Here's the historical situation: Egypt had a system set up where they took Greeks and Macedonians and other peoples (Thracians, Galatians, etc.) and settled them on royal land for free on the terms that they would pay taxes, serve in the military when called up to train or campaign, and that as long as they stayed on the land their sons would continue the first two points as well. These were called klerouchoi (cleruchs).Originally Posted by Kongeslask
The Seleucids had a program that was very similar, but there is less evidence for it, where they established men in settlements called katoikai where they paid taxes and agreed to serve when called up and they passed this on to their sons. These were called katoikoi.
The Seleucid phalanx unit representing the latter is the Pezhetairoi. The Ptolemaic phalanx units representing the former are the Pezhetairoi and the Klerouchoi units. The Pezhetairoi and the Klerouchoi non-Agema phalanx units were, historically speaking, one and the same.
The Seleucid equivalent is the Pezhetairoi, who were kaitoikoi that fought in the phalanx. The Seleucid equivalent of machimoi is the pantodapai phalangitai, who were the native peoples of their empires recruited into the phalanx (obviously the Seleucids had no native Egyptians to levy).So why is this unit not available in Syria? And why can't the Seleucids recruit the other types of kleruchoi units or machimoi for that matter?
As I've said, I don't know why BE makes a distinction as far as battlefield quality between Klerouchoi Phalangitai and Pezhetairoi, but they shouldn't. And you're right that they would definitely drawn on the full military power.It seems reasonable that if they managed to seize Egypt the Seleucids would incorporate the ptolemaic military system into their own and recruit cavalry and shock infantry from the hellenic and galatian populations, not merely hellenic phalangites from a lower class than the pezhetairoi.
Bookmarks