Question about Hetairoi

[abou]

It could have been under Antiochus III, but I don't see any reason why it would have - it could just as easily have emerged before him. All Livy's description tells us about the riders themselves is that they were quite heavily armoured; whether that includes shields or not is impossible to tell.

It's unfortunate that so little survived for us to know exactly.

I don't think I'm familiar with this coin. The only coin of Seleucus II that I'm familiar with that shows anything close to a cavalryman are issues with a horse standing above a shield emblazoned with the Seleucid anchor (which, again, could be taken as indicating that royal cavalrymen carried shields). Could you post a picture of it? I also don't really understand what you mean by segmented boots. You mean like laminated armour covering only part of the leg?

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...ucID=8&Lot=543

There are a series of marks on the foot and lower leg of the cavalryman that are just too regular to ignore. I can't imagine it would be from die wear or damage of some other form. It seems to me to match up with two figurines that were printed in Sekunda's book on the Seleukids with sort of laminated/segmented footwear (albeit maybe 100 years apart). I wish I could tell you the pages, but a lot of that stuff was left at home when I moved. To be honest though, there is another coin that lacks that feature, but I suppose it could be something as simple as a missed detail.

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...ot=543&Match=1

You would have to let me know what you think.

[MeinPanzer]

There are a series of marks on the foot and lower leg of the cavalryman that are just too regular to ignore. I can't imagine it would be from die wear or damage of some other form.

To be honest though, there is another coin that lacks that feature, but I suppose it could be something as simple as a missed detail.

The thing is, that's just one coin. One of the great things about numismatic evidence is that you almost always have other examples to compare against, and in this case I think that would have to be done to check that this isn't just an anomaly. As you've said, the second example they show there, though more effaced, doesn't seem to show any kind of rough texture on the lower leg. Also, look at the horse's left rear leg on the coin under discussion - it seems to have a similar wavy texture, albeit less pronounced. I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility, but I think a bit of numismatic research would be in order before reaching a conclusion.

It seems to me to match up with two figurines that were printed in Sekunda's book on the Seleukids with sort of laminated/segmented footwear (albeit maybe 100 years apart). I wish I could tell you the pages, but a lot of that stuff was left at home when I moved.

Figures 32-34, though only one of the two (Fig. 32-33) has any sort of detail on the boots. They are really neat, though, and that figurine is an amazing and sadly neglected source.

Edit: And here are three more, none of which show any sort of texture on the lower leg:
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=231&Lot=1306
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=125&Lot=1017
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=101&Lot=1488

[abou]

Ah, that's too bad. I was excited about possibly using them somewhere, but now that I've seen those other coins I don't think that we will.