Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?

[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.

[MeinPanzer]

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

As I said before, there is definitely evidence that some of these heavy cavalrymen used javelins in combat as well as, or in place of, the xyston. It wouldn't surprise me if, like the hypaspists, they could switch between weapons.

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.

Which sources do you have for this?

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.

Actually, the Syria of Livy- Seleukis- was bordering Cilicia, and so was partly southwestern Asia Minor. That doesn't change the fact that many of them were apparently from Lydia and Phrygia, though.

nyway, 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.

By the second century BC, the Seleucids didn't control a large portion of the east. By this time, the Parthians were well underway eroding Seleucid control of the east, and it's clear that Mesopotamia was not the bedrock of the empire it once was. The last bastion of populous cities under the control of the Seleucids was Asia Minor.

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.

We're not talking about other troops, we're talking about the hetairoi, the king's chosen companions who were crucial to the Seleucid battle line.

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.

I'm not talking about absolutes, either; I'm talking about the majority of evidence supporting a particular point.

And here I thought the hetairoi were the Macedonian elite heavies...

We could bicker about what constitutes "heavy" or "medium-heavy" all day long. All that matters are the original sources, and not modern classifications.

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.

Of course there were other users of the xyston in this time period, but since we don't have mentions of significantly different equipment for the hetairoi until Magnesia, there's no reason to think that they were so unique as you seem to think.

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 ?

Probably, as is shown by the Bactrian heavy cavalry. Still, read my quote about the composition of the hetairoi at Magnesia. The east was not a major part of the empire after the end of the third century.

Anyway, they might also have possessed several different weapon complements for different campaign purposes - didn't you yourself mention Companions sometimes using javelins earlier ?

Yes, hetairoi appear to have used javelins in some case, as I mentioned earlier.

..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 ?

Exactly my point.

IIRC the Seleucs had a major war with the Parthians only some half a dozen years before Magnesia...

Antiochus III's expedition to the east?

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 ?

According to Sekunda, from Media and amongst the Iranians, which is logical. So therefore, there would be no estates to hog up. He says that the Nisaean horses at Daphnae are probably cataphracts, because big horses like Nisaeans were needed to bear cataphract armour, and that the riders were probably Iranians.

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.

Probably not, since the number of Hetairoi don't take a major hit immediately after the introduction of cataphracts like the argyraspides did after the introduction of the Romanized infantry regiment.

[VandalCarthage]

At the risk of sounding obtuse; when quote battles get this large, you know you're wrong.

[QwertyMIDX]

I think what it actually means is that the evidence isn't conclusive.

[antiochus epiphanes]

it seems this is getting reduntant......since i want to stay on topic basically what your saying is that cause of the couple of coins and stone releifs of pergamum cavalry units, the hetairoi for the seleucids should have shields?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Just curious, do any other mods have hetairoi with shields? Like RTR - the other realism mod for this time period?

[Sarcasm]

Just curious, do any other mods have hetairoi with shields? Like RTR - the other realism mod for this time period?

[Eduorius]

Without shields they remind me of Alexander movie. With shields they look kind of weird.

Dont know about evidence but can someone grab a shield and a kontos with 2 hands at the same time?

[Sarcasm]

They're from Res Gestae. And you can have a shield I guess, just not a very large one, or grab it with the hand. You have to strap it to the arm.

[Eduorius]

Yeah but you saw the shield in the stone carving? That thing looks like a hoplite shield! How can you charge effectively with that?

[Grand Lord of Poop~]

yea but isn't this mod about historical accuracy?? so if it is accurate, we should add shields to those cavalrymen, shouldn't we??

[MeinPanzer]

it seems this is getting reduntant......since i want to stay on topic basically what your saying is that cause of the couple of coins and stone releifs of pergamum cavalry units, the hetairoi for the seleucids should have shields?

I agree, this is getting redundant. The bottom line is that you don't have to portray the hetairoi any particular way- the evidence for them is ambiguous enough- but I think that the particular popularity of equipment for heavy cavalrymen all around the Greek world (I've posted a handful of sources, there are literally dozens upon dozens more) is reason enough to portray them carrying shields in battle. It would seem very peculiar to me if many of the city states under Seleucid rule, all of their neighbours, and their enemies fielded elite heavy cavalrymen who wore helmets, carried shields, and wore cuirasses, but they did not. They wielded the xyston, and yet these other reliefs clearly show xyston-wielding cavalrymen carrying large round shields. Surely, being heavily armoured as they were, they would want the greatest defense, such as that afforded by a shield.

Even if you don't change the hetairoi to portray them wearing shields, there should be way more shield-bearing cavalry in the game. No Greek cavalry do not carry shields, but there is clear evidence for them doing so (most importantly, a handful of armour tokens found with cavalry records in a well in the Athenian agora that show helmets, greaves, shields, and cuirasses on them); none of the Macedonian cavalrymen carry shields, yet there are many funerary reliefs of Macedonian nobles showing cavalrymen carrying large round shields and wearing helmets and cuirasses. There are others, too.

I just find it disappointing that a mod that's put so much attention into the details has overlooked such a large matter of equipment.

[Fondor_Yards]

They are not using the Kontos (Kontos is afaik a sarmartian weapon), Hetairo are using the Xyston (regarding the Sauromatae Preview Thread the Kontos was developed after fighting against Xyston armed hellenic heavy Cav) and I don't know which weapon the Sacred band cavalry is using but it was decided to change the anim to a one handed grip, to avoid the clipping.

My bad, thought Kontos refered to all long two handed lancers from this time.

No Greek cavalry do not carry shields, but there is clear evidence for them doing so (most importantly, a handful of armour tokens found with cavalry records in a well in the Athenian agora that show helmets, greaves, shields, and cuirasses on them); none of the Macedonian cavalrymen carry shields, yet there are many funerary reliefs of Macedonian nobles showing cavalrymen carrying large round shields and wearing helmets and cuirasses.

Hippeis, Machimoi Hippeis, Hippakontistai, Hippeis Tarantinoi, Illyrioi Hippeis, and Baktrian Bodyguards, are all greek or under heavy greek influence/control and carry shields. It's not like no one uses cavalry shields.

[QwertyMIDX]

We just did another Macedonian cav unit with a shield, and there's a greek cavalry regional for italy planned (may or may not go in, model space and all) with a shield as well.

[Wandarah]

Mienpanzer continues to make a lot of sense to me. Third thread in a row. Well done man.

[spirit_of_rob]

yea but isn't this mod about historical accuracy?? so if it is accurate, we should add shields to those cavalrymen, shouldn't we??

It is about accuracy yes, but we also have to maintain the interesting gameplay, for me what is really important is lots of different types of units staying away from things like "clone armies" of the catholic nations in M2TW. As noted there is antoher cavalry unit which does have a large shield which have just been finished.

Also from a gameplay P.o.V. Hetairoi from my experiance fighting agaisnt them pack a formidable punch as it is lol

[Eduorius]

Well people have always drawn Heitaroi without shields and ftom what I have read the firsts cavalry shields were similar to the hoplite shield.

I am in favor of some units having shield, but I prefer to see the Companion without shields.

I have a little question. Bases in the stone carvings how can we know that those are companion cavalry the ones portrayed and not some special medium cavalry units with shields?

Thanks=)

[paullus]

That's precisely it Eduorius. The Companion cavalry do not have to be, and in fact most likely are not, the same as the cavalry we see in western asia minor. As MeinPanzer has pointed out, most of the companions came from Syria, with a smaller number from Asia Minor. We also know that Pergamon fielded cavalry at Magnesia (where the Seleukids showed up with hetairoi) and none of the sources identify these Pergamene cavalry (who I think all of us agree would be best depicted with shield and one-hand grip) as hetairoi. The identification between the two is 1) unnecessary, and 2) probably inaccurate.

I'm also still unsure how the hippeis in-game are not VERY SIMILAR to these horsemen.

[antiochus epiphanes]

. No Greek cavalry do not carry shields,
I just find it disappointing that a mod that's put so much attention into the details has overlooked such a large matter of equipment.

umm what about the hippeis for the koinon hellinon? and the mistophoroi hippeis, and the hippeis tarantnentoi. so actually we did look into details before we made this mod.

[Watchman]

I have a little question. Bases in the stone carvings how can we know that those are companion cavalry the ones portrayed and not some special medium cavalry units with shields?

Or a particular local variation of the Macedonian-pattern lancer, if for some reason in a limited goegraphical region at some point the extra protection (and/or accompanying option to fight as a heavy infantryman if needed) of a shield on top of the heavy armour was determined to be worth the extra encumberance and due training and practice needed to deal with it ?

Greek and Persian shock cavalry did long right fine without shields, as did lancers whether of the xystophoroi or cataphract strain. Non-lancers at some point adopted shields (I've seen passing mentions the Persian ones picked them up soon after the Persian Wars), but lancers seem to have preferred going without and trusting in heavy armour and the reach advantage instead.

Now, choice of combat gear isn't usually done on grounds of "just because", but on the basis of what is seen as possible and necessary. The old Greek and Middle Eastern horsemen must've had a decent reason to not carry something as obviously useful as a shield, and conversely something must have changed for them to pick it up.
The original Macedonian lancers didn't use shields either, doubtless for a good reason; if their colleagues later on started to, in any case in limited area, there must have been some pressing reason to - since they could just as well also have gone the cataphract route and loaded up on body armour instead (which, if I've understood correctly, is indeed the solution most of them pursued; one could also theoretize both lines of developement were pursued for different reasons in different regions).
The difference in weight increase cannot have been major, at least as far as any horse fit for heavy cavalry duty is concerned, and in the equation against the large shield would also stack the sheer awkwardness imposed by its dimensions, it occupying the arm that holds the reins, and the further skew in the heavy cavalryman's already somewhat embattled sense of balance (as between the armour and the lance he'd have been pretty top-heavy already) the way it forms a big heavy mass on one side imposed.

What, then, would have been the factor to tilt the cost-benefit equation in favour of the shielded lancer ? Improved cavalry gear providing a more secure seat and hence negating some of the weight-distribution issue (eg. it is difficult to see why the more eastern Hellenic cavalry wouldn't have picked up the obviously useful early saddle) ? New tactical problems for which the shield was deemed a suitable response ?

[MeinPanzer]

Well people have always drawn Heitaroi without shields and ftom what I have read the firsts cavalry shields were similar to the hoplite shield.

I am in favor of some units having shield, but I prefer to see the Companion without shields.

I have a little question. Bases in the stone carvings how can we know that those are companion cavalry the ones portrayed and not some special medium cavalry units with shields?

Thanks=)

I'll lay out my reasoning again just to be clear:

By the time of Magnesia, Livy tells us that the Companions were drawn from Lydia, Phrygia, and Syria (Syria being the ancient name for Seleucis, which was north of Syria today and bordering on Cilicia).

We unfortunately have barely any archaeological information for the equipment of heavy cavalrymen from Syria or the east, and not much at all from Phrygia.

We do have a large amount of information from funerary stelai from Lydia (western Asia Minor). Now, these stelai were very lavish and were clearly very expensive to buy. The huge majority of these stelai represent deceased heavy cavalrymen. These men would have been wealthy Macedonian members of Greek cities within the region who could buy and maintain horses and horse equipment; in other words, exactly the kind of people who would join the Companion cavalry.

Livy describes the Companions at Magnesia as being fairly uniformly equipped.

Therefore, it seems very plausible that these Lydian heavy cavalrymen, being wealthy enough to afford a lot of armour and a horse and living in one of three parts of the empire from which the Companions were apparently drawn, were Companions. If so, these stelai represent our only sources for the equipment of the Companions, and since they were apparently fairly uniformly equipped, it seems logical that all the Companions carried shields.

That's precisely it Eduorius. The Companion cavalry do not have to be, and in fact most likely are not, the same as the cavalry we see in western asia minor. As MeinPanzer has pointed out, most of the companions came from Syria, with a smaller number from Asia Minor.

This isn't what I quoted at all. Livy says they are drawn from Lydia, Phrygia, and Syria. That's it. He doesn't say any one of those three provided any more than the others.

We also know that Pergamon fielded cavalry at Magnesia (where the Seleukids showed up with hetairoi) and none of the sources identify these Pergamene cavalry (who I think all of us agree would be best depicted with shield and one-hand grip) as hetairoi. The identification between the two is 1) unnecessary, and 2) probably inaccurate.

The Companions occupied the role of the heaviest cavalry within the Seleucid army until the introduction of cataphracts. The heaviest élite cavalry of neighbouring states Bithynia (a state known for actively Hellenizing itself after the Seleucids), Mysia/Pergamon (a state which was once part of the Seleucid empire), and Ionian city states (which fluctuated in and out of Seleucid control) are very uniformly equipped. You have to understand that for almost all of the Seleucid empire, evidence is extremely spotty; the evidence from east of Mesopotamia is all over the place, the evidence from the Levant is a little better but not much so, and the evidence from Phrygia eastwards is likewise poor. The best source we have for archaeological information on the Seleucid army comes mostly from western Asia Minor (Lydia); therefore, we must use it and logic to deduce much of what the other army could have looked like. It seems that if these states, with such close ties to the Seleucids, fielded an élite of their heaviest cavalry who were equipped with shields, that they were probably aping the Seleucid practice.

If the Companions were using the xyston at this point, as I think we all agree they did, and it was possible for them to carry the shield and the xyston in battle, which I think I've established, then why would they leave themselves at a disadvantage and not carry shields?

Or a particular local variation of the Macedonian-pattern lancer, if for some reason in a limited goegraphical region at some point the extra protection (and/or accompanying option to fight as a heavy infantryman if needed) of a shield on top of the heavy armour was determined to be worth the extra encumberance and due training and practice needed to deal with it ?

Which was so decided by the majority of the lancers in the Hellenistic world east of Sicily.

Greek and Persian shock cavalry did long right fine without shields, as did lancers whether of the xystophoroi or cataphract strain. Non-lancers at some point adopted shields (I've seen passing mentions the Persian ones picked them up soon after the Persian Wars), but lancers seem to have preferred going without and trusting in heavy armour and the reach advantage instead.

During the 4th C. BC, yes, but as soon as it became common for this style of cavalry to bear shields, almost everyone in the eastern Mediterranean followed suit.

Now, choice of combat gear isn't usually done on grounds of "just because", but on the basis of what is seen as possible and necessary. The old Greek and Middle Eastern horsemen must've had a decent reason to not carry something as obviously useful as a shield, and conversely something must have changed for them to pick it up.
The original Macedonian lancers didn't use shields either, doubtless for a good reason; if their colleagues later on started to, in any case in limited area, there must have been some pressing reason to - since they could just as well also have gone the cataphract route and loaded up on body armour instead (which, if I've understood correctly, is indeed the solution most of them pursued; one could also theoretize both lines of developement were pursued for different reasons in different regions).

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.

What, then, would have been the factor to tilt the cost-benefit equation in favour of the shielded lancer ? Improved cavalry gear providing a more secure seat and hence negating some of the weight-distribution issue (eg. it is difficult to see why the more eastern Hellenic cavalry wouldn't have picked up the obviously useful early saddle) ? New tactical problems for which the shield was deemed a suitable response ?

There seems to have been an up-armouring of cavalry through the 3rd C. BC, as I stated before, probably caused by Pyrrhus's reintroduction of the shielded cavalryman to the east, and, paradoxically, a down-armouring of the infantry.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hello,

While I am not an expert on Hellenistic equipment I feel quite qualified to make some comments here.

To begin with Livy is a very dubious source for pretty much anything, not all is all his surviving work far removed temporally from the time of writing but he lacks any apparent experience in anything, from the Roman Senate to any form of military endevour he is repeatedly shown to be incorrect in detail.

Livy was also either unable or unwilling to criticise his sources, his entire account of the Second Punic War probably lies entirely on Polybius, who while fairly reliable, is not perfect. Added to which Livy seems fond of "padding out" his work and re-ordering things to make them fit his understanding of history. Just look at the 10 books he devotes to Hanabal and the corresponding length of the books in Polybius. There is no way, almost two centuries later, Livy could have discovered all those extra details to pad out his history.

Livy is in no way qualified to comment of Greek affairs or any military affairs. He probably says they were uniformly equipped because Roman Auxilliaries from the same area were uniformly equipped in his own time.

If your arguement about Magnesia rests on Livy saying that the Companions were uniformly equipped you'll have to come up with other evidence to support that A) They were uniformly equipped and B) They were even all Companions.

As to the carrying of a shield with a xyston, with the shorter version, yes it would be possible but any two handed version would have made carrying a shield virtually impossible, in the first case it would need to be strapped on, which would make it hard to drop and unwieldy and would restrict the lancer to only being able to use his lance on his right side. This would be a serious disadvantage against a lancer not carrying a shield. In the second case as someone who rides I can tell you that without stirrups you need to maintain your balance and a heavy shield strapped to your arm would hinder you quite a lot.

Bear in mind that any shield which allowed two handed use of the xyston would need to have it's edge above the wrist, which would prevent you from parrying a blow and make it only effective against missiles and you still run the risk of having your hand skewered. If you tried to block a blow with a shield like that I can imagine several nasty things happening, including breaking your elbow.

[Watchman]

If the Companions were using the xyston at this point, as I think we all agree they did, and it was possible for them to carry the shield and the xyston in battle, which I think I've established, then why would they leave themselves at a disadvantage and not carry shields?

The combination being unwieldy in the extreme and possibly exposing the horseman to an unacceptable level of risk of flat out falling off his mount, perhaps ? Helpful equestrian gear like a saddle would help remedy this, but then again it'd also have allowed more complete armour - see below.

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.

What I've read of it pointed out the issue of how much armour a horseman can have is not so much one of the horse's actual load-bearing limit (although the higher that is the better, obviously), but how that weight actually applies onto the horse's back. Xenophon for example considers it almost a prequisite for a warhorse to be "double spined", that is, have prominent muscle ridges running along the spine proper to take the weight (he was writing before the wide adoption of saddles, although he may have been aware of their existence). An actual saddle allows the weight to be spread more evenly and in a controlled manner onto the parts of the animal that can best take it, besides its other benefits.

Much the same way as a well-designed backpack allows you to carry a lot of stuff relatively easily and comfortably.

As for horse barding, raw load issues aside the big problem with more complete types - such as those more-or-less complete scale trappers cataphracts tended to use - is heat retention; horses can overheat themselves to death when pushed to their limits for extended times even without a layer of armour in the way.

As a side note, what the Chinese were after were Ferghanan horses, not Niseans. Although they doubtless gladly rustled all of the latter they encountered as well.

There seems to have been an up-armouring of cavalry through the 3rd C. BC, as I stated before, probably caused by Pyrrhus's reintroduction of the shielded cavalryman to the east, and, paradoxically, a down-armouring of the infantry.

Well, there were the Galatians as well. Celtic cavalry normally fought "shielded" didn't they ? And those fellows must've made quite an impression in general to boot.

[MeinPanzer]

Hello,

While I am not an expert on Hellenistic equipment I feel quite qualified to make some comments here.

To begin with Livy is a very dubious source for pretty much anything, not all is all his surviving work far removed temporally from the time of writing but he lacks any apparent experience in anything, from the Roman Senate to any form of military endevour he is repeatedly shown to be incorrect in detail.

Livy was also either unable or unwilling to criticise his sources, his entire account of the Second Punic War probably lies entirely on Polybius, who while fairly reliable, is not perfect. Added to which Livy seems fond of "padding out" his work and re-ordering things to make them fit his understanding of history. Just look at the 10 books he devotes to Hanabal and the corresponding length of the books in Polybius. There is no way, almost two centuries later, Livy could have discovered all those extra details to pad out his history.

Livy is in no way qualified to comment of Greek affairs or any military affairs. He probably says they were uniformly equipped because Roman Auxilliaries from the same area were uniformly equipped in his own time.

He mentions that the Hetairoi were like the cataphracts but "with less armour for themselves and their horses, but not otherwise dissimilar in dress." This and a number of other details are clearly taken from previous texts, as you've said, probably Polybius. Polybius is our best source for Hellenistic warfare, and so I am confident that if any literary source on this period is to be trusted, it is him.

If your arguement about Magnesia rests on Livy saying that the Companions were uniformly equipped you'll have to come up with other evidence to support that A) They were uniformly equipped and B) They were even all Companions.

If you want to throw Livy and Polybius out the window, you'd better be prepared to toss out a whole slew of other evidence, too.

As to the carrying of a shield with a xyston, with the shorter version, yes it would be possible but any two handed version would have made carrying a shield virtually impossible, in the first case it would need to be strapped on, which would make it hard to drop and unwieldy and would restrict the lancer to only being able to use his lance on his right side.

You do not understand what the xyston is. It was a spear used during Alexander's time which was lengthened during the Hellenistic period. There are no two versions of it, and no "two handed" version. There is just the xyston, and it was clearly wielded one handed. And the shield was used with a grip like that of the Argive shield, with the arm passed through it, allowing the left hand to also grip the reins. Again, arguing about this is pointless because that Pergamon battle plate clearly shows that the xyston, used one handed, and the large round cavalry shield were used by Hellenistic cavalry in battle.

This would be a serious disadvantage against a lancer not carrying a shield. In the second case as someone who rides I can tell you that without stirrups you need to maintain your balance and a heavy shield strapped to your arm would hinder you quite a lot.

Apparently it worked quite well because it was widely adopted in the armies of the eastern mediterranean.

Bear in mind that any shield which allowed two handed use of the xyston would need to have it's edge above the wrist, which would prevent you from parrying a blow and make it only effective against missiles and you still run the risk of having your hand skewered. If you tried to block a blow with a shield like that I can imagine several nasty things happening, including breaking your elbow.

Again, the xyston was wielded one hand with a shield, not two-handed.

[MeinPanzer]

The combination being unwieldy in the extreme and possibly exposing the horseman to an unacceptable level of risk of flat out falling off his mount, perhaps ? Helpful equestrian gear like a saddle would help remedy this, but then again it'd also have allowed more complete armour - see below.

Again, if it was so unwieldy and made the horseman so vulnerable, why would so many wealthy and aristocratic citizens of numerous states equip themselves that way?

What I've read of it pointed out the issue of how much armour a horseman can have is not so much one of the horse's actual load-bearing limit (although the higher that is the better, obviously), but how that weight actually applies onto the horse's back. Xenophon for example considers it almost a prequisite for a warhorse to be "double spined", that is, have prominent muscle ridges running along the spine proper to take the weight (he was writing before the wide adoption of saddles, although he may have been aware of their existence). An actual saddle allows the weight to be spread more evenly and in a controlled manner onto the parts of the animal that can best take it, besides its other benefits.

That seems reasonable. Still, one would expect the number of Hetairoi to decline after the introduction of cataphracts if indeed they were drawn from the Companions.

As for horse barding, raw load issues aside the big problem with more complete types - such as those more-or-less complete scale trappers cataphracts tended to use - is heat retention; horses can overheat themselves to death when pushed to their limits for extended times even without a layer of armour in the way.

Of course, there is Procopius's whole schtick about not pushing the cataphracts to charge too soon or else they literally die before they reach the enemy!

As a side note, what the Chinese were after were Ferghanan horses, not Niseans. Although they doubtless gladly rustled all of the latter they encountered as well.

Note that I said Nisaean and other eastern horses.

Well, there were the Galatians as well. Celtic cavalry normally fought "shielded" didn't they ? And those fellows must've made quite an impression in general to boot.

Actually, the only shielded Celtic cavalry I can conjure up off the top of my head are cavalry carrying thureoi. The only image of a Galatian cavalryman that I know of is from a Bithynian stele. None of his weaponry or equipment is shown but he wears a kilt and has long hair and a moustache. Celtic cavalry were probably equipped with large round shields, but I've never seen any sources for that (most sources which have been identified as "Gallic" in the past are in fact misidentified).

[Watchman]

There is good reasoning to think that the reason that these cavalry could not "load up on armour and go the cataphract route" was because they did not have available the proper horses to do so. As I posted earlier, it appears that the Seleucids were only able to field cataphracts because they had access to the Nisaean and other horses from the east, the largest warhorses in the ancient world (ones that were also sought after by the Chinese in this period). Since there seems to have been a marked up-armouring race after the 4th C., it makes sense that these cavalrymen would adopt the shield to keep up.

One issue with this argument is that already Classical Greek cavalrymen, without the assistance of any sort of saddle or similar aid and mounted on the somewhat lackluster horses most of the peninsula could produce, could manage straight solid bronze cuirasses plus greaves plus helmet plus weapons, no problem. Ditto for the scarce Thracian heavies to the north, as well as the various Italians.

That's pretty heavy armour if you ask me.

The Successor hetairoi, with access to much better mounts and saddles to boot, should've had no trouble at all wearing at least that much and throwing in some extra bits if necessary. The EB unit description speaks of mail sleeves, but adding reinforcing metal scales to the pteruges and pinions of the cuirass to better protect the upper arms and legs or adopting some version of the type of segmented armour cataphracts wore on their limbs (which can be made out of rawhide for lightness and low cost) sound like perfectly credible alternatives as well - and indeed it would have been strange if creative individuals had not been experimenting with such alterations on their own accord. These guys bought their own gear after all.

One thing that bugs me about the coins and steles put forth is the sheer size of the shields. Not that cavalry shields couldn't be fairly large, but when they were they tended to be long - oval, hexagonal, teardrop and so on. After all, unlike a hoplite the horseman cannot protect the side of his companion so a large round shield offers no real benefit - conversely a long one defends both the left leg and much of that side of the horse as well, and needs not be moved around much to achieve that (always a bonus given that the same hand hold the reins).

Another is the singular lack of horse armour. The Hetairoi started using barding pretty early, didn't they ? It's both a very sensible thing for heavy cavalry to do given how expensive and good targets for archery (*cough*Parthians*cough*) big warhorses are as well as simply useful for the shock role, and also how they're described by Livy at Magnesia.

And the sorts of senior aristocrats who made up the Hetairoi squadrons could presumably have been able to afford both all the war gear and the necessary horseflesh.


Could it be that instead of Hetairoi the shielded lancers in the pictures are of the junior Hellenic lancer arm, the prodromoi ? Those fellows needed to be fairly lightly equipped to maintain speed and stamina, and as lesser landed aristocracy were presumably also more strapped for cash to spend on defensive gear. Yet they had the unenviable job of for example chasing after Parthian and nomadic horse-archers and other skirmishers, where they were bound to get shot at a lot. Adopting a shield as a countermeasure would sound like both a fairly effective and above all cheap way to keep down the casualties, and presumably to also give an advantage in the melee, without compromising either the performance of the mounts or the presence of the long xyston (I'm obviously going by the "balance issue" paradigm here).

Just a theory, but it seems sensible enough to me.

[Watchman]

Again, if it was so unwieldy and made the horseman so vulnerable, why would so many wealthy and aristocratic citizens of numerous states equip themselves that way?

You may have noticed I'm fairly specifically arguing against them having done that, or in any case in the way you claim...

That seems reasonable. Still, one would expect the number of Hetairoi to decline after the introduction of cataphracts if indeed they were drawn from the Companions.

Cataphracts kind of have their limitations. Anyway, I'm willing to accept the argument the catas were drawn from amongst the Persian-Iranian aristocracy - many of those guys were probably already familiar with the kontos to begin with, so it'd really just have been a question of altering their defensive gear and tactics.

Of course, there is Procopius's whole schtick about not pushing the cataphracts to charge too soon or else they literally die before they reach the enemy!

I think we can safely dismiss that one as poppycock. Still, the heat problem is real enough and in combination with the sheer inertia and mass all the armour imparted on the horse doubtless resulted in stamina and mobility problems. Catas seem to have been pretty sucky at pursuit for example (both at Magnesia and on several other occasions the Romans fought them under diverse standards) and tired quickly, which besides sheer logic would rather seem to underline the point. As straightforward battering rams and shock troops the catas were clearly quite excellent, but that seems to pretty much have been it (aside from those also carrying bows being doubtless very difficult for light-cavalry skirmishers to deal with) - they were a very specialized type of cavalry after all. The Seleucids apparently didn't get that one worked out fast enough, unlike the catas' original users.

Anyway, one can see why the less encumbered and therefore more agile Hetairoi would've been kept around on the side as well, as more flexible elite shock cavalry.

Note that I said Nisaean and other eastern horses.

Fair enough, but all I've read about it has said quite specifically the Chinese were interested in the Ferghanans. Which probably had something to do with the breed being found rather closer to them than the Nisean.

Actually, the only shielded Celtic cavalry I can conjure up off the top of my head are cavalry carrying thureoi. The only image of a Galatian cavalryman that I know of is from a Bithynian stele. None of his weaponry or equipment is shown but he wears a kilt and has long hair and a moustache. Celtic cavalry were probably equipped with large round shields, but I've never seen any sources for that (most sources which have been identified as "Gallic" in the past are in fact misidentified).

The thureos looks like it'd make a pretty decent cavalry shield, or starting point for the developement of one, you know...

[Namenlos]

--message deleted because of a fundamentally flawed argumentation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He mentions that the Hetairoi were like the cataphracts but "with less armour for themselves and their horses, but not otherwise dissimilar in dress." This and a number of other details are clearly taken from previous texts, as you've said, probably Polybius. Polybius is our best source for Hellenistic warfare, and so I am confident that if any literary source on this period is to be trusted, it is him.

I said you must find outside evidence to support what Livy says, which is NOT using Polybius. If Polybius and Livy agree then that just means Livy isn't playing fast and loose with Polybius. Find my the corresponding passages in both texts, then show me how Polybius knows what he says. Then we can begin to talk of a level of certainty. All you have is an arguement to which can be applied a counter arguement.

If you want to throw Livy and Polybius out the window, you'd better be prepared to toss out a whole slew of other evidence, too.

If you are uncrittical of your sources you are not a historian. I am throwing out nothing. I am merely stating that if something appears only in Livy that is not evidence.

You do not understand what the xyston is. It was a spear used during Alexander's time which was lengthened during the Hellenistic period. There are no two versions of it, and no "two handed" version. There is just the xyston, and it was clearly wielded one handed. And the shield was used with a grip like that of the Argive shield, with the arm passed through it, allowing the left hand to also grip the reins. Again, arguing about this is pointless because that Pergamon battle plate clearly shows that the xyston, used one handed, and the large round cavalry shield were used by Hellenistic cavalry in battle.

Do not patronise me. The xyston of Alexander's time was shorter and more wieldy. The longer xyston would have to be wielded either two-handed or couched, otherwise the lancer would not be able to transmit his weight onto the point. Since it wasn't wielded couched one-handed it would have to have been two handed.

Apparently it worked quite well because it was widely adopted in the armies of the eastern mediterranean.

Show me an example of a lancer, with no real saddle or stirrups, fighting with a lance two-handed and a shield strapped to his arm.

Again, the xyston was wielded one hand with a shield, not two-handed.

The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion dissagrees, unless of course everyone else is talking about the Kontos.