Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?

[MeinPanzer]

We do have a cavalry unit with shield for some of these factions, but it's not a compainion cavalry unit. It's done but not in the build yet. I don't see why those charging cavalry are clearly hetairoi (I liked the images though for sure).

The thing is that there's no clear evidence for hetairoi, obviously. But what I am trying to show is that after the middle of the 3rd C. BC, the normal equipment for heavy cavalryman was large round shield (either Argive or rimless with a spine), a helmet, a cuirass, and into the 2nd C. BC, greaves. This was the norm, from Sicilian cavalry to Samnite cavalry to Roman cavalry to Athenian cavalry to Macedonian cavalry to Bithynian cavalry to Pergamene cavalry (and probably a few I'm forgetting). It makes sense, then, that the heaviest "non-specialist" (i.e. non-cataphract) cavalry, the hetairoi, would be equipped like this. It's perfectly logical that this group is so well represented in expensive funerary art because they would have been the ones who were able to afford to maintain a horse and buy expensive arms and armour. It also makes a lot of sense that the Seleucid "satellite" states (Pergamon, Bithynia, Mysia before it was absorbed by Pergamon, and the various powerful city states in and around Ionia) would follow in line with the Seleucid military. After all, many of these areas would have provided troops for the Seleucids at one point or another from the 3rd to the 2nd C. BC.

[Watchman]

A book on ancient cavalry warfare (Philip Sidnell's Warhorse for the record; interesting read) I've been reading lately pointed out that around the time the Romans started pushing into the Balkans and Greece there's a lot of pictures and depictions of Hellenic cavalrymen with shields, armour and standard cavalry spears, as well as armoured cavalrymen with xystons who never carry shields. The author suggests a balance issue to be the reason - body armour alone makes a rider top-heavy; a decent-sized shield more so to the left, plus the device is a bit tricky since it's on the arm you hold the reins with when the other one uses weapons; a xyston, even if the Alexander-era ones were well enough balanced to be used one-handed, is still a quite heavy and awkward device and takes a lot of practice to handle. The argument goes that the horsemen couldn't handle both a shield and a xyston at once without becoming dangerously unbalanced, ergo both "shielded" all-purpose horsemen of the tried-and-true hippeis pattern (aside from the shield being a relatively new, around 300s BC, addition - Sidnell suggests the adoption of the Scythian saddle from the Thracians as the catalyst) and Macedonian-style specialist lancers without shields as two separate arms of the heavy cavalry.

As for the Kiburan coin, I'm wondering if it could be that the lancer doesn't have the shield strapped onto his back to protect his rear in the swirling cavalry melee rather than on his arm for more active use ? I understand this trick was used relatively widely here and there (Thracian heavy cavalry apparently did it a lot at one point), and it would have the bonus that in a pinch the horseman could dismount, sling it from his back, and fight as a heavy infantryman - the Roman equites were apparently particularly fond of that move for example.

[Sarcasm]

It also looks to me like their shield *might* be swung across the back of the cavalrymen. A hoplon-like grip would also look like something similar though...

Iberians too were really fond of the dragoon concept too, so it wasn't that uncommon.

[MeinPanzer]

A book on ancient cavalry warfare (Philip Sidnell's Warhorse for the record; interesting read) I've been reading lately pointed out that around the time the Romans started pushing into the Balkans and Greece there's a lot of pictures and depictions of Hellenic cavalrymen with shields, armour and standard cavalry spears, as well as armoured cavalrymen with xystons who never carry shields.

The main catalyst for the reintroduction of the cavalry shield seems to have been Pyrrus of Epirus- his employment of Italian mercenary cavalrymen (mainly Tarentines) who used the Argive shield on horseback spread through his campaigns. He was probably the one to bring it back to the Balkans and reintroduce the cavalry shield to the Macedonians. The Romans were likewise affected by their contact with Pyrrhus, and at some point enacted a reform to begin using the "Greek" cavalry shield in place of the flimsy oxhide popanum shield and the sturdy Greek cavalry spear, with buttspike, in place of their flimsy Roman cavalry spear. It's also interesting to note that the equipment of Sicilian cavalrymen of the 3rd C. BC seems to have influenced Roman cavalrymen quite a bit as well.

The author suggests a balance issue to be the reason - body armour alone makes a rider top-heavy; a decent-sized shield more so to the left, plus the device is a bit tricky since it's on the arm you hold the reins with when the other one uses weapons; a xyston, even if the Alexander-era ones were well enough balanced to be used one-handed, is still a quite heavy and awkward device and takes a lot of practice to handle. The argument goes that the horsemen couldn't handle both a shield and a xyston at once without becoming dangerously unbalanced,

Even if you are unsure about the Cibyra coins, look at that Pergamene battle plate I posted earlier- those are clearly cavalrymen carrying xysta and large round shields, proving that hypothesis wrong.

Sidnell suggests the adoption of the Scythian saddle from the Thracians as the catalyst).

There seems to be no evidence that the Scythian saddle was adopted westward of the Thracians before the 1st C. BC.

As for the Kiburan coin, I'm wondering if it could be that the lancer doesn't have the shield strapped onto his back to protect his rear in the swirling cavalry melee rather than on his arm for more active use ?

Look at the size of those shields- that would be incredibly awkward, and would do little good to a cavalryman who was trying to maneuver with an already cumbersome lance.

I understand this trick was used relatively widely here and there (Thracian heavy cavalry apparently did it a lot at one point),

What's the evidence for this?

and it would have the bonus that in a pinch the horseman could dismount, sling it from his back, and fight as a heavy infantryman -

I don't think there's any mention of Greek cavalrymen doing this in battle accounts, and it seems very unlikely. When soldiers did this in battle, it was notable enough that most ancient authors pointed it out.

the Roman equites were apparently particularly fond of that move for example.

Do you have some sources for this?

[Sarcasm]

Do you have some sources for this?

Battle of Cannae for example. Try the campaigns in Hispania too.

[QwertyMIDX]

But your still assuming that these cavalry men for Asia minor are hetairoi, not more generic greek middle-heavy cavalry (which is fairly likely, especially seeing their employment in states that weren't proper succesor states). You're also assuming one of two other things, that the armament of the far west would have been that adopted when the hetairoi were deployed in a unified force (strang considering that the east was the focus of cavalry warfare) or that the hetairoi always fought a unified force, which is surely not the case. As nobles they had lots of non-military duties to discharge and the nobles of Asia minor certinly weren't marching to the far east every time some heavy cavalry was deployed.

[MeinPanzer]

But your still assuming that these cavalry men for Asia minor are hetairoi, not more generic greek middle-heavy cavalry (which is fairly likely, especially seeing their employment in states that weren't proper succesor states).

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?

You're also assuming one of two other things, that the armament of the far west would have been that adopted when the hetairoi were deployed in a unified force (strang considering that the east was the focus of cavalry warfare)

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.

or that the hetairoi always fought a unified force, which is surely not the case.

They quite often did when called up for major campaigns.

As nobles they had lots of non-military duties to discharge and the nobles of Asia minor certinly weren't marching to the far east every time some heavy cavalry was deployed.

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians.

[QwertyMIDX]

I'll respond more fully later, but I would like to point out that Syria isn't in asia minor last time I checked. One would also assume western forces would be the major elements at Magnesia (being the west), which is what Livy's list says.

[QwertyMIDX]

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?

How about the more traditional cavalry using an overhand spear but with a shield and bronze curiass? They were certinly medium-heavy.

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.

No but there is reason to believe that those fighting in the east would probably have had a somewhat different armament than those in the west.

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians.

It seems like your definition of Asia minor is becoming very broad to support your stances. Asia Minor is pretty much limited to modern day turkey, the peninsula between the med and the black sea more specifically. Syria and Mesopotamia are not a part of it, and are probably a large source of manpower than Asia minor. Anyway, like I said before the fact that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians is just as good evidence (in my opinion better) that in western campaigns were forces made up the majority of the forces (and vice versa in the east) than that the vast majority of hetairoi were from the west.

Of course Syria isn't in Asia Minor, but Phrygia and Lydia are exactly the two areas where the majority of the stelai I'm talking about came from. And I'd think that for as major a battle as Magnesia the entire forces of the empire would be mobilized, barring garrison troops of course. If you don't think that they utilized troops from the other portions of the empire, there are some literary mentions of kings having to wait for troops to arrive before embarking on campaigns.

Of course they used troops from other parts of the empire, but to assume that forces from the closer regions wouldn't arrive in larger numbers stands in contradiction to every example of pre-modern warfare I can think of where we know anything about. Please stop acting like I'm talking about absolutes when I'm talking about trends. We're both historians here and we both know that responsible historians talk about trends not absolutes these days.

[Watchman]

The hetairoi were, until Magnesia, generic greek middle-heavy cavalry. If they weren't, then what would you suggest they were, and what evidence do you have to support it?

And here I thought the hetairoi were the Macedonian elite heavies... originally. It seems sensible enough that later Successor elite squadrons drawn from the nobility would keep using the prestigious name, although I would imagine the the Philippo-Alexandric "page" system had to go already on practical grounds. Doesn't mean they were the only shock cavalry around or the only ones who fought with the xyston though. The long lance was much too useful a weapon for there to not be non-hetairoi users, and the somewhat lighter and more all-purpose hippeis pattern apparently existed alongside the specialized lancers.

Hetairoi, being wealthy, probably provided their own armament. Thus, these soldiers probably brought along their armament to fight, whether it was in the east or west. There's no reason to think that they had separate armaments for fighting on the eastern frontier than they did in the west.

But hetairoi dwelling in the east would probably tend to have a little different taste for details of equipement than ones whose estates lay in, say, Asia Minor, no ? Anyway, they might also have possessed several different weapon complements for different campaign purposes - didn't you yourself mention Companions sometimes using javelins earlier ?

It's very clear that the king's friends were drawn from all portions of the empire, and the largest concentration of population was in Asia Minor. Therefore, a larger proportion of the hetairoi were probably drawn from Asia Minor, and a large proportion probably did campaign in the east. Livy says that the hetairoi at Magnesia were mostly Syrians with Lydians and Phrygians.

...weren't the Seleucids' more eastern holding by that point pretty much enough of a mess that they either couldn't support hetairoi-grade cavalry anymore, or that whatever they could maintain was needed on the local front though ? IIRC the Seleucs had a major war with the Parthians only some half a dozen years before Magnesia... They apparently also picked up the cataphract idea during that one, and this new type of elite shock cavalry would obviously have hogged estates and other resources from the older hetairoi type - any idea of where those Seleuc catas at Magnesia were raised from, geographically ? I'll throw a guess that many of them would have been re-equipped hetairoi from the eastern regions, where the line between the xyston and the heavier kontos had probably also been blurring for a while.

[Watchman]

Battle of Cannae for example. Try the campaigns in Hispania too.

There's one cavalry fight in one of those early Macedonian wars too. The respective squadrons were apparently unable to penetrate into each others' ranks so the battle turned into a static slugging match; some of the eques of the rear ranks then dismounted and made their way through the press to pitch in at the front line, which took the Macs quite by surprise - plus adding infantry into a cavaly melee in general tended to swing the odds anyway.

Ditto at Cannae, except men from both sides apparently did this (given the geography of their homeland one suspects the Iberian horsemen in particular were quite used to occasionally dismounting for fighting in bad terrain to boot) when the big horse fight at the river flank initially turned static.

Mind you, in that case some of the Romans may also have decided to sell their lives dearly when it became apparent they were going to lose, and dismounted to make running away impossible; I understand the Mongols for example also had a habit of doing their "desperate last stands" on foot.

The eques also apparently occasionally left their horses to stabilize crumbling infantry lines; this not only added fresh men into the line to stiffen it, but also encouraged the infantrymen when they saw the nobles fighting at their side as equals in the face of crisis. Greek cavalrymen are known to have done this on occasion as well, although before they started carrying shields they obviously needed to loot or loan some first.

And no, I don't quite feel like digging up the references from the book right now. It's kinda late in the night.

There seems to be no evidence that the Scythian saddle was adopted westward of the Thracians before the 1st C. BC.

The Greeks are to the south of them for the most part though, aren't they ? And there were the Persians and Celts who most likely also knew of the device, who could for their part have helped the Hellenes pick it up as well. I've seen it mentioned that the first shields to turn up in the hands of Hellenic cavalry in pictorial cources have and awfully Celtic look to them.

Which reminds me, does anyone know when did the Celts start using saddles ? And I don't mean the famous four-horned type now (which was a relatively late device anyway, if I've understood correctly); it seems quite unlikely they'd have suddenly pulled that advanced thing out of nowhere, rather than developing it from some earlier type, most likely the simple Scythian one.

The main catalyst for the reintroduction of the cavalry shield seems to have been Pyrrus of Epirus- his employment of Italian mercenary cavalrymen (mainly Tarentines) who used the Argive shield on horseback spread through his campaigns. He was probably the one to bring it back to the Balkans and reintroduce the cavalry shield to the Macedonians. The Romans were likewise affected by their contact with Pyrrhus, and at some point enacted a reform to begin using the "Greek" cavalry shield in place of the flimsy oxhide popanum shield and the sturdy Greek cavalry spear, with buttspike, in place of their flimsy Roman cavalry spear. It's also interesting to note that the equipment of Sicilian cavalrymen of the 3rd C. BC seems to have influenced Roman cavalrymen quite a bit as well.

This is from Polybius, right ? I understand he launches into the discourse on the matter in the middle of describing the Second Punic War, but anyway. If I've understood correctly when exactly the Romans started copying Greek cavalry weapons is still very much a questionmark - but it's not like they hadn't had contact with the assorted Greek colonies on the Italian peninsula long before Pyrrhus, when it comes to that. And what I've seen mentioned of Roman cavalry in those murky wars of very early Republican times before they started writing stuff down at least seems to suggest the equites of the time were capable of both effective shock action and dismounting to fight as infantry, which would suggest relatively robust gear.

Look at the size of those shields- that would be incredibly awkward, and would do little good to a cavalryman who was trying to maneuver with an already cumbersome lance.

I dunno, the one-handed technique used with the xyston is pretty straightforward isn't it ? Kinda linear stabby. So long as the shield on the man's back doesn't get in the way of his right arm I don't see much of a problem there. I'm sure the exact position could also be readily adjusted so the thing's more to the left, giving more protection to the vulnerable rear left side and shoulder and less in the way of the right arm - as long as it's attached properly, it shouldn't interfere much with the movements of the body either.

Besides, infantrymen could fight with two-handed axes with kite shields slung on their backs. A cavalryman ought to be able to handle a slung round shield with a spear.

As for two-handed lance techniques, should that for some reason become an issue, I'm pretty sure about the only kind of shield you can manage with them is some rather small one strapped somewhere around the elbow or higher; didn't them steppe nomads use this approach a fair bit with archery at least ? Cataphracts apparently usually didn't bother though.

Even if you are unsure about the Cibyra coins, look at that Pergamene battle plate I posted earlier- those are clearly cavalrymen carrying xysta and large round shields, proving that hypothesis wrong.

The Kibyra coins look a lot like the shield was slung across the back incidentally - you'd think they were rather more forward if they were wielded in hand, no ? But these seem to be positively behind the horsemen. The Pergamene link gives a 404 so it's not of much use I'm afraid. The Mysian link (middle one) works; what's to say that those guys aren't hippeis-type cavalry though ? My layman's eyes see no ready reason to assume their spears are xystons instead of some shorter type.

I don't think there's any mention of Greek cavalrymen doing this in battle accounts, and it seems very unlikely. When soldiers did this in battle, it was notable enough that most ancient authors pointed it out.

IIRC there was one case involving some Spartan horsemen and allied hoplites in a pinch. The Spartans appropriated shields from the fallen and went to stiffen the faltering line, and eventually got killed to a man - as the enemy saw only the allies' symbols on the shields, the Spartan "killer rep" obviously didn't faze them much. I can try to look up the reference in the morning.

[MeinPanzer]

There's one cavalry fight in one of those early
The Greeks are to the south of them for the most part though, aren't they ?

Southwest, but I meant west in general.

And there were the Persians and Celts who most likely also knew of the device, who could for their part have helped the Hellenes pick it up as well. I've seen it mentioned that the first shields to turn up in the hands of Hellenic cavalry in pictorial cources have and awfully Celtic look to them.

Probably could have had access to it, but right down into the 1st C. BC, we still only see cavalrymen with shabracks. And those first shields look Celtic because both the Celts and the Greeks picked them up from Italian peoples.

Which reminds me, does anyone know when did the Celts start using saddles ? And I don't mean the famous four-horned type now (which was a relatively late device anyway, if I've understood correctly); it seems quite unlikely they'd have suddenly pulled that advanced thing out of nowhere, rather than developing it from some earlier type, most likely the simple Scythian one.

I couldn't help you there; none of my Celtic sources show saddles.

This is from Polybius, right ?

The bit about swapping out the oxhide shields and spears for sturdier Greek types is, yes.

I understand he launches into the discourse on the matter in the middle of describing the Second Punic War, but anyway. If I've understood correctly when exactly the Romans started copying Greek cavalry weapons is still very much a questionmark - but it's not like they hadn't had contact with the assorted Greek colonies on the Italian peninsula long before Pyrrhus, when it comes to that.

Yes, the date of the equipment reform is unknown. And the Greeks did have contact with the Italian peoples, but it's just that the reappearance of cavalry shields in Greek armies happens to conspircuously coincide with Pyrrhus' employment of Italian mercenaries, and their subsequent use in the Balkans.

And what I've seen mentioned of Roman cavalry in those murky wars of very early Republican times before they started writing stuff down at least seems to suggest the equites of the time were capable of both effective shock action and dismounting to fight as infantry, which would suggest relatively robust gear.

They were probably something akin to mounted hoplites back then, but this is pure speculation, of course. There's no clear image of Roman cavalry at all until about the 2nd C. BC.

I dunno, the one-handed technique used with the xyston is pretty straightforward isn't it ? Kinda linear stabby. So long as the shield on the man's back doesn't get in the way of his right arm I don't see much of a problem there.

My problem with it is that the arms of the cavalrymen on the Pergamene plate are very far back, and with a shield of that size, they'd probably be knocking their elbows on the shield.

I'm sure the exact position could also be readily adjusted so the thing's more to the left, giving more protection to the vulnerable rear left side and shoulder and less in the way of the right arm - as long as it's attached properly, it shouldn't interfere much with the movements of the body either.

Besides, infantrymen could fight with two-handed axes with kite shields slung on their backs. A cavalryman ought to be able to handle a slung round shield with a spear.

The problem I have with this is that Greek cavalry clearly didn't dismount too often in combat, if it was worthy of specific mention in literary references, it would be very cumbersome to carry such a large shield. I'm fairly sure that the artist on the Cibyra coins just chose to show the edge of the shield a bit farther back so that it wasn't hidden by the rider; lots of ancient sources do that (having grips all over the place).

As for two-handed lance techniques, should that for some reason become an issue, I'm pretty sure about the only kind of shield you can manage with them is some rather small one strapped somewhere around the elbow or higher; didn't them steppe nomads use this approach a fair bit with archery at least ? Cataphracts apparently usually didn't bother though.

Late Sassanid, Avar, and Byzantine cataphracts all carried small shields strapped to the upper left arm. I agree that if a lancer was wielding a lance two-handedly, he wouldn't have a shield.

The Kibyra coins look a lot like the shield was slung across the back incidentally - you'd think they were rather more forward if they were wielded in hand, no ? But these seem to be positively behind the horsemen. The Pergamene link gives a 404 so it's not of much use I'm afraid. The Mysian link (middle one) works; what's to say that those guys aren't hippeis-type cavalry though ? My layman's eyes see no ready reason to assume their spears are xystons instead of some shorter type.

I switched the Pergamene image over to my hosting- it should work for you now. Those riders are undeniably carrying xysta and large round cavalry shields.

IIRC there was one case involving some Spartan horsemen and allied hoplites in a pinch. The Spartans appropriated shields from the fallen and went to stiffen the faltering line, and eventually got killed to a man - as the enemy saw only the allies' symbols on the shields, the Spartan "killer rep" obviously didn't faze them much. I can try to look up the reference in the morning.

I meant more Hellenistic sources, since we are discussing whether these figures would have carried shields on their backs to be able to dismount and fight.

[Watchman]

For the record, the first Pergamene link still comes up 404. The second one works though.

[QwertyMIDX]

I think assuming a uniform military system for the Seleukids would be a dangerous thing to do. The requirements of warfare on the eastern fringes were very different from those in asia minor or those along the shifting front with the Ptolemies or even those required for internal supression of rebellions.

[MeinPanzer]

I think assuming a uniform military system for the Seleukids would be a dangerous thing to do. The requirements of warfare on the eastern fringes were very different from those in asia minor or those along the shifting front with the Ptolemies or even those required for internal supression of rebellions.

Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that. But Asia Minor was a major population centre within the empire, and probably provided many of the wealthiest members of the empire, and so the equipment of the heavy cavalry of this area would largely be indicative of the equipment of Seleucid heavy cavalry in general. Still, the hetairoi were one unified force within the empire, and so when they were employed, they most likely would have been equipped the same, whether fighting in the west or east or within the empire.