Seleucids or Parthians?

[Duncan Head]

Justin, XLI.5.7 says:
Huius filius et successor regni, Arsaces et ipse nomine, aduersus Antiochum, Seleuci filium, centum milibus peditum et XX milibus equitum instructum mira uirtute pugnauit; ad postremum in societatem eius adsumptus est.

This is translated as:

His son and successor on the throne, whose name was also Arsaces, fought with the greatest bravery against Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, who was at the head of a hundred thousand foot and twenty thousand horse, and was at last taken into alliance with him.

(Watson's 1886 translation at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_07_books41to44.htm)

or paraphrased as:

This was the result of Antiochus' eastern campaign. According to Justin (41.5), during this war the Parthian army opposing Antiochus III included 100,000 infantrymen and 20,000 horsemen.

(Mariusz Mielczarek, "Cataphracts - a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war" (Electrum 2, 1998)

So whose understanding of the text do we think is correct - is it Antiochos or Arsaces who leads 100,000 foot and 20,000 horse?

[Duncan Head]

Possibly relevant comparison:

"In the fourth year of the 162nd Olympiad [129 B.C.], Arsaces attacked him with an army of 120,000 men, and schemed against him by sending his brother Demetrius, who had been kept as a prisoner, back to Syria."
(Eusebius, Chronicle)

The Greek original of the Chronicon is lost, but it survives in Armenian and Latin versions, one edition being at Google Books:

"Anno vero quarto (ejusdem) CLXII Olympiadis cum duodecim myriadibus supervenit Arsaces"

So Eusebius certainly gives a total for the Parthian army that matches Justin's total; so maybe the Parthian really were fielding five times as many foot as horse in the second century BC. We've long suspected that the early Parthians used a lot of infantry, but I can't recall being able to find such a specific reference before.

[rodge]

I don't know if this adds anything to this thread but Erdkamp in 'A Companion to the Roman Army' mentions an Antonine date Roman Auxiliary helmet unearthed in Syria. This supposedly shows 3 Roman Infantrymen and a contarius surrounded by 5 Parthian infantry and two mounted (not Cataphract) Parthian heavy cavalry.
I've looked for an image of this but come up with zip.....

In the same book he mentions the Chronicle of Arbela (and suggests it's a forgery/construct from other sources such as Procopius and Joshua the Stylite and was written/compiled 12th-13thC; it's not something I am familiar with).

FWIW it's here
http://www.sasanika.org/wp-content/uploads/ChronicleofArbela.pdf

The passages referring to Parthian numbers (that I have found so far) are late and in

3. Bishop Ishaq of Arbela (135-148 A.D.)

'Raqbakt however, the powerful man, remained sixteen days in Ctesiphon. And from there he gave orders to his general Aršak that he amass many soldiers near him, some twenty thousand, all of them foot-soldiers'
Raqbakt (though he may be a legendary figure) served Vologases III 105AD-147AD (who reigned in the East). A footnote suggests that infantry were needed as the Parthian cavalry could not cope with the mountainous terrain in the sphere of operations.

                                                           
6. Bishop Habel of Arbela (183-190 AD)

This deals with the Parthian king Vologases IV (147-191AD) where a figure of 120000 is mentioned Vs the 'Persians' in Khurusan. No split of troop types, though mountains are again mentioned.

[aligern]

Did the parthians at the time control any of the satrapies that produced infantry in Herodotus' army lust for Xerxes expedition?
Alternatively have they control of enough towns to produce settler contingents to that sort of volume (accepting that the numbers might be an exaggeration.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, XLI.5.7 says:
Huius filius et successor regni, Arsaces et ipse nomine, aduersus Antiochum, Seleuci filium, centum milibus peditum et XX milibus equitum instructum mira uirtute pugnauit; ad postremum in societatem eius adsumptus est.

This is translated as:

His son and successor on the throne, whose name was also Arsaces, fought with the greatest bravery against Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, who was at the head of a hundred thousand foot and twenty thousand horse, and was at last taken into alliance with him.

(Watson's 1886 translation at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_07_books41to44.htm)

or paraphrased as:

This was the result of Antiochus' eastern campaign. According to Justin (41.5), during this war the Parthian army opposing Antiochus III included 100,000 infantrymen and 20,000 horsemen.

(Mariusz Mielczarek, "Cataphracts - a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war" (Electrum 2, 1998)

So whose understanding of the text do we think is correct - is it Antiochos or Arsaces who leads 100,000 foot and 20,000 horse?

Unless I'm missing something 'instructum' agrees with 'Antiochum' (accusative) not 'Arsaces' (nominative) which makes Antiochus the one armed with the 100 000 foot and 20 000 horse.

[Patrick Waterson]

Watson seems to agree.  Mielczarek and friends presumably read it as: Arsaces (nominative), fought against Antiochus (accusative), with 100,000 foot and 20,000 horse he had drawn up, the 'centum milibus peditum et XX milibus equitum instructum' being associated with Arsaces who is deemed to have ordered them around as opposed to with Antiochus who was fought against.

One would expect 'cum' before 'centum milibus peditum' etc. but it is either missing or understood ('milibus' is ablative), and from the relative position of the clause it seems associated with Antiochus rather than Arsaces.  In a source like Tacitus this would be conclusive, but in Justin I am less sure.  Suffice to say it seems to favour the troops mentioned belonging to Antiochus.  Eusebius would appear to disagree, but disagreement by Eusebius might be the result of Eusebius' own misunderstanding.

Diodorus XXXV.16-17 gives Antiochus 300,000 men overall including noncombatants and has him outnumbered by the Parthians.  This would be consistent with a Seleucid combatant force of c.120,000 men.

"The friends of Antiochus urged him not to engage in combat against the Parthians, who were so superior in numbers; for they could retreat to the nearby mountains, where the difficult ground would protect them from the danger of the enemy cavalry. Antiochus paid no heed to this advice, saying it was shameful that the victors should fear the audacity of those they had already conquered. So he urged his friends to face the dangers and boldly withstand the attack of the barbarians.

When the death of Antiochus became known at Antioch, the whole city mourned, and every house was full of wailing, especially from women, who bemoaned this great loss. Three hundred thousand men had been lost, including those who did not serve in the ranks. Every family had some loss to grieve: among the women, some had to mourn the death of a brother, others that of a husband or a son; and many girls and boys, left as orphans, lamented that they were bereaved of their fathers. Eventually time, the best healer of grief, put an end to their laments."

This would still leave open the question of whether the Parthians could or would muster large numbers of infantry should they choose to.  One may draw one's own conclusion about the likelihood of the Parthians fielding a force of 120,000+ cavalry together.

[Duncan Head]

Did the parthians at the time control any of the satrapies that produced infantry in Herodotus' army lust for Xerxes expedition?

Well, Parthia, for a start.

By 129 the Parthians are controlling all Iran and Mesopotamia, so there are plenty of potential infantry resources available.

Thanks to Justin and Patrick; my first impulse was the same as yours, that the numbers seemed to be associated with Antiochus, but Eusebius made me wonder if Mielczarek was right.

Eusebius would appear to disagree, but disagreement by Eusebius might be the result of Eusebius' own misunderstanding

Or Justin's mis-summarised Trogus and Eusebius has got it right... unfortunately the possibilities are endless.