Why do Seleukid Hetairoi not carry shields?

[MeinPanzer]

There is a large amount of evidence that indicates that Seleukid heavy cavalry carried shields, at least after the mid-3rd C. BC., yet this isn't reflected in the EB unit.

Also, in the unit description:

The successors kept this mold, but added mail reinforcement to the bronze armor at the joints before replacing it with iron and added felt and lamellar barding to the horses after encountering horse peoples that did the same.

Where does any of this information come from? And I'm also curious about the choice of barding for this unit. It looks extremely peculiar and unlike anything I've seen.

[Bonny]

There is a large amount of evidence that indicates that Seleukid heavy cavalry carried shields, at least after the mid-3rd C. BC., yet this isn't reflected in the EB unit.

I don't know the historical reason (there is one, which the eb historians may answer) but i know the RTW/Game engine Reason. The Heteiro is using the two handed Spear animation which causes clipping if you add a shild to the unit.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well pretty much all hellenistic cavarly that use a 2-handed kontos don;t use a shield. Both early Seleukid hetairoi and later seleukid heavy cavalry don't use one. This unit has to share a model with both Macedonian and Ptol Hetairoi.

So basically there's no real proof that I know of that all or even most Seleukid hetairoi after the mid 3rd century BC used shields (if you have some sources please post them), there's plenty of reason to think they didn't use shields, and the RTW core of EB nearly makes it a moot point anyway.

[MeinPanzer]

Well pretty much all hellenistic cavarly that use a 2-handed kontos don;t use a shield.

First of all, the hetairoi didn't use the kontos. Kataphraktoi would have, but hetairoi used the xyston, as is stated by Arrian among others. And they did carry shields. This is a coin from 2nd C. BC Kibyra:

Both early Seleukid hetairoi and later seleukid heavy cavalry don't use one. This unit has to share a model with both Macedonian and Ptol Hetairoi.

There is a huge amount of information showing that Antigonid hetairoi carried shields as well as the Seleukids. The Ptolemies seem to have been the only successor state to not have shield-carrying hetairoi.

So basically there's no real proof that I know of that all or even most Seleukid hetairoi after the mid 3rd century BC used shields (if you have some sources please post them), there's plenty of reason to think they didn't use shields, and the RTW core of EB nearly makes it a moot point anyway.

Okay, I have:

Several dozen (I think close to 50) funerary stelai from western Asia Minor, all dating to the 2nd C. BC, that show cavalrymen with almost uniform equipment: helmets, shields, linothorax, greaves, and sword (spears, of course, were wielded, but are not shown).

The above coin from Cibyra.

A 2nd C. BC cup from Syria showing some Parthian archers attacking heavy Greek cavalrymen carrying shields.

A cavalry shield (a round, rimless shield with a spindle and boss like a thureos) on the Pergamon weapon reliefs - a type of shield only ever carried by cavalry in the Hellenistic period.

Several dozen funerary reliefs from neighbouring Bithynia showing heavily armed cavalrymen wearing linothorax and helmet and shield and wielding sword and spear.

Mysian funerary stelai showing cavalry with shields.

Obviously I'm not going to post all of these but state which ones you'd like to see and I'll post them and sources.

[Tuuvi]

I am no archeologist or historian but I don't think that coins and other art are 100% accurate, because the artists don't try to make them accurate, they add changes to make the soldiers look more heroic or to add style into their art.

[MeinPanzer]

I am no archeologist or historian but I don't think that coins and other art are 100% accurate, because the artists don't try to make them accurate, they add changes to make the soldiers look more heroic or to add style into their art.

There's no reason to think that, in this case, this depiction is anything but accurate since this style of cavalryman is corroborated by many other different kinds of art. And even so, depictions on coins usually are quite accurate, but you generally have to judge it on a case by case basis.

[paullus]

Several dozen (I think close to 50) funerary stelai from western Asia Minor, all dating to the 2nd C. BC, that show cavalrymen with almost uniform equipment: helmets, shields, linothorax, greaves, and sword (spears, of course, were wielded, but are not shown).

Hmmm...I'm thinking of the stelai and reliefs I have pictures of from museums across Turkey, and while I can think of a few cavalrymen with shields, I'm not sure there's a strong reason to identify them with hetairoi, nor do they seem to outnumber those using a two-hand grip on their spears. Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply. I've got a series of photos I can post if necessary, but not now because its rather late and I'm teaching at church tomorrow. If you have photos, please show them. Swords, even axes, and elements of armor like helmet and linothorax/bronze cuirass and greaves are all well-represented, but I'm having trouble finding a shield in my collection.

The above coin from Cibyra.

A 2nd C. BC cup from Syria showing some Parthian archers attacking heavy Greek cavalrymen carrying shields.

First off, how do we know the Kibyra cavalryman is from the hetairoi?

Second, I'd love to see a 2nd bc cup from Syria of Parthian ANYTHING, especially archers, because as far as I know the only representations of Parthians show them looking more like Galatians than much of anything else.

A cavalry shield (a round, rimless shield with a spindle and boss like a thureos) on the Pergamon weapon reliefs - a type of shield only ever carried by cavalry in the Hellenistic period.

Aren't we using this shield in our Thraikian hippeis? I haven't actually gotten to play in a couple of weeks, so I could be wrong, but I thought that's what we were using. The only other place than the Pergamon reliefs where I've seen that shield is on Thraikian horsemen stelai (most of which have no shield, however) and the Pydna relief, which also probably depicts a Thraikian cavalryman.

Several dozen funerary reliefs from neighbouring Bithynia showing heavily armed cavalrymen wearing linothorax and helmet and shield and wielding sword and spear.

1. So are we talking about cavalrymen carrying shields or HETAIROI CARRYING SHIELDS? Because I challenge you to present the least evidence that there was a class anywhere near Hetairoi in the Bithynian kingdom.

2. I'm also EXCEEDINGLY skeptical about "several dozen funerary reliefs" of that topic. I've been to several sites in Bithynia and several museums containing artifacts from Bithynia, and have never seen as many as a dozen containing that sort of information, much less several dozen.

3. You've offered to post stelai. The ones I'd most like to see are some of these dozens from Bithynia, one or two of the asia minor stelai depicting a cavalryman with aspis...BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, this Syrian cup with the Parthians!

[MeinPanzer]

Hmmm...I'm thinking of the stelai and reliefs I have pictures of from museums across Turkey, and while I can think of a few cavalrymen with shields, I'm not sure there's a strong reason to identify them with hetairoi, nor do they seem to outnumber those using a two-hand grip on their spears.

I'd like to see some pictures of the ones holding their spears two-handed, because in my research I've found those to be particularly rare.

And this is my reasoning: Hetairoi were the aristocracy of the Hellenistic kingdoms, the king's friends, and were heavily armed to match their high status. Men who were able to afford lavish funerary reliefs, and maintaining their expensive arms and armour, were just these. Now, I can't think of a single image that is labels a Hellenistic cavalryman as being a hetairos, but I think it is a very fair assumption that these heavily armed cavalrymen were, if not hetairoi, their equivalent in surrounding city states and kingdoms. It is very evident that particular styles of troops were popular at certain times and in certain areas, and it's evident from these sources that the popular equipment of the heavy cavalryman in and around Asia Minor (one of the richest and most populated portions of the Seleukid empire in the latter years) at this time was helmet, linothorax, greaves, sword, large round shield (some Argive, some large round rimless shields with central boss/spines). Hetairoi were the heaviest-armed cavalrymen beneath the kataphraktoi, and so it makes sense that these heavy cavalrymen would at least be parallels of Seleukid hetairoi.

Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply.

That's true- it seems that in many cases the full panoply was abbreviated for the purposes of conserving space. However, the most common items shown are shields.

I've got a series of photos I can post if necessary, but not now because its rather late and I'm teaching at church tomorrow. If you have photos, please show them. Swords, even axes, and elements of armor like helmet and linothorax/bronze cuirass and greaves are all well-represented, but I'm having trouble finding a shield in my collection.

Posting them all would be time consuming... is it possible that if I contact you by email we could trade images? I'd like to see if I can find corroborate different stelai. As far as these stelai, I have some 38 scans, each one containing 1-6 individual stelai (and most contain at least 4).

First off, how do we know the Kibyra cavalryman is from the hetairoi?

See my explanation above.

Second, I'd love to see a 2nd bc cup from Syria of Parthian ANYTHING, especially archers, because as far as I know the only representations of Parthians show them looking more like Galatians than much of anything else.

Well, they are some sort of nomads. They have very Silen-like faces; Rostovtzeff doesn't explain who he thinks the figures are, but for the 2nd C. Syrian, the most likely enemy would be Parthian.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/cup.jpg

Upper left is one of the barbarians about to be ridden down by a Greek in the upper right. Lower left is a Greek chasing a barbarian horse archer. Some of the details are hard to make out, but Rostovtzeff acquired an admirable amount of information on it and writes a bit about the costume and look of the figures.

Aren't we using this shield in our Thraikian hippeis? I haven't actually gotten to play in a couple of weeks, so I could be wrong, but I thought that's what we were using. The only other place than the Pergamon reliefs where I've seen that shield is on Thraikian horsemen stelai (most of which have no shield, however) and the Pydna relief, which also probably depicts a Thraikian cavalryman.

Does it have laurels running around the edge? It's a fragment of the reliefs, not one on display and one that's rarely published AFAIK.

And is that a Thrakian stele where the horseman carries a round shield? Could you please post it? And no, the Pydna relief definitely depicts a Macedonian heavy cavalryman, and thus probably a hetairos as well.

1. So are we talking about cavalrymen carrying shields or HETAIROI CARRYING SHIELDS? Because I challenge you to present the least evidence that there was a class anywhere near Hetairoi in the Bithynian kingdom.

These I included to show an example that at this time a particular panoply was popular with the aristocratic cavalrymen of the Hellenistic kingdoms. It is documented that the Bithynian kings made a big effort to Hellenize themselves, and it is evident that they had very close contact with the Seleukids.

2. I'm also EXCEEDINGLY skeptical about "several dozen funerary reliefs" of that topic. I've been to several sites in Bithynia and several museums containing artifacts from Bithynia, and have never seen as many as a dozen containing that sort of information, much less several dozen.

15 really important ones, perhaps a dozen more relatively unimportant ones. There are some REALLY good ones too, like battle scenes with 4 or 5 figures, but I'm currently writing an article on the Bithynian army, so I promise I'll post the stuff (and the article) when I finish it (which should be fairly soon, I'm about 3/4 finished). The really good stuff is almost all in the Archaeological Museum Bursa, which has hundreds of stelai which are not on display, and apparently they've only published a fraction of the total number they have.

3. You've offered to post stelai. The ones I'd most like to see are some of these dozens from Bithynia, one or two of the asia minor stelai depicting a cavalryman with aspis...BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, this Syrian cup with the Parthians!

Again, if I contact you via email it would be easier to transfer many pictures.

[Fondor_Yards]

Well pretty much all hellenistic cavarly that use a 2-handed kontos don;t use a shield. Both early Seleukid hetairoi and later seleukid heavy cavalry don't use one. This unit has to share a model with both Macedonian and Ptol Hetairoi.

What if you shared the carthagian sacred band cavalry model with the seleucid hetairoi? They carry shields, and use the kontos as well.

[Bonny]

What if you shared the carthagian sacred band cavalry model with the seleucid hetairoi?

Not neccessary, you can put a shild to the existing Heteiro model if it may be decided to do so. (model change is not a good thing, The helm for example is part of the model)

They carry shields, and use the kontos as well.

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Note that generic hippeis and other, down-the-pipe cavalry do carry either the aspis or a smaller round shield or a Thraikian thureos. Quite a few stelai don't feature shields though--and in this case I'm thinking of equipment-only stelai, even if they picture other elements of the panoply.

That's true- it seems that in many cases the full panoply was abbreviated for the purposes of conserving space. However, the most common items shown are shields.

So when the stelai show shields they are correct and give us an accurate depiction, but when they don't show shields they are incorrect and don't give an accurate depiction? That seems fair.

[MeinPanzer]

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.

The xyston was wielded in one hand.

So when the stelai show shields they are correct and give us an accurate depiction, but when they don't show shields they are incorrect and don't give an accurate depiction? That seems fair.

Here are my thoughts on it:

There are many, many stelai. All of the complete stelai show the same equipment; namely, helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield. Sometimes, the incomplete panoply is shown, which usually is just a helmet and shield, but also includes any combination of these (sometimes greaves and helmet, shield and greaves, helmet and shield and greaves, etc.). Now, if you judge the body of stelai as a whole- all the stelai from the 2nd C. BC from western Asia Minor- it becomes very apparent that given the consistency in workmanship but given limited space, that it had been decided to limit the panoply to a few pieces. It's apparent that if the artist has shown only, say, greaves and a cuirass, that a cavalryman would obviously not go into battle wearing only greaves and a cuirass; therefore it's apparent that it was not uncommon for the equipment to be abbreviated for the purposes of these stelai.

[Urnamma]

Don't confuse the xyston of the Hellenistic age with that of Alexander. If you don't like the analogy, then look at the Sarissae of the same period.

The xyston lance, or what are called xyston lances, go up in length substantially. Correspondingly, we see a rise in depictions of heavy cavalry using two handed lances. Ergo... The two handed lance offers some advantage over the one handed lance, and they're changing accordingly. Most of the successors were quick to change suit. If we had an Attalid faction ingame, however, they would still use the one handed lance.

I believe Paullus covered most of the points that I would have had here, many better than I could.

[MeinPanzer]

Don't confuse the xyston of the Hellenistic age with that of Alexander. If you don't like the analogy, then look at the Sarissae of the same period.

The xyston lance, or what are called xyston lances, go up in length substantially. Correspondingly, we see a rise in depictions of heavy cavalry using two handed lances. Ergo... The two handed lance offers some advantage over the one handed lance, and they're changing accordingly. Most of the successors were quick to change suit.

Yes, the xysta appear to increase in length during this period, but there's also some evidence that Macedonian haevy cavalry (probably hetairoi) and other heavy cavalry from Asia Minor actually wielded javelins instead. The most notable is a funerary cist, now in the museum of Kilkis, which shows on one side a cavalryman riding to the left with his groom behind. He wears a helmet and carries a large round shiekd. His groom on foot also wears a helmet and may be carrying a thureos. On the opposite side can be seen two Argive shields, and on the other two sides are represented a linothorax and two spears, and a helmet and a kopis.

Also, could you please post just one or two of these two-handed lance sources?

If we had an Attalid faction ingame, however, they would still use the one handed lance.

Sorry, but Pergamene cavalry used lance and shield, too:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...moncavalry.jpg
2nd C. BC, from Pergamon.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/mysian.JPG
2nd C. BC, from Mysia.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...attlescene.jpg
2nd C. BC bronze plate, from Pergamon. Note that the cavalrymen carry large round shields and thrust with their long lances in their right hands. Note also on the left one of the only representations of phalangites fighting in a phalanx, and with a standard. This is thought to show fighting at Magnesia, where the with the cavalry being both Pergamene or one Roman one Pergamene.

[Grand Lord of Poop~]

so perhaps we should add shields to those cavalrymen should they prove to be accurate?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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).

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

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.

I'll write a response to you, Watchman, in a little bit.

[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.