New Unit - What is it?

[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.

[Geoffrey S]

No, that makes sense. Thanks for making things clearer.