Questions about Seleukid units.

[MeinPanzer]

I have a few varied questions about Seleukid units.

1. Why do the Thorakitai Arguraspidai (who I presume represent the Romanized infantry mentioned during the battle of Beith-Zacharia and in the Daphnai parade) wear mail face-veils? What primary evidence do you have for this?

Also, in the description on the site, why does it say that "[the arguraspides] were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians" when he Polybius does mention them at 5.79.4? It also says "They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated," when they are mentioned during the parade at Daphnai in 167?

2. Why do the Thureophoroi wear armour? It was very clear in the sources that the Thureophoroi and Thorakitai were distinguished from one another (as at the crossing of the Elburz range) by the one wearing armour and the other not. On top of this, the majority of the evidence for thureophoroi mercenaries within the Seleukid empire show them without cuirass or greaves but with helmets.

3. Why do the Pantodapai Phalangitai use axes as a sidearm in combat? Is there any evidence at all for this?

4. Why do you show units wearing some sort of studded leather jerkin (as in the case of Thureophoroi and Iudaioi Taxeis) when no archaeological evidence for such an armour exists? Wouldn't a common linothorax be much more accurate?

[Lovejoy]

Do you really have all this knowledge in your head - or do you look it up? :P

Maybe you should write/alter some descriptions, if you have time, for EB. They would surely appreciate it. And you seem to have the knowledge to do so.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

That Panzer chap sure does love to question the accuracy of the EB's research when something to catch his eye arises.
I don't remember such keen debate since the female archeologist(sorry can't remember her name)who questioned Karthadastim having pikemen!

Anyway I enjoy such indepth debate, and marvel at the detail of peoples knowelge base, although I do confess that at times I struggle to keep up.

[HFox]

*Pulls up a seat, gets out the popcorn and beer and prepares to watch the show*

[MeinPanzer]

Do you really have all this knowledge in your head - or do you look it up? :P

Maybe you should write/alter some descriptions, if you have time, for EB. They would surely appreciate it. And you seem to have the knowledge to do so.

Hellenistic armies are my area of interest. I collect archaeological information on them and read about them as much as possible.

I would love to write some descriptions for units.

I don't remember such keen debate since the female archeologist(sorry can't remember her name)who questioned Karthadastim having pikemen!

Well, Carthaginians having pikemen is a topic of contention, but Carthage is not my strong point and so I'm not going to pick that topic over.

[Watchman]

Interest is all fine and good, but you know 'Panzer, you really need to work on your delivery. The opening of this thread alone is "in your face" enough to make me feel annoyed, and I'm just on the consumer end...
It's not like it'd actually be a major effort to make use of less... shall we say, confrontational phrasing, and I'm pretty sure it'd markedly improve the tone of the discussion to follow - or for that matter bring that discussion about, as people aren't as likely to turn away out of sheer irritation.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Leaving that aside, from the few earlier debates I got the very strong impression the archeological material available on Seleucid war gear was very limited, and what there was is rather open to interpretation. So why the... positivist tone, when so much is fuzzy ?

[paullus]

MeinPanzer, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about ancient history, but you should learn how not to be an ass. Someone who's been on the team longer and is more knowledgeable about archaeological excavations in Seleukid territories, etc will be preparing a more comprehensive response, but for now, here are some of my thoughts:

I'll pose you these questions regarding your statements re: the thureophoroi:
On thureophoroi:
a. "Its very clear in the sources" --yeah? Like in Polybios on the Elburz crossing where he says that the third group moving through the pass were the thorakitai and thureophoroi? WOW. Good point. Oh, and while the name thorakitai DOES imply that they wear armor, does the name thureophoroi imply that they do not? No, not at all. In fact, they're employed in very similar roles.
b. Armor: I know that you know that we have depictions of thureos-wielding soldiers in the linothorax, and others in chain. Do you think we should eliminate one of those figures, and have just one represent thorakitai? I suspect you would rather have both, and a third "unencumbered" thureos-wielding soldier. Am I right? I would like that too.
c. "Majority of evidence within the Seleukid empire": oh? Such as? We have the Sidon stelai, concerning which I am inclined to follow other scholars in identifying as Ptolemaic. What's the other evidence you're talking about on thureophoroi in the Seleukid empire? Please not Galatian terracottas.

There's more to be said on this topic I'm sure, and certainly much to be said on the other points you've raised. But please, you owe people--many of whom do historical work professionally, and many of whom have devoted years to this project--a little more respect.

[MeinPanzer]

Interest is all fine and good, but you know 'Panzer, you really need to work on your delivery. The opening of this thread alone is "in your face" enough to make me feel annoyed, and I'm just on the consumer end...
It's not like it'd actually be a major effort to make use of less... shall we say, confrontational phrasing, and I'm pretty sure it'd markedly improve the tone of the discussion to follow - or for that matter bring that discussion about, as people aren't as likely to turn away out of sheer irritation.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Point taken. I will try to make my comments less confrontational.

Leaving that aside, from the few earlier debates I got the very strong impression the archeological material available on Seleucid war gear was very limited, and what there was is rather open to interpretation. So why the... positivist tone, when so much is fuzzy ?

The evidence is fuzzy, yes. However, the evidence is very clear in what it does not show, and that includes a number of items currently shown on EB units. The mail face veil in particular is very baffling, because I don't think I've ever seen any evidence for such a thing from anywhere in the ancient world before around the 3rd C. AD.

[Watchman]

In all fairness, the more Eastern appereances of mail have puzzled me slightly as well - I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've read has suggested it took fair a while before the stuff spread there in any quantities.
(One wonders if the proliferation of powerful bows had anything to do with it.)
On the other hand, I've always assumed the relevant EB folks have done their homework and debated the matter to death long ago anyway before implementing it, so...

[Thaatu]

(Just keep the fire extinguishers ready.)

I want a good, clean fight. No eye gauging, no biting, no hitting below the belt.
And now, in the red corner...!



HFox, pass me some of that popcorn, will you?

[MeinPanzer]

In all fairness, the more Eastern appereances of mail have puzzled me slightly as well - I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've read has suggested it took fair a while before the stuff spread there in any quantities.
(One wonders if the proliferation of powerful bows had anything to do with it.)
On the other hand, I've always assumed the relevant EB folks have done their homework and debated the matter to death long ago anyway before implementing it, so...

I know of four instances of chainmail being depicted in a Seleucid context. This is one, describing the battle of Beith Zacharia in 162 BC:

And they divided the beasts into their formations and with each elephant they positioned a thousand men armoured in chain and bronze helmets on their heads.

Here it literally says "armoured in chains (or rings)."

Another is the description of the Daphnai parade in 167 BC in Polybius 30.25.3. He again mentions a picked force of 5000 men armed "in the Roman fashion" in mail.

The third instance is on the Pergamene weapons reliefs, which do show two mail cuirasses. One is positioned beside many thureoi, spears, and a carnyx, implying that it is Galatian; the other is identical in form and is shown behind what looks to be a Celtic-style sword, so it too is probably Galatian.

The final instance is the famous painted stele of Salmas of Adada from Sidon in the 2nd C. BC. It shows a man with a bronze helmet, a thureos, a spear, and what appears to be an iron mail cuirass. It is unclear whether the Sidon stelai show Ptolemaic or Seleucid mercenaries, and of the many found, Salmas is the only one wearing mail.

The only two instances of mail being worn by a significant amount of men in the Seleucid army refer to the same unit (imitation legionaries) which existed for what seems to be around half a century at most.

[Bava]

IIRC, the unit description for the Thorakitai Agyraspidai mentions a western influence (a copy of the lusotannian "tank" unit, hence the slightly inferior stats).

[Watchman]

Didn't the Romans have a bad habit of calling just about all "civilized" non-phalanx melee infantry with some sort of large-ish shield "copy legionaires"...?

[MeinPanzer]

MeinPanzer, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about ancient history, but you should learn how not to be an ass. Someone who's been on the team longer and is more knowledgeable about archaeological excavations in Seleukid territories, etc will be preparing a more comprehensive response, but for now, here are some of my thoughts:

I'll pose you these questions regarding your statements re: the thureophoroi:
On thureophoroi:
a. "Its very clear in the sources" --yeah? Like in Polybios on the Elburz crossing where he says that the third group moving through the pass were the thorakitai and thureophoroi? WOW. Good point. Oh, and while the name thorakitai DOES imply that they wear armor, does the name thureophoroi imply that they do not? No, not at all. In fact, they're employed in very similar roles.

Do you not consider Polybius a major source? The difference between the two is implied by the fact that he says the Cretan shieldbearers were followed by thorakitai AND thureophoroi. That implies that they were differently equipped somehow- and the mention of one wearing a thorax and the other not being mentioned as wearing one strongly suggests that the thureophoroi did not wear armour. And while they are employed in similar roles, they are not the same roles, which again implies a difference in equipment.

b. Armor: I know that you know that we have depictions of thureos-wielding soldiers in the linothorax, and others in chain. Do you think we should eliminate one of those figures, and have just one represent thorakitai? I suspect you would rather have both, and a third "unencumbered" thureos-wielding soldier. Am I right? I would like that too.

Yes, you are right. I'd like to see a thorakitai unit and a thureophoros unit, as well as an imitation legionary unit (whatever you'd like to call it, whether you think it was drawn from the Arguraspides or not). The thorakitai would be equipped with helmet, linothorax, thureos, sword, and fighting spear; the thureophoros would be equipped exactly the same but without the linothorax; and the imitation legionary would be equipped with a bronze helmet, a mail cuirass, a sword, a thureos, and two javelins.

c. "Majority of evidence within the Seleukid empire": oh? Such as? We have the Sidon stelai, concerning which I am inclined to follow other scholars in identifying as Ptolemaic. What's the other evidence you're talking about on thureophoroi in the Seleukid empire? Please not Galatian terracottas.

A number of figurines from Nippur show thureophoroi who are clearly not Galatians. The clearest examples show a figure wearing a puffy sort of tunic, a helmet, and a thureos; none of these wear armour. A terracotta diorama of soldiers dueling from Pergamon shows two soldiers fighting with thureoi and swords but wearing no armour. There is a votive plaque from Asia that shows a phalangite and a thureophoros wearing an exomis fighting with a sword, but no armour. And once again, if you look at the states around the periphery of the empire who were sometimes under the Seleucid aegis, you can see numerous examples (most notably, Bithynian and Mysian). As far as non-Celtic thureophoroi goes, this is the majority of evidence; the other artifacts showing armoured thureophoroi are the Myrina figurines showing a thureophoros wearing a muscled cuirass and a stele from Samos showing a thureophoros with a linothorax.

There's more to be said on this topic I'm sure, and certainly much to be said on the other points you've raised. But please, you owe people--many of whom do historical work professionally, and many of whom have devoted years to this project--a little more respect.

I don't understand how by simply and straightforwardly asking a question I am being disrespectful.

[MeinPanzer]

IIRC, the unit description for the Thorakitai Agyraspidai mentions a western influence (a copy of the lusotannian "tank" unit, hence the slightly inferior stats).

That would probably be Roman influence.

Didn't the Romans have a bad habit of calling just about all "civilized" non-phalanx melee infantry with some sort of large-ish shield "copy legionaires"...?

Polybius, who provides us with the information about the contingent "armed in the Roman fashion," doesn't. He is very careful to distinguish between different armaments- thorakitai, thureophoroi, and others. He distinctly calls them "armed in the Roman fashion" because they wear mail.

[QwertyMIDX]

It's actually more a propensity of modern historians. The roman authors usually say "armed in the roman manner" which we read as 'imitation legionaries' but seems to refer to, basically as you said, fairly well armored troops (most often mail), with large shields, who didn't fight in a phalanx (with the caveat that this almost always done with respect to hellenisitc forces). The EB team's stance has long been that when roman authors make the claim that some troops are "armed in the roman manner" we should treat it very caustiously and that it most likely refers to troops fighting as thorakitai or in some other celtic influence manner (i.e wearing mail).

EDIT: It is important to note that it doesn't often if even mean fighting in a maniple or using a gladius.

[MeinPanzer]

It's actually more a propensity of modern historians. The roman authors usually say "armed in the roman manner" which we read as 'imitation legionaries' but seems to refer to, basically as you said, fairly well armored troops (most often mail), with large shields, who didn't fight in a phalanx (with the caveat that this almost always done with respect to hellenisitc forces). The EB team's stance has long been that when roman authors make the claim that some troops are "armed in the roman manner" we should treat it very caustiously and that it most likely refers to troops fighting as thorakitai or in some other celtic influence manner (i.e wearing mail).

EDIT: It is important to note that it doesn't often if even mean fighting in a maniple or using a gladius.

There are a number of factors which make me think that Polybius knows what he is talking about. He was a Greek man who had experience both in a Greek army (that of the Achaean league) and observing the Roman army in action (on campaign with Scipio Aemilianus), but he was probably writing for a Greek audience. He is also often very careful, as I said previously, in his classification of troops- he makes a distinction between thorakitai and thureophoroi, for instance. Polybius, of all the writers of Hellenistic history, would know what "armed in the Roman manner" meant, considering his experience with the Roman army. Considering all this, and the fact that Polybius only once calls any unit in the Seleucid army "armed in the Roman manner," I think that he specifically meant a unit modelled after the Roman legionary. So, knowing that the Seleucids had had a few nasty runins with legionaries, and that less than a half a century later they were employing men wearing chainmail and bronze helmets at Beith Zacharia and a unit which was called "Roman" by a man who would have been very familiar both with thureophoroi and thorakitai and the Roman legionary, it follows logically that these were imitation legionaries.

[paullus]

Re: Chain mail. One of the EB members has personally excavated chain mail from a Seleukid site dating to the mid-3rd c. (coins of Antiochos II in the same context). He's the one that should be here to answer these questions, as the designer for most of the Hellenic units and one well-advanced toward his doctorate, but until he should make his appearance, you can rest assured we don't have to wait for the defeat at Magnesia to see mail in the east.

RE: Polybios, calling one unit thorakitai and one thureophoroi. By mentioning the thureos for the one unit and not for the other, shall we assume that only one of them carried a shield? That's the logic you're using, and its crap.

I only know of the one Nippur terracotta that looks non-Galatian, the one you've specified, and know of none other than that one. Are there really others? Pictures would be appreciated if so, as it is until now one of the only thureophoroi terracottas I'm aware of that is not either Bel or a Galatian.

I was unaware of either the Pergamene terracotta or the votive plaque. In the former, are you sure they are not meant to be legionaries? What is the find context? For the latter, is it really a phalangite? Is he carrying the smaller shield? Or do you mean a hoplite versus a thureophoros? Pictures or citations would be appreciated, I'd be interested to read up on either artifact.

[MeinPanzer]

Re: Chain mail. One of the EB members has personally excavated chain mail from a Seleukid site dating to the mid-3rd c. (coins of Antiochos II in the same context). He's the one that should be here to answer these questions, as the designer for most of the Hellenic units and one well-advanced toward his doctorate, but until he should make his appearance, you can rest assured we don't have to wait for the defeat at Magnesia to see mail in the east.

Where? I'd be very interested to read about that. Has it been published?

RE: Polybios, calling one unit thorakitai and one thureophoroi. By mentioning the thureos for the one unit and not for the other, shall we assume that only one of them carried a shield? That's the logic you're using, and its crap.

Why would you suggest he differentiated between the two units, then?

I only know of the one Nippur terracotta that looks non-Galatian, the one you've specified, and know of none other than that one. Are there really others? Pictures would be appreciated if so, as it is until now one of the only thureophoroi terracottas I'm aware of that is not either Bel or a Galatian.

Not "Bel"? What does that mean? And yes, there are about 3 or 4; there are no pictures for them but van Ingens lists them as being very similar or identical to that illustrated figure (some also had traces of red colouring on them, IIRC).

I was unaware of either the Pergamene terracotta or the votive plaque. In the former, are you sure they are not meant to be legionaries? What is the find context? For the latter, is it really a phalangite? Is he carrying the smaller shield? Or do you mean a hoplite versus a thureophoros? Pictures or citations would be appreciated, I'd be interested to read up on either artifact.

Here's the Pergamene terracotta diorama:



The one on the right may be a Galatian because of the hair, but then again it may have been sculpted that way to indicate movement. The one on the left is definitely not armoured and has Greek features. This one, too, had traces of colour IIRC.

For the latter, yes, it really is a phalangite. It is, along with the Pergamene battle plate I posted before, one of the only two images I have ever seen of a phalangite in combat. He carries a large, dished shield with an offset rim that doesn't project out very far. He grips his very long spear with both hands, and though the relief is cut off behind him, it projects out behind him quite a ways. He has a sword at his left and he wears only a tunic and perhaps a helmet (his head has been effaced). The thureophoros is standing behind him, facing to the left, and about to strike down with his sword in his right hand. By some bizarre feat of artistry, the legs of the man behind the phalangite were drawn all the way out to stand beside the phalangite, yet his head is several feet above the head of his companion. I unfortunately cannot post a picture or a citation of this one at the moment, as I'm writing it up in a large article. When it's published I'll be able to post it, though.

[Watchman]

Why would you suggest he differentiated between the two units, then?

The other wore heavier armour - à la metal armour vs quilt or plain linothorax - for example ? Writers often seem to not consider organic armour to be "real" armour, or in any case worth mention, whereas the metallic variety - presumably due to its sheer expense if nothing else, and tendency to be found on better-grade troops - appears to normally merit more attention.

[Sarcasm]

Indeed. Also not to mention wanting for fabric or leather armor to appear in arqueological record. Short of the guy falling into a bog or mummified, I don't see how that can happen 99% of the times.

[MeinPanzer]

The other wore heavier armour - à la metal armour vs quilt or plain linothorax - for example ? Writers often seem to not consider organic armour to be "real" armour, or in any case worth mention, whereas the metallic variety - presumably due to its sheer expense if nothing else, and tendency to be found on better-grade troops - appears to normally merit more attention.

In my experience, I've never found a major distinction between calling heavier armour thorax and linen armour thorax. At any rate, even if you want to give them organic armour, they should wear the linothorax and not the fantastical studded armour of some sort that they currently wear.

Indeed. Also not to mention wanting for fabric or leather armor to appear in arqueological record. Short of the guy falling into a bog or mummified, I don't see how that can happen 99% of the times.

There is plenty of representation of "organic" armours in representational evidence from the Hellenistic kingdoms.

[Watchman]

At any rate, even if you want to give them organic armour, they should wear the linothorax and not the fantastical studded armour of some sort that they currently wear.

The "studs" could just be appliqué decoration, you know. Vanity was ever a soldierly vice (it's just kept away from the battlefield these days... ). They could also be the visible rivets of brigandine or "jack" type of armour, in this case presumably securing something rather "cheap and cheerful" and perishable like horn or leather pieces.

Although I've no idea if that armouring technique was used in the region around the dates in question. It shouldn't be a particularly major stretch for folks familiar with scale (being really a reversed version of the exact same principle), but...

[MeinPanzer]

The "studs" could just be appliqué decoration, you know. Vanity was ever a soldierly vice (it's just kept away from the battlefield these days... ). They could also be the visible rivets of brigandine or "jack" type of armour, in this case presumably securing something rather "cheap and cheerful" and perishable like horn or leather pieces.

They could be, yes, but my problem is that they are based on absolutely no archaeological evidence that I know of. If there is some evidence for it that I've never seen before, then I would be very happy to see it. Otherwise, if you are going to include armour that could have been worn, then you can't really fault CA for including fantastical elements which also could have been worn.

Although I've no idea if that armouring technique was used in the region around the dates in question. It shouldn't be a particularly major stretch for folks familiar with scale (being really a reversed version of the exact same principle), but...

We discussed this at length in another thread, but there is no evidence for any Seleucid troops wearing scale or lamellar armour beyond cataphracts. It was probably too expensive for non-cavalry troops to afford, and it's clear that the Macedonian side of the Seleucids favoured old, Greek-style armour over Oriental styles. And you can't really cite the precedent of Oriental armies making widespread use of scale and lamellar because there's little evidence of the Achaemenid Persians making use of scale or lamellar beyond heavy cavalry, either.

[Watchman]

You do know that all-iron cuirasses could be made to look like honest-to-Gawd linothoraxes for example...? I would imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to give a scale cuirass a similar "cut" and an outer layer of textile either.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Outta curiosity, as I know very little of these things, how much direct archeological evidence do we have of the armament of Hellenic kataphraktoi and their horses anyway ?

[Fondor_Yards]

Maybe you guys*by which I mean everyone* should wait till the member from that dig who did a lot of the seleucid stuff posts, we don't want this turning into the other threads now do we...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well FY, I doubt he makes an appearance. People can have whatever opinions they want of it, and he used to be around out here a good deal more, but he has had it with the public firing squads. We're happy to get his time on unit creation and recruitment issues, but he has had to drop other responsibilities inside the mod team because of constraints on his time while trying to finish his degree, so it's not just replying to public threads that he doesn't have the time or energy for currently. One other interesting tidbit - I don't think he has ever played the mod.

[MeinPanzer]

You do know that all-iron cuirasses could be made to look like honest-to-Gawd linothoraxes for example...? I would imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to give a scale cuirass a similar "cut" and an outer layer of textile either.

They could, but I think there would be found many more traces of lamellar and scale armour in Seleucid contexts, then. I would also expect to see some representational evidence show scale-like texture, like that seen on many Roman-era stelai. But why would they cover scale or lamellar in linen or leather? Seems rather redundant to me, though I guess they may have done it.

Outta curiosity, as I know very little of these things, how much direct archeological evidence do we have of the armament of Hellenic kataphraktoi and their horses anyway ?

There is the largely well-preserved suit of cataphract armour from c. 150 BC from Ai Khanoum, which includes lamellar and scale. There are also late Hellenistic images of Indo-Saka kings wearing lamellar armour, which probably would have influenced local Bactrian cavalrymen.

Well FY, I doubt he makes an appearance. People can have whatever opinions they want of it, and he used to be around out here a good deal more, but he has had it with the public firing squads. We're happy to get his time on unit creation and recruitment issues, but he has had to drop other responsibilities inside the mod team because of constraints on his time while trying to finish his degree, so it's not just replying to public threads that he doesn't have the time or energy for currently. One other interesting tidbit - I don't think he has ever played the mod.

I'd very much like to hear from him, but if he can't come around, does anyone else know his reasoning for some of the above? Did he provide the team with archaeological evidence or even references for some of the above stuff?

[Watchman]

They could, but I think there would be found many more traces of lamellar and scale armour in Seleucid contexts, then. I would also expect to see some representational evidence show scale-like texture, like that seen on many Roman-era stelai. But why would they cover scale or lamellar in linen or leather? Seems rather redundant to me, though I guess they may have done it.

Wanted to preserve "that original Hellenic look" perhaps ? Damned if I know why Philip II had that iron cuirass made out like a linothorax either. Or why at one period of the Renaissance fancy looks were so important suits of full plate were made to mimic the "puffed and slashed" style of garment. Or Carl X wears a blatant imitation of Antique generals' breastplate and sash in one portait I've seen.

Fashion. It doesn't have to make any sense.

There is the largely well-preserved suit of cataphract armour from c. 150 BC from Ai Khanoum, which includes lamellar and scale. There are also late Hellenistic images of Indo-Saka kings wearing lamellar armour, which probably would have influenced local Bactrian cavalrymen.

That's not too much then. How about horse bards ?

[MeinPanzer]

Wanted to preserve "that original Hellenic look" perhaps ? Damned if I know why Philip II had that iron cuirass made out like a linothorax either. Or why at one period of the Renaissance fancy looks were so important suits of full plate were made to mimic the "puffed and slashed" style of garment. Or Carl X wears a blatant imitation of Antique generals' breastplate and sash in one portait I've seen.

Fashion. It doesn't have to make any sense.

Could be, but when you consider the representational and archaeological evidence together, it seems to point in the general direction of making use of little or no scale or lamellar armour amongst the non-cataphract troops.

That's not too much then. How about horse bards ?

Unfortunately not much at all. Some of the pieces of armour from the Ai Khanoum arsenal are thought to maybe be part of some horse armour, but those are only very fractional and scattered pieces. I would lean towards horse barding being made of scales, though.