Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Livy didn't have experience with much, but his sources did. And can you comment on why his source for Magnesia is suspect?
I can't prove anything about his source because I don't know what it is. Therefore it is supsect. Disbelief by default.
Quote:
I'm not trying to prove that either is a Companion.
Then how do you hope to demonstrate that Companions carried shields?
Quote:
Look at the length of them; xysta don't get much bigger than that in art.
Ah, but what is the artist depicting. Carving a long thin pointy stick is quite hard, rather like big axes or large free-standing shields.
Quote:
Perhaps if you want to debate about this you should learn some of the most basic facts about the equipment of the hetairoi.
I don't, but you are saying the xyston was NEVER used two handed, others say that later Greek cavalry used their lances two-handed. If that lance isn't a xyston it would be a kontos. Unless there is a third, as yet unclassified cavalry lance in the area. That is my point.
Quote:
I actively disproved the theory that horsemen did not wield the xyston one-handed while holding a shield in the other hand when I posted that image.
No, because the depiction on the coin may not even be holding his shield and in any case the medium is not condusive to accuracy, very difficult to show the left arm over the horse.
Quote:
I would say that claim is totally different in nature than an ancient author drawing from other sources to write a passage in his book.
On the Contrary, Livy's Ab Urbe Conditia is barely less removed from the things he is writing about than a modern history of Rome. All the evidence we have suggests the entire work was written in Italy with little or no original research. In any case I was reffering to your uncrittical use of Livy to draw your conclusions.
Quote:
Since obviously not everyone can take the time to painstakingly evaluate the details of numerous ancient texts and read the original manuscripts to evaluate which portions are corrupt and which are drawn from other sources, secondary sources written by authors who have been able to do that and which discuss this topic are extremely valuable.
No, by all means use secondary authors but if you use an ancient source you check it your self, at least in translation. Otherwise you are just spouting someone else' opinion and not thinking for yourself. That is not scholarship.
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
Asklepiodotus writes that only some heavy cavalry used shields.
Asklepiodotus, Techne Taktike 1.3
We may assume that he is over generalising on equipment here, but we can clearly see, that he understands that major part of heavy cavalry was not using shields.
I'll see if I can get a hold of a copy of Asclepiodotus tomorrow to evaluate the Greek in that sentence... seems mighty strange that thureophoroi horsemen would be the ones to carry large shields.
At any rate, this strengthens in my argument. If the carrying of large shields by cavalrymen was not a widespread thing, as this passage suggests, and yet a large amount of representations of Hellenistic horsemen on costly funerary stelai show them carrying shields, then this means that the majority of a fairly small minority of cavalrymen who carried shields were wealthy and élite.
Quote:
As for the first Tarentine coin, the shield is still more or less credibly in line with the left shoulder; I can well visualize the pose the artist is trying to communicate, even if the left arm has been left out (doubtless to avoid cluttering up the coin as well as the limits of the medium).
That was a poor example; I have some better ones here. My point was that changing the grips of shields to make them more or less prominent or perhaps simply out of laziness was quite common in Hellenistic art. Here's another Cibyra coin, this one the shield's even farther back; I don't even think you could argue that that was hanging on his back. The artist wanted the shield to be visible, and so it was shifted back, to ridiculous amounts, as in this example.
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/...ged/670763.jpg
Beyond this, if a rider was actually carrying such a large round shield on his back, it just wouldn't be very practical. He would constantly be hitting his arms on the edges of the shield. What if the cavalryman dismounts? He would have to struggle to remove the shield to be able to fight properly, and would be at a distinct disadvantage with it on.
Quote:
Because a shield, even a fairly large one, is still lighter than heavy body armour. Plus way cheaper and easier to jettison in a pinch if you need a bit of extra speed.
When you look up military history you will often run into the curious tendency of lighter cavalry being much more fond of shields in general than their heavy colleagues, who are quite often perfectly willing to make do entirely without - and this is specifically a question of encumberance and finances. The lights are per definition required to range far an wide and generally run all over the place; they have to keep the load down to preserve the stamina of both man and beast (the heavies really just need enough to deliver a couple of charges in a fight, and can thus afford to compromise this aspect; the catas are and extreme example). Moreover the budget they can spend on war gear is invariably rather modest - if not else then because the richer guys who can afford more go to the heavy squadron by default - and a shield has ever been the "cheap and cheerful" way for otherwise lightly equipped warriors to defend themselves. All things considered it's also relatively light.
Which is why I would imagine it was a suitable device for late prodromoi, or whatever the types of troops who took care of their job now were called at the time. For a man on a budget and needing some extra protection for both himself and his mount, but extra armour and even light nonmetallic barding being out of the question (the latter due to the waste heat retention issue if nothing else), a large shield would seem to be a very sensible compromise solution. Cheap, protective, and not so heavy any decent horse was really going to notice.
I agree that with the generl up-armament of the later Hellenistic period they would carry shields, but it seems that they probably would have carried thureoi, not large and cumbersome shields. Have a look at this sarissophoroi lancer (Roman, 1st C. BC):
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co.../sarlancer.jpg
And compare the coverage to the cavalrymen on the Pergamon battle plate.
Quote:
I'd rather like to hear the logic behind the claim that a big aspis-lookalike round shield covers more of a horse than an oval thingy like the thureos. With a large round shield on horseback much shield area is wasted protecting the thin air around the rider, no ? There's no benefit in the thing extending far to the sides, unlike there is for close-order infantry.
Vertical lenght, however, is quite useful, since it allows the shield to be used to cover both the head of the rider, his lower leg and the side of the mount economically. Why do you think fully developed large cavalry shields have always been of the long type, anyway ?
First of all, that Asclepiodotus passage, if it is in fact literally meant as it is translated, states that sometimes the thureos was swapped for other shields (which basically means round cavalry shields) to provide more protection. Instead of just covering an area none-too-wide beside the cavalryman and a little of his horse or, if he movied it, parts of his horse's head and neck, a large round cavalry shield could protect the rider's body and a larger portion of his mount's body- look at the Pergamon battle plate and that is evident.
Quote:
Taken at face value the size of shields in the pictures you've provided would really suggest a bit of an experimental setup, and one somewhat confused when it comes to the qualities required of good large cavalry shields (which we with the benefit of hindsight know better, and on which topic the Celts and Romans seem to have been pursuing better alternatives).
I don't understand what you mean with this point? And as for Romans pursuing better alternatives...
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...omanlancer.jpg
2nd-1st C. BC Roman.
Oh, and I found another item which I'd forgotten about. Obviously not evidence for hetairoi carrying shields, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...tiverelief.jpg
Found in Campania, now also thought lost (:no:). Thought to represent Seleucid or perhaps Bactrian soldiers. Note the long sleeves and trousers.
Quote:
Oh, and your PM box is still full.
Sorry about that, I emptied it. Send me all the mail you'd like!
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
That was a poor example; I have some better ones here. My point was that changing the grips of shields to make them more or less prominent or perhaps simply out of laziness was quite common in Hellenistic art. Here's another Cibyra coin, this one the shield's even farther back; I don't even think you could argue that that was hanging on his back. The artist wanted the shield to be visible, and so it was shifted back, to ridiculous amounts, as in this example.
If you ask me the Tarentine coins are of way better workmanship anyway - with the side effect that they also make much better bases for deduction, since the content of the pictures is fairly readily perceivable. If the artists who made the Cibyran and other late coins were willing to play so fast and loose with the placement of the shield (and as we can deduce from the Tarentinian specimen, they could also have displayed them differently... considerations of space, or just low artistic standards ?), nevermind now clearly weren't too concerned with getting minor things like proportions just right, then where can we actually start trusting their work as a source anyway ? How much can we assume to be representation of reality, how much is sheer artistic convention, and how much is blunt lack of skill ? I can think of at least two ways to carry a large round shield the artist could have tried to represent on top of the standard strapped-to-the-forearm method...
Quote:
Oh, and I found another item which I'd forgotten about. Obviously not evidence for hetairoi carrying shields, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...tiverelief.jpg
Found in Campania, now also thought lost (:no:). Thought to represent Seleucid or perhaps Bactrian soldiers. Note the long sleeves and trousers.
If that's a battle scene, isn't the shielded cavalryman at the front either lifting his arm in preparation for a sword strike, or alternatively wielding a spearm in the overarm manner (which the stance would really mostly suggest) ? The latter totally sucks for spears of xyston dimensions...
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
...and the coins and stelae you're basing your argument on are all from 2nd century BC or later. Assuming the Hetairoi were going for barded horses by that time, wouldn't this mean the fellows in the pictures with their singularly unarmoured horses are some other class of cavalry then ? ~;p
I've thought about this as well, and many of the horses of the soldiers have absolutely no horse equipment- no reins, no securing straps, sometimes even no shabrack, despite their riders being depicted in full panoply. In these cases, I think that the omission of any horse furniture or armour would be for artistic purposes. Others that do show that I can't account for.
Quote:
Guilty as charged. So, however, is your argument. It is essentially based on taking a handful of pictorial evidence that...
A) comes from the Western end of the Hellenic world
B) is specifically dated to 2nd century BC onwards
C) cannot actually be reliably taken to represent Hetairoi in the first place instead of just guessing it does
D) allows several quite different interpretations
A) Yes, and if Livy's comment about the hetairoi being drawn from Lydia and Phrygia is in fact correct, then pictorial evidence from the western portion of the Seleucid empire would be fine evidence for Companions.
B) Yes, these are all 2nd C. BC or later, but that still covers what, three fifths of the RTW timeline?
C) Though they may not specifically be hetairoi, as I've stated many times, I showed those to establish that it was common for the heavy and élite cavalry of western Asia Minor to carry shields.
D) Again, many of those others I included in my argument (Bithynian, Pergamene, etc.) were included for the purpose of C).
Quote:
...and taking it as positive proof that the Hetairoi and other xystophoroi in general all over the Hellenic world from around 3rd century BC onwards used large round shields combined with the old underarm one-handed xyston technique, did not wear more armour that simple linothorax (or something that looks like it - wasn't the scale-lined version usually made with textile covering ?) plus the usual greaves and helmet, and by implication didn't use horse armour either.
I think it's very reasonable proof for an unit which otherwise has no archaeological evidence as to its equipment in this period, and even if it isn't direct evidence, it establishes the atmosphere of equipment for wealthy heavy cavalrymen within the borders of the Seleucid empire in this period. And the change was some time in the 3rd C. BC, but I couldn't say when. Also, there are examples of these heavy cavalrymen also wearing muscled cuirasses, not just linothoraxes.
Quote:
Seems like one big house of cards built on some rather liberal interpretation and excessive generalization to me, no offense.
It isn't the most solid theory, but I find it more plausible than the alternatives.
Quote:
Allow me to present the - purely speculative - theory I have regarding the evolution of xystophoroi heavy lancers in general and the Hetairoi elite thereof in particular after Alexander's conquests and death.
The original Hetairoi under Philip and Alex had one major advantage when it came to equipement - the lenght of the xyston. Even with the one-quarter to one-third of the thing that had to be left trailing behind as counterweight the lance still handily outreached the shorter dual-purpose spears (called dory by the Greeks) just about all other contemporary cavalry used; this obviously gave them a major edge in a head-on clash, maybe even sufficient for them to lighten their armour when the conquest of Persia progressed (there's some mentions they may have; although it could also be argued this was for speedy stikes over long distances rather than major set-piece battles). Already at Gaugamela this edge was being countered; Arrian writes longer spears had been distributed to unspecified Persian units, and the Bactrian and Saka proto-cataphracts present certainly had some sort of long lance - whether these were straight copies of the xyston or a form of indigenous early kontos is somewhat beside the point, although in the later case the Bactrains and Saka were likely employed as instructors for the newly-equipped lancers.
As things went not too many Hetairoi apparently took part in the big cavalry melee against the proto-cataphracts and their support squadrons, and the Persians lost anyway.
After the break-up of the empire after the Big A's death the Hetairoi and their ilk suddenly had a quite different problem to tackle - namely, each other in the endemic wars between the Diadochi. Obviously, the reach advatage evened out in these clashes. Moreover those fighting in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau against rebellious locals, nomad and Parthian raids and whatnot found themselves butting heads and fighting alongside with the proto-cataphract kontophoroi as well as swarms of very annoying horse-archers.
I would argue this sent them down the more or less same path of military evolution the Iranian, Persian and assorted nomadic proto-cataphract shock cavalry had begun pursuing somewhat earlier for the exact same reasons.
They were for one up against what were essentially their identically equipped peers in head-on clashes in the Diadochi wars; to start seeking some sort of advantage, in equipement, fighting technique or both, would be the natural reaction.
For another the two-handed technique used with the kontos is probably superior to the one-handed underarm technique of the lighter xyston - two hands allow more control over the weapon and more power into the thrust, and may have also allowed using more of the long weapon's lenght to skewer the enemy as less may have been needed to act as a counterweight behind the grip point.
I agree up until this last paragraph. There's absolutely no evidence that the contus was picked up by any other cavalry than the cataphracts, and even then probably not before 205 BC and the expedition to the east. Not to mention that the contus two handed vs. the xyston one handed with shield is not so clear cut a comparison; without cataphract-level armour, it seems that using the contus two-handed became too vulnerable in the later Hellenistic period.
Quote:
For a third they were without doubt regularly exposed to some quite unpleasant massed archery, also from nimble horse-archers whom they couldn't really catch and probably shouldn't really chase after either, lest they suddenly find themselves hit by cataphracts. This sort of ranged threat tended to nigh universally motivate heavy cavalrymen to load up on armour to weather the storm, so to speak.
For a fourth they were exposed to influences of Persian, Iranian and nomadic methods and tools of warfare, in the hands of both their enemies and their local auxiliaries; frontal horse barding for example went back to Classical Greek times in Persia and was likely even older among the Scythians and the seminomadic Central Asian peoples (like the Bactrians), and had been developed for some very good reasons - namely, increased tactical survivability and ability to charge home through incoming missile fire and long pointy things aimed at the chest of the poor mount, allowing charges to be delivered with that much more security and confidence. More or less the same goes for the more complete types of personal armour developing among the cataphracts.
For a fifth they could afford it.
In short, particularly the Seleucid xystophoroi would have had ample reason as well as opportunity to start grasping their lances two-handed (the increase in control and reach being logically that much greater with the relatively light and balanced xyston, and the extra power behind the thrust can't have hurt) and adopt increasingly heavy defences for both man and horse, both to better survive the massed archery they could be nigh certain to encounter sooner or later and to better live through a melee against both others of their kind and the "covered men" of the East and the steppes.
Here's the problem I have with your conclusion. If the Companions wielded the xyston two handedly, they would still be at a significant disadvantage because of their lighter armour for themselves and their mounts and because of their shorter weapons. If they were essentialy converted into cataphracts light, with less armour and less massive weapons, while they could obviously afford to armour them all, why wouldn't they do so? It seems to me that vulnerability caused by the decreased armour for rider and horse could easily be countered by carrying a shield and receiving the benefits that that affords them; as I stated before, such large cavalry shields afforded significant protection for both mount and rider. And I don't think that wielding the xyston one-handedly would have been so awkward if so many cavalry converted that style of warfare.
Quote:
Between the generally good horse pool available and the wealth they had for aquiring war gear they should also have been able to realize such alterations of war gear without particular problems. Moreover, there were ample pools of man- and horsepower to serve in the light and medium cavalry role - Iranians, Persians, Egyptians, wandering Greeks and Macedonians, mercenaries, sundry native tribesmen, whatever - requiring more mobility and less war gear, flexible all-purpose troops but also not the match of dedicated lancers in a head on clash. Ergo, it would make sense for the Hetairoi and other Hellenic lancers (with the exception of the Prodromoi, if they were still around in some form) to develop their equipement and techniques to further enchance their competence in their particular expensive specialty field, and leave the all-purpose stuff to lesser troops not trained and equipped to the degree required for heavy shock action head on.
Again, the problem I have with this is why they would change the Companions over to light cataphracts, rather than converting the well-trained and highly motivated royal cavalry into full-blown cataphracts.
Quote:
The hypothetical "up-armouring" of the Seleucid Hetairoi on the side of developing the cataphract arm before Magnesia was, I would suspect, a rather longer process of accepting useful military influences that hed been going on for a while, particularly among the cavalry normally stationed in the troubled eastern and north-eastern parts of the realm.
The Companions, at least in the campaign against Molon in 220 BC and at Raphia in 217 BC, were not yet up-armoured, as Polybius (who was careful to mention cataphracts when they first appeared, and their armour) does not bother to mention anything of that nature. At Panion in 200 BC, Polybius specifically mentions the armour of the cataphracts but only calls the Companions "horse guards." So they were reformed some time between 200 and 192 BC.
Quote:
As the Seleucids doubtless took those soldiers to other fronts as necessary (and possible, if those parts were quiet) the influences would presumably have spread to other areas and by extension the cavalry of other Diadochi - nothing convinces someone it's about time to reassess his war gear like butting heads with someone wearing superior stuff, after all. And in any case the more lands the Seleucids lost in the East the more the Hetairoi and other lancers of the remaining parts had to cope with the Parthian cataphracts and horse-archers, and if they had any sense at all made the appropriate adjustements to their harnesses to cope if they for some reason hadn't done so previously.
I don't understand what you mean with your first point; do you mean to suggest that other successors (i.e. the Ptolemies, the Antigonids, etc.) picked up armoured cavalry from the Seleucids?
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
Asklepiodotus writes that only some heavy cavalry used shields.
Asklepiodotus, Techne Taktike 1.3
We may assume that he is over generalising on equipment here, but we can clearly see, that he understands that major part of heavy cavalry was not using shields.
I looked back through Asclepiodotus today and here are my thoughts.
Sekunda very plausibly argues in "The Seleucid Army" that Techne Taktike is based, at least in part, on Posidonius' experience in the Seleucid army in the 2nd C. BC. However, it has very clearly been stripped down to the bear bones, and it's clear that Asklepiodotus has little military experience from his writing, which is almost purely philosophical and rhetorical in nature. Therefore, it must be treated with care.
The divisions of three which are so prevalent (three classes of infantry, three branches of the mounted forces, three branches of cavalry) seem entirely artificial. As C.A. and W.A. Oldfather wrote in their commentary on Techne Takitike, "[The divisions by three] seem to be a trace of earlier rhetorical training."
The infantry, at least for the most part, seem to fit within his general classification scheme, being heavy infantry (his hoplites), light infantry (psiloi), and the intermediate of peltasts (the existence of which are widely debated, but for which some evidence exists). The cavalry, however, don't quite fit. His divisions are: cavalry fighting from afar, up close, and intermediates.
Those fighting from afar are simple enough (mounted archers), but the other two categories are clearly muddied and artificially divided. The intermediates are again bizarrely divided into two groups, "some with bows and some with javelins, the former using the general equipment of the light cvalry , and the others that of the heavy cavalry." Other than their placement in the battle line ("on their flanks [they] do their fighting"), it's hard to imagine how the former are any different from the first division of the cavalry. At any rate, Asclepiodotus divides those who carry javelins once more into two groups: "of this intermediate variety [of akontists], who in a narrower sense are called the light cavalry (elaphroi), after hurling their javelins fight at close quarters, but when they merely hurl their javelins from a distance, they are called Tarantine cavalry."
For the "close-in fighting cavalry" he says that they use "similarly [to the phalangites] heavy equipment" and have "man and horse covered on all sides" and carrying "long spears, like the hoplites." He then goes on to say that because of this, "this arm of the service is also called the spear-bearing (doruphoros) and the lance-bearing (xustophoros) cavalry." Finally, he says "or even the shield-bearing cavalry (thureophoros), when it, sometimes carries the shield (aspis) for the purpose of protecting the mount as well as the rider."
There are a number of parts of this passage which are hard to interpret. The mention of "long spears" is hard to pin down. Asclepiodotus mentions them (doru makros) in his description of the infantry, calling the sarissa the "long spears (δόρασι μακροίς) of the type which will here be called ‘Macedonian.'" We may presume that he will call the sarissa the Macedonian spear from now on, but he doesn't do that in this passage. Instead, he talks about the "long spears, like the hoplites." If he in fact means the sarissa, or perhaps not exactly the sarissa but a spear similar in length to it, then I think he may be writing about the cataphracts. However, this could also be evidence for the xyston becoming as long as the sarissa in the later Hellenistic period.
And in fact, he says in the next clause that the cavalry, because of bearing this "long spear," like the sarissa, "are called xustophoroi and doruphoroi." The former makes sense, but the latter does not. I am inclined towards thinking that doruphoroi could by to xustophoroi as doruphoroi is to sarissophoroi; that is, a non-technical and generalized term sometimes thrown about which Asclepiodotus felt it was important to include to clear up that these two names in fact meant the same type of cavalryman.
The mention of thureophoros, though, is truly bizarre. The Oldfather Loeb translation reads "even the shield-bearing cavalry, when it, sometimes, carries unusually long shields," and offers the example of Xenophon's Anabasis, i.8.9 as stating that Egyptian gerrophoroi were equipped with "poderesi xulinais aspisin," but I think that if Asclepiodotus knew enough about types of shields to be able to call this cavalry type a thureophoros, that he would know that the type of shield carries is (obviously) called a thureos.
My explanation? I think that in his effort to neatly categorize the different elements of the army, Asclepiodotus has crammed basically every type of heavy cavalry into the category of "close-fighting cavalrymen," except for heavy cavalrymen, apparently with armoured horses and riders as well, who wielded javelins (some of whom didn't close in for combat, others who did). His writing style tends towards brief sentences which are incredibly dry and to the point. I think that thus he might have confounded cataphracts, xustophoroi, thureophoroi, and shield-bearing heavy cavalrymen into a single confusing definition.
So, in conclusion, while Techne Taktike probably has some specifically Seleucid elements, it's been passed through too many hands, and the form that we have arrived in the hands of a writer with seemingly no military experience, and has been thus muddied. The description of the cavalry seems too nebulous for the details of distinctions between cavalry (even heavy and light, in some cases) to be worth much consideration.
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
It is not that muddy as you try to present it.
division is probably artificial, but rather clear:
1. close-combat cav
2. javelin cav
a. heavy armed
b. light armed
3. horse archers
It's functional division instead of one based on amount of metal warrior wear.
as for Thureophoroi cav carrying Aspis - for I C BC non-military man both of those terms mean the same - just different names of shields. Just like pistol and revolver which mean simply a gun to many.
The main reason I put this here is the way this "shield cavalry" is introduced, way that mean shields were not that common (there won't be need to distiguish them as different from xystophoroi and doryphoroi)
While there are many problems with this Taktike, it is still better source than Livy (who you believe fully) on Hellenistic military. Livy was worse informed and his knowledge of military matters was even lower.
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
It is not that muddy as you try to present it.
division is probably artificial, but rather clear:
1. close-combat cav
2. javelin cav
a. heavy armed
b. light armed
3. horse archers
It's functional division instead of one based on amount of metal warrior wear.
Well, that should look more like:
1. Heavily armoured close-combat cavalry.
a. Xustophoroi/doruphoroi.
b. Thureophoroi.
2. Intermediate cavalry.
a. Heavily armoured horse javelineers.
I. Tarantines.
II. Javelineers that throw from afar and engage in combat.
b. Horse archers.
3. Horse archers.
Only he has either folded in cataphracts with all other heavy cavalrymen, indicating that he does not distinguish between hetairoi, other heavy cavalry regiments at this point, and cataphracts, or he has simply omitted cataphracts, which would be strange because he specifically includes other almost exclusively Seleucid elements. And why the bizarre difference between horse archers who are "intermediate light bowmen" and horse archers that are simply "light bowmen"?
Tarentines, according to all sources we know, also were equipped with shields, so unless they too by the first century had evolved into some sort of cataphract akontistai cavalry, "heavily armoured" in their description indicates carrying a shield.
I also think that part of this is largely prescriptive. Asclepiodotus was a philosopher, and he was writing a treatise on a type of army which was (by then) largely a thing of the past. There is perhaps some nostalgia from Posidonius in there, but most of it is probably "how an army should look on paper and how it should operate on the parade ground" (the latter being clearly shown in the description of maneuvers and marching orders in the latter portion of the book). His description of which elements should be armoured is probably not an actual list of which units were armoured in reality.
Quote:
as for Thureophoroi cav carrying Aspis - for I C BC non-military man both of those terms mean the same - just different names of shields. Just like pistol and revolver which mean simply a gun to many.
So if he means "thureos" when he writes "aspis," where do the actual large round cavalry shields fit in there? Evidence from the Seleucid empire right down into the 1st C. BC indicates that while the thureos was popular with cavalrymen, the large cavalry shield was carried by cavalry.
Quote:
The main reason I put this here is the way this "shield cavalry" is introduced, way that mean shields were not that common (there won't be need to distiguish them as different from xystophoroi and doryphoroi)
But since Asclepiodotus's descriptions and divisions seem to be missing elements and artificially distinguishing between others, I wouldn't trust his opinions of which cavalry did (or rather, probably should) carry shields, either.
Quote:
While there are many problems with this Taktike, it is still better source than Livy (who you believe fully) on Hellenistic military. Livy was worse informed and his knowledge of military matters was even lower.
You need to take both on a passage-by-passage basis. Some of Techne Taktike, such as descriptions of officer ranks, duties, and positions, for instance, is more reliable than others, like the divisions of the chariot corps. Since both seem, at least on some levels and in some areas, to be based on Polybius (Livy drawing heavily from his histories, Asclepiodotus drawing heavily from his treatise on tactics), they ironically are probably about equal in value when you strip them down to their bare bones.
Re: Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Well, that should look more like:
1. Heavily armoured close-combat cavalry.
a. Xustophoroi/doruphoroi.
b. Thureophoroi.
2. Intermediate cavalry.
a. Heavily armoured horse javelineers.
I. Tarantines.
II. Javelineers that throw from afar and engage in combat.
b. Horse archers.
3. Horse archers.
Only he has either folded in cataphracts with all other heavy cavalrymen, indicating that he does not distinguish between hetairoi, other heavy cavalry regiments at this point, and cataphracts, or he has simply omitted cataphracts, which would be strange because he specifically includes other almost exclusively Seleucid elements. And why the bizarre difference between horse archers who are "intermediate light bowmen" and horse archers that are simply "light bowmen"?
The way I interpret these intermediate horsemen are simple: as they gained more armour, they were split into classes. So that with bow and javelin using skirmisher cavalry, the heavier armoured units would always be in-between the lighter armoured units and the enemy.
Regarding those heavily armoured javelineers, they could be an evolution from the concept of arming hetairoi with javelins.
my 2 cents (in this gold mine :2thumbsup: )
