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

[paullus]

I have a question about pre-Camillan Roman units. Namely, I believe that they were hoplites at that time, but were they identical in tactics and equipment to contemporary Greek hoplites, say? Or were they different in some way - and if so, how?

On a related note, were there any major shake-ups (like the Camillan or Marian reforms) before the Camillan reforms? Or did equipment and tactics remain largely unchanged from the time Rome really became a city and stopped being a collection of villages, to the time of Camillus?

Thanks in advance.

I Am Herenow

Well, after the Battle of Allia in about 387 BC its said that all Roman written records were lost, forcing them to use oral tradition to fill in the gaps prior to Camillus. Still, the information we get on the pre-Camillan, or Servian army, may be decently reliable. The mainstay of the Roman army at that time was the hoplite phalanx. As Ludens says, there were already classes, and so supposedly there were units of the phalanx of higher quality/armor than others. These were wealth classes, not age classes. They probably looked a good bit like Etruscan hoplitai of the same period, concerning whom we actually know quite a lot.

As for their behavior and their similarity to the Greek phalanx, it does seem that they had a greater tradition of champion combat, and its possible that they at times allowed for looser order fights. But so did the Greeks at times, even with hoplite armies. Since we aren't sure exactly how to talk about the Greek phalanx at different time periods, its hard to say whether the Roman army--which is even harder to talk about definitively in the pre-Polybian period--was similar to it.

[I Am Herenow]

Alright, thanks guys!

[russia almighty]

More to Kern, our Greek who went into the Greek country side and made... uh educational video's with local ladies to raise money for the server.


What kind of unit would the Indo-hellenic pezhetairoi been? A unit to bridge the lightness of the indo-hellenic hoplites and heavy baktrian royal guard/indo-hellenic royal guard, or, a small corp of pikemen left around for just in case situations, or a very specific role?

[Hax]

By the necromantic powers that have been given to me by the Gods of EB, I command thee RAISE!

======================

Right on.

I was wondering how the Orontid dynasty looked at the Hellenic guys. Also, what exactly transpired in Armenia after the death of Neoptolemos in 319 BCE? Did they just succumb to infighting until one tribe gained the other hand or did something else happen?

[TWFanatic]

I have recently delved more deeply than before into the literature on the successor wars, an action prompted by the fascinating descriptions of the newly released historical battles. One aspect of successor battles in particular challenged my view of ancient warfare. It is very rare indeed that I hear of reserves or secondary lines (never-mind tertiary ones). None of the ancient sources seem to explain why this is; it is as if they take for granted that their audience will understand why no reserves were employed. Why is this, then? It seems as if it would be quite easy to flank a force without any reserves or, failing in that, at least punch a whole through their line and flood your own reserves through. I suppose that such tactics were employed by the Romans later on, at Pydna, for instance, in the third Macedonian war, but why not by the successors themselves against each-other? It seems to me that in most instances in which one side had a greater number of infantry than the other, they quite simplistically either expanded the length or depth of their line. The most creative tactics Hellenes came up with to combat the phalanx was to advance on the oblique and mass one's forces on the "leading" flank such as at Leuctra in 371 BC by Epaminondas.

To expand on that, why did Darius not employ such tactics against Alexander at Issus and Gaugamela? Considering that he outnumbered the Macedonian in both battles, it seems not implausible that he could have attacked a single point in the Macedonian line with his best troops and then sent in his rest to finish the job and turn a flank. The sarissa phalanx simply could not turn on a dime in the heat of battle. Are there holes in my logic? Was the Persian horde an undisciplined, homogeneous mass incapable of the complex maneuvering such tactics would entail (as some scholars attribute Alexander's victories to)?

[Gazius]

At what level of population for Rome did they need to start importing grain? Did they collect grain as taxes in Italy to distribute to the population beforehand? If one were to set a total population for the major city of a province before they would require food from outside sources, what level would it be? 50k people? 100k? At little as 10K? How does what type of terrain the city is on impact it? Do rivers or coastal cities have an impact?

[Ibrahim]

At what level of population for Rome did they need to start importing grain? Did they collect grain as taxes in Italy to distribute to the population beforehand? If one were to set a total population for the major city of a province before they would require food from outside sources, what level would it be? 50k people? 100k? At little as 10K? How does what type of terrain the city is on impact it? Do rivers or coastal cities have an impact?

actually, every city, then and now, relies on a certain level of importation. the difference is motly in scope; small towns and cities could get their food locally, from a few hundred sq.km. larger cities will of course require more area to cultivte grains. eventually, importation from overseas is made, usually at beyond 250-500 thousand poeple(taking into account that no city is alone; there are also others to feed nearby, and the proportion of farmers/ city in the nearby area). in roma's case, it was even more important, since after the punic wars, there was a decrease in farming labor, due to immigration into the cities(after all, roma was not the only city; you have to feed other large cities), and the consolidation of many farms into latifundae, Roma was already importing a good deal of its grain from egypt and africa by the late 2nd century BC (though Africa soon replaced Egypt as the main supplier. I suspect tilso apply to many large cities throughout the empire as well. not all the grain led to roma

terrain of course, dictates not quantity, but source of grain, namely the shortest and most convenient routes. port towns tend to be more flexible, since if they have no local or nearby land source, they can import it from elsewhere.

I hope that answers ya.

anyways, anyone have any recommendations for books on the lakhmid arab armies of the 4-6th centuries? I'm not in a real hurry, but i hope that it comes soon-julianus heraclius (of IBFD fame) entrusts me with the job. I already gave him the info on the nomads, but I need details on cavalry and guards,to be safe (I'm practically done, but need confermation).

and no, I promise not to nag. i'll wait. in fact, I'll help answer questions. the last experiance was embarassing, and i figured i'd make it up.

[konny]

None of the ancient sources seem to explain why this is; it is as if they take for granted that their audience will understand why no reserves were employed. Why is this, then?

Alexander used a second line with his Greeks (probably Iphikratian Hoplites). But these were meant to fight off Persian cavalry that made it around the flanks. The reason why the Successors didn't use a second line was the nature of their troops: A line of phalanxes is in fact like a wall - and that is in both directions. So you cannot move a phalanx back behind and through the second line, and you also cannot move a second line foreward through the phalanx of the first line. The reserves as such (and that is also true for the old Hoplites phalanx) are the rear parts of the block in what is tacticaly the first line.

That together made it so vital that the phalanx had a working protection on the wing (or is fighting against an army of the same type). The Early Modern armies, as another example, solved this problem by breaking up the phalanx into several blocks and filled the gaps with light troops (Musketeers and such). That way they had been able to move pikemen fore and back.

The most creative tactics Hellenes came up with to combat the phalanx was to advance on the oblique and mass one's forces on the "leading" flank such as at Leuctra in 371 BC by Epaminondas.

...what would be another possibility.

To expand on that, why did Darius not employ such tactics against Alexander at Issus and Gaugamela?

Interesseting that the Persians were in fact well equipped to fight the Greeks but seemed to be lacking the tactical concepts to do so. The demise of the Hoplites came with the massive use of light troops by other Greek armies. Now, the Persians had even more and better light troops but didn't succeed. They also had excellent cavalry in the field, long before the Makedons used theirs to destroy the Greek armies, but did not seem to have used it in the best way.

[TWFanatic]

It seems to me incredibly foolish not to place just a few units of infantry behind the phalanx that can be brought up in support if the wall is broken, to plug the gaps if you will before a trickle becomes a flood. This does not require the rotation of lines as in the Roman manipular system.

Interesseting that the Persians were in fact well equipped to fight the Greeks but seemed to be lacking the tactical concepts to do so. The demise of the Hoplites came with the massive use of light troops by other Greek armies. Now, the Persians had even more and better light troops but didn't succeed. They also had excellent cavalry in the field, long before the Makedons used theirs to destroy the Greek armies, but did not seem to have used it in the best way.

My understanding of Achaemenid cavalry is that, with the exception of the Kinsmen cavalry, they were light troops more inclined to throw javelins than launch a desperate charge in the manner of the Companions. Indeed, until the debut of the Companions the annals of warfare are virtually empty of instances of heavy cavalry charging infantry in formation. It is thus hard to expect the cavalry of Xerxes or one of the Darius' who contended with the Greeks or Macedonians of Europe to use their cavalry in the same manner as the Companions.

In regards to the light infantry, I would have to disagree that the Persians were well equipped to fight the Greeks. The light Persian infantry were not armed with javelins from my understanding, and had no protection other than padded armor and wicker shields. This sounds like a recipe for phalanx-fodder unless they are disciplined enough to maintain cohesion spread out over a large plain and take full advantage of their ranged weapons (bows), which again they apparently were not judging by results. It is hard to see Achaemenid light infantry defeating phalanx-based infantry through the same tactics employed by Iphicrates and the like.

[keravnos]

More to Kern, our Greek who went into the Greek country side and made... uh educational video's with local ladies to raise money for the server.

Actually just got back from vacation with my g/f. I can laugh because I know she won't read this...

What kind of unit would the Indo-hellenic pezhetairoi been? A unit to bridge the lightness of the indo-hellenic hoplites and heavy baktrian royal guard/indo-hellenic royal guard, or, a small corp of pikemen left around for just in case situations, or a very specific role?

They would have been a unit made out of Hellenized Indians or Kamboja and Bahlikas who would be settled in the plains of "Pentapotamia" or Sindh, and up to the area of Mathura in the west (right under modern Delhi) -captured by a combined Yavana(IndoGreek) and Kamboja force- according to the Mahabharata. Also they would have reached Demetrias in Patalene or present day Indus mouth.

There has been found a pike butt and also a pike business end in present day Pakistan which was dated much later than the time of Megas Alexandros.

Before going on to details about the IG and their army, some details on my favorite subject, the Indogreeks.

-Battle of Areios river and Indian sources (which call Yavanas (aka IndoGreeks) Ksatriyas (aka Horsemen)) seem to suggest that the big majority of Baktrians and thus IG were mounted.

-According to Hammond's book on Phillipos B' of Makedonia, he had a foot force of 500 most trusted hypaspistai who served as his personal guards. 500 is the number of Menandros' entourage mentioned in Milindapanha when a Buddhist monk visits Menandros in his capital at Sagala.

-Also according to Hammond, Phillipos B' of Makedonia settled allied peoples as he pleased in newly conquered "ΔΟΡΥΚΤΗΤΕΣ ΓΑΙΑΙ" or "spearconquered lands". If we combine this reality of all Makedonian descended states with known accounts of Kamboja in Mathura area and in the mouth of Indus river, we can assume that Menandros or even earlier Demetrios would have settled Kamboja in the far reaches of the empire to keep them safe, as they would have to know that without the help of their overlords, their subject peoples would be lost in the sea of Indian peoples. Further proof for that is the fact that while the towns of Bahlikas "and their corrupt ways, aka women drinking wine and partying"-as reported by a hindu monk in Mahabharata in present day Sindh, existed at some time, they are not to be found in Alexandros' anabasis by Arrian when he describes the area.
As "Pentapotamia" aka present day Sindh was the powerbase of Menandros and Bahlikas (as part of Panchalas) were part of his force which reached and conquered Pataliputra (former Mauryan capital), we know that Bahlikas resided in Sindh and possibly lower down the Indos plain. (again Mahabharata)

All of the above seem to suggest to me that while there were pikemen, the elite troops of IG were either Heavy cav (which later conglomerated in a Lonchophoroi/HA hybrid) or elite troops of hypaspistai (or IG noble hoplites) variety.

Pikemen would be fielded of course but by the subject peoples of the IG. Meaning Hellenized (to various degrees) Kambojas, Bahlikas and native Indians. One of the reasons for this is that it was standard practice to employ locals as pikemen. Alexandros did it, when he trained 30.000 "epigonoi" Persians to fight in a pike phallanx formation, Pyrrhos did it when he created the Tarantinoi "Leukaspides", "who fought in the Makedonian fashion".

So IG pezhetairoi would be the most trusted of the subject peoples of IG. We can't be sure of the extent of the pike phallanx usage of the IG armies, as they probably would have been elephant fodder. It is more probable that they would have been trained as "hoplitai hindoi" or IG peltasts instead.

"Alexandreia in Arachosia" and "Alexandreia in Paropamisadai" both founded by Alexandros would certainly be a place to raise a Pikemen army. According to what we know, Menandros himself was an army brat, born and raised in Alexandreia in Paropamisadai

[konny]

It seems to me incredibly foolish not to place just a few units of infantry behind the phalanx that can be brought up in support if the wall is broken, to plug the gaps if you will before a trickle becomes a flood.

I would guess (obviously having never seen a full line of phalanx in action) that it is not possible to simply add men into a phalanx during an ongoing fight. Gaps in a phalanx usually appear by obstacles (might even by own deads) and so reinforcements wouldn't be able to fill in there either. Simply replacing individual casualties was done by the rear ranks.

The entire concept is based on keeping the line. Once the formation is broken everyone started running; that's what is well known from the Hoplites. Having units standing behind an allready routing formation will most likely result in them running as well.

In regards to the light infantry, I would have to disagree that the Persians were well equipped to fight the Greeks. The light Persian infantry were not armed with javelins from my understanding, and had no protection other than padded armor and wicker shields.

I don't think that javelins can do anything arrows cannot. It should be easyer to keep away from the enemy for an archer than it is for a javelin thowing man because the archer can use his longer range while the Peltast has to come pretty close to his target to hit.

My understanding of Acahemenid infantry tactics is that they used deep formations of archers standing behind a thin line of spearmen with large shields and tried to fight down the enemy in a frontal archery duell. That is something that definitly wouldn't work against Hoplites because they are well protected from the front by their strong shields and heavy helmets. Hoplites could simply sit out this hail of arrows until the bowmen run out of ammunition.

Things would be much different when the bowmen attacked form behind because linothorax doesn't help so much against pointy objects, and because in the rear ranks of a phalanx we would find the lesser armoured Hoplites.

[MeinPanzer]

There has been found a pike butt and also a pike business end in present day Pakistan which was dated much later than the time of Megas Alexandros.

....

All of the above seem to suggest to me that while there were pikemen, the elite troops of IG were either Heavy cav (which later conglomerated in a Lonchophoroi/HA hybrid) or elite troops of hypaspistai (or IG noble hoplites) variety.

So is this "pike" head and butt the only evidence for Indo-Greek phalangites? If so, how have these pieces been identified as parts of a pike?

[keravnos]

So is this "pike" head and butt the only evidence for Indo-Greek phalangites? If so, how have these pieces been identified as parts of a pike?

You are absolutely correct to ask. As there was no clear answer to the very questions you asked, the unit as such was sacked. There are no IG pezhetairoi in EB and won't be.

[paullus]

Kos: the butt and head, is there something about their size that makes one think that they're for use with a pike? I think MP's question was about how we've identified those two artifacts as pieces of a pike, and whether that is the only piece of evidence for Indogreek phalangites.

MP: I don't know about the butt and head myself, but I will point out that we do know that the Yavanas were given permission to, and in fact encouraged to, intermarry with the native Indian population and also heavily enrolled in the Mauryan military from the reign of Chandragupta. Whatever roles of fighting the Greeks were using who had been settled in India by Alexander, those roles were likely the roles they continued to use in the following century, with perhaps a few variations over time. So on the one hand, I am tempted to doubt that any of the pezhetairoi were among those settled in India--I'd consider Greeks or even Persians to be more likely, and without Macedonians we might also be without phalangites. On the other hand, I don't know for certain that Macedonians weren't settled in India, and we do know that Alexander showed interest in incorporating more non-Macedonians into the phalanx, so perhaps there were phalangites. On my third hand, I doubt any of the settlements were large enough to be conducive to such a population-intensive formation as the Macedonian phalanx: variations on hoplitai and peltastai and mounted troops would be more likely, in my opinion.

[DeathEmperor]

@ TWFanatic: Indeed the use of reserves was a rare thing in Successor wafare, but there are two instances I know of where a reserve was kept and used to magnificent effect. I'm proud to say that said instances happened when the two greatest Seleukid kings held overall command of the army. B. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army is the source that I've read for both.

The first is the Battle of Ipsus in 301 bc, which I'm sure you're aware of thanks to the awesome historical battles that were recently released. In the battle Seleucus Nicator had a little over 400 Indian war elephants and his opponent Antigonus Monopthalmus had 75. What Seleucus did was array 100 of his in front of his phalanx to oppose Antigonus' and he held the remaining 300 behind his center most likely out of view of Antigonus' forces, otherwise his son Demetrius wouldn't have been surprised and cut off from the main army so easily in the later stages of the battle. Seleucus had his son Antiochus in command of the left cavalry and when Demetrius charged him with the bulk of the Antigonid cavalry midway through the battle he did a feigned retreat or rout to draw Demetrius and his cavalry away from the main battle. (Kochva suggests that it was a feigned retreat planned by Seleucus, Lysimachus and Antiochus rather than a rout as earlier historians believed, and I strongly agree with this.)

As Antiochus lured the Antigonid cavalry away Seleucus (who was most likely in command of the reserve elephant force) moved the 300 elephants that had been kept in reserve to block and prevent Demetrius and the cavalry from returning to the battle. With the "living wall" of elephants cutting his son off Antigonus lost his entire right flank, and his center phalanx was exposed to being attack from both flank and rear. Lysimachus (who was holding the Antigonid left in place) then sent a force of light troops (peltats, archers, slingers) and horse archers (probably a part of the 12,000 Persian cavalry of Seleucus) to 'shoot up' and demoralize Antigonus' phalangites, and after a bit of this his men began to either rout or surrender to the enemy. Antigonus tried to rally his men, but he was either killed by the javelin of a lucky peltast or surrounded and shot with arrows and javelins. Either way Antigonus was killed and his army fell apart.



The second instance of a tactical reserve was used by Antiochus III in the final battle against his rebellious satrap Molon i 220 bc. There are very few details about the battle itself, but according to Polybius and Kochva it was quite brief. Polybius says that the appearance of Antiochus caused the Macedonian military settlers on Molon's left flank to throw down their weapons, because they would not fight their king. His center followed suit and after fleeing the battle Molon commited suicide. Kochva's explanation for the collapse of Molon's center and left flank is much more interesting and in my opinion more realistc.

According to Kochva, Antiochus had mixed reserves of infantry and cavalry placed behind his left and right flank. When the battle was joined and Antiochus' left and right held their opposites firmly in place he ordered the reserves to maneuver around them and threaten Molon's army with a double-envelopment. Seeing that they were about to be surrounded and slaughtered Molon's center and left surrendered to Antiochus. The right where Molon was positioned resisted for awhile before surrendering as well.

If Kochva is right, and I have no reason to doubt him, Antiochus came up with the idea of the double-envelopment roughly 4 years before Hannibal did at Cannae. The main differences being that Antiochus didn't have to carry out his plan to its bloody conclusion as almost all of Molon's army surrendered and defected to him when they were threatened with it, and that he employed a mix force of cavalry and infantry for the final part of it.

Edit- Another difference was that Antiochus didn't have to 'lure in' Molon's army. This was probably due to the fact that both armies fought in the same style of warfare. As for numbers, unforunately I have no idea of the number of troops involved but I believe that both were 30,000+ strong. Antiochus wanted to capture as much of Molon's men as possible for his campaign in Koele-syria and his army which numbered roughly 60,000 at Raphia would support the idea that he succeeded in bringing the bulk of Molon's men to his side.

[MeinPanzer]

Kos: the butt and head, is there something about their size that makes one think that they're for use with a pike? I think MP's question was about how we've identified those two artifacts as pieces of a pike, and whether that is the only piece of evidence for Indogreek phalangites.

Yes, that was what I meant with the question. I mean, even the identification of the Vergina head and butt as a pike are contentious, so I am always very wary of identifications of pikes. Was there any indication of the length in the context it was found? How long/heavy were the head and butt? It could very well be a xuston.

MP: I don't know about the butt and head myself, but I will point out that we do know that the Yavanas were given permission to, and in fact encouraged to, intermarry with the native Indian population and also heavily enrolled in the Mauryan military from the reign of Chandragupta. Whatever roles of fighting the Greeks were using who had been settled in India by Alexander, those roles were likely the roles they continued to use in the following century, with perhaps a few variations over time. So on the one hand, I am tempted to doubt that any of the pezhetairoi were among those settled in India--I'd consider Greeks or even Persians to be more likely, and without Macedonians we might also be without phalangites. On the other hand, I don't know for certain that Macedonians weren't settled in India, and we do know that Alexander showed interest in incorporating more non-Macedonians into the phalanx, so perhaps there were phalangites. On my third hand, I doubt any of the settlements were large enough to be conducive to such a population-intensive formation as the Macedonian phalanx: variations on hoplitai and peltastai and mounted troops would be more likely, in my opinion.

I agree with your opinion; the sense I've gotten from Bactrian evidence is that much like other small Hellenistic or hellenized states, the Bactrians adapted over time to become more flexible with troops. They adopted the thureos fairly quickly, for instance, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they dropped the phalanx altogether fairly soon after independence.

[Hax]

What would be "Bosphorean Military Controlled City" in Ancient Greek?

Thanks in advance.

[TWFanatic]

What is the adjetive form of "Skándzá"?

[Tollheit]

Since the Scandinavian spearman unit is named "Druhtiz Skandzisku" I'd say it is "skandzisku".

[keravnos]

What would be "Bosphorean Military Controlled City" in Ancient Greek?

Thanks in advance.

ΒΟΣΠΟΡΙΚΗ ΔΟΡΥΚΤΗΘΕΙΣΑ ΠΟΛΙΣ

(Bosporan Spear-conquered city). I used "Spear-conquered" as this was the form it was written, especially in Makedonia.

[TWFanatic]

Since the Scandinavian spearman unit is named "Druhtiz Skandzisku" I'd say it is "skandzisku".

I searched export units and did not find this unit you speak of.

[Hax]

ΒΟΣΠΟΡΙΚΗ ΔΟΡΥΚΤΗΘΕΙΣΑ ΠΟΛΙΣ

(Bosporan Spear-conquered city). I used "Spear-conquered" as this was the form it was written, especially in Makedonia.

My greatest of thanks, Keravnos.

[Tollheit]

I searched export units and did not find this unit you speak of.

I don't have EB installed on this machine here, but it is on the EB homepage here:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...boz_units.html
(second from bottom)

[TWFanatic]

Interesting. In 1.1 they are called Druhtiz Gautiskā (Gaut Spearmen). I suppose the EB site hasn't been updated yet.

Regardless, it would appear that Skandzisku is indeed the adjetive I was looking for--thanks.

[Hax]

Well, IIRC Foot said that the Germanic names are often changed anyways. Why exactly, I don't know, but I think that it has something to do with the fact that proto-Germanic is a difficult language.

[machinor]

What is the adjetive form of "Skándzá"?

In which language? Proto-Germanic? Greek? Latin? Skandza being Scandinavia was called "Skandia/Scandia" in Greek/Latin iirc. The Greek adjective would thus probably be "skandikos" (although keravnos might correct me on that), the Latin "scandius". "Skandizku" sounds good for Proto-Germanic.

[Hax]

Is the Armenian word 'Arkah' related to Greek 'Archon' in any way?

[Gazius]

Could someone tell me about amphiktiony? I find it used in relation to Delphi, but I can't actually find much useful information about it except that it had some sort of democratic function. Is it part of the oracle? Was it a system used by other oracles?

[Smeel]

I wonder what sources you have used for reconstructing the Sweboz and the proto-germanic Language?
is there anything else than Tacitus Germania, or earlier than the first century ad? I read somewhere of a greek voyage, but oh well.

[keravnos]

I wonder what sources you have used for reconstructing the Sweboz and the proto-germanic Language?
is there anything else than Tacitus Germania, or earlier than the first century ad? I read somewhere of a greek voyage, but oh well.

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

Best historical comment I read about Pytheas' trip is that it was commisioned by Megas Alexandros. No way of knowing, though.

Thing is, I do believe that this is what Megas Alexandros would have done. Having conquered the eastern world, he would want to know what existed in the West... for any reasons you might consider, military conquest included.