New Unit - What is it?

Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

=

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...icahamata2.jpg

Good enough for us.

So far as the unarmored mahut thing, well, it was something common for the people of the time, and place. The mathuras, which were conquered after heavy fighting in 180 BC but rebelled in 100 BC used their elephants in the way shown below...

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...raelephant.jpg

and a reconstrucion of the Mathuran elephant coprs...

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...n_elephant.jpg

Kos, can't seem to able to see those photos there mate. Anything special I gotta do to see them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...n_elephant.jpg

---

Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

no there doesnt, ive sat on an elephant's back myself, "bareback" as it were.

unless you want to sing soprano however i wouldnt recommend going to fast hehe :clown:

heh. very true..and granted i was like 11 at the time.. hey maybe those chaps are eunuchs.

Quote:

---

It's still not a Seleukid unit, it remains Baktrian/Indo-Greek, and it's just scale, not a composite cuirasses.

---

But you do have the Baktrian Pheraspidai wearing a composite cuirass.

Quote:

---

With the evidence of scale armor on indo-greek coins, the lack of evidence as to the body armor (of any type) wore by greek troops on elephants we went with something that we feel is reasonable, and allows a bit of variety into the equipment of the elephant riders.

---

For the reasons I stated before (that it's only clear from the coins that Indo-Greek kataphraktoi wore scale) it is not reasonable to put a very expensive piece of armour on what is essentially a light soldier, even if composite cuirasses were known to have been worn by Baktrians. I understand you want variety, but don't you still want to keep it accurate?

Quote:

---

We have the greek style rider for 6 factions as well as merc skin. IIRC only one, the Baktrian/Indo-Greek has scale, one has chain (Seleukid as mentioned) 3 have some form of linothorax, one has leather, and one has padded cloth. I don't feel we are being massively inaccurate here...

---

As I mentioned before, the Seleukid riders shouldn't be in mail, either.

Quote:

---

Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

---

1. True.
2. True.
3. Yes, Baktrians had contact with Indians, who did make use of iron, and iron scale cuirasses. However, it is very clear from Indian texts that only the king wore scale armour.
4. I wouldn't call it the panzer corps of the time at all. Many people have made the comparison of elephants in the ancient world to tanks in the modern world and it's a very poor comparison. And I don't necessarily think they demanded "the best" for the soldiers fighting from the back of the elephant. As I'd said before, it's very apparent that the skill needed to fight from the back of an elephant was fairly minor.
5. Because there is no evidence that any troops other than rich aristocrats made use of scale armour.

You can argue this all day, but the fact of the matter is that in the Seleukid, the Baktrian, the Indo-Greek, and the Mauryan Indian armies any scale or lamellar armour that was worn was done so by the aristocracy who were almost without exception mounted (be it on a horse or, as an Indian king, a chariot or an elephant). And I doubt that in a force like the Baktrians, with what could only be described as a limited pool of valued Greek aristocrats with training and equipment needed for the hetairoi, they could spare some for riding on the back of an elephant.

Quote:

---

Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

---

The Sanchi reliefs are very clear in showing that the Mauryans did not employ a howdah of any kind on their elephants and that they all rode "bareback" (though, of course sitting on a carpet).

eunuchs :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

eunuchs :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

---

1 Maccabees 43:

Quote:

---

And Eleazar, called Avaran, saw that one of the beasts was equipped with royal armor. It was taller than all the others, and he supposed that the king was upon it.

---

His assumption "that the king was upon it" was, of course, entirely unfounded, because Seleukid kings never rode elephants.

There is also a fragment of a metal figurine, the provenance and date of which I have never been able to find, though it is definitely Hellenistic, which shows an armoured elephant. This is what all reconstructions of armoured elephants are invariably based on. The metal hoops are based on some terracotta figurines showing a Seleukid elephant with a Galatian warrior in its trunk and which were made to commemorate the victory of Antiochus I in the "Elephant Battle." In fact, what are interpreted as metal leg defences may simply be the artist's interpretation of the folds in an elephant's skin, since similar hoops are modelled around the neck as well.

Well being Greek as fast east as the Baktrian or Indo-Greek kingdoms were during the hieght of said kingdoms meant you were of a fairly high class. We also know that greeks rode elephant so...

In fact the Baktrians wouldn't have had normal greek akontistai, they would have employed easterners in that role.

The elephants of the Sucessor had armor. In the book of John Warry about ancient warfare he says that the Ptolemies used armor for their African elephants so that they could have a chance against the bigger Indian elephants used by the Seleucids at Raphia.

What I am not sure its about the mahout (the elephant rider) using armor. I have always read that the elephant panicked when he lost his riders, but I am not sure how easy elephants lost their riders. You understand me?

Without protection they could easy be killed by a well placed javaline or arrow, but illustrations I have found dont show them with much protection. I hope people dont get angry but if it is for me, while having so many elephants and factions that use them, I vote for having elephants without armored mahouts and some elephants with armoured mahouts.

http://members.tripod.com/joseph_ber.../hydaspes4.gif

http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/2025a1.jpg

http://www.ancientbattles.com/indian...dian_EL_01.jpg

As you see its also a matter of interpretation as in the illustrations above there are 2 Indian elephants with unarmored riders, but there is one illustration that has a rider with a linothorax and a Greek helmet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Well being Greek as fast east as the Baktrian or Indo-Greek kingdoms were during the hieght of said kingdoms meant you were of a fairly high class. We also know that greeks rode elephant so...

---

Not necessarily. Some Greeks were higher class, but not all. Remember that many of the Greeks who ended up in Baktria were simply mercenaries, which meant that they would not have been particularly wealthy unless given land and made into katoikai.

Quote:

---

In fact the Baktrians wouldn't have had normal greek akontistai, they would have employed easterners in that role.

---

Probably for some, but again, many poor mercenaries ended up in Baktria, so it's not impossible that Greeks operated as lighter-armed soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduorius

The elephants of the Sucessor had armor. In the book of John Warry about ancient warfare he says that the Ptolemies used armor for their African elephants so that they could have a chance against the bigger Indian elephants used by the Seleucids at Raphia.

---

Actually, none of the elephants at Raphia were armoured, and there's no evidence at all for Ptolemaic elephants wearing armour.

Quote:

---

What I am not sure its about the mahout (the elephant rider) using armor. I have always read that the elephant panicked when he lost his riders, but I am not sure how easy elephants lost their riders. You understand me?

Without protection they could easy be killed by a well placed javaline or arrow, but illustrations I have found dont show them with much protection. I hope people dont get angry but if it is for me, while having so many elephants and factions that use them, I vote for having elephants without armored mahouts and some elephants with armoured mahouts.

http://members.tripod.com/joseph_ber.../hydaspes4.gif

http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/2025a1.jpg

http://www.ancientbattles.com/indian...dian_EL_01.jpg

As you see its also a matter of interpretation as in the illustrations above there are 2 Indian elephants with unarmored riders, but there is one illustration that has a rider with a linothorax and a Greek helmet.

---

As I posted earlier in this thread, the most armour a mahout is ever shown with is a helmet. It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation.

"It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation."

Like the only modern published book on the Bactrian army depicts? Why bash us about the head and face for taking a less extreme depiction than he does? Again, your akontistai with helmets on one side, his Bactrian Agema on the other - we feel our depiction of the riders is acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

"It is very clear that they never wore heavy armour like cuirasses according to the archaeological evidence, and any reconstructions with armoured mahouts are pure speculation."

Like the only modern published book on the Bactrian army depicts? Why bash us about the head and face for taking a less extreme depiction than he does? Again, your akontistai with helmets on one side, his Bactrian Agema on the other - we feel our depiction of the riders is acceptable.

---

I was writing about mahouts in that post, not riders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Actually, none of the elephants at Raphia were armoured, and there's no evidence at all for Ptolemaic elephants wearing armour.

---

Well Warry says they did and for me it makes sense being the Seleucid Indian elephants bigger than the Ptolemaic African elephants. Also as it makes sense to me that if you are the rider of an elephant and you know that the beast gets crazy if you are killed just with a well placed missile that you should have some type of armor for protection. If there is no evidence I dont know, but having so many types of elephants in EB it makes sense to me to have both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Not necessarily. Some Greeks were higher class, but not all. Remember that many of the Greeks who ended up in Baktria were simply mercenaries, which meant that they would not have been particularly wealthy unless given land and made into katoikai.

---

I didn't mean they had been nobles before getting there, I meant that that in these kingdoms Greeks formed the upper-classes while the lower classes tended to be made up of natives. Baktria wasn't a Greek state, it was a state run by a Greek elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

I didn't mean they had been nobles before getting there, I meant that that in these kingdoms Greeks formed the upper-classes while the lower classes tended to be made up of natives. Baktria wasn't a Greek state, it was a state run by a Greek elite.

---

Have you read Samarkhand to Sardis by Kuhrt and Sherwin-White? This is largely an older idea that is now being reexamined. Many of the mercenaries who were placed in Baktria from Alexander's army would have constituted the upper class, yes, but not the later Greeks and Macedonians who travelled there to serve as mercenaries. While Greek-speakers had a much better chance of entering the upper class, they didn't do so simply by virtue of their ethnicity.

He said "tended". That's correct. While the older ideas of a strict division are being reexamined, and rightly so, the distribution is not totally equal, and I doubt Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would argue that it was (I don't see them arguing that it was at the very least). Especially in 272 when our game begins. Keep in mind we can't have reforms for all units, and though sometimes we make concessions to the need to use a unit throughout the length of our mod's timeframe, we do also tend to portray units as they were at the beginning of our mod's timeframe instead of at the end. There are no Baktrian reforms (they take up building complex space) other than the cataphract ones.

About the war elephants' mahout thing. I've been wondering if those guys, in the case they didn't wear much in the way of armour, could lie flat on the neck of the 'phant and make themselves really small targets when they didn't specifically need to sit up for some reason (a helmet would probably defend most of what was left exposed to most enemies) ? Not that I knew jack all about how one goes about "mahouting" the big animals mind you, but it would make sense if one assumes they more or less never wore much armour. Body armour would after all mess with the flexibility needed to do that, and a type heavy enough to be of genuine use would probably cause some top-heaviness and balance problem; armoured cavalrymen had to deal with that too, and unlike horsemen people sitting on the necks of elephants can't start using saddles and such to help out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Have you read Samarkhand to Sardis by Kuhrt and Sherwin-White? This is largely an older idea that is now being reexamined. Many of the mercenaries who were placed in Baktria from Alexander's army would have constituted the upper class, yes, but not the later Greeks and Macedonians who travelled there to serve as mercenaries. While Greek-speakers had a much better chance of entering the upper class, they didn't do so simply by virtue of their ethnicity.

---

I have indeed. I never said that every greek was upper-class, merely that the greeks tended to disproportionaly upper-class while the lower-classes were disproprotionally not greek, which I think Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would agree with. We're obviously not talking about some strict dichotomy, just a general trend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

He said "tended". That's correct. While the older ideas of a strict division are being reexamined, and rightly so, the distribution is not totally equal, and I doubt Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would argue that it was (I don't see them arguing that it was at the very least). Especially in 272 when our game begins. Keep in mind we can't have reforms for all units, and though sometimes we make concessions to the need to use a unit throughout the length of our mod's timeframe, we do also tend to portray units as they were at the beginning of our mod's timeframe instead of at the end. There are no Baktrian reforms (they take up building complex space) other than the cataphract ones.

---

Quote:

---

I have indeed. I never said that every greek was upper-class, merely that the greeks tended to disproportionaly upper-class while the lower-classes were disproprotionally not greek, which I think Kuhrt and Sherwin-White would agree with. We're obviously not talking about some strict dichotomy, just a general trend.

---

So we're in agreement then that some Greeks occupied the lower classes and thus the poorer elements of the army?

Quote:

---

About the war elephants' mahout thing. I've been wondering if those guys, in the case they didn't wear much in the way of armour, could lie flat on the neck of the 'phant and make themselves really small targets when they didn't specifically need to sit up for some reason (a helmet would probably defend most of what was left exposed to most enemies) ?

---

I've thought about this, too, and I think you're right- Indian elephants especially have big noggins, and if a man has his legs and some of his lower body behind the elephant ears, and tried to keep as much of the rest of him as possible behind the head, he would probably be fairly well protected.

Quote:

---

Not that I knew jack all about how one goes about "mahouting" the big animals mind you, but it would make sense if one assumes they more or less never wore much armour. Body armour would after all mess with the flexibility needed to do that, and a type heavy enough to be of genuine use would probably cause some top-heaviness and balance problem; armoured cavalrymen had to deal with that too, and unlike horsemen people sitting on the necks of elephants can't start using saddles and such to help out...

---

Yeah, this seems logical- the soldiers occupying the turret would probably have had some sort of rudimentary ladder system to get up onto the turret, while the mahout would have to maneuver all over the place while preparing the elephant for battle and during battle, too.

On armour of the mahouts...

Throughout history they seem to have stayed completely unarmoured. Even during the Portuguese wars in the region, they remain vulnerable to arrows from native auxiliaries of both the Europeans and the Turks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

So we're in agreement then that some Greeks occupied the lower classes and thus the poorer elements of the army?

---

Sure, some greeks were in the lower classes, but the vast majority of the lower classes would have been natives, thus most lighter (i.e. poorer) troops would have been native. Why would we show the abberation rather than the norm? Why would the greeks have put the fairly few poor greeks into the howdah instead of the more numerous, and probably more experienced, locals?