Question about two units

[Zarax]

Are there any plans for some more late units?

In specific I'm thinking about the late ptolemaic basilikon agema (reformed to legionary style by Ptolemy Auletes) and possibly the roman adoption of kataphracts (after Pompey's bribery).

I don't have any historical sources at hand but I thought maybe I could learn something here...

[paullus]

I know of no reform of the basilikon agema. Gabinius, governor of Syria, restored Ptolemaios Auletes to the throne, and all or most of one legion remained in Alexandreia. That's not exactly reforming the agema. Besides, the basilikon agema (also known as the thorakitai epilektoi and a few other names) already looked, you might say, rather like a well-armored legionary: they wore either good quality mail, or iron cuirasses, seem to have used a Celtic-derived stabbing sword or the long xiphos, and may have carried a javelin along the lines of the Galatian gaison. They had also been organized in "centuries" for roughly 100 years, so there's not a whole lot that would be changing anyway.

But no, since Gabinius' troops are actually Romans, we won't be making a new unit. In fact, in EB the situation would play out as follows: you bribe a Roman legion from Syria, and use it to regain rebel-held Alexandreia. Its not a unit you recruit, but you could still end up with legionaries in Alexandreia.

Let me know if there's some source I'm missing, but as far as I know, what I've stated above is accurate.

[Zarax]

I don't have a first hand source so I might be getting not 100% accurate data but reading Maffeo Maffii's "Cleopatra versus Rome" he stated that after Gabinius' troops were forcibly recalled (they had families and were seeing themselves as a royal guard of sorts) Ptolemy organized his royal guard along the same lines as the roman legion.

I guess I just made too much of a stretch from a secondary source...

[paullus]

Yeah, the secondary sources have said some wierd things off of the scattered references in Caesar and Dio. Maffii is definitely wrong, at least in so far as nothing we have supports his claim, and a few pieces of evidence counter it. Caesar actually says that, after the death of Auletes, and after Pharsalus, he arrives in Egypt to cut off Pompey and the Egyptian army that approaches him includes the troops which had formerly been left in Alexandreia by Gabinius, who had been living in Alexandreia and taking wives there. I'm not sure exactly how much to trust Caesar though, as he describes the 20,000 strong Ptolemaic army in an odd way:

1) He says they're formidable, no trifling army.
2) He says that the core of the infantry are several thousand soldiers left by Gabinius (who was recalled to Rome to face trial), but that they had been effeminized by the luxury of Alexandreia. Formidable then?
3) He says that the remainder of the troops are runaway slaves and bands of robbers. He attributes fierceness to them, but the description here hardly fits the sort of description he first gave the enemy army. I'm also skeptical about the makeup of the army. Its possible that the army was still the same army Kleopatra had to recruit from Koile Syria, so its possible that Ioudaian or Nabatian symmachoi and Syrian pirates made up substantial contingents, but Caesar's statement about the native troops being runaway slaves betrays some bias. First, these are native troops, not hired troops from Koile Syria, so they're a different case than the pirates and bandits. He then seems to essentialize the entire Ptolemaic army off of what probably were a few cases where runaway slaves were granted immunity in Alexandreia on condition that they joined the army.

Kleopatra herself had a bodyguard of Gauls, different from the basilikon agema, which may have taken on a former legionary character after Gabinius' arrival.

[dominique]

He then seems to essentialize the entire Ptolemaic army off of what probably were a few cases where runaway slaves were granted immunity in Alexandreia on condition that they joined the army.

Kleopatra herself had a bodyguard of Gauls, different from the basilikon agema, which may have taken on a former legionary character after Gabinius' arrival.

I never got that part, thanks for the presentation, it clearly outline what I doubted.

How come one of the richest kingdom of the earth couldn't have more than a couple hundred roman retirees and runaway slaves? With all the pressure on it's frontiers?

[Zarax]

Yeah, the secondary sources have said some wierd things off of the scattered references in Caesar and Dio. Maffii is definitely wrong, at least in so far as nothing we have supports his claim, and a few pieces of evidence counter it. Caesar actually says that, after the death of Auletes, and after Pharsalus, he arrives in Egypt to cut off Pompey and the Egyptian army that approaches him includes the troops which had formerly been left in Alexandreia by Gabinius, who had been living in Alexandreia and taking wives there. I'm not sure exactly how much to trust Caesar though, as he describes the 20,000 strong Ptolemaic army in an odd way:

1) He says they're formidable, no trifling army.
2) He says that the core of the infantry are several thousand soldiers left by Gabinius (who was recalled to Rome to face trial), but that they had been effeminized by the luxury of Alexandreia. Formidable then?
3) He says that the remainder of the troops are runaway slaves and bands of robbers. He attributes fierceness to them, but the description here hardly fits the sort of description he first gave the enemy army. I'm also skeptical about the makeup of the army. Its possible that the army was still the same army Kleopatra had to recruit from Koile Syria, so its possible that Ioudaian or Nabatian symmachoi and Syrian pirates made up substantial contingents, but Caesar's statement about the native troops being runaway slaves betrays some bias. First, these are native troops, not hired troops from Koile Syria, so they're a different case than the pirates and bandits. He then seems to essentialize the entire Ptolemaic army off of what probably were a few cases where runaway slaves were granted immunity in Alexandreia on condition that they joined the army.

Kleopatra herself had a bodyguard of Gauls, different from the basilikon agema, which may have taken on a former legionary character after Gabinius' arrival.

Maffii states that Pompey's son came to take the gabinian legionaries but he was slain by them so Ptolemy executed the ringleaders and sent away the rest.
After that it appears he reshaped the royal guard into a legionary corp.
After that Maffii states that Caesar faced the ptolemaic royal army but the overall quality of its forces was rather low also because ptolemy himself was leading the army instead of his chief general, with bad influence on his troop's confidence.

After that it appears that Kleopatra basically had a personal guard based on Caesar's "Praetorians".

[Zarax]

I never got that part, thanks for the presentation, it clearly outline what I doubted.

How come one of the richest kingdom of the earth couldn't have more than a couple hundred roman retirees and runaway slaves? With all the pressure on it's frontiers?

At the time the natives were quite rebellious and it appears that the crowd in Alexandria had a taste for choosing their own basileii...

[paullus]

wow, maffii is wrong on several counts, based on what you're saying. that's unfortunate.

[Zarax]

That's too bad because Maffii's book was quite interesting

[paullus]

It may well be quite interesting, and may have some good information from it, but a common symptom of general histories of that time period (1939 publish date) and even of our own times is not only to generalize information, but also to invent details which fit within the generalized plot-line. That sounds like what's happened in Maffii's book. I might also wonder whether, in the context of fascist Italy, it might display some fact-bending to proclaim the importance of Roman power and military activity.