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

Alright, here's a space for asking basic questions.

I'll start with the question about Ptolemaic kataphraktoi, and Gertrude and others, if y'all have questions, add them in subsequent posts.

We don't know whether the Ptolemies might have experimented with kataphraktoi at that time, we actually have rather limited information on the armament of Ptolemaic cavalry at any time after Raphia. There are a handful of terracotta figurines of 2c or 1c bc Egyptian horsemen, and a single cavalryman from the Sidon stelai, but we get very little information on the equipment carried by the Hellenic cavalry units. The papyri don't mention kataphraktoi, but then again the picture of the Ptolemaic cavalry in the 2c bc isn't particularly clear: we see some references to hipparchies (cavalry commands), and many to the katoikoi hippeis (settler cavalry), but the former could refer to any sort of cavalry, and many of the latter were not horsemen at all. So while the state of the evidence is such that the Ptolemies could have had some kataphraktoi, perhaps drawn from their Cappadocian/north Cilician cavalrymen, we don't have the evidence that would show it well one way or the other. Those same Cappadocians and their neighbors may have been the same soldiers who, in campaigns into southern Egypt in the 3c, used felt armor to cover their horses. Its possible that these felt kataphraktoi persisted, but that's hard to track. If we assume that the felt-armored cavalry in the southern expeditions were in fact the Cappadocian/north Cilician cavalrymen, then we can track their unit down to the late 3c, when the son of a commander on an elephant hunt is a hipparch in the army. But the presence of those soldiers does not necessarily mean the presence of felt kataphraktoi.

Yay, great idea!

Thanks !!!!!!!!


So what about the mines in the steppe ? rhinoceros references ? hetaikoi kataphractoi masks ?

I hope those can be answered too!!! :balloon2:

Re: Ala Imperatoria "Imperial Cavalry Wing".

Is there a reason why these units cannot be recruited in Italy? It is because they represent an auxiliary unit?

In connection with that--did the Romans have non-Auxiliary cavalry (aside from the Praetorian) that was not auxiliary?

I think I can awnser the question about the steppe, my awnser comes out of the novel by Iggulden about Djenkis khan and there some one gets the command to go and dig out the orbs they needed for a sword and it would take months before they had enough. So don't think they had real mines and dig it up on a very premitive way or bought it. I could be worng

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertrude

hetaikoi kataphractoi [sic] masks ?

---

The masks for the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi come directly from the main source - a relief from Afghanistan. On it are three very heavily armored riders with masks: a Zeus type and two "big cat" types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

Re: Ala Imperatoria "Imperial Cavalry Wing".

Is there a reason why these units cannot be recruited in Italy? It is because they represent an auxiliary unit?

In connection with that--did the Romans have non-Auxiliary cavalry (aside from the Praetorian) that was not auxiliary?

---

Indeed. Anytime you see "Ala", it means auxiliary even though the literal translation is "wing". By the time of the Imperial era (and possibly Marian) the change in economy and recruitment method meant that anyone who was wealthy enough to own a horse and the land wouldn't serve in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Indeed. Anytime you see "Ala", it means auxiliary even though the literal translation is "wing". By the time of the Imperial era (and possibly Marian) the change in economy and recruitment method meant that anyone who was wealthy enough to own a horse and the land wouldn't serve in the military.

---

Ah, thank you. Enlightening.

Gertrude, you'll have to post a more detailed question for some of those. I can however tell you that the hetairoi kataphraktoi mask is one of 3 masks depicted on a trio of cavalrymen fom a relief found in Afghanistan during the current war. Its not published, but one of our historians has seen it in a museum archive.

I have another question:

¿Why Gaesatae are so f**** brutal? I mean, ¿is there any ancient font of their good-fighting? ¿is there any historian who describes them just like killing-machines?

Cause the only thing I knew about them before playing EB was that they were naked soldiers who get absolutely slaughtered in Battle of Telamon by roman velites.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaume

I have another question:

¿Why Gaesatae are so f**** brutal? I mean, ¿is there any ancient font of their good-fighting? ¿is there any historian who describes them just like killing-machines?

Cause the only thing I knew about them before playing EB was that they were naked soldiers who get absolutely slaughtered in Battle of Telamon by roman velites.

Thanks.

---

Clone? Ban?

I´m not going to dignify that with an anwer. Oh shit, I just did. Oh well, my bad.

Jaume just beacuse the EB team has given all of us a legetimate thread to ask questions does not give you the right to a foul mouth rant and exuse you from using the search function on a topic that has been brought up a dozen times. They are doing a service to their fans and shouldn't be obligated to answer that crap.

Can someone sticky this? With the name Assorted Historical Questions - Ask here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Indeed. Anytime you see "Ala", it means auxiliary even though the literal translation is "wing". By the time of the Imperial era (and possibly Marian) the change in economy and recruitment method meant that anyone who was wealthy enough to own a horse and the land wouldn't serve in the military.

---

More likely beginning of the Marian era. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the reasons they stopped recruiting citizen cavalry was because their ability to recruit had all but disappeared. Those types would only serve if they were interested in a future in the Senate, in which case they'd try to get in as a contubernales or tribune.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

More likely beginning of the Marian era. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the reasons they stopped recruiting citizen cavalry was because their ability to recruit had all but disappeared. Those types would only serve if they were interested in a future in the Senate, in which case they'd try to get in as a contubernales or tribune.

---

Very good post, well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

More likely beginning of the Marian era. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the reasons they stopped recruiting citizen cavalry was because their ability to recruit had all but disappeared. Those types would only serve if they were interested in a future in the Senate, in which case they'd try to get in as a contubernales or tribune.

---

And you're probably right. If anything, it might have started about the time of the Gracchi brothers. Only problem with those that would want to serve in the Senate is that they would have to satisfy the property requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

And you're probably right. If anything, it might have started about the time of the Gracchi brothers. Only problem with those that would want to serve in the Senate is that they would have to satisfy the property requirements.

---

Well, for the wealthy who had always provided cavalry, as distinct from the traditional citizen-soldier, I don't think property qualifications were really an issue. Not least because with empire came a massive increase in the wealth of the privileged, who bought up or outright stole land off the poor.

Not a big deal for a father who wants his son to qualify before he himself dies to parcel off a tract of land big enough to him.

You know, it seems like Pre-Marian Republican Roman cavalry would have been good if they just let anyone and their mother who had a horse in.

I'm sorry, but from QuintusSertorius' post above, I think a subtle point is being somewhat missed here?


From QuintusSertorius
...who bought up or outright stole land off the poor.

In large part this was the reason for the Gracchan and later reforms. Only, the very well off could afford all the aspects of maintaining a good herd. By the late 2nd century few landed or small-farm families could afford a single horse, never mind a herd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

More likely beginning of the Marian era.

---

Yes, I think so. The last reference to Republican period Italian cavalry is in Sallustius' history of the Jugurthine war (95); he mentions Marius' quaestor Sulla arriving in camp with a body of Latin and allied horsemen he'd just recruited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I wouldn't be surprised that one of the reasons they stopped recruiting citizen cavalry was because their ability to recruit had all but disappeared. Those types would only serve if they were interested in a future in the Senate, in which case they'd try to get in as a contubernales or tribune.

---

All young roman artistocrats would still be interested in a Senatorial career. But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

I know next to nothing about Baktria so I have a few questions.

1.What would a Baktrian or Indo-Greek army consist of and how would that translate into an army in EB?

2.How large were the Baktrians at their height?

3.Did they change any of their fighting styled to adapt to new enemies in the steppes and India?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fish-got-a-Sniper

I know next to nothing about Baktria so I have a few questions.

1.What would a Baktrian or Indo-Greek army consist of and how would that translate into an army in EB?

2.How large were the Baktrians at their height?

3.Did they change any of their fighting styled to adapt to new enemies in the steppes and India?

---

1. For that, you will have to wait a bit, but an early example would be the battle of Areios river - more data on them will be forthcoming.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G...KingdomMap.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom

As for the IndoGreeks (also called Yavanas by the Hindus),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom

3. Yes to both, becoming a "civilised horde" of sorts in the steppes, and supposedly abandoning the pike phallanx for hoplites and lighter armed spearmen, for fear of mass archery and elephant assaults that this would entail. In India, Indogreeks made heavy use of local levies and of course the native baktrians (bahlikas and Kambojas) who fought alongside them, allowing them to settle in parts of India (Bahlikas in Punjab and surrounding areas, Kambojas in Mathura area and all along Indus river). This allowed IndoGreeks to have a ready to use force of loyal subjects to use. Menandros (greatest IndoGreek king, when he invaded and occupied Pataliputra/Palibothra/Patna, he is using...

Quote:

---

"Then, after having approached Saketa together with the Panchalas and the Mathuras, the Yavanas, valiant in battle, will reach Kusumadhvaja ("The town of the flower-standard", Pataliputra). Then, once Puspapura (another name of Pataliputra) has been reached and its celebrated mud[-walls] cast down, all the realm will be in disorder." (Yuga Purana, Paragraph 47-48, 2002 edition.)

---

Panchalas=Bahlikas (or in EB terms' Baktrioi hippeis)
Mathuras=Native Indians (all native Indian units) AND Kambojas (or in EB terms Kamboja Asvaka Ksatriya)

(In Mahabharata Mathura is conquered by a joint Yavana(IndoGreek) and Kamboja force

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahabharata, aka MBH 12/105/5

MBH 12/105/5, Kumbhakonam Ed. Cf: "Mathura was under outlandish people like the Yavanas and Kambojas... who had a special mode of fighting (Manu and Yajnavalkya, Dr K. P. Jayswal.

---

-It was Indogreek (called Methora, or Μεθόρα by Megasthenes) from 180-100 BCE.)

For more on Kamboja and the armies they yielded, Kautiliya's Arthashastra

'Kamboja. Surastra.ksatriya.shreny.aadayo 'vaartta.shastra.upajiivinah'

i.e Corporations of warriors (Kshatriya shrenis) of the Kamboja and Surashtra and some other nations live by agriculture, trade and by wielding weapons

Kautiliya also attests that the Shrenis or corporations of the 'Shastr-opajivins' (i.e the Kambojas and Surastras etc) were the most heroic and best source for military recruitment

The Mayuravyamsakadi--Ganapatha on Panini's rule (Ganapatha II.1.72.) attests that the Kambojas and the Yavanas observed a social custom of supporting short head-hair (Kamboja.mundah Yavana.mundah...i.e shaved-headed like Kambojas, shaved-headed like Yavanas).

This same characteristics of the Kambojas are attested by Mahabharata (mundanetan ....Kambojan.eva... MBH 7/119/23) as well as numerous Puranic literature (Yavananam shirah sarvam Kambojanam tathaiva cha) (Harivamsa 14.16.)

--Thus one could conclude that by the above and other references the Kambojas and Bahlikas in India were there following their IndoGreek overlords into the central India.

Why bother with Indogreeks?

[ex]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Indo-Greeks

and their greatest accomplisment, defense of Buddhism, or the 3rd religion (numberwise) in the world which some say may have been extinguished altogether hadn't Demetrios I invaded the Sunga held Punjab.

Why so?

This is what the first Sunga emperor proclaimed when it came to Buddhists...

According to the 2nd century Ashokavadana:

"Then King Pusyamitra (first Sunga Emperor) equipped a fourfold army, and intending to destroy the Buddhist religion, he went to the Kukkutarama. (...) Pusyamitra therefore destroyed the sangharama, killed the monks there, and departed.
After some time, he arrived in Sakala, (the later IndoGreek Capital of Menandros under the name of Sagala) and proclaimed that he would give a hundred dinara reward to whomever brought him the head of a Buddhist monk" (Shramanas) Ashokavadana, 133, trans. John Strong.

Then Demetrios invaded reaching down into the Indus Mouth and Mathura, and under Menandros the Sunga capital of Pataliputra was taken. After that Sungas were a lot more likely to live with Buddhism, even built some of the greatest Stupas existing today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Later Sunga kings were seen as amenable to Buddhism and as having contributed to the building of the stupa at Bharhut.

---

and what I consider to be the greatest contribution of IndoGreeks...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco_Buddhism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

and a single cavalryman from the Sidon stelai,

---

Which stele would that be?

Quote:

---

So while the state of the evidence is such that the Ptolemies could have had some kataphraktoi, perhaps drawn from their Cappadocian/north Cilician cavalrymen, we don't have the evidence that would show it well one way or the other.

---

Is there any evidence for the use of cataphracts among the Cilicians or Cappadocians in the EB timeframe?

Quote:

---

Those same Cappadocians and their neighbors may have been the same soldiers who, in campaigns into southern Egypt in the 3c, used felt armor to cover their horses. Its possible that these felt kataphraktoi persisted, but that's hard to track. If we assume that the felt-armored cavalry in the southern expeditions were in fact the Cappadocian/north Cilician cavalrymen, then we can track their unit down to the late 3c, when the son of a commander on an elephant hunt is a hipparch in the army. But the presence of those soldiers does not necessarily mean the presence of felt kataphraktoi.

---

But those felt cataphracts are explicitly stated to have come "from Greece."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

Yes, I think so. The last reference to Republican period Italian cavalry is in Sallustius' history of the Jugurthine war (95); he mentions Marius' quaestor Sulla arriving in camp with a body of Latin and allied horsemen he'd just recruited.
All young roman artistocrats would still be interested in a Senatorial career. But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

---

All? I'm not so certain that's the case, not least because of course there weren't enough magistracies for more than a few to actually achieve some form of office. Furthermore, as the empire grew, there were more profitable opportunities in commerce, for those who were willing to forsake a politican career.

Short question: Is it right that Iphicratous Hoplitai have shorter spears than the classical ones? :inquisitive:

I'm sorry for my question. I wasn't accustomed to the rules of the forum. It won't happen again.

MP: isn't one of the soldiers assumed to be a cavalryman? his squire holds a small square shield? Perhaps that's just an assumption on Sekunda's part--I'm literally about to walk out the door, so I can't look it up right now.

Cappadocian/Cilician cav: you're right, when I say kataphraktoi, I'm really just thinking of cavalry who might wear some form of horse armor, such as that from the Persian period. And I think they could be confused as Greeks because they operated in the same circles as the Greeks: they were of the legal status in the courts of Greeks, and one section of the Hellenic army, even if they had Persian names. I think that could easily be a misunderstanding by the author, after all we know that the Cappadocian/Cilician cav were a major part of the expeditions to the south, I figure it could just be a mistake. Its really just a guess, but with the armament described and the link between Agatharchides' imported cavalry for the Ethiopian expedition and the presence of Cappadocian/Cilician cav who first appear and frequently appear in southern expeditions, I figured it was a guess worth making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Is there any evidence for the use of cataphracts among the Cilicians or Cappadocians in the EB timeframe?

---

That would actually depend on how "fuzzy" we'd like to make the border between Cilicia and Cappadocia and how to properly define the "cataphract". During the late Achaemenid period, a series of reforms especially for the cavalry arm were introduced, and Xenophon mentions in his treatise on horsemanship several recommendations of using the "Persian model"; He not only mentions the so called laminated armour, but various equipment used to furnish the horse, amongst these a breast-plate, a chamfrôn and a parameridia/parapleuridia (Very esoteric debate that I'd rather not indulge in, a lot of boring technicalities), also known in more common terms as the armoured saddle. We have a limited number of depictions of this strange apparatus, amongst these the damaged relief at Bozkir, but some have suggested that it is Lycian in origin. This is to the west of the Cappadocian and Cilician areas, but these areas where quite profoundly Persianized. Especially Cappadocia which had been under heavy Medean influence since the war between Alyattes of Mermnad Lydia and Cyaxares of the Medes.

An interesting note is that we tend to overlook the importance of the Persepolis relief-works when it comes to assessing the raw material of a heavy horse; The proportions are kept consistently, and thanks to Heidemarie Koch's illustrations of certain key reliefs, we have an accessible catalogue of tribute brought by the tributaries of Darius I The Great: Sagartians for instance bring a horse with a convex profile, however with a slim and slender stature, though with quite a long and a flat back, with narrow hind-quarters. A nomad-bred horse. Armenians bring a horse, somewhat compact but with strong, muscular features. Somewhat short, the standard measurement ends by the tributary's elbow. The Saka with pointed caps bring a similar animal, with marginal differences. Lydians deviate from this pattern by bringing in a pair of small-statured horses, probably not full-grown, pulling a chariot with twelve-spoked wheels. Chorasmians are next on the list, and the horses they bring are likewise similar to the Armenians and the Scythians with pointed caps. Probably a more straight profile and a more slender neck than for instance the Armenian horse. Even the Skûdrâ (Thracians) bring horses.

But then we bump into a surprise, without a doubt the largest of the horses, with monster cannons, absolutely bulky hind-quarters and crupper, convex profile and a powerful neck. The Cappadocian tribute bearer appears shorter than the horse entirely. This monster horse is currently one of the few depictions of a breed that may have been the Nisaean, or to the contrary an image of the beasts that may have been used by the famed Lydian lance-armed cavalry. Comparing them to the monsters used by the Sassanians, reveals a startling resemblance. This really is a horse meant to carry a heavy-armed rider.

I don't want to blame the problem on lacking nomenclature, but it is a significant part of the issue; "Cataphract" was historically used like water, and only in fairly recent writings did cataphract come to mean "super-heavy cavalry". We might as well as call the Massagetae cavalry who smote Cyrus The Great and his army "cataphracts". What we do know is that the post-Achaemenid Ariarathid dynasty had a close proximity to the Atropatids of Medea-Atropatene, and the Orontids of Armenia, and they were renowned for having a strong, decimal nucleus of heavy horse. This became a typical feature in post-Achaemenid Iranian dynasties, and owes greatly to the last-minute military reforms of Darius III Codomannus and his attempt to adapt the Macedonian cavalry model into the heavy horse reserves. I would personally not rule out the possibility of Cappadocians making use of "late-Achaemenid inspired cavalry" (If we can even call them cataphracts is another issue), but it is far much more likely than Egypt, which has leaned towards different traditions. Not to mention issues like heat loss, you'd need padding or felt to alleviate these effects somewhat, and this is a profoundly western Mesopotamian feature (Hatra et al.) inspired by Parthian organization.

How did the Macedonian soldiers transport their sarrisoi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa

Quote:

---

Its great length was an asset against hoplites and other soldiers bearing shorter weapons, because they had to get past the sarissa to engage the phalangites. However, outside the tight formation of the Phalanx the Sarissa would have been almost useless as weapon and a hindrance on the march. As the Sarissa was constructed of two halves and joined by the means of a metal collar, it has been suggested that this allowed the Sarissa to be broken down into two more manageable sections for convenience of transport or on the march.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

MP: isn't one of the soldiers assumed to be a cavalryman? his squire holds a small square shield? Perhaps that's just an assumption on Sekunda's part--I'm literally about to walk out the door, so I can't look it up right now.

---

Sekunda thinks the Perrhaibian was a cavalryman because Thessalians were famed for their cavalry and because there are a few figurines of Harpokrates as cavalryman with a shield that is almost square.

The former logic is totally fallacious - while many Thessalian mercenaries may have been cavalry, obviously not all would have been - while the latter is little evidence considering that small square-shaped shields seem to have been used quite widely by infantry and cavalry in Hellenistic Egypt. I think the fact that Eunostides is depicted on foot with his attendant is stronger evidence that he is not a cavalryman than the evidence mentioned above is that he is one.

Quote:

---

Cappadocian/Cilician cav: you're right, when I say kataphraktoi, I'm really just thinking of cavalry who might wear some form of horse armor, such as that from the Persian period. And I think they could be confused as Greeks because they operated in the same circles as the Greeks: they were of the legal status in the courts of Greeks, and one section of the Hellenic army, even if they had Persian names. I think that could easily be a misunderstanding by the author, after all we know that the Cappadocian/Cilician cav were a major part of the expeditions to the south, I figure it could just be a mistake. Its really just a guess, but with the armament described and the link between Agatharchides' imported cavalry for the Ethiopian expedition and the presence of Cappadocian/Cilician cav who first appear and frequently appear in southern expeditions, I figured it was a guess worth making.

---

Quote:

---

That would actually depend on how "fuzzy" we'd like to make the border between Cilicia and Cappadocia and how to properly define the "cataphract". During the late Achaemenid period, a series of reforms especially for the cavalry arm were introduced, and Xenophon mentions in his treatise on horsemanship several recommendations of using the "Persian model"; He not only mentions the so called laminated armour, but various equipment used to furnish the horse, amongst these a breast-plate, a chamfrôn and a parameridia/parapleuridia (Very esoteric debate that I'd rather not indulge in, a lot of boring technicalities), also known in more common terms as the armoured saddle. We have a limited number of depictions of this strange apparatus, amongst these the damaged relief at Bozkir, but some have suggested that it is Lycian in origin. This is to the west of the Cappadocian and Cilician areas, but these areas where quite profoundly Persianized. Especially Cappadocia which had been under heavy Medean influence since the war between Alyattes of Mermnad Lydia and Cyaxares of the Medes.

---

I'd be inclined to agree with you except for two things. While I could buy Anatolians being confounded with Greeks if they were simply called "Greek" cavalry, as you stated, perhaps referring to their fictive ethnic status rather than their actual origin, I don't think such a case can be made for cavalrymen who are explicitly stated to have been "recruited ... from Greece." The next (also in response to TPC) is that while there may have been some history of limited Persian-style horse armour use among Cappadocians, chamfrons and parapleuridia, etc., there's a huge leap between that defensive equipment and felt garments which "conceal the whole body except for the eyes."

Quote:

---

How did the Macedonian soldiers transport their sarrisoi?

---

Quote:

---

As the Sarissa was constructed of two halves and joined by the means of a metal collar, it has been suggested that this allowed the Sarissa to be broken down into two more manageable sections for convenience of transport or on the march.

---

This is a statement which has been made so often by now that it is almost accepted as fact. Even beyond the difficulties in identifying the Andronikos "sarissa" from Vergina as a sarissa (the one commonly reproduced as a sarissa, with the massive head, the metal sleeve, and the hefty butt; for arguments against this, see Nicholas Victor Sekunda, "The Sarissa," Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica 23, 2001, pp. 13-42), and the issue of such a sleeve significantly reducing the integrity of a long spear, there are numerous practical problems when one actually examines the use of such a sleeve for dis- and reassembly. How does one easily detach and reattach two hefty lengths of wood (at least 7' long each) with a thin metal sleeve without nails (no nail holes were found in the sleeve)? Heating to expand the metal has been suggested, but the amount of time taken to do so after the end of each march would surely have been problematic, not to mention if the phalangites were ambushed on the march.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

This is a statement which has been made so often by now that it is almost accepted as fact.

---

The division of the sarissa sounded reasonable to me when I read it, but I agree with the problems you bring up. Do you think that they marched with the whole pike then? Perhaps pointing the butt down and to the front, resting the thing on the shoulder and pointing it to the sky backwards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

The division of the sarissa sounded reasonable to me when I read it, but I agree with the problems you bring up. Do you think that they marched with the whole pike then? Perhaps pointing the butt down and to the front, resting the thing on the shoulder and pointing it to the sky backwards?

---

Yes, that's the way I see it. Early modern pikemen carried their pikes that way, so I see no reason to assume that the Macedonians did it any other way.

That also makes sense if that's the way that the cavalry carried their xystons.

However, if sarrisoi did come in two parts connected by a sleeve, what about a primitive form of the screw, or is there no evidence for this? Also, it's possible that there were several variations on this and that as the sarrisa grew longer, new solutions had to be found, the vergina sarrisa would have come from the ealry use of the sarrisa.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, so please correct me. It's late at night and the subject ambigous.

Chairman

There is no need for a screw if a sleeve (made out of metal) was used. The sheer weight of both ends would have been enough to keep them in place, when the sarrisa was held ready for the fight.

The sleeve wouldn't even have to be that tight, even if it was a little loose, the weight again at both ends of the sarrisa would be enough to hold it in place. This would facilitate the quick and easy construction of the full length Sarissa.

Here is an example of what I mean (obviously I have exagerated the angles and the size of the sleeve for the diagram):

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/...3824772ta3.jpg

I should also note that this is by no means fact, just that it is a possibilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chairman

That also makes sense if that's the way that the cavalry carried their xystons.

However, if sarrisoi did come in two parts connected by a sleeve, what about a primitive form of the screw, or is there no evidence for this? Also, it's possible that there were several variations on this and that as the sarrisa grew longer, new solutions had to be found, the vergina sarrisa would have come from the ealry use of the sarrisa.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, so please correct me. It's late at night and the subject ambigous.

Chairman

---

I don't know of any evidence for screw use, but how would you suggest they employed screws in keeping the two portions together even if there was evidence? Keep in mind again that there were no holes in the sleeve in which nails or screws could be inserted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

There is no need for a screw if a sleeve (made out of metal) was used. The sheer weight of both ends would have been enough to keep them in place, when the sarrisa was held ready for the fight.

---

I've heard this argument, as well, but I think there are a number of factors that would make it impractical. First, there is the fact that the sleeve itself was not all that large and fairly thin, and though I haven't actually seen any results of archaeological reenactments on the issue, I have a hard time believing that an exact facsimile of the sleeve found with the Andronikos spear could be substantial enough to hold the two parts of a 20'+ sarissa together. In addition to this, repeated use would I'm sure render the sleeve loose and the sarissa would sag.

Quote:

---

The sleeve wouldn't even have to be that tight, even if it was a little loose, the weight again at both ends of the sarrisa would be enough to hold it in place.

---

Do you have any practical evidence to support this? From what I've heard, even reenactors who have created sarissas from a single piece of wood have found a significant amount of sag in a sarissa of average length. A sleeve of the dimensions of the Vergina example which wouldn't even be that tight would, I'm sure, cause a significant amount of sag in the sarissa, and thus significantly reduce the integrity of the shaft.

Wasn't part of the thing about the phalanx that the rear ranks held their pikes more vertically. If so I can forsee problems with the sleeve as it would just shift position down due to gravity. Of course if it was attached to the lower-half of the pike that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Still it sounds rather far-fetched to me. Without a proper means to attach it I can imagine a few instances where it would have fallen out during battle. Perhaps cheap pikes were constructed like this (short wood is easier to come by).

Foot

@MP

Like I said, I have no more evidence for this, just that it isa possibilty.

I Know huge marquee tent poles are made like this (much longer, but also much thicker than a sarrisa), and they are usually held together with a thin alluminium (very soft) sleeve. When lifted from the floor, they are almost impossible to pull apart. For the most part, I've never seen much degradation in the metal, and again the shorter the sleeve, the harder it would be to bend it. Anyway, who's to say that they didn't have numerous sleeves?

@Foot

Even if the sarrisa was at a slight angle to horizontal, the weight at the tip (spear head included) would be enough to hold it together...holding a 21" foot sarrisa perfectly straight would be pretty hard too, without there being some bend toward the ends.

If this technique was used, then there probably were times when it fell apart...bit of a nightmare for the user :)


Interestingly, the integrity of the sarrisa would be much greater if the sleeve technique was used....instead of there being a weak snapping point in the middle like a full length 21" sarrisa, the weight would be much more disspersed if in fact they did use a sleeve...it would act very much like a brace in bridge building.

EDIT: MP, any chance of a pic of the sleeve you talk about? I've never seen it and would be interested to see it. What metal is it made out of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Wasn't part of the thing about the phalanx that the rear ranks held their pikes more vertically. If so I can forsee problems with the sleeve as it would just shift position down due to gravity. Of course if it was attached to the lower-half of the pike that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Still it sounds rather far-fetched to me. Without a proper means to attach it I can imagine a few instances where it would have fallen out during battle. Perhaps cheap pikes were constructed like this (short wood is easier to come by).

---

On your last point, part of the reason why the theory of a sarissa shaft in two parts has become so widespread is due to an oft-misinterpreted quotation from Theophrastos (3.12.2), who states:

Quote:

---

The wood of the "male" [cornel] tree has no heart, but it is hard throughout, like horn in closeness and strength; whereas that of the "female" tree has heart-wood and is softer and goes into holes; wherefore it is useless for javelins. The height of the "male" tree is at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest sarissa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall.

---

This passage has often been taken to mean that the sarissa was made of cornel wood, which causes problems for interpretation since the cornel only ever grew to the maximum length of the sarissa in Theophrastos' day, which was the mid-4th century BC. However, toward the beginning of the 3rd century, the sarissa increased in length, and so many people have assumed that in order to make a pike of that length, it would be necessary to make it of two pieces joined together. This thinking is plain wrong, as Theophrastos was merely using the sarissa to provide something for his contemporary reader to relate to when explaining the cornel's height, and not stating that the sarissa was made from cornel wood.

Sekunda points out that the most likely type of wood used in constructing sarissas was ash. Historically, this was the most common wood used during the early modern period, and Pliny (H.N. 16.24.63) states that "In Macedonia there is a very large type of ash tree making a very flexible timber," while Sekunda cites examples from the First World War where for the construction of planes "pieces of [ash timber] were required up to 32 feet (!) in length with straight and even grain throughout the whole length, and free from the slightest defect, to make spars and longerons." The Spanish in early modern times planted whole groves of ash trees right beside one another so that the trees were forced to grow rapidly and straight, and they furnished their pikemen in this way.

Quote:

---

@MP

Like I said, I have no more evidence for this, just that it isa possibilty.

I Know huge marquee tent poles are made like this (much longer, but also much thicker than a sarrisa), and they are usually held together with a thin alluminium (very soft) sleeve. When lifted from the floor, they are almost impossible to pull apart. For the most part, I've never seen much degradation in the metal, and again the shorter the sleeve, the harder it would be to bend it. Anyway, who's to say that they didn't have numerous sleeves?

---

Quote:

---

EDIT: MP, any chance of a pic of the sleeve you talk about? I've never seen it and would be interested to see it. What metal is it made out of?

---

Here is a picture of it (just found it briefly scanning the internet) with measurements (albeit in Russian!):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...issa_parts.jpg

Note that while the head was 51 cm long, the sleeve is a mere 17 cm in length.

About the tent poles: those are sleeves made to exacting measurements with modern machinery and with high-quality materials to hold together poles made of lightweight materials. The Vergina sleeve was effectively a rectangular iron sheet which was wrapped into a cylindrical shape.

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the integrity of the sarrisa would be much greater if the sleeve technique was used....instead of there being a weak snapping point in the middle like a full length 21" sarrisa, the weight would be much more disspersed if in fact they did use a sleeve...it would act very much like a brace in bridge building.

---

I think it's the complete opposite of what you are arguing. With a long one-piece shaft, the sarissa would have stayed much straighter and would therefore have had less of a chance of bending and snapping, while if you have two separate pieces joined together, especially with a sleeve as small as the one from Vergina, that would create a weakspot which could buckle easily.

You could be right. I think it would need some exhaustive scientific testing.


That "sleeve" is interesting. I can't speak Russian at all, but are ther last figures shown it's diameter? If so, 3cm is not very wide...what was the average girth of a sarrisa?

If that is the diameter, I am very sceptical as to wether that is indeed a sleeve for a sarissa.

EDIT: диаметр does indeed mean diameter.

Sorry for the double post, but I just noticed the split down the middle of the sleeve. This would allow it to expand when the wood was pushed into it.

http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/graphics/sarissa_5.jpghttp://www.reference.com/go/http://w...sarissa_1b.jpg

These are the only decent images I could find of a replica sarrisa, there is no way that the sleeve pictured would fit this monstrosity, however the technique used is interesting.

Note that in the replica pics, they have indeed used a joint in the middle (well more toward the end they are holding actually), showing it does work.

whats interesting about the tube is that it widens at both ends. That seems to be an odd way to make it. Wouldn't a straight tube hold the sarissa better?

Foot

Well it depends Foot. If it tapers at the end, it would be easier to get the pole into it, then jam it down into the tube to hold it tight I suppose.

I can imagine two makedonians at either end pushing against each other, trying to get it into it.


EDIT: Also the widening at the ends, would allow for more play and bend, which would result in less damage to the metal also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

Sorry for the double post, but I just noticed the split down the middle of the sleeve. This would allow it to expand when the wood was pushed into it.


These are the only decent images I could find of a replica sarrisa, there is no way that the sleeve pictured would fit this monstrosity, however the technique used is interesting.

Note that in the replica pics, they have indeed used a joint in the middle (well more toward the end they are holding actually), showing it does work.

---

Well, it worked with whatever they used to construct it, but it doesn't look to me like the coupler found at Vergina and I somehow doubt that they stringently adhered to ancient materials and methods of manufacture. I'd also be very curious how they connected the two shafts together.

Quote:

---

Well it depends Foot. If it tapers at the end, it would be easier to get the pole into it, then jam it down into the tube to hold it tight I suppose.

I can imagine two makedonians at either end pushing against each other, trying to get it into it.


EDIT: Also the widening at the ends, would allow for more play and bend, which would result in less damage to the metal also.

---

It may have made it easier to get the pole into the sleeve, but such flaring would, again, almost certainly make sagging a problem.

I have a question.

What are some supports for both sides that at Cannae
a) Hannibal's center broke, and he used his Africans to control the breech by attacking the Romans with them from two sides, then rallied the Gallic troops to re-enter the fighting from the front. As depicted by Adrian Goldsworthy.

or

b) Hannibal's center did not break, but only bent. The Romans pushed the Carthaginian front line so far back that they moved pass the Africans on the flanks. As depicted by mainstream media.

IIRC, Polybius related that Hannibal allowed his center to fall back into a crescent shape.

I tend to believe the second proposition, because Hannibal planned ahead, and not only curved his line from the start, but also deepened his center (the center of non-Africans) so that it would be able to withstand the weight of the Roman attack. It is likely that some of the troops were very near to the breaking point, but not enough that the retreat should be considered a rout. If the center had broken and he had been forced to using his Africans to control the situation, the Africans would not have been able execute their orders on the wings, which as it turned out, was the crucial maneuver of the battle. Also, their is controversy as to what kind of soldiers the African were, whether they were similar to EB's African Pikemen, Elite African Infantry or the Liby-Phoenician Heavy Hoplites.

Chairman

That's not true chairman.

While if the Africans were used to control the center, they can't turn in on the wings, if they were used to control the center, they don't need to be on the wings. They are already sandwiching most of the Roman army at the center between them.

Here's Polybius:

115 the advanced guards were the first to come into action, and at first when only the light infantry were engaged neither side had the advantage; but when the Spanish and Celtic horse on the left wing came into collision with the Roman cavalry, the struggle that ensued was truly barbaric; for there were none of the normal wheeling evolutions, but having once met they dismounted and fought man to man. The Carthaginians finally got the upper hand, killed most of the enemy in the mellay, all the Romans fighting with desperate bravery, and began to drive the rest along the river, cutting them down mercilessly, and it was now that the heavy infantry on each side took the place of the light-armed troops and met. For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.

Here's Livy:

When the battle shout was raised the auxiliaries ran forward, and the battle began with the light infantry. Then the Gauls and Spaniards on the left engaged the Roman cavalry on the right; the battle was not at all like a cavalry fight, for there was no room for maneuvering, the river on the one side and the infantry on the other hemming them in, compelled them to fight face to face. Each side tried to force their way straight forward, till at last the horses were standing in a closely pressed mass, and the riders seized their opponents and tried to drag them from their horses. It had become mainly a struggle of infantry, fierce but short, and the Roman cavalry was repulsed and fled. Just as this battle of the cavalry was finished, the infantry became engaged, and as long as the Gauls and Spaniards kept their ranks unbroken, both sides were equally matched in strength and courage. At length after long and repeated efforts the Romans closed up their ranks, echeloned their front, and by the sheer weight of their deep column bore down the division of the enemy which was stationed in front of Hannibal's line, and was too thin and weak to resist the pressure. Without a moment's pause they followed up their broken and hastily retreating foe till they took to headlong flight. Cutting their way through the mass of fugitives, who offered no resistance, they penetrated as far as the Africans who were stationed on both wings, somewhat further back than the Gauls and Spaniards who had formed the advanced centre. As the latter fell back the whole front became level, and as they continued to give ground it became concave and crescent-shaped, the Africans at either end forming the horns. As the Romans rushed on incautiously between them, they were enfiladed by the two wings, which extended and closed round them in the rear. On this, the Romans, who had fought one battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the Africans. The contest was a very one-sided one, for not only were they hemmed in on all sides, but wearied with the previous fighting they were meeting fresh and vigorous opponents.

As I see it both can be read both ways.

While I might not be completely correct, it might be best to phrase your response less critically next time. Thanks.

What I ment was that Hannibal did not reposition his African infantry when his center retreated. The original questioned was worded so I thought that it was asking whether the Africans moved into position behind the Iberians and Gauls, which does not seem to be the case from the two texts. Instead it seems that the Africans merely left/right faced their lines and attacked the Romans' unprotected flanks. It was after this that the Iberian and Gallic cavalry returned from driving off the enemy cavalry to attack the Romans in their rear.

From Polybius and Livy, it does seem that there was more of rout than is usually thought. However, I still think that Hannibal was in overall control, that he had foreseen if not actually planned the center's distress, and that he was able to control the retreat without having the Africans react directly to the rout, but instead attack. So rather than the halting of the retreat and the Africans' attack coming in subsequent order, I see them as happening almost simultaneously.

My interpretation comes from John Warry's depiction of Cannae in his book "Warfare in the Classical Period", a wonderful resource on these subjects.

Chairman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

A sleeve of the dimensions of the Vergina example which wouldn't even be that tight would, I'm sure, cause a significant amount of sag in the sarissa, and thus significantly reduce the integrity of the shaft.

---

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

Well, now you know.

And I've read that book, and a few others, and I know both views.

What I want is some evidence or arguments for or against a side and if possible its counter-argument.

I'd take anything reported by Livy with a big pinch of salt, he's not the most reliable correspondent.

According to Polybius, the Romans in the centre broke the Carthaginian line - that's how some survivors were able to break through and escape the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Well, it worked with whatever they used to construct it, but it doesn't look to me like the coupler found at Vergina and I somehow doubt that they stringently adhered to ancient materials and methods of manufacture. I'd also be very curious how they connected the two shafts together.

It may have made it easier to get the pole into the sleeve, but such flaring would, again, almost certainly make sagging a problem.

---

Aye, again this could be correct. I think we could debate this all day and then some. Hopefully some reenactors or some uni will do some scientific tests on this.

If you hear of anything drop me a PM, and I will do the same (I think you are more likely to hear about it first though).


I must say though, that I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, as I had never really given it all that much thought. Thanks for finding that pic for me.


I'll look up those pics I posted with the replica sarrisa in and drop the link to the uni, that they are from to you.


Mega

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

---

I don't know about that, while it was certainly becoming less necessary to demonstrate absolute adherence to the old forms, Caesar didn't win a corona civica at the siege of Mytilene making cups of tea. Then there were his (completely unauthorised) campaigns against the Cilician pirates and Mithridates as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

---

Please do elaborate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

---

Hehe, I know what you mean. When you think about things from a historical perspective sometimes you don't realize that you just wrote a sentence that uses the words "dimensions of the Vergina," "tight," "shaft," and "sag" in a serious tone.

Megalos: I'll send him an email and get back to you. Thanks for tracking down his information.

i just couldn't believe someone asked for an explanation. someone balked at papyrology the other day...thought I was working with something other than 2000 year old texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Please do elaborate.

---

You've got to be kidding me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

You've got to be kidding me.

---

Please don't elaborate. It might violate forum rules.:laugh4:

Reproducing part of my original post to I can remember what I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

All young roman artistocrats would still be interested in a Senatorial career. But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

All? I'm not so certain that's the case, not least because of course there weren't enough magistracies for more than a few to actually achieve some form of office. Furthermore, as the empire grew, there were more profitable opportunities in commerce, for those who were willing to forsake a politican career.

---

Aspiring to the Senate was not simply an individual choice, but a family project. Continuing failure to secure a seat would be deadly to the entire family's prestige. And if money was the motive, there was no more profitable position than the senatorial office of provincial governor. In principle, the resources of the entire province were under his control. Any publicani or merchants there would be beholden to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I don't know about that, while it was certainly becoming less necessary to demonstrate absolute adherence to the old forms, Caesar didn't win a corona civica at the siege of Mytilene making cups of tea. Then there were his (completely unauthorised) campaigns against the Cilician pirates and Mithridates as well.

---

I said that that Caesar's military was brief, not that he spent it serving tea. (Though he was later rumored to be providing something warm to Nicomedes.) He served with distinction from 80 to 78, but returned to Rome immediately upon learning of Sulla's death. His remarkable actions against his pirate kidnappers, and during Mithridates' invasion of 74 were performed without any military or magisterial authority. In 73 or 72 he was elected military tribune, for a total of 3 years of military service. Eighty years earlier, a Roman aristocrat had to serve in the army for 10 years before he could stand for a quaestorship. Yet Caesar was elected quaestor in 69.

Clearly a significant change had taken place.

Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?

[QUOTE=Gertrude]So what about the mines in the steppe ? QUOTE]

Not being an expert at all but I just assume they bought it from more civilised places... And then got along with what they COULD assemble - clubs and stones CAN get you SOME of the way,... i think:idea2: ;)
Those who had villages prolly found iron in the marshes (Danes did so), but out on the steppes I have difficulty imagining someone being safe enough to do so for long enough to actually make a substantial amount of weapons...

What would the composition of a successor army (Maks, Ptolemies, AS) be composed of and how could you in turn make this into a functional EB army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spotted Pig

Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?

---

No - the latter are Turkic speakers who moved North from present day Mongolia. EB's Saka are Indo-European speaking Scythians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spotted Pig

Maybe out of the blue, but does Saka Rauka have something to do with todays Respublika Sakha in Siberia?

---

No, the Sakha of Siberia are basically traced to the Altaic group of the Yakuts (Which otherwise is the name of this federal republic: Yakutia). They are in other words a Turkic-speaking lot. The Saka-Rauka, as a term, is a construct propagated by Janos Harmatta, who derived it from the Graecian-Latin "Sacaeraucae" or "Sacarauli", whom the Chinese otherwise called "Sai", or in the Han Shu as "Sai-wang"/"Sai-Giwang". In its constructed Khotanese Saka form (Saka-Rauka), their tribal designation amounts to "Commander Scythians" or "Lordly Scythians" or any other designation that conforms to the ideal of supremacy or prominence.

As such their tribe is somewhat different than that of the "Ephedra-drinking Scythians" (Haomavarga), "Scythians-with-pointed-caps" (Tigrakhauda), "Moon-Scythians" (Ma-Saka), "Water-Scythians" (Apasiaka) and finally the "Scythians-beyond-the-Sea" (Paradraya). These designations are passed on to us from the Achaemenids, where the Bâgâstânâ (Bisîtûn/Behistun) inscriptions of Darius I The Great established the main reference of ancient Iranian nomenclature for a wide variety of peoples subject to Darius' re-unification of the Achaemenid worldly hegemony.

The Turks arrive to the political scene in Central Asia in a greater significance (Excepting the Xiongnu and the possibly subsequent Black Huns of Attila), in any certainty, after the fall of the Hephtalite realm during the accession of Chosroës I "The Just", in the later half of the Sassanian era; This is where we see the Gök-Turkic realm materializing. This marked the phasing of Iranian nomadic and pastoralist culture to Turkic and Altaic tribes. The term "Sakha" has been heavily debated, but my personal point of view would dismiss it as a random anomaly of minimal relevance to the historical Scythians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fish-got-a-Sniper

What would the composition of a successor army (Maks, Ptolemies, AS) be composed of and how could you in turn make this into a functional EB army?

---

Give thanks to Eduorius for his excellent guide. Using his research...

Makedonia,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduorius

Army at the time of Alexandros

Based on the army at Granicus. I use this model because it was Alexandros first battle against Persia and it shows the best of Makedonia at the moment (in later battles Alexandros had reinforcements like horse archers).
1700 Companions
800 Prodromoi
1700 Thessaly cavalry
600 Greek cavalry
200 Paeonian cavalry
12000 phalanx
7000 allied Greek hoplites
3000 Hypaspists
6000 Thracian peltasts
5000 Greek mercenary peltasts
1000 Illyrians
500 Agrianians
500 Cretans

with EB units

1 General
Cavalry
1 unit of Heitaroi
1 unit of Podromoi
2 unit of Hippeis Thessalikoi
Infantry
3 units of Hoplitai
4 units of Pezhetairoi
2 units of Hypaspits
Light Infantry
3 units of Thraikoi Peltastai
2 units of Peltastai
1 unit of Agrianikoi Pelekephoroi
1 unit of Toxotai Kretikoi

* Some units were too small or don’t exist for Makedonia like the Paeonian cavalry or the Illyrian light infantry so I ommited them. Other EB units have more than what Alexandros used, but I ommited that too. I also omitted the Greek mercenary cavalry because they were too few, but you can change 1 unit of Hippeis Thessalikoi for them. With the Hypaspits, one of this was the agema so I think u can use the Pheraspidai as placeholders if you want.


Army at the the time of the wars with Rome

Based on the army of Phillip V at Cynoscephalae

16000 Phalanx
1500 Mercenaries
4000 Peltasts (2000 Thracians)
2000 Illyricum light infantry
1000 Macedonian cavalry
1000 Thessalian cavalry

with EB units

1 General
Cavalry
1 unit of Hippeis Thessalikoi
Light Infantry
1 units of Thraikoi Peltastai
1 units of Peltastai
Infantry
2 - 3 units of mercenaries (Triballi, Galatian, Cretan, Agriania, etc)
5 - 6 units of phalanx


* I wrote 2 or 3 units of mercenaries so that one of them could be in instead of the Illyrians who only appear for Epeiros. Some of the nationalities I used as example were at the battle of Pydna too.

Bibliography

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macedonian_battle_formation.gif

The Genius of Alexander the Great by N.G. Hammond

Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry

Warfare in the Ancient World by Brian Todd Carey; Joshua B. Allfree,; John Cairns

www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/MacedonianPhalanx.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Spartan_War

---

Ptolemaioi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduorius

Ptolemaic army (based on the battle of Raphia)
700 cavalry guard
2000 Egyptian cavalry
2000 Greek mercenary cavalry
73 elephants
3000 royal guard infantry
25000 phalanx
8000 Greek mercenary infantry
3000 Cretan archers
3000 Lybians
20000 Egyptians (phalanx)
6000 mercenaries (Thrace, Celts)


with EB units
1 General
1 unit of agemata klerouchoi hippeon/ or heitaroi
2 units of African elephants with towers
2 units of Cretan archers
1 unit of basilikon agemata
1 unit of thorakitai
1unit of klerouchoi agemata
2 units of pezhetairoi
2 units of klerouchoi phalangitai
4 units of machimoi phalangitai
1 unit of Galatikoi klerouchoi
1 unit of Thraikioi peltastai
1unit of Thessalikoi hippies

* Succesor armies are too big sometimes to fit in 20 stacks. This is one of this times, but here it is. I ommited the Greek mercenaries so that it fits in a 20 stack. If you want there are 2 units of Greek mercenary infantry. Remember this are for campaign.

Bibliography

*work done by abou with the Battle of Raphia – 217 BC mod for EB

Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry

Warfare in the Ancient World by Brian Todd Carey; Joshua B. Allfree,; John Cairns

---

Arche Seleukeia,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduorius

Seleukid army after the cataphract reform (based on the Magnesia model)

I don’t have the exact number of soldiers in this battle, but I know that the research done by tk-421 for the battle of Magnesia is excellent. Against the Romans, Antiochos III Megas had a huge army, so he divided it in two. So here are the units for your campaign or custom battles.
Phalanx
16,000 Macedonians
1,000 Argyraspides
Semi-heavy infantry
3,000 Tralli(?)
3,000 Thracians
2,000 Cappadocians
3,000 Galatians
4,000 Pisidians, Pamphylians, and Lycians(?)
Light infantry
3,000 Tralli(?)
1,500 Cretan archers
1,000 Neo-Cretan archers
2,500 Mysian archers
8,000 Elymaean archers and Cyrtian slingers
2,700 'Orientals'
1,500 Carians and Cilicians
4,000 Pisidians, Pamphylians, and Lycians
1,000 elephant guard
Heavy cavalry
6,000 cataphracts
2,000 Royal Guard
Light cavalry
1,200 Dahaeans (Scythians)
2,500 Galatians
500 'Tarentines' (mounted archers)


with EB units

1st Seleukid Army

1 General
1 unit of Daha Baexdzhyntae
3 units of Argyraspidai
2 units of Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi
8. Galatian Kuarothoroi
5 – 6 units of Pezhetairoi
1 unit of. Indian elephants
1 unit of Thanvare Payahdag
1 unit of Sphendonetai

2nd Seleukid Army
1 General
1 unit of Galatian Kuarothoroi
2 units of Pantodapoi
2 units of Hellenikoi Kataphractoi
2 units of Lavotuxri
1 unit of Hippakonistai (Placeholder for Tarentine Cavalry)
1 unit of Scythed Chariots
2 units of Thanvare Payahdag (placeholder for Elymaean archers)
2 units of Akontistai (placeholder for Eastern Javelinmen)
2 units of Sphendonetai (placeholder for Eastern Slingers)

Seleukid army before the kataphractoi reform (based on the model of Raphia)
20,000 Macedonians
10,000 Argyraspides
5,000 Greeks
Semi-heavy infantry
1,000 Thracians
Light infantry
1,500 Cretan archers
1,000 Neo-Cretan archers
500 Lydian akontists
10,000 Arabs
1,000 Cardacians
5,000 Dahae and Cilicians
2,000 Persian and 'Agrianian' bowmen and slingers
5,000 Medes, Cissians, Cadusians, and Carmanians
Heavy Cavalry
4,000 military settlers
2,000 Royal Guard

with EB units
1 General
Cavalry
1 unit of heitaroi
1 unit of mad asabara
2 units of Indian elephants with towers
Infantry
2 units of Cretan archers
1 unit of thorakitai
2 units of argyraspidai
4 units of klerouchoi phalangitai
2 units of Arabian levies
1 unit of thraikioi peltastai
1-persian archers (name slips me)
1-misthophoroi hippies

The Daphne procession, 165 BC
Phalanx
15,000 Macedonians
5,000 Argyraspides
Semi-heavy infantry
5,000 'Roman style'
3,000 Thracians
5,000 Mysians(?)
5,000 Galatians
Light infantry
3,000 Cilicians
5,000 Mysian (archers?)
Heavy cavalry
1,500 cataphracts
1,000 Nisaeans
2,000 Royal Guard

with EB units
1 General
Cavalry
1 unit of Hellenikoi kataphraktoi
1 unit of Mad Asabara (for the Niseans)
Infantry
5 units of phalanx
3 units of Argyraspides thorakitai
2 units of Thorakitai/Thureophoroi
2 units of Thraikioi peltastai
2 units of Galatian mercenaries
3 unit of Pantodapoi (for the Cilicians and Mysians)
1 units of archers or slingers (for the Mysian light infantry)

*Another interpretation of the army of Antiochus III Megas at the Battle of Raphia, done by Death Emperor(aka Dominicus Ultimus)
6,000-cavalry most likely Hetairoi or Assyrian heavy cavalry as the Seleukids had lost most of their Eastern territories by this time.
102 Indian war elephants, perhaps some were of the so-called Syrian breed.
20,000 phalangites
10,000 hypaspists
5,000 Greek mercenaries
2,500 Cretans most likely archers
17,000 Persian, Agrianian, Arabian, Median, Cadusian, and Carmanian auxiliary troops altogether
1,000 troops from Lydia
1,000 Cardaces (from a region I think not sure)
7,000 peltasts from various peoples

with EB units

3 units of Hetairoi or Prodromoi
1 group of Indian war elephants
4 units of pezhetairoi
2 units of Thorakitai or Argyraspid Thorakitai as hypaspistai are unavailable in EB.80
1 group of either mercenary Greek Classical hoplites Greek heavy hoplites
1 group of Cretan archers
3 units of Persian archers
1 group of either Sphendonetai or Pantodapoi
1 group of either Sphendonetai or Pantodapoi
2 groups of Peltastai
1 General and his bodyguard

Bibliography

Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry

Warfare in the Ancient World by Brian Todd Carey; Joshua B. Allfree,; John Cairns

*work done by abou with the Battle of Raphia – 217 BC mod for EB

* work done by tk-421 for the EB Historical Battle - Magnesia

---

Thank Eduorius, abou, and tk-421 and of course Paullus (much obliged Tellos) for a job well done! :smash:

Don't forget paullus!

On where the nomads got the metal for their weapons and tools, people often forget that north of the steppes were forests where there lived the predeccessors to the turks and finns. These people lived much simpler lives but they did have access to metal ore which could not be found on the steppes to the south. So the nomads traded animal products and things that they had traded from settled nations in return for pelts and metal, among other things. So the frozen wastlelands of Siberia were not so wasted anyway.

Chairman

About when did the Parthians pop up in Roman foreign policy? Obviously it was way before Carrhae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

About when did the Parthians pop up in Roman foreign policy? Obviously it was way before Carrhae.

---

After Lucullus' campaigns, Rome and Parthia agreed to the Euphrates as the border between their dominions. Then the Senate disregarded his settlement and sent Pompey out to mop up and take all the credit.

Wasnt it Sulla that made contact with the Parthians and did that east of and west of Euphrates treaty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaivs

Wasnt it Sulla that made contact with the Parthians and did that east of and west of Euphrates treaty?

---

Good point, I think it was. He sent Lucullus out afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

Aspiring to the Senate was not simply an individual choice, but a family project. Continuing failure to secure a seat would be deadly to the entire family's prestige. And if money was the motive, there was no more profitable position than the senatorial office of provincial governor. In principle, the resources of the entire province were under his control. Any publicani or merchants there would be beholden to him.

---

Even so, given how intermarried the various powerful families were, and that they were growing, there would almost always be someone from your close family in politics to keep your gens flag flying. Given how often people seemed to be expelled by the censors later on for being "in trade" I'm not convinced a single year as a provincial governor really was more profitable than a lifetime (or at least several decades) spent as a merchant or tax farmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

I said that that Caesar's military was brief, not that he spent it serving tea. (Though he was later rumored to be providing something warm to Nicomedes.) He served with distinction from 80 to 78, but returned to Rome immediately upon learning of Sulla's death. His remarkable actions against his pirate kidnappers, and during Mithridates' invasion of 74 were performed without any military or magisterial authority. In 73 or 72 he was elected military tribune, for a total of 3 years of military service. Eighty years earlier, a Roman aristocrat had to serve in the army for 10 years before he could stand for a quaestorship. Yet Caesar was elected quaestor in 69.

Clearly a significant change had taken place.

---

It was more the contrast of Cicero and Caesar that I took issue with. Cicero was no military man at all, and didn't exactly do a lot even in the time he served in the Social Wars. He certainly didn't serve with any kind of distinction.

Caesar earned a place in the Senate early by dint of his corona civica, under Sulla's constitution. That might have played in his favour in ignoring the customary 10 campaigns. There are at least five "campaigns" that we do know of; The siege of Mytilene, gathering ships for the governor, against the pirates, raising troops to fight one of Mithridates commanders in Asia province and possibly against Spartacus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

It was more the contrast of Cicero and Caesar that I took issue with. Cicero was no military man at all, and didn't exactly do a lot even in the time he served in the Social Wars. He certainly didn't serve with any kind of distinction.

Caesar earned a place in the Senate early by dint of his corona civica, under Sulla's constitution. That might have played in his favour in ignoring the customary 10 campaigns. There are at least five "campaigns" that we do know of; The siege of Mytilene, gathering ships for the governor, against the pirates, raising troops to fight one of Mithridates commanders in Asia province and possibly against Spartacus.

---

Yet Cicero was elected to the quaestorship in 75 and at the same age (31) as Caesar when he was elected. This in spite of Cicero's far less accomplished and even briefer military career, and the fact that none of Cicero's forebearers had reached the consulship.

My whole point was that in the late Republic military service was no longer considered very important for admission to the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

After Lucullus' campaigns, Rome and Parthia agreed to the Euphrates as the border between their dominions. Then the Senate disregarded his settlement and sent Pompey out to mop up and take all the credit.

---

Actually, I think this is what you are referring to; By 92 BCE, Mithradates II The Great had sent out an envoy (Orobazus) to engage in diplomatic discussions with Sulla of Rome; Needless to say, the end of the negotiated terms, establishing the Euphrates as the boundary between the two powers, angered Mithradates II The Great, and adding insult to injury, Sulla had snatched the seat in the middle, bringing much detriment to Parthian prestige in Mithradates' sensibilities; Orobazus was killed as a result of Sulla's rude behaviour. Nevertheless, a covenant was made, ironically broken by the Romans twice. First by Pompey who expelled Parthian governors of the western client states (Which only met passive reaction by the Parthians). Second, by Marcus Licinius Crassus with his privately funded expedition (Though supported by his two other Triumvirate colleagues), which gave the Parthians a pretext for a counter-invasion of Syria, spear-headed by Orodes' son, Pacorus (And his retainer, Osaces).

The battle of Carrhaë was the result of decades of Roman inconsistencies and lack of respect for treaties. The opportunity came around when the Parthian empire suffered from its first civil war, which had by effect begun after the death of Mithradates II The Great. The battle of Carrhaë ensured the longevity of the Arsacid hegemony in the Greater Iran. It was the conflict Orodes II needed in order to re-unite a fragmented feudal confederacy from a devastating civil war, but the conspiracy against his father along with his former associate, his brother Mithradates III (Who ruled briefly during the civil war), set an ugly tradition of patricide and fratricide, which would reach a macabre high-point during the rule of Phraates IV (Who for the record not only smote his own father, but had thirty of his brothers killed in order to hog authority), once the news of enigmatic crown-prince and co-ruler Pacorus I reached the court at Seleucia; He was killed at Cyrrhestica 38 BCE, in an ambush staged by Publius Ventidius Bassus, the general's third successive and decisive battle in countering the Parthian invasions of the Levant and Asia Minor.

Given that I'm considering seeing things from the other end of the spectrum and playing as one of the Gaulish factions, I'd just like to ask what a historically accurate Celtic army would look like? I've found good info on Romans and before me there's info on the Hellenics. What about the Celts (i.e Aedui, Arverni, Casse, + Sweboz) ?

A good start:

A large body of spearmen, like gaeroas, along with a few swordsmen units, a couple of light horse, a couple of elites, and the general.

Now this is me entering at random here; but I would add a couple of Iosatae?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

Yet Cicero was elected to the quaestorship in 75 and at the same age (31) as Caesar when he was elected. This in spite of Cicero's far less accomplished and even briefer military career, and the fact that none of Cicero's forebearers had reached the consulship.

My whole point was that in the late Republic military service was no longer considered very important for admission to the Senate.

---

Fair enough, I can't argue with that. Furthermore, I'd agree with your last statement. All the various forms seem to have become less and less important towards the end of the Republic. But then I guess after Sulla's actions all bets were off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Actually, I think this is what you are referring to; By 92 BCE, Mithradates II The Great had sent out an envoy (Orobazus) to engage in diplomatic discussions with Sulla of Rome; Needless to say, the end of the negotiated terms, establishing the Euphrates as the boundary between the two powers, angered Mithradates II The Great, and adding insult to injury, Sulla had snatched the seat in the middle, bringing much detriment to Parthian prestige in Mithradates' sensibilities; Orobazus was killed as a result of Sulla's rude behaviour. Nevertheless, a covenant was made, ironically broken by the Romans twice. First by Pompey who expelled Parthian governors of the western client states (Which only met passive reaction by the Parthians). Second, by Marcus Licinius Crassus with his privately funded expedition (Though supported by his two other Triumvirate colleagues), which gave the Parthians a pretext for a counter-invasion of Syria, spear-headed by Orodes' son, Pacorus (And his retainer, Osaces).

The battle of Carrhaë was the result of decades of Roman inconsistencies and lack of respect for treaties. The opportunity came around when the Parthian empire suffered from its first civil war, which had by effect begun after the death of Mithradates II The Great. The battle of Carrhaë ensured the longevity of the Arsacid hegemony in the Greater Iran. It was the conflict Orodes II needed in order to re-unite a fragmented feudal confederacy from a devastating civil war, but the conspiracy against his father along with his former associate, his brother Mithradates III (Who ruled briefly during the civil war), set an ugly tradition of patricide and fratricide, which would reach a macabre high-point during the rule of Phraates IV (Who for the record not only smote his own father, but had thirty of his brothers killed in order to hog authority), once the news of enigmatic crown-prince and co-ruler Pacorus I reached the court at Seleucia; He was killed at Cyrrhestica 38 BCE, in an ambush staged by Publius Ventidius Bassus, the general's third successive and decisive battle in countering the Parthian invasions of the Levant and Asia Minor.

---

Consider me enlightened, thank you. It's been a while since I looked at that period and it all went a bit hazy in my memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Given that I'm considering seeing things from the other end of the spectrum and playing as one of the Gaulish factions, I'd just like to ask what a historically accurate Celtic army would look like? I've found good info on Romans and before me there's info on the Hellenics. What about the Celts (i.e Aedui, Arverni, Casse, + Sweboz) ?

---

I'd say something like this:

Elites
1 Brihentin (ie the chieftain or magistrate or king)
0-1 Heavy cavalry
0-2 "Prestige" heavy infantry (Solduros etc)

Warriors
2-3 Professional soldiers (Gaesatae, Neitos, etc)
2-3 other infantry (Celto-Hellenic, Botroas, etc)
1-3 Light cavalry (Leuce Epos, Curepos, etc)

Levies
1-4 Skirmishers (Iaosatae, Sotaroas, etc)
Rest fill up on Gaeroas/Gelaiche and Lugoae

Something like a 3-7-10 split on Elites-Warriors-Levies in a full stack. Deploy in one line, Elites in the middle, Warriors flanking them, Levy infantry covering the wings, levy skirmishers deployed out front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa

---

It is absolutely amazing what a new technology can do to the battlefield. This leads me to wonder, how successful would Alexander have been if Phillip II hadn't introduced the phalanx? Would he have even defeated the Persians with regular hoplites?

Clearly after awhile tactics were developed that made the phalanx obsolete and those that used it were conquered by another new technology or blending of technologies, the cohort. I think if Alexander had met Marian Cohorts he would have had to change tactics completely or lose.