Question about Hetairoi

From wikipedia:

"The Companion cavalry of the Diadochoi (Alexandrian successor-states), were all more heavily equipped. Seleucid Companions were noted to have worn lighter, but not otherwise dissimilar, equipment to the cataphracts at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, which may have included partial horse armour and leg and arm protection. Ptolemaic Companions were also equipped with a large round aspis cavalry shield unlike the Companions of Phillip and Alexander. ‘Companions’ was a title not used by the Seleucids in its original sense. It was replaced with different and various grades of ‘Kings Friends'. However, the title of Companions was kept as a regimental title. There was only one regiment or unit that held the title of Companions in the entire Hellenistic world though; the Antigonids and Ptolemies had different names for their elite cavalry regiments."

Are any of these claims backed up by EB research? Should Ptolemaioi Hetairoi carry shields? Should the cavalry type have different names in different states? What did the Antigonids and Ptolemids call these units, if there is any truth to the claim in the last sentence?

Well IIRC the shield had proved a major headache (it would apparently cause all sorts of distortions when animated) and had been discarded because of that. But that's going by memory of a post briefly referring to the issue when the new Hetairoir for EB2 first came to be concepted.

EDIT: Also in EB their armour pretty much matches up to the discription given by Wikipedia -- heavily equipped, almost cataphract style. Finally it's somewhat of a headache to get a 'correct' unit name: we have only one unit for 3 factions who all more or less did the same with it, yet in a distinctly different way.

It was called the basilike ile in the Ptolemaic and Antigonid armies, and I'd be interested to see what evidence some wikipedia poster thinks he has for saying Ptolemaic palace cavalry carried a shield. In actuality, you could make an argument that, starting in the late 3rd-early 2nd century, Makedonian and Seleukid palace cavalry took up the shield. There's no such evidence for the Ptolemaioi, to apply the shield "reform" to the Ptolemaic palace cavalry requires a bit of questionable (but not hardly laughable or unreasonable) thinking: If A and B did X, then C did X as well.

Nice example for why wikipedia is not really the most reliable source, even when it sounds smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

It was called the basilike ile in the Ptolemaic and Antigonid armies, and I'd be interested to see what evidence some wikipedia poster thinks he has for saying Ptolemaic palace cavalry carried a shield. In actuality, you could make an argument that, starting in the late 3rd-early 2nd century, Makedonian and Seleukid palace cavalry took up the shield. There's no such evidence for the Ptolemaioi, to apply the shield "reform" to the Ptolemaic palace cavalry requires a bit of questionable (but not hardly laughable or unreasonable) thinking: If A and B did X, then C did X as well.

Nice example for why wikipedia is not really the most reliable source, even when it sounds smart.

---

This was one of the big debates we had way back when... I still think that Royal cavalry squadrons in all the major Hellenistic armies would have carried shields. I don't think I need post the entirety of my argument from that ancient thread, and I have since found more evidence to support my argument, but basically my reasoning is that after the later 3rd c. BC, the standard equipment for the Hellenistic heavy cavalryman included a large, round shield. This can be seen across all kingdoms at this time: numerous sources from Macedonia, Asia Minor, Levant, and, yes, Egypt show this. Since we have so little actual evidence for how the companion cavalry of the Antigonids, Seleucids, and Ptolemies were actually equipped, my reasoning is that it is safest to follow the general evidence.

As for the evidence for a Ptolemaic heavy cavalry "shield reform," there's a perfectly-preserved figurine of Bes armed as a heavy cavalryman carrying a large aspis, and there's also another cup from Begram (which would require some explanation to link to the Ptolemies) showing scenes of Hellenistic combat with several heavy cavalrymen carrying shields. Again, these are just depictions of unidentified heavy cavalrymen, but I think that the general trend is towards heavy cavalrymen being armed with shields.

In Nick Sekunda's book on the reformed Seleucid army is a reconstruction of Seleucid "companion" cavalryman, with shield ;)

It's mainly based on the balustrade reliefs of the Temple of Athena Polias Nikephoros in Pergamon.

And yes, i known sekunda has controversial ideas ;)

Notice how there are three distinct general units for the very similar bodyguards of Makedonia, Seleukeia, and Ptolemaia

There are 3 distinctly different generals by virtue of the General counting as a sort of super-officer in RTW's books. BUT, there are no 3 distinct different units in EB for that.

gamegeek2: Well, what has that to do with the bodyguards, if I may ask?

Maion

MP, I would have figured the shield would have been adopted sometime after Antiochos III, at least that is my impression since Livy describes them as similar to the cataphracts at Magnesia. About the closest image I've seen to a Seleukid hetairos would be the cavalryman on the back of a few of Seleukos II's coins said to represent Seleukos himself (the diadem is the give away). No shield, but on one of them appears to be those nifty segmented boots we see on a few statuettes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

MP, I would have figured the shield would have been adopted sometime after Antiochos III, at least that is my impression since Livy describes them as similar to the cataphracts at Magnesia.

---

It could have been under Antiochus III, but I don't see any reason why it would have - it could just as easily have emerged before him. All Livy's description tells us about the riders themselves is that they were quite heavily armoured; whether that includes shields or not is impossible to tell.

Quote:

---

About the closest image I've seen to a Seleukid hetairos would be the cavalryman on the back of a few of Seleukos II's coins said to represent Seleukos himself (the diadem is the give away). No shield, but on one of them appears to be those nifty segmented boots we see on a few statuettes.

---

I don't think I'm familiar with this coin. The only coin of Seleucus II that I'm familiar with that shows anything close to a cavalryman are issues with a horse standing above a shield emblazoned with the Seleucid anchor (which, again, could be taken as indicating that royal cavalrymen carried shields). Could you post a picture of it? I also don't really understand what you mean by segmented boots. You mean like laminated armour covering only part of the leg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

It could have been under Antiochus III, but I don't see any reason why it would have - it could just as easily have emerged before him. All Livy's description tells us about the riders themselves is that they were quite heavily armoured; whether that includes shields or not is impossible to tell.

---

It's unfortunate that so little survived for us to know exactly.

Quote:

---

I don't think I'm familiar with this coin. The only coin of Seleucus II that I'm familiar with that shows anything close to a cavalryman are issues with a horse standing above a shield emblazoned with the Seleucid anchor (which, again, could be taken as indicating that royal cavalrymen carried shields). Could you post a picture of it? I also don't really understand what you mean by segmented boots. You mean like laminated armour covering only part of the leg?

---

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...ucID=8&Lot=543

There are a series of marks on the foot and lower leg of the cavalryman that are just too regular to ignore. I can't imagine it would be from die wear or damage of some other form. It seems to me to match up with two figurines that were printed in Sekunda's book on the Seleukids with sort of laminated/segmented footwear (albeit maybe 100 years apart). I wish I could tell you the pages, but a lot of that stuff was left at home when I moved. To be honest though, there is another coin that lacks that feature, but I suppose it could be something as simple as a missed detail. :shrug:

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...ot=543&Match=1

You would have to let me know what you think.

Quote:

---

There are a series of marks on the foot and lower leg of the cavalryman that are just too regular to ignore. I can't imagine it would be from die wear or damage of some other form.

To be honest though, there is another coin that lacks that feature, but I suppose it could be something as simple as a missed detail. :shrug:

---

The thing is, that's just one coin. One of the great things about numismatic evidence is that you almost always have other examples to compare against, and in this case I think that would have to be done to check that this isn't just an anomaly. As you've said, the second example they show there, though more effaced, doesn't seem to show any kind of rough texture on the lower leg. Also, look at the horse's left rear leg on the coin under discussion - it seems to have a similar wavy texture, albeit less pronounced. I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility, but I think a bit of numismatic research would be in order before reaching a conclusion.

Quote:

---

It seems to me to match up with two figurines that were printed in Sekunda's book on the Seleukids with sort of laminated/segmented footwear (albeit maybe 100 years apart). I wish I could tell you the pages, but a lot of that stuff was left at home when I moved.

---

Figures 32-34, though only one of the two (Fig. 32-33) has any sort of detail on the boots. They are really neat, though, and that figurine is an amazing and sadly neglected source.

Edit: And here are three more, none of which show any sort of texture on the lower leg:
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=231&Lot=1306
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=125&Lot=1017
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=101&Lot=1488

Ah, that's too bad. I was excited about possibly using them somewhere, but now that I've seen those other coins I don't think that we will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

And yes, i known sekunda has controversial ideas ;)

---

that's an understatement I'm afraid...


@abou: I suspect that those bandings you saw are actually depictions of the guys boots-they're in the right area, and the right lent to be that. It could be just me though. that would explain the conflicting coins though.my :2cents:
I know I'm too late...

EDIT: definitly so-the coins MP has supplied also exhibit them (they are very very faint though), and again the same pattern. you can see 'em with a maginfying glass or something.

Why do you think the Bes figurines are heavy cavalry? By far the most common Bes type for the 2nd century BC is a cuirassed thureophoros, or thorakites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Why do you think the Bes figurines are heavy cavalry? By far the most common Bes type for the 2nd century BC is a cuirassed thureophoros, or thorakites.

---

Because this Bes figurine (the only one of its kind that I've seen) is of Bes wearing a muscled cuirass and carrying an aspis a sword while riding a horse.

Do you know where its from? Is it recent? Most of the good recent finds have been from Memphis-Saqqara as far as I've seen, but it could just as easily be a chance find from 100 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Do you know where its from? Is it recent? Most of the good recent finds have been from Memphis-Saqqara as far as I've seen, but it could just as easily be a chance find from 100 years ago.

---

The source I got if from lists it as provenance unknown, unfortunately. The book I found it in (Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt by Laszlo Török) is primarily composed of objects in Hungarian collections, so it being the result of an older discovery seems pretty certain.