mail from a Seleukid site dating to the mid-3rd c. (coins of Antiochos II in the same context). He's the one that should be here to answer these questions, as the designer for most of the Hellenic units and one well-advanced toward his doctorate, but until he should make his appearance, you can rest assured we don't have to wait for the defeat at Magnesia to see mail in the east.

RE: Polybios, calling one unit thorakitai and one thureophoroi. By mentioning the thureos for the one unit and not for the other, shall we assume that only one of them carried a shield? That's the logic you're using, and its crap.

I only know of the one Nippur terracotta that looks non-Galatian, the one you've specified, and know of none other than that one. Are there really others? Pictures would be appreciated if so, as it is until now one of the only thureophoroi terracottas I'm aware of that is not either Bel or a Galatian.

I was unaware of either the Pergamene terracotta or the votive plaque. In the former, are you sure they are not meant to be legionaries? What is the find context? For the latter, is it really a phalangite? Is he carrying the smaller shield? Or do you mean a hoplite versus a thureophoros? Pictures or citations would be appreciated, I'd be interested to read up on either artifact.

[MeinPanzer]

Re: Chain mail. One of the EB members has personally excavated chain mail from a Seleukid site dating to the mid-3rd c. (coins of Antiochos II in the same context). He's the one that should be here to answer these questions, as the designer for most of the Hellenic units and one well-advanced toward his doctorate, but until he should make his appearance, you can rest assured we don't have to wait for the defeat at Magnesia to see mail in the east.

Where? I'd be very interested to read about that. Has it been published?


RE: Polybios, calling one unit thorakitai and one thureophoroi. By mentioning the thureos for the one unit and not for the other, shall we assume that only one of them carried a shield? That's the logic you're using, and its crap.

Why would you suggest he differentiated between the two units, then?


I only know of the one Nippur terracotta that looks non-Galatian, the one you've specified, and know of none other than that one. Are there really others? Pictures would be appreciated if so, as it is until now one of the only thureophoroi terracottas I'm aware of that is not either Bel or a Galatian.

Not "Bel"? What does that mean? And yes, there are about 3 or 4; there are no pictures for them but van Ingens lists them as being very similar or identical to that illustrated figure (some also had traces of red colouring on them, IIRC).


I was unaware of either the Pergamene terracotta or the votive plaque. In the former, are you sure they are not meant to be legionaries? What is the find context? For the latter, is it really a phalangite? Is he carrying the smaller shield? Or do you mean a hoplite versus a thureophoros? Pictures or citations would be appreciated, I'd be interested to read up on either artifact.

Here's the Pergamene terracotta diorama:

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

The one on the right may be a Galatian because of the hair, but then again it may have been sculpted that way to indicate movement. The one on the left is definitely not armoured and has Greek features. This one, too, had traces of colour IIRC.

For the latter, yes, it really is a phalangite. It is, along with the Pergamene battle plate I posted before, one of the only two images I have ever seen of a phalangite in combat. He carries a large, dished shield with an offset rim that doesn't project out very far. He grips his very long spear with both hands, and though the relief is cut off behind him, it projects out behind him quite a ways. He has a sword at his left and he wears only a tunic and perhaps a helmet (his head has been effaced). The thureophoros is standing behind him, facing to the left, and about to strike down with his sword in his right hand. By some bizarre feat of artistry, the legs of the man behind the phalangite were drawn all the way out to stand beside the phalangite, yet his head is several feet above the head of his companion. I unfortunately cannot post a picture or a citation of this one at the moment, as I'm writing it up in a large article. When it's published I'll be able to post it, though.

[Watchman]

Why would you suggest he differentiated between the two units, then?The other wore heavier armour - à la metal armour vs quilt or plain linothorax - for example ? Writers often seem to not consider organic armour to be "real" armour, or in any case worth mention, whereas the metallic variety - presumably due to its sheer expense if nothing else, and tendency to be found on better-grade troops - appears to normally merit more attention.

[Sarcasm]

Indeed. Also not to mention wanting for fabric or leather armor to appear in arqueological record. Short of the guy falling into a bog or mummified, I don't see how that can happen 99% of the times.

[MeinPanzer]

The other wore heavier armour - à la metal armour vs quilt or plain linothorax - for example ? Writers often seem to not consider organic armour to be "real" armour, or in any case worth mention, whereas the metallic variety - presumably due to its sheer expense if nothing else, and tendency to be found on better-grade troops - appears to normally merit more attention.

In my experience, I've never found a major distinction between calling heavier armour thorax and linen armour thorax. At any rate, even if you want to give them organic armour, they should wear the linothorax and not the fantastical studded armour of some sort that they currently wear.


Indeed. Also not to mention wanting for fabric or leather armor to appear in arqueological record. Short of the guy falling into a bog or mummified, I don't see how that can happen 99% of the times.

There is plenty of representation of "organic" armours in representational evidence from the Hellenistic kingdoms.

[Watchman]

At any rate, even if you want to give them organic armour, they should wear the linothorax and not the fantastical studded armour of some sort that they currently wear.The "studs" could just be appliqué decoration, you know. Vanity was ever a soldierly vice (it's just kept away from the battlefield these days...:beam: ). They could also be the visible rivets of brigandine or "jack" type of armour, in this case presumably securing something rather "cheap and cheerful" and perishable like horn or leather pieces.

Although I've no idea if that armouring technique was used in the region around the dates in question. It shouldn't be a particularly major stretch for folks familiar with scale (being really a reversed version of the exact same principle), but...

[MeinPanzer]

The "studs" could just be appliqué decoration, you know. Vanity was ever a soldierly vice (it's just kept away from the battlefield these days...:beam: ). They could also be the visible rivets of brigandine or "jack" type of armour, in this case presumably securing something rather "cheap and cheerful" and perishable like horn or leather pieces.

They could be, yes, but my problem is that they are based on absolutely no archaeological evidence that I know of. If there is some evidence for it that I've never seen before, then I would be very happy to see it. Otherwise, if you are going to include armour that could have been worn, then you can't really fault CA for including fantastical elements which also could have been worn.


Although I've no idea if that armouring technique was used in the region around the dates in question. It shouldn't be a particularly major stretch for folks familiar with scale (being really a reversed version of the exact same principle), but...

We discussed this at length in another thread, but there is no evidence for any Seleucid troops wearing scale or lamellar armour beyond cataphracts. It was probably too expensive for non-cavalry troops to afford, and it's clear that the Macedonian side of the Seleucids favoured old, Greek-style armour over Oriental styles. And you can't really cite the precedent of Oriental armies making widespread use of scale and lamellar because there's little evidence of the Achaemenid Persians making use of scale or lamellar beyond heavy cavalry, either.

[Watchman]

You do know that all-iron cuirasses could be made to look like honest-to-Gawd linothoraxes for example...? I would imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to give a scale cuirass a similar "cut" and an outer layer of textile either.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Outta curiosity, as I know very little of these things, how much direct archeological evidence do we have of the armament of Hellenic kataphraktoi and their horses anyway ?

[Fondor_Yards]

Maybe you guys*by which I mean everyone* should wait till the member from that dig who did a lot of the seleucid stuff posts, we don't want this turning into the other threads now do we...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well FY, I doubt he makes an appearance. People can have whatever opinions they want of it, and he used to be around out here a good deal more, but he has had it with the public firing squads. We're happy to get his time on unit creation and recruitment issues, but he has had to drop other responsibilities inside the mod team because of constraints on his time while trying to finish his degree, so it's not just replying to public threads that he doesn't have the time or energy for currently. One other interesting tidbit - I don't think he has ever played the mod. :grin:

[MeinPanzer]

You do know that all-iron cuirasses could be made to look like honest-to-Gawd linothoraxes for example...? I would imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to give a scale cuirass a similar "cut" and an outer layer of textile either.

They could, but I think there would be found many more traces of lamellar and scale armour in Seleucid contexts, then. I would also expect to see some representational evidence show scale-like texture, like that seen on many Roman-era stelai. But why would they cover scale or lamellar in linen or leather? Seems rather redundant to me, though I guess they may have done it.


Outta curiosity, as I know very little of these things, how much direct archeological evidence do we have of the armament of Hellenic kataphraktoi and their horses anyway ?

There is the largely well-preserved suit of cataphract armour from c. 150 BC from Ai Khanoum, which includes lamellar and scale. There are also late Hellenistic images of Indo-Saka kings wearing lamellar armour, which probably would have influenced local Bactrian cavalrymen.


Well FY, I doubt he makes an appearance. People can have whatever opinions they want of it, and he used to be around out here a good deal more, but he has had it with the public firing squads. We're happy to get his time on unit creation and recruitment issues, but he has had to drop other responsibilities inside the mod team because of constraints on his time while trying to finish his degree, so it's not just replying to public threads that he doesn't have the time or energy for currently. One other interesting tidbit - I don't think he has ever played the mod.

I'd very much like to hear from him, but if he can't come around, does anyone else know his reasoning for some of the above? Did he provide the team with archaeological evidence or even references for some of the above stuff?

[Watchman]

They could, but I think there would be found many more traces of lamellar and scale armour in Seleucid contexts, then. I would also expect to see some representational evidence show scale-like texture, like that seen on many Roman-era stelai. But why would they cover scale or lamellar in linen or leather? Seems rather redundant to me, though I guess they may have done it.Wanted to preserve "that original Hellenic look" perhaps ? Damned if I know why Philip II had that iron cuirass made out like a linothorax either. Or why at one period of the Renaissance fancy looks were so important suits of full plate were made to mimic the "puffed and slashed" style of garment. Or Carl X wears a blatant imitation of Antique generals' breastplate and sash in one portait I've seen.
:shrug:
Fashion. It doesn't have to make any sense.


There is the largely well-preserved suit of cataphract armour from c. 150 BC from Ai Khanoum, which includes lamellar and scale. There are also late Hellenistic images of Indo-Saka kings wearing lamellar armour, which probably would have influenced local Bactrian cavalrymen.That's not too much then. How about horse bards ?

[MeinPanzer]

Wanted to preserve "that original Hellenic look" perhaps ? Damned if I know why Philip II had that iron cuirass made out like a linothorax either. Or why at one period of the Renaissance fancy looks were so important suits of full plate were made to mimic the "puffed and slashed" style of garment. Or Carl X wears a blatant imitation of Antique generals' breastplate and sash in one portait I've seen.
:shrug:
Fashion. It doesn't have to make any sense.

Could be, but when you consider the representational and archaeological evidence together, it seems to point in the general direction of making use of little or no scale or lamellar armour amongst the non-cataphract troops.


That's not too much then. How about horse bards ?

Unfortunately not much at all. Some of the pieces of armour from the Ai Khanoum arsenal are thought to maybe be part of some horse armour, but those are only very fractional and scattered pieces. I would lean towards horse barding being made of scales, though.

[Imperator]

1. Why do the Thorakitai Arguraspidai (who I presume represent the Romanized infantry mentioned during the battle of Beith-Zacharia and in the Daphnai parade) wear mail face-veils? What primary evidence do you have for this?

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?

2. Why do the Thureophoroi wear armour? It was very clear in the sources that the Thureophoroi and Thorakitai were distinguished from one another (as at the crossing of the Elburz range) by the one wearing armour and the other not. On top of this, the majority of the evidence for thureophoroi mercenaries within the Seleukid empire show them without cuirass or greaves but with helmets.

3. Why do the Pantodapai Phalangitai use axes as a sidearm in combat? Is there any evidence at all for this?

4. Why do you show units wearing some sort of studded leather jerkin (as in the case of Thureophoroi and Iudaioi Taxeis) when no archaeological evidence for such an armour exists? Wouldn't a common linothorax be much more accurate?
guys chill- he's got some good points, and clearly knows what he's talking about- no need to bash him, historical hyper-accuracy is why we're here. Even EB can be wrong sometimes (not often though). now, to business:
1) That is a good point, can a team member step forward and answer the man, he's got sources!
2)That seems, from the discussion, like it's a little more controversial. Again, I'd be interested in seeing how EB took this passage and came to their conclusion...
3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...
4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

All in all, MeinPanzer does certainly have some seriously good questions and real evidence behind them. Let's be civil and leave it to the guys who made the mod to defend it, they know why the units look the way they do. And, who knows, maybe this guy's right. It's a dark day for EB when we can't take any historical criticism on our units and put ego before accuracy.

[Ludens]

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?
In this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1160108#post1160108), I asked a related question about the TA and I think the response would answer your question as well.

[Tellos Athenaios]

About point 2:
Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway. :book:

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

About point 2:
Thorax is the acient greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway. :book:
Unfortunately Angadil isn't around anymore to handle some of the many varied areas he was very knowledgeable in (successors wasn't his main area of knowledge - he was the Steppe-Daddy around here for ages). RL stuff took him away from modding, but we miss him. ~:mecry:

[MeinPanzer]

3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.


4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

Within the empire, two main types of armour can be seen: leather or linen cuirasses (the kind with shoulder yokes and those leather fringes, or pteruges, at the shoulders and bottom). which were the most common, and then metal muscled cuirasses. There probably were also metal non-muscle cuirasses, but it is unfortunately almost impossible to distinguish in many sources between linen, leather, and metal armour (though this topic has been discussed quite a bit). For almost all non-officer, non-heavy troops, the linen or leather cuirass would have been the standard form of armour.


In this thread, I asked a related question about the TA and I think the response would answer your question as well.

Thanks, that actually cleared up the reasoning behind dividing the arguraspides units as was done. However, I'm still curious what "very recent archaeological evidence" they drew on, especially if it supports having a mail face veil like the one shown.

However, I find this statement:


Our TA are indeed a sort of inner elite. There are references to guard units of 1.000 men which seem to have had even higher status. Authors are not unanimous and some claim those would refer to the cavalry section of the Royal Guard, while for others they would apply to the infantry guard and they would indicate the existence of "an elite within the elite".

To be a bit strange, since many scholars consider this "elite within the elite" to have been the hupaspistai, not some other unit.


Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax.

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

[Foot]

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.

Anatolians was very fond of their axes, and whilst these represent men drawn from all corners of asian population, axes are certainly not unsuitable. Perhaps a sword would have been more generic, but I cannot understand why axes would be so unsuitable. They were particularly common in anatolia and not unknown elsewhere, they represent poorer equipment than a sword (fulfilling a desire to represent the pantodapai phalangitai as being drawn from the poorer indigenous populations of this region), and they add a bit of variety to the mix of units. Isn't stressing this problem ever so slightly pedantic. Perhaps we could revise the description somewhat to indicate that the use of axes here does not represent the idea that this unit was equipped with axes, but rather represents the above points. Would that be satisfactory?

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

Anatolians was very fond of their axes, and whilst these represent men drawn from all corners of asian population, axes are certainly not unsuitable. Perhaps a sword would have been more generic, but I cannot understand why axes would be so unsuitable. They were particularly common in anatolia and not unknown elsewhere, they represent poorer equipment than a sword (fulfilling a desire to represent the pantodapai phalangitai as being drawn from the poorer indigenous populations of this region), and they add a bit of variety to the mix of units. Isn't stressing this problem ever so slightly pedantic. Perhaps we could revise the description somewhat to indicate that the use of axes here does not represent the idea that this unit was equipped with axes, but rather represents the above points. Would that be satisfactory?

Foot

If you can provide me with evidence of Anatolian soldiers using axes in warfare, then I would agree that it is not unsuitable. However, as far as I've seen there is none whatsoever for men using them in combat, and so it is plainly inaccurate, especially for such a numerous unit. It would be far more accurate to simply depict them as being equipped with swords. And I fail to see the correlation between poorer elements of the empire and use of axes, as you imply.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

From my Ancient Greek - Dutch dictionary, it has included only commonly used words, with their usual translations + a few exceptional meanings, always distinctively marked as being exceptional (which is not the case with the following, so you may ingnore this as well)...

Θωραξ:
1 armour, cuirass, "harnas" - that is a "suit" made of armour no matter what sort of armour is used, but refers for the most part to the heavy metal equipment of medieval knights

χιτων
1 chiton (a sort of clothing)
2 (...)
3 (used as) armour
χαλκους χιτων = bronze used as armour > bronze armour

The English word "armour" can be translated into Dutch in two different ways, either you take the Dutch "pantser" which actually means the entire "suit", or you use the word "bepantsering" which either refers to the fact that certain equipment is worn which provides protection or just means "protective equipment/skin (in the case of animals, such as the crocodile)". You'll see from the above that the sort of armour you are refering to (armour in general, thus not the "suit") would be commonly refered to as "... χιτων" (the Dutch word "bepantsering"); while the Θωραξ has a more specific meaning - that of either the cuirass or all of the armour a particular soldier is wearing as a whole (the "pantser" word).

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

[MeinPanzer]

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

In english, thorax is usually translated as cuirass, which doesn't necessarily have any connotations of metal. A cuirass can be made of leather, linen, or other organic materials, and so while the thureophoroi as is wear some sort of jerkin, it could be called a cuirass.


A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

[Urnamma]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.
Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

[Foot]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry? An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown. It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms. Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.

Foot

[Urnamma]

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Now, a soldier with an (expensive) metal helmet, an (expensive) sword, javelins, a large spear, greaves (expensive), good boots, and all that other stuff, is going to, what, not have enough drachmae left over for some inexpensive but effective body armor?

[Urnamma]

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

[Kugutsu]

Why were swords so much more expensive? Is it because of the amount of metal or because of the techniques needed to make them?

[MeinPanzer]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

I think it is safe to say that anyone who could afford A) some sort of body armour and B) a helmet could also afford a sword. Even common Persian archers, being as numerous as they were, could afford to own swords. It is illogical to say that they would just use what is cheap and handy because there is no evidence of axes being wielded by these people in combat; would you argue that because hoes were handy they would have used those?

Besides, if you were going to reconstruct a unit which was comprised of many non-Greek peoples from throughout the empire, logic would tell you that the majority would be Iranians; therefore, it would probably be much more accurate if you provided the pantodapai phalangitai with sagarises or akinakes.


You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

I'm not trying to attack you guys or anything; I think EB is by far the best RTW mod out there, and the EB team has done a spectacular job working on a mod that is incredibly advanced when compared to the majority of mods out there, which is why I'd like to see it be as accurate as possible. If I didn't, why would I even put effort into asking these questions?

Also, barely ever offer proof? I offer proof when asked to offer it, as I did in the hetairoi shield thread numerous times. It just seems that the EB team gets very defensive about anyone questioning their reconstructions. It would be much simpler if you simply provided proof on your own behalf.


Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon.

They probably used pitchforks and scythes in agriculture, too. Is that good enough to equip a few EB units with them? I sincerely hope you have better evidence than that for equipping a unit with an axe.


Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Because there is no proof for it, and because it's not even probable. If you don't care about small details like that, why even bother with historical accuracy?


If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry?

If you claim to be a historically accurate mod, then I would hope that you would be pedantic, yes. Ancient history, and especially the reconstruction of such small details as weaponry and equipment, rely on such limited evidence that you pretty much have to be pedantic.


An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown.

But you haven't even proved that axes were used as weapons within the areas levied from. Again, please provide proof that Hellenistic soldiers of any kind used axes in warfare.


It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms.

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it.


Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.


See the top of this post.


As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Are you saying that waistbands of scales for composite cuirasses have been found within the Seleucid empire? Where? And no, I'm not saying I don't believe linen armour was there- there is tons of archaeological representational evidence for that. I'm saying I think the form of the armour you have portrayed on some units at the moment is not supported by evidence.


Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

Yet despite this, the commonest levies of the predecessors of the Seleucids, the Achaemenid Persians, could afford to buy swords.

[MeinPanzer]

Why were swords so much more expensive? Is it because of the amount of metal or because of the techniques needed to make them?

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

[Sarcasm]

Talking strictly on peninsular weaponry, the amount of iron ore necessary to produce a sword would be relatively large as the efficiency of the smelting process was low, resulting in a small quantity of usable iron. Further, the quality of the metal was not always the best, most not usable for weapons as complex to make as swords [not unless you didn't want a good sword anyway, which was definitely not the case in this particular location I'm talking about].

On the process of actually forging the sword, you needed a swordsmith to do the thing, not your everyday blacksmith that produced the agricultural implements for the communities [and that could easily make a mediocre spear or a javelin head]. It is a complex fabrication technique that requires a specialized forge and set of skills that was simply not available everywhere. Time was also a factor, since it is a time consuming process, especially when talking about those that weren't mass-produced. Time is, and was, money.

[Sarcasm]

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

A metal helmet would *not* be more expensive than a sword.

[Kugutsu]

Out of curiosity: How did the romans make swords in the quantities to arm all their legions? And other cultures with large standing armies? Did they still rely on artisanal swordsmiths, just lots of them, or had they developed methods of mass production?

Edit: and if they mass produced their swords, were they of lower quality?

[MeinPanzer]

A metal helmet would *not* be more expensive than a sword.

The price of both would depend on the quality, but the cheapest swords were probably less expensive than average quality helmets (as the pantodapai phalangitai have been reconstructed with).

[Sarcasm]

Romans in later times had fully developed armament factories owned by private corporations that were contracted by government to make cheap, good quality and easily reproducible swords. Just like today.

Dunno about hellenistic cultures, but they probably had some sort of smaller scale factories too.

@ MeinPanzer: On the axes, you should search Attic pottery for Persian representations. You'll find that they are either using a Greek kopis, an Akinakes or....surprise, surprise, an axe.

[Aristophanes]

The answer here is that they could be expensive, but they needn't necessarily be expensive. This entire point is moot, though, because anyone who could afford a helmet, which was probably more expensive than a sword, could afford a sword.

I'd like to see your proof that the majority of lower-class Achaemenid troops carried swords. Do you have any historical account, or is your source an artists' rendering which is highly open to interpretation a) when it is first produced and b) when it is unearthed ?


Talking strictly on peninsular weaponry, the amount of iron ore necessary to produce a sword would be relatively large as the efficiency of the smelting process was low, resulting in a small quantity of usable iron. Further, the quality of the metal was not always the best, most not usable for weapons as complex to make as swords [not unless you didn't want a good sword anyway, which was definitely not the case in this particular location I'm talking about].

On the process of actually forging the sword, you needed a swordsmith to do the thing, not your everyday blacksmith that produced the agricultural implements for the communities [and that could easily make a mediocre spear or a javelin head]. It is a complex fabrication technique that requires a specialized forge and set of skills that was simply not available everywhere. Time was also a factor, since it is a time consuming process, especially when talking about those that weren't mass-produced. Time is, and was, money.

Quite.

I wonder whether pantodapai phalangitai generally wore helmets, and, if they wore them, whether they would be bronze, iron, leather or linen.

[Sarcasm]

The price of both would depend on the quality, but the cheapest swords were probably less expensive than average quality helmets (as the pantodapai phalangitai have been reconstructed with).

Of course it depends on the quality, but assuming they are both of the same calibre, then a helmet would be less expensive. Poor quality swords tend to be short, or downright glorified daggers.

Also, a state may offer a piece of the kit, that may be more affordable than it usually is. Later armies used this method when they tried to achieve uniformity.

[MeinPanzer]

@ MeinPanzer: On the axes, you should search Attic pottery for Persian representations. You'll find that they are either using a Greek kopis, an Akinakes or....surprise, surprise, an axe.

I'm looking at dozens of representations of Persian soldiers in Duncan Head's The Achaemenid Persian Army right now, and I can see plenty of depictions of sagarises, but no axes. Can you post some that specifically show axes?


I'd like to see your proof that the majority of lower-class Achaemenid troops carried swords. Do you have any historical account, or is your source an artists' rendering which is highly open to interpretation a) when it is first produced and b) when it is unearthed ?

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/persianswords.bmp
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/persianswords2.bmp


I wonder whether pantodapai phalangitai generally wore helmets, and, if they wore them, whether they would be bronze, iron, leather or linen.

This is presuming that pantodapai phalangitai were even generally poor. We don't know that they weren't drawn from the wealthier non-Greeks within the empire, as was done for the cavalry, and as would be fitting in this case considering the necessity for certain heavy equipment to be able to fight in a phalanx. The poor non-Greeks could probably only afford enough equipment to fight as psiloi or akontistai.

[MeinPanzer]

Of course it depends on the quality, but assuming they are both of the same calibre, then a helmet would be less expensive. Poor quality swords tend to be short, or downright glorified daggers.

Also, a state may offer a piece of the kit, that may be more affordable than it usually is. Later armies used this method when they tried to achieve uniformity.

I was talking mainly about the quality of sword in comparison to the helmets worn by the pantodapai phalangitai, which are fairly elaborate.

There is some evidence for both the Ptolemies and Seleucids providing costume and equipment to troops, but they only seem to have done so for standing troops (i.e. royal guards).

[Sarcasm]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin//ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0043&query=Berlin%20F%202331

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it...


If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry?If you claim to be a historically accurate mod, then I would hope that you would be pedantic, yes. Ancient history, and especially the reconstruction of such small details as weaponry and equipment, rely on such limited evidence that you pretty much have to be pedantic.
Actually, the answer is that we don't have to. We can say we are historically accurate, and there is absolutely positively no test we have to prove to anyone. No one buys our product. No one regulates it. We are creating hundreds of units here, and there will be some errors that get through that are serious and there will be some errors that get through that really don't matter much (that strap went under the other one for Aitolian units!), just like there will be some things that we have to take educated guesses at. One key element of this issue is that we are talking about units that have been created already: modelled, skinned, UI cards and info pics made for them, and then included in the mod. Insisting on details on a theoretical depiction of a unit is one thing, when a unit is already done and we are trying to work on others though, insisting that one detail or aspect of a unit *must* be this way, when we think something is either debatable, clearly goes our way, is fuzzy, is speculative, or whatever, but insisting on that one point, and another, and another, in succession, each day, really does get tiring for us to have to stop and try and deal with. For someone's own personal mod, or reconstruction, or drawing of a unit, or whatever, I can understand an absolute necessity to have something depicted a very specific way like they want, but you are laying down your interpretation over and over as the only possible way, from the hetairoi shield to the Anatolian axe to the parthian bodyguard to the thorakitai chain veil, to whatever the next ten things are. So, back to the first point here: we actually don't have to convince you. There has been no one since this mod started who has said we are wrong in so many different ways on these units. I think we've done pretty well convincing people, every other person, on these units too, and it's not some sort of "hoodwink" job at it either. Some people might not agree but don't post - I don't see them though, but I can talk about the people who do post. We have answers for people who post asking about questions - but there is a point where it really does hurt (productivity, morale, time, work on new units, etc.) much more than it helps to have to totally satisfy one person. And just because we don't do that, it doesn't mean we "fail" at being "historically accurate" (whatever that means).

[MeinPanzer]

Actually, the answer is that we don't have to. We can say we are historically accurate, and there is absolutely positively no test we have to prove to anyone. No one buys our product. No one regulates it. We are creating hundreds of units here, and there will be some errors that get through that are serious and there will be some errors that get through that really don't matter much (that strap went under the other one for Aitolian units!), just like there will be some things that we have to take educated guesses at. One key element of this issue is that we are talking about units that have been created already: modelled, skinned, UI cards and info pics made for them, and then included in the mod.

I understand that, and I know that units that have already be completed won't be changed. I'm simply hoping that by bringing this up, you can consider it for EB2 when you approach these same units once again.


Insisting on details on a theoretical depiction of a unit is one thing, when a unit is already done and we are trying to work on others though, insisting that one detail or aspect of a unit *must* be this way, when we think something is either debatable, clearly goes our way, is fuzzy, is speculative, or whatever, but insisting on that one point, and another, and another, in succession, each day, really does get tiring for us to have to stop and try and deal with.

Just because an issue is fuzzy or unclear (and so many concerning Hellenistic soldiers are), it doesn't mean you can just choose any solution and go with it. You haven't effectively proven that poorer levies would have carried axes in combat.


For someone's own personal mod, or reconstruction, or drawing of a unit, or whatever, I can understand an absolute necessity to have something depicted a very specific way like they want, but you are laying down your interpretation over and over as the only possible way, from the hetairoi shield to the Anatolian axe to the parthian bodyguard to the thorakitai chain veil, to whatever the next ten things are.

The hetairoi issue is fuzzy, and could go either way. The axe, Parthian bodyguard, and chain veil issues are all very clearly answered by the evidence, especially the latter two. No one has provided a smidgeon of evidence for the chain mail veil, by the way, not even a reasoning for it.


So, back to the first point here: we actually don't have to convince you. There has been no one since this mod started who has said we are wrong in so many different ways on these units. I think we've done pretty well convincing people, every other person, on these units too, and it's not some sort of "hoodwink" job at it either.

When asked to provide some evidence, or even any evidence, on three of the four issues above, you've provided none. That's hardly convincing.


Some people might not agree but don't post - I don't see them though, but I can talk about the people who do post. We have answers for people who post asking about questions - but there is a point where it really does hurt (productivity, morale, time, work on new units, etc.) much more than it helps to have to totally satisfy one person. And just because we don't do that, it doesn't mean we "fail" at being "historically accurate" (whatever that means).

Most of the people who do post aren't as familiar with the evidence as I am. I study this quite a bit and I've collected Hellenistic archaeological evidence for some time. I don't ask that you satisfy me, I ask that you consider the evidence (or lack thereof) and reconstruct the units accordingly.


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...n%20F%202331

This looks like some sort of hybrid sagaris/axe. I've never seen this type of weapon before, but it seems to have been very uncommon when compared to the representation of Persian archers carrying swords or sagarises.

[-Praetor-]

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it.

About the burden of the proof (Onus probandi) topic:

In legal terms, there is one part of the authors that state your vision about the "who has to prove" question. That`s the classical vision, dragged from roman times.

But a vast mayority of current modern authors state that "the person that states something different to the normal or logical state of things is the one loaded with the onus probandi".

In this case, if most local people recruited by the diadochoi to be pantodapoi phalangitai were (by logical deduction) people of lower class, and they had to afford part of their eqipment (Or all, I`m not sure); then, the most common tool they could have used as sidearm are small knifes, dagas, hammers and axes. Even more among iranians, where axes were not uncommon (remember tabar axes, even when they have faded out of use by EB timeframe).

I don`t see why the locally recruited phalangites of the diadochoi wouldn`t have used tools as sidearms, like axes. That`s a logical thing to happen. Thus, if you want to state an alteration to this natural state of things, then it must be you who should proove it.

Besides, if everything made on this mod would neccesarily have to be proved, by hard archeological evidence, or by testimonies of ancient historians, then a farily half of this mod wouldn`t reach the light of the day.

Cheers!

[Sarcasm]

Dunno what you want from me. You asked for an axe, I gave you an axe.

You were ready and eager to ridicule my team mates on the subject, so now that there's an actual proof presented you dismiss it? Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The axe, Parthian bodyguard, and chain veil issues are all very clearly answered by the evidence, especially the latter two. No one has provided a smidgeon of evidence for the chain mail veil, by the way, not even a reasoning for it.

When asked to provide some evidence, or even any evidence, on three of the four issues above, you've provided none. That's hardly convincing.
We're quite content with the axe as their secondary weapon. I'll even add that we have a new unit of lower classed Anatolian Hillmen (with thracian pelte shield) whose primary weapon is an axe. To piece together some of his comments on the veil that I have seen:

-The mail facemask first appears in northern spain, then moves into syria, presumably by way of mercenaries. There are some crude figures from spain, and a very nice relief that the syrian government has under lock and key in damascus. (The reason the chain veil/mask itself has not been published yet is) because the british fellow doing work at the site where it was found hasn't gotten around to publishing it in the last 10 years (the site is at Apamea). (It was in the context of other equipment that seems to belong to a very well equipped unit, possibly) guards of the governor.

I implore TPC to post on the Parthian bodyguard to end that matter.

[MeinPanzer]

About the burden of the proof (Onus probandi) topic:

In legal terms, there is one part of the authors that state your vision about the "who has to prove" question. That`s the classical vision, dragged from roman times.

But a vast mayority of current modern authors state that "the person that states something different to the normal or logical state of things is the one loaded with the onus probandi".

That the onus is on the disbeliever if the norm goes against his or her belief is a fallacy carried in many religious debates). But even under those circumstances, the norm among scholarly discussion is that phalangites carries swords. I've never seen phalangites reconstructed with sidearms other than swords before, and there's never been evidence for such a thing. So you have to prove that they were carried, and speculation about phalangites being drawn from poor non-Greeks who could not afford swords is very weak indeed. Isn't relying on flimsy evidence exactly what you accused me of doing in the hetairoi thread, and the reason why you chose not to accept my theory?


In this case, if most local people recruited by the diadochoi to be pantodapoi phalangitai were (by logical deduction) people of lower class, and they had to afford part of their eqipment (Or all, I`m not sure);

This is not a logical conclusion at all. If anything, the opposite is true: probably only the most well-off non-Greeks could afford heavy equipment, while the poorer non-Greeks made up the masses of light troops with weaponry they used in everyday life (slings, bows, javelins).


then, the most common tool they could have used as sidearm are small knifes, dagas, hammers and axes. Even more among iranians, where axes were not uncommon (remember tabar axes, even when they have faded out of use by EB timeframe).

As I stated before, a much more common, and affordable, sidearm amongst the Iranians was the sagaris, not the axe.


Dunno what you want from me. You asked for an axe, I gave you an axe.

And I presented you with multiple images of Persian archers carrying swords. It's clear from the evidence that swords were absolutely not uncommon amongst even the poorer Iranian troops levied into the Achaemenid army, and whose descendants would likely have been levied into the Seleucid army.


You were ready and eager to ridicule my team mates on the subject, so now that there's an actual proof presented you dismiss it? Gimme a break.

How am I ridiculing your teammates? By presenting evidence and questioning some of their reconstructions? I didn't dismiss the proof, I'm just stating that a much more likely sidearm would be the sword, and the evidence shows that.


I don`t see why the locally recruited phalangites of the diadochoi wouldn`t have used tools as sidearms, like axes. That`s a logical thing to happen. Thus, if you want to state an alteration to this natural state of things, then it must be you who should proove it.

See the Persian archers for my proof, which is much more substantial than a tenuous assumption.


Besides, if everything made on this mod would neccesarily have to be proved, by hard archeological evidence, or by testimonies of ancient historians, then a farily half of this mod wouldn`t reach the light of the day.

There's a difference between considering and extrapolating logically and conservatively from the known evidence to fill voids and speculating not based on the evidence.

[MeinPanzer]

To piece together some of his comments on the veil that I have seen:

-The mail facemask first appears in northern spain, then moves into syria, presumably by way of mercenaries. There are some crude figures from spain, and a very nice relief that the syrian government has under lock and key in damascus. (The reason the chain veil/mask itself has not been published yet is) because the british fellow doing work at the site where it was found hasn't gotten around to publishing it in the last 10 years (the site is at Apamea). (It was in the context of other equipment that seems to belong to a very well equipped unit, possibly) guards of the governor.

I implore TPC to post on the Parthian bodyguard to end that matter.

This is very interesting, and I'd be very interested in seeing it. Does the relief show a full soldier? Is this also the same context in which the mail that you wrote about earlier was found? Approximately when does it date to?

[paullus]

that's the problem with archaeological evidence, its regularly published ten years down the road, if ever.

anyway, i know we're talking about hellenistic iranian/anatolian/iudaian levy soldiers, so this technically doesn't belong, but i did some searches on axes in classical authors and found quite a few instances in paramilitary (eg, 1) a group of akontistai in the kyropaedia carry axes in addition to javelins, though the primary purpose of the axes is in building camp, 2) axes (pelekeis and drapanai) are among the weapons smuggled into a city for an uprising) and military situations (the army description in herodotos for example, and a few other instances). You might also note that axes are present on a few of the images you posted for swords. You might also note the prevalence of Skythians and Thraikians as stand-ins for Persians, and the frequency of the kopis, strong indications that the vase painters were using mercenaries as their artistic reference, since really, most of those guys didn't really know what a Persian looked like.

Now, I'm helping with Getic/Thraikian unit work, so this isn't my area, but we do find axes in military or paramilitary contexts throughout that region. That doesn't bear on the pantodapoi really, but there are quite a few bronze and iron axeheads with spear heads and the like in burials throughout that region, including from the hellenistic period.

On the issue of levy Hellenistic soldiers, what is really our source base for describing their appearance? Not much in the way of description by historians or depiction in art. We know axes existed: they appear frequently in the archaeological record alongside other weapons, but you insist they are either ceremonial or non-military. The options for the levy soldiers appear to be as follows: an akinakes, which was a widely used simple weapon, though any akinakes available for levy troops (who, if Ptolemaic Egypt is any indication, lived on about one quarter the land of a Hellenic infantryman, one tenth that of a cavalryman) would be of the smaller sort and low quality. The other option appearing widely enough in the archaeological record is probably the axe, a weapon widely available to even the lowest level of the native military classes (if a Ptolemaic papyrus regarding the import of literally hundreds of axes is any indication) in a civilian context, but with a proven history of use in battle and requiring no extra expenditure since you probably own one anyway.


Hellenistic (lifetime or subject matter) historians and axes in military/paramilitary contexts:

Polybios:
4.57 - a select group of Aitolians bear axes, perhaps along with other weapons, in a city assault
10.14 - Romans use axes and hatchets in the siege of new carthage; while this does not imply these were their primary weapons, it does highlight one of my points: the axe was a useful tool in the camp, and a nice way to save money a levy soldier doesn't really have.
Diodoros:
34.2.14 - during a rebellion on Sicily, we find rebels armed with axes as an especially prevalent weapon. we also get this statement: "the sword pierces the ribs, but the axe smites the neck." it is, as in many other axe instances, in a paramilitary context, but its definitely equated with a more reputable weapon (the xiphos).
Dionysios:
4.38 - relates the seizure of power by Tarquinius, where associates carry swords and their attendants carry axes; perhaps his understanding of weaponry in early Roman history is based on contemporary practice.
8.78, 9.50, 20.5 - use of axes for beheading. mentioned more for human-directed violence than explicit military role.
Strabo:
16.4.24 - says axes are the predominant weapon among the Arabians, who probably not the sort of troops to be incorporated into a phalanx unit, it is useful that we find the axe predominant in a military context in the near east in (very late) Hellenistic/early Imperial.
17.1.54 - mention of axes as one of the primary weapons among the Aithiopians.

There are of course several others to check, but its time for bed.

[MeinPanzer]

that's the problem with archaeological evidence, its regularly published ten years down the road, if ever.

Well, if it's as nice as it sounds, I hope it gets published.


anyway, i know we're talking about hellenistic iranian/anatolian/iudaian levy soldiers, so this technically doesn't belong, but i did some searches on axes in classical authors and found quite a few instances in paramilitary (eg, 1) a group of akontistai in the kyropaedia carry axes in addition to javelins, though the primary purpose of the axes is in building camp, 2) axes (pelekeis and drapanai) are among the weapons smuggled into a city for an uprising) and military situations (the army description in herodotos for example, and a few other instances).

And the Romans carried dolabrae, but that's not an argument for legionaries wielding dolabrae as weapons in combat.


You might also note that axes are present on a few of the images you posted for swords.

Those are, as I noted before, sagarises, not axes.


You might also note the prevalence of Skythians and Thraikians as stand-ins for Persians, and the frequency of the kopis, strong indications that the vase painters were using mercenaries as their artistic reference, since really, most of those guys didn't really know what a Persian looked like.

Many artists would have undoubtedly served in the Persian wars, so they'd probably know what Persians looked like, and the kopis may simply have been a common Persian weapon (which makes sense considering the Persians' adoption of the linothorax as well from the Greeks).


Now, I'm helping with Getic/Thraikian unit work, so this isn't my area, but we do find axes in military or paramilitary contexts throughout that region. That doesn't bear on the pantodapoi really, but there are quite a few bronze and iron axeheads with spear heads and the like in burials throughout that region, including from the hellenistic period.

And I wrote about this before, but I think those, like many from stelai in and around the Aegean sea, are ritualized tools.


On the issue of levy Hellenistic soldiers, what is really our source base for describing their appearance? Not much in the way of description by historians or depiction in art.

We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.


We know axes existed: they appear frequently in the archaeological record alongside other weapons, but you insist they are either ceremonial or non-military.

Because if they were used in a military context, I would expect some sort of representation in art, or a mention in a text. We don't have those, so it is unnecessarily speculative to assume that soldiers carried them in combat. As I said earlier, you could argue all of these points for Roman soldiers using dolabrae as weapons in combat, too, or other armies using various implements. It's simply a weak argument.


The options for the levy soldiers appear to be as follows: an akinakes, which was a widely used simple weapon, though any akinakes available for levy troops (who, if Ptolemaic Egypt is any indication, lived on about one quarter the land of a Hellenic infantryman, one tenth that of a cavalryman) would be of the smaller sort and low quality.

First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system. We simply don't know if levy troops in the Seleucid empire were drawn from the poor, but considering that there was a sizeable population of well-off Iranians in the centre and east of the empire, it would not surprise me if they drew many of these phalangites from that population, just as they drew from these wealthy Iranians to populate the cavalry.


The other option appearing widely enough in the archaeological record is probably the axe, a weapon widely available to even the lowest level of the native military classes (if a Ptolemaic papyrus regarding the import of literally hundreds of axes is any indication) in a civilian context, but with a proven history of use in battle and requiring no extra expenditure since you probably own one anyway.

Or another option, the sword, which was also well represented in the archeological evidence, was used by levy troops in the Achaemenid army up to immediately before Alexander's invasion, and which was used by most contemporary troops of these levies.

Your arguments here are as tenuous as mine in the Hetairoi shield thread.

[antiochus epiphanes]

at this point, your obiviously trolling, and its getting some of us sick of it.

someone please close this thread?

[MeinPanzer]

at this point, your obiviously trolling, and its getting some of us sick of it.

someone please close this thread?

Is someone questioning the EB team and then defending their position trolling? This is just a debate.

[antiochus epiphanes]

Is someone questioning the EB team and then defending their position trolling? This is just a debate.
no not when you are given evidence, you dismiss it as not accurate,your demanding attitude like your owed somthing, your contiuious play on words, thats trolling in my book.

[Elthore]

whats with all this hate? let him ask his questions, and if you dont like them you dont have to respond. This is a forum after all.

no harm in agreeing to disagree, as long as some good discussion came from it, all is well

[Watchman]

Those are, as I noted before, sagarises, not axes.What, the sagaris isn't an axe ? Just about all the textual mentions I've ever seen of the thing describe it as the variety of battleaxe with a long and narrow, almost pick-like, blade. That'd probably be a direct continuation of some non-socketed Bronze Age war-axes, but in any case narrow-bladed axes were AFAIK quite popular all over Western Asia for a very long time.

[paullus]

no but it is trolling when you mischaracterize my argument by saying it does something wrong, especially when you are doing the very thing to which you object:

A couple of your quotations:

Exhibit A: We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.

Exhibit B: First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system.

Now, the extrapolation in A is precisely the sort of argument you object to in B, when I never "attributed characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system," instead clearly indicating by saying "IF THE PTOLEMIES ARE ANY INDICATION" that I was not attributing, but rather providing one of the few examples we can actually use to make some comparison.

Now, while the presence of axes among camp tools of Romans does not really justify axes as secondary weapons for Romans, we can assume that axes carried as camp tools by poor levy troops are much more likely to see battle usage. You simply cannot compare a Roman legionary with a oi polloi levies.

You say "if it was used I would expect representation in art or in a text," yet I've supplied several textual examples, we've already seen a few classical-era paintings, of which we can scrounge up others, though I don't think that's hardly necessary. Also, considering the relatively small number of artistic depictions of Seleukid levy troops, that is, frankly, a silly demand. Consider the Arabic symmachoi at Raphia: they are probably doryphoroi, but if they carry a blade, what do you think it is? Very likely an axe, possibly a small dagger.

AND I'M TIRED OF THE ROUTINE THAT "ITS NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE TO SAY THE AXES WERE USED IN COMBAT AND THAT INSTEAD THEY WERE CERTAINLY CEREMONIAL." THAT IS CRAP. While some axes in wealthy burials or on high quality Hellenic stelai may be associated with ritual, the bronze and iron axes found in rubbish dumps and poor burials and in fields and outside walls are not friggin ceremonial axes. They may not be military, but they're almost certainly stinkin gardening tools or wood-cutting tools. And dangit, if I'm a poor farmer and I get recruited into service in a campaign, I'm not gonna sell my fattened calf to buy an akinakes when I've got my axe handy and free. So please, if we were trying to see the hetairoi should carry axes as secondary weapons, for all means say "NO THEY ARE RITUALISTIC!" but not when we're talking about lower-middle class levies, that's just far less reasonable than that they're used for wood-cutting and vine-trimming etc.

Edit: sorry for the all caps etc, but I'm annoyed at having my argument twisted or ignored and its been a long hard day.

[Watchman]

The reason axes were so common among Viking raiders was that most of them were originally just poor common folks; pretty much by default every household had an axe for utility purposes, and most working axes kill people readily enough when applied with the necessary amount of effort. Spears and bows were similarly common for hunting purposes, and all were readily pressed to combat duty in assorted local skirmishes and personal disputes.

All were also very cheap compared to high-end weapons like long swords (the line between a large knife and a short sword, both as such far cheaper, being rather vague), and something most people owned and were familiar with from everyday living.

Given that if I've understood correctly the Pantodapoi and Machmoi Phalangitai are meant to represent "cheap and cheerful" mass levies, replacing the relatively expensive sword with a much cheaper axe, whose use the conscripts would be fairly familiar in any case, as a part of the required or issued kit would certainly seem like a perfectly credible method of driving down the costs and thereby increasing the head count put to the field - which such troops were largely all about anyway, no ?

[MeinPanzer]

no not when you are given evidence, you dismiss it as not accurate,your demanding attitude like your owed somthing, your contiuious play on words, thats trolling in my book.

It says right in the FAQ:


However, we are always willing to reexamine our work if someone presents us with information that contradicts what we believe to be true.

It's not as if I'm dismissing the evidence as inaccurate without reason; I've provided why I thought it was not accurate. And what do you mean "play on words"? Like rhetoric? :laugh4:


whats with all this hate? let him ask his questions, and if you dont like them you dont have to respond. This is a forum after all.

no harm in agreeing to disagree, as long as some good discussion came from it, all is well

Thank you.


What, the sagaris isn't an axe ? Just about all the textual mentions I've ever seen of the thing describe it as the variety of battleaxe with a long and narrow, almost pick-like, blade. That'd probably be a direct continuation of some non-socketed Bronze Age war-axes, but in any case narrow-bladed axes were AFAIK quite popular all over Western Asia for a very long time.

The sagaris isn't an axe like a sarissa isn't a spear; in the context of an in-depth argument, calling it an axe is too general a term.


no but it is trolling when you mischaracterize my argument as doing the very thing you do:

A couple of your quotations:

Exhibit A: We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.

Exhibit B: First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system.

Now, the extrapolation in A is precisely the sort of argument you object to in B, when I never "attributed characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system," instead clearly indicating by saying "IF THE PTOLEMIES ARE ANY INDICATION" that I was not attributing, but rather providing one of the few examples we can actually use to make some comparison.

Extrapolation A is not at all like extrapolation B. A deals with the army of a unified empire, and of troops which served together within the same armed forces, which would thus have had a great deal of cultural and material interaction. Extrapolation B is comparing two empires with vastly different native populations and drawing the methods of dealing with those populations in one and applying it to another. A is generalized but still valid because the units would have interacted quite a bit; B is not valid because while the native population of the Ptolemaic empire was largely poor, a large proportion of the Iranian population in the Seleucid empire were not.


Now, while the presence of axes among camp tools of Romans does not really justify axes as secondary weapons for Romans, we can assume that axes carried as camp tools by poor levy troops are much more likely to see battle usage. You simply cannot compare a Roman legionary with a oi polloi levies.

If they were poor, then I would agree. However, as I've posted before, I disagree with the basic principle that they were so.


You say "if it was used I would expect representation in art or in a text," yet I've supplied several textual examples, we've already seen a few classical-era paintings, of which we can scrounge up others, though I don't think that's hardly necessary.

Textual examples from many other parts of the world, yes. And as I've also pointed out, those Classical examples of axe use also clearly show that the sword was widely used by Achaemenid levy troops, and in much greater proportion.


Also, considering the relatively small number of artistic depictions of Seleukid levy troops, that is, frankly, a silly demand. Consider the Arabic symmachoi at Raphia: they are probably doryphoroi, but if they carry a blade, what do you think it is? Very likely an axe, possibly a small dagger.

What do I think it is? I think you know the answer to that question :beam:


AND DAMMIT I'M TIRED OF THE ROUTINE THAT ITS NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE TO SAY THE AXES WERE USED IN COMBAT AND THAT INSTEAD THEY WERE CERTAINLY CEREMONIAL. THAT IS CRAP. While some axes in wealthy burials or on high quality Hellenic stelai may be associated with ritual, the bronze and iron axes found in rubbish dumps and poor burials and in fields and outside walls are not friggin ceremonial axes. They may not be military, but they're almost certainly stinkin gardening tools or wood-cutting tools. And dangit, if I'm a poor farmer and I get recruited into service in a campaign, I'm not gonna sell my fattened calf to buy an akinakes when I've got my axe handy and free. So please, if we were trying to see the hetairoi should carry axes as secondary weapons, for all means say "NO THEY ARE RITUALISTIC!" but not when we're talking about lower-middle class levies, that's just far less reasonable than that they're used for wood-cutting and vine-trimming etc.

Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.

How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.

[blacksnail]

Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.
Remember when I said this? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1417424&postcount=64)

As a disinterested and uninvolved observer I can say that, whether you intend to or not, the tone of your posts suggests you are interested less in debate and more in the kind of nitpicking that is intended to aggravate the person with whom you are speaking. The "I'm not touching you - I'm not touching you - does this bother you? - I'm not touching you" approach to debate is generally seen as obnoxious, and as I said before you will find a hard time convincing anybody of anything if you start a debate with a hostile or seemingly obnoxious posture.

You have said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to help out and make things better" - if that is the case, I highly suggest you read the first link in my .sig regarding feedback to show how you can both help out and make things better. As it stands, you are undermining your own intentions with every post you make. Which is a real shame, as you clearly have a lot of things to say.

[Caratacos]

How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.

Doesn't Paullus say exactly this...? that they could and most likely were used for multiple purposes. I can see why he thinks his arguments are being mis-interpreted/twisted.


Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.

Well Paullus did explain himself (in his Edit). So comments like the one in bold are neither necessary nor conducive to the so called "debate". Perhaps we (general) could practice what we (you) preach. After all-- it is just a debate.

Edit: blacksnail is infinitely more eloquent (and quicker) than I.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I want to say two (EDIT:relatively) quick things:
1- It is unfortunate that text can only convey so much information. As the post by blacksnail said, emotions and tone are often seen where there are none. With textual communication, like fora, simple mistakes, slightly off grammar, or lack of info can often imply the wrong tone. I have seen many posts (some my own) that are seen as angry, aggressive, insultive, or down right mean that were not meant that way at all. It is hard to tell if someone is seeking a confrontation or simply used easily misinterpretable grammar. I hope that most of this arguement is misinterpretation.

2- I like having MeinPanzer around. He seems to be the first thoroughly historically education person, besides those on the team itself, to post here. Without some sort of scrutiny, some ahistoric things may slip through. I think it is a good sign for EB that when someone who knows history and is far from a EB fanboy shows up, that the biggest controversial things brought up are so very pedantic.

[Watchman]

The sagaris isn't an axe like a sarissa isn't a spear; in the context of an in-depth argument, calling it an axe is too general a term.Isn't this akin to defining "sword" so that both the rapier and the kopis don't fit in at the same time...?

If they were poor, then I would agree. However, as I've posted before, I disagree with the basic principle that they were so.
---
Textual examples from many other parts of the world, yes. And as I've also pointed out, those Classical examples of axe use also clearly show that the sword was widely used by Achaemenid levy troops, and in much greater proportion.The Seleucid levies (or their masters, if the gear was more or less state-issued) on the other hand had to shovel out the dough for the armour and helmets and greaves and whatnot, which the Achaemenid levies AFAIK didn't commonly use. At that point opting for a cheaper sidearm to keep the overall expenses down would kind of make sense, no ?

The more prosperous "natives" are of course an entirely another issue, but then again what do they have to do with the issue of "cheap and cheerful" levies anyway ? Wouldn't they rather go into the better infantry formations or the cavalry ?
How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.If it chops and splits wood, odds are it'll do the same to humans if necessary... And probably deals with shields and armour better than most swords, too. Really, the line between a tool-axe and war-axe has always tended to be rather fuzzy; the latter are usually distinguished mainly by design details that on the average make them better suited for destrying people and war gear and less so for cutting wood, and more ornamentation - but that didn't keep the former from cheerfully being used as quite viable substitutes.

[Brightblade]

RUaaAaRRR FOrum Troll alert!

Sir, firstly, if you wished to contribute to EB, and-or constructively criticize their work, your comments, challenges, or simple, angry at the world statements should have been sent to the EB team privately, not posted in the general forum for all of us to watch you take apart with your nitpickyness all the hard work these people have done WITHOUT PAY for our enjoyment of this game.

No one is perfect, indeed, I am the first to point things out that I believe could be changed, in a respectful and appropriate manner, privately or non obtrusively

Also, if your comments are shot down, you have no right to scream and raise hell about it, because usually in this little thing called life, you don't always get what you want, and you certainly do not get it when you act vaingloriously and selfrighteously as if you knew everything there was to know about this timeframe.

Cheers.

[Geoffrey S]

You have said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to help out and make things better" - if that is the case, I highly suggest you read the first link in my .sig regarding feedback to show how you can both help out and make things better. As it stands, you are undermining your own intentions with every post you make. Which is a real shame, as you clearly have a lot of things to say.
...and...

I like having MeinPanzer around. He seems to be the first thoroughly historically education person, besides those on the team itself, to post here. Without some sort of scrutiny, some ahistoric things may slip through. I think it is a good sign for EB that when someone who knows history and is far from a EB fanboy shows up, that the biggest controversial things brought up are so very pedantic.
Both good points and ones I'd like to see echoed in debates both present and in the future.

Personally I'm finding this a fascinating debate, since it illustrates more of the basic debate required to create historically accurate units for EB. I'd find it a great shame if MeinPanzer's points are not addressed due to his rather abrasive style. So really, it'd be great if all parties can stay polite and adress each other in the tone in which they'd want to be spoken to. Labeling people troll, or posting as if the EB team have it totally wrong is counterproductive.

And personally, I'd lean in the direction of poor levies using an axe. They'd need it on campaign for acquiring wood and building camp, and using it in battle means less costs and lighter loads. I don't know a great deal about the period, but wouldn't it make sense that basic equipment such as the sarissa and light armour would be provided by the state, and sidearms would be optional and provided by the troops themselves?

[paullus]

thank you Caratacos for pointing out the ridiculousness of his response. wake up in the morning all calmed down and read that and got totally pissed off again. but now i'm better thanks to you.

Mein Panzer, I love that you are around, that you like EB better than other mods, that you have a large knowledge base, that you're willing to share that knowledge, and that you want to help us be more and more accurate. I really do think those are all great things. But we're having a huge fight over the axes used by the pantodapoi? From looking at this debate, I'm not seeing you exhibiting the capability to concede a single inch: if you'll look back at your past confrontations, you'll see that I and others are willing to give and take in argumentation: its a sign of dialogue, of actually listening to what other people are saying. You show little sign of listening, even with your fantastic ability to multi-quote.

I have a proposition for you: can we drop the axe debate? Here is why: in EB2, if M2TW is ever moddable, we can use multiple secondary weapons (can't we?), so in that context, you can rest assured that a unit like the pantodapoi phalangitai will be carrying a mix between simple axes, old swords, and daggers. Our argument in EB is not that every levy pikeman in the Seleukid army would have carried an axe: it is that it is quite reasonable that some/many/maybe-even-a-majority-in-certain-times-and-places did, and so it is a potential way of differentiating a unit from the Greek units it resembles. In EB2, I would hope to see the axes become less common in relation to other iranian/anatolian close combat weapons.

[Empedocles]

Some tips for playing the Seleucids:
1º In the east you will only find troubles, it's in the west were your empire will grow. You will loosse cities in the east from parthians and baktrians. On the first turn abandon every city where happiness is too slow to mantain.
2º Build Regional barracks in all your frontier cities. You can train persian archers, skirmishes and missile cavalry at low cost. They will be your key units against every army sent at you.
3º In the east you must remain in the offensive....BUT...if you manage to train a decent army and conquer Kiat from the Parthians, then you will leave their income in red and won't recover anymore.
4º In the west you must quickly conquer sidon and use it to stop every army the Ptolemei send at you. IT's easy to defend and it will buy you time for point nº 5.
5º Build a second army, a ship and conquer Cyprus from the Ptolemaioi. Enslave the population. This island will give you good money and you don't have to garrison it. After this go and conquer Side from the Ptolemei.
6º At this time you will start to see small blue fellows running all around your eastern frontier. Congratulations, you have met the Baktrians. Get used to them, you will see them. Their units are weaker than yours, but they have numbers. Use your persians archers to kill their missile units and don't forget to use hellenic spearmen (4 units per army) as your core troops.
7º Regroup your armies in the west and conquer Jerusalem and Petra (only if the Ptolemai have them). After retraining your units you will face the definitive challenge, attacking the Ptolemei in their homeland. They are though to beat, but if you conquer Memphis or Alexandria you can train good units from scratch.
8º The problem with attacking Egypt is the choice you make. Memphis or Alexandria? Both are valuable and both can be reinforced in one turn by the Ptolemeis. You will have to use mercenaries to fight them back and continue the siege. Do not fear going into the red treasury, each city gives you like 30000 mnai.


well, I hope this helps someone.

PS: After 1º you can be intelligent and move your capital to Babylonia, this will give you a boost of happines on the eastern frontier. I wasn't.

[Elthore]

^^^
i dont think you read the rest of the thread


back on topic: the question boils down to wether these units were drawn from poor non-greeks, or just non-greeks. If they werent poor, theres no reason for them carry an axe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know it's a pattern throughout history that those who could not afford swords used axes. The Romans could only use mass-swords because the Gladius is a short, tough weapon which can be badly made and still serve, and believe me some of Gladii we have are pretty shoddy from a metal-working point of view.

[Watchman]

By what I know of it decent short swords were also way easier to make than long ones - far less tricky metallurgy involved and so on - and duly rather a bit cheaper.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I understand it, and I have sword fetish, the longer the blade the higher probability of a fault in the iron/steel and of course the longer it is the more leverage is applied to the blade when it hits, further increasing the chance of a break.

The Gladius is blade-heavy and diamond shaped, being also very thick. It's basically a short iron bar with an edge and point.

[Watchman]

Sort of the same thing why it's easier to make iron and steel plate of homogenous quality in small pieces than big solid ones. The smaller bits are metallurgically easier to control (which is why breastplates were sometimes made up of horizontal "bands" of steel rather than as monolith pieces as late as late 1500s - "anime cuirass", that was called).

[hoom]

The more prosperous "natives" are of course an entirely another issue, but then again what do they have to do with the issue of "cheap and cheerful" levies anyway ? Wouldn't they rather go into the better infantry formations or the cavalry ?This is I think the point MeinPanzer is trying to make.

There were plenty of wealthy Iranian etc natives who were put into the cavalry but there would also have been plenty that were not rich enough to be cavalry but wealthy enough to afford the standard phalanx gear.
The Greeks wouldn't allow them into the Pezhateroi so the mixed, empire wide levy Pantodapoi Phalangitai would be where they would surely end up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is I think the point MeinPanzer is trying to make.

There were plenty of wealthy Iranian etc natives who were put into the cavalry but there would also have been plenty that were not rich enough to be cavalry but wealthy enough to afford the standard phalanx gear.
The Greeks wouldn't allow them into the Pezhateroi so the mixed, empire wide levy Pantodapoi Phalangitai would be where they would surely end up.

I think it's more likely less wealthy Persians went into light cav. What Persian of means would fight on foot?

[Kugutsu]

I always figured the pantopodai are EBs version of vanilla peasants. Slightly less prone to instant death, but pretty shoddy none the less... Essentially the kind of unit you would get if you round up a bunch of unwilling peasants and give them a shield and a spear, and tell them to stand in lines and hold off the approaching armies until someone can come and deal with them (or until they break, run and get slaughtered...). In this role, its unlikely that even poorer higher class citizens would be pantopodai.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

This debate has some merit in it - that is: it provides people like me, (those who are interested, perhaps have some basic "knowledge", or may have a stronger tie with the era, but who sadly don't have sources on hand), with more info on the time period.

Sad though that it apparently must go the way it does now... (Which is no comment on the quote above.)

[Tellos Athenaios]

If they were poor, then I would agree. However, as I've posted before, I disagree with the basic principle that they were so.


Considerable parts of the Iranian inhabitants of AS would not have been poor indeed... but wouldn't they have served as the native cavalry? (Mada Asabara in this case.) I mean, in those areas footsoldiers, notwithstanding the new "moral order" of the Seleukids, - one might even say particularly in those areas, since the local "Persian" culture appears to be somewhat incorporated into the new system (the king's 'clan' are heterogenos after all) - , were regarded as inferior and unreliable. Exactly the arocratistic attitude (that of the cavalrymen and his close followers) towards the humble peasants (the foot soldiers).

Herodotos is not always a reliable source, and in this debate he may be considered plainly outdated, but what the following quote indicates is clear enough to me: "and the Persians educate their childeren in these three things only: in riding, in shooting, and in speaking the thruth."

I'd say much of this old attitude would have remained, especially since the conquests of Alexandros were relatively recent, and thus the native inhabitants of the former Persian empire wouldn't have been converted all that much. Something which is also indicated by the fact that the Seleukids appear to somewhat mistrust their Persian subjects.

So it's altogether possible that the pantodapoi were made up of the (lower) middle class. (And not just the Iranian (lower) middle class.) You know, those people just like those who would have to make do with "one drachme a day" in 5th century Athens. People who might not have had much time to practice with their new gear, and neither would have had much spare money to buy it. People who would rather keep it simple, and keep from costly equipment. An axe is simple: strike hard enough and it will hurt enough (as it is able to shatter shields easily enough). A short sword is not that simple: especially when your opponent has brought a shield with him (opponents like the pantodapoi would have to face).

[QwertyMIDX]

This is I think the point MeinPanzer is trying to make.

There were plenty of wealthy Iranian etc natives who were put into the cavalry but there would also have been plenty that were not rich enough to be cavalry but wealthy enough to afford the standard phalanx gear.
The Greeks wouldn't allow them into the Pezhateroi so the mixed, empire wide levy Pantodapoi Phalangitai would be where they would surely end up.

Or maybe they'd end up in the Phalangitai unit we have between the Pezhateroi and the Pantodapoi. They're in the next build. :2thumbsup:

[Sarcasm]

They bloody well should have swords, or we'll have a riot in this forum.

[hoom]

They're in the next build.Heh :balloon2: