[Army Composition] What does a late Hellenistic army look like?

Earlier Hellenistic armies, when there were vast kingdoms with massive wealth and manpower to draw upon we know about. Those sorts of things are widely available, or you can guess at them yourselves.

What about the later armies when the Diadochi had passed their zenith? What would a Seleucid army after 188BC be like? Or a Ptolemaic army in 85BC?

I'm guessing something like "less pikes, more mobile spearmen", was that the case?

It looks like a bunch of guys surrounded and being stabbed to death by Romans.

In all seriousness, I would like to know as well.

I'd guess a mixture of Thureophoroi and available mercenaries, with a limited native phalanx...
A Seleucid army after Apameia most likely was a bunch of temple raiders XD

I figure they would have adopted much of teh 'Barbaroi ways' of fighting, after repeatedly hammered by the various barbaroi of europa- Keltoi, Skythioi and Romans... to name a few.

More mobile infantry, 'barbaroi' mercenaries and the use of the thueros over the more traditional aspis? I'd like to know more too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

I figure they would have adopted much of teh 'Barbaroi ways' of fighting, after repeatedly hammered by the various barbaroi of europa- Keltoi, Skythioi and Romans... to name a few.

More mobile infantry, 'barbaroi' mercenaries and the use of the thueros over the more traditional aspis? I'd like to know more too.

---

Yeah, celtic "barbarians" way of fighting is largely adopted by hellenistic troops

Does anyone have example armies from this time?

For example the order of battle for the Battle of Antioch?

I've no idea how accurate or what sources they are based on, but I've found some army lists for the wargame De Bellis Multitudinis (never heard of it before now) which are relevant. Of particular interest to this topic are two of them, 163 BC - 135 BC Maccabean Jewish and 161 BC - 64 BC Late Seleucid.

here you go, the army composition of the seleucid empire under Anchiotus III

if those aren't the dates you're looking for then just read wikipedia

Check out EB:NOM previews for examples!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Check out EB:NOM previews for examples!

---

Is that something upcoming? Just had a quick look at the thread here and on TWC and couldn't see anything new.

There really is very sparse information. For the Seleukids, the best you get is the Daphne procession of Antiochos IV. There is some stuff in the Macc. books and elsewhere that I can't remember off the top of my head (Josephus?), but it's nothing solid and open to debate.

The Ptolemaic army seems to have ditched the Makedonian phalanx post-Panion and focused heavily on thorakitai/thureophoroi. How they were deployed is open to debate as well. They seem to have adopted some of the Roman conventions, but while still using the Makedonian base-16 unit size. Whether that means the triplex acies or whatever would be up to you. Sekunda seems to think so, but I think he's inferring too heavily from too little information -- at least that's what I thought the last time I read him.

a slightly off-topic question: when is the date that the hellenstic kingdoms start to 'barbarianize' their armies? The galatian invasion?

What do you mean exactly? Are you talking about the adoption of the thureos or something more general?

well more general actually...didn't the galatian invasion forced the hellenes to fight 'in the manner of the barbaroi'?

I've got to be honest: I don't follow what you're saying. Can you provide some example?

I think he means that when did the Hellenistic states ditch the phalanx and started to use thorakitai/thureophoroi.

not only that, but the adoptation of celtic and/or roman tactics...

I guess, Barbarians were less prone to fight the way the Greeks were used to: to meet somewhere in the field, arrange your troops, and clash the rows :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

not only that, but the adoptation of celtic and/or roman tactics...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vollorix

I guess, Barbarians were less prone to fight the way the Greeks were used to: to meet somewhere in the field, arrange your troops, and clash the rows :)

---

There is truth in both statements but they oversimplify this development. Like the Romans, the Greeks appreciated the quality of Celtic equipment and adopted it quickly. The thureos made possible a new kind of warrior, more mobile and versatile than the old hoplite. The EB team thinks this is a parallel development, rather than an imitation of the Roman legionary. However, the thureophoroi didn't replace the Macedonian pike phalanx like it had replaced the Roman (and Greek?) hoplite phalanx. Hellenistic states that could afford it still used pike phalanxes for major campaigns. Only when Rome demonstrated the superiority of (their version of) this new concept by smashing the Hellenistic empires, did the thureophoroi really replace the phalanx. Of course, a contributing factor may have been that the Hellenistic states couldn't afford those large pike-regiments anymore.

So yes, the Greeks adopted Celtic equipment; and the more flexible style of warfare that it allowed. However, they didn't give up on their old phalanx until the Romans defeated and ruined them.

Novus Ordo Mundi represents this stage in Hellenistic army development - there's only two surviving phalanx units, the Pontic Chalkaspides and the Ptolemaic Agema Klerouchon; the others are gone, replaced with a large number of thureos-bearing troops: Euzonoi, Thureophoroi, their armored counterparts, Spathaphoroi, and even some imitation legionaries. The Hellenic states also have access to Kataphraktoi, should they take back Syria and Mesopotamia from Armenian hands.

In comparison with Rome, their infantry will still be less cost-effective, but they will have access to effective lancers at lower cost (late Roman armies will be able to field native Contarii and Catafractarii, but at higher prices than the Hellenes or Eastern factions).

I think we're using the different definitions of "tactics" here. When I use the word, it's in the context of the battle plan or how you use your forces. Say, for example, modern artillery. One side may have artillery and use it directly against an enemy force. Another side may then adopt artillery and use it indirectly to bomb infrastructure supplying the enemy; it may be as a means to deny access to an area; or it may even be to direct the enemy force into a kill-zone. Similar type of unit/element, but different tactics.

A more apropos example would be light cavalry. Tactics for light cavalry can be screening the main force, chasing down light elements, harassment, etc. Therefore, the adoption of a unit type doesn't automatically mean adoption of a tactic. I really wasn't trying to be facetious. I was just confused by the question since I can't recall any time at which a Hellenistic general utilized a battlefield tactic or tactics that he derived from the Celts explicitly to solve a problem. Since we are referring directly to thureophoroi/thorakitai, that's a whole other game.

The Hellenistic powers picked up on thureos pretty quickly after the Galatian invasion. Approximately the mid-250s is a safe estimate. It was a better shield than the small pelta, which made things much better for light infantry, and more flexible and affordable than the Argive/aspis. You'd probably see the thureos in smaller garrisons as well. The main thing to note is that these infantry were generally support elements to the main force. So unlike the Celts, this units with this shield were not in the mainline. Over the next several decades, the shield would grow in popularity.

During Antiochos III's crossing of the Elburz range, he used thorakitai and thureophoroi extensively to avoid ambushes. In fact, he probably made Hannibal and his crossing of the Alps look pretty bad by comparison. He might have also used light thureophoroi as a sort of elephant guard at Magnesia. The Ptolemies were pretty fond of infantry equipped with the thureos. They were part of the police force of individual cities, but I think they showed up most in the form of mercenaries from Greece. Of course, that doesn't even begin to include all the Galatians in their service.

Now, when did the Makedonian phalanx disappear? Well... that's a tough question to answer. With the Ptolemies, there seems to be a bit of punctuated evolution in their army centered on Panion. Before then, a campaign army was still mostly a phalanx. However, the losses at Panion to the phalanx were so great that it probably shattered the phalanx infantry corps. Rather than start all over, they probably just decided to hell with it all just go with the thureophoroi/thorakitai concept. So that means that by 180, we see roughly a phalanx-less main force. For the Seleukids, that's a bit tougher.

With the Seleukids, we don't have the nice stelai or pictorial or written record that we have for the Ptolemies. Still, we know that with the Daphne procession (about 168 BC) there were still lots of phalangites. In fact, that phalanx army is what soundly defeated the Ptolemies and their newer military at Pelusion. As to the imitation legionaries at Daphne, you can read my thoughts on that here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=362539

Now, whether the Seleukid phalanx ever actually disappeared, I'm not willing to say for certain. There is one battle during the conflicts with the Jews where a word used is pretty ambiguous. This was after the death of Antiochos IV and I apologize for not remembering the details. Eventually though, under all the stress the kingdom was suffering, the phalanx might have been ditched simply out of necessity. That necessity would be the size of men available and breakdown of military infrastructure. A phalanx is a pretty damn powerful unit, but needs a lot of manpower to be effective and so its disappearance might have been forced. I suppose it's possible that Antiochos VII might have had phalangites in his great campaign east, but their number would be a complete guess.

If you twisted my arm though, I would say that the phalanx disappeared from the Seleukids probably after 160 BC. So say somewhere around 150 BC then.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for that, abou, much appreciated.

I find it amusing that in your linked thread, abou that you link to two other threads I will list for the benefit of all interested:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2491692
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post1952718