Questions about Seleukid units.

[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...