New Unit - What is it?

[Watchman]

What, there's a meaningful difference between "composite cuirass" and linothorax ? I was under the impression the former was just the latter with more metal bits added for improved protection (with due increase in cost and weight) as per customer request, and fell under the same term ?

Anyway, the Acheamenids took over the old Asyrian and Babylonian haunts wholesale back in the day. Would you like to provide a logical explanation as to why exactly they wouldn't have drawn up on the existing pool of skilled armourers for their own use, all the more so given the missile-heavy part of the world they were operating in ? Troops protected from the weapons of their enemies are more confident and aggressive, and obviously don't die as fast; while the mass levies were disposable enough the Persians had considerable bodies of regular troops and warrior aristocracy as well, both having both means and a reason to be armoured.

You might also want to try explaining away Xenophon's lenghty discussions about the armour of Persian cavalry and their mounts in his Peri Hippikes, occasional references to too flimsy Greek cavalry javelins breaking upon striking armoured Persian troops in melee, the repeated references to Persian (and some Scythian/Massagetae) armoured shock cavalry in the sources on Alexander's campaigns...

I would imagine so, but that still didn't stop many, many Etruscan soldiers from buying and wearing them.

The point being ? Solid bronze plate was damn expensive too, but that didn't keep the Greek farmer-soldiers from commonly wearing it during certain periods.
Kept the poorer folks out of the hoplite phalanxes though, but them's the breaks.

And the linothorax was even lighter and more comfortable still.

Which is what I was talking about. The Egyptians didn't invent scale armour, but they did develop the linothorax from their old fabric cuirasses for the use of the Greek mercenaries who through somwhat complicated developements ended up as military settlers there in the centuries before the rise of the Achaemenids.

Again, this is pure speculation without evidence.

Says you. As armour goes scale is relatively simple to construct and maintain, and judging by the regions it's been popular in (albeit lamellar usually sidelined it later on) it performed well enough against missiles. Feel like explaining the Bactrian and Massagetae proto-cataphracts that gave Alex's cavalry trouble at Gaugamela then ?

It's very clear that the other forms of armour employed by the eastern Hellenistic armies suited them just fine.

And those were ?

Probably because the kataphrakt was probably adopted wholesale from the Parthians, who clearly did make use of scale armour.

But if the linothorax was so good it was used instead of scale, why didn't they wear that instead ? Or bronze plate armour, which gave better protection than either scale or layered fabric ? Certainly given that the kataphraktoi were without the slightest doubt mind-bogglingly expensive ot equip in any case, and already seriously loaded down with protective gear, quibbling about the greater weight and expense would have been rather odd...


There also seems to be a bit of a logic hole here. If the characteristically Hellenic types of armour - solid bronze and linothorax not covered with scales - were so good and readily enough available that the Eastern Greek armies had no need for the "intermediate level" provided by scale armour, why did the Parthians keep wearing scale despite taking over the Seleukid production centers...? Or the post-Seleukid principalities like Palmyra and the Herodians add thorough scale coverings to their cuirasses ? It's not like either of the two was excessively difficult to make, and skilled armourers could always find employement; nevermind that the Parthians certainly dealt with Hellenic armour enough to be fully aware of its capabilities and it is difficult to see why they would not have picked up useful pieces of war gear when they met them...

Scale armour was also commonly used by the heavy cavalry of the steppe nomads whom the Persians, Armenians and various Central Asian nations had close contacts with (related languages didn't exactly hurt the cultural and technological exchange); I'd really like to see a logically tenable explanation why the Persians, with their far greater manufacturing capabilities, wouldn't have happily copied that along with the early saddle and other useful stuff from their nomad cousins if we now assume they for some incomprehensible reason hadn't been using it nonstop since when the Achaemenids were but a little mountain principality between the Assyrians, Medes and Elamites...

[MeinPanzer]

Originally Posted by Watchman
What, there's a meaningful difference between "composite cuirass" and linothorax ? I was under the impression the former was just the latter with more metal bits added for improved protection (with due increase in cost and weight) as per customer request, and fell under the same term ?

Yes, you've got it right. Composite cuirasses are linothoraxes with scale or lamellar bits added to them.

Anyway, the Acheamenids took over the old Asyrian and Babylonian haunts wholesale back in the day. Would you like to provide a logical explanation as to why exactly they wouldn't have drawn up on the existing pool of skilled armourers for their own use, all the more so given the missile-heavy part of the world they were operating in ?

Perhaps because, like the Greek tendency over time towards lightening the armour of the Hoplite, the Persians tended towards lighter types of armour to achieve greater mobility? It seems very clear from all the evidence concerning Achaemenid Persian warfare that they preferred to use lighter-equipped troops, even when they were familiar with, as you say, both previous Near Eastern and Scythian styles of armour as well as Greek styles.

Troops protected from the weapons of their enemies are more confident and aggressive, and obviously don't die as fast;

This is true, but armour also weighs down the warrior.

while the mass levies were disposable enough the Persians had considerable bodies of regular troops and warrior aristocracy as well, both having both means and a reason to be armoured.

True, yet in the main they chose not to wear armour heavier than the linothorax.

You might also want to try explaining away Xenophon's lenghty discussions about the armour of Persian cavalry and their mounts in his Peri Hippikes, occasional references to too flimsy Greek cavalry javelins breaking upon striking armoured Persian troops in melee, the repeated references to Persian (and some Scythian/Massagetae) armoured shock cavalry in the sources on Alexander's campaigns...

Some later Persian cavalry did certainly wear limited elements of scale armour, such as parapleuridia, but those are akin to the kataphrakts in the Hellenistic armies in that they constituted only a very tiny part of the overall forces. Massagetic cavalry were also clearly armoured, but they are an entirely different subject altogether.

The point being ? Solid bronze plate was damn expensive too, but that didn't keep the Greek farmer-soldiers from commonly wearing it during certain periods.

Exactly my point... it wasn't a matter of cost, but of taste.

Says you.

No, says the archaeological record!

As armour goes scale is relatively simple to construct and maintain, and judging by the regions it's been popular in (albeit lamellar usually sidelined it later on) it performed well enough against missiles. Feel like explaining the Bactrian and Massagetae proto-cataphracts that gave Alex's cavalry trouble at Gaugamela then ?

No need to explain, because as I said before, there is clear evidence of use of scale or lamellar armour for kataphraktoi by Achaemenid, Baktrian, Massagetic, Sakae, Seleukid, and Parthian armies. They still only constituted a tiny portion of the armies, though.

And those were ?

Linothorax, metal muscled cuirass, the plain metal cuirass.

But if the linothorax was so good it was used instead of scale, why didn't they wear that instead ?

There is an overall trend, from the 6th down to the 3rd C. BC, towards lighter armed soldiers in almost all arms of Greek militaries bar the cavalry. Metal armour was heavy, and, at least according to our sources, soldiers operating in a phalanx did so just fine without heavy armour. The only two depictions of phalangites operating in a phalanx in combat are Seleukid, from the 2nd C. BC, and both show soldiers wearing only chitons, wearing only pilos helmets, and carrying the large Macedonian shield and sarissa.

Or bronze plate armour, which gave better protection than either scale or layered fabric ?

They still sometimes did wear bronze plate armour.

Certainly given that the kataphraktoi were without the slightest doubt mind-bogglingly expensive ot equip in any case, and already seriously loaded down with protective gear, quibbling about the greater weight and expense would have been rather odd...

For kataphraktoi, at least, mounted on sturdy Nisaean horses. Not so for your average cavalry- or infantrymen, such as the above peltast/akontiste.

There also seems to be a bit of a logic hole here. If the characteristically Hellenic types of armour - solid bronze and linothorax not covered with scales - were so good and readily enough available that the Eastern Greek armies had no need for the "intermediate level" provided by scale armour, why did the Parthians keep wearing scale despite taking over the Seleukid production centers...?

We don't even know that the Parthian's didn't adopt solid plate. Some of the figurines found in the Parthian east which are attributed to Seleukid cataphracts (for those of you with the Sekunda Montvert title on the Seleucid army, you can see two examples in figures 32-34) could just as easily be Parthian. Evidence for Parthian soldiers before the 1st C. AD or so is very sparse, and oftentimes ambiguous in nature.

Even so, it seems simply that Macedonians preferred certain types of armour for combat- despite some adoption of enemy weaponry and equipment by the Hellenistic armies, they still stayed very much "Macedonian" in equipment until the end. Perhaps this was nationalistic, or maybe it was just tradition.

Or the post-Seleukid principalities like Palmyra and the Herodians add thorough scale coverings to their cuirasses ?

Keep in mind that there is a sizeable gap- mid 1st C. BC to 1st C. AD- in which the Romans also adopted various types of metallic armour. I'm not saying the tradition of wearing scale or lamellar armour died out in all areas- it seems to have persisted amongst the Parthians, Sakae, and numerous others- but it just fell out of widespread favour in this period.

It's not like either of the two was excessively difficult to make, and skilled armourers could always find employement; nevermind that the Parthians certainly dealt with Hellenic armour enough to be fully aware of its capabilities and it is difficult to see why they would not have picked up useful pieces of war gear when they met them...

And see my comments before that they might have. Those heads from Old Nisa that clearly wear Hellenistic helmets and the fact that Parthians are said to have incorporated some Seleukid soldiers into their army after conquering Mesopotamia could indicate that Parthians did make use of a lot of Greek equipment.

Scale armour was also commonly used by the heavy cavalry of the steppe nomads whom the Persians, Armenians and various Central Asian nations had close contacts with (related languages didn't exactly hurt the cultural and technological exchange); I'd really like to see a logically tenable explanation why the Persians, with their far greater manufacturing capabilities, wouldn't have happily copied that along with the early saddle and other useful stuff from their nomad cousins if we now assume they for some incomprehensible reason hadn't been using it nonstop since when the Achaemenids were but a little mountain principality between the Assyrians, Medes and Elamites...

The early saddle postdates the Achaemenid Persians by a little bit, so they couldn't really have adopted it, but as I wrote earlier, the Persians did have a very small portion of their cavalry armed in scale armour. Still, it was but a tiny portion a massive amount of troops that appear to have been equipped with linothorax or no armour at all.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't think I've seen scale armour being represented as widespread in EB, so I can't really see what the issue is. And besides, wouldn't elephant riders A) be extremely rare and B) consist of native troops armed in native rather than Greek fashion?

[QwertyMIDX]

There's tons of scale in EB, not on the Seleukids outside their catas though. This is a Baktrian/Indo-Greek fellow, and they did wear scale according to the coins I mentioned.

EDIT: Oh a few regional eastern cav units the seleukids get have scale too.

[Geoffrey S]

Sorry, I meant not widespread on Greek units outside of Baktria, which is the subject on which the discussion originated. Should have made myself clearer.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

For kataphraktoi, at least, mounted on sturdy Nisaean horses. Not so for your average cavalry- or infantrymen, such as the above peltast/akontiste.

I hardly think we have scale on akontistai. There's no need to exaggerate our argument that much to strengthen your own. This is also not just an average peltast. The point that scale armor weighs light units down so they can't run isn't really at issue with this unit - as they aren't running anywhere but are stationary atop a moving object.

[MeinPanzer]

I hardly think we have scale on akontistai. There's no need to exaggerate our argument that much to strengthen your own. This is also not just an average peltast. The point that scale armor weighs light units down so they can't run isn't really at issue with this unit - as they aren't running anywhere but are stationary atop a moving object.

They wouldn't need to be heavily armoured because they were provided a lot of protection by the howdah itself. And if you're going to follow that logic, why not just armour them with metal muscled cuirasses? If they don't have to move, that provides them with the greatest defense.

Plus that's a Baktrian elephant rider, not a seleukid one. I think our Seleukid one might have chainmail on, but definatly not scale.

Okay, that I didn't realize, but even so, Baktrian elephant riders should not have scale armour either. Seleukid elephant riders should not be armoured in mail either. I'm guessing you got that from the passage in 1 Maccabees 35 which says:

And they distributed the beasts among the phalanxes; with each elephant they stationed a thousand men armed with coats of mail, and with brass helmets on their heads; and five hundred picked horsemen were assigned to each beast.

Note that they mean a contingent of infantry stationed around the elephants, not riding them. The only mention of the elephant riders is in 1 Macc. 38:

And upon the elephants were wooden towers, strong and covered; they were fastened upon each beast by special harness, and upon each were four armed men who fought from there, and also its Indian driver.

If they were armored with helmets like they are depicted on the plate, then it would be absolutely bizarre to depict them as akontistai, with fancy helmets.

Their helmets are by no means fancy (being a variant of Boeotian) and there are other depictions of akontistai in wearing helmets in the Hellenistic period.

So were they Iranian/Greek/Indian soldiers? What type of equipment did they use (outside of the helmet)? All of that is really unknown. We went with what we felt was a good guess at this. You say "First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army." Again, we are talking about Bactria here but still this is something almost all our members would disagree with I think. You hold an extreme view here. We did not even depict them as armored as Nikonorov does (who has a plate of a Greek, with a helmet much like the one we show, a very long spear, metal cuirass, greaves, heavy ptyrges, and a long sword).

It should be noted that Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor in hsi Montvert title, and should not be trusted at all (and I'm glad you haven't).

We think that a bit much, and don't have them as elite as that individual, but in between the two, with more local influence when it comes to the armor.

Again, I'm guessing you are going to point to the Indo-Greek coins for evidence of scale armour being worn. Indo-Greeks had, in the latter centuries of the Hellenistic age, increasing contact with Indo-Saka groups, and it's clear from Indo-Saka coins that they (like most nomads) employed heavy cavalrymen wearing plate armour. Any Indo-Greek kings wearing scale or plate armour would inevitably be cavalrymen, as was traditional for kings in most ancient armies. The wearing of scale or plate armour by kataphraktoi is no secret, and I said so earlier (see the armour from Ai-Khanoum, for instance). However, only people as rich as a king or his philoi would be able to afford such armour. There is absolitely no evidence for any other kind of scale armour being worn, and there is not a single piece of evidence to support composite cuirasses being worn at any point in time in the Hellenistic period as far east as Baktria.

I really don't see what is so crazy about our rendering of this unit. It seems quite moderate to me.

It's quite accurate except for the composite cuirass, that's all. If you changed it to a linothorax it would be much more accurate.

Nikonorov's book (like an Osprey) depicts a non-armored/non-weapon-bearing Iranian or Indian (I can't tell really) driver with the spur to steer the elephant,

As was apparently commonplace with all war elephants. The most heavily armed the drivers seem to have got was wearing a helmet.

then a very heavily armored and armed greek in the tower,

All we know is that he wears a helmet and carries a javelin. We have no other indication that he is armoured at all.

with an Iranian or Indian archer/javelin-thrower (no armor or helmet at all) behind him.

And we have no indication that this guy is an Iranian or Indian at all, either. The hairstyle is indicative of some eastern Greeks, and so we can't say for sure whether he's a local or a Greek.

He shows two units that way. We can't have the variation - if we have units in the towers they have to be the same, and they have to share models with all the other factions, so we have them armored in different ways for all the factions, but all armored somewhere slightly above what you might find in a peltast (that's not the rule, but an observation of the units). It's not akontistai/toxotai, but it's not Baktrion Agema either. People can get really unhappy about it if they like, but it seems reasonable to us.

It just seems really strange to choose a type of armour- a composite cuirass- which has no archaeological basis for existing within hundreds of miles of that area at that time and to assign it to that figure.

[Kugutsu]

I have a couple of questions (more about the actual nature of the unit than EBs interpretation of it):

1) Why did they put javelineers on elephants? Surely archers are far better suited to working from a small enclosed space like the tower. Pull your arm back too far with a javelin and you're going to impale your buddy. Also without a run up you cant really put that much force behind a javelin, whereas a bow doesnt rely on momentum.

2) Why didnt they give the driver armour? Surely of all the people on the elephant, he's the important one. The skirmishers on top are a nice add-on, but the whole point of using elephants is to use the beast itself. Leaving the bloke who tells it where to go perched out front with virtually no protection seems a little silly...

3) Is that plate pic the main source for the unit? Because I cant see how you can draw any conclusions about the guys on the tower, except for the helmet. They could be naked in there for all we can see. I didnt even realise the weapons they were holding were supposed to be javelins, I thought they were swords - but then whats the point of having a sword when you are a good six feet above the heads of the people you are fighting.

[MeinPanzer]

I have a couple of questions (more about the actual nature of the unit than EBs interpretation of it):

1) Why did they put javelineers on elephants? Surely archers are far better suited to working from a small enclosed space like the tower. Pull your arm back too far with a javelin and you're going to impale your buddy. Also without a run up you cant really put that much force behind a javelin, whereas a bow doesnt rely on momentum.

Because the evidence shows men with javelins sitting in the howdahs of war elephants. I don't think it would be too hard to use them without killing the other riders. And a lot of evidence seems to indicate that many armies made use of javelins without run ups, as you seem to think. For instance, look at the effectiveness of Roman use of pila while standing stationary.

2) Why didnt they give the driver armour? Surely of all the people on the elephant, he's the important one. The skirmishers on top are a nice add-on, but the whole point of using elephants is to use the beast itself. Leaving the bloke who tells it where to go perched out front with virtually no protection seems a little silly...

This comes directly from the archaeological evidence. The most armour drivers are ever depicted as wearing is a helmet.

3) Is that plate pic the main source for the unit? Because I cant see how you can draw any conclusions about the guys on the tower, except for the helmet. They could be naked in there for all we can see. I didnt even realise the weapons they were holding were supposed to be javelins, I thought they were swords - but then whats the point of having a sword when you are a good six feet above the heads of the people you are fighting.

There are two of these silver phalerai, both showing very similar war elephants, and yes they are pretty much the only evidence for Baktrian war elephants. And you are right that we can't tell how they are armoured at all beyond the one man wearing a helmet, but those are definitely javelins by their sides.

[MeinPanzer]

I don't think I've seen scale armour being represented as widespread in EB, so I can't really see what the issue is. And besides, wouldn't elephant riders A) be extremely rare and B) consist of native troops armed in native rather than Greek fashion?

Well, even if only a few units within the Seleukid army are depicted with scale armour, they are historically inaccurate.

First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army. Secondly, they would simply be regular troops from within the army, and so would be equipped most likely in the Greek fashion.

[Sarcasm]

Yeah, that's exactly what you want to do with an Elite part of your army, filling it with substandard javelinmen.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well, even if only a few units within the Seleukid army are depicted with scale armour, they are historically inaccurate.

First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army. Secondly, they would simply be regular troops from within the army, and so would be equipped most likely in the Greek fashion.

Plus that's a Baktrian elephant rider, not a seleukid one. I think our Seleukid one might have chainmail on, but definatly not scale.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We're talking about Baktrian elephants here, not Seleukid. So how would Baktrian elephant riders be armed/armored? The only thing we know for sure (or that we have direct evidence for) is the helmets. We got that right (the famous plate with Baktrian elephants and soldiers). The rest has got to be up in the air somewhat. If they were armored with helmets like they are depicted on the plate, then it would be absolutely bizarre to depict them as akontistai, with fancy helmets. So how would they be depicted then? Nikonorov doesn't give any hints in his text. This is all he says about them:

Elephants: The third fighting force in the composition of the Graeco-Bactrian army was the elephants which, as I have already argued, may have appeared in Bactria under Seleucid rule. War-elephants were definitely possessed by Euthydemus I, for elephants are referred to by Polybius (XI, 34,10) as being transferred by this king to the Seleucid, Antiochus III, according to terms of their peace treaty concluded in 206 BC after the latter's two year siege of the Bactrian capital Bactra/Zariaspa. In this connection, especially worthy of note are two silver phalerae, now kept in the Hermitage collection and convincingly identified by K V Trever (1940, pp. 45-48) as pieces of Graeco-Bactrian workmanship, which depict war-elephants, each carrying a mahout and a tower (thorakion) with two soldiers inside (Fig 16a,b and PI 2). After Euthydemus' son, Demetrius 1, began to conquer lands lying in northwestern India, the military employment of elephants by the Greeks settled on either side of the Hindukush was bound to increase. It must be more than mere chance that Demetrius portrayed himself as crowned with elephant-scalp headgear (Fig 16c,d). The Milindapanha mentions war-elephants in the army of Menander. In addition, iron hook-like goads, by means of which the mahouts drove the animals, were found at Ai Khanum and in an Indo-Greek (?) deposit of Bhir Mound at Taxila (Fig 14c,d).

So were they Iranian/Greek/Indian soldiers? What type of equipment did they use (outside of the helmet)? All of that is really unknown. We went with what we felt was a good guess at this. You say "First of all, there's no real indication that "elephant riders" would be differently equipped than any other kind of akontistai in the Seleukid army." Again, we are talking about Bactria here but still this is something almost all our members would disagree with I think. You hold an extreme view here. We did not even depict them as armored as Nikonorov does (who has a plate of a Greek, with a helmet much like the one we show, a very long spear, metal cuirass, greaves, heavy ptyrges, and a long sword). We think that a bit much, and don't have them as elite as that individual, but in between the two, with more local influence when it comes to the armor. I really don't see what is so crazy about our rendering of this unit. It seems quite moderate to me.

[Geoffrey S]

Is the soldier in the first post the driver or one of the two chaps in the tower? What MeinPanzer seems to be arguing, and he may have a point, is that while the driver could be armoured in the manner of the depicted unit the javelinmen in the tower could be simple akontistai.

[QwertyMIDX]

[Teleklos Archelaou]

These are the guys in turribus. Just like the phalera depicts - with these helmets.

Nikonorov's book (like an Osprey) depicts a non-armored/non-weapon-bearing Iranian or Indian (I can't tell really) driver with the spur to steer the elephant, then a very heavily armored and armed greek in the tower, with an Iranian or Indian archer/javelin-thrower (no armor or helmet at all) behind him. He shows two units that way. We can't have the variation - if we have units in the towers they have to be the same, and they have to share models with all the other factions, so we have them armored in different ways for all the factions, but all armored somewhere slightly above what you might find in a peltast (that's not the rule, but an observation of the units). It's not akontistai/toxotai, but it's not Baktrion Agema either. People can get really unhappy about it if they like, but it seems reasonable to us.