Immitation Legionaires

So..... What will happen to the immitation legionaires in EB II? Will things stay as they are in EB I, or did you find some new evidence of certain units in certain areas? I know it's a touchy subject, with some authors claiming the Ptolemaics and Seleucids completly changed their armies, to some who think that these new units we find were actualy thureophoroi and Thorakitai...

Also, i remember reading somewhere the Numidians used them to, though i've just read teh Jugurthine war of Sallustius and he doesn't mention them (or any decent infantry at all for that matter:sweatdrop:)

And what about the Pontic Thorakitai? Will all remain the same? I think that this is the subject we have most details on, since we know for a fact Sertorius send his advisors to Mithridates... Will there be a reform for them or sth?

Of course i know you can't tell much... but a bit would be good to:book:

Well, we're not there yet, but safe to say that the "some authors" is really just one author: Nick Sekunda. Sometimes I agree with him, other times not. In this case, as do many other historians and reviewers of his books, I think he is overstepping and drawing big sweeping conclusions with too little evidence. Bear in mind that the Successors were using chain mail and ovoid shields long before they came across the Romans. Furthermore, there is no evidence for the adoption of the pilum and the spear was still the primary weapon. At most, I think it can be said that the Successors might have adopted some forms of Roman deployment and organization on the battlefield - although with their own twist - for their thureophoroi and thorakitai. It is true, however, to note that the great phalanx disappeared from the Ptolemaic army sometime after Panion, which may have been due to the big losses there. The Seleukids are noted as using a phalanx in the Jewish revolts, but it could be argued that phalanx was a general term meaning any organization of men.. Even then, if you're willing to accept the complete disappearance of the phalanx, we still see a Hellenistic fighting style.

Of Numidia and Pontos, I have to do some more readings, but I think that was pretty cut and dry and that they were done in imitation of the Romans. But I've forgotten so much about them that I can't say for sure. I'd have to do some research on them to say for certain what we'll intend on doing.

Excuse my statement... When i said authors i had only Sekunda in mind, but I thought at least someone should agree with him. The terminology of a phalanx is really a dodgy one with ancient authors, which is a real shame...

Thanks for your answer... I had no idea that the Ptolemaic "phalanx" dissapered after Panion. So during Caesar's stay in Egypt, in his battle he didn't fight a phalanx of Ptolemy? One learns something new every day.

Again thanks for your answer; can't wait to see what the conclusion will be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Of Numidia and Pontos, I have to do some more readings, but I think that was pretty cut and dry and that they were done in imitation of the Romans. But I've forgotten so much about them that I can't say for sure. I'd have to do some research on them to say for certain what we'll intend on doing.

---

In both cases the rulers obtained Roman instructors to train their new army. However, I have always been somewhat sceptical about the Numidian imitation legionaries. This event took place shortly after the second Punic war, and at this point the Roman legion was still a citizen force rather than a professional army. Numidia did not possess an equivalent class of citizens, so who did they train? And would the Numidian horse-aristocracy accept the formation of a powerful infantry force that would upset the social balance of power? I also don't see how a Roman-style heavy infantry force would fit into the Numidian way of warmaking.

I know very little of Numidia, though, so this is nothing but speculation on my part.