New Unit - What is it?

[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 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.

[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.

[Watchman]

I don't think Kugutsu is asking after evidence or if it was done, he's wondering about the why.

Which I do as well at times. For example much later Mughal war elephants might for example carry a well-armoured arquebusieur in the howdah - but the mahout still wore about loinclotch. Given how important the guy was for the continued functioning of the war elephant team it seems very counterintuitive he was left so vulnerable in such an exposed position, and one can only assume there were valid reasons for doing so because pretty much everyone seems to have done it.

Armouring the fighting-crew in the howdah/tower makes perfect sense though. The sides of the structure obviously protect their legs and lower body, but in order to use their weapons - whatever those now happened to be; javelins appear to have been extremely common, even among "archer" peoples, which is another question mark - they'd have to expose their upper bodies, arms and heads to enemy missiles and on occasion probably also sufficiently long spears.

One suspects the elephant-riders were trained specialists and in any case they were both important for the continued effectiveness of the elephant team (since their job included keeping infantry trying to swarm the beast preoccupied) and far as one can tell virtually impossible to replace in battlefield conditions in the case of casualties, ergo minimizing losses among them would come across as solid military thinking. Moreover, given the expenses incurred by a single battle-trained elephant to its owner the cost of providing the fighting crew with decent body armour would obviously be so low in copmarision as to be nigh irrelevant, and any beast large enough to be able to carry both the fighting-platform and its occupants on its back would presumably not even notice the weight added by body armour.

[MeinPanzer]

One suspects the elephant-riders were trained specialists and in any case they were both important for the continued effectiveness of the elephant team (since their job included keeping infantry trying to swarm the beast preoccupied) and far as one can tell virtually impossible to replace in battlefield conditions in the case of casualties, ergo minimizing losses among them would come across as solid military thinking.

There's no reason to think they required any more training, or were any harder to replace, than other akontistai. There wasn't a whole lot to firing from the back of an elephant, other than as you say trying to keep enemies as far away from the beasts as possible, but they almost always had special guards of dozens or hundreds of men to help with that anyway. They would be far easier to replace than, say, a heavy cavalryman. The minimization reason for the heavy defense (which often included hanging shields on the sides of the howdahs) was simply to keep the men up top operating as long as possible.

Moreover, given the expenses incurred by a single battle-trained elephant to its owner the cost of providing the fighting crew with decent body armour would obviously be so low in copmarision as to be nigh irrelevant, and any beast large enough to be able to carry both the fighting-platform and its occupants on its back would presumably not even notice the weight added by body armour.

Both of these points are true, but you also have to think of some other problems. When you have heavy armour on, or armour at all for that matter, your flexibility is greatly reduced. Even the linothorax would have reduced flexibility and made actions within a howdah turret more awkward. When you have four men crammed into a tiny box on the back of an elephant along with all the weaponry they will need, and they all have to be throwing javelins or firing arrows, armour would limit their range of movement, and probably wouldn't provide an amount of defence proportional to their limited mobility (considering the already heavily protected turret walls).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, we disagree then about the body armor for this unit I guess. Worse things happen at sea, I always say.

We are using a type of body armor that is common for some types of units for this faction, but there is no direct evidence that elephant riders wore them (we certainly admit this). You think it's too much of a stretch, while we think it's speculative but possible, especially given our lack of certain knowledge of the unit. You say Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor, and you say that it's impossible to have this armor for this unit. You apparently know more about the unit than the only peson who has ever published widely on the matter and more than any of us. Entirely possible, but keep in mind that in reconstructing all the units we have, that we do the best job we think we can, and we certainly do have to speculate on some, like this one.

Have you gotten a chance to play a campaign in EB yet MP? Hope so and hope you've gotten some enjoyment from it.

[MeinPanzer]

We are using a type of body armor that is common for some types of units for this faction, but there is no direct evidence that elephant riders wore them (we certainly admit this).

Please provide me with a single shred of evidence that composite scale cuirasses were worn by any units within the Seleukid army.

You think it's too much of a stretch, while we think it's speculative but possible, especially given our lack of certain knowledge of the unit. You say Nikonorov's reconstructions were incredibly poor, and you say that it's impossible to have this armor for this unit.

I don't say that it's impossible, but I think it's unlikely- and I think if they wore any armour, it was a linothorax, like almost every other light element of almost every other Hellenistic army in existence at this time.

You apparently know more about the unit than the only peson who has ever published widely on the matter and more than any of us. Entirely possible, but keep in mind that in reconstructing all the units we have, that we do the best job we think we can, and we certainly do have to speculate on some, like this one.

I think having armour on this unit is fine. Any speculation on my part about whether they wore armour or not is just speculation. However, having this unit wear a composite cuirass is just entirely inaccurate and illogical.

And while Nikonorov covers all the evidence for Baktrian elephants, he omits and misinterprets many, many sources for his coverage of other elements of the other armies he discusses in his book.

Have you gotten a chance to play a campaign in EB yet MP? Hope so and hope you've gotten some enjoyment from it.

I enjoy both EB and RTR, but I find it always detracts from the experience just a little bit when I see a unit which is unnecessarily inaccurate.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Trying to be good natured about this. Oh well.

[QwertyMIDX]

It's still not a Seleukid unit, it remains Baktrian/Indo-Greek, and it's just scale, not a composite cuirasses. With the evidence of scale armor on indo-greek coins, the lack of evidence as to the body armor (of any type) wore by greek troops on elephants we went with something that we feel is reasonable, and allows a bit of variety into the equipment of the elephant riders.

We have the greek style rider for 6 factions as well as merc skin. IIRC only one, the Baktrian/Indo-Greek has scale, one has chain (Seleukid as mentioned) 3 have some form of linothorax, one has leather, and one has padded cloth. I don't feel we are being massively inaccurate here...

[keravnos]

Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

=



Good enough for us.

So far as the unarmored mahut thing, well, it was something common for the people of the time, and place. The mathuras, which were conquered after heavy fighting in 180 BC but rebelled in 100 BC used their elephants in the way shown below...



and a reconstrucion of the Mathuran elephant coprs...

[Sarcasm]

Kos, can't seem to able to see those photos there mate. Anything special I gotta do to see them?

[MiniMe]

Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

[Zaknafien]

no there doesnt, ive sat on an elephant's back myself, "bareback" as it were.

[spirit_of_rob]

unless you want to sing soprano however i wouldnt recommend going to fast hehe

[Zaknafien]

heh. very true..and granted i was like 11 at the time.. hey maybe those chaps are eunuchs.

[MeinPanzer]

It's still not a Seleukid unit, it remains Baktrian/Indo-Greek, and it's just scale, not a composite cuirasses.

But you do have the Baktrian Pheraspidai wearing a composite cuirass.

With the evidence of scale armor on indo-greek coins, the lack of evidence as to the body armor (of any type) wore by greek troops on elephants we went with something that we feel is reasonable, and allows a bit of variety into the equipment of the elephant riders.

For the reasons I stated before (that it's only clear from the coins that Indo-Greek kataphraktoi wore scale) it is not reasonable to put a very expensive piece of armour on what is essentially a light soldier, even if composite cuirasses were known to have been worn by Baktrians. I understand you want variety, but don't you still want to keep it accurate?

We have the greek style rider for 6 factions as well as merc skin. IIRC only one, the Baktrian/Indo-Greek has scale, one has chain (Seleukid as mentioned) 3 have some form of linothorax, one has leather, and one has padded cloth. I don't feel we are being massively inaccurate here...

As I mentioned before, the Seleukid riders shouldn't be in mail, either.

Well let us take a deep breath...

1. Baktrians had a lot of money
2. Their not so friendly neighbours used scale armor
3. The Baktrian Greeks Indian subjects had and still do a big tradition in iron casting, use and manipulation of iron.
4. Elephant corps, (Panzer corps of the time) would have the very best in terms of the people fighting from the "Thorakion" of the elephant. Be it weapons, and thorax (at least where needed)
5. Linothorax could still be used, but since they had the money to spend, why not go for the best quality armor available?

1. True.
2. True.
3. Yes, Baktrians had contact with Indians, who did make use of iron, and iron scale cuirasses. However, it is very clear from Indian texts that only the king wore scale armour.
4. I wouldn't call it the panzer corps of the time at all. Many people have made the comparison of elephants in the ancient world to tanks in the modern world and it's a very poor comparison. And I don't necessarily think they demanded "the best" for the soldiers fighting from the back of the elephant. As I'd said before, it's very apparent that the skill needed to fight from the back of an elephant was fairly minor.
5. Because there is no evidence that any troops other than rich aristocrats made use of scale armour.

You can argue this all day, but the fact of the matter is that in the Seleukid, the Baktrian, the Indo-Greek, and the Mauryan Indian armies any scale or lamellar armour that was worn was done so by the aristocracy who were almost without exception mounted (be it on a horse or, as an Indian king, a chariot or an elephant). And I doubt that in a force like the Baktrians, with what could only be described as a limited pool of valued Greek aristocrats with training and equipment needed for the hetairoi, they could spare some for riding on the back of an elephant.

Now that's a very strange way to seat on the elephant's back.
I know, what I'm talking about, because I did ride on indian elephant's back in Thailand and in Sri Lanka.
You just can't sit there as on horseback like the javeliner shown above, there has to be a flat platform (IMO)

The Sanchi reliefs are very clear in showing that the Mauryans did not employ a howdah of any kind on their elephants and that they all rode "bareback" (though, of course sitting on a carpet).

[MiniMe]

eunuchs

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

[MeinPanzer]

eunuchs

Slightly offtopic (sorry):
I didn't found any picture of armoured elephant, however the fact they did exist was mentioned somewhere and that they had copper rings protecting their feet.
Could somebody, please, post their picture of non-Wikipedia source here (don't trust it too much)

1 Maccabees 43:

And Eleazar, called Avaran, saw that one of the beasts was equipped with royal armor. It was taller than all the others, and he supposed that the king was upon it.

His assumption "that the king was upon it" was, of course, entirely unfounded, because Seleukid kings never rode elephants.

There is also a fragment of a metal figurine, the provenance and date of which I have never been able to find, though it is definitely Hellenistic, which shows an armoured elephant. This is what all reconstructions of armoured elephants are invariably based on. The metal hoops are based on some terracotta figurines showing a Seleukid elephant with a Galatian warrior in its trunk and which were made to commemorate the victory of Antiochus I in the "Elephant Battle." In fact, what are interpreted as metal leg defences may simply be the artist's interpretation of the folds in an elephant's skin, since similar hoops are modelled around the neck as well.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well being Greek as fast east as the Baktrian or Indo-Greek kingdoms were during the hieght of said kingdoms meant you were of a fairly high class. We also know that greeks rode elephant so...

In fact the Baktrians wouldn't have had normal greek akontistai, they would have employed easterners in that role.