Assorted Historical Questions - Gertrude et al, ask them here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socy

I have a question that's been bugging me for quite some time now. Pardon me if it's an "easy" historical question, but seeing that I'm not as educated in ancient history as I'd like to be I feel that I might aswell go ahead and ask it :book: .

In the Diadochi kingdoms, Ptolemaic Egypt and Arche Seleukeia are the two kingdoms I'm thinking most about, did any locals got enlisted into the more hellenic units such as say.. The Pezhetairoi? I mean, I know that alot of Hellens/Macedonians etc migrated to the east in the wake of Alexanders conquest, but seeing that the Diadochi waged many wars and that the Hellens were quite important in their military war-machines I think its logical to assume that many actually died in combat aswell. So to deepen the question; Were the losses that the Hellenic population took in the Diadochi Kingdoms "easily" recovered beacuse the Hellenic population was so large that it could reproduce pretty quickly and recover losses from war in lets say a decenium or two, or was it necessary for the Diadochi to enlist locals into the more core Hellenic forces? The reason that I ask is beacuse many unit-descriptions in the game seems to suggest that locals such as the Ioudai, Syrikoi etc. were enlisted in the Pantodapoi Phalangitai as to keep them from getting any true military power (Seeing as they could revolt against their Hellenic overlords), but if the Hellenic population started to dwindle would the Diadochi simply use the Pantodapoi as a substitute to the more reliable Pezhetairoi or would the start to incorporate locals?

For clarification! The world "Hellen" in this text refers to people from the greek mainland, Macedonia etc. Hope you understand!:smash:

---

Shameless bump as this is a question that's been nagging me for too long!:smash:

it wasn't necessarily locals, but Hellenizing populations were incorporated--to varying extents--into some traditionally Hellenic units. The Ptolemies managed to bring thousands of true Hellenes and Makedones to Egypt, but they could also bring many thousands of peoples from Hellenizing territories like southern Thrace or various parts of Anatolia. The boundaries of Hellenic identity were in flux during the Hellenistic period, and it was possible for many people--though still Jews or Lykians or even Galatians in some sense--to participate in a general sense in being Hellenes. A person who could claim to be a native of Pella, Sparta, or Athens still could feel some level of superiority based on heritage, but you did not need to be from within the modern conceptions of the borders of Hellas in order to serve in the "Hellenic" units of a Successor army.

Re: the issue with the grip on the Roman scutum. The horizontal grip was held overhand so that, if your hand was down by your side, the shield would be vertical and the bottom would be rather close to the ground. These shields were not meant to be wielded, but were full body shields (10kg. is too heavy to wield, thus no crazy deltoids, sorry). During a charge one would press their shoulder to the spine of the scutum and barrell into the enemy. After impact the bottom of the scutum could be lowered to the ground and the gladius or hasta could be used overhand across the body and over the scutum on the head and shoulders of the enemy, as is frequently depicted. Peter Connolly has done some good work with the scutum and, though perhaps slightly dated, his conclusions on the mechanics of useage have not been thoroughly refuted.

Thanks for the answer Paullus! So basically there were many different ethnicities that could be counted as "Hellenic" and therefore serve in the more traditional Hellenistic units.

But the Pantodapoi Phalangitai unit is obviously (Unless I've completely missunderstod it) composed only out of locals that weren't trusted into the, say, Pezhetairoi regiments. Wich brings another question. Did the Diadochi kingdoms really have the Hellenistic manpower (All off Hellenic descent, Thracians etc. included just for clarity) to field these units composed entirely of Hellenic soldiers or did they incorporate various "untrusted" locals into these regiments?

Say that an army of the Arche Seleukeia with all the combat-ready men in the kingdom gets killed off (Extreme, but just for example). Would the Arche Seleukeia then let locals fight in the Pezhetairoi regiment, would the losses be covered in a generation or two (The children of the killed soldiers) or a mix of the two? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

it wasn't necessarily locals, but Hellenizing populations were incorporated--to varying extents--into some traditionally Hellenic units. The Ptolemies managed to bring thousands of true Hellenes and Makedones to Egypt, but they could also bring many thousands of peoples from Hellenizing territories like southern Thrace or various parts of Anatolia. The boundaries of Hellenic identity were in flux during the Hellenistic period, and it was possible for many people--though still Jews or Lykians or even Galatians in some sense--to participate in a general sense in being Hellenes. A person who could claim to be a native of Pella, Sparta, or Athens still could feel some level of superiority based on heritage, but you did not need to be from within the modern conceptions of the borders of Hellas in order to serve in the "Hellenic" units of a Successor army.

---

If I may, Paullus, your answer here is, I think, correct in its essentials; however, it may be a bit misleading. While their conception of who qualifies as "Hellenic" may differ from ours insofar as it does not coincide with the borders of "Hellas", thus enlarging the possible recruitment pool, there is no ancient evidence of locals being recruited into the Seleucid phalanx. The manpower for the phalangites, argyrasdipes, infantry guard, some cavalry units, and some units of cataphracts came from the military settlements of macedonians. While colonization in the Hellenistic east is a tricky subject, and indeed the scholarship has not reached its ultimate conclusion, the majority of sources suggest that the macedonian settlers in the colonial poleis did not intermarry at large with the natives. A survey of conjectural population estimates in these poleis coincides remarkably well with the number of mobilized and reserve phalangites attested on a regional basis. In the hypothetical "what if everyone died?" it is impossible to say what would happen, as there is no attested precedent; however, it should be noted that, despite some serious defeats, the Seleucid army had no problems recruiting "macedonians" from the military settlements to serve in the heavy infantry. Indeed, the homogeneity and effectiveness of the core of the Seleucid army has been downplayed rather too much in view of the ancient evidence. My two HS.

-P.S. To Socy, it seems the time between the major campaigns was indeed enough for a new generation of macedonian settlers to mature and fill the ranks. Cheers.

Thanks Divulse123! Exactly the answer I was hoping for! :beam:
It might be a tricky question but it's one I've always wondered about. Wich in turn answers another, minor question thats been nagging me. Did many Hellens migrate into the East in the wake of Alexanders conquest? Obviously, yes.. MANY :smash:.

Divulse, glad to have you on the boards, and thanks for your contribution. Since you're coming from a Seleukid perspective and I from a Ptolemaic, perhaps we can have a useful dialogue.

To begin with, I think your analysis misses the key concept that "Macedonian" was not a stable term either. Do you think that, because most of the population of Antioch and her sister cities came from Hellenic or Hellenizing places but very few from Macedonia, none of them were ever included in any of the Seleukid Macedonian regiments? What study are you using that would imply that the Makedones of the settlements in Anatolia or Mesopotamia or Syria not only lugged over their wives and children in the first generation, but adamantly refused to intermarry with anyone who wasn't a Makedon? You suggest they didn't marry natives; I think that is generally correct. But you miss my point, which is that there is a third option: Hellenizing populations or non-Macedonians from Hellas were also present in or around the settlements, and their incorporation into the recruitment system by either intermarriage or by decision of local administrators is highly probable.

Now, you may have some interesting evidence regarding "authentic" Macedonian settlers in Seleukid colonies, but I'd be interested to see it. Most of my work is with the Ptolemies, and I'm speaking mainly from their perspective. In the Ptolemaic perspective, Makedon was a military "ethnicity" alongside its role as an actual ethnicity. Authentic Makedones sought to maintain their separate status by maintaining aspects of the native speech, but with little longterm effect. Many other non-Makedones were made Makedones by virtue of their service in the pike phalanx. The borders of ethnicity may be much more porous, in some circumstances, than you may think.

And in answer to your question, Socy, the Diadochs were hesitant to just replace losses with a bunch of native Syrians or Egyptians. Recruiting more Hellenic settlers or "promoting" non-native Hellenizing peoples was preferred. After Panion and in the wake of long counterinsurgencies the Ptolemies did rely a good bit on the native Egyptian machimoi, but they never treated them like they were members of the Macedonian foot. At some point manpower difficulties may have played a role in the diminished importance of the pike phalanx in Ptolemaic regions: it was much more natural to deploy Lykians and Pamphylians etc as thureophoroi than as phalangitai, and that clearly didn't put as much pressure on their ethnic inclusion, since they didn't change their ethnic status upon inclusion in those sorts of units.

A question about how the Romans post-marian reforms managed to produce armor in the levels they did.


How did they? I realize there probably was a lot of hand me downs, some going out to buy their own armor, and maybe even a little raiding the enemy dead, but for the most part it was paid for by the Roman state. Were there massive black smiths, that had hundreds of slaves and black smiths spitting out the armor who happened to be the lowest bidder, or what?

I'm guessing a form of the assembly line was probably used too, if it was factory like black smiths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

A question about how the Romans post-marian reforms managed to produce armor in the levels they did.


How did they? I realize there probably was a lot of hand me downs, some going out to buy their own armor, and maybe even a little raiding the enemy dead, but for the most part it was paid for by the Roman state. Were there massive black smiths, that had hundreds of slaves and black smiths spitting out the armor who happened to be the lowest bidder, or what?

I'm guessing a form of the assembly line was probably used too, if it was factory like black smiths.

---

State contracts to various cottage industries throughout Italian Gaul, in all likelihood. Possibly even allied Gallic communities as well.

Quote:

---

Divulse, glad to have you on the boards, and thanks for your contribution. Since you're coming from a Seleukid perspective and I from a Ptolemaic, perhaps we can have a useful dialogue.

---

Thanks for the welcome paullus. Always a pleasure to talk shop at leisure.

Quote:

---

To begin with, I think your analysis misses the key concept that "Macedonian" was not a stable term either.

---

Quote:

---

Do you think that, because most of the population of Antioch and her sister cities came from Hellenic or Hellenizing places but very few from Macedonia, none of them were ever included in any of the Seleukid Macedonian regiments?

---

I was using "macedonian" to replace "hellenic" or "hellenizing" as I have prejudice against the terms using the "-ization" concept, there is too much baggage there. But since I think our understanding of the process is probably compatible in this context let me say this: I do indeed think that the "hellenized" peoples of Antioch and other such areas in the levant and the seaward areas of Asia Minor were recruited into the Seleucid heavy phalanx, often referred to in the literature simply as "macedonians." In these areas, intimate contact with Greeks over several centuries allowed a certain speed in the development of a compromizing culture made up of Greek and more or less Syrian (as well as other) elements. In point of fact, whenever an ancient military unit is referred to in the literature as an ethnic, there is a good chance that the people making up the unit are not even genetically from that culture, they are rather only armed in such a fashion. (i.e. many "thracians" were not thracian, many "galatians" not galatian.)

Quote:

---

What study are you using that would imply that the Makedones of the settlements in Anatolia or Mesopotamia or Syria not only lugged over their wives and children in the first generation, but adamantly refused to intermarry with anyone who wasn't a Makedon?

---

My point is more for Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. For the nuts and bolts of recruitment in the Seleucid army, check out Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army volume. More recent, and with charts, try his "Judas Maccabaeus". For colonization and "macedonian" settlement in the east check out Getzel Cohen's volume on hellenistic colonization in mesopotamia. (I'm not at my desk now, I'm at home, so I can provide full biblio later.) For a conflicting but (in my opinion) slightly heavy-handed reading of the ancient sources check out Khurt and Sherwin-White's "Samarkhand to Sardis." Getzel Cohen has a forthcoming volume on the colonization in the Iranian plateau, and yet another on the colonization in Bactria and India.

Quote:

---

Hellenizing populations or non-Macedonians from Hellas were also present in or around the settlements, and their incorporation into the recruitment system by either intermarriage or by decision of local administrators is highly probable.

---

Non-macedonians from greece are one issue, "hellenizing" populations are another. The former, these could most certainly be included among the phalangites, and called "macedonians". The latter, a quantity of people for which there is almost no real evidence outside of areas bordering the mediterranean. One could with some accuraccy claim the local elites were "hellenized", but projecting that tendency onto the population at large is impossible to do, as the ancient evidence does not suggest any such phenomenon. Rather, it is an outdated academic construct of the nineteenth-century, or perhaps earlier, from before the scientific application of archaeology to the study of the ancient world. Unfortunately, scholars still operate under its shadow, which is why in every book on the subject, the author must provide their own definition of "whatever-ization" from which to start his/her inquiry. Such natives as were under Seleucid rule were recruited into the lighter arms of Seleucid infantry, as far as our literary and archaeological evidence suggests. Saying that something is "highly probable" is a bit much, "possible", is a bit better; however, we must remember that one can not make assertions based on the fact that something "makes sense" or "seems to have been likely due to logic" as that is not scholarship, it is amateur conjecture.

Quote:

---

Many other non-Makedones were made Makedones by virtue of their service in the pike phalanx.

---

This is (1) an historiographical issue, as well as (2) an historical one. 1.) As mentioned above, the term "macedonian" in a military context was often used to mean "phalangite". 2.) As far as the Ptolemies are concerned, the reason non-macedonians were made "macedonians" is because the Ptolemies had no (or fewer) reservations about using native people in their heavy infantry. (NB: The effect this had on their military performance is an open debate, one to which, I believe, there shall not be a certain conclusion.)

So that's my rant for the day. I wish I were at my desk, but we all need a day off some time right? I'm VERY happy I found this forum, it's always nice to find people with the same interests! Especialy with all the crazy barbarian cultures, about which I know not enough! Valete!

-P.S. My responses are never supposed to be taken as contemptuous, even if they seem a little short or dismissive, that's the nature of the beast. I'm always happy to get a response, conflicting or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divulse123

My point is more for Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. For the nuts and bolts of recruitment in the Seleucid army, check out Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army volume. More recent, and with charts, try his "Judas Maccabaeus". For colonization and "macedonian" settlement in the east check out Getzel Cohen's volume on hellenistic colonization in mesopotamia. (I'm not at my desk now, I'm at home, so I can provide full biblio later.) For a conflicting but (in my opinion) slightly heavy-handed reading of the ancient sources check out Khurt and Sherwin-White's "Samarkhand to Sardis." Getzel Cohen has a forthcoming volume on the colonization in the Iranian plateau, and yet another on the colonization in Bactria and India.

---

:dizzy2: I'm not necessarily vexed by the mention of practically all of the above titles, but just the 'check out' bit. I've visited more libraries in the last few months, in a vain bid to track down at least some of these titles, than I'd care to count. Perhaps it doesn't help that I have, as yet, decided not to enter 3rd level education and so have had to rely mainly on public institutions.


In any case, the only solution that has actually borne any fruit has been to buy them from Alibris or other comparable companies. For the most part, this is just ridiculously expensive : Take Holt's "Thundering Zeus" for example, since it belongs to the same series as most of the above. Paying upwards of £60 for a book that has 248 pages! To buy several of the specialist titles in this series might be affordable over an extended period of time, but most of them seem increasingly rare as it is. Case in point of course is "Samarkhand to Sardis." I really don't care how flawed the approach is because after hearing so much about it I'd give my left bollock just to get the chance to actually read it. That seems unlikely though, given the pricetag of at least around £300 on the handful of copies that do seem to be available.


Sorry, rant over :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redshank

:dizzy2: I'm not necessarily vexed by the mention of practically all of the above titles, but just the 'check out' bit. I've visited more libraries in the last few months, in a vain bid to track down at least some of these titles, than I'd care to count. Perhaps it doesn't help that I have, as yet, decided not to enter 3rd level education and so have had to rely mainly on public institutions.


In any case, the only solution that has actually borne any fruit has been to buy them from Alibris or other comparable companies. For the most part, this is just ridiculously expensive : Take Holt's "Thundering Zeus" for example, since it belongs to the same series as most of the above. Paying upwards of £60 for a book that has 248 pages! To buy several of the specialist titles in this series might be affordable over an extended period of time, but most of them seem increasingly rare as it is. Case in point of course is "Samarkhand to Sardis." I really don't care how flawed the approach is because after hearing so much about it I'd give my left bollock just to get the chance to actually read it. That seems unlikely though, given the pricetag of at least around £300 on the handful of copies that do seem to be available.


Sorry, rant over :no:

---

Do you not have access to an interlibrary loan service? Most university and some public library systems allow people to place loans for rarer books like these, which is how most people (myself included) get access to them.

Yeah, the biggest shame in most branches of academia is that we do not let our stuff become available to the general public. As the above poster said, try to find a library that will let you ILL some of these books. A large metropolitan one is probably your best bet. Or, you can probably just go to a college library and photocopy a relevant chapter or two, though MANY college libraries do not actually have some of the VERY important works on more obscure topics, a real bummer that.

I have From Samarkand to Sardis here with me, but its a library copy. I rejoiced when I found it because of the rarity and things I heard about it, but really, why do these books co$t $oooo much to own them? Its like robbery or $omething.

They are expensive to print and VERY few people buy them other than libraries. The standard first run of editions of ancient texts from Oxford University Press, for example, is 400 copies. Not very many huh? Many pieces of secondary scholarship get even fewer copies made, the importance of the scholarship does not matter, if it's not lucrative it doesn't get printed. So people like Goldsworthy, Kagan, etc., water down their dissertations five or six different times, slap on some pretty pictures, and BAM, a brand new (and practically useless) easy to acquire "ancient history" books. But I suppose they are better than nothing.

If I was facing a roman army or another of the period, what size of soldier would I face? Because I believe that Romans were short people in comparison to many moderners and Gauls(I heard this, but it could be BS), for example, I am 6'2" what would the average Roman be?

Also, sprouting of this, is the height of peoples directly related to peoples, i.e UK, Scandanavia are larger then modern Italians etc.. because I am from the result of Germanic and Celtic genetics and Italians are from romans, and then their conquerors.

I guess just about the same size as you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by We shall fwee...Wodewick

If I was facing a roman army or another of the period, what size of soldier would I face? Because I believe that Romans were short people in comparison to many moderners and Gauls(I heard this, but it could be BS), for example, I am 6'2" what would the average Roman be?

Also, sprouting of this, is the height of peoples directly related to peoples, i.e UK, Scandanavia are larger then modern Italians etc.. because I am from the result of Germanic and Celtic genetics and Italians are from romans, and then their conquerors.

---

They had a minimum height requirement for the legions, but they noted that Germans and Celts were taller than them on average, and such peoples often noted how "short" the Romans were.

Did the minimum height requirement not go with the Marian reforms?

edit. actually I've realized it came in with the Marian reforms, not out. Sorry.:embarassed:

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

You know, I'd consider emptying my trust to start up a company that would publish works like From Sardis to Samarkand at low costs (i.e they literally be a reinforced binder, and paper mediumishly heavier than copier paper), but pharmacy is my calling you know?


Besides, the shit storm it would cause by some elitist academia wouldn't be worth it. Would you want to hear tales of another professor being axed a week by RA's legions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

---

When you get Empires Total War, select 'US' if that is a faction and go for night battles. Also: if they include the option to attack precisely at boxing day, that would be totally sweet... Washington, anyone?

Seriously though: night battles were usually not a grand-strategy as it's basically only a viable (because it's nearly always costly) option for the lesser of generals/armies. It gives you the edge of surprise at the cost of better coordination...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

---

Night battles were rare throughout history, because they were extremely difficult for both sides. All kinds of unexpected things happened, and men could panic for no reason, not to mention the problems of co-ordination.

I have a question...:book:

May be this is answered before but I wonder why Romans stop conquering other factions?? I mean Caledonians , Germanic Tribes or Parthians are more powerful than Greeks , Carthaginians , Iberians or Celts ?? Or are there other reasons???..:book:

Sorry for My English :sweatdrop:

Thanks for replying..:balloon2:

Augustus advised that future emperors keep Rome within the levels it was when he died, plus the empire at that time had a lot of natural borders ie the Danube ets. A few emperors did try to conquer more territory of course but most just defended what they had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Augustus advised that future emperors keep Rome within the levels it was when he died, plus the empire at that time had a lot of natural borders ie the Danube ets. A few emperors did try to conquer more territory of course but most just defended what they had.

---

:book: Thanks.... I didnt know Augustus advised that !!!! :book:

Well to be honest it probably didn't have much of an effect on future emperors, Romes empire was probably as big as it could get without becoming unmanageable at the time. Most emperors probably said they were going along with Augustus' advice, but more likely it was just too difficult to expand the empire, most gains in the Imperial era didn't last long. I think Trajan conquered a lot of territory, but most was given up when he died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atanamir

I mean Caledonians , Germanic Tribes or Parthians are more powerful than Greeks , Carthaginians , Iberians or Celts

---

Probably not the Caledons, but yes Germanic tribes and Parthians posed a major threat to the Roman Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Probably not the Caledons, but yes Germanic tribes and Parthians posed a major threat to the Roman Empire.

---

If they are threat to the Roman Empire what other emperors do about them .I mean when Carthaginians or many others threated Roman Repuplic they conquered them...is there any reason other than "becoming unmanageable at the time " . Is there political reasions or someting about one man on top??:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atanamir

If they are threat to the Roman Empire what other emperors do about them .I mean when Carthaginians or many others threated Roman Repulic they conquered them...is there any reason other than "becoming unmanageable at the time " . Is there political reasions or someting about one man on top??:book:

---

The first emperors campaigned heavily in Germany. The problem was not one of military might. The problem was that it was very difficult to garrison a permanent army in Germany. Armies require food, food requires agriculture, and Germany had very little of the latter. Classical logistics being what they were (no highways, freight trucks or refrigerators), the Romans could only campaign for short times, and the lack of population centers made it hard to conquer anything of value and leave a lasting impression.

I am less sure why the Romans failed to conquer the Parthians, but it was not for want of trying. I guess it was logistics again: the Parthians could fall back easily and recapture their losses while the Romans needed to resupply. Off course, the heavy-infantry based army of the Romans was not the best counter to Parthia's horse archers.

Then there is the political issue: an Emperor often could not leave Rome for extended periods for fear that an ambitious general would start a civil war. He could send others to wage the war for him, however that was a good way of breeding ambitious generals that could start a civil war.