Suggestions and guide to the heavy hellenistic infantry

[Perseas]

THE PHALANX

The phalanx was a simple formation and there weren't levy pikeman, pezhetairoi etc. as different formations as it is in the game.. (the weapons and equipment of the phalanx were given to the phalangites from each Kingdom's Armourer and all the phalangitai were given the same training. So there weren't better/less armoured phalangites or better/less trained phalangites. Actually that's the advantage (against the other Greek Cities) of the Macedonian Army Reforms of King Philip and Alexander the Great.. A national army!)
The formation was called phalanx of the Macedonians(because the Macedonians fought in that way) or simply phalanx.. The phalangites were armed with sarissa, a small sword and with the thrakian shield which was named 'pelti' and was smaller than the hoplite shield.. They also wore brass or leather armour. Usually the first 4 or 5 lines of the phalanx were heavier armed than the others because they were in contact with the enemy so they usually used brass armours and greaves while the other lines usually used leather armour and no greaves.


THE ROYAL GUARD

-In India after 10 years of continous fighting Alexander gave new equipment to his army.. The Macedonian Royal Guard, the Hypaspists, were given silver shields and silver armour.. From now on this elite unit took the name 'Argyraspides'.
-In the Seleucid empire the Royal Guard kept the name 'Argyraspides' and used silver equipment. After the destruction of the Macedon Kingdom after the battle of Pydna (168 BC) many Macedonian Chalkaspides fled to the Seleucid Empire to save their lives and fight from there the Romans. These soldiers created the 'Chalkaspides' formation of the Seleucid Empire.
-In the Kingdom of Macedonia the Royal Guard was named 'Chalkaspides' and given bronze equipment.
-In the Ptolemaic Empire the Royal Guard was named Agema.
-These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx.
-2nd way - They fought as peltastai(peltasts)* **.
*In the 3rd century BC the name 'peltastai' was used from historians to describe the heavy armoured soldiers who fought as a mobile elite force using spear and/or sword. They fought in the same way as hypaspists did. But instead of the hoplite shield which the hypaspists used, these units used the thrakian shield, the 'pelti' because it was smaller than the hoplite one and they could move easier. That's why historians describe them as 'peltastai'.
**These units have nothing to do with the light infantry type of peltastai which was used in the classical period but also continued to exist and fight with the same way during the 3rd century BC)

Given this information I would suggest the following: we already have a unit that fights with the sarrisa, the phalanx. So you could use the Royal Guard in the second way. As a mobile elite force (fighting with spear and/or* sword) able to execute special operations, secure the flanks of the phalanx, and fight where phalanx couldn't (hills for example). Slso the Royal Guards should be able to be recruited only in the capital of each hellenistic nation.
*I would suggest an option that could allow the Royal Guard to fight with spears OR with swords (If this was possible)

RECRUITMENT

The Macedonian phalanx was drafted from the lower and the middle class of the Macedonian citizens.

The Hellenistic empires (Seleucid, Ptolemaic) needed Macedonians(they were considered the best fighting force of their age) and other Greeks in the army because the Hellenistic Kings were Greeks ruling countries with almost all the population being of different nationality (Egyptians, Asians etc.). They were in need for a loyal army consisted of troops of their nationality. But this was a big problem because the Greeks living in their Empires were too few. To solve the problem they started giving land to Greek soldiers in exchange of their military services. The land given to the Greek soldiers was named kleiros in the Ptolemaic Empire and katoikia in the Seleucid Empire. The soldiers were named kleirouxoi or katoikoi. The Greek soldiers were given military training and then they were given a piece of land. ( The piece of land differed in fertility analoga the soldier's rank and if he served in the infantry or the cavalry). In the early years of the hellenistic empires the phalanx was recruited from the Greek population. Macedonians made the 1/3 of the army(I think) while most of the soldiers were of Greek nationality(for example Aitoloi, Arkades, Akarnanes etc.). Later on foreign nationalities joined the phalanx by becoming katoikoi or kleirouxoi (Egyptians who were called 'Machimoi', Italians who left their countries because of Roman expansion, Asians and even Romans etc.)

-The 3 main Hellenistic Nations are never mentioned using hoplites(except of mercenary hoplites for example Gauls)
-The Agrianians were famous akontistai and not pelekiphoroi.. They followed Alexander in Asia and fought bravely but I don't think they are ever mentioned to be used by any hellenistic nation..
-The Greek light infantry like akontistai should be able to be draft in all the places the Greeks ruled.
-The Baktrian Army should fight like the rest of the hellenistic armies using phalanx etc.
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

Nikolas.. more things to come in the future..

[Zarax]

*sits and watches the flames coming*...

[Spendios]

Yeah, the successors used the phalanx, so what ?

[I of the Storm]

*joins Zarax* (why don't we have a popcorn smiley?)

@Perseas: Interesting. I'm looking forward to the answers, though. Could you backup what you wrote with sources? Otherwise it's hard to have a discussion.

[Perseas]

The things I wrote are taken from greek magazines (i am greek) and books describing the hellenistic armies..

[Zarax]

Yeah, the successors used the phalanx, so what ?

To sum up part of what's coming:

1) phalanx training and equipment was not as standardized as in alexandrian time, armies went bigger and treasuries smaller, meaning that hellenistic kingdoms would rely on something closer to the older hoplite system (aka citizens armed themselves) than a standardized army.
Most likely only elites had equipment given by the state while training differed between the population.

2) "royal guard" types differed wildly from kingdom to kingdom, as there were

- elite phalanxes (silver shields and equivalents)

- hypaspists, both hoplite-like and assault oriented

- iphicratean style elites

- heavy thorakitai

3) as already said, back up your statements with sources as there are more than a few professional historians in the EB team.

[Perseas]

1)As i said the phalanx of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies was made up of kleirouxoi soldiers who were given land (and also equipment and proper training in military camps) and that means that all of them had similar equipment and training. In all the battles of the Hellenistic Era (battle of Pydna, battle of Kynos Kefales, battle of Ipsus, battle of Magnesia etc.) none of the historians who wrote about them mentions different types of phalanx.. All the historians are talking about a single formation with the same equipment and same tactics. Also I don't think it was difficult for Seleucids and Ptolemies (they had a very rich economy) and not even for Macedonians to equip 20.000-30.000 phalangites with a leather armour, shield and sarissa..

2) You are right, royal guards differed from kingdom to kingdom but I talked about the 3 main hellenistic Kingdoms that had very similar types of units and fought using the same tactics..

3) I can't back up my statements because i have read many different things and I don't know if anyone knows the greek books and magazines i read.. the only thing I can say is that I am Greek and i have read a lot about the history of my country =)

Also i forgot to say that the mod is soooo good and i play it a lot.. thank you guys for making it.. I just gave some info and suggestions about hellenistic armies.. If you like any of this you can use it =)

[Tellos Athenaios]

I do hope that your sources deal with the units you see in-game. For instance there's quite a difference between Hyaspistai under Alex (who were kept at full strength for as far as possible, by drawing from the pezhetairoi soldiers during his campaign, IIRC) and the Hypaspistai under the Makedonians or the Seleukides some odd 50 years later.

As far as nomenclature goes: that (the name of the Pheraspides) is currently under debate again. But your remark related to the agema appears to be odd to say the least; and neither is the nomenclature so strictly devided by troop type.

Agema means, in military terminology of those days two things: one a formation;
Two: the collection of various prestiguous regiments/squadrons. Save for the fleet. Elephants, and various types of cavalry do belong to the agema; as do certain types of elite infantry.

Finally the word hypaspistai litterally means esquires: and a simple search retrieves various interesting little facts about that word. For starters this word frequently occurs in conjunction with 'basilikoi'. "Hypaspistai te kai basilikoi". Similarly: "hypaspistai basilikoi". Last but not least: hypaspistai is a full-blend synonym of doryphoroi yet at the same time it's about exactly the other piece of equipment...

[Perseas]

'Agema means, in military terminology of those days two things: one a formation;
Two: the collection of various prestiguous regiments/squadrons'

You are right about this.
The royal guard of the Ptolemies was called Agema and consisted of 3.000 elite heavy infantry and 700 heavy elite cavalry.
As i said historians have the heavy infantry fighting in two different ways.. as phalangitai or as an elite mobile force ('peltastai').

The royal guard of Alexander the Great was made up of elite soldiers from the phalanx and so were the Royal Guards of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.. The hypasistai fought as an elite mobile force able to operate in special operations, to secure the flanks of the phalanx and to fight in places where phalanx couldn't.. 1.000 of the hypaspistai were called Agema (considered chosen elite infantry that was the bodyguard of Alexander and probably the agema of the Ptolemies took its name from it..
I also talked about the renaming of the hypaspists into Argyraspides etc. after taking the new equipment.. after the death of Alexander hypaspists are rarely mentioned from the historians and when they are mentioned they mean the royal guard (argyraspides or chalkaspides etc) rather than a special formation..

[MiniMe]

@Perseas:
1. what is it what you suggest?
2. are you familiar with EB representation of successor armies?

[Perseas]

I registered because i liked a lot the mod and i would like to share some information about the succesor armies and I suggest some changes in the hellenistic units of Macedonia, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.. If you like this information you can use it to change them(if possible) otherwise no problem =)

[MiniMe]

I shall adress some of your suggestions

Given this information I would suggest the following: we already have a unit that fights with the sarrisa, the phalanx. So you could use the Royal Guard in the second way. As a mobile elite force (fighting with spear and/or* sword) able to execute special operations, secure the flanks of the phalanx, and fight where phalanx couldn't (hills for example). Slso the Royal Guards should be able to be recruited only in the capital of each hellenistic nation.
*I would suggest an option that could allow the Royal Guard to fight with spears OR with swords (If this was possible)

EB Successors armies have such units. Thet are elite, armed with spear and sword and can be recruited in their capitals. Their name is... hypaspists.

The Greek light infantry like akontistai should be able to be draft in all the places the Greeks ruled.

in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled

The Baktrian Army should fight like the rest of the hellenistic armies using phalanx etc.

EB Baktria has phalanx

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.

The Agrianians were famous akontistai and not pelekiphoroi.. They followed Alexander in Asia and fought bravely but I don't think they are ever mentioned to be used by any hellenistic nation..

let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...

[Perseas]

'let me guess. You don't consider Alexander's army to be hellenistic...'

The Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek history was the period between the DEATH of Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC. How can you talk about these things if you know nothing about them? Let someone else speak. Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation because the hellenistic era hadn't even started(!) during the rule of Alexander.

'You contradict yourself in these two sentenses. Either you state that some of Argyraspides fought as elite phalanx, either you state that phalanx was never equipped that way. Make your choice, please.'

I talked about the Royal Guard not the Phalanx itself.. these are competely different units!.. Argyraspides are the Royal Guard not the Phalanx.. Sometimes they just used this formation..

'in EB you can recruit akontistai in all the places the Greeks ruled'

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

[Spendios]

So i guess the eastern provinces of the map weren't controled by the seleucids.. because i saw that you can't recruit akontistai there..

Do you really think seleucids would waste their greek settlers in crappy skirmishers units when they had plenty of locals to fill this role ?

[anubis88]

Although Alexander's army wasn't from the helenistic era, it was a hellenistic army.... The Diadochi armys were modeled after alexanders...

So Minime is right

[MiniMe]

Macedonia under Alexander the Great was never considered a hellenistic nation ...

Ouch. Me thought his dad solved this matter after he took Φώκαια seat for himself in Ἀμφικτίων around 346 BC. Stupid me. Let's go no further I know where it would take us

.. these are competely different units!... Sometimes they just used this formation..

Ah! this explains it all. Ok then

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

Let us not forget that there is a difference between
HELLENIC ( of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc., esp. before the time of Alexander the Great.)
and
HELLENISTIC (of or pertaining to the Greeks or their language, culture, etc., after the time of Alexander the Great, when Greek characteristics were modified by foreign elements.)

(defintions from edictionary)

There was no Hellenistic State until after Megas Alexandros. Philippos II secured for Makedonia a place as a Hellenic State. The Diadochoi were Hellenistic, not Hellenic. But Philippos and Megas Alexandros were Hellenic, not Hellenistic.

Also, pertaining to the supposed contradictions here:

These Royal units were heavy infantry that fought in two different ways.
-1st way - They fought as (elite) phalanx
...
-Hysteroi Pezetairoi should not exist! The Phalanx was never equipped this way(mail armour was used by the Roman Legions). Actually during the late hellenistic age and mostly after the defeat and destruction of the Macedonian Kingdom from the Romans (168 BC) some formations of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies began equiping with roman armours and weapons and fought as they did..(these formations included mostly the thorakitai but also the seleucid Argyraspides were equipped this way some time after 168 BC..The phalanx was never equipped this way)

Perseas makes no contradiction. When he says "The phalanx was never equipped this way", he means in the Roman Manner, as is quite obvious from his post. He is not contradicting himself, but rather speaking of two different things.

[MiniMe]

HELLENIC
HELLENISTIC

overlooked that, my mistake

Perseas makes no contradiction.

He does, even though you don't see it

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode and next proceeds to claim that the phalanx was not equipped in some way some it of its members most definitely (by earlier remarks) were...

Yes, that's a typical text book excersise of point out, using a truth table, that the following statement is a contradiction.

-------

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not?

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

I believe the contradiction is inadvertent. Remember, Perseas is Greek, so English is not his first language.

What I believe he is trying to say is that until 168 BC, no Hellenistic units used Roman style armour at all, and after said date, typically only Thorakitai and Seleukid Argyraspides. But the Pezhetairoi never did, so the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi is an inaccurate unit.

[MiniMe]

But it's a bit a futile excersise in being pedantic, is it not?

er.. may be

Ok, bellydance for everyone just to celebrate my 20X20+2 post

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's too easy a formula: I demand it being broken down into its unique set of prime factors. (Easy one as well)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

402/2 -> 201
201/3 -> 67
67 is prime therefore: 2*3*67.

EDIT: If you now think gee, that's pretty easy to do: try my current post count: 3897.

[antisocialmunky]

That's too easy a formula: I demand it being broken down into its unique set of prime factors. (Easy one as well)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

402/2 -> 201
201/3 -> 67
67 is prime therefore: 2*3*67.

EDIT: If you now think gee, that's pretty easy to do: try my current post count: 3897.

3897/3=1299
1299/3 = 433
433 = prime(81) I think: 3*3*433

Anyone up for 1811?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It's 1812 now.

+1
.

[paullus]

Crap, how did all of this happen so quickly? Its really hard now to look back at things and figure out what to address, so the following reply will surely be haphazard.

The Phalanx and its internal homogeneity
Several points:
1 divisions within the phalanx are noted in Alexander's army, in which different sections of pezhetairoi were more or less prestigious; the existence of divisions are expressly noted in descriptions of both the Makedonian and Seleukid armies
2 our divisions are: pezhetairoi (representing either standing duty professional soldiers or, in Makedonia, private citizens), klerouchoi phalangitai (representing kleros-holding pseudo-citizens, called up for campaigns), and pantodapoi/machimoi phalangitai (primarily non-greek soldiers, also potentially living on (smaller) kleroi and called up for temporary service). do you really contend that any of these 3 contingents didn't exist?
3 while the Hellenistic monarchs did seem to supply shields to their soldiers, and probably made helmets, swords, and other equipment available for purchase, they neither distributed nor required purchase of a particular type of body armor, except for officers. We know that in Ptolemaic Egypt, which is better attested than the other kingdoms, individual soldiers regularly bequeathed their personal armor to their son (or heir). If anything, our phalangites are too homogenous and over-armored, which makes your contention all the more perplexing.

The Elite units of the various kingdoms
1 to claim that you know the exact units and their uses goes beyond what we can actually construct from the sources, many of which contradict with one another or show clear patterns of change over time
2 the Ptolemies, just for one example, featured the basilikon agema and the peltastai at Raphia, together only half the size of the 10k strong Seleukid argyraspidai, which likely included a contingent of hypaspistai about the size of the Ptolemaic peltastai (~2000), but each independently the size of the Makedonian elite peltastai. the Ptolemaioi also had thorakitai epilektoi, hypaspistai, citadel guards, and epilektoi katapeltastai, whatever that last one means.
3 within these units, we don't actually know exactly how they were utilized. there is evidence that some of them did operate as phalangites (Mak peltastai, Seleukid argyraspidai), some of them might have operated as phalangites (Ptolemaic peltastai), some could operate in assault roles (Mak peltastai, Seleukid hypaspistai), and some seem to be non-phalanx heavy infantry (Ptolemaic basilikon agema, 1/2 of post-Magnesia argyraspidai).

Agrianes
1 they are very well attested in Ptolemaic Egypt, where there seems to have been a settlement of them living in Alexandreia, serving as elite light infantry of some type, rather like the Kretai who also lived there
2 they and other paionian, illyrian, and skordiskan troops served in Makedonian armies in the 3rd and 2nd centuries
3 the particular outfitting used by our pelekuphoroi are based on both their descriptions in Alexander's campaigns (note that they are akontistai in a sense, and could be used primarily in an elite skirmishing role) and on archaeology from the dalmatian, paionian, skordiskan, and pannonian region

Successors and Hoplitai
1 Hoplitai may not appear explicitly in royal army lists, though even that point isn't actually clear, since we have very little clear information
2 Hoplitai do appear as mercenaries (though not Galatian mercenaries) and as contingents from client and allied states: for examples, see Sellasia, or the Anatolian wars during the time of the Raphia campaign, when hoplitai appear in the armies of places like Perge and Etenneus; this sort of appearance is consistent with our use of hoplitai, is it not?

Sorry if the responses are haphazard or unclear. Let me know what things I may have missed or on what points I was unclear. I'm glad you enjoy the mod.

[Perseas]

I know that Alexander's army is noted having different units within the phalanx but I am talking about the general structure of the hellenistic armies. Every King could make a new unit or give special honour to another. For example Antiochos Megas is mentioned having a Royal Formation called Chrisaspides(Gold Shields)... I use as information the ancient Greek/Roman historians and the (hellenistic) battles that they wrote about.. When describing the Greek armies they mention the phalanx as one single unit.. No differencies like 10k soldiers were poor or 10k soldiers were rich etc. and some soldiers were better armoured or less.. they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment. As i said the only differencies in equipment was that probably the first lines of the phalanx used brass armour and the next lines used leather armour something which makes sense because the last lines were almost never in contact with the enemy (except if the lines were broken). You are right about the equipment sometimes not being homogenous. Some phalangitai for example may had greaves when others hadn't but I'm talking in general. The hellenistic armies used national armies.. Much like the armies of today.. It doesnt' matter if you are rich or poor you go to the army and you recieve the same training and weapons as the other soldiers (talking about the infantry).. The phalanx was equipped and trained much like this way.

I must also talk about the standing armies.. Ptolemaic and Seleucid heavy infantry was made up of kleirouchoi (and you are right, as i said before in the late hellenistic era many foreigners joined the phalanx (egyptians, asians etc.) becoming kleirouxoi of course but they didn't make a seperate unit. They were equiped and trained as the rest of the phalanx. In peace time most of the kleirouxoi were staying with their family in their lands. It seems that most of the soldiers who were in duty in peace time consisted of course of the Royal Guards and the Epigonoi (the conscripts who were recieving their training). If there was war all the kleirouxoi were called to fight. (it's obvious that the hellenistic Kingdoms couldn't and didn't need to mantain a standing army of 20.000-30.000 phalangitai for a number of years if there was no reason.)

The elite units

1.All of us have things to say but the truth is that no one can be sure if all these things are 100% true because we didn't live in that age (almost 2300 years before..) I gave all this information but maybe the Agema consisted of 2.000 men and not 3.000 for example so maybe i am wrong! but no one can be sure about that.. I just gave the information I know and that I think it would make the game more historical accurate. All of us know that we can make a very good game but it can't be 100% historical accurate.. It's not like WW2 that we have a looooot of information.. it's about ancient ages!..

2.Ancient historians call the Agema using the phalanx formation 'basilikon agema' and they call the Agema using spear and/or sword 'peltastai' (the agema consisted of about 3.000 infantry while the Argyraspides had a strength of 5k to 10k infantry). I talked before about the 2 different uses of the hellenistic Royal Guards.. The hellenistic armies may had many different elite units but I talked especially for the Kingdoms' Royal Guards (Argyraspides, Chalkaspides, Agema).

3.I talked about most of these things before. Also 'peltastai' don't mean units that fight as phalanx.. In the first post i explain the use and the etymology of the hellenistic (not the classical period's) 'peltastai'.


Agrianes

You are probably right about the first two points for the Agrianes.. but being used as pelekuphoroi is not historical accurate.. They are mentioned fighting as akontistai in Alexander's army and never mentioned fighting as pelekuphoroi.. ''note that they are akontistai in a sense, and could be used primarily in an elite skirmishing role'' There is no historical acount ever menitioning this. Agrianes were famous for they bravery and skills with 'akontia'.. not with 'pelekis'

Successors and Hoplitai

The Successor Kingdoms did made use of hoplites but these hoplite units weren't made of the Kingdoms' citizens but they were mercenaries or soldiers from allied greek cities(the Ionian cities and the cities in Greece continued to use the hoplite formation instead of the phalanx but they abandoned it in the late 3rd century BC.
Galatians were an example of mercenary hoplites. Galatians invaded Asia Minor and settled near Angyra (the capital of today Turkey).. They are mentioned fighting(some 14.000 of them) as hoplite mercenaries of the Seleucids against the Romans in the battle of Magnesia..




Also.. I make no contradiction.. In my first post i wrote that the heavy infantry consisted of TWO different units. 1)The Royal Guard( I only said that the Royal Guard could use the formation of the phalanx.. I think I was clear.) and 2) The Phalanx

RomulusAugustusCaesar is right in what he says =) thanks!

[paullus]

I know that Alexander's army is noted having different units within the phalanx but I am talking about the general structure of the hellenistic armies. Every King could make a new unit or give special honour to another. For example Antiochos Megas is mentioned having a Royal Formation called Chrisaspides(Gold Shields)... I use as information the ancient Greek/Roman historians and the (hellenistic) battles that they wrote about.. When describing the Greek armies they mention the phalanx as one single unit.. No differencies like 10k soldiers were poor or 10k soldiers were rich etc. and some soldiers were better armoured or less.. they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment.

The Chyrsaspides are an editor's edition, they never actually appeared in the text of Polybios. Bad example. Also, basing your information strictly on the Hellenistic historians isn't the best idea, they never go into great detail about what people were wearing (your contention that they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment holds no water whatsoever) unless its something in which they are personally invested (see the Achaian reforms in Polybios). At the same time, there's rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence, which can offer depth and correctives to the historical narratives. Also, the historians clearly note at least some differences in quality when, for example, the pantodapoi phalangitai at Raphia--5000 phalangites from various places, euzonoi "armed in the Macedonian manner"--they aren't just grouped in with the other phalangites.

As i said the only differencies in equipment was that probably the first lines of the phalanx used brass armour and the next lines used leather armour something which makes sense because the last lines were almost never in contact with the enemy (except if the lines were broken). You are right about the equipment sometimes not being homogenous. Some phalangitai for example may had greaves when others hadn't but I'm talking in general. The hellenistic armies used national armies.. Much like the armies of today.. It doesnt' matter if you are rich or poor you go to the army and you recieve the same training and weapons as the other soldiers (talking about the infantry).. The phalanx was equipped and trained much like this way.

How 'bout a source? Give me a source that says that rich or poor, a soldier received (note, did not pay for) his equipment (including body armor), but received it from the monarch. Its possible that the Ptolemies and Seleukids distributed shields for free at certain times, but it was the general expectation that the soldier secured his or her own equipment, even if it was often by purchasing it from the royal armorers. Perhaps there are legitimate counter-examples, but I can't think of any at the moment that hold up to close scrutiny.

I must also talk about the standing armies.. Ptolemaic and Seleucid heavy infantry was made up of kleirouchoi (and you are right, as i said before in the late hellenistic era many foreigners joined the phalanx (egyptians, asians etc.) becoming kleirouxoi of course but they didn't make a seperate unit. They were equiped and trained as the rest of the phalanx. In peace time most of the kleirouxoi were staying with their family in their lands. It seems that most of the soldiers who were in duty in peace time consisted of course of the Royal Guards and the Epigonoi (the conscripts who were recieving their training). If there was war all the kleirouxoi were called to fight. (it's obvious that the hellenistic Kingdoms couldn't and didn't need to mantain a standing army of 20.000-30.000 phalangitai for a number of years if there was no reason.)

Actually, there were non-Greeks in the phalanx much earlier than the late Hellenistic area (which, by the way, extends further than 146 BC--that sounds like a slightly nationalistic Greek date, since its the end of the Achaian rebellion), and they did in fact fight in separate units at times. They also were not equipped and trained as the rest of the phalanx: we know they wore lighter armor in most cases, and cheaper armor; after all, they lived on much smaller kleroi, and so could not afford the same quality arms and armor as guys living on kleroi 3 times larger than their own. If there's a point at which the Ptolemies had to start supplying equipment to their troops (even then they likely took it out of their paychecks) it was in the late Hellenistic period, when so many line soldiers had been granted hereditary ownership of their kleroi and then gambled them away or sold them or had them swindled from them, that only a few line soldiers could have actually afforded equipment.

The epigonoi were not the conscripts who were receiving their training. Where do you get that idea? And the Royal Guard was not the only active duty element of the army, which usually consisted of a small section of the phalanx, the royal contingents (say, a basilike ile, agema, and peltastai, and perhaps hypaspistai), the mercenaries, and perhaps some regular cavalry as well (like the Seleukid kataphraktoi). The true klerouchoi remained, not on their farms for the most part, but bumming around in the big cities, especially Alexandreia, with their farms rented out to Egyptians and low class non-Egyptians, until such time as they were called up for a stint of duty.

The elite units

2.Ancient historians call the Agema using the phalanx formation 'basilikon agema' and they call the Agema using spear and/or sword 'peltastai' (the agema consisted of about 3.000 infantry while the Argyraspides had a strength of 5k to 10k infantry). I talked before about the 2 different uses of the hellenistic Royal Guards.. The hellenistic armies may had many different elite units but I talked especially for the Kingdoms' Royal Guards (Argyraspides, Chalkaspides, Agema).

1. You have no idea what you're talking about with the basilikon agema and the peltastai. There is no basis in any text for what you're saying, so I suspect you're repeating something from a secondary source. There are many low quality secondary sources dealing with Hellenistic militaries.

2. Don't you see your difficulty in saying you're just talking about the Royal Guards? You ID those as the argyraspides (Sel), chalkaspides (Mak), and agema (Pto), but the Ptolemaic agema has nearby it the peltastai, a word used for the Seleukid argyraspides in several other sources, and for a unit sometimes identical to, but sometimes separate from, the chalkaspides of sources describing the Makedonians. The terminology is simply not as easy as you're trying to make it.

Agrianes

You are probably right about the first two points for the Agrianes.. but being used as pelekuphoroi is not historical accurate.. They are mentioned fighting as akontistai in Alexander's army and never mentioned fighting as pelekuphoroi.. ''note that they are akontistai in a sense, and could be used primarily in an elite skirmishing role'' There is no historical acount ever menitioning this. Agrianes were famous for they bravery and skills with 'akontia'.. not with 'pelekis'

tell me, does using an akontia preclude the use of the pelekus? hint: it doesn't. one is a longer range weapon, one is short range. Also, recall that the sources on Alexander's campaigns are even more problematic with their terminology and short-winded with their equipment descriptions than the Hellenistic sources. If only we had a Herodotean catalogue of nations, but we don't. As for the elite skirmishing role, go find yourself a mention of the Agrianes, where they aren't being used in some sort of dangerous or challenging skirmishing role: they weren't the fight along the front lines as a screen troops, they conducted flanking manuevers, attacked entrenched positions, and that sort of thing. I'd consider those sorts of roles "elite skirmishing" roles.

Successors and Hoplitai

The Successor Kingdoms did made use of hoplites but these hoplite units weren't made of the Kingdoms' citizens but they were mercenaries or soldiers from allied greek cities(the Ionian cities and the cities in Greece continued to use the hoplite formation instead of the phalanx but they abandoned it in the late 3rd century BC.

So this is like almost a direct quotation of what I'd said. Odd. You say it like you're arguing with me (all the use of "but"), but I can't figure out on what point you're arguing.

Galatians were an example of mercenary hoplites. Galatians invaded Asia Minor and settled near Angyra (the capital of today Turkey).. They are mentioned fighting(some 14.000 of them) as hoplite mercenaries of the Seleucids against the Romans in the battle of Magnesia..

Ok, that's just a naming error that comes from you reading modern Greek sources. The Galatians did not fight as hoplites (ie, in the hoplite phalanx), but I suppose some of your sources are using hoplites in a more modern Greek sense, similar to stratiotai (soldiers). The Galatians, to be clear, did not fight in a hoplite phalanx, nor did they fight using hoplite weapons.

And I'm going out of town later today. I can respond further, if needed, when I'm back in town, Sunday or Monday.

[O'ETAIPOS]

As i said the only differencies in equipment was that probably the first lines of the phalanx used brass armour and the next lines used leather armour something which makes sense because the last lines were almost never in contact with the enemy (except if the lines were broken). You are right about the equipment sometimes not being homogenous. Some phalangitai for example may had greaves when others hadn't but I'm talking in general. The hellenistic armies used national armies.. Much like the armies of today.. It doesnt' matter if you are rich or poor you go to the army and you recieve the same training and weapons as the other soldiers (talking about the infantry).. The phalanx was equipped and trained much like this way.

Only time king is mentionned equipping his troops is one, very vague mention in Diodorus 16.3 that deals with Philip II forming mak phalanx for the first time. In such circumstances it's quite probable weapons were from the king, as there was no way soldiers would know what they actualy need. Still this is not accepted by many scholars.

Royal stores of weapons are mentioned 2 times by Polybius once when Antigonos Doson gives 1000 shields to Megalopolitan refugees (they lost their city to spartans) and later in description of supposed Perseus's preparations for war (when number of stored weapons is given). Yet stored weapons may well be prepared for Guard or mercenaries (in latter it's most probably for merc)

Amphipolis code gives us a list of weapons of, most probably, the phalanx and those have fees attached. This would suggest soldier had to provide their own weapons, and not state delivery.

Generally, basing on the sources we have, we can't say if the king delivered any weapon so phalanx. And if he did, those probably were shield and sarissa, as greeks considered those to be important for whole formation while armour and helmet was considered soldier's own problem.

[CirdanDharix]

Yes now you mention it... if one claims the royal guards aka hypaspistai were no longer hypaspistai but were renamed into argyraspides; says that the royal guard fought in phalanx-mode

Actually, the Hypaspistai/Argyraspidai of Alexander were the inspiration, but not the progenitors, of the Hellenistic units with the same names, since Antigonos Monophthalmos, realising that their cupidity made them more of a threat to their own commander than to the enemy, got rid of the original corps after it had betrayed Eumenos of Kardia to him. Thus, there isn't a contradiction to say that the Hypaspistai were renamed, and then mention them under that name. However, I must say much of Perseas' posts seem based on an over-simplistic representation of Hellenistic military organisation.

[Perseas]

''1)The Chyrsaspides are an editor's edition, they never actually appeared in the text of Polybios. Bad example. Also, basing your information strictly on the Hellenistic historians isn't the best idea, they never go into great detail about what people were wearing (your contention that they are mentioned as a single unit having the same equipment holds no water whatsoever) unless its something in which they are personally invested (see the Achaian reforms in Polybios). At the same time, 2)there's rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence, which can offer depth and correctives to the historical narratives. Also, the historians clearly note at least some differences in quality when, for example, the pantodapoi phalangitai at Raphia--5000 phalangites from various places, euzonoi "armed in the Macedonian manner"--they aren't just grouped in with the other phalangites.''

1)I guess you know NOTHING about the military parade of Dafnes where all the Seleucid formations were gathered from all the places of the Empire to celebrate a victory against the Ptolemies and this is the source where we take most of the information for the Seleucid Army(this is where Chrysaspides are being mentioned) Hellenistic historians are the main and the best source of the armies of this age.. if they didn't exist i'm sure you wouldn't be able to make this mod today
2)So how is it possible not to know the graves of Chalkaspides (that were found in a place in Macedonia) which was the Macedonian Royal Guard and you consider the Argyraspides the Macedonian Royal Guard?!
Also by saying this you are telling me that actually my modern sources (if i have any) are very accurate because they use the 'rich epigraphical, papyrological, and archaeological evidence'. In another paragraph you are saying that my sources are ''modern'' and of low quality.. So tell me if i use none of these sources WHAT SHOULD I USE???

'How 'bout a source? Give me a source that says that rich or poor, a soldier received (note, did not pay for) his equipment (including body armor), but received it from the monarch. Its possible that the Ptolemies and Seleukids distributed shields for free at certain times, but it was the general expectation that the soldier secured his or her own equipment, even if it was often by purchasing it from the royal armorers. Perhaps there are legitimate counter-examples, but I can't think of any at the moment that hold up to close scrutiny.'

Ok so the poor soldiers of the phalanx didn't have any armor and some didn't even had clothes.. that's what you are saying.. or a soldier that was living in Media had to search all the Seleucid Empire to find equipment and he didn't even know what to buy.. It's so SIMPLE.. If you chose to give your military services to the Kingdoms the Kingdoms were responsible to give you WHAT you needed to live (land) and what you needed to fight for them! you weren't a soldier in the greek cities fighting for your country.. You were a soldier of a distand place giving your military services to that country and recieving what you needed.. understood?

''Actually, there were non-Greeks in the phalanx much earlier than the late Hellenistic area (which, by the way, extends further than 146 BC--that sounds like a slightly nationalistic Greek date, since its the end of the Achaian rebellion), and they did in fact fight in separate units at times. They also were not equipped and trained as the rest of the phalanx: we know they wore lighter armor in most cases, and cheaper armor; after all, they lived on much smaller kleroi, and so could not afford the same quality arms and armor as guys living on kleroi 3 times larger than their own. If there's a point at which the Ptolemies had to start supplying equipment to their troops (even then they likely took it out of their paychecks) it was in the late Hellenistic period, when so many line soldiers had been granted hereditary ownership of their kleroi and then gambled them away or sold them or had them swindled from them, that only a few line soldiers could have actually afforded equipment.''

I'm sorry but what you are saying here is totally wrong!We have an example even of a Roman(!) officer of the Ptolemaic Army who was general of a garrison in Crete!.. Every kleirouxos took a small piece of land when he joined the phalanx but every kleirouxos had the chance to gain even huge pieces of land after years, when he took promotions etc. even if he was Egyptian or Asian or whatever! As for the equipment the Kingdoms were responsible to give it to the kleirouxoi.


''The epigonoi were not the conscripts who were receiving their training. Where do you get that idea? And the Royal Guard was not the only active duty element of the army, which usually consisted of a small section of the phalanx, the royal contingents (say, a basilike ile, agema, and peltastai, and perhaps hypaspistai), the mercenaries, and perhaps some regular cavalry as well (like the Seleukid kataphraktoi). The true klerouchoi remained, not on their farms for the most part, but bumming around in the big cities, especially Alexandreia, with their farms rented out to Egyptians and low class non-Egyptians, until such time as they were called up for a stint of duty.''


Epigonoi are called the heirs of the Diadochoi of Alexander the Great and the conscripts of the hellenistic armies.. I guess i know things better cause i am Greek!
Also: Royal Guard=>Agema=>Peltastai+basilike ile .. you are talking about the same thing. I said that MOST of the kleirouxoi were not in arms meaning that a small section of the phalanx was at arms! you are saying the same thing again.. Mercenaries didn't exist at peace time Why would you need mercenaries if there was not war???!!! Why pay a lot of money soldiers in peace time?? think what you say. Farms were never rented.. what are you saying??? kleirouxoi were soldiers in a distant Kingdom and their only house was the land given to them!! how could they rent their homes to the Egyptians??

I am also repeating that I am Greek talking about my country's history and probably YOUR sources are of low quality not mine.

''tell me, does using an akontia preclude the use of the pelekus? hint: it doesn't. one is a longer range weapon, one is short range. Also, recall that the sources on Alexander's campaigns are even more problematic with their terminology and short-winded with their equipment descriptions than the Hellenistic sources. If only we had a Herodotean catalogue of nations, but we don't. As for the elite skirmishing role, go find yourself a mention of the Agrianes, where they aren't being used in some sort of dangerous or challenging skirmishing role: they weren't the fight along the front lines as a screen troops, they conducted flanking manuevers, attacked entrenched positions, and that sort of thing. I'd consider those sorts of roles "elite skirmishing" roles.''

Then, using this information I can say that the phalanx was heavy infantry so it could have used plate armour instead of leather armour as the Agrianes were light infantry and could use ALL the equipment of the light infantry as you say.. Go read history


''Ok, that's just a naming error that comes from you reading modern Greek sources. The Galatians did not fight as hoplites (ie, in the hoplite phalanx), but I suppose some of your sources are using hoplites in a more modern Greek sense, similar to stratiotai (soldiers). The Galatians, to be clear, did not fight in a hoplite phalanx, nor did they fight using hoplite weapons.''

We all know (except of you) that when a tribe settled in a place, after years it could adapt the equipment and tactics of a nation that was close to it.. I never said that Galatians of France fought as hoplites I talked about the Galatians who settled near Angyra very close to the Seleucid Empire.