Gents,
Looking over one translation of Diodorus, the infantry center of Eumenes' army is reported to number "more than six thousand mercenaries, five thousand men who had been equipped in the Macedonian fashion, more than three thousand Silver Shields, and more than three thousand hypaspists". This produces a total of approximately 17,000 heavy infantry.
In comparison, the infantry center of Antigonus is given as: "more than nine thousand mercenaries, three thousand Lycians and Pamphylians, more than eight thousand mixed troops in Macedonian equipment, and nearly eight thousand Macedonians".
The Antigonid phalanx outnumbers the enemy foot by at least 11,000 then. Accepting a depth of 10-16 ranks, the Antigonid phalanx would extend further than the infantry center of Eumenes.
In his Armati scenario for this battle, Mr. Steve Phenow argues that Diodorus exaggerates the numbers under Antigonus. Unfortunately, he provides no details or corrected order of battle.
With respect to cavalry engaged, Diodorus seems off a bit with the numbers in the wings and the total numbers present. For example, adding up the stated sums on Pithon's wing, I get 6,900 horse. This total does not include the "the (mysterious) cavalry who are called the two-horse men".
Is there another ancient source or modern academic source that provides more information on this point or these points?
It appears that the elephant math is a bit off as well.
Thanks,
Chris
Lost Battles has a more detailed listing of the forces involved. I don't have the book with me at the moment and will provide the information later.
Chris, finding much the same problem. I know that not everyone is a convinced by his arguements as I am but Delbruck is very sceptial of the account given by Diodorus (and some who extrapolated from him).
Quote from: willb on April 14, 2017, 12:44:43 PM
Lost Battles has a more detailed listing of the forces involved. I don't have the book with me at the moment and will provide the information later.
Lost Battles is in front of me now:
Eumenes has 35000 inf, 6100 cav highlighted but 6300 cav in detailed discussion, 114 elephants highlighted but again in detailed listing 125 elephants:
assuming 17000 heavy inf comprising 6000 mercenaries, 5000 pantodapoi/levy phalangites, 3000 hypaspists, 3000 silver shields
the other inf are lighter troops with approx 10000 persian archers and slingers
The Cav has around 900 companions, 1500 light horse, 3000 colonists, 900 bodyguards for Eumenes
Antigonus has 28000 (heavy) inf, 8500 cav, 65 elephants but in detialed listings again there is a slight discrepancy:
it is assumed that the cavalry contingent is made up of 1000 companions, 4300 light horse, 4700 settlers/allies/mercenaries and 600 bodyguards for the general himself
the infantry is broken down into 8000 macedonians, 8000 pantopapoi, 3000 lycians/pamphylians and 9000 mercenaries plus a suggested additional 10000 ight troops.
It is a point of contention whether both sides mercenaries are peltasts or phalangites (and at this point I suspect that Duncan will have a much better point of view!)
Phil Sabin takes his figures from Diodorus.
"The entire army of Eumenes consisted of thirty-five thousand foot soldiers, sixty-one hundred horsemen, and one hundred and fourteen elephants." - Diodorus XIX.28.4
Of the 35,000 foot, some of which were light troops accompanying the elephants, 17,000 are listed as phalangites and the remainder are simply not listed. We can surmise a combination of light troops, peltasts and maybe even some local tribal types similar to those in Diodorus XIX.16.3
"Including reinforcements brought by Pithon and Seleucus, Antigonus had in all more than twenty-eight thousand foot soldiers, eight thousand five hundred horsemen,5 and sixty-five elephants." - idem IX.29.1
"Of his infantry, more than nine thousand mercenaries were placed first, next to them three thousand Lycians and Pamphylians, then more than eight thousand mixed troops in Macedonian equipment, and finally the nearly eight thousand Macedonians, whom Antipater had given him at the time when he was appointed regent of the kingdom." - idem XIX.29.3
From the placement of Antigonus' troops it does look as if all his infantry were phalangites. However ...
... we may note that the Lycians and Pamphylians are listed separately from the 'more than eight thousand mixed troops in Macedonian equipment', and if 'Macedonian equipment' denotes phalangites, it suggests the Lycians and Pamphylians, highland peoples, may well have been peltast types rather than phalangites. 'Mercenaries' would include Cretans and similar missilemen, who were an integral component of any Macedonian army but are otherwise inexplicably missing. When Antigonus is fighting the Cossaeans in XIX.19, "he selected the finest of the peltasts and divided the bowmen, the slingers, and the other light-armed troops into two bodies," which demonstrates the existence in his army of these troop types.
We can thus probably reduce Antigonus' phalanx by the 3,000 Lycians and Pamphylians and an indeterminate number of peltasts and other light troops. The question of how many mercenaries - if any - were phalangites is harder to resolve, but they are listed separately from the troops 'in Macedonian equipment' and my inclination would be to assume that the Lycians, Pamphylians and perhaps one third of the mercenaries were peltasts and that the remaining mercenaries were missile/light troops. This would give Antigonus, like Eumenes, an almost equal ratio of non-phalangite infantry to phalangite infantry.
This would result in infantry contingents as follows:
Eumenes: 17,000 phalangites, 18,000 lighter infantry types.
Antigonus: 16,000 phalangites, 12,000 lighter infantry types.
Result: the phalanx contingents, probably still 8 deep Alexandrian fashion, each occupy an approximately 1,000 yard frontage when closed up for action and Eumenes' phalanx has a slight (about 60 yard) overlap.
Gents -
Thanks very much for the feedback/information!
Should probably secure LOST BATTLES through inter-library loan . . .
Appears I have some more "work" to do.
I did wonder about the mention of a lot of archers in a couple of treatments . . .
Thanks again.
Have a pleasant Easter holiday/weekend :)
Chris
Thanks Patrick, that really fills in some of the grey areas in Lost Battles!, particularly the mysterious "missing" 18000 Infantry of Eumenes.
According to LB, Eumenes did not have any Macedonian Phalangites apart from Silver Shields and Hypaspists (if these were armed as Phalangites in this period), only Pantapadoi.
Any ideas on what the non Companion Cavalry consisted of (light and heavy)? Were they Asiatic or European? What is meant by "settlers, allies, colonists and mercenaries" with reference to the cavalry? LB doesn't really go into detail as to what they were.
PS, of Eumenes' 17,000 "heavy troops" 6,000 are listed as Mercenaries. Do you think THEY were phalangites unlike Antigonus'?
Holly thanks for posting the information from Lost Battles. Slight clarification on the Heavy cavalry of both sides. Sabin describes Antigonus' 4700 heavies as settlers, allies, and mercenaries. Eumenes' 3000 are described as colonists and natives accompanying the various satraps.
Quote from: eques on April 14, 2017, 10:50:12 PM
Any ideas on what the non Companion Cavalry consisted of (light and heavy)? Were they Asiatic or European? What is meant by "settlers, allies, colonists and mercenaries" with reference to the cavalry? LB doesn't really go into detail as to what they were.
Based on their description the lights and heavies would probably be unshielded javelin/light spear cavalry and a probably a mix of Greek and Asiatic horse. Colonists and settlers would most likely be Greeks and Macedonians from the various cities that Alexander founded. While "natives" would be Asiatic, "allies" is vague, but are probably like those of the satraps in Eumenes' army Mercenaries could be Greek and/or Asiatic.
Bill
no worries Bill, had LB in front of me but also a house full of loud teenagers so was a tad distracting as I typed!
Expanding on Bill's details of both sides' cavalry, Diodorus gives us the following:
Eumenes:
"On his left wing Eumenes stationed Eudamus, who had brought the elephants from India, with his squadron of one hundred and fifty horsemen, and as an advance guard for them two troops of selected mounted lancers with a strength of fifty horsemen. He placed them in contact with the higher land of the base of the hill, and next to them he put Stasander, the general, who had his own cavalry to the number of nine hundred and fifty. After them he stationed Amphimachus, the satrap of Mesopotamia, whom six hundred horsemen followed, and in contact with these were the six hundred horsemen from Arachosia, whose leader formerly had been Sibyrtius, but, because of the latter's flight, Cephalon had assumed command of them. Next were five hundred from Paropanisadae and an equal number of Thracians from the colonies of the upper country. In front of all these he drew up forty-five elephants in a curved line with a suitable number of bowmen and slingers in the spaces between the animals ..." - Diodorus XIX.27.2-5
and
"In front of the whole phalanx he placed forty elephants, filling the spaces between them with light armed soldiers. On the right wing he stationed cavalry: next to the phalanx, eight hundred from Carmania led by the satrap Tlepolemus, then the nine hundred called the Companions and the squadron of Peucestes and Antigenes, which contained three hundred horsemen arranged in a single unit. At the outer end of the wing was Eumenes' squadron with the same number of horsemen, and as an advance-guard for them two troops of Eumenes' slaves, each composed of fifty mounted men, while at an angle beyond the end of the wing and guarding it were four troops, in which there were two hundred selected horsemen. In addition to these, three hundred men selected from all the cavalry commands for swiftness and strength were stationed by Eumenes behind his own squadron. Along the whole of the wing he drew up forty elephants." - idem XI.28.2-4
This gives us:
150 heavy cavalry with Eudamus
100 possibly light cavalry (2x50)
950 unspecified cavalry with Stasander [probably heavy, Macedonian-style]
600 unspecified cavalry with Amphimachus [ditto]
600 Arachosian cavalry under Cephalon [probably light, with javelins]
500 Parapomisdae cavalry [probably light, with javelins]
500 Thracians, presumably cavalry. [probably dual capability, light and heavy]
Eumenes' left wing cavalry total: 3,400
Plus
800 Carmanian cavalry with Tlepolemus [perhaps dual capability, heavy and light]
900 Companions (we know what these are)
300 Macedonian cavalry (squadrons of Peucestes and Antigenes, heavy)
300 heavy cavalry with Eumenes
100 additional cavalry, perhaps light (2x50)
200 selected horsemen perhaps light (4x50)
300 cavalry selected 'for strength and swiftness' [count as fast heavy]
Eumenes' right wing cavalry total: 2,900
Antigonus:
"On this wing he stationed the mounted archers and lancers from Media and Parthia, a thousand in number, men well trained in the execution of the wheeling movement; and next he placed the twenty-two hundred Tarentines who had come up with him from the sea, men selected for their skill in ambushing, and very well disposed to himself, the thousand cavalry from Phrygia and Lydia, the fifteen hundred with Pithon, the four hundred lancers with Lysanias, and in addition to all these, the cavalry who are called the "two-horse men," and the eight hundred cavalry from the colonists established in the upper country. The left wing was made up of these cavalrymen, all of whom were under the command of Pithon." - idem XIX.29.2-3
and
"The first of the horsemen on the right wing adjacent to the phalanx were five hundred mercenaries of mixed origin, then a thousand Thracians, five hundred from the allies, and next to them the thousand known as the Companions with Antigonus' son Demetrius as commander, now about to fight in company with his father for the first time. At the outer end of the wing was the squadron of three hundred horsemen with whom Antigonus himself was entering the battle. As an advance guard for these there were three troops from his own slaves, and parallel to them were as many units reinforced by a hundred Tarentines." - idem XIX.29.4-5
We get:
1,000 mounted archers
2,200 Tarentines
1,000 Phrygian and Lydian cavalry [heavy, perhaps now using lance]
1,500 unspecified cavalry with Pithon
400 'lancers' with Lysanias
an unspecified number of 'two-horse men'
600 colonist cavalry [heavy]
Antigonus' left wing cavalry total: 6,700 plus the 'two-horse men'
Plus
500 mixed mercenaries [probably light]
1,000 Thracians [probably dual capability]
500 allied cavalry [probably heavy-ish]
1,000 Companions with Demetrius
300 'ile basilike' with Antigonus
3+3 troops of slaves [assume 6x50 light cavalry]
100 Tarentines
Antigonus' right wing cavalry total: 3,700 (if the 'troops' of slaves were the same size as Eumenes')
Diodorus or his copyist may have engaged in some double counting here, as he gives Antigonus' overall cavalry strength as 8,500 rather than the 10,400 implied by adding up the contingents (and this is without the 'two horse men'). Eumenes' total of 6,100 is close enough to the sum total of 6,300, but Antigonus' total is about 2,000 out.
Quick Fix: Tarentines were usually few in number. Assume the 2,200 Tarentines on Antigonus' left are meant to be only 200. Add in a further 100 'two-horse men' and the numbers work out. (This is an assumption to allow us to arrive at a usable OB rather than the final word on the subject.)
Second Quick Fix: Eumenes has two lots of selected horsemen. Assume Diodorus got confused and there was in fact just the one, the 300. Removing the possibly inserted additional 200 selected horsemen brings Eumenes' sum total to the 6,100 of Diodorus' overall figure.
Patrick,
Thanks for providing the information from Diodorus. The presence of Tarantines at this time seems a bit odd as Pyrrhus supposedly introduced shielded cavalry to the Greeks and that was not for almost another 40 years.
Quote from: eques on April 14, 2017, 10:50:12 PM
PS, of Eumenes' 17,000 "heavy troops" 6,000 are listed as Mercenaries. Do you think THEY were phalangites unlike Antigonus'?
It looks that way:
"Of the foot soldiers he placed first the hypaspists, then the Silver Shields, and finally the mercenaries and those of the other soldiers who were armed in the Macedonian fashion." - Diodorus XIX.40.3
This is from left to right. The mercenaries are combined with or sandwiched next to 'the
other soldiers who were armed in the Macedonian fashion', which indicates they were phalangites, both from their positioning and the fact that their next-door neighbours are described as the
other soliders armed in Macedonian fashion. It could in theory be the case that Diodorus is using 'other' to refer only to the hypaspists and argyraspides, but if that were so, then it would make more sense to leave out 'other' and simply say that the mercenaries were next to
the soldiers armed in Macedonian fashion.
So we can safely conclude that Eumenes' mercenaries in his phalanx were phalangites.
Quote from: willb on April 16, 2017, 04:54:01 AM
The presence of Tarantines at this time seems a bit odd as Pyrrhus supposedly introduced shielded cavalry to the Greeks and that was not for almost another 40 years.
There may be another explanation for the question of shielded cavalry. Tarantines are attested in Successor service by Diodorus and cavalry shields appear from time to time in Alexandrian Macedonian and Successor-related source descriptions. In particular, at Malli, of those of Alexander's Companions who manage to reach him, one holds a shield over him to protect him. Adding in various other bits of evidence, this suggests to me that the Companions, and probably also the Thracian and Thessalian contingents in Alexander's army, could fight with logkhe and shield or with xyston as the need arose (they might take only one weapon set into the field, but in some circumstances could, like later Byzantine trapezitoi, have taken and used both). Under this approach or understanding, in later generations the ability to use both weapon configurations would, if anything, gradually be lost, so that cavalry units would end up specialising in the one or the other.
This, if correct, would mean that both weapon systems might be in use in the same army at the same time, making it very hard for our generation to decide whether it was the one or the other. :)
Having been painting Thracians by the hordeful recently, I did some background reading and source hunting etc. I cant remember the exact sources (not helpful I know, sorry) but I am pretty sure (some) Thracian cavalry was attested to be using shields by this time
Another possibility re the Tarantines might be that they're literally Tarantines, as in men from Taras/Tarentum, armed in some unspecified way that doesn't necessarily include shields.
But as Patrick says, shields were definitely possessed by some Macedonian cavalry by Alexander's time, and there hints in e.g. Arrian that they might be used from horseback. So Pyrrhos' introduction of shielded cavalry to Greece may be exaggerated.
***
Tangentially, Herodotos claims that Xerxes' Persian and other West Iranian cavalry were armed like their infantry, which taken at face value means they had spear, bow and shield (
aspis), in which case the Greeks ought have been very long familiar with shielded cavalry by Paraitakene; but as the Persian infantry's shield was the
sparah pavise (or so the received wisdom has it), it's hard to imagine the same really being used from horseback.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 16, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
Another possibility re the Tarantines might be that they're literally Tarantines, as in men from Taras/Tarentum, armed in some unspecified way that doesn't necessarily include shields.
***
In which case this would support Patrick's suggestion that the 2200 Tarantines were actually only 200.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 16, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
Tangentially, Herodotos claims that Xerxes' Persian and other West Iranian cavalry were armed like their infantry, which taken at face value means they had spear, bow and shield (aspis), in which case the Greeks ought have been very long familiar with shielded cavalry by Paraitakene; but as the Persian infantry's shield was the sparah pavise (or so the received wisdom has it), it's hard to imagine the same really being used from horseback.
The Achaemenids did employ more than one shield type: the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, identifies three: 1) the
spara, 2) the 'violin' shield (seen here (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Achaemenid/Persepolis/guards.jpg), here (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Military/Achaemenid_Soldier1.gif) and here (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Achaemenid/Military/An_Immortal_Achaemndi_Persia_6-5th_century_BCE_300.jpg)) and 3) the crescent shield carried by some light infantry.
The CAIS also has this illustration (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Military/Achaemenid_Army.jpg), showing some infantry with the
spara and others with the 'violin' shield.
Note how the 'violin' shield appears to come in two sizes: shoulder-to-hips and chin-to-knees; the smaller version would seem suitable for use by cavalry.
There's also the fact that Achaemenid art rarely if ever shows cavalrymen with shields.
ETA: It also seems unlikely that Herodotos would refer to the crescent shield as aspis.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 14, 2017, 06:27:46 PM
Phil Sabin takes his figures from Diodorus.
"The entire army of Eumenes consisted of thirty-five thousand foot soldiers, sixty-one hundred horsemen, and one hundred and fourteen elephants." - Diodorus XIX.28.4
Of the 35,000 foot, some of which were light troops accompanying the elephants, 17,000 are listed as phalangites and the remainder are simply not listed. We can surmise a combination of light troops, peltasts and maybe even some local tribal types similar to those in Diodorus XIX.16.3
At Diodoros XIX.14.5, Peucestes satrap of Persia joins Eumenes with
QuoteAt this time Peucestes had ten thousand Persian archers and slingers, three thousand men of every origin equipped for service in the Macedonian array, six hundred Greek and Thracian cavalry, and more than four hundred Persian horsemen.
Shortly after this, at XIX.17.4-6,
QuoteKeeping this river in front of them as a protection and holding the bank from its source to the sea with pickets, they awaited the onset of the enemy. Since this guard because of its length required no small number of soldiers, Eumenes and Antigenes requested Peucestes to summon ten thousand bowmen from Persia. At first he paid no heed to them, since he still bore a grudge for not having received the generalship; but later, reasoning with himself, he admitted that should Antigonus be victorious the result would be that he himself would lose his satrapy and also be in danger of his life. In his anxiety, therefore, about himself, and thinking also that he would be more likely to gain the command if he had as many soldiers as possible, he brought up ten thousand bowmen as they requested.
Unless there is some kind of duplication in Diodorus, the army under Eumenes now contains
twenty thousand Persian light infantry. Which accounts for the 18,000 non-phalanx infantry, with a comfortable margin for losses and detached outposts.
It's worth checking back through Diodoros at least from the start of Book XIX to see the assembly and development of the two armies.
(This point originally from Luke U-S at http://lukeuedasarson.com/EumenidDBM.html ).
Duncan,
Thanks for the excerpt from XIX.14 and the link to the work of Luke U-S. Yet more to digest!
Chris
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 16, 2017, 08:21:20 PM
ETA: It also seems unlikely that Herodotos would refer to the crescent shield as aspis.
The crescent shield seems to have been a late addition for Achaemenid light troops, i.e. after Herodotus' time. The 'violin' shield might just fall into the category of shields for which
aspis is a
faute-de-mieux description.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 16, 2017, 09:29:37 PM
At Diodoros XIX.14.5, Peucestes satrap of Persia joins Eumenes with
QuoteAt this time Peucestes had ten thousand Persian archers and slingers, three thousand men of every origin equipped for service in the Macedonian array, six hundred Greek and Thracian cavalry, and more than four hundred Persian horsemen.
Shortly after this, at XIX.17.4-6,
QuoteKeeping this river in front of them as a protection and holding the bank from its source to the sea with pickets, they awaited the onset of the enemy. Since this guard because of its length required no small number of soldiers, Eumenes and Antigenes requested Peucestes to summon ten thousand bowmen from Persia. At first he paid no heed to them, since he still bore a grudge for not having received the generalship; but later, reasoning with himself, he admitted that should Antigonus be victorious the result would be that he himself would lose his satrapy and also be in danger of his life. In his anxiety, therefore, about himself, and thinking also that he would be more likely to gain the command if he had as many soldiers as possible, he brought up ten thousand bowmen as they requested.
Unless there is some kind of duplication in Diodorus, the army under Eumenes now contains twenty thousand Persian light infantry. Which accounts for the 18,000 non-phalanx infantry, with a comfortable margin for losses and detached outposts.
It's worth checking back through Diodoros at least from the start of Book XIX to see the assembly and development of the two armies.
(This point originally from Luke U-S at http://lukeuedasarson.com/EumenidDBM.html ).
Useful contribution there, Duncan: thanks. (Saves me having to extract details from that part of Book XIX.)
Discovered the following while "digging around" for more source material. The one applies to the quality of the Silver Shields, the other applies to the terrain in as much as visibility might be a consideration. (Reminded me of recent reading done about Adrianople.) Anyway.
He urged on the Greeks and barbarians, and was himself likewise exhorted by the phalanx and the Silver Shields to be of good courage, as the enemy would not stand up to their onslaught. For these were the oldest of the troops of Philip and Alexander, and, like athletes of war, they had never yet been defeated or thrown. Many of them were seventy years old and none was younger than sixty. So as they charged Antigonus' forces they shouted, 'It is against your fathers that you sin, you scum!'62 and falling on them angrily they smashed almost their whole phalanx, as no one stood up to them, but most were cut down at close quarters. At this point, then, Antigonus' forces were being overwhelmed. His cavalry, on the other hand, were getting the upper hand. And since Peucestas fought in such a lax and cowardly manner, Antigonus got control of the whole of Eumenes' baggage train, owing both to his own sober head, despite the dangers, and to the aid afforded by the terrain. For the plain was vast and its earth neither very deep nor hard and firm but sandy and full of a dry, salty substance, which with the trampling of so many horses and men during the battle raised a cloud of lime-like dust, which turned the air white and reduced visibility.
Found here:
http://www.mustreading.net/The_Age_of_Alexander/136.html, "chapter" 16.
Chris
That is from Plutarch's Life of Eumenes, chapter 16, and actually seems to be referring to the Battle of Gabiene a year later (cf. Diodorus XIX ch. 41-43). Plutarch skirts around or skims over Paraetacene without specifically mentioning it, somewhat to the annoyance of military historians.
Ooops. :-[
Thanks for the correction, Patrick.
It's OK, Chris: I made exactly the same mistake once. ;)
This is brilliant, I have 3000 x 15mm troops painted up and ready to go already... now to find a venue with a table large enough...
As I plot out the coordinates for this, it looks as if it is in the southwest suburbs of modern Esfahan.
The map in Lost Battles leaves a bit to the imagination, and since there is no mention anywhere of a river (the Zayandeh Rud bends from the south to the east just west of the purported battlefield) I suppose that Eumenes might have deployed north-south facing west perhaps astride the modern Ghaemieh Street with his left flank anchored on the hill line north and east of the modern power plant, or perhaps further east astride the Agharabparast Expressway or Highway 65. This latter would put a line of hills to Eumenes' rear about 3 miles away (just south of the modern Hemmat helicopter base). It has been 40 years since I was out that way and it has changed a lot, but as I recall that is not much of a river in the summer even though there are several modern bridges across it.
Anybody else have an idea of the precise layout of the battlefield?
Dave Beatty
I think you are the only one among us who has actually seen it, Dave.
Diodorus offers the following terrain clue:
"On his left wing Eumenes stationed Eudamus, who had brought the elephants from India, with his squadron of one hundred and fifty horsemen, and as an advance guard for them two troops of selected mounted lancers with a strength of fifty horsemen. He placed them in contact with the higher land of the base of the hill ..." - Diodorus XIX.27.2-3
That apart, we have little to go on, other than the following:
"As Antigonus looked down from a high position, he saw the battle line of his enemy and disposed his own army accordingly." - idem XIX.29.1
So there should be another 'high position' in the vicinity - not necessarily for Antigonus' army (though see below), but one from which the man himself can see Eumenes' deployment.
Once the battle gets under way:
"... as soon as Eumenes' Silver Shields and the remaining body of his infantry had routed those who opposed them, they pursued them as far as the nearer hills ..." - idem XIX.30.8
and
"... [Antigonus] assembled those of his soldiers who were fleeing and once more formed them into a line along the foothills." - idem XIX.30.10
This means we want a range of hills, or at least foothills, behind Antigonus' position in addition to the one on which Eumenes rests his left.
The river is conspicuous by its non-participation.
The absence of any mention of a river in the primary sources is a bit troubling and I wonder if the precise location of the battlefield is really not known. "Paraitakene" is, as I understand it, the name of a province or area north of the head of the Persian Gulf rather than a specific place. Isn't Gabiene (the next battle between Eumenes and Antigonus, in 316) the ancient name for Esfahan?
Can anyone identify the precise location of these battles?
Paraitakene/Paraetacene is supposed to be near modern Esfahan/Isfahan; of Gabiene we now only that, in the words of the Wikipedia article, "In the middle of Persia, the two armies camped about four and a half miles apart from each other on an uncultivated, flat sandy plain."
Isfahan, Ptolemy the Geographer's Aspadana, started life as a Jewish colony planted during Nebuchacnezzar's deportations. It remained primarily a Jewish colony - and probably provided troops for Antiochus' 'elephant victory' over the Galatians - until mediaeval times (specifically, the Jewish colony and nearby Persian settlement merged around the time of the 11th century AD). Aspadana encompassed several minor waterways and was close to the Zayandehrud River, which would seem to rule out dry and dusty Gabiene.
What we seek would appear to be a range of foothills close to Esfahan/Isfahan/Ispahan/Aspadana rather than anything in the environs of the city itself. This scalable topographical map (http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Isfahan-3532247/) shows Esfahan in the middle of various clusters of ranges of high ground (a good reason to check altimeter settings!) and my eye is drawn to the ridge south of Garmase and east of Route 51 as a possibility for the 'line of foothills' to which Antigonus' troops withdrew; the pink-and-purple high ground to the north-east of it (east of Garmase) has a yellow southward projection which could anchor the left of Eumenes' army, while the gap in the range could have been the route through which Eumenes brought his army to deploy (currently the route to get from Abrisham to Abnil). The Zayandeh River curls behind what I see as Antigonus' foothills (or rather ridge) so would not have featured in the battle but would be in the right place to supply Antigonus' army with water prior to the action - and, for that matter, Eumenes' army from its curl further north (about where the Isfahan-Zarinshahr road becomes the Zobahan Freeway).
Quote from: Herodotos I.101The Median tribes are these: the Busae, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the Arizanti, the Budii, the Magi. Their tribes are this many.
Quote from: Strabo XV.3.12Neighbouring Susis is the part of Babylonia which was formerly called Sitacenê, but is now called Apolloniatis. Above both, on the north and towards the east, lie the countries of the Elymaei and the Paraetaceni, who are predatory peoples and rely on the ruggedness of their mountains. But the Paraetaceni are situated closer to the Apolloniatae, and therefore treat them worse.
The apparent lack of "rugged mountains" in the battle description is a bit of a surprise.
Good research, Duncan.
I suspect the 'rugged mountains' were spectating from several points of the compass, the armies themselves having found a convenient flattish bit so they could do what Hellenistic armies had to do.
Incidentally, there may be a simple explanation for the apparent discrepancy in Diodorus' figures for Eumenes' elephants. We may recall that Eumenes assigns 45 to his left, 40 to his centre and 40 to his right, but Diodorus' resume of forces gives him only 114 overall. However when we look at Gabiene, Antigonus has 65 elephants (the same as at Paraitakene) and Eumenes has 114. Given that Eumenes suffered at least one elephant casualty at Paraitakene, we might surmise he suffered a few more, which would allow him to have 125 at Paraitakene and 114 at Gabiene, which would explain the 114 overall total for Paraitakene as the Gabiene total inserted/repeated in the wrong place, conceivably by a copyist.
Hence I suggest Eumenes gets 125 elephants for Paraitakene, but also that at least some of Antigonus' 65 elephants (perhaps the ones he assigns to his right) are of superior quality.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 29, 2017, 08:40:08 AM
Paraitakene/Paraetacene is supposed to be near modern Esfahan/Isfahan; of Gabiene we now only that, in the words of the Wikipedia article, "In the middle of Persia, the two armies camped about four and a half miles apart from each other on an uncultivated, flat sandy plain."
Isfahan, Ptolemy the Geographer's Aspadana, started life as a Jewish colony planted during Nebuchacnezzar's deportations. It remained primarily a Jewish colony - and probably provided troops for Antiochus' 'elephant victory' over the Galatians - until mediaeval times (specifically, the Jewish colony and nearby Persian settlement merged around the time of the 11th century AD). Aspadana encompassed several minor waterways and was close to the Zayandehrud River, which would seem to rule out dry and dusty Gabiene.
The problem is that Gabiene is the name of the Jewish colony established circa 605 BC and it was located just north of modern Esfahan - and that is where Eumenes wintered after Paraetacene (see http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gabae-). So I am thinking that the Battle of Paraetacene must have taken place some distance further west which makes sense with Antigonus heading towards Persepolis from Hamedan and Eumenes heading from Persepolis towards Hamedan....
So I propose that the Battle of Gabiene occurred near Esfahan and Paraetacene somewhere west of there. I feel an article for Slingshot coming on...
If you have some solid proposals for the battlegrounds, Dave, then by all means let us hear them. Or read them. :)
One feature of the Gabiene battleground was that it was dry and dusty, the limited visibility helping Antigonus to retrieve his fortunes along with Eumenes' baggage train. It will be interesting to see how this reconciles with the comparatively well-watered location of Isfahan (says someone who has not been there in this lifetime).
Gabiene "has long been identified with the area of modern Isfahan" according to the brief discussion in Potts (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mc4cfzkRVj4C&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=gabae+gabiene&source=bl&ots=iysaF0ZYvG&sig=bWYs1nm-VPGTkIWeWtlJGmFXgqE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKicjgsNjTAhVFCcAKHagnDdEQ6AEIQDAG#v=onepage&q=gabae%20gabiene&f=false).
QuoteSince Andreas ... had identified Gábai with Ar. Jay (see Schwarz, Iran, p. 586 n. 1), the ancient name of Isfahan ... that location has become customary, even if the campaigns of the year 317 B.C.E. might not be supposed to have taken place so far in the north.
The definitive proof of this identification at last was provided by the trilingual evidence of Šāpūr's inscription at Kaʿba-ye Zardošt ... which once mentions Wārzin, the satrap of Gay
Thus Encyclopaedia Iranica under Gabae (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gabae-).
Personally I am not much inclined to credit the tale of Nebuchadnezzar's Jewish colony at Yahudiya near Isfahan, because it seems generally to be considered that the Neo-Babylonian empire didn't extend that far East. Surely the Isfahan region would be Median territory at the time? And there are stories suggesting a Sasanian origin of the region's Jewish population (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-iv-pre-islamic-period) that seem to be older than the sources for the Nebuchadnezzar story But I don't think it affects the question of location either way.
In (possible) support of the Jewish colony in the area of modern Isfahan, the Book of Judith does mention a campaign of Nebuchadnezzar in which he subdued Elam. This was apparently undertaken while he was governor of Assyria and the northern lands but before he became full king-emperor. This might indicate that Nebuchadnezzar (or Nabu-kudurri-usur if we prefer) had enough dominance over the area during at least the earlier part of his reign to send deported Judaeans there.
That said, agreed that the presence or otherwise of the Jewish colony should not affect the battle location.
The cavalry "troops of slaves" whom Diodoros lists for both Antigonos and Eumenes are ilai of paides - literally, of "boys". These are presumably not "slaves" despite the Loeb translation, but a continuation of the Macedonian royal corps of Pages, the basilikoi paides or "king's boys". These "boys" were well-born teenagers who would attend on the king on campaign but not usually fight, except in emergency. There is a discussion of them here (http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3966). The left-hand figure here (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/6e/f4/a36ef4146b066335957dd76018796702.jpg) is intended to be a slightly later Page. I wonder if at Paraitacene they may have looked much like this (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/8b/23/5e8b23206b509a178dd5b5127d8a7d44.jpg), unarmoured with the Macedonian kausia on their heads.
So:
- Do any rules or lists suggest classification for the Pages yet?
- Does anyone do a 15mm mounted figure with the right headgear?
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 02, 2018, 03:55:57 PM
The cavalry "troops of slaves" whom Diodoros lists for both Antigonos and Eumenes are ilai of paides - literally, of "boys". These are presumably not "slaves" despite the Loeb translation, but a continuation of the Macedonian royal corps of Pages, the basilikoi paides or "king's boys". These "boys" were well-born teenagers who would attend on the king on campaign but not usually fight, except in emergency. There is a discussion of them here (http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3966). The left-hand figure here (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/6e/f4/a36ef4146b066335957dd76018796702.jpg) is intended to be a slightly later Page. I wonder if at Paraitacene they may have looked much like this (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/8b/23/5e8b23206b509a178dd5b5127d8a7d44.jpg), unarmoured with the Macedonian kausia on their heads.
So:
- Do any rules or lists suggest classification for the Pages yet?
- Does anyone do a 15mm mounted figure with the right headgear?
That looks remarkably like the Afghan/Pashtu pakol or Chitrali cap. Freikorps makes some for their Moghul Army 1630-1840 that might be able to be modified - HI04 Afghan Cavalry http://totalsystemscenic.com/product/hi04-afghan-cavalry/ (http://totalsystemscenic.com/product/hi04-afghan-cavalry/)
You could also just file the helmet of a 'normal' Macedonian soft metal cavalry figure (like Essex or Minifig) flat - that was done with 6mm figures here https://thepaintingchallenge.blogspot.com/2017/02/from-leeh-greek-cavalry-45-point.html (https://thepaintingchallenge.blogspot.com/2017/02/from-leeh-greek-cavalry-45-point.html)
I ended up using the AB Figures Thessalian (https://www.fighting15sshop.co.uk/ab-gr11-thessalian-cavalry-1827-p.asp). I've left a couple in broad-brimmed hats, for the rest I've cut the hat away and greenstuffed a rather unconvincing blob of a kausia, and replaced the spear with a long wire lance.
Is there typically an award or prize given for most realistic army(ies) at BattleDay?
Best painted I can see . . . But I think most realistic would be a new category.
It will all come out in the pages, I suppose.
Chris
Quote from: Chris on March 17, 2018, 09:04:38 PM
Is there typically an award or prize given for most realistic army(ies) at BattleDay?
Possibly even harder to agree on than best painted! You could have armies marked down for being too uniform, or not uniform enough, or holding their
sarisai in the wrong grip, depending on the judge's views!
Interesting. Let us hope that the judge(s) are not too biased then. Let us also hope that there might be a complete list of prize winners (along with a sentence or two as to why award was given) in a future issue of Slingshot.
Chris
Quote from: Dave Beatty on March 17, 2018, 02:09:11 PM
That looks remarkably like the Afghan/Pashtu pakol or Chitrali cap.
There have been various scholarly debates about this. One theory is that the Macedonians adopted it after reaching India. Another is that the Macedonians brought it to India. Another is that it is just a parallel evolution, with the Afghan version being a variant way of wearing a cap common in Central Asia. I hope it is one of the first two - and though there aren't many (or perhaps any - depends who you read) mentions of the kausia pre-Alexander's trip, it does seem to appear very quickly in the West just afterwards. Some think too quickly for it to be an import.
Unfortunately the various articles I've tried to look at have been behind paywalls. https://llewelynmorgan.com/2016/06/04/did-alexander-wear-my-hat/ has a summary and bibliography.