Suggestions and guide to the heavy hellenistic infantry [Archive]

View Full Version : Suggestions and guide to the heavy hellenistic infantry

Perseas

01-10-2008, 18:43

THE PHALANX

The phalanx was a simple formation and there weren't levy pikeman, pezhetairoi etc. as different formations as it is in the game.. (the weapons and equipment of the phalanx were given to the phalangites from each Kingdom's Armourer and all the phalangitai were given the same training. So there weren't better/less armoured phalangites or better/less trained phalangites. Actually that's the advantage (against the other Greek Cities) of the Macedonian Army Reforms of King Philip and Alexander the Great.. A national army!)
The formation was called phalanx of the Macedonians(because the Macedonians fought in that way) or simply phalanx.. The phalangites were armed with sarissa, a small sword and with the thrakian shield which was named 'pelti' and was smaller than the hoplite shield.. They also wore brass or leather armour. Usually the first 4 or 5 lines of the phalanx were heavier armed than the others because they were in contact with the enemy so they usually used brass armours and greaves while the other lines usually used leather armour and no greaves.

THE ROYAL GUARD

-In India after 10 years of continous fighting Alexander gave new equipment to his army.. The Macedonian Royal Guard, the Hypaspists, were given silver shields and silver armour.. From now on this elite unit took the name 'Argyraspides'.
-In the Seleucid empire the Royal Guard kept the name 'Argyraspides' and used silver equipment. After the destruction of the Macedon Kingdom after the battle of Pydna (168 BC) many Macedonian Chalkaspides fled to the Seleucid Empire to save their lives and fight from there the Romans. These soldiers created the 'Chalkaspides' formation of the Seleucid Empire.
-In the Kingdom of Macedonia the Royal Guard was named 'Chalkaspides' and given bronze equipment.
-In the Ptolemaic Empire the Royal Guard was named Agema.
-These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx.
-2nd way - They fought as peltastai(peltasts)* **.
*In the 3rd century BC the name 'peltastai' was used from historians to describe the heavy armoured soldiers who fought as a mobile elite force using spear and/or sword. They fought in the same way as hypaspists did. But instead of the hoplite shield which the hypaspists used, these units used the thrakian shield, the 'pelti' because it was smaller than the hoplite one and they could move easier. That's why historians describe them as 'peltastai'.
**These units have nothing to do with the light infantry type of peltastai which was used in the classical period but also continued to exist and fight with the same way during the 3rd century BC)

Given this information I would suggest the following: we already have a unit that fights with the sarrisa, the phalanx. So you could use the Royal Guard in the second way. As a mobile elite force (fighting with spear and/or* sword) able to execute special operations, secure the flanks of the phalanx, and fight where phalanx couldn't (hills for example). Slso the Royal Guards should be able to be recruited only in the capital of each hellenistic nation.
*I would suggest an option that could allow the Royal Guard to fight with spears OR with swords (If this was possible)

RECRUITMENT

The Macedonian phalanx was drafted from the lower and the middle class of the Macedonian citizens.

The Hellenistic empires (Seleucid, Ptolemaic) needed Macedonians(they were considered the best fighting force of their age) and other Greeks in the army because the Hellenistic Kings were Greeks ruling countries with almost all the population being of different nationality (Egyptians, Asians etc.). They were in need for a loyal army consisted of troops of their nationality. But this was a big problem because the Greeks living in their Empires were too few. To solve the problem they started giving land to Greek soldiers in exchange of their military services. The land given to the Greek soldiers was named kleiros in the Ptolemaic Empire and katoikia in the Seleucid Empire. The soldiers were named kleirouxoi or katoikoi. The Greek soldiers were given military training and then they were given a piece of land. ( The piece of land differed in fertility analoga the soldier's rank and if he served in the infantry or the cavalry). In the early years of the hellenistic empires the phalanx was recruited from the Greek population. Macedonians made the 1/3 of the army(I think) while most of the soldiers were of Greek nationality(for example Aitoloi, Arkades, Akarnanes etc.). Later on foreign nationalities joined the phalanx by becoming katoikoi or kleirouxoi (Egyptians who were called 'Machimoi', Italians who left their countries because of Roman expansion, Asians and even Romans etc.)

-The 3 main Hellenistic Nations are never mentioned using hoplites(except of mercenary hoplites for example Gauls)
-The Agrianians were famous akontistai and not pelekiphoroi.. They followed Alexander in Asia and fought bravely but I don't think they are ever mentioned to be used by any hellenistic nation..
-The Greek light infantry like akontistai should be able to be draft in all the places the Greeks ruled.
-The Baktrian Army should fight like the rest of the hellenistic armies using phalanx etc.
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

Nikolas.. more things to come in the future..

Zarax

01-10-2008, 18:58

*sits and watches the flames coming*...

Spendios

01-10-2008, 19:07

Yeah, the successors used the phalanx, so what ? :inquisitive:

I of the Storm

01-10-2008, 19:10

*joins Zarax* (why don't we have a popcorn smiley?)

@Perseas: Interesting. I'm looking forward to the answers, though. Could you backup what you wrote with sources? Otherwise it's hard to have a discussion.

Perseas

01-10-2008, 19:16

The things I wrote are taken from greek magazines (i am greek) and books describing the hellenistic armies..

Zarax

01-10-2008, 19:19

Yeah, the successors used the phalanx, so what ? :inquisitive:

To sum up part of what's coming:

1) phalanx training and equipment was not as standardized as in alexandrian time, armies went bigger and treasuries smaller, meaning that hellenistic kingdoms would rely on something closer to the older hoplite system (aka citizens armed themselves) than a standardized army.
Most likely only elites had equipment given by the state while training differed between the population.

2) "royal guard" types differed wildly from kingdom to kingdom, as there were

- elite phalanxes (silver shields and equivalents)

- hypaspists, both hoplite-like and assault oriented

- iphicratean style elites

- heavy thorakitai

3) as already said, back up your statements with sources as there are more than a few professional historians in the EB team.

Perseas

01-10-2008, 19:39

1)As i said the phalanx of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies was made up of kleirouxoi soldiers who were given land (and also equipment and proper training in military camps) and that means that all of them had similar equipment and training. In all the battles of the Hellenistic Era (battle of Pydna, battle of Kynos Kefales, battle of Ipsus, battle of Magnesia etc.) none of the historians who wrote about them mentions different types of phalanx.. All the historians are talking about a single formation with the same equipment and same tactics. Also I don't think it was difficult for Seleucids and Ptolemies (they had a very rich economy) and not even for Macedonians to equip 20.000-30.000 phalangites with a leather armour, shield and sarissa..

2) You are right, royal guards differed from kingdom to kingdom but I talked about the 3 main hellenistic Kingdoms that had very similar types of units and fought using the same tactics..

3) I can't back up my statements because i have read many different things and I don't know if anyone knows the greek books and magazines i read.. the only thing I can say is that I am Greek and i have read a lot about the history of my country =)

Also i forgot to say that the mod is soooo good and i play it a lot.. thank you guys for making it.. I just gave some info and suggestions about hellenistic armies.. If you like any of this you can use it =)

Tellos Athenaios

01-10-2008, 19:39

I do hope that your sources deal with the units you see in-game. For instance there's quite a difference between Hyaspistai under Alex (who were kept at full strength for as far as possible, by drawing from the pezhetairoi soldiers during his campaign, IIRC) and the Hypaspistai under the Makedonians or the Seleukides some odd 50 years later.

As far as nomenclature goes: that (the name of the Pheraspides) is currently under debate again. But your remark related to the agema appears to be odd to say the least; and neither is the nomenclature so strictly devided by troop type.

Agema means, in military terminology of those days two things: one a formation;
Two: the collection of various prestiguous regiments/squadrons. Save for the fleet. Elephants, and various types of cavalry do belong to the agema; as do certain types of elite infantry.

Finally the word hypaspistai litterally means esquires: and a simple search retrieves various interesting little facts about that word. For starters this word frequently occurs in conjunction with 'basilikoi'. "Hypaspistai te kai basilikoi". Similarly: "hypaspistai basilikoi". Last but not least: hypaspistai is a full-blend synonym of doryphoroi yet at the same time it's about exactly the other piece of equipment... :book:

Perseas

01-10-2008, 19:56

'Agema means, in military terminology of those days two things: one a formation;
Two: the collection of various prestiguous regiments/squadrons'

You are right about this.
The royal guard of the Ptolemies was called Agema and consisted of 3.000 elite heavy infantry and 700 heavy elite cavalry.
As i said historians have the heavy infantry fighting in two different ways.. as phalangitai or as an elite mobile force ('peltastai').

The royal guard of Alexander the Great was made up of elite soldiers from the phalanx and so were the Royal Guards of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.. The hypasistai fought as an elite mobile force able to operate in special operations, to secure the flanks of the phalanx and to fight in places where phalanx couldn't.. 1.000 of the hypaspistai were called Agema (considered chosen elite infantry that was the bodyguard of Alexander and probably the agema of the Ptolemies took its name from it..
I also talked about the renaming of the hypaspists into Argyraspides etc. after taking the new equipment.. after the death of Alexander hypaspists are rarely mentioned from the historians and when they are mentioned they mean the royal guard (argyraspides or chalkaspides etc) rather than a special formation..

MiniMe

01-10-2008, 20:55

@Perseas:
1. what is it what you suggest?
2. are you familiar with EB representation of successor armies?

Perseas

01-10-2008, 21:19

I registered because i liked a lot the mod and i would like to share some information about the succesor armies and I suggest some changes in the hellenistic units of Macedonia, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.. If you like this information you can use it to change them(if possible) otherwise no problem =)

MiniMe

01-10-2008, 21:32

I shall adress some of your suggestions

Given this information I would suggest the following: we already have a unit that fights with the sarrisa, the phalanx. So you could use the Royal Guard in the second way. As a mobile elite force (fighting with spear and/or* sword) able to execute special operations, secure the flanks of the phalanx, and fight where phalanx couldn't (hills for example). Slso the Royal Guards should be able to be recruited only in the capital of each hellenistic nation.
*I would suggest an option that could allow the Royal Guard to fight with spears OR with swords (If this was possible)

EB Successors armies have such units. Thet are elite, armed with spear and sword and can be recruited in their capitals. Their name is... hypaspists.

The Greek light infantry like akontistai should be able to be draft in all the places the Greeks ruled.

in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled

The Baktrian Army should fight like the rest of the hellenistic armies using phalanx etc.

EB Baktria has phalanx

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.

The Agrianians were famous akontistai and not pelekiphoroi.. They followed Alexander in Asia and fought bravely but I don't think they are ever mentioned to be used by any hellenistic nation..

:wall: let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...

Perseas

01-10-2008, 22:18

'let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...'

The Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek history was the period between the DEATH of Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC. How can you talk about these things if you know nothing about them? Let someone else speak. Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation because the hellenistic era hadn't even started(!) during the rule of Alexander.

'You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.'

I talked about the Royal Guard not the Phalanx itself.. these are competely different units!.. Argyraspides are the Royal Guard not the Phalanx.. Sometimes they just used this formation..

'in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled'

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

Spendios

01-10-2008, 22:33

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

Do you really think seleucids would waste their greek settlers in crappy skirmishers units when they had plenty of locals to fill this role ?

anubis88

01-10-2008, 22:50

Although Alexander's army wasn't from the helenistic era, it was a hellenistic army.... The Diadochi armys were modeled after alexanders...

So Minime is right

MiniMe

01-10-2008, 22:59

Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation ...

Ouch. Me thought his dad solved this matter after he took Φώκαια seat for himself in Ἀμφικτίων around 346 BC. Stupid me. Let's go no further I know where it would take us

.. these are competely different units!... Sometimes they just used this formation..

Ah! this explains it all. Ok then

RomulusAugustusCaesar

01-10-2008, 23:25

Let us not forget that there is a difference between
HELLENIC ( of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc., esp. before the time of Alexander the Great.)
and
HELLENISTIC (of or pertaining to the Greeks or their language, culture, etc., after the time of Alexander the Great, when Greek characteristics were modified by foreign elements.)

(defintions from edictionary)

There was no Hellenistic State until after Megas Alexandros. Philippos II secured for Makedonia a place as a Hellenic State. The Diadochoi were Hellenistic, not Hellenic. But Philippos and Megas Alexandros were Hellenic, not Hellenistic.

Also, pertaining to the supposed contradictions here:

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)Perseas makes no contradiction. When he says "The phalanx was never equipped this way", he means in the Roman Manner, as is quite obvious from his post. He is not contradicting himself, but rather speaking of two different things.

MiniMe

01-11-2008, 00:04

HELLENIC
HELLENISTIC

overlooked that, my mistake :shame:

Perseas makes no contradiction.
He does, even though you don't see it

Tellos Athenaios

01-11-2008, 00:36

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode and next proceeds to claim that the phalanx was not equipped in some way some it of its members most definitely (by earlier remarks) were...

Yes, that's a typical text book excersise of point out, using a truth table, that the following statement is a contradiction. :yes:

-------

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not? ~;)

RomulusAugustusCaesar

01-11-2008, 01:24

I believe the contradiction is inadvertent. Remember, Perseas is Greek, so English is not his first language.

What I believe he is trying to say is that until 168 BC, no Hellenistic units used Roman style armour at all, and after said date, typically only Thorakitai and Seleukid Argyraspides. But the Pezhetairoi never did, so the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi is an inaccurate unit.

MiniMe

01-11-2008, 01:56

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not? ~;)
er.. may be :surrender:

Ok, bellydance for everyone just to celebrate my 20X20+2 post
:belly: :belly: :belly:

Tellos Athenaios

01-11-2008, 02:11

That's too easy a formula: I demand it being broken down into its unique set of prime factors. :wink: (Easy one as well)

402/2 -> 201
201/3 -> 67
67 is prime therefore: 2*3*67.

EDIT: If you now think gee, that's pretty easy to do: try my current post count: 3897.

antisocialmunky

01-11-2008, 03:58

Mouzafphaerre

01-11-2008, 05:13

.
It's 1812 now.

+1
.

paullus

01-11-2008, 05:58

Crap, how did all of this happen so quickly? Its really hard now to look back at things and figure out what to address, so the following reply will surely be haphazard.

The Phalanx and its internal homogeneity
Several points:
1 divisions within the phalanx are noted in Alexander's army, in which different sections of pezhetairoi were more or less prestigious; the existence of divisions are expressly noted in descriptions of both the Makedonian and Seleukid armies
2 our divisions are: pezhetairoi (representing either standing duty professional soldiers or, in Makedonia, private citizens), klerouchoi phalangitai (representing kleros-holding pseudo-citizens, called up for campaigns), and pantodapoi/machimoi phalangitai (primarily non-greek soldiers, also potentially living on (smaller) kleroi and called up for temporary service). do you really contend that any of these 3 contingents didn't exist?
3 while the Hellenistic monarchs did seem to supply shields to their soldiers, and probably made helmets, swords, and other equipment available for purchase, they neither distributed nor required purchase of a particular type of body armor, except for officers. We know that in Ptolemaic Egypt, which is better attested than the other kingdoms, individual soldiers regularly bequeathed their personal armor to their son (or heir). If anything, our phalangites are too homogenous and over-armored, which makes your contention all the more perplexing.

The Elite units of the various kingdoms
1 to claim that you know the exact units and their uses goes beyond what we can actually construct from the sources, many of which contradict with one another or show clear patterns of change over time
2 the Ptolemies, just for one example, featured the basilikon agema and the peltastai at Raphia, together only half the size of the 10k strong Seleukid argyraspidai, which likely included a contingent of hypaspistai about the size of the Ptolemaic peltastai (~2000), but each independently the size of the Makedonian elite peltastai. the Ptolemaioi also had thorakitai epilektoi, hypaspistai, citadel guards, and epilektoi katapeltastai, whatever that last one means.
3 within these units, we don't actually know exactly how they were utilized. there is evidence that some of them did operate as phalangites (Mak peltastai, Seleukid argyraspidai), some of them might have operated as phalangites (Ptolemaic peltastai), some could operate in assault roles (Mak peltastai, Seleukid hypaspistai), and some seem to be non-phalanx heavy infantry (Ptolemaic basilikon agema, 1/2 of post-Magnesia argyraspidai).

Agrianes
1 they are very well attested in Ptolemaic Egypt, where there seems to have been a settlement of them living in Alexandreia, serving as elite light infantry of some type, rather like the Kretai who also lived there
2 they and other paionian, illyrian, and skordiskan troops served in Makedonian armies in the 3rd and 2nd centuries
3 the particular outfitting used by our pelekuphoroi are based on both their descriptions in Alexander's campaigns (note that they are akontistai in a sense, and could be used primarily in an elite skirmishing role) and on archaeology from the dalmatian, paionian, skordiskan, and pannonian region

Successors and Hoplitai
1 Hoplitai may not appear explicitly in royal army lists, though even that point isn't actually clear, since we have very little clear information
2 Hoplitai do appear as mercenaries (though not Galatian mercenaries) and as contingents from client and allied states: for examples, see Sellasia, or the Anatolian wars during the time of the Raphia campaign, when hoplitai appear in the armies of places like Perge and Etenneus; this sort of appearance is consistent with our use of hoplitai, is it not?

Sorry if the responses are haphazard or unclear. Let me know what things I may have missed or on what points I was unclear. I'm glad you enjoy the mod.

Perseas

01-11-2008, 14:47

paullus

01-11-2008, 15:30

I know that Alexander's army is noted having different units within the phalanx but I am talking about the general structure of the hellenistic armies. Every King could make a new unit or give special honour to another. For example Antiochos Megas is mentioned having a Royal Formation called Chrisaspides(Gold Shields)... I use as information the ancient Greek/Roman historians and the (hellenistic) battles that they wrote about.. When describing the Greek armies they mention the phalanx as one single unit.. No differencies like 10k soldiers were poor or 10k soldiers were rich etc. and some soldiers were better armoured or less.. they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment.

The Chyrsaspides are an editor's edition, they never actually appeared in the text of Polybios. Bad example. Also, basing your information strictly on the Hellenistic historians isn't the best idea, they never go into great detail about what people were wearing (your contention that they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment holds no water whatsoever) unless its something in which they are personally invested (see the Achaian reforms in Polybios). At the same time, there's rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence, which can offer depth and correctives to the historical narratives. Also, the historians clearly note at least some differences in quality when, for example, the pantodapoi phalangitai at Raphia--5000 phalangites from various places, euzonoi "armed in the Macedonian manner"--they aren't just grouped in with the other phalangites.

As i said the only differencies in equipment was that probably the first lines of the phalanx used brass armour and the next lines used leather armour something which makes sense because the last lines were almost never in contact with the enemy (except if the lines were broken). You are right about the equipment sometimes not being homogenous. Some phalangitai for example may had greaves when others hadn't but I'm talking in general. The hellenistic armies used national armies.. Much like the armies of today.. It doesnt' matter if you are rich or poor you go to the army and you recieve the same training and weapons as the other soldiers (talking about the infantry).. The phalanx was equipped and trained much like this way.

How 'bout a source? Give me a source that says that rich or poor, a soldier received (note, did not pay for) his equipment (including body armor), but received it from the monarch. Its possible that the Ptolemies and Seleukids distributed shields for free at certain times, but it was the general expectation that the soldier secured his or her own equipment, even if it was often by purchasing it from the royal armorers. Perhaps there are legitimate counter-examples, but I can't think of any at the moment that hold up to close scrutiny.

I must also talk about the standing armies.. Ptolemaic and Seleucid heavy infantry was made up of kleirouchoi (and you are right, as i said before in the late hellenistic era many foreigners joined the phalanx (egyptians, asians etc.) becoming kleirouxoi of course but they didn't make a seperate unit. They were equiped and trained as the rest of the phalanx. In peace time most of the kleirouxoi were staying with their family in their lands. It seems that most of the soldiers who were in duty in peace time consisted of course of the Royal Guards and the Epigonoi (the conscripts who were recieving their training). If there was war all the kleirouxoi were called to fight. (it's obvious that the hellenistic Kingdoms couldn't and didn't need to mantain a standing army of 20.000-30.000 phalangitai for a number of years if there was no reason.)

Actually, there were non-Greeks in the phalanx much earlier than the late Hellenistic area (which, by the way, extends further than 146 BC--that sounds like a slightly nationalistic Greek date, since its the end of the Achaian rebellion), and they did in fact fight in separate units at times. They also were not equipped and trained as the rest of the phalanx: we know they wore lighter armor in most cases, and cheaper armor; after all, they lived on much smaller kleroi, and so could not afford the same quality arms and armor as guys living on kleroi 3 times larger than their own. If there's a point at which the Ptolemies had to start supplying equipment to their troops (even then they likely took it out of their paychecks) it was in the late Hellenistic period, when so many line soldiers had been granted hereditary ownership of their kleroi and then gambled them away or sold them or had them swindled from them, that only a few line soldiers could have actually afforded equipment.

The epigonoi were not the conscripts who were receiving their training. Where do you get that idea? And the Royal Guard was not the only active duty element of the army, which usually consisted of a small section of the phalanx, the royal contingents (say, a basilike ile, agema, and peltastai, and perhaps hypaspistai), the mercenaries, and perhaps some regular cavalry as well (like the Seleukid kataphraktoi). The true klerouchoi remained, not on their farms for the most part, but bumming around in the big cities, especially Alexandreia, with their farms rented out to Egyptians and low class non-Egyptians, until such time as they were called up for a stint of duty.

The elite units

2.Ancient historians call the Agema using the phalanx formation 'basilikon agema' and they call the Agema using spear and/or sword 'peltastai' (the agema consisted of about 3.000 infantry while the Argyraspides had a strength of 5k to 10k infantry). I talked before about the 2 different uses of the hellenistic Royal Guards.. The hellenistic armies may had many different elite units but I talked especially for the Kingdoms' Royal Guards (Argyraspides, Chalkaspides, Agema).

1. You have no idea what you're talking about with the basilikon agema and the peltastai. There is no basis in any text for what you're saying, so I suspect you're repeating something from a secondary source. There are many low quality secondary sources dealing with Hellenistic militaries.

2. Don't you see your difficulty in saying you're just talking about the Royal Guards? You ID those as the argyraspides (Sel), chalkaspides (Mak), and agema (Pto), but the Ptolemaic agema has nearby it the peltastai, a word used for the Seleukid argyraspides in several other sources, and for a unit sometimes identical to, but sometimes separate from, the chalkaspides of sources describing the Makedonians. The terminology is simply not as easy as you're trying to make it.

Agrianes

You are probably right about the first two points for the Agrianes.. but being used as pelekuphoroi is not historical accurate.. They are mentioned fighting as akontistai in Alexander's army and never mentioned fighting as pelekuphoroi.. ''note that they are akontistai in a sense, and could be used primarily in an elite skirmishing role'' There is no historical acount ever menitioning this. Agrianes were famous for they bravery and skills with 'akontia'.. not with 'pelekis'

:wall: tell me, does using an akontia preclude the use of the pelekus? hint: it doesn't. one is a longer range weapon, one is short range. Also, recall that the sources on Alexander's campaigns are even more problematic with their terminology and short-winded with their equipment descriptions than the Hellenistic sources. If only we had a Herodotean catalogue of nations, but we don't. As for the elite skirmishing role, go find yourself a mention of the Agrianes, where they aren't being used in some sort of dangerous or challenging skirmishing role: they weren't the fight along the front lines as a screen troops, they conducted flanking manuevers, attacked entrenched positions, and that sort of thing. I'd consider those sorts of roles "elite skirmishing" roles.

Successors and Hoplitai

The Successor Kingdoms did made use of hoplites but these hoplite units weren't made of the Kingdoms' citizens but they were mercenaries or soldiers from allied greek cities(the Ionian cities and the cities in Greece continued to use the hoplite formation instead of the phalanx but they abandoned it in the late 3rd century BC.

So this is like almost a direct quotation of what I'd said. Odd. You say it like you're arguing with me (all the use of "but"), but I can't figure out on what point you're arguing.

Galatians were an example of mercenary hoplites. Galatians invaded Asia Minor and settled near Angyra (the capital of today Turkey).. They are mentioned fighting(some 14.000 of them) as hoplite mercenaries of the Seleucids against the Romans in the battle of Magnesia..

Ok, that's just a naming error that comes from you reading modern Greek sources. The Galatians did not fight as hoplites (ie, in the hoplite phalanx), but I suppose some of your sources are using hoplites in a more modern Greek sense, similar to stratiotai (soldiers). The Galatians, to be clear, did not fight in a hoplite phalanx, nor did they fight using hoplite weapons.

And I'm going out of town later today. I can respond further, if needed, when I'm back in town, Sunday or Monday.

O'ETAIPOS

01-11-2008, 16:11

As i said the only differencies in equipment was that probably the first lines of the phalanx used brass armour and the next lines used leather armour something which makes sense because the last lines were almost never in contact with the enemy (except if the lines were broken). You are right about the equipment sometimes not being homogenous. Some phalangitai for example may had greaves when others hadn't but I'm talking in general. The hellenistic armies used national armies.. Much like the armies of today.. It doesnt' matter if you are rich or poor you go to the army and you recieve the same training and weapons as the other soldiers (talking about the infantry).. The phalanx was equipped and trained much like this way.

Only time king is mentionned equipping his troops is one, very vague mention in Diodorus 16.3 that deals with Philip II forming mak phalanx for the first time. In such circumstances it's quite probable weapons were from the king, as there was no way soldiers would know what they actualy need. Still this is not accepted by many scholars.

Royal stores of weapons are mentioned 2 times by Polybius once when Antigonos Doson gives 1000 shields to Megalopolitan refugees (they lost their city to spartans) and later in description of supposed Perseus's preparations for war (when number of stored weapons is given). Yet stored weapons may well be prepared for Guard or mercenaries (in latter it's most probably for merc)

Amphipolis code gives us a list of weapons of, most probably, the phalanx and those have fees attached. This would suggest soldier had to provide their own weapons, and not state delivery.

Generally, basing on the sources we have, we can't say if the king delivered any weapon so phalanx. And if he did, those probably were shield and sarissa, as greeks considered those to be important for whole formation while armour and helmet was considered soldier's own problem.

CirdanDharix

01-11-2008, 16:46

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode
Actually, the Hypaspistai/Argyraspidai of Alexander were the inspiration, but not the progenitors, of the Hellenistic units with the same names, since Antigonos Monophthalmos, realising that their cupidity made them more of a threat to their own commander than to the enemy, got rid of the original corps after it had betrayed Eumenos of Kardia to him. Thus, there isn't a contradiction to say that the Hypaspistai were renamed, and then mention them under that name. However, I must say much of Perseas' posts seem based on an over-simplistic representation of Hellenistic military organisation.

Perseas

01-11-2008, 16:53

''1)The Chyrsaspides are an editor's edition, they never actually appeared in the text of Polybios. Bad example. Also, basing your information strictly on the Hellenistic historians isn't the best idea, they never go into great detail about what people were wearing (your contention that they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment holds no water whatsoever) unless its something in which they are personally invested (see the Achaian reforms in Polybios). At the same time, 2)there's rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence, which can offer depth and correctives to the historical narratives. Also, the historians clearly note at least some differences in quality when, for example, the pantodapoi phalangitai at Raphia--5000 phalangites from various places, euzonoi "armed in the Macedonian manner"--they aren't just grouped in with the other phalangites.''

1)I guess you know NOTHING about the military parade of Dafnes where all the Seleucid formations were gathered from all the places of the Empire to celebrate a victory against the Ptolemies and this is the source where we take most of the information for the Seleucid Army(this is where Chrysaspides are being mentioned) :wall: Hellenistic historians are the main and the best source of the armies of this age.. if they didn't exist i'm sure you wouldn't be able to make this mod today :oops:
2)So how is it possible not to know the graves of Chalkaspides (that were found in a place in Macedonia) which was the Macedonian Royal Guard and you consider the Argyraspides the Macedonian Royal Guard?!
Also by saying this you are telling me that actually my modern sources (if i have any) are very accurate because they use the 'rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence'. In another paragraph you are saying that my sources are ''modern'' and of low quality.. So tell me if i use none of these sources WHAT SHOULD I USE???

'How 'bout a source? Give me a source that says that rich or poor, a soldier received (note, did not pay for) his equipment (including body armor), but received it from the monarch. Its possible that the Ptolemies and Seleukids distributed shields for free at certain times, but it was the general expectation that the soldier secured his or her own equipment, even if it was often by purchasing it from the royal armorers. Perhaps there are legitimate counter-examples, but I can't think of any at the moment that hold up to close scrutiny.'

Ok so the poor soldiers of the phalanx didn't have any armor and some didn't even had clothes.. that's what you are saying.. or a soldier that was living in Media had to search all the Seleucid Empire to find equipment and he didn't even know what to buy.. It's so SIMPLE.. If you chose to give your military services to the Kingdoms the Kingdoms were responsible to give you WHAT you needed to live (land) and what you needed to fight for them! you weren't a soldier in the greek cities fighting for your country.. You were a soldier of a distand place giving your military services to that country and recieving what you needed.. understood?

''Actually, there were non-Greeks in the phalanx much earlier than the late Hellenistic area (which, by the way, extends further than 146 BC--that sounds like a slightly nationalistic Greek date, since its the end of the Achaian rebellion), and they did in fact fight in separate units at times. They also were not equipped and trained as the rest of the phalanx: we know they wore lighter armor in most cases, and cheaper armor; after all, they lived on much smaller kleroi, and so could not afford the same quality arms and armor as guys living on kleroi 3 times larger than their own. If there's a point at which the Ptolemies had to start supplying equipment to their troops (even then they likely took it out of their paychecks) it was in the late Hellenistic period, when so many line soldiers had been granted hereditary ownership of their kleroi and then gambled them away or sold them or had them swindled from them, that only a few line soldiers could have actually afforded equipment.''

I'm sorry but what you are saying here is totally wrong!We have an example even of a Roman(!) officer of the Ptolemaic Army who was general of a garrison in Crete!.. Every kleirouxos took a small piece of land when he joined the phalanx but every kleirouxos had the chance to gain even huge pieces of land after years, when he took promotions etc. even if he was Egyptian or Asian or whatever! As for the equipment the Kingdoms were responsible to give it to the kleirouxoi.

''The epigonoi were not the conscripts who were receiving their training. Where do you get that idea? And the Royal Guard was not the only active duty element of the army, which usually consisted of a small section of the phalanx, the royal contingents (say, a basilike ile, agema, and peltastai, and perhaps hypaspistai), the mercenaries, and perhaps some regular cavalry as well (like the Seleukid kataphraktoi). The true klerouchoi remained, not on their farms for the most part, but bumming around in the big cities, especially Alexandreia, with their farms rented out to Egyptians and low class non-Egyptians, until such time as they were called up for a stint of duty.''

Epigonoi are called the heirs of the Diadochoi of Alexander the Great and the conscripts of the hellenistic armies.. I guess i know things better cause i am Greek! :yes:
Also: Royal Guard=>Agema=>Peltastai+basilike ile .. you are talking about the same thing. I said that MOST of the kleirouxoi were not in arms meaning that a small section of the phalanx was at arms! you are saying the same thing again.. Mercenaries didn't exist at peace time :wall: Why would you need mercenaries if there was not war???!!! Why pay a lot of money soldiers in peace time?? think what you say. Farms were never rented.. what are you saying??? kleirouxoi were soldiers in a distant Kingdom and their only house was the land given to them!! how could they rent their homes to the Egyptians??

I am also repeating that I am Greek talking about my country's history and probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.

''tell me, does using an akontia preclude the use of the pelekus? hint: it doesn't. one is a longer range weapon, one is short range. Also, recall that the sources on Alexander's campaigns are even more problematic with their terminology and short-winded with their equipment descriptions than the Hellenistic sources. If only we had a Herodotean catalogue of nations, but we don't. As for the elite skirmishing role, go find yourself a mention of the Agrianes, where they aren't being used in some sort of dangerous or challenging skirmishing role: they weren't the fight along the front lines as a screen troops, they conducted flanking manuevers, attacked entrenched positions, and that sort of thing. I'd consider those sorts of roles "elite skirmishing" roles.''

Then, using this information I can say that the phalanx was heavy infantry so it could have used plate armour instead of leather armour as the Agrianes were light infantry and could use ALL the equipment of the light infantry as you say.. Go read history :thumbsdown:

''Ok, that's just a naming error that comes from you reading modern Greek sources. The Galatians did not fight as hoplites (ie, in the hoplite phalanx), but I suppose some of your sources are using hoplites in a more modern Greek sense, similar to stratiotai (soldiers). The Galatians, to be clear, did not fight in a hoplite phalanx, nor did they fight using hoplite weapons.''

We all know (except of you) that when a tribe settled in a place, after years it could adapt the equipment and tactics of a nation that was close to it.. I never said that Galatians of France fought as hoplites I talked about the Galatians who settled near Angyra very close to the Seleucid Empire.

paullus

01-11-2008, 17:00

CirdanDharix, I think you've misunderstood what Tellos was saying. You're right that the hypaspistai/argyraspidai/agema units of the Successors are not actually the direct unit descendents of the hypaspistai turned argyraspidai of Alexander/Perdikkas etc, but I don't think Tellos was making that argument. His point was, I think, that the "royal guard" role formerly filled by the hypaspistai turned argyraspidai, was in the Seleukid realm filled by the argyraspidai (no direct relation to the earlier argyraspidai). So the confusion arose, I think, in his talking about the maintenance of a particular type of unit (the royal guard) and his words being easily misread as talking about a particular unit (the hypaspistai/argyraspidai). Whew.

EDIT: Hahaha, just saw Perseas' post. I'm done here, its no longer worth a response.

Geoffrey S

01-11-2008, 17:04

I guess you know NOTHING about the military parade of Dafnes where all the Seleucid military formations were gathered to celebrate a victory against the Ptolemies and this is the source where we take most of the information for the Seleucid Army :wall: Hellenistic historians are the main and the best source of the armies of this age.. if they didn't exist i'm sure you wouldn't be able to make this mod today :oops:
Which part of ceremonial parade don't you understand? It certainly is not representative of the entire Seleucid army, and certainly not throughout the entire timeframe represented within EB.

As for the rest of the post, it's been a while since I've seen such an angry tone with such a large amount of misrepresented quotes by others, with no source in sight. I'd be surprised if anyone deigns it worthy of any serious response. Congrats.

CirdanDharix

01-11-2008, 17:18

Admetos

01-11-2008, 17:19

probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.
:laugh4:
I really don't think so...

pezhetairoi

01-11-2008, 17:25

I have posted once about this on the basis of the parade of Daphne, which was commented on by Simon bar-Kochva rather prominently in his book on the Seleukid army, and based on the flavour of your posts so far I am suspecting that at least some of that information came from there. I would recommend that you read my post and my arguments based on Bar-Kochva's analysis of the Daphne parade, and the sole mention of Chrysaspides which incidentally comes from that, and the very concise and educated rebuttals of my arguments there, but unfortunately the thread seems to have passed beyond the archiving period and been erased.

If you would read just the first chapter of Bar-Kochva's Seleukid Army, you would realise that he deals a lot with the difficulties of nomenclature of the Greek/Hellenistic/Hellenic/Makedonian army units, and the thing that we are driving at here is that you are really oversimplifying things.

As to the Agrianes, perhaps I recommend you reconsider your definition of elite skirmishing roles. Flanking maneuvres make them flankers, certainly not mere skirmishers, and attacking entrenched positions most certainly makes them assault infantry, does it not? As I do believe the unit description of the Agrianikoi in EB10 clearly states.

One more thing, my pet topic, because you are just ASKING for it. 'I am also repeating that I am Greek and probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.'

Is this stupidity, or what? We also have other native Greeks here, some of whom DEFINITELY know more than you, and who actually had a hand in creating what you are playing right now. As people here have mentioned, some of the team are PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS. In case you don't really know what that means, it means they have QUALIFICATIONS and YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND STUDY. And unless you show your own credentials (and I seriously doubt you have any, being the impertinent immature upstart that you are showing yourself to be right now, and even if you did have any, I doubt they'd be respected now) I suggest you shut your trap and either adopt a more humble tone and listen to your betters, or not post.

When you were humbler and more academic we dealt with you likewise, and with patience. You don't seem to be echoing your initial posts now about how 'this is just a suggestion, if you dont adopt it, no problem.'

Does this look like you're not having a problem with it? Far from it. You're not suggesting, you're DICTATING to the EB team what they should do, and they who know so much more collectively than you, a single person. Just because you're a Greek doesn't mean you automatically know more than anyone else about Greece. I'm possibly the only active Singaporean poster on this forum, but this doesn't make me AUTOMATICALLY the authority on Singapore history. What arrogance you have to come here with unsubstantiated claims, and demanding you be heard and your 'suggestions' adopted just because you are Greek. A fig for your Greekness. If the ancient Greeks were like you, no wonder they lost.

If you want an example of how to behave on this forum when conducting a historical discussion, and be treated like a respected member of the forum however your views may be disagreed with, you junior member, go read The Persian Cataphract's posts.

How dare you accuse the EB team of lousy sources. You insult everything that the team and the players of its mod have lived for, and stand for. Historical accuracy is our watchword, and you would have us believe you know the better of it? Of all the offensive posters I have seen over the past four years, you are by far the most brazen.

EDIT: too slow, beaten to it by three posts. Woot.

EDIT2: make that four.

Perseas

01-11-2008, 17:35

Why do you accuse me? I wanted to share the information I know with the EB members!! I didn't came here to fight.. I wrote using an angry tone but it's very annoying when some members are acting offensivenly.. I was clear.. I gave the info do what you want with it.. I have no problem.. Just tried to make the game more historical accurate.. Never mind

pezhetairoi

01-11-2008, 17:48

Neither did I, Perseas. I didn't come here to fight either. But neither am I one to step away from one.

One thing you have to learn is that there is a very big difference between acrimonious but academic debate, and being just plain offensive. You were offensive. They were not. Step into any university lecture hall and you get that sort of argument demolition. Are you going to play the 'superior race' card to your professor when he asks you to substantiate your rebuttal of his points? He certainly has the sources. Do you?

If you don't, then you don't. If you don't even KNOW what sources you can use, then clearly your knowledge of history is nowhere near what you claimed in the first place.

You've shared your information. We've commented on it. You rebutted, essentially restating your points which were already rebutted. We patiently rebutted again and tried to explain from a different standpoint why we made the decisions we did in EB apparently contrary to what you wanted EB to have. We asked you to provide sources so we could see what your new sources of information were so that the EB team could mine it for information we could have used to improve the game. You replied essentially saying that our sources sucked, and that they had no right to ask you for better sources because you were Greek and it is automatically given that Greeks talking about Greek history had the best sources in the world.

In essence, you removed from yourself the only chance you had of convincing the EB team to consider and implement your suggestions, and then you turn around and accuse us of not listening to you and accepting what you say, and accusing us in turn of incompetence. If we really are that bad, why are you playing EB?

You've shared your information. But is that really ALL you wanted? Because if all you really wanted was to share your information, you would have accepted the rebuttals, and not acted like you had been personally offended just because we told you your sources weren't academic enough. You gave us the info, we did what we wanted to it. Fair enough. So why come back, rebutt further, continue the argument, and then INSULT us while doing it? Is this really sharing?

Listen to yourself, man. Read your own posts again. Compare what you've said to what you've actually done. Think. That's what your ancestors did best, after all. So think about it.

Perseas

01-11-2008, 17:58

It's simple man.. If you don't want then don't use this information! I have no problem at all!! All I did was trying to show that my statements were true.. When people are friendly i talk to them friendly when people are saying offensively that my sources are of low quality etc. I answer the same way.. Simple.. do whatever you want.. even delete this thread if you want that! =)

pezhetairoi

01-11-2008, 18:11

Goodness, you just can't handle the truth, can you? You're a feisty one.

It's a fact that secondary sources are always treated with suspicion. Secondary sources are sometimes suspect because their conveyance of information is not as pristine as primary sources'. To call call ancient history secondary sources 'low-quality' is hardly out of line. You chose to take that personally. We never said 'your sources are low quality.' All he said was 'There are many low-quality secondary sources out there. Did you check whether yours was one of those?' You were the one who came out and directly accused us of using low quality sources.

If you want to think your sources suck, so be it. For the record: no one said so. You did. I'd like to see you try your tack in a university lecture hall, and see what happened to you after that.

Alright, I couldn't be bothered with the likes of you any longer. You don't have to bother replying, because I certainly won't waste any more time on you.

Tellos Athenaios

01-11-2008, 19:28

I shall give you two very simple examples of why nomenclature needs be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to the so-called discriptive names:

Hastati. Literraly this means 'Spearmen' and not just speamen: the Hasta is the equivalent of the Doru; the heavy spear meant for the hard & gory work.
But: do the Hastati actually have a hasta? Well the greatest common divisor of their different styles of equipment (what with everything basically being 'get it yourself' save for some horses) does not include such a weapon, IIRC.

Similarly the Pelte is actually a very small shield; much smaller than what the Peltastai of EB's timeframe would've used. Yet they are most definitely called peltastai.

The reason is that names do stick around for no good purpose other than the fact the unit bears some resemblance. Even if it is merely symbolic.

Lastly, you would benefit from actually reading what other people write: Paullus wrote the Chrysaspides (gold-shields -which, actually should immediately make you doubt the credibility of this name, it sounds too much like a well known cath, a figure of speech; one of which you should be aware at all times with the ancient & hellenistic era Greek historians: they tend to write literature first, history second) were the result of an over-enthusiastic editor getting his hands on Polybios' work. Needless to say that to quote the one source they are mentioned -not suprisingly the edited works of Polybios- is not going to help making your point. And I won't even touch the instances in which you apparently read things that just aren't there...

Perseas

01-11-2008, 20:15

pezhetairoi please tell me what are the sources you are using..

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-11-2008, 20:40

pezhetairoi please tell me what are the sources you are using..

No, tell us your sources. If you come to EB and challenge the team you need to begin by showing us exactly where your information is coming from. We will then provide our sources.

Since you issued the challenge you need to go first, it's simple academic courtesy.

Megalos

01-11-2008, 20:49

pezhetairoi please tell me what are the sources you are using..

Listen mate, you can't demand sources when you have given none yourself, when asked in a polite manner may I add! How about you pull your finger out of your arse and start flicking through these great Greek magazines you keep talking about, and start providing some of your own sources?

As for your comments on the "Galatian tribe" adopting the tactics and manner of warfare of the people around them, doesn't that also hold true for the Greeks living around the Galatian's adopting their style of warfare? I would even say that it was more likely that the Greeks adopted the Galation style than the other way around, considering the Gallic/Celtic/Galatian emphasis on hero worship/warfare.

And come to mention it, doesn't that apply to all the peoples living around the greeks and the greeks living around all the other peoples?...Kind of leaves your black and white view of them only fighting in one form in tatters does it not?

Perseas

01-11-2008, 21:25

O'ETAIPOS

01-11-2008, 21:46

When I've seen your first post Perseas, I thought that you really have quite a lot of knowledge. Then while reading it I spotted some quite easily identifiable statements and I thought you are a person who read those books that are comonnly available and maybe a few more. Sb like me, about 3 years ago when I started my research for thesis (about Makedonian phalanx). I remeber how my supervisor had been gently smiling when I presented claims just like you do - as obvious truth - and then he asked me about authors and books I had no idea they existed. Then He asked me to go beyond what was commonly available. When I started reading proper historical and archaeological journals and books I discovered, that there are no obvious answers when it comes to ancient times. I learned that information you find in popular books are just the theories of those scholars, who can promote their research most aggresively. Behind the scenes there is so many theories and so many arguments that even if you read this stuff extensively you will not get clean picture.
Sources we have are extremely limited and often contradictory. Everything needs interpretation, and that is different for everybody who tries to do that. I learned that there are no provable statements, like in phisics or math, and because of this I tend to use "probably", "possibly" "maybe" extensively, instead "it was", "for sure" etc.

Besides, throwing claims like "you know NOTHING about" etc are going to insult people. Especially if you target them on somebody who perfectly well know what is he saying, like Paullus who is proffesional archaeologist.

Now I'll stop moralising and try to give you some answers:

''
1)The Chyrsaspides are an editor's edition, they never actually appeared in the text of Polybios. Bad example. Also, basing your information strictly on the Hellenistic historians isn't the best idea, they never go into great detail about what people were wearing (your contention that they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment holds no water whatsoever) unless its something in which they are personally invested (see the Achaian reforms in Polybios). At the same time, 2)there's rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence, which can offer depth and correctives to the historical narratives. Also, the historians clearly note at least some differences in quality when, for example, the pantodapoi phalangitai at Raphia--5000 phalangites from various places, euzonoi "armed in the Macedonian manner"--they aren't just grouped in with the other phalangites.''

1)I guess you know NOTHING about the military parade of Dafnes where all the Seleucid formations were gathered from all the places of the Empire to celebrate a victory against the Ptolemies and this is the source where we take most of the information for the Seleucid Army(this is where Chrysaspides are being mentioned) :wall: Hellenistic historians are the main and the best source of the armies of this age.. if they didn't exist i'm sure you wouldn't be able to make this mod today :oops:

1. We do not know for sure why Dafne Parade (Polyb 25,3-31) had been organised. It is stated that it was either to celebrate victory, or to review the forces before planned eastern expedition, or to copy roman triumph in gigantic scale. This last theory has further implications also, but it's not so important.

2.Chrysaspides are not mentioned. It's a shame I do not have my copy of Bar-Kochwa available to provide more in depth look. I'll have to use Sekunda's Monvert book, not very reliable generally.
The text states:
"After these came 20000 Macedonians then 5000 Chalkaspidai {text broken} other Argyraspidai"
Chrysaspidai were added by editor (person who publishes manuscript) because there is a statement in Bible (1st Machabean Book 6.39) that in battle at Beith Zacharia "sun reflected in the shields of bronze and gold" of Seleucid troops. Problem is that those biblical pasages are highly rethorical and can't be taken as proper source. There is no other mention of Chrysaspidai regiment in seleucid army.

3. Paullus states historical sources are not the sufficient info for a reason. Imagine somebody is trying to reconstruct structure of german panzer division having only a chapter from school historical book and few photos. Generally those sources we have are no better than school book when it comes to unit organisation. They mention Phalanx was sent here or there but do not tell us what phalanx, just like school book informs about tanks, but you will not know if those were PzI, PzIII or Tigers.

2)So how is it possible not to know the graves of Chalkaspides (that were found in a place in Macedonia) which was the Macedonian Royal Guard and you consider the Argyraspides the Macedonian Royal Guard?!

Graves? If you could give more info I'd be very happy. There were so many new graves found in macedonia in recent years and they are so poorly published...
As far as other go:There is one stella that is atributed to guard because soldier has very small shield (it's supposedly from area of city Idomenai), but size of the shield of the guard is not certain and stella is very bad quality
There is also monument from Thessalian city of Gonnoi granting proxeny to one macedonian, Alexander son of Admetos who had been identified with guy bearing the same name who was commander of Chalkaspidai in Sellasia battle (222 BC)

Also by saying this you are telling me that actually my modern sources (if i have any) are very accurate because they use the 'rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence'. In another paragraph you are saying that my sources are ''modern'' and of low quality.. So tell me if i use none of these sources WHAT SHOULD I USE???

Paullus is not talking about modern sources. He means evidence from the period recorded in other sources than narrative (historians). Those include inscriptions (epigraphical), written on papirus (mainly dealing with Ptolemaioi), and archaeological - finds of original pieces of weapons. About those you could read in all different scholar periodicals and books.

'How 'bout a source? Give me a source that says that rich or poor, a soldier received (note, did not pay for) his equipment (including body armor), but received it from the monarch. Its possible that the Ptolemies and Seleukids distributed shields for free at certain times, but it was the general expectation that the soldier secured his or her own equipment, even if it was often by purchasing it from the royal armorers. Perhaps there are legitimate counter-examples, but I can't think of any at the moment that hold up to close scrutiny.'

Ok so the poor soldiers of the phalanx didn't have any armor and some didn't even had clothes.. that's what you are saying.. or a soldier that was living in Media had to search all the Seleucid Empire to find equipment and he didn't even know what to buy.. It's so SIMPLE.. If you chose to give your military services to the Kingdoms the Kingdoms were responsible to give you WHAT you needed to live (land) and what you needed to fight for them! you weren't a soldier in the greek cities fighting for your country.. You were a soldier of a distand place giving your military services to that country and recieving what you needed.. understood?

If something seems too simple you'd rather check if you hadn't forgot about something. Most of those men had OBLIGATION to serve. Others were mercenaries and were paid to serve. Besides different pieces of equipement were normal for some types of troops and so everybody knew what to buy.

In Egypt soldiers (kleruchoi) knew exactly in which unit, and even in which line in battle formation they stood at the very moment when they were given kleros.

Besides Paullus ask you for sources for the claims. Logic is not considered a source without support of period information.

''Actually, there were non-Greeks in the phalanx much earlier than the late Hellenistic area (which, by the way, extends further than 146 BC--that sounds like a slightly nationalistic Greek date, since its the end of the Achaian rebellion), and they did in fact fight in separate units at times. They also were not equipped and trained as the rest of the phalanx: we know they wore lighter armor in most cases, and cheaper armor; after all, they lived on much smaller kleroi, and so could not afford the same quality arms and armor as guys living on kleroi 3 times larger than their own. If there's a point at which the Ptolemies had to start supplying equipment to their troops (even then they likely took it out of their paychecks) it was in the late Hellenistic period, when so many line soldiers had been granted hereditary ownership of their kleroi and then gambled them away or sold them or had them swindled from them, that only a few line soldiers could have actually afforded equipment.''

I'm sorry but what you are saying here is totally wrong!We have an example even of a Roman(!) officer of the Ptolemaic Army who was general of a garrison in Crete!.. Every kleirouxos took a small piece of land when he joined the phalanx but every kleirouxos had the chance to gain even huge pieces of land after years, when he took promotions etc. even if he was Egyptian or Asian or whatever! As for the equipment the Kingdoms were responsible to give it to the kleirouxoi.

Please, Perseas. Paullus is specialist it Ptolemaic army. If he says something you can be sure he is not making stuff up, but has proofs for what he says. First of all not all kleruchoi were serving in the phalanx. Most of them were mercenaries first and the theory was that they should keep their style of fighting - so there were different horsemen, foot glatians, thracians etc.

What is that Roman to prove? He probably had something to offer to the kingdom so was given high rank. Maybe he was training royal soldiers in roman sword fighting?

''The epigonoi were not the conscripts who were receiving their training. Where do you get that idea? And the Royal Guard was not the only active duty element of the army, which usually consisted of a small section of the phalanx, the royal contingents (say, a basilike ile, agema, and peltastai, and perhaps hypaspistai), the mercenaries, and perhaps some regular cavalry as well (like the Seleukid kataphraktoi). The true klerouchoi remained, not on their farms for the most part, but bumming around in the big cities, especially Alexandreia, with their farms rented out to Egyptians and low class non-Egyptians, until such time as they were called up for a stint of duty.''

Epigonoi are called the heirs of the Diadochoi of Alexander the Great and the conscripts of the hellenistic armies.. I guess i know things better cause i am Greek! :yes:

Epigonoi mean heirs of Diadochoi, yes.
They also mean military unit - one special unit (10000 strong if my memory serves right) that was formed during Alexander's reign from sons of eastern (mainly Persian and Median) settlers placed in new cities Alex built. They learned greek, macedonian way of fighting and given macedonian weapons.

Mercenaries didn't exist at peace time :wall: Why would you need mercenaries if there was not war???!!! Why pay a lot of money soldiers in peace time??

Mercenaries were at service ESPECIALLY in the times of peace. They were true standing armies of hellenistic states, and as such were generally used as garnisson troops. There was no way to use bulk of levy to do this job, and guard was not suited for this task (it was quick reaction force, although some were placed in garnissons, most of them were close to capital) In war mercenaries rarely were sent far from places were they served, as this would make those places vulunerable to both attack and even more so to rebelion. Especially as they were not needed as levy/kleruchoi were called to service.

Do you think there were no chances for rebelion during peace time? Or no need for police duties? Or hunting bandits? Or simply holding strategic fortress?

think what you say. Farms were never rented.. what are you saying??? kleirouxoi were soldiers in a distant Kingdom and their only house was the land given to them!! how could they rent their homes to the Egyptians??

How can you state kleroi were not rented? Logic again?
They may be rented for example because they were not farmers? Or living in big city was more interesting for people grown up in cities? Especially as many of them were soldiers before they became kleruchoi and could not survive without some "entertainment" available only in cites?

I am also repeating that I am Greek talking about my country's history and probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.

Will not comment. I'd have to become impolite.

''tell me, does using an akontia preclude the use of the pelekus? hint: it doesn't. one is a longer range weapon, one is short range. Also, recall that the sources on Alexander's campaigns are even more problematic with their terminology and short-winded with their equipment descriptions than the Hellenistic sources. If only we had a Herodotean catalogue of nations, but we don't. As for the elite skirmishing role, go find yourself a mention of the Agrianes, where they aren't being used in some sort of dangerous or challenging skirmishing role: they weren't the fight along the front lines as a screen troops, they conducted flanking manuevers, attacked entrenched positions, and that sort of thing. I'd consider those sorts of roles "elite skirmishing" roles.''

Then, using this information I can say that the phalanx was heavy infantry so it could have used plate armour instead of leather armour as the Agrianes were light infantry and could use ALL the equipment of the light infantry as you say.. Go read history :thumbsdown:

Agriranians were comando inf of Alexander. Not expendable crap you place in front of your phalanx to absorb enemy missles. They climbed mountains, supported Hypaspistai in heaviest fighting. Do you think they hadn't any proper secondary arm? Or some form of protection? Only javelins?

''Ok, that's just a naming error that comes from you reading modern Greek sources. The Galatians did not fight as hoplites (ie, in the hoplite phalanx), but I suppose some of your sources are using hoplites in a more modern Greek sense, similar to stratiotai (soldiers). The Galatians, to be clear, did not fight in a hoplite phalanx, nor did they fight using hoplite weapons.''

We all know (except of you) that when a tribe settled in a place, after years it could adapt the equipment and tactics of a nation that was close to it.. I never said that Galatians of France fought as hoplites I talked about the Galatians who settled near Angyra very close to the Seleucid Empire.

Greeks were adapting to galatian style of fighting generally - this is the source of Thureophoroi. Every hellenistic king wanted galatian mercenaries/allies to fight as GALATIANS. That mean superb swordsmen and spearmen. Not as outdated hoplites (style of fighting loosing popularity even in greece). Obviously this do not mean that all of them were keeping traditions, but as it was profitable, most were.

Perseas I hope you will not become discouraged because of the response here. I hope you will try to find information to prove us wrong and learn a lot on the way.

Edit: Seeing your sources I can say - dig deeper, you only scrached the surface. We are using the same sources as authors of the articles you read. I, for example, know personaly Nick Sekunda, who was my lecturer.

MeinPanzer

01-12-2008, 12:31

Epigonoi mean heirs of Diadochoi, yes.
They also mean military unit - one special unit (10000 strong if my memory serves right) that was formed during Alexander's reign from sons of eastern (mainly Persian and Median) settlers placed in new cities Alex built. They learned greek, macedonian way of fighting and given macedonian weapons.

Also, keep in mind that in Egypt "tes epigones" was not a military title. Those "tes epigones" seem to have been non-Egyptians claiming a non-Egyptian origin but not being a member of the administration or the klerouchoi, so that they could operate independently.

Zarax

01-12-2008, 13:09

*notices nicknames joining the conversation, puts on asbestos suite*

It's just too bad that the few really good books about the topic are either almost impossible to find or bloody expensive.
Bar-Kochwa costs $90 and that's something not everybody can afford for leisure...

Back on topic: I really wish that it was possible to set the nationalities aside from the conversation, as it really just adds fuel to pointless flames.
I'm Sardinian but I don't claim to be an authority on nuragic civilization (though my uncle certainly knows better, being one of those who excavated Nora), even reading books about it doesn't entitle you to speak with absolute certainity.

@Perseas: you should remember that it's always better to look at studies made internationally as using greek-only sources might not be the best to keep your mind open.
I'm not discounting the quality of your sources but only reminding you that local writers might have interests pointing not only at historical facts but also might want to portray certain events in a propagandistic way because of politics/local prestige or even to sell better if they live off their publications.

Not a bad thing in itself mind you but it can be misleading.

keravnos

01-12-2008, 13:30

Perseas, just STOP it.

I am Greek myself and freely admit I know less than both O'ETAIPOS and Paullus. They are both historians one on his way to a PhD, the other has it already.

Being Greek means nothing. Absolutely zilch, nada. If anything, it means we need to work harder to prove ourselves, as let's face it, there is no way we can compare favorably to what our ancestors did in the Hellenistic age. We are raised with many half truths (the ancestors spoke our language EXACTLY AS WE DO TODAY), and many outright lies.

I too read the "PANZER" publication. It is a good source generally but noone is infallible. Specialised press is well and good, but sometimes they can make mistakes.

I am perticularly bugged this... again,

Epigonoi are called the heirs of the Diadochoi of Alexander the Great and the conscripts of the hellenistic armies.. I guess i know things better cause i am Greek!

Had it not been for O'Connoly, Hammond, Tarn, Secunda, and so many others who are deffinitely NOT Greek but if anything "Greekier than us greeks", all we would have about our ancestors would be Romani propaganda and broken statues. Had it not been for some French Archaeologists who digged up Ai Khanoum, all we would have of Baktria was its coins. Had it not been for a German former banker who excavated Mycenai, people would think that Homer was just dreaming things.

Please, no more "I am greek so I know". Your words speak louder than the fact that you come from ΕΛΛΑΔΑ.

Σου γράφω τα τελευταία στα Ελληνικά, για να καταλάβεις οτι όντως είμαι Έλληνας σαν κι εσένα. Το ότι διαβάζεις όπως κι εγώ τις επιγραφές στα αρχαία μνημεία που είναι γραμμένα στην γλώσσα μας δεν μπορεί να συγκριθεί με κάποιους που έχουν φάει τα μάτια τους χρόνια για να πάρουν τίτλο καθηγητή πανεπιστημίου. Τόσο απλά.

Perseas

01-12-2008, 14:08

keravnos

01-12-2008, 14:14

What I said there was about the etymology of the word 'epigonoi'.. I said I know things better cause I am Greek meaning that I know better the etymology of this word because I am talking this language..

In this aspect, fine. However the whole tone you have in your post is a bit condescending. I think it isn't proper to adress people in this way, much less people who know much more than me, you and many more combined.

Anyways, enough with this. I sincerely hope you enjoy EB and by all means post all you want to discuss.

Thaatu

01-12-2008, 15:18

This is actually pretty entertaining.

:couch:

I like how even a mud-throwing fest doesn't go to waste.

Ludens

01-12-2008, 18:11

I would recommend that you read my post and my arguments based on Bar-Kochva's analysis of the Daphne parade, and the sole mention of Chrysaspides which incidentally comes from that, and the very concise and educated rebuttals of my arguments there, but unfortunately the thread seems to have passed beyond the archiving period and been erased.
Nope, still here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88183). We once used to delete old threads, but that was a long time ago (in fact, long before I was a patron, let alone a staff member :beam: ).

Mouzafphaerre

01-12-2008, 22:16

.
One good way of not losing a thread is subscribing to it. (Thread Tools > Subscribe to this Thread) ~:) I've got plenty such subscriptions, organised into folders, notification turned off. Unfortunately subscription doesn't work with locked threads.
.

antiochus epiphanes

01-13-2008, 01:12

3) I can't back up my statements because i have read many different things and I don't know if anyone knows the greek books and magazines i read.. the only thing I can say is that I am Greek and i have read a lot about the history of my country =)

I am also repeating that I am Greek talking about my country's history and probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.

wow, i must say this is the first time i have ever read a post, and became dumber by it. seriously, i am less intelegent now cause i read that. i hope you are happy with yourself.... someone please close this thread.

Urnamma

01-13-2008, 05:07

I was actually going to go against my better judgment and post, but I see that O'ETAIPOS pretty much has it under control.

antisocialmunky

01-13-2008, 05:55

wow, i must say this is the first time i have ever read a post, and became dumber by it. seriously, i am less intelegent now cause i read that. i hope you are happy with yourself.... someone please close this thread.

Yes, lets close this thread before more people jump in to insult the misguided OP without offering any real resolution to the matter. :sweatdrop:

glouch

01-13-2008, 07:14

wow perseas, i guess you're an etymologist.

just because you're greek doesn't mean you automatically know how the words in your language came about. heck, i'm filipino and i don't know where the word "tanga" was derived from.

and pezhetairoi is right in pointing out that what you really wanted wasn't sharing info... i'll add that i think what you really wanted was some kind of recognition of your "superior" knowledge of ancient history because you thought you knew more about the hellenistic period than anybody in the EB team... because of what? oh, maybe because you're greek and you've read some greek magazines(i'd also want to add that usually what you learn in schools is that you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER use magazines as your primary source even if the authors are very reputable because these authors may have shortened or edited or rephrased their work for this kind of medium because magazines are read by the public in general[meaning the target readers are assumed to be not experts, but hobbyists, amateurs... w/c means that they aren't used to reading very long, detailed manuscripts designed to convince an actual, higher authority of the field of the validity of what he/she is saying], and as such should be relatively easy to understand, without too much details). c'mon. even natgeo or time magazine isn't supposed to be a valid source for any academic claims whatsoever. despite being told that these people are professionals(and not just that... i think more than that, even... is that they have dedicated their lives to studying this part of history), you never really wanted to accept that you've been proven wrong because of this unfounded arrogance that you have. they've responded politely, and the fact that you were offended by a perfectly polite rebuttal is revealing of what you really want to achieve. you're asking why you're being accused of being offensive? read what you've posted and at the bottome of the 1st page of the thread and maybe it'd jog your memory.

again just to repeat what others have said before this post... show academic sources OTHER than magazines to the EB team members pls. if you don't have any, then stop posting.

Mouzafphaerre

01-13-2008, 11:48

.
Why beating a dead horse? :shrug:

:dancinglock: here please!
.

keravnos

01-13-2008, 16:14

Ok then.. I used mostly information from the Greek military magazine 'Panzer' which is published by the publications 'PERISKOPIO'.. ''The Publications PERISKOPIO are one of the greatest and oldest publishing houses in Greece and the leader of adoption of magazines to the wider scientific, archaeological, historical and defence fields. Having a continuous presence since 1977, expanding at a brisk pace their activities into new periodical publications and in the book, while penetrate international markets, with special English-language versions of some magazines and books in cooperation with major publishers abroad.'' (taken from the site)..
People writing in these magazines/books are professional historians some of the best in Greece. The historic information they used writing the articles about the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Armies are taken from books of Polivy, Diodorus the Sicilian, Sekunda N., Rostovtzeff M., Walbank F.W., Cambridge Ancient History, Bar-KOchva Bez., and more.. If you need more info let me know =)

First off I must state that Greece is very lucky to have such an array of historical magazines, especially those that focus on military history.
STRATIOTIKI ISTORIA, ISTORIKES SELIDES, POLEMOS KAI ISTORIA among others are some of the best. They are great for getting people acquainted with the history of the time and the big context of the area and people. But, however much attention they pay to detail, they do face the difficulties glouch has written before me. It would be unfair to paint them in a dark light because of that.

Using them as a source is good, but a peer reviewed publication is much better I think.

Mr Frost

01-13-2008, 18:12

.
Why beating a dead horse? :shrug:

.
"That horse isn't dead , it's resting !"

Megas Methuselah

01-13-2008, 21:25

The mule is, too.
:beam:

pezhetairoi

01-13-2008, 23:05

What mule?

o.O

The Charge of the Mule Brigade
http://www.civilwarpoetry.org/union/battles/mules.html

Mouzafphaerre

01-14-2008, 00:58

.

What mule?
eMule :clown:
.

pezhetairoi

01-15-2008, 03:21

Amazing, this thread has died a natural death without people needing to lock it.

We do seem to become a more self-regulating community... o.O

olly

01-15-2008, 10:09

I've got to say that was an amazingly informative and entertaining thread. In defence of perseas we've all been young and a bit silly.

Tancredii

01-16-2008, 16:24

Just a quick point - it is possible to review books published by Cambridge University Press (Bar-Kochev The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns - for example) online via their website. So if you are:

1) too lazy to go to the library or;
2) too cheap to pay £60 - £100 for some of the Hellenistic works

you can have a trawl there

Cheers!!

pezhetairoi

01-16-2008, 23:08

Reviewing doesn't mean you can....read the whole book, does it? *raised eyebrow*

Tancredii

01-17-2008, 10:12

They are not mental no............ actually they are. Large excerpts. But enough to give plenty of information. If you think of the average Osprey book (I know don't hit me) you'll get far more content.

EDIT - Very odd but can't seem to review this morning. Will try to remember how I did it and post.

pezhetairoi

01-17-2008, 11:02

Please do.

Osprey books aren't that bad, really. It's just that their price isn't commensurate to what they are worth in terms of content and depth.

In Singapore, I bought my complete Herodotos for a third of the price of a -single- Osprey book. Go figure.

Strategos Alexandros

01-17-2008, 17:16

How much are they in Singapore? They're between £8 and £12 in England.

Tancredii

01-19-2008, 01:03

Well have drawn a blank. I swear I was on their site teh other night and could preview the book. Maps were displayed on the bottom of the window. Sorry will now have to commit ritual suicide (or pop down the road and buy a copy......... hmm let me hink).

Anyway if it helps currently reading AB Bosworth - THe Legacy of Alexander.

chairman

01-19-2008, 07:02

Wow! In the USA, Osprey's have only cost about $10-$11 (until in the last few months they raised the price to ~$15. Eh...no biggie). 12 Pounds sounds aweful steep. However, I do think that at least in America, Osprey books tend to be worth their price. I mean, they are written by experts in their fields, include beautiful and informative color plates, and list reasons for why they portray something a certain way and where weapons, clothing and armor in the plates come from. They are not Bar Kochva, but neither is his "The Seleucids" currently the most up-to-date or filled with illustrations. For Bar Kochva, you pay $100 for the best analysis out there. For Osprey, you pay for a much smaller, more conveniant book with illustrations to help show what they're talking about as well as books on many subjects. So for me (I happen to own 54 Osprey books:book: ), the price seems reasonable. Obviously though, I don't expect them to be the last-word-on-the-subject book, but I'm not paying for that. I've slowly built up my collection over the last 6 or so years and plan on buying more. Also, Osprey is always coming out with new books, and sometimes they take suggestions on what readers would like to see next.

Just my two mites.

Chairman

russia almighty

01-19-2008, 07:05

Osprey's can get pricey even over here. I see them at borders for like 15-16 bucks . Though there awesome books.

abou

01-19-2008, 07:43

Osprey's can get pricey even over here. I see them at borders for like 15-16 bucks . Though there awesome books.No. Bad russia almighty.:whip:

russia almighty

01-19-2008, 08:16

why the **** does the white man have to whip the black man ?

antiochus epiphanes

01-19-2008, 23:38

No. Bad russia almighty.:whip:
well we cant help it the historynazis keep all the good books in Universitys!:book: so we settle with second best:beam:

russia almighty

01-20-2008, 00:13

Or you **** around for 30 years and not publish the material period (looking at some of EB's uni insiders and the damn cycles. )

pezhetairoi

01-20-2008, 02:23

Hah, the damn cycles. XD

In Singapore an Osprey costs the equivalent of between 10 and 12 sterling pounds. That would not be the problem if not for the fact that the Wordsworth editions of Herodotus and Flavius Josephus cost the equivalent of 4 pounds, a random Goldsworthy book costs the same as the Osprey, and a typical DK glossy-page high-graphics book containing all the Roman Emperors costs about 17 pounds. It's ridiculous.

Strategos Alexandros

01-20-2008, 11:13

:dizzy2:

Gaius Valerius

01-20-2008, 13:15

pezhetairoi

01-20-2008, 14:59

Fair point made there, I think.

I never really understood the annales school. What is their standpoint? I mean, Ranke is all about history as it was, right? The facts, ascertained, and only then filled in with educated conjecture. What does Braudel's approach consist of? I have his Mediterranean in the time of Philip II and all I seem to be gleaning from it is that he deals with very macro influences and units, like the Mediterranean as a whole, rather than in terms of its political entities...

Watchman

01-20-2008, 15:34

At least the version of Mediterranean I'm familiar with was spread over two (very thick) books, the latter of which was the one that dealt more with the political side of things (IIRC one of his central points is specifically that the political actors themselves weren't really all that important in the grand scheme of things, though). Other than that, if I personally had to sum up Braudel's basic gist therein it'd be "it's the structures, stupid". That is, the prevailing conditions and circumstances etc. that made the actors turn out and develop as they now did - I found the discussion on the sheer ecological differences between the Mediterranean region and "northern" Europe (and the due related divergences) very enlightening, for example.

Gaius Valerius

01-20-2008, 15:54

Ranke and his collegues were what we call 'historicism' (though i can translate it wrong from dutch). the facts and only the facts. well thats what he said. but what did he mean with, whats a fact? only that which was written... hmmm... sounds logical right? something becomes a fact when its written down, when its documented.

the logic stops there. first of all: who wrote what? not the man in the street right. written documents came from the higher echelons in society, so the picture is always tainted. historicism also tended (and many ppl blamed them fore it and saw them as paving the way for our 20th century dictators, which is kinda an exageration but still) to idolise the 'gifted individuals'. übermenschen as Freud would call them (dont mistake them with what the nazis did with his term). we are talking about 'the' great persons in history: emperor Frederick II, Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Napoleon,... they were more than man. in the believe of historicism these men 'made' history.

A second feature of history in those days was 'positivism', the believe history was an exact science, like maths, that there were laws that couldn't be escaped. its what you call deterministic (foudned by August Comte).

after World War I when history showed us what such great leaders (Wilhelm, Joseph, etc) could do, a 'cultureschock' happened in history. what had happened? did europe just offer a whole generation of youngsters (and their potential) in a senseless slaughter???? how? history could not explain, determinism failed. Ranke praised war, as it was needed to bring back balance when it was undone. war was not wrong, it was inherent with society. but this attitude towards war as 'no big deal' ended in the cataclysm of WW I?

from that day, historicism and positivism failed, history could not be an exact science. in the interbellum a series of scholars founded the Annales school: Braudel, Febvre and Bloch, the 3 most famous Annales members.

their viewpoint was original: look at history from the late medieval period to the 18th century. what had changed? from "The Autumn of the Middle Ages" (Huizinga), over the Renaissance, to maniërism, to baroque, to realism to rococo. we see art evolve, palaces became bigger and with ever more grandeur. armies grew, uniforms became more colorful etc etc etc.

but what with the man in the street??? what with the ordinary farmer? when historians started looking beyond just the upper layer of society - which are the ones writing history - we see that the farmer in burgundy of the 15th century wasn't that better of than his cousin 2 centuries later in bourbon france.

so what was the value of the 'documents' of Ranke? history taught us nothing about the 'people', no, history told us the fabulous tales of great leaders, painters, inventors, generals, architects, etc...

Braudel is famous for his 3-stepengine. his famous book the mediteranean during the time of Philip II, is written in this style. so we're talking about the 16th century, undoubtly - in POLITICAL terms - the age of teh house habsburg, of Philips II. the 1st step is describing the geography. 2nd we go and study conjecture. as you said macrohistory. the famous ""Longue durée"" of Braudel. sociological, economical waves. and 3rd, we finish with the least important: the political events: war, peace, war, etc...

basically this is true. war isn't a factor changing history. it is my opinion (for opinions on this can differ) that war is a major factor in history with the power to change things. HOWEVER, war in itself is never a factor of change, but merely a tool IN FUNCTION OF CHANGE. real change is found in the longue durée. Napoleon's wars didn't change the world, not his stunning victories in the field. no, rather the ideals of the French revolution he spread across europe did, his victories enabled him to do so of course.
in the same way of thinking the French revolution (1789) isn't something caused by individuals. there wasn't a person that said: "jolly good, i feel pretty demagogique today, lets start a riot". the FR was a massmovement, the cause of several longterm factors (like the foodcrisis in 1787-88) in combination with a changing ideological climate (enligthenment) that created the conditions. HOWEVER, the dominant attitude amongst many historians these days is to minimise the roll of individuals (whereas ppl like Ranke, Comte, Michelet, Carlyle, Macauley,...) to a level that i personally believe is unjust. the tendency among historians is to say that 'well, napoleon wasn't that special, if he wasn't there another would have risen to the top'. i doubt that. some persons are talented, and put in the right position (or wrong... *Adolf...*) at the right (or wrong *Germany...*) place/time (*the 30-ties...*) can steer history in a certain direction. the conditions under which they do so however, they cannot create. Napoleon and Hitler steered history BUT only cause history gave them that chance. 1789 paved the way for Napoleon, 1918 and 1929 for Hitler.

historicism wasn't all bad. its incomplete on its own to understand history of course, but - and thats actually funny to read - they are strictly neutral. the way they approached history as an exact science, they believed it to be totally objective, and in a way, their works lack any moral connotation. which is funny. for example: (a nice Ranke-quotation) when he described how Frederick the Great attacked Silesia during the Austrian war of succession (1740-1748) he notes: 'happily, it is not the task of the historian to judge over the credibility of the kings claims'... a modern historian will reply: then what is my task???? but that kinda sums up the mindframe of historicism: dont judge, just tell.

for more literature check out the works of P. Geyl (he's dutch and perhaps not everything has translations though) 'From Ranke to Toynbee: five lectures on historians and historiographical problems' (1952) 'Geschiedenis als medespeler' (1958) for more recent works about it i only have dutch literature so that not of much use. search in the better scientific bookshop for works concerning 'historical criticism'. anybody that claims to tell something about history: READ THAT FIRST BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING RASH :whip:

CirdanDharix

01-20-2008, 15:55

their is mix-up between hellenic/hellenistic and military matters. hellenic refers to the greek period, the ppl of hellas. hellenistic refers to the time after Alexander, from the diadochi onwards, AND is in NO way a MILITARY matter. hellenism is cultural: the (further - since the greeks alrdy had many eastern influences in math, philosophy, etc) fusion of eastern and greek culture. thats what hellenism is about. it has absolutely nothing to do with military matters.

in history military issues are of less importance. military evolutions are never the main engine of (r)evolution, mainly a means, not a cause. of course opinions differ wether you like the 'historicism' of Ranke or the 'annales-school' of Braudel. historical changes are based upon long-term evolutions. improving an army doesn't hail a new era. so Alexander's army wasn't hellinistic since the term applies to the period from the diadochi and onwards and refers to a cultural dimension, not military.

Don't underestimate the influence of the military on society. Whoever controls the military controls the government, and this means that reforms that modify the class-composition of the army can have far-reaching effects. An example within the Hellenistic fram would be Philopator's reforms of the Ptolemaic military, attributing a κλερος to many of the μαχιμοι in order to increase the number of soldiers fighting in the phalanx. The consequence was the creation of a new class of warriors who would play a significant role in the Ptolemaic troubles of the 2nd century BCE. The μαχιμοι were not themselves the main cause of troubles: their new status was very privileged when compared to that of other native Egyptians, and most of them remained loyal to the government during the Egyptian revolts. However, they also remained very much inferior to the descendants of the original Greek(-ish) settlers, and this lead them to clamour for greater privileges, as they were now an essential component of the military.

Watchman

01-20-2008, 16:17

Any organised society requires some vehicle of reasonably organised violence - both for dealing with internal disturbances (usually reads as "massacring rebels and disputing power distribution" for the most of history) and dealing with other organised societies and their means of mass violence. Not big surprise there, mutual protection is one of the main reasons animals band together in the first place and anywhere at least two beings associate for any lenght of time you get the potential of some form of power struggle.

However, this is really just part of the basic "kit" of human societies - albeit often one of fairly central importance, as the continued rule of any regime ultimately rests on access to enough force should it become necessary. (One of the hallmarks of the modern sovereign state is a monopoly on the means of legitimate violence.) Moreover it is a facet whose character and, ultimately, capacities are largely dictated by circumstances - the steppes produced a very different scheme of internal control and waging war than, say, the great river plains and valleys, the northern forest regions, the mountains anywhere or the African savannah.

Which is IMO where Braudel for example gets it right; he views the actors, their choices and their capabilities in the context of their circumstances, rather than as somehow independent and isolated of them.

Gaius Valerius

01-20-2008, 17:08

@CirdanDharix

Don't underestimate the influence of the military on society. Whoever controls the military controls the government, and this means that reforms that modify the class-composition of the army can have far-reaching effects. An example within the Hellenistic fram would be Philopator's reforms of the Ptolemaic military, attributing a κλερος to many of the μαχιμοι in order to increase the number of soldiers fighting in the phalanx. The consequence was the creation of a new class of warriors who would play a significant role in the Ptolemaic troubles of the 2nd century BCE. The μαχιμοι were not themselves the main cause of troubles: their new status was very privileged when compared to that of other native Egyptians, and most of them remained loyal to the government during the Egyptian revolts. However, they also remained very much inferior to the descendants of the original Greek(-ish) settlers, and this lead them to clamour for greater privileges, as they were now an essential component of the military.

i will certainly not contradict you on that one, for i didn't intend to minimise the role of 'the' military as such (certainly in the classic period, when warfare was endemic). as an institution (for i believe in the school of 'Institutionalism') it has a profound effect on society. however, when i refer to military i as secondary to history (as a means to an end), i ment military successes, actions. indeed, a military reform can have a profound influence on the succes in battle and thus direct an empire in another direction. for example Philip's reforms gave Alexander the full chance of using his talents, achieving the impossible. was it not for that what would 'hellenism' have been?? the socio-political impact of the institution 'the military' i dont deny. i do hold military achievements as secondary.

the marian reforms would change the course of history, for they changed the roman empire which lasted till 476 AD, and thats a pretty long time. it had a profound impact on military capability. BUT what do you hold more important?
the impact on military succes? or the consequences for society (creation of a growing proletarian military depended on their generals, rather than the senate)? if you were to say the military successes made the empire grow and created the basis to last till 476 AD, do you then hold that more important than the growing socio-political consequences it had in the long run (dislocation of ppl through slavery, destroying the old roots of roman society)?

when caesar won the batte at pharsalus he was destined to lose (looking at the odds) he changed history. has he lost he would have met his end and history would be different. HOWEVER, it in no way would have affected the end of the republic that was bound to happen anyway. caesar was at that time the most capable of utilising the circumstances history had created, but even without him history would have run its cause.

hope i made my point clear :beam:

@ Watchman

basically same as for CirdanDharix, i dont deny the importance of the institution named 'the military', nor any institution concerned with the 'legitimate violence'. for modern states that IS VITAL, no way i'll contradict you on that. but its far from the most important part. modern statehistory is focused to much on 'legitimate and financial (taxes) monopoly'. some forget the third monopoly: 'juridicial monopoly'. what is more importance? acceptance of a set of rules by free will, or by enforcement. so institutions never stand on their own, and i dont want to minimise the roll of either.

you make the comparison with animals and struggle for power. i dont see this contradicting what i said. struggle for power is a key aspect of human society, the use of military is just a means. the reasons are socio-political (enhanced mostly by economic factors). again, how the military as an institution is build can have an important impact, but that is - for me - not an aspect of solely the military, but the structure of a state. how an army is used i see not as part of the state-structure, but as a tool employed by it.

Watchman

01-20-2008, 17:23

Seems to me like we're in agreement actually, since my point was mainly that "military" (as in, institutions of mass violence and/or coercive force) is simply one institution in one form or another integral to any society - and that it's forms and character are decided by the specific conditions of those societies and their surroundings.

And personally I subscribe to the paradigm that I've heard summed up as "the iron plough had a far greater impact on European history than any Napoleon," if you know what I mean. :book:

CirdanDharix

01-20-2008, 17:33

Same as Watchman. I wasn't arguing for the role of the individual (which shouldn't be over-stated, although it shouldn't be over-minimised either), merely stating that the military is one of the more important aspects of society, and that any changes to it will have a wider impact.

Gaius Valerius

01-20-2008, 17:56

good that we agree, Watchman plz explain that paradigm for me, i never heard of anything like that. you refering to agriculture? i'm studying economic history right now and i'm thinking about the agricultural revolution :laugh4:

Watchman

01-20-2008, 18:17

Not really, just the "it's the economy stupid" reading of history. Macro-level stuff like ecology, climate, geography and derived human endeavours - which form the "primary production" basis on which human societies survive - as important factors in events and developements.

Sort of like how the saying about military history goes - "amateurs talk weapons and tactics, pros talk logistics." :beam:

...and Dog only knows I've seen enough bunk contrafactual scenarios based, largely, on ignoring such issues in diverse fora... :shame:

Gaius Valerius

01-21-2008, 00:09

oh yes, i can follow on that one. its kinda like Braudel says: first geography, then conjectures (economy, etc) and then politicis. the 1st shapes the 2nd, the 2nd shapes the 3rd (though i accept that the 3rd can influence the 2nd - history from above - though again conditions therefore are created from below (the 2nd). the lovely thing about history is looking beyond what happened on the surface. the underlying currents... sweet

pezhetairoi

01-21-2008, 01:03

So it's sort of like stuff I used to do in high school, when we studied history and 'underlying causes' using broad movements and environments to account for the creation of 'nodal points' of history (my own term) around which the events of the time swirled. Then we would use factual analysis and historicism to approach these characters and events. It seems like we managed to marry Annales and Ranke, using each for what they're good at. Hmm.

It does make sense though, they seem to me to be complementing each other. I don't feel that the environment/geography/cultures etc had EVERYTHING to do with the way things turned out, it still takes the individual's own directions to decide things. Definitely, I don't agree with Ranke's determinism, because as pointed out, there are some things in history that can only be expressed as 'WTF?'

But Rankean historicism can be joined with Annales macrohistory to provide a more holistic picture than either alone could, is my view, based on my understanding and what you have all said here. Your views?

Gaius Valerius

01-21-2008, 15:48

As i see it - as i tried to explain above - Historicism and Annales are both not enough to explain history on their own. Historicism lacked the big picture and focused to much solely on what was 'written' and the actions of strong figures. while the Annales take a 180° turn, in my opinion they diminish the 'conscious' actions of individuals to much. so together they are perfect to me. Marxism as a paradigm is also very interesting to study historic events. but to me most individual paradigms aren't complete so i mostly like to take from both :yes:

though they never thought me Braudel in High School.