Questions about Seleukid units.

[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.

[Imperator]

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?

guys chill- he's got some good points, and clearly knows what he's talking about- no need to bash him, historical hyper-accuracy is why we're here. Even EB can be wrong sometimes (not often though). now, to business:
1) That is a good point, can a team member step forward and answer the man, he's got sources!
2)That seems, from the discussion, like it's a little more controversial. Again, I'd be interested in seeing how EB took this passage and came to their conclusion...
3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...
4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

All in all, MeinPanzer does certainly have some seriously good questions and real evidence behind them. Let's be civil and leave it to the guys who made the mod to defend it, they know why the units look the way they do. And, who knows, maybe this guy's right. It's a dark day for EB when we can't take any historical criticism on our units and put ego before accuracy.

[Tellos Athenaios]

About point 2:
Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

About point 2:
Thorax is the acient greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

Unfortunately Angadil isn't around anymore to handle some of the many varied areas he was very knowledgeable in (successors wasn't his main area of knowledge - he was the Steppe-Daddy around here for ages). RL stuff took him away from modding, but we miss him.

[MeinPanzer]

3) My guess- Pantadapai represent levies from across the empire, and the ax is a pretty universal weapon; would these relatively poor levies be able to afford swords? That's just speculation though...

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.

4) Well, are there any representations of what armour they might have worn at all? If not, maybe EB reconstructed a unit using outside sources or a touch of imagination- we'll never be 100% sure anyway.

Within the empire, two main types of armour can be seen: leather or linen cuirasses (the kind with shoulder yokes and those leather fringes, or pteruges, at the shoulders and bottom). which were the most common, and then metal muscled cuirasses. There probably were also metal non-muscle cuirasses, but it is unfortunately almost impossible to distinguish in many sources between linen, leather, and metal armour (though this topic has been discussed quite a bit). For almost all non-officer, non-heavy troops, the linen or leather cuirass would have been the standard form of armour.

In this thread, I asked a related question about the TA and I think the response would answer your question as well.

Thanks, that actually cleared up the reasoning behind dividing the arguraspides units as was done. However, I'm still curious what "very recent archaeological evidence" they drew on, especially if it supports having a mail face veil like the one shown.

However, I find this statement:

Our TA are indeed a sort of inner elite. There are references to guard units of 1.000 men which seem to have had even higher status. Authors are not unanimous and some claim those would refer to the cavalry section of the Royal Guard, while for others they would apply to the infantry guard and they would indicate the existence of "an elite within the elite".

To be a bit strange, since many scholars consider this "elite within the elite" to have been the hupaspistai, not some other unit.

Thorax, (thorakitai would be translated as "men wearing a thorax"), is the acient Greek equivalent of armour. In Dutch it may also stand for "kuras" or "harnas" - the first being "cuirass" in English, the second suggesting that this particular stuff was made from metal plate(s). Quite different from what the Thureophoroi wear in EB, anyway.

EDIT: The Dutch word "harnas" is a bit anachronistic, since this refers to Medieval wargear - I guess you'll understand what this says about the meaning of thorax.

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

[Foot]

First of all, I'm not sure even about EB's classification of "pantodapai phalangitai" as being equipped any differently than the pezhetairoi, or that "pantodapai phalangitai" even referred to anything other than a pezhetairoi composed of men, including Orientals, drawn from all around the empire. I'll leave that point for now, though, because I don't have a lot of evidence either way. However, I do know that I know of no evidence whatsoever for Greek soldiers wielding axes in combat. Axes are present on funerary scupture as ritualistic or agricultural tools, but not as weapons. It just seems to not have been a favoured weapon. Most representational and archaeological evidence, however, makes it clear any soldier who could afford a helmet could probably afford a sword.

Anatolians was very fond of their axes, and whilst these represent men drawn from all corners of asian population, axes are certainly not unsuitable. Perhaps a sword would have been more generic, but I cannot understand why axes would be so unsuitable. They were particularly common in anatolia and not unknown elsewhere, they represent poorer equipment than a sword (fulfilling a desire to represent the pantodapai phalangitai as being drawn from the poorer indigenous populations of this region), and they add a bit of variety to the mix of units. Isn't stressing this problem ever so slightly pedantic. Perhaps we could revise the description somewhat to indicate that the use of axes here does not represent the idea that this unit was equipped with axes, but rather represents the above points. Would that be satisfactory?

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

Anatolians was very fond of their axes, and whilst these represent men drawn from all corners of asian population, axes are certainly not unsuitable. Perhaps a sword would have been more generic, but I cannot understand why axes would be so unsuitable. They were particularly common in anatolia and not unknown elsewhere, they represent poorer equipment than a sword (fulfilling a desire to represent the pantodapai phalangitai as being drawn from the poorer indigenous populations of this region), and they add a bit of variety to the mix of units. Isn't stressing this problem ever so slightly pedantic. Perhaps we could revise the description somewhat to indicate that the use of axes here does not represent the idea that this unit was equipped with axes, but rather represents the above points. Would that be satisfactory?

Foot

If you can provide me with evidence of Anatolian soldiers using axes in warfare, then I would agree that it is not unsuitable. However, as far as I've seen there is none whatsoever for men using them in combat, and so it is plainly inaccurate, especially for such a numerous unit. It would be far more accurate to simply depict them as being equipped with swords. And I fail to see the correlation between poorer elements of the empire and use of axes, as you imply.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I have a feeling this may have more to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch being used to translate thorax; in English it doesn't have the specific connotation of being metal that I know of.

From my Ancient Greek - Dutch dictionary, it has included only commonly used words, with their usual translations + a few exceptional meanings, always distinctively marked as being exceptional (which is not the case with the following, so you may ingnore this as well)...

Θωραξ:
1 armour, cuirass, "harnas" - that is a "suit" made of armour no matter what sort of armour is used, but refers for the most part to the heavy metal equipment of medieval knights

χιτων
1 chiton (a sort of clothing)
2 (...)
3 (used as) armour
χαλκους χιτων = bronze used as armour > bronze armour

The English word "armour" can be translated into Dutch in two different ways, either you take the Dutch "pantser" which actually means the entire "suit", or you use the word "bepantsering" which either refers to the fact that certain equipment is worn which provides protection or just means "protective equipment/skin (in the case of animals, such as the crocodile)". You'll see from the above that the sort of armour you are refering to (armour in general, thus not the "suit") would be commonly refered to as "... χιτων" (the Dutch word "bepantsering"); while the Θωραξ has a more specific meaning - that of either the cuirass or all of the armour a particular soldier is wearing as a whole (the "pantser" word).

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

[MeinPanzer]

So indeed it has something to do with a particular word for armour in Dutch - one that refers explicitly to the cuirass, or the (metal) equipment as a whole. Again, quite different from what thureophoroi are wearing in EB... don't you think so?

In english, thorax is usually translated as cuirass, which doesn't necessarily have any connotations of metal. A cuirass can be made of leather, linen, or other organic materials, and so while the thureophoroi as is wear some sort of jerkin, it could be called a cuirass.

A very reasonable post there foot. Sorry every molecule must have proof posted here for it. I'm surprised a new thread wasn't started for each point though actually.

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

[Urnamma]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

[Urnamma]

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Now, a soldier with an (expensive) metal helmet, an (expensive) sword, javelins, a large spear, greaves (expensive), good boots, and all that other stuff, is going to, what, not have enough drachmae left over for some inexpensive but effective body armor?

[MeinPanzer]

I would encourage you to post one bit of information that says they didn't?

What exactly do you want, an iranian peasant conscript to come back and show you what he wielded? The literary sources tell us that they recruited natives for the phalanx.

Now, logic would present us with two options for a sidearm. One, a sword. Costly in metal and training, swords are, well, costly.

Two: an axe. Anatolians and Iranians in general grew up using these sorts of axes, which are rather inexpensive.

Logic would dictate we follow the reasons Foot outlined and choose the axe as their sidearm.

I think it is safe to say that anyone who could afford A) some sort of body armour and B) a helmet could also afford a sword. Even common Persian archers, being as numerous as they were, could afford to own swords. It is illogical to say that they would just use what is cheap and handy because there is no evidence of axes being wielded by these people in combat; would you argue that because hoes were handy they would have used those?

Besides, if you were going to reconstruct a unit which was comprised of many non-Greek peoples from throughout the empire, logic would tell you that the majority would be Iranians; therefore, it would probably be much more accurate if you provided the pantodapai phalangitai with sagarises or akinakes.

You've begun to intrigue me. That's all you do is come here and bash on EB units, and then barely ever offer proof for your own arguments. Did an EB member kill your cat or something?

I'm not trying to attack you guys or anything; I think EB is by far the best RTW mod out there, and the EB team has done a spectacular job working on a mod that is incredibly advanced when compared to the majority of mods out there, which is why I'd like to see it be as accurate as possible. If I didn't, why would I even put effort into asking these questions?

Also, barely ever offer proof? I offer proof when asked to offer it, as I did in the hetairoi shield thread numerous times. It just seems that the EB team gets very defensive about anyone questioning their reconstructions. It would be much simpler if you simply provided proof on your own behalf.

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon.

They probably used pitchforks and scythes in agriculture, too. Is that good enough to equip a few EB units with them? I sincerely hope you have better evidence than that for equipping a unit with an axe.

Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Because there is no proof for it, and because it's not even probable. If you don't care about small details like that, why even bother with historical accuracy?

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry?

If you claim to be a historically accurate mod, then I would hope that you would be pedantic, yes. Ancient history, and especially the reconstruction of such small details as weaponry and equipment, rely on such limited evidence that you pretty much have to be pedantic.

An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown.

But you haven't even proved that axes were used as weapons within the areas levied from. Again, please provide proof that Hellenistic soldiers of any kind used axes in warfare.

It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms.

The burden of proof is generally on the person who posits something's existence, not on the one who questions it.

Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.

See the top of this post.

As far as the linothorax, they decay over time. It's a relatively easy form of armor to fabricate, and provides a good deal of protection. We find many, many waistbands from such suits of armor, because they're made out of scales (generally, at least the more expensive ones probably have this feature), but no full suits. Must we find a full suit of linen armor for you to believe they were there?

Are you saying that waistbands of scales for composite cuirasses have been found within the Seleucid empire? Where? And no, I'm not saying I don't believe linen armour was there- there is tons of archaeological representational evidence for that. I'm saying I think the form of the armour you have portrayed on some units at the moment is not supported by evidence.

Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

Yet despite this, the commonest levies of the predecessors of the Seleucids, the Achaemenid Persians, could afford to buy swords.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

[Urnamma]

Do you have proof, clear proof, that Hellenistic soldiers had assholes? I've never seen any friezes or stelai of them, but I assume they did for a few different reasons that I don't think we need to go into detail on here. What foot said was very well put. The weapon was common in an area before the Hellenistic period, and we don't need incontrovertible proof to give a unit from the area that as their secondary weapon. Foot even said it might be safer to give them a sword, but there's no reason to pitch a fit for them having a small axe.

Indeed, but I would contend that Foot was mistaken about the sword. Swords are, as I said, fairly expensive, even in the iron age. Levies would simply not have them outside of very wealthy places. It's a matter of ancient economy. When a sword blade costs more than the average man makes for half a year, that man does not have a bloody sword.

[Foot]

If you think I'm being pedantic on these issues, I encourage you to present the evidence for Hellenistic soldiers carrying axes.

If we think you are being pedantic, then we have to answer your pedantry? An interesting take on the situation. I see no reason why we need to show if hellenistic soldiers used axes, all we need to show is that they were used as weapons in areas where the pantodapai phalangitai can be recruited by the indigenous population (that the axe is a cheaper weapon to make is certainly true) - that argument is I believe certainly good enough for something so unknown. It is you who must prove that axes were not in use by levies raised from indigenous populations by the hellenisitic kingdoms. Please do so, or present a case for why our own reasons for having axes as the secondary weapons for the pantodapai phalangitai are unsatisfactory.

Foot