Questions about Seleukid units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it.

---

About the burden of the proof (Onus probandi) topic:

In legal terms, there is one part of the authors that state your vision about the "who has to prove" question. That`s the classical vision, dragged from roman times.

But a vast mayority of current modern authors state that "the person that states something different to the normal or logical state of things is the one loaded with the onus probandi".

In this case, if most local people recruited by the diadochoi to be pantodapoi phalangitai were (by logical deduction) people of lower class, and they had to afford part of their eqipment (Or all, I`m not sure); then, the most common tool they could have used as sidearm are small knifes, dagas, hammers and axes. Even more among iranians, where axes were not uncommon (remember tabar axes, even when they have faded out of use by EB timeframe).

I don`t see why the locally recruited phalangites of the diadochoi wouldn`t have used tools as sidearms, like axes. That`s a logical thing to happen. Thus, if you want to state an alteration to this natural state of things, then it must be you who should proove it.

Besides, if everything made on this mod would neccesarily have to be proved, by hard archeological evidence, or by testimonies of ancient historians, then a farily half of this mod wouldn`t reach the light of the day.

Cheers!

Dunno what you want from me. You asked for an axe, I gave you an axe.

You were ready and eager to ridicule my team mates on the subject, so now that there's an actual proof presented you dismiss it? Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The axe, Parthian bodyguard, and chain veil issues are all very clearly answered by the evidence, especially the latter two. No one has provided a smidgeon of evidence for the chain mail veil, by the way, not even a reasoning for it.

When asked to provide some evidence, or even any evidence, on three of the four issues above, you've provided none. That's hardly convincing.

---

We're quite content with the axe as their secondary weapon. I'll even add that we have a new unit of lower classed Anatolian Hillmen (with thracian pelte shield) whose primary weapon is an axe. To piece together some of his comments on the veil that I have seen:

-The mail facemask first appears in northern spain, then moves into syria, presumably by way of mercenaries. There are some crude figures from spain, and a very nice relief that the syrian government has under lock and key in damascus. (The reason the chain veil/mask itself has not been published yet is) because the british fellow doing work at the site where it was found hasn't gotten around to publishing it in the last 10 years (the site is at Apamea). (It was in the context of other equipment that seems to belong to a very well equipped unit, possibly) guards of the governor.

I implore TPC to post on the Parthian bodyguard to end that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

About the burden of the proof (Onus probandi) topic:

In legal terms, there is one part of the authors that state your vision about the "who has to prove" question. That`s the classical vision, dragged from roman times.

But a vast mayority of current modern authors state that "the person that states something different to the normal or logical state of things is the one loaded with the onus probandi".

---

That the onus is on the disbeliever if the norm goes against his or her belief is a fallacy carried in many religious debates). But even under those circumstances, the norm among scholarly discussion is that phalangites carries swords. I've never seen phalangites reconstructed with sidearms other than swords before, and there's never been evidence for such a thing. So you have to prove that they were carried, and speculation about phalangites being drawn from poor non-Greeks who could not afford swords is very weak indeed. Isn't relying on flimsy evidence exactly what you accused me of doing in the hetairoi thread, and the reason why you chose not to accept my theory?

Quote:

---

In this case, if most local people recruited by the diadochoi to be pantodapoi phalangitai were (by logical deduction) people of lower class, and they had to afford part of their eqipment (Or all, I`m not sure);

---

This is not a logical conclusion at all. If anything, the opposite is true: probably only the most well-off non-Greeks could afford heavy equipment, while the poorer non-Greeks made up the masses of light troops with weaponry they used in everyday life (slings, bows, javelins).

Quote:

---

then, the most common tool they could have used as sidearm are small knifes, dagas, hammers and axes. Even more among iranians, where axes were not uncommon (remember tabar axes, even when they have faded out of use by EB timeframe).

---

As I stated before, a much more common, and affordable, sidearm amongst the Iranians was the sagaris, not the axe.

Quote:

---

Dunno what you want from me. You asked for an axe, I gave you an axe.

---

And I presented you with multiple images of Persian archers carrying swords. It's clear from the evidence that swords were absolutely not uncommon amongst even the poorer Iranian troops levied into the Achaemenid army, and whose descendants would likely have been levied into the Seleucid army.

Quote:

---

You were ready and eager to ridicule my team mates on the subject, so now that there's an actual proof presented you dismiss it? Gimme a break.

---

How am I ridiculing your teammates? By presenting evidence and questioning some of their reconstructions? I didn't dismiss the proof, I'm just stating that a much more likely sidearm would be the sword, and the evidence shows that.

Quote:

---

I don`t see why the locally recruited phalangites of the diadochoi wouldn`t have used tools as sidearms, like axes. That`s a logical thing to happen. Thus, if you want to state an alteration to this natural state of things, then it must be you who should proove it.

---

See the Persian archers for my proof, which is much more substantial than a tenuous assumption.

Quote:

---

Besides, if everything made on this mod would neccesarily have to be proved, by hard archeological evidence, or by testimonies of ancient historians, then a farily half of this mod wouldn`t reach the light of the day.

---

There's a difference between considering and extrapolating logically and conservatively from the known evidence to fill voids and speculating not based on the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

To piece together some of his comments on the veil that I have seen:

-The mail facemask first appears in northern spain, then moves into syria, presumably by way of mercenaries. There are some crude figures from spain, and a very nice relief that the syrian government has under lock and key in damascus. (The reason the chain veil/mask itself has not been published yet is) because the british fellow doing work at the site where it was found hasn't gotten around to publishing it in the last 10 years (the site is at Apamea). (It was in the context of other equipment that seems to belong to a very well equipped unit, possibly) guards of the governor.

I implore TPC to post on the Parthian bodyguard to end that matter.

---

This is very interesting, and I'd be very interested in seeing it. Does the relief show a full soldier? Is this also the same context in which the mail that you wrote about earlier was found? Approximately when does it date to?

that's the problem with archaeological evidence, its regularly published ten years down the road, if ever.

anyway, i know we're talking about hellenistic iranian/anatolian/iudaian levy soldiers, so this technically doesn't belong, but i did some searches on axes in classical authors and found quite a few instances in paramilitary (eg, 1) a group of akontistai in the kyropaedia carry axes in addition to javelins, though the primary purpose of the axes is in building camp, 2) axes (pelekeis and drapanai) are among the weapons smuggled into a city for an uprising) and military situations (the army description in herodotos for example, and a few other instances). You might also note that axes are present on a few of the images you posted for swords. You might also note the prevalence of Skythians and Thraikians as stand-ins for Persians, and the frequency of the kopis, strong indications that the vase painters were using mercenaries as their artistic reference, since really, most of those guys didn't really know what a Persian looked like.

Now, I'm helping with Getic/Thraikian unit work, so this isn't my area, but we do find axes in military or paramilitary contexts throughout that region. That doesn't bear on the pantodapoi really, but there are quite a few bronze and iron axeheads with spear heads and the like in burials throughout that region, including from the hellenistic period.

On the issue of levy Hellenistic soldiers, what is really our source base for describing their appearance? Not much in the way of description by historians or depiction in art. We know axes existed: they appear frequently in the archaeological record alongside other weapons, but you insist they are either ceremonial or non-military. The options for the levy soldiers appear to be as follows: an akinakes, which was a widely used simple weapon, though any akinakes available for levy troops (who, if Ptolemaic Egypt is any indication, lived on about one quarter the land of a Hellenic infantryman, one tenth that of a cavalryman) would be of the smaller sort and low quality. The other option appearing widely enough in the archaeological record is probably the axe, a weapon widely available to even the lowest level of the native military classes (if a Ptolemaic papyrus regarding the import of literally hundreds of axes is any indication) in a civilian context, but with a proven history of use in battle and requiring no extra expenditure since you probably own one anyway.


Hellenistic (lifetime or subject matter) historians and axes in military/paramilitary contexts:

Polybios:
4.57 - a select group of Aitolians bear axes, perhaps along with other weapons, in a city assault
10.14 - Romans use axes and hatchets in the siege of new carthage; while this does not imply these were their primary weapons, it does highlight one of my points: the axe was a useful tool in the camp, and a nice way to save money a levy soldier doesn't really have.
Diodoros:
34.2.14 - during a rebellion on Sicily, we find rebels armed with axes as an especially prevalent weapon. we also get this statement: "the sword pierces the ribs, but the axe smites the neck." it is, as in many other axe instances, in a paramilitary context, but its definitely equated with a more reputable weapon (the xiphos).
Dionysios:
4.38 - relates the seizure of power by Tarquinius, where associates carry swords and their attendants carry axes; perhaps his understanding of weaponry in early Roman history is based on contemporary practice.
8.78, 9.50, 20.5 - use of axes for beheading. mentioned more for human-directed violence than explicit military role.
Strabo:
16.4.24 - says axes are the predominant weapon among the Arabians, who probably not the sort of troops to be incorporated into a phalanx unit, it is useful that we find the axe predominant in a military context in the near east in (very late) Hellenistic/early Imperial.
17.1.54 - mention of axes as one of the primary weapons among the Aithiopians.

There are of course several others to check, but its time for bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

that's the problem with archaeological evidence, its regularly published ten years down the road, if ever.

---

Well, if it's as nice as it sounds, I hope it gets published.

Quote:

---

anyway, i know we're talking about hellenistic iranian/anatolian/iudaian levy soldiers, so this technically doesn't belong, but i did some searches on axes in classical authors and found quite a few instances in paramilitary (eg, 1) a group of akontistai in the kyropaedia carry axes in addition to javelins, though the primary purpose of the axes is in building camp, 2) axes (pelekeis and drapanai) are among the weapons smuggled into a city for an uprising) and military situations (the army description in herodotos for example, and a few other instances).

---

And the Romans carried dolabrae, but that's not an argument for legionaries wielding dolabrae as weapons in combat.

Quote:

---

You might also note that axes are present on a few of the images you posted for swords.

---

Those are, as I noted before, sagarises, not axes.

Quote:

---

You might also note the prevalence of Skythians and Thraikians as stand-ins for Persians, and the frequency of the kopis, strong indications that the vase painters were using mercenaries as their artistic reference, since really, most of those guys didn't really know what a Persian looked like.

---

Many artists would have undoubtedly served in the Persian wars, so they'd probably know what Persians looked like, and the kopis may simply have been a common Persian weapon (which makes sense considering the Persians' adoption of the linothorax as well from the Greeks).

Quote:

---

Now, I'm helping with Getic/Thraikian unit work, so this isn't my area, but we do find axes in military or paramilitary contexts throughout that region. That doesn't bear on the pantodapoi really, but there are quite a few bronze and iron axeheads with spear heads and the like in burials throughout that region, including from the hellenistic period.

---

And I wrote about this before, but I think those, like many from stelai in and around the Aegean sea, are ritualized tools.

Quote:

---

On the issue of levy Hellenistic soldiers, what is really our source base for describing their appearance? Not much in the way of description by historians or depiction in art.

---

We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.

Quote:

---

We know axes existed: they appear frequently in the archaeological record alongside other weapons, but you insist they are either ceremonial or non-military.

---

Because if they were used in a military context, I would expect some sort of representation in art, or a mention in a text. We don't have those, so it is unnecessarily speculative to assume that soldiers carried them in combat. As I said earlier, you could argue all of these points for Roman soldiers using dolabrae as weapons in combat, too, or other armies using various implements. It's simply a weak argument.

Quote:

---

The options for the levy soldiers appear to be as follows: an akinakes, which was a widely used simple weapon, though any akinakes available for levy troops (who, if Ptolemaic Egypt is any indication, lived on about one quarter the land of a Hellenic infantryman, one tenth that of a cavalryman) would be of the smaller sort and low quality.

---

First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system. We simply don't know if levy troops in the Seleucid empire were drawn from the poor, but considering that there was a sizeable population of well-off Iranians in the centre and east of the empire, it would not surprise me if they drew many of these phalangites from that population, just as they drew from these wealthy Iranians to populate the cavalry.

Quote:

---

The other option appearing widely enough in the archaeological record is probably the axe, a weapon widely available to even the lowest level of the native military classes (if a Ptolemaic papyrus regarding the import of literally hundreds of axes is any indication) in a civilian context, but with a proven history of use in battle and requiring no extra expenditure since you probably own one anyway.

---

Or another option, the sword, which was also well represented in the archeological evidence, was used by levy troops in the Achaemenid army up to immediately before Alexander's invasion, and which was used by most contemporary troops of these levies.

Your arguments here are as tenuous as mine in the Hetairoi shield thread.

at this point, your obiviously trolling, and its getting some of us sick of it.

someone please close this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiochus epiphanes

at this point, your obiviously trolling, and its getting some of us sick of it.

someone please close this thread?

---

Is someone questioning the EB team and then defending their position trolling? This is just a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Is someone questioning the EB team and then defending their position trolling? This is just a debate.

---

no not when you are given evidence, you dismiss it as not accurate,your demanding attitude like your owed somthing, your contiuious play on words, thats trolling in my book.

whats with all this hate? let him ask his questions, and if you dont like them you dont have to respond. This is a forum after all.

no harm in agreeing to disagree, as long as some good discussion came from it, all is well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Those are, as I noted before, sagarises, not axes.

---

What, the sagaris isn't an axe ? Just about all the textual mentions I've ever seen of the thing describe it as the variety of battleaxe with a long and narrow, almost pick-like, blade. That'd probably be a direct continuation of some non-socketed Bronze Age war-axes, but in any case narrow-bladed axes were AFAIK quite popular all over Western Asia for a very long time.

no but it is trolling when you mischaracterize my argument by saying it does something wrong, especially when you are doing the very thing to which you object:

A couple of your quotations:

Exhibit A: We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.

Exhibit B: First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system.

Now, the extrapolation in A is precisely the sort of argument you object to in B, when I never "attributed characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system," instead clearly indicating by saying "IF THE PTOLEMIES ARE ANY INDICATION" that I was not attributing, but rather providing one of the few examples we can actually use to make some comparison.

Now, while the presence of axes among camp tools of Romans does not really justify axes as secondary weapons for Romans, we can assume that axes carried as camp tools by poor levy troops are much more likely to see battle usage. You simply cannot compare a Roman legionary with a oi polloi levies.

You say "if it was used I would expect representation in art or in a text," yet I've supplied several textual examples, we've already seen a few classical-era paintings, of which we can scrounge up others, though I don't think that's hardly necessary. Also, considering the relatively small number of artistic depictions of Seleukid levy troops, that is, frankly, a silly demand. Consider the Arabic symmachoi at Raphia: they are probably doryphoroi, but if they carry a blade, what do you think it is? Very likely an axe, possibly a small dagger.

AND I'M TIRED OF THE ROUTINE THAT "ITS NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE TO SAY THE AXES WERE USED IN COMBAT AND THAT INSTEAD THEY WERE CERTAINLY CEREMONIAL." THAT IS CRAP. While some axes in wealthy burials or on high quality Hellenic stelai may be associated with ritual, the bronze and iron axes found in rubbish dumps and poor burials and in fields and outside walls are not friggin ceremonial axes. They may not be military, but they're almost certainly stinkin gardening tools or wood-cutting tools. And dangit, if I'm a poor farmer and I get recruited into service in a campaign, I'm not gonna sell my fattened calf to buy an akinakes when I've got my axe handy and free. So please, if we were trying to see the hetairoi should carry axes as secondary weapons, for all means say "NO THEY ARE RITUALISTIC!" but not when we're talking about lower-middle class levies, that's just far less reasonable than that they're used for wood-cutting and vine-trimming etc.

Edit: sorry for the all caps etc, but I'm annoyed at having my argument twisted or ignored and its been a long hard day.

The reason axes were so common among Viking raiders was that most of them were originally just poor common folks; pretty much by default every household had an axe for utility purposes, and most working axes kill people readily enough when applied with the necessary amount of effort. Spears and bows were similarly common for hunting purposes, and all were readily pressed to combat duty in assorted local skirmishes and personal disputes.

All were also very cheap compared to high-end weapons like long swords (the line between a large knife and a short sword, both as such far cheaper, being rather vague), and something most people owned and were familiar with from everyday living.

Given that if I've understood correctly the Pantodapoi and Machmoi Phalangitai are meant to represent "cheap and cheerful" mass levies, replacing the relatively expensive sword with a much cheaper axe, whose use the conscripts would be fairly familiar in any case, as a part of the required or issued kit would certainly seem like a perfectly credible method of driving down the costs and thereby increasing the head count put to the field - which such troops were largely all about anyway, no ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiochus epiphanes

no not when you are given evidence, you dismiss it as not accurate,your demanding attitude like your owed somthing, your contiuious play on words, thats trolling in my book.

---

It says right in the FAQ:

Quote:

---

However, we are always willing to reexamine our work if someone presents us with information that contradicts what we believe to be true.

---

It's not as if I'm dismissing the evidence as inaccurate without reason; I've provided why I thought it was not accurate. And what do you mean "play on words"? Like rhetoric? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

whats with all this hate? let him ask his questions, and if you dont like them you dont have to respond. This is a forum after all.

no harm in agreeing to disagree, as long as some good discussion came from it, all is well

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

What, the sagaris isn't an axe ? Just about all the textual mentions I've ever seen of the thing describe it as the variety of battleaxe with a long and narrow, almost pick-like, blade. That'd probably be a direct continuation of some non-socketed Bronze Age war-axes, but in any case narrow-bladed axes were AFAIK quite popular all over Western Asia for a very long time.

---

The sagaris isn't an axe like a sarissa isn't a spear; in the context of an in-depth argument, calling it an axe is too general a term.

Quote:

---

no but it is trolling when you mischaracterize my argument as doing the very thing you do:

A couple of your quotations:

Exhibit A: We don't have any depictions of levy soldiers, no, but we can definitely extrapolate from the general representations of soldiers in art to determine what the norm was for equipment and costume.

Exhibit B: First of all, you are attributing characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system to the Seleucid system.

Now, the extrapolation in A is precisely the sort of argument you object to in B, when I never "attributed characteristics of the Ptolemaic levy system," instead clearly indicating by saying "IF THE PTOLEMIES ARE ANY INDICATION" that I was not attributing, but rather providing one of the few examples we can actually use to make some comparison.

---

Extrapolation A is not at all like extrapolation B. A deals with the army of a unified empire, and of troops which served together within the same armed forces, which would thus have had a great deal of cultural and material interaction. Extrapolation B is comparing two empires with vastly different native populations and drawing the methods of dealing with those populations in one and applying it to another. A is generalized but still valid because the units would have interacted quite a bit; B is not valid because while the native population of the Ptolemaic empire was largely poor, a large proportion of the Iranian population in the Seleucid empire were not.

Quote:

---

Now, while the presence of axes among camp tools of Romans does not really justify axes as secondary weapons for Romans, we can assume that axes carried as camp tools by poor levy troops are much more likely to see battle usage. You simply cannot compare a Roman legionary with a oi polloi levies.

---

If they were poor, then I would agree. However, as I've posted before, I disagree with the basic principle that they were so.

Quote:

---

You say "if it was used I would expect representation in art or in a text," yet I've supplied several textual examples, we've already seen a few classical-era paintings, of which we can scrounge up others, though I don't think that's hardly necessary.

---

Textual examples from many other parts of the world, yes. And as I've also pointed out, those Classical examples of axe use also clearly show that the sword was widely used by Achaemenid levy troops, and in much greater proportion.

Quote:

---

Also, considering the relatively small number of artistic depictions of Seleukid levy troops, that is, frankly, a silly demand. Consider the Arabic symmachoi at Raphia: they are probably doryphoroi, but if they carry a blade, what do you think it is? Very likely an axe, possibly a small dagger.

---

What do I think it is? I think you know the answer to that question :beam:

Quote:

---

AND DAMMIT I'M TIRED OF THE ROUTINE THAT ITS NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE TO SAY THE AXES WERE USED IN COMBAT AND THAT INSTEAD THEY WERE CERTAINLY CEREMONIAL. THAT IS CRAP. While some axes in wealthy burials or on high quality Hellenic stelai may be associated with ritual, the bronze and iron axes found in rubbish dumps and poor burials and in fields and outside walls are not friggin ceremonial axes. They may not be military, but they're almost certainly stinkin gardening tools or wood-cutting tools. And dangit, if I'm a poor farmer and I get recruited into service in a campaign, I'm not gonna sell my fattened calf to buy an akinakes when I've got my axe handy and free. So please, if we were trying to see the hetairoi should carry axes as secondary weapons, for all means say "NO THEY ARE RITUALISTIC!" but not when we're talking about lower-middle class levies, that's just far less reasonable than that they're used for wood-cutting and vine-trimming etc.

---

Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.

How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.

---

Remember when I said this?

As a disinterested and uninvolved observer I can say that, whether you intend to or not, the tone of your posts suggests you are interested less in debate and more in the kind of nitpicking that is intended to aggravate the person with whom you are speaking. The "I'm not touching you - I'm not touching you - does this bother you? - I'm not touching you" approach to debate is generally seen as obnoxious, and as I said before you will find a hard time convincing anybody of anything if you start a debate with a hostile or seemingly obnoxious posture.

You have said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to help out and make things better" - if that is the case, I highly suggest you read the first link in my .sig regarding feedback to show how you can both help out and make things better. As it stands, you are undermining your own intentions with every post you make. Which is a real shame, as you clearly have a lot of things to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.

---

Doesn't Paullus say exactly this...? that they could and most likely were used for multiple purposes. I can see why he thinks his arguments are being mis-interpreted/twisted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Whoa. This is just a debate. Maybe you should take a breather.

---

Well Paullus did explain himself (in his Edit). So comments like the one in bold are neither necessary nor conducive to the so called "debate". Perhaps we (general) could practice what we (you) preach. After all-- it is just a debate.

Edit: blacksnail is infinitely more eloquent (and quicker) than I.

I want to say two (EDIT:relatively) quick things:
1- It is unfortunate that text can only convey so much information. As the post by blacksnail said, emotions and tone are often seen where there are none. With textual communication, like fora, simple mistakes, slightly off grammar, or lack of info can often imply the wrong tone. I have seen many posts (some my own) that are seen as angry, aggressive, insultive, or down right mean that were not meant that way at all. It is hard to tell if someone is seeking a confrontation or simply used easily misinterpretable grammar. I hope that most of this arguement is misinterpretation.

2- I like having MeinPanzer around. He seems to be the first thoroughly historically education person, besides those on the team itself, to post here. Without some sort of scrutiny, some ahistoric things may slip through. I think it is a good sign for EB that when someone who knows history and is far from a EB fanboy shows up, that the biggest controversial things brought up are so very pedantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The sagaris isn't an axe like a sarissa isn't a spear; in the context of an in-depth argument, calling it an axe is too general a term.

---

Isn't this akin to defining "sword" so that both the rapier and the kopis don't fit in at the same time...?

Quote:

---

If they were poor, then I would agree. However, as I've posted before, I disagree with the basic principle that they were so.
---
Textual examples from many other parts of the world, yes. And as I've also pointed out, those Classical examples of axe use also clearly show that the sword was widely used by Achaemenid levy troops, and in much greater proportion.

---

The Seleucid levies (or their masters, if the gear was more or less state-issued) on the other hand had to shovel out the dough for the armour and helmets and greaves and whatnot, which the Achaemenid levies AFAIK didn't commonly use. At that point opting for a cheaper sidearm to keep the overall expenses down would kind of make sense, no ?

The more prosperous "natives" are of course an entirely another issue, but then again what do they have to do with the issue of "cheap and cheerful" levies anyway ? Wouldn't they rather go into the better infantry formations or the cavalry ?

Quote:

---

How do you know that those axes aren't wood-cutting tools? Is that not the primary role of an axe? It would be a stretch, even in an environment in which the use of axes in combat was well known, to assume that axes found all over the place are necessarily weapons.

---

If it chops and splits wood, odds are it'll do the same to humans if necessary... And probably deals with shields and armour better than most swords, too. Really, the line between a tool-axe and war-axe has always tended to be rather fuzzy; the latter are usually distinguished mainly by design details that on the average make them better suited for destrying people and war gear and less so for cutting wood, and more ornamentation - but that didn't keep the former from cheerfully being used as quite viable substitutes.

RUaaAaRRR FOrum Troll alert!

Sir, firstly, if you wished to contribute to EB, and-or constructively criticize their work, your comments, challenges, or simple, angry at the world statements should have been sent to the EB team privately, not posted in the general forum for all of us to watch you take apart with your nitpickyness all the hard work these people have done WITHOUT PAY for our enjoyment of this game.

No one is perfect, indeed, I am the first to point things out that I believe could be changed, in a respectful and appropriate manner, privately or non obtrusively

Also, if your comments are shot down, you have no right to scream and raise hell about it, because usually in this little thing called life, you don't always get what you want, and you certainly do not get it when you act vaingloriously and selfrighteously as if you knew everything there was to know about this timeframe.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

You have said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to help out and make things better" - if that is the case, I highly suggest you read the first link in my .sig regarding feedback to show how you can both help out and make things better. As it stands, you are undermining your own intentions with every post you make. Which is a real shame, as you clearly have a lot of things to say.

---

...and...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I like having MeinPanzer around. He seems to be the first thoroughly historically education person, besides those on the team itself, to post here. Without some sort of scrutiny, some ahistoric things may slip through. I think it is a good sign for EB that when someone who knows history and is far from a EB fanboy shows up, that the biggest controversial things brought up are so very pedantic.

---

Both good points and ones I'd like to see echoed in debates both present and in the future.

Personally I'm finding this a fascinating debate, since it illustrates more of the basic debate required to create historically accurate units for EB. I'd find it a great shame if MeinPanzer's points are not addressed due to his rather abrasive style. So really, it'd be great if all parties can stay polite and adress each other in the tone in which they'd want to be spoken to. Labeling people troll, or posting as if the EB team have it totally wrong is counterproductive.

And personally, I'd lean in the direction of poor levies using an axe. They'd need it on campaign for acquiring wood and building camp, and using it in battle means less costs and lighter loads. I don't know a great deal about the period, but wouldn't it make sense that basic equipment such as the sarissa and light armour would be provided by the state, and sidearms would be optional and provided by the troops themselves?

thank you Caratacos for pointing out the ridiculousness of his response. wake up in the morning all calmed down and read that and got totally pissed off again. but now i'm better thanks to you.

Mein Panzer, I love that you are around, that you like EB better than other mods, that you have a large knowledge base, that you're willing to share that knowledge, and that you want to help us be more and more accurate. I really do think those are all great things. But we're having a huge fight over the axes used by the pantodapoi? From looking at this debate, I'm not seeing you exhibiting the capability to concede a single inch: if you'll look back at your past confrontations, you'll see that I and others are willing to give and take in argumentation: its a sign of dialogue, of actually listening to what other people are saying. You show little sign of listening, even with your fantastic ability to multi-quote.

I have a proposition for you: can we drop the axe debate? Here is why: in EB2, if M2TW is ever moddable, we can use multiple secondary weapons (can't we?), so in that context, you can rest assured that a unit like the pantodapoi phalangitai will be carrying a mix between simple axes, old swords, and daggers. Our argument in EB is not that every levy pikeman in the Seleukid army would have carried an axe: it is that it is quite reasonable that some/many/maybe-even-a-majority-in-certain-times-and-places did, and so it is a potential way of differentiating a unit from the Greek units it resembles. In EB2, I would hope to see the axes become less common in relation to other iranian/anatolian close combat weapons.

Some tips for playing the Seleucids:
1º In the east you will only find troubles, it's in the west were your empire will grow. You will loosse cities in the east from parthians and baktrians. On the first turn abandon every city where happiness is too slow to mantain.
2º Build Regional barracks in all your frontier cities. You can train persian archers, skirmishes and missile cavalry at low cost. They will be your key units against every army sent at you.
3º In the east you must remain in the offensive....BUT...if you manage to train a decent army and conquer Kiat from the Parthians, then you will leave their income in red and won't recover anymore.
4º In the west you must quickly conquer sidon and use it to stop every army the Ptolemei send at you. IT's easy to defend and it will buy you time for point nº 5.
5º Build a second army, a ship and conquer Cyprus from the Ptolemaioi. Enslave the population. This island will give you good money and you don't have to garrison it. After this go and conquer Side from the Ptolemei.
6º At this time you will start to see small blue fellows running all around your eastern frontier. Congratulations, you have met the Baktrians. Get used to them, you will see them. Their units are weaker than yours, but they have numbers. Use your persians archers to kill their missile units and don't forget to use hellenic spearmen (4 units per army) as your core troops.
7º Regroup your armies in the west and conquer Jerusalem and Petra (only if the Ptolemai have them). After retraining your units you will face the definitive challenge, attacking the Ptolemei in their homeland. They are though to beat, but if you conquer Memphis or Alexandria you can train good units from scratch.
8º The problem with attacking Egypt is the choice you make. Memphis or Alexandria? Both are valuable and both can be reinforced in one turn by the Ptolemeis. You will have to use mercenaries to fight them back and continue the siege. Do not fear going into the red treasury, each city gives you like 30000 mnai.


well, I hope this helps someone.

PS: After 1º you can be intelligent and move your capital to Babylonia, this will give you a boost of happines on the eastern frontier. I wasn't.

^^^
i dont think you read the rest of the thread


back on topic: the question boils down to wether these units were drawn from poor non-greeks, or just non-greeks. If they werent poor, theres no reason for them carry an axe.

You know it's a pattern throughout history that those who could not afford swords used axes. The Romans could only use mass-swords because the Gladius is a short, tough weapon which can be badly made and still serve, and believe me some of Gladii we have are pretty shoddy from a metal-working point of view.

By what I know of it decent short swords were also way easier to make than long ones - far less tricky metallurgy involved and so on - and duly rather a bit cheaper.

As I understand it, and I have sword fetish, the longer the blade the higher probability of a fault in the iron/steel and of course the longer it is the more leverage is applied to the blade when it hits, further increasing the chance of a break.

The Gladius is blade-heavy and diamond shaped, being also very thick. It's basically a short iron bar with an edge and point.

Sort of the same thing why it's easier to make iron and steel plate of homogenous quality in small pieces than big solid ones. The smaller bits are metallurgically easier to control (which is why breastplates were sometimes made up of horizontal "bands" of steel rather than as monolith pieces as late as late 1500s - "anime cuirass", that was called).

Quote:

---

The more prosperous "natives" are of course an entirely another issue, but then again what do they have to do with the issue of "cheap and cheerful" levies anyway ? Wouldn't they rather go into the better infantry formations or the cavalry ?

---

This is I think the point MeinPanzer is trying to make.

There were plenty of wealthy Iranian etc natives who were put into the cavalry but there would also have been plenty that were not rich enough to be cavalry but wealthy enough to afford the standard phalanx gear.
The Greeks wouldn't allow them into the Pezhateroi so the mixed, empire wide levy Pantodapoi Phalangitai would be where they would surely end up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

This is I think the point MeinPanzer is trying to make.

There were plenty of wealthy Iranian etc natives who were put into the cavalry but there would also have been plenty that were not rich enough to be cavalry but wealthy enough to afford the standard phalanx gear.
The Greeks wouldn't allow them into the Pezhateroi so the mixed, empire wide levy Pantodapoi Phalangitai would be where they would surely end up.

---

I think it's more likely less wealthy Persians went into light cav. What Persian of means would fight on foot?