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

[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.

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.

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.

[Hax]

How did the Macedonian soldiers transport their sarrisoi?

[bovi]

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

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.

[Xurr]

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.

[Conqueror]

I don't think that Philippos would have even defeated the Greeks at Chaeronea without his sarissa-bearers. He would have needed a large enough number of hoplitai or other heavy infantry of a sufficient quality to at least hold their own in prolonged melee. I don't see that coming out of Makedonia without a system like the sarissa-phalanx.

[Barry Soteiro]

did malta had some kind of special people deserving their own unit ?

how come the steppe people developped cataphracts when they had no access to big mines of metals ???

[Celtic_Punk]

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

[fenix3279]

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

The greater part of them lived in modern day France. As for where they first originated, I'm afraid I don't know.

[Ludens]

Why do Hellenic officers (I mean the unit leaders, not generals) use such phalangite shields? It makes sense for the standard bearers, as these need to have their left hand free, however the others could afford to use a larger shield.

[Power2the1]

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

To add further to what abou mentioned above, you had early Tumulus and Urnfield cultures in Europe around the Danube Basin. Mixes of these gave rise to what were believed to be proto Celtic peoples in the western part of that region. However, in the eastern portion is where the majority of early hill forts are found which are obvious signs of early successes and power. As power shifted to the west you can say that early Halstatt signs started to spring up in the Bohemia, Austria, and these groups spread out from there. In the decades around 500 B.C. the Celtic forges, concentrated initially in the areas between the Alps and Danube, became increasingly efficient and stated 'mass producing' La Tene iron weapons which gave advantage over the older predominately bronze weapons that are found in the Halstatt technology era. So again, that Bohemia/Danube corridor became a home for them, then Gaul, then Britain, then Ireland, then Spain, then Northern Italy, then Galatia, and almost everywhere else in between

[MeinPanzer]

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.

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.

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."

How did the Macedonian soldiers transport their sarrisoi?

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.

[bovi]

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?

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[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

[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.

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):



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

[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).

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

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.

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.

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.

[lobf]

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.