Diadochi Soldiers

I've looked everywhere for information on the matter. But I would like to know if the armies of the Hellenistic successor kingdoms could be described as professional or semi-feudalistic? I realize that their armies were generally ad-hoc in nature and didn't necessarily have an advanced administrative support system that was developed by the Roman legions, but at least were the main Pezhetairoi infantry units nationalized professional soldiers, or were they all mercenaries or levied citizen militia?

Whoa, tough question to answer. It seems to vary a little bit between the Ptolemies, Seleukids, and Antigonids - especially in terms of who is responsible for providing his own equipment or what is given to him by the state. I can't remember where I read it in The Seleucid Army, but I believe that with the Antigonids you could be fined for not carrying certain forms of equipment. So then, what about professional vs feudal - well, definitely professional with help from levies.

You could consider units like the Pezhetairoi, Thureophoroi, Thorakitai, Hypaspistai, and Hetairoi as professional. Other units liked the klerouchikoi phalangitai and prodromoi would be given land grants and would be brought on to fight when needed. Although, in the Seleukid military prodromoi seem to have been called into service for quite a long time so it is definitely possible that a fair number of them became full-time soldiers.

As far as the elite pikes go, with the Ptolemies they were given huge land grants and loads of cash. The Seleukids seemed to have instead used the most promising sons of military settlers to serve in the argyraspidai for a certain amount of time; same for the Hetairoi.

So... that is sort of the short of it. I hope that isn't confusing because I'm sure I made a mistake somewhere which Paullus or Urnamma will correct later.:laugh4:

And what makes you think that they didn't have the advanced administrative support that the Romans had? If anything, they had a superior system due to all the cavalry, elephants, and dependents that would travel with the army and often do so for many, many years at a time.

So with Macedonia at least, their army was the entire citizenry at arms. While Egypt and Seleucid ruled Asia had the wealth and manpower to support full-time regiments.

What makes me think their armies didn't have an advanced bureaucratic branch? Maybe its the fact that whenever I make queries, I don't find any mention of such a system. All those armies are financed by their kings, and any specialist support they recieve, be they doctors, intelligence officers, merchant train etc, are all paid for by the ruling monarch or some warlord with monarchical aspirations. Perhaps I should have used the words "formal" or "permanent". But everytime I tried to explore the workings of their military system, I usually get references about the Roman army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

So with Macedonia at least, their army was the entire citizenry at arms. While Egypt and Seleucid ruled Asia had the wealth and manpower to support full-time regiments.

---

Well, sort of. It is hard for me to say exactly because I haven't studied Makedon under the Antigonids extensively. O'Etairos would be able to tell you so here is hoping he shows up soon.

Quote:

---

What makes me think their armies didn't have an advanced bureaucratic branch? Maybe its the fact that whenever I make queries, I don't find any mention of such a system. All those armies are financed by their kings, and any specialist support they recieve, be they doctors, intelligence officers, merchant train etc, are all paid for by the ruling monarch or some warlord with monarchical aspirations. Perhaps I should have used he words "formal" or "permanent". But everytime I tried to explore the workings of their military system, I usually get references about the Roman army.

---

Well, the thing is, we don't have much information so we have to extrapolate on terms of how they performed, what they did, where they went, and so forth. Ergo, I don't see what being financed by the king has to do with it. The military most likely had full-time medical personnel and administrators. Without them the military couldn't function. In fact, it seems that the Ptolemies and Seleukids could and did have several field armies in the field all across their kingdoms at the same time. How would that be possible without an administrative hierarchy?

The Ptolemaioi are the definition of massive bureaucracy. Economic, legal, and military. Even the klerouchoi aren't really "citizen" soldiers, though they aren't professionals either. They're reservists really, and an effective reserves system requires a good bit of oversight and organization. And in addition the klerouchoi, there were also some professional units in the Ptolemaic army, though mercenaries and klerouchoi constituted the majority of the soldiery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Well, the thing is, we don't have much information so we have to extrapolate on terms of how they performed, what they did, where they went, and so forth. Ergo, I don't see what being financed by the king has to do with it. The military most likely had full-time medical personnel and administrators. Without them the military couldn't function. In fact, it seems that the Ptolemies and Seleukids could and did have several field armies in the field all across their kingdoms at the same time. How would that be possible without an administrative hierarchy?

---

Field armies were raised at the discretion of their kings, so obviously they had a hand in funding them. Whether or not they had a permanent corps of professionals that continued to exist after the conclusion of a war is what I'm pondering about. I had the impression that such people were volunteers or conscripted on the orders of their rulers for the sake of the war effort. Perhaps the civil services of those empires were geared towards the formation of armies in such a way, that it was pretty much the same thing for these people. These kingdoms were created by Macedonian warlords, so every able-bodied Hellenic colonist was expected to provide military service, in whatever capacity. Like medics, quartermasters and such.

Antigonid army was mainly levy. But from the other hand it was well organised and had considerable administration. In fact the system was somewhat simmilar to modern way of mobilising army.

In theory every citizen from 15 years old till 50 was considered liable to serve in military. Obviously such "full" mobilisation was done only in situations of extreme need, esp for those 15 - 19 years old. In peace situation there was basic training done from 15 till 22 - citizens were obliged to attend to gymnasium where they trained fighting skills, like javelin throwing, archery, running and "other skills", most probably formation marching and fighting.

they were divided into Paides (15-18) and Efebes (18-22) and then further into year "classes". Efebes were obliged to train on everyday basis, so it was in fact active military service. All the training was done by specialised teachers and supervised by regional officials, there were also competitions organised for all age classes. King's officials supervised those regional and prepared mobilisation in time of need.

Formation allocation was done on basis of wealth. Richest were first serving in Peltasts (Pheraspidai or Argyraspidai in EB terms) and after they finished 35 year old they became part of Agema (Argyraspidai). Others served in pike units (Phalangitai and Pezhetairoi). From Peltasts the best in skill were chosen to serve in Hypaspistai ,who were close guard of the king.

Units of Guard (Hypaspistai, Agema, Peltasts) were most probably available all the time for action, while pikemen had to be mobilised (maybe except those in full time service, 20-22 years old).

Except guard, other full time soliders in Antigonid army were mercenaries, used especially as garnisons in occupied teritories and border fortresses. There were many Celtic, Thracian, Illirian mercenaries, but also a lot of Cretans and other Greeks.

Other foot units in EB makedonian unit list are either mercenaries or allies. Hoplitai Haploi, Hoplitai are allies from free greek poleis in makedonian teritory. Thureophoroi and "Peltastai" (I think Euzonoi would be more suitable name) are mercenaries but also greek allies. Akontistai, Toxotai, slingers are allies, mercenaries and levy. Thracians, Agriranes, illyrians are mercenaries and allies.

Horseman are divided into
-Hippakontistai - efebes fighting from horses, mercenaries, allies.
-Lonchophoroi, heavy jav cavalry - nobles mobilised for cav, but also allies.
-Hetairoi are elite of the elite, small group of nobles trained to fight with long spear.

I'm a bit baffled by the superb administrative system of the Roman legions you mentioned. Do you speak about the later empire or the time of the wars against the Hellenistic kingdoms? In the latter time the bureaucratic organisation and professionalism of the Hellenistic armies was far more developed than that of their Roman counterparts. At least the Epigones had professional soldiers, the Romans had not.

Basically the "professional" army of the principate was the privater mercenary force of the Roman Emperor, in so far as constitionally the Emperor was a private citizen. The Imperial beurocracy was likewise the personal administration of the Emperor's housegold and lands (The Empire).

Well I did a bit of reading on my hollidays and it seems the concept of the Asians being large militia hordes with little military value (damn you Livy) is falling appart finally. What I understood was the Diadochi had professional armies of higly trained troops wich, under capable leadership, were quite effective. And, in order to have an army like that, you'd have to have a strong administrative and logistical sistem so the army wouldn't crumble.

Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

Field armies were raised at the discretion of their kings, so obviously they had a hand in funding them.

---

Right, but they didn't micromanage the armies nor did they lead everyone of them.

Quote:

---

Whether or not they had a permanent corps of professionals that continued to exist after the conclusion of a war is what I'm pondering about. I had the impression that such people were volunteers or conscripted on the orders of their rulers for the sake of the war effort.

---

I thought it was implied by what I said, but yes there were. We have inscriptions from generals who would do things such as map the eastern portions of the Seleukid empire or be sent to deal with threats. In times of a major campaign, however, a larger force could be raised using local levies and reservists (Paul was correct in describing the klerouchikoi).

Quote:

---

Perhaps the civil services of those empires were geared towards the formation of armies in such a way, that it was pretty much the same thing for these people. These kingdoms were created by Macedonian warlords, so every able-bodied Hellenic colonist was expected to provide military service, in whatever capacity. Like medics, quartermasters and such.

---

I'm sure there were those who could be conscripted to help in times of greater demand, but there had to be a dedicated group of people to run the day to day affairs - especially if there were permanent armies and garrisons. A military can't run effectively without them.

Perhaps I was wrong about the Diadochi regimes not having solid and permanently realized administraton system for its armed forces. The main requirement for those wishing to settle in Seleucid and Ptolemaic territory should expect themselves liable for military service, so that alone tells me something about the civic administration in general. Its frustrating not being able to find definitive sources that name or reference these administrative subdivisions that existed within the Successor states.

When I mentioned the Roman forces, I was speaking in particular the calibre that existed from the early Principate onwards. Not the part-time soldiery of the Mid-Republican era.

Thing about the Romans though is that their "professional" army were really more cutthrout mercs or monarchial King's retainers, depending on which way you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Thing about the Romans though is that their "professional" army were really more cutthrout mercs or monarchial King's retainers, depending on which way you look at it.

---

The Praetorians were the "cut-throat mercs" for much of their history. It would not be fair to pigeonhole the majority of the Roman legions as being inherently disloyal. All military forces throughout history are really no different in that respect. There were civil wars and rebellions in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms as well.

One name: Vespasian. The Legions were loyal to those that payed them, usually that was the Emperor.

So what? The various scions of the Seleucid and Ptolemy dynasties were duking it out with each, jockying for position, while their foreign holdings were gradually shrinking around them. No doubt, the best of the best of Hellenic soldiery were just as eager to support the highest bidder as their Roman counterparts. Criticize the Romans all you want, they were no more corruptible than anyone else.

I will criticise the Romans up to the point I believe it is justified. You are of course right, the various Makedonian powers were just as bad but they are acknowledged as monarchies while Rome is usually held up as some precursor to the modern nation-state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I will criticise the Romans up to the point I believe it is justified. You are of course right, the various Makedonian powers were just as bad but they are acknowledged as monarchies while Rome is usually held up as some precursor to the modern nation-state.

---

I believe Rome wasn't a monarchie in name alone. Cause its political system was downright monarchical (save the early republic times mind you).


Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I will criticise the Romans up to the point I believe it is justified. You are of course right, the various Makedonian powers were just as bad but they are acknowledged as monarchies while Rome is usually held up as some precursor to the modern nation-state.

---

I never thought the Romans had a more complex political system, I only thought initially that Macedonian armies didn't posses a permanently integral bureaucratic and logistic corps that would outlive whatever conflict or campaign it was involved in. On the subject of Rome being widely considered a for-runner of modern nation-states, I know damn well that it actually only shares that distinction with the Greeks, the Phoeniciens, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chinese, and any other culture or country I haven't bothered mentioning. Its within human nature to be industrious and inventive. Anyone else really had the potential to achieve what they did. Genius doesn't favour any one group of people.

some interesting info on admin structure of the Macedonian army and logistics could be found in Donald W. Engels "Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army"