SoA Forums

Thinking I ought to redo a Classical/Hellenistic army and as ever tend to drift towards the Seleukids in the 2nd century BC.

Has there been anything published recently (well, lets say last 10 years which is recent as these things go) on the the Seleukid military? Books or accessible academic works.

Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

There are a ton of Pen and Sword titles which cover the Seleucid army inter alia, but these are of variable quality. The John Grainger Seleucid Empire series from P&S are good, but light on specifically army matters. Ditto Michael Taylor's Antiochus the Great.

And there are some more general 'war and society' type books like Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, well worth a read but not really wargamers' books.

(Edit) I should also add that David Karunanithy's The Macedonian War Machine is relevant inasmuch as the Seleucid army is Macedonian, and Christopher Matthew's An Invincible Beast deals with the Hellenistic phalanx generally (though I think much of his stuff is bonkers).

There is a sore lack of general studies of any of the Hellenistic armies. If just one in ten of the people churning out yet one more Roman Army or Army of Alexander the Great book could be diverted into writing a Hellenistic one, it would be a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

Quote from: RichT on December 07, 2017, 09:21:26 AM
Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

I have an original print run version of the Bar Kochva I've been around so long  :P

The Sekunda didn't convince me either, although it appears to have convinced the author of the MeG army lists.

Spotted a couple of possibly interesting papers on Academia.edu, but they were in Russian ...   :'(

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 07, 2017, 12:16:30 PM

Quote from: RichT on December 07, 2017, 09:21:26 AM
Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

I have an original print run version of the Bar Kochva I've been around so long  :P

The Sekunda didn't convince me either, although it appears to have convinced the author of the MeG army lists.

Spotted a couple of possibly interesting papers on Academia.edu, but they were in Russian ...   :'(

I too have the original of Bar Kochva  from new  ;D

Sekunda convinced me more in the Montvert book than he did in his proper thesis!

Seriously I think it's a period which needs a lot more looking at because the Seleucids could raise significant armies, at times two or three of them opposed to each other

Not Seleucid, but I just spotted this on Bryn Mawr (they're looking for a reviewer), which is perhaps of interest:

Juhel, Pierre O. Autour de l'infanterie d'élite macédonienne à l'époque du royaume antigonide: Cinq études militaires entre histoire, philogie, et archéologie. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017. x, 278 p. £28.00. ISBN 9781784917326.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 09, 2017, 07:00:41 PM
Not Seleucid, but I just spotted this on Bryn Mawr (they're looking for a reviewer), which is perhaps of interest:

Juhel, Pierre O. Autour de l'infanterie d'élite macédonienne à l'époque du royaume antigonide: Cinq études militaires entre histoire, philogie, et archéologie. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017. x, 278 p. £28.00. ISBN 9781784917326.

I suspect they'd turn me down as a reviewer  :-[

Again not Seleukid, but another one forthcoming from Pierre Juhel (https://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/armes-armement-et-contexte-funeraire-dans-la-macedoine-hellenistique.html).

I presume you're aware of Grainger's trilogy on the Seleucids? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Seleukid-Empire-187-75-BC-ebook/dp/B01APIZ5LU/)

I'd just note a warning on the bar k.

It is broad, which is good, but I think one or two key pieces of the detail have come under question, and the reputation rests a lot on the lack of alternatives when it was published.

All that stuff about agryaspids flanking cavalry at magnesia, that comes from bar k, for example.  Numerous hoops jumped through in slingshot as folk try to reconcile that with basic common sense.

And it rests a huge amount on the daphe parade being a sound basis for an army list, which seems to be why 80s and 90s lists always seem to allow the (sadly, almost always only ever one) seleucid list to include everything from scythe chariots to camels and elephants along with a better phalanx than alexander in some cases.

Still interesting, but no longer a golden source.

And I would also note that the first slingshot review of it remarked that it picked some controversial interpretations of key things, which subsequently became accepted as normal.  Now that may be good research, but in this case, I think the acceptance is more due to gamers wanting to reinforce their killer list preferences by validating bar k.

I've suggested someone like Patrick could do a good re review of it a few times now, basically cross checking the interpretations again.

The author wasn't a military historian or a classicist specializing in Hellenism.  He was a religious scholar covering a gap in the history of the Jewish people, so that is where he put his time and effort.

And btw, amazon currently lists the dark blue hard cover first edition at over 600 pounds, if you can find a collector.

Quote from: Mark G on December 10, 2017, 10:41:07 AM
And btw, amazon currently lists the dark blue hard cover first edition at over 600 pounds, if you can find a collector.

Bookfinder finds used copies for about a twentieth of that, and new ones for not much over a tenth.

(This is the '76 blue hc, ISBN 0521206677, which I presume is the 1st.)

Quote from: Mark G on December 10, 2017, 10:41:07 AMAll that stuff about agryaspids flanking cavalry at magnesia, that comes from bar k, for example.  Numerous hoops jumped through in slingshot as folk try to reconcile that with basic common sense.

Actually, it comes straight out of Livy. You'd have to jump through some hoops _not_ to have argyraspises flanking the cavalry:

QuoteOn the right of the phalanx Antiochus stationed 1500 Gallograeci infantry, and with them were linked up 3000 cuirassed cavalry, known as "cataphracti." These were supported by the "agema," another body of cavalry numbering about 1000; they were a select force, consisting of Medes and men drawn from many tribes in that part of the world. Behind these in support were sixteen elephants. The line was continued by the royal cohort called "argyraspides" from the kind of shield they carried.

which is exactly the problem, Duncan.

Bak K takes the notoriously unreliable Livy with no critical review.

Assuming he made a similar transation to the ones I pulled from Perseus, and assuming he didn't use the same transalations to begin with, we are presented with these two choices:

Livy 37.40
[7] [ ...]  On the same side, a little farther on towards the wing, was the royal cohort; these were called Argyraspides,1 from the kind of armour which they wore. [8] Next to these stood one thousand two hundred Dahan bowmen on horseback; then, three thousand light infantry, part Cretans and part Trallians,

but even Appian has a better statement on this

Appian
Syrian Wars 6.32
His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx. Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields, and 200 mounted archers.

Bar K just takes Livy, throws it in, and then knocks up a map which has pikemen mixed in with Cavalry on the wing.

and because there are so few books on the Seleucids, we had this keep coming up on wagames discussions ever since.

caveat emptor on Bar K

If you can only discredit Livy by touting the even less reliable Appian, with his "Galatian cataphracts" (your inaccurately-translated "mail-clad Galatians"), then you only make Livy's (and Bar-Kochva's) account look stronger. Given that argyraspides infantry are widely known, and argyraspides cavalry unheard of, chosing Appian over Livy here just looks like simple prejudice about how infantry are "supposed" to deploy.

Fair enough.

So, please, offer a tactical explanation of this deployment.

The deployment makes good sense, and is supported by the subsequent battle narratives if the silver shields in question are on horseback.

If you prefer Livy, please explain why they are so deployed.

I've no idea, it looks like an experiment. The silver shields don't need their own flank covered - because of the river, and the horse-archers, and the lack of Roman horse on that flank - so perhaps they were less clumsy than the cataphracts as a flank guard. Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen. Note that where Livy differs from Bar-Kochva is that Livy calls them a "cohort", which implies a small force; Bar-Kochva thinks that there are 10,000 of them, because there were 10,000 at Raphia. If you want to disagree with Bar-Kochva, I'd look at the numbers, not the position or the horses. The point is, our best account of the battle - and Livy is the best we've got, however much we may regret that - puts "silver shield" infantry out beyond the cavalry. And no one has yet come up with a more convincing alternative. Using an account as error-ridden as Appian's doesn't really present a credible alternative.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 10, 2017, 07:20:45 PM
I've no idea, it looks like an experiment. The silver shields don't need their own flank covered - because of the river, and the horse-archers, and the lack of Roman horse on that flank - so perhaps they were less clumsy than the cataphracts as a flank guard. Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen. Note that where Livy differs from Bar-Kochva is that Livy calls them a "cohort", which implies a small force; Bar-Kochva thinks that there are 10,000 of them, because there were 10,000 at Raphia. If you want to disagree with Bar-Kochva, I'd look at the numbers, not the position or the horses. The point is, our best account of the battle - and Livy is the best we've got, however much we may regret that - puts "silver shield" infantry out beyond the cavalry. And no one has yet come up with a more convincing alternative. Using an account as error-ridden as Appian's doesn't really present a credible alternative.

I have often wondered whether Antiochus wanted something to guard the flanks of the cataphracts. On a constricted flank, lighter cavalry might not have been good enough, and the Silver Shields could perhaps be relied up to hold up the Roman infantry facing them, helping to pin the enemy in place for the Cataphracts to him?

Quote from: Mark G on December 10, 2017, 04:28:20 PM

Livy 37.40
[7] [ ...]  On the same side, a little farther on towards the wing, was the royal cohort; these were called Argyraspides,1 from the kind of armour which they wore. [8] Next to these stood one thousand two hundred Dahan bowmen on horseback; then, three thousand light infantry, part Cretans and part Trallians,

but even Appian has a better statement on this

Appian
Syrian Wars 6.32
His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx. Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields, and 200 mounted archers.

As Duncan points out (not in Bar Kochva's favour), Livy refers to the Argyraspides as a 'royal cohort' (ab eadem parte, paulum producto cornu, regia cohors erat; argyraspides a genere armorum appellabantur), which is consistent with a cavalry bodyguard, as is its tactical positioning on the cavalry wing.  The 16,000 phalangites (a surprisingly small number compared to the 10,000 Argyraspides and 20,000 other phalangites fielded at Raphia 26 years previously) I would identify as being the infantry Argyraspides, given that after 26 years of mostly successful campaigns it seems more likely that Antiochus would have expanded them to 16,000 rather than contracted them to a cohort-sized unit (c.500-600), especially as under Antiochus IV they are fielded in the thousands.

Appian specifically identifies the Argyraspides on the wing as horsemen:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians [Galatai te kataphraktoi] and the Macedonian corps called the Agema [legomenon agēma tōn Makedonōn], so named because they were picked horsemen [hippeis epilektoi]. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx. Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields [heteroi hippeis arguraspides], and 200 mounted archers."

Are there any specific inaccuracies in Appian's coverage of this deployment?  I see none of significance, and his deployment complements rather than contradicts Livy's, clarifying that the 'royal cohort' referred to by Livy is indeed mounted, as Macedonian royal guards had been since before Alexander the Great.

I think Mark is right: Bar Kochva needs looking through point by point, and we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; if he turns out to be a little over-imaginative in some aspects he may still be useful in others.

I think we have presented both sides on this reasonably. You can pick one or none as you prefer, it's the whole point of this part of our hobby.

Given that the argument is about the use if Bar K, I shall conclude by noting that he touches on nine if this.

He picks one, and moves on rapidly,because he is not in the slightest bit interested in military history, and is really concerned with Jewish history in this period,for which there is an equally big gap.

Where we see a great debate, a good book or at least an interesting side discuss; the author just skips that to get on to the next bit.

And that lack of interest unhappily coincides entirely against our interest in his book.  Which is why I wrap a huge caveat emptor around the whole thing.

To be fair to the other side of the argument, we should consider the possibility that when Antiochus visited Greece in the preceding year his force of 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry (per Appian) could have contained, and in consequence lost, the bulk of the infantry Argyraspides.  The 500 cavalry, which escaped intact, could easily correspond to the royal cohort, although not specifically identified as such.

Against identifying the 10,000 string infantry contingent as the Argyraspides is the following:

"The king placed his light-armed troops [psilous] and peltasts in front of the phalanx, and drew up the phalanx itself in front of the camp, with the archers and slingers on the right hand next to the foot-hills, and the elephants, with the guard [stiphos] that always accompanied them, on the left near the sea." - Appian, Syrian Wars 18

stiphos is given as 'a body of men in close array' in the Perseus lexicon and two epixenagia (i.e. 4096 men) in the various Greek Tactica.  4,096 men seems excessive to accompany a few (perhaps 16) elephants and hence should perhaps not be taken literally.  Even so, the existence of psiloi, peltasts, archers and slingers in addition to the phalanx suggests the latter could not have numbered anything like 10,000 and hence losses sustained at Thermopylae could not have cut down the Argyraspides infantry to the size of a single cohort.

We had this exact same discussion three years ago - as part of the monumental KTB thread.

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1508.285 (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1508.285)

I wasn't at all convinced by the idea of cavalry Argyraspides then and I'm still not now - but unless anyone has any new evidence or new arguments to offer, it seems otiose going over all the same old ground again.

Concerning Bar Kochva - it is true to say that The Selecuid Army is best in field largely because it is the only one in the field, and many of his conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt (whose shouldn't?). The book is still useful though if for nothing other than the collection of source references, just don't take it as gospel. Don't take anything as gospel. Including the Gospels.

the main problem I have with the idea of cavalry Argyraspides is that

1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,
2)  The position of the two we know about at Magnesia is well established

inventing a third guard unit to explain the position of an infantry unit (which if you were present on the day and on the ground might have seemed entirely reasonable) strikes me as a step too far

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 11, 2017, 09:44:11 AM1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,

Whilst I agree; to play devil's advocate, one might be able to conjure a third cavalry guards unit out of the "philoi" who appear at the Daphnae parade in between the Companions and the agema:

QuoteNext marched two hundred and fifty pairs of gladiators, and behind them a thousand Nisaian horsemen and three thousand citizens, most of whom had crowns and trappings of gold and the rest trappings of silver. Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment (syntagma) of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse, followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand.

Of course syntagma isn't a normal term for a cavalry unit,  so probably doesn't mean a formal regiment, but still, it's tempting ...

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 10:11:52 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 11, 2017, 09:44:11 AM1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,

Whilst I agree; to play devil's advocate, one might be able to conjure a third cavalry guards unit out of the "philoi" who appear at the Daphnae parade in between the Companions and the agema:

QuoteNext marched two hundred and fifty pairs of gladiators, and behind them a thousand Nisaian horsemen and three thousand citizens, most of whom had crowns and trappings of gold and the rest trappings of silver. Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment (syntagma) of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse, followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand.

Of course syntagma isn't a normal term for a cavalry unit,  so probably doesn't mean a formal regiment, but still, it's tempting ...

I did consider the 'friends' but rejected them. mainly because 'friends' was a political rank. After all we're not talking about a parade of entirely military formations, unless we start adding 500 strong units of gladiators to the army lists.
Also they wouldn't work as Argyraspides because if they were 'similarly accoutered' the the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 11, 2017, 10:26:05 AM
I did consider the 'friends' but rejected them. mainly because 'friends' was a political rank. After all we're not talking about a parade of entirely military formations, unless we start adding 500 strong units of gladiators to the army lists.

Sod the gladiators, its the elephant chariots we want  8)

Agree on the "philoi" BTW, or we could suggest they were a new creation post-Magnesia by Antiochos III, Seleukos IV or Antiochos IV hence their first mention later than the battle if we think they were actually a unit and not a "parade formation".

I think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

The right wing makes a huge and successful cavalry charge, and bowls over the social legion, fails to rally in place, persues to the camp, and largely becomes a spent force.

Then the entire phalanx, no mention of any elite infantry, is shot to pieces and disintegrates, elephants first.  Battle over.

Where did these elite infantry go?  Had they followed the cavalry, they should have been able to act against the roman legions on an angle, or if they were at speed with the cavalry, have stormed the camp.

If they had talked onto the phalanx, why start them So far iyt from it.  Almost in front of the stream, if some maps are believed.

That us the issue with them being on foot, I think.  It just makes more sense of they are mounted.

Also raises the question of how many lists incorrectly allow such an elite infantry component to seleucid armies based on that interpretation.

Quote from: Mark G on December 11, 2017, 11:09:04 AMI think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

Enough units aren't mentioned in the course of the battle that I don't see that as decisive. Maybe they couldn't keep up.

QuoteAlso raises the question of how many lists incorrectly allow such an elite infantry component to seleucid armies based on that interpretation.

None, surely, since there are 10,000 silver shields "selected from every part of the kingdom " at Raphia anyway to justify their existence in lists. (And the corps appears to still exist at Daphnae, if not necessarily at the same strength.)  Few army lists distinguish greatly between the Raphia and Magnesia periods. And in any case to rule them out for a Magnesia list when they existed both before and after you'd need to be sure they were wrong, not just doubt them.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 11:47:37 AM

Quote from: Mark G on December 11, 2017, 11:09:04 AMI think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

Enough units aren't mentioned in the course of the battle that I don't see that as decisive. Maybe they couldn't keep up.

Maybe they couldn't properly see what was happening and had a dithering commander (or were told to await the king's orders and he went AWOL with the victorious cavalry) - IIRC visibility wasn't good during the battle according to Livy.

Much room for speculation.

BTW are the numbers for the Argyraspides mentioned for Magnesia, or do we tend to assume they are the same as mentioned at Raphia (partly as a way to get to the total numbers for the Seleukid army mentioned)?

All possibilities, it is true.

As for just one seleucid list, ever, I am highly critical (more so for just one sucessor list).

If you took bar k on Daphne, added sekunda, and produced one list, you could cover every conceivable troop type from peltssts and phalangites to imitation legionary cohorts and with chariots and cataphracts, elephants, camels, horse archers, elite and regular heavy cavalry, tarantines, warbands, and pretty much everything in between. And with most levels of quality being available too.

I am told by greyer heads than mine that the popularity of seleucid armies in large part stems from almost everything available being touched on in bar k and treated as viable by subsequent list authors.

to me that is not a good thing , but is in fact a problem
Like every sports team playing the same way.  It just takes away So much from the era if you have that level of uniformity achievable.

Others seem to like one list to rule them all.  They seem happy to add a new thing to their bade army, and that is that.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 11, 2017, 12:11:32 PMBTW are the numbers for the Argyraspides mentioned for Magnesia, or do we tend to assume they are the same as mentioned at Raphia (partly as a way to get to the total numbers for the Seleukid army mentioned)?

There are no numbers mentioned for the argyraspides in any account of Magnesia. Bar-Kochva thinks they are 10,000 strong for two reasons:

(1) He thinks that is their standard establishment strength, based on the 10,000 at Raphia; the 10,000 "peltasts" Polybios mentions in the Eastern campaign, whom he suggests are argyraspides on the model of peltasts in other Hellenistic armies; and the Daphne parade, where there are only 5,000 argyraspides but he thinks that the new 5,000 "Roman-armed" are the other half of the same corps;

(2) Because you need 10,000 unlisted  foot (or more; I think he postulates a few thousand camp guards as well) to make the sum total of listed infantry units add up to the overall total figure in the sources.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 10, 2017, 07:20:45 PM
Note that where Livy differs from Bar-Kochva is that Livy calls them a "cohort", which implies a small force; Bar-Kochva thinks that there are 10,000 of them, because there were 10,000 at Raphia. If you want to disagree with Bar-Kochva, I'd look at the numbers, not the position or the horses.

On the usage of  'cohort' Livy also mentions a Royal _ala_ who are definitely cavalry " et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque" (though at least some translations dub them another Royal Cohort).
As discussed in the previous thread which has been linked to, I don't think  there is another example of Livy using cohort for anything specified as cavalry, so I doubt he would do so here.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 10, 2017, 07:20:45 PM
Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen.

I've wondered before whether the Pontic 'chalkaspides' operated in this way, and we have the Maccabaean infantry with silver thureos, so perhaps this is the case. However, that is merely a digression and supposition.

Quote from: Mark G on December 11, 2017, 12:56:22 PM
All possibilities, it is true.

As for just one seleucid list, ever, I am highly critical (more so for just one sucessor list).

If you took bar k on Daphne, added sekunda, and produced one list, you could cover every conceivable troop type from peltssts and phalangites to imitation legionary cohorts and with chariots and cataphracts, elephants, camels, horse archers, elite and regular heavy cavalry, tarantines, warbands, and pretty much everything in between. And with most levels of quality being available too.

I am told by greyer heads than mine that the popularity of seleucid armies in large part stems from almost everything available being touched on in bar k and treated as viable by subsequent list authors.

to me that is not a good thing , but is in fact a problem
Like every sports team playing the same way.  It just takes away So much from the era if you have that level of uniformity achievable.

Others seem to like one list to rule them all.  They seem happy to add a new thing to their bade army, and that is that.

I don't think I have seen a published Seleukid army list in the past 20 years or so that didn't have restrictions as to when some troops were available (although I don't claim to have seen all). However, it must be said that at some times the Seleukids do appear to have had access to quite a variety of troops so it is likely that an army list will be fairly flexible.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 01:27:23 PM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 11, 2017, 12:11:32 PMBTW are the numbers for the Argyraspides mentioned for Magnesia, or do we tend to assume they are the same as mentioned at Raphia (partly as a way to get to the total numbers for the Seleukid army mentioned)?

There are no numbers mentioned for the argyraspides in any account of Magnesia. Bar-Kochva thinks they are 10,000 strong for two reasons:

(1) He thinks that is their standard establishment strength, based on the 10,000 at Raphia; the 10,000 "peltasts" Polybios mentions in the Eastern campaign, whom he suggests are argyraspides on the model of peltasts in other Hellenistic armies; and the Daphne parade, where there are only 5,000 argyraspides but he thinks that the new 5,000 "Roman-armed" are the other half of the same corps;

(2) Because you need 10,000 unlisted  foot (or more; I think he postulates a few thousand camp guards as well) to make the sum total of listed infantry units add up to the overall total figure in the sources.

Thanks Duncan, thought that was the case. Does rather mean, IMO, that if you think they were cavalry at Magnesia there are a couple of issues - firstly the foot numbers issue and, secondly, a question of where on earth Antiochos found all those extra cavalry  :o

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 11, 2017, 03:01:45 PM
Thanks Duncan, thought that was the case. Does rather mean, IMO, that if you think they were cavalry at Magnesia there are a couple of issues - firstly the foot numbers issue and, secondly, a question of where on earth Antiochos found all those extra cavalry  :o

There would be difficulty identifying the extra silver-shielded cavalry, as Jim has remarked, but there are so many cavalry at Magnesia anyway that another regiment of a thousand or so wouldn't make much extra impact. Certainly there are a lot more than at Raphia, though the 12,000 Seleukos I is supposed to have brought to Ipsos were a force of about the same size, so it could perhaps be done.

Between Raphia and Magnesia is Antiochus III's eastern expedition, so it's perhaps not so strange if there was more cavalry available from the eastern provinces at the latter date.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 03:25:37 PM
There would be difficulty identifying the extra silver-shielded cavalry, as Jim has remarked, but there are so many cavalry at Magnesia anyway that another regiment of a thousand or so wouldn't make much extra impact. Certainly there are a lot more than at Raphia, though the 12,000 Seleukos I is supposed to have brought to Ipsos were a force of about the same size, so it could perhaps be done.

True. Probably confusing myself by keeping the 10k number in mind  :P

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 11, 2017, 02:58:17 PM

Quote from: Mark G on December 11, 2017, 12:56:22 PM
All possibilities, it is true.

As for just one seleucid list, ever, I am highly critical (more so for just one sucessor list).

If you took bar k on Daphne, added sekunda, and produced one list, you could cover every conceivable troop type from peltssts and phalangites to imitation legionary cohorts and with chariots and cataphracts, elephants, camels, horse archers, elite and regular heavy cavalry, tarantines, warbands, and pretty much everything in between. And with most levels of quality being available too.

I am told by greyer heads than mine that the popularity of seleucid armies in large part stems from almost everything available being touched on in bar k and treated as viable by subsequent list authors.

to me that is not a good thing , but is in fact a problem
Like every sports team playing the same way.  It just takes away So much from the era if you have that level of uniformity achievable.

Others seem to like one list to rule them all.  They seem happy to add a new thing to their bade army, and that is that.

I don't think I have seen a published Seleukid army list in the past 20 years or so that didn't have restrictions as to when some troops were available (although I don't claim to have seen all). However, it must be said that at some times the Seleukids do appear to have had access to quite a variety of troops so it is likely that an army list will be fairly flexible.

I haven't used my Seleucids for a while, but it often struck me that the larger the army you picked, the more diluted the 'good stuff' became and you were padding it out with crap to get the numbers up

Which always struck me as reasonably historical   8)

One point to bear in mind is the presence of Hannibal as advisor to Antiochus on how to beat Romans.  Hannibal more than anyone else would have been aware that it was to cavalry that Carthage owed its victories and Rome its defeats, and would have done nothing to discourage fielding a substantial, and indeed overwhelming, cavalry contingent.  The difference between Antiochus' 500 cavalry at Thermopylae and the thousands at Magnesia is very noticeable, as is the very modest increase in phalangite numbers.  In fact the number of phalangites at Magnesia is so small (16,000) that it looks as if Antiochus had dispensed with the ordinary phalangites (perhaps disenchanted by their performance at Thermopylae?).  It looks as if Antiochus and perhaps Hannibal, at least until he slipped from favour, were planning a battle of encirclement by the cavalry while the phalanx held the centre.

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort', their positioning between the 'usual' elite formations in the parade indicating or at least implying similar status and nature.  The addition of gladiators (monomakhon) should not be taken as indicating that other non-military formations were on parade: Antiochus IV was deliberately (and successfully) trying to eclipse Aemilius Paullus' earlier spectacle, hence the inclusion of gladiators.

Anyone interested to check details on Perseus please note the translation is out of synch: the English XXXI.3 corresponds to the Greek XXX.25.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 11, 2017, 08:15:59 PM
The difference between Antiochus' 500 cavalry at Thermopylae and the thousands at Magnesia is very noticeable, as is the very modest increase in phalangite numbers.

I'm not sure you can make a straight comparison between the two. I don't think there is any suggestion that Antiochos had anywhere near a full levy of his forces with him in Greece (and wasn't the force at Thermopylae gather rather quickly anyway), and given the location not having much cavalry at Thermopylae isn't too surprising either.

QuoteIn fact the number of phalangites at Magnesia is so small (16,000) that it looks as if Antiochus had dispensed with the ordinary phalangites (perhaps disenchanted by their performance at Thermopylae?).

Well that all comes back to what you think about the numbers doesn't it. If you think that there are only 16000 phalangites you have to sort out the total numbers issue some other way than also having something like 10000 Argyraspide phalangites in addition to the 16000 phalangites.

Also as, IIRC, the phalanx had performed fairly well at Thermopylae - the battle being decided by the outflanking move (again) - I'm not sure any suggestion that Antiochos would be disenchanted by their performace holds water.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 11, 2017, 08:15:59 PMThanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 10:45:06 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 11, 2017, 08:15:59 PMThanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

and if they were armed like the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields so nobody would call them silver shields

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 12, 2017, 07:59:27 AM
and if they were armed like the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields so nobody would call them silver shields

Well, nobody actually says they were armed like Companions; Sekunda's reconstruction of a Companion shows him with a shield, so some people believe it's credible; and various Hellenistic cavalry with shields are perfectly possible. Even if Hellenistic cavalry regiments named after their shields are unheard of.

Reasons (aside from the obvious ones) why the 'philon syntagma' at Daphnae is not a good match for the Aryraspides at Magnesia:

- this is a different king's army, 24 years after Magnesia, with different contingents and contingent sizes. Matching up one-to-one where convenient is all very well, but not really convincing.

- there are four contingents in this bit of the Daphnae parade - four units of 1000 each to pick from, if you want to play the game of picking an unknown contingent from one battle and matching it to another unknown contingent from a later parade on the grounds that they are both unknown, so might be the same.

- the units that are definitely cavalry are identified as cavalry by Polybius - the Companions, the Agema, the cataphracts etc - all specifically identified as 'hippeis' or 'hippos'. I'd be inclined to assume that those contingents not identified as hippeis are not hippeis.

- 'syntagma' (like 'cohort') is not a name we would expect to see applied to a body of cavalry.

- there are infantry Argyraspides at Daphnae, as there were infantry Argyraspides at Raphia (and of course going back to Alexander). So we'd have to assume that some contingent, putatively the 'syntagma of friends', acquired the designation of Argyraspides late in Antiochus III's reign (having been previously unknown), then gave it back again under Antiochus IV. Not impossible, but not, IMHO, very likely.

- not every contingent in the parade is a military unit - as well as the gladiators there are the elephant-drawn chariots, the foreign delegates, the oxen, the women sprinkling unguents, etc.

So it's as we left it three years ago, that while Argyraspides could = Friends could = cavalry, all this is just based on a single word in Appian, and there are other explanations for that word in Appian (and many other more badly misplaced words) that fit better with the other evidence. So certainly a possibility, and Magnesia and the Argyraspides are a knotty, difficult problem to which there is no simple solution, but that's all.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 10:45:06 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 11, 2017, 08:15:59 PMThanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

Quote from: RichT on December 12, 2017, 09:23:41 AM
- there are four contingents in this bit of the Daphnae parade - four units of 1000 each to pick from, if you want to play the game of picking an unknown contingent from one battle and matching it to another unknown contingent from a later parade on the grounds that they are both unknown, so might be the same.

Two anyway: the 'friends' and the unnamed thousand cavalry, both of which look like good potential candidates.

Quote
- the units that are definitely cavalry are identified as cavalry by Polybius - the Companions, the Agema, the cataphracts etc - all specifically identified as 'hippeis' or 'hippos'. I'd be inclined to assume that those contingents not identified as hippeis are not hippeis.

"Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand."

'Similarly accoutred' suggests to me that a horse was part of the deal.  The translator's 'royal friends' resonaqtes with Livy's 'royal cohort', it being difficult to see any other contingent in the parade which has any such specific affiliation.

Quote
- 'syntagma' (like 'cohort') is not a name we would expect to see applied to a body of cavalry.

True, but our expectations may be based on incomplete information about then-contemporary usage, particularly if, for example, the 'royal cohort' was double-trained to fight mounted and afoot, as Alexander's somatophylakes appear to have been.  For about 360 days of any given year their main duty would have been to stand around the king bearing lonche and shield.

Quote
- there are infantry Argyraspides at Daphnae, as there were infantry Argyraspides at Raphia (and of course going back to Alexander). So we'd have to assume that some contingent, putatively the 'syntagma of friends', acquired the designation of Argyraspides late in Antiochus III's reign (having been previously unknown), then gave it back again under Antiochus IV. Not impossible, but not, IMHO, very likely.

More precisely, they acquired actual silvered shields, which under Antiochus IV were replaced or enhanced by gold trimmings.

Quote
- not every contingent in the parade is a military unit - as well as the gladiators there are the elephant-drawn chariots, the foreign delegates, the oxen, the women sprinkling unguents, etc.

But - the parade is divided neatly in two at XXX.25.12 ("It is a difficult task to describe the rest of the procession"), the preceding elements being armed and those following being unarmed.  And the 'royal friends' are indisputably among the former.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 10:06:09 AM

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2017, 10:45:06 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 11, 2017, 08:15:59 PMThanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

That's surely a complete red herring: the unit being described may be Macedonian, but the word used is Latin, and the fact that Livy uses cohors indicates that he believes the unit he is describing is one of infantry.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 10:06:09 AM


But - the parade is divided neatly in two at XXX.25.12 ("It is a difficult task to describe the rest of the procession"), the preceding elements being armed and those following being unarmed.  And the 'royal friends' are indisputably among the former.

so are the Gladiators plus  a hundred chariots drawn by six horses and forty drawn by four horses, and then a chariot drawn by four elephants and another drawn by a pair, and finally thirty-six elephants in single file with their housings.

Just to confuse things, see for instance here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7UlxJ7qaVKMC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=monomachoi+gladiators&source=bl&ots=_v5naglHL-&sig=ph9AA4gNNrT37ne-tOCX0ydGsMY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjttvu7p4TYAhWNDBoKHfa3ATs4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=monomachoi%20gladiators&f=false) for suggestions that the monomachoi were not in fact "gladiators".

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 10:06:09 AM

"Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand."

'Similarly accoutred' suggests to me that a horse was part of the deal.  The translator's 'royal friends' resonaqtes with Livy's 'royal cohort', it being difficult to see any other contingent in the parade which has any such specific affiliation.

If it is cavalry, then it resonates even more with Livy's  royal ala.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 12, 2017, 10:59:19 AM
Just to confuse things, see for instance here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7UlxJ7qaVKMC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=monomachoi+gladiators&source=bl&ots=_v5naglHL-&sig=ph9AA4gNNrT37ne-tOCX0ydGsMY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjttvu7p4TYAhWNDBoKHfa3ATs4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=monomachoi%20gladiators&f=false) for suggestions that the monomachoi were not in fact "gladiators".

obviously they were the cohort of silver shields  ;)

Interesting in that they were 'single combat' fighters but were in pairs

They were in pairs of matched opponents, presumably. Yes, single combat fighters aren't necessarily gladiators (in the Roman sense) - Greeks had single combat too, if not so much for fun.

At any rate they are part of the 'military' section of the parade, along with the elephant-chariots etc, which is proof enough that the military section didn't consist solely of formal military units.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 10:06:09 AM
"Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand."

'Similarly accoutred' suggests to me that a horse was part of the deal.  The translator's 'royal friends' resonaqtes with Livy's 'royal cohort', it being difficult to see any other contingent in the parade which has any such specific affiliation.

More literal translation: "With these were the cavalry called 'Companions'; these were 1000, most with gold trappings. Next after these was the syntagma of friends, equal both as to number and as to decoration. After these 1000 picked-men, after these the so-called agema, thought to be the best unit of the cavalry."

So 'similarly accoutred' translates 'equal as to decoration' which refers back to 'chrysophalaroi', 'with gold trappings' - it's not a given that these are horse trappings (Shuckburgh translates the 'gold trappings' of the 3000 citizens as 'plumes', oddly perhaps, and misses them out for the friends).

The translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 12, 2017, 10:45:50 AM
Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

Quote
With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

That's surely a complete red herring: the unit being described may be Macedonian, but the word used is Latin, and the fact that Livy uses cohors indicates that he believes the unit he is describing is one of infantry.

Perhaps because Polybius uses syntagma.  We do not know what Livy believed, but he may have felt that it usefully distinguished the unit from the royal ala with Seleucus on the other wing.  We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

Regarding the Daphnae parade, the parade order distinguished between armed and unarmed portions, and the 'philoi' were very much among the armed.  One may note that the pseudo-troops (chariots and gladiators) brought up the rear of this section, following after the real soldiers, the 'philoi' being among the latter.

Quote from: RichT on December 12, 2017, 01:58:44 PM
More literal translation: "With these were the cavalry called 'Companions'; these were 1000, most with gold trappings. Next after these was the syntagma of friends, equal both as to number and as to decoration. After these 1000 picked-men, after these the so-called agema, thought to be the best unit of the cavalry."

The four units mentioned interestingly coincide with the lineup at Magnesia, with a 'royal' unit plus another thousand strong unit on each wing.

Quote
So 'similarly accoutred' translates 'equal as to decoration' which refers back to 'chrysophalaroi', 'with gold trappings' - it's not a given that these are horse trappings (Shuckburgh translates the 'gold trappings' of the 3000 citizens as 'plumes', oddly perhaps, and misses them out for the friends).

And it does not seem incongruous that such a similarly-decorated unit in the middle of the cavalry part of the procession would, by this interpretation, be on foot?  Look at the order of the procession: first come the foot units, in sequence, then the mounted, in sequence, then the 'performing' element (chariots, gladiators or whatever the 'monomachoi' were), also in sequence.  The mounted units, like the infantry, parade in a block, ergo the 'philoi', from their position in the parade, were mounted.

QuoteThe translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

Correct, but the translator intelligently surmises there is nobody else whose friends they could be.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 08:22:26 PM
We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

I thought it was:

Right wing
1200 Dahae
"royal cohort called argyraspides"
1000 Agema
3000 catafracts

left wing
3000 catafracts
1000 Companions (royal ala)
2500 Galatian cavalry (Gallograecians)
Tarantines


So not quite as symmetrical as you suggest.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 08:22:26 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 12, 2017, 10:45:50 AM
Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

Quote
With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

That's surely a complete red herring: the unit being described may be Macedonian, but the word used is Latin, and the fact that Livy uses cohors indicates that he believes the unit he is describing is one of infantry.

Perhaps because Polybius uses syntagma. 

I feel it only fair to point out that Polybius does explicitly use σύνταγμα ἱππέων in 9.3.9 though it is to describe Hannibal's whole cavalry force rather than a specific unit size.

He uses syntagma to mean 'a body of troops' elsewhere too - when he describes Roman organisation he says that velites and three maniples (speiras) makes up a body (syntagma) called a cohort (koortis). I haven't checcked to see whether there are extant passages used by Livy where he has replaced syntagma with cohort. The few I've checked with the English translators, cohort replaces semaion.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 12, 2017, 09:00:40 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 12, 2017, 08:22:26 PM
We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

I thought it was:

Right wing
1200 Dahae
"royal cohort called argyraspides"
1000 Agema
3000 catafracts

left wing
3000 catafracts
1000 Companions (royal ala)
2500 Galatian cavalry (Gallograecians)
Tarantines


So not quite as symmetrical as you suggest.

Unless one leaves out the 'hired help' and considers just the core Seleucid regular cavalry.

Nik does implicitly raise an important question: does Livy's

Quoteet mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque

mean the 'regia ala' is 1,000 strong (a bit high for an ala, albeit stranger things have been known) or that there are 1,000 other cavalry and the more lightly protected regia ala?

There may be a way to resolve this.

Appian writes (Syrian War 32):

His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad [kataphraktoi] Galatians and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx.

An equal number of Galatians and Agema-equivalents?  As far as we know, there was only one Agema, but was there a mirror-image unit of 'picked horsemen' (hippeis epilektoi) intended to provide weight to the heir's wing?

Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields [heteroi hippeis arguraspides], and 200 mounted archers.

The 200 mounted archers differs from Livy's 1,200 and may be carelessness rather than an alternative source.

On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry.

From Livy's description, these 'Galatian bands' are also 'mail-clad cavalry', perhaps a chiliarchy per tribe, and the 'certain Cappadocians' etc. would seem to be our putative 1,000 Agema-equivalents: perhaps Ariarathes furnished many of the men for the unit, but the unit remained part of the Seleucid establishment - whatever the reality, at least we would appear to have our 1,000 Agema-equivalent picked cavalry in addition to the Companion ala on the left wing.

This would leave us with:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry' (Cappadocian etc. agema-equivalents)
'royal ala' (Companions)

The units at the Daphnae parade can now be equated to their counterparts at Magnesia (Magnesian equivalents in parentheses):

1. Companions (= Companions)
2. 'Philoi' (= 'Royal cohort')
3. 1,000 picked cavalry (= Cappadocian etc. agema-equivalents)
4. Agema (= Agema)

This naturally slots the silver shield-bearing 'royal cohort' at Magnesia into the cavalry bodyguard ecological niche.

Quote

Quote
The translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

Correct, but the translator intelligently surmises there is nobody else whose friends they could be.

Yes of course they are the King's friends. You claimed that 'royal cohort' at Magnesia 'resonates with' the 'royal friends' at Daphnae. I point out that at Daphnae the text doesn't say 'royal friends'. Whether they actually were royal friends is neither here nor there (of course they were), we are talking about nomenclature.

Concerning syntagma - yes again those pesky Greeks don't like to use specific technical terms only where they should be used, and syntagma is used with more or less its literal meaning, 'ordered together' (usually of men - just like cohort), as well as (but rarely in literary sources AFAIK) the 256-strong infantry unit we know and love (usually 'semaia' to Polybius). Just as we see in English, 'regiment' in particular, as well as 'brigade' and sometimes other words, is used as a general term for collections of men (or women, in the case of the monstrous regiment). But on the whole and talking very broadly, syntagma does seem to be used for infantry, or to specify cavalry where cavalry is meant.

Uses of 'syntagma' in Polybius:

5.31.7 - non-military, the 'general view' of history
6.50.2 - non-military, constitution of Sparta
9.3.9 - "Hannibal's cavalry (syntagma ton hippeon) was the main cause of the Carthaginian victory and Roman defeat"
10.12.2 - "The commandant of the town, Mago, divided his garrison of a thousand men into two companies (syntagma)"
10.22.6 - "Being then appointed Hipparch by the Achaean league and finding the squadrons (sytagmata ton hippeon) in a state of utter demoralisation"
11.23.1 - "preceded by the usual number of velites and three maniples (a combination of troops (syntagma ton pezon) which the Romans call a cohort)"
18.31.4 - (of the phalanx) "if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? (syntagma)"
18.32.13 - "many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx (to syntagma tes phalangos) to the Roman system of arming."
30.25.7 - the "syntagma of friends" at Daphne

So it is extremely unlikely that Polybius at Daphne was using syntagma as a technical name for a body of men, rather than just the 'unit of Friends' (the 'regiment of Friends' many would say in English, without thereby implying a body of 800 infantry subdivided into battalions and companies). It's possible they were mounted - we don't know - but many units at Daphne that were mounted we know about because Polybius explicitly says so. It's possible Polybius' text for Magnesia referred to the Aryraspides as the/a royal syntagma, as the Argyraspides were a guard unit (I assume all agree on that), and that Livy translated accordingly as regia cohors. Even if he did (and we don't know), this doesn't give us any more reason, to say the least, to suppose that they were cavalry, nor does it provide any plausible link whatever with the regiment of Friends at Daphne - certainly no link stronger than the link to the infantry Argyraspides - from them both having the same name - that we already know about.

Livy's uses of cohort for Hellenistic infantry I looked at three years ago, can't be bothered to do it again.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 13, 2017, 10:09:12 AMOn the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry.

From Livy's description, these 'Galatian bands' are also 'mail-clad cavalry', perhaps a chiliarchy per tribe, and the 'certain Cappadocians' etc. would seem to be our putative 1,000 Agema-equivalents: perhaps Ariarathes furnished many of the men for the unit, but the unit remained part of the Seleucid establishment - whatever the reality, at least we would appear to have our 1,000 Agema-equivalent picked cavalry in addition to the Companion ala on the left wing.

No - it's only Appian, not Livy, who associates Galatian cavalry with being cataphracts (not, literally, "mail-clad") - and it seems unlikely, I'm inclined to put it down as a simple confusion. In Livy's version, the Galatian cavalry and the cataphract cavalry are separate bodies.

I don't see why you suggest the Cappadocians are cavalry, when in Livy they're clearly infantry - "ab laeuo cornu phalangitis adiuncti erant Gallograeci pedites mille et quingenti et similiter his armati duo milia Cappadocum—ab Ariarathe missi erant regi" and even Appian doesn't explicitly call them horse.

This discussion is at least making it clear that whatever the problems with Livy's account (and/or Bar-Kochva's interpretation of it) relying on Appian just leads to much worse confusion and fantasy.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 13, 2017, 10:09:12 AM
The units at the Daphnae parade can now be equated to their counterparts at Magnesia

Personally I can see no real need to do this as change over the 25 years between them is quite probable - but if you are going to do it at least do it for the infantry as well rather than just the cavalry.

There is hopeless confusion here about the Seleucids at Magnesia. Patrick is hopelessly confused by Appian. Appian was hopelessly confused by Livy. Livy, we can assume, was hopelessly confused by Polybius. The translators are often hopelessly confused by Livy and Appian. An object lesson in how, through various retellings, the original facts, whatever they were, can be left far behind.

I'll try to list the forces involved without becoming hopelessly confused myself:

Livy, right flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
3000 Cataphract cavalry
1000 Agema
16 elephants
(?) Regia cohors, Argyraspides
1200 Dahae
Assorted lights

Appian, right flank:

Galatian cataphracts
Agema
Certain light-armed troops
Argyaspides cavalry
200 mounted archers

Livy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

Appian, left flank:

Galatian tribes
Cappadocians
Other foreigners
Cataphracts
Companion cavalry
Assorted lights, scythed chariots and camels

Comments

Right:
- the only unit strength Appian gives (for the Dahae) he gets wrong. The only unit strength Livy doesn't give is the Argyraspides
- Appian merges the Galatian infantry and cataphract cavalry on the right
- Appian identifies the Argyraspides as cavalry, Livy doesn't specify
- Appian bundles all the lights in together and inserts them before the Argyaspides and Dahae

Left:
- Appian does include the infantry (Galatians, Cappadocians, mixed) but clusters them together in his description
- the translator of Appian on Perseus (White) has erred on the left flank cavalry - he translates "There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry". A better translation would be: "other cataphract cavalry, and those cavalry called Companions, more lightly armed". This corresponds (with the numbers cut out by Appian as usual) to Livy's 'et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque'. So there are two units - 3000 Cataphracts and 1000 Companions - not one as White would have it, and not three as Patrick would have it. Just two.

I don't like the argument from symmetry as I don't see any need for the battleline to be symmetrical. But if I was looking for symmetry I would note the wings:

Right wing:
Galatian infantry
Cataphracts
Guard cavalry
Argyraspides
Lights

Left wing:
Galatian infantry
Other (Cappadocian, mixed) infantry
Cataphracts
Guard cavalry
Lights

So the obvious difference is the Argyraspides on the right, and the lack on the right of several thousand infantry that are present on the left (Cappadocians, mixed). So I'd be inclined to think that, if symmetry was important, the Argyraspides provide those several thousand infantry, and should go in the equivalent position in the line, that is between the Galatians and the cataphracts. That Livy doesn't put them here is because Livy, like Appian, and White, and Patrick, has got himself confused. But, that's just a possible theory.

Quote from: RichT on December 13, 2017, 01:43:00 PM

Livy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

I thought there were 2500 "Gallograeci cavalry" as well on the left flank in Livy?

Quote from: RichT on December 13, 2017, 01:43:00 PMLivy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

Possibly included amongst Rich's "assorted lights" are an unspecified number of Tarantines (fair enough) and the 2,500 Galatian cavalry (probably not "light" except by comparison with the cataphracts):  primi Tarentini, deinde Gallograecorum equitum duo milia et quingenti.

I mention this because I've always assumed that Appian's Galatai te kataphraktoi were a confusion between the Galatian horse and the cataphracts, but I suppose on reflection the Galatian foot may be the more likely source from their position in the text.

Yes I didn't enumerate the 'lights' (not all necessarily light) in the interests of clarity - seems that backfired...

But it is clear as you say Duncan that Appian conflates the Galatian infantry and the cataphracts - the texts of Livy and Appian correspond quite closely.

Irrelevantly, I find myself wondering if Galatian cataphracts ever made it into any wargame army list ...

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 13, 2017, 02:43:02 PM
Irrelevantly, I find myself wondering if Galatian cataphracts ever made it into any wargame army list ...

they did make it into the Wikipedia article on the battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magnesia

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 13, 2017, 10:30:27 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 13, 2017, 10:09:12 AMOn the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry.

From Livy's description, these 'Galatian bands' are also 'mail-clad cavalry', perhaps a chiliarchy per tribe, and the 'certain Cappadocians' etc. would seem to be our putative 1,000 Agema-equivalents: perhaps Ariarathes furnished many of the men for the unit, but the unit remained part of the Seleucid establishment - whatever the reality, at least we would appear to have our 1,000 Agema-equivalent picked cavalry in addition to the Companion ala on the left wing.

No - it's only Appian, not Livy, who associates Galatian cavalry with being cataphracts (not, literally, "mail-clad") - and it seems unlikely, I'm inclined to put it down as a simple confusion. In Livy's version, the Galatian cavalry and the cataphract cavalry are separate bodies.

I don't see why you suggest the Cappadocians are cavalry, when in Livy they're clearly infantry - "ab laeuo cornu phalangitis adiuncti erant Gallograeci pedites mille et quingenti et similiter his armati duo milia Cappadocum—ab Ariarathe missi erant regi" and even Appian doesn't explicitly call them horse.

Because it continues:

"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

Quote
This discussion is at least making it clear that whatever the problems with Livy's account (and/or Bar-Kochva's interpretation of it) relying on Appian just leads to much worse confusion and fantasy.

My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

Next thought.

Richard nicely tabulates the OBs in Livy and Appian.  He then suggests that "Appian was hopelessly confused by Livy. Livy, we can assume, was hopelessly confused by Polybius." - the problem with this is that if Livy was 'hopelessly confused' by anyone, we cannot rely on his placement or description of the Argyraspides, and hence we have to go back to first principles of Hellenistic deployment, which are that you put your phalanx all together and not with part detached on one cavalry wing.

With regard to the Argyraspides, we may note that Appian describes the Seleucid phalanx in detail and, unlike with the cavalry, gives specific numbers:

"The total force of Antiochus was 70,000 and the strongest of these was the Macedonian phalanx of 16,000 men, still arrayed after the fashion of Alexander and Philip. These were placed in the centre, divided into ten sections [deka mere] of 1600 men each, with fifty men in the front line of each section and thirty-two deep. On the flanks of each section [hekastou merous] were twenty-two elephants."

Livy agrees:

"There were sixteen thousand infantry armed in the Macedonian fashion, who are called phalangitae. [7] They formed the centre of the line, and their frontage was divided into ten sections; these sections were separated by intervals in which two elephants each were placed; from the front the formation extended thirty-two ranks in depth. [8] This was the main strength of the king's army ..."

Appian agrees that "The serried phalanx, in which he should have placed most confidence, on account of its high state of discipline" was the cream of the Seleucid army.  The question which arises is: how can it be the 'main strength of the king's army' (roboris in regiis copiis) if it does not include the Agema, the cataphracts, the Companions or the (infantry) Argyraspides?  Livy's roboris together with Appian's "The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps" mark this modestly-sized phalanx contingent as being of the highest quality.  The combination of small size (compared with the phalanx at Raphia), lack of differentiation between run-of-the-mill and elite phalangites and the general valuation of this contingent as the main strength of the army lead me to conclude that this 16,000-man force was the infantry Argyraspides.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 13, 2017, 08:04:58 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 13, 2017, 10:30:27 AM
I don't see why you suggest the Cappadocians are cavalry, when in Livy they're clearly infantry - "ab laeuo cornu phalangitis adiuncti erant Gallograeci pedites mille et quingenti et similiter his armati duo milia Cappadocum—ab Ariarathe missi erant regi" and even Appian doesn't explicitly call them horse.

Because it continues:
"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

That makes no sense to me at all. If the "mille alli equites" were meant to be separate from the "regia ala levioribus tegumentis..." you'd need an "et" or something to separate one description from the other. As it stands, the whole phrase clearly describes the same body.

Quote

QuoteThis discussion is at least making it clear that whatever the problems with Livy's account (and/or Bar-Kochva's interpretation of it) relying on Appian just leads to much worse confusion and fantasy.

My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

That's being mischievously disingenuous, or what I believe they call  "trolling" these days. I haven't read Bar-Kochva's account of the fighting for ages; and we have, as you well know, been talking so far about the orders of battle.

Indeed, and I think have established that the orders of battle are not clear enough for a definitive answer, so we should turn to the battle narratives to answer this specific question.

Back to the dead languages team to selectively translate more key bits i think.

Quote from: Mark G on December 13, 2017, 09:15:59 PM
Indeed, and I think have established that the orders of battle are not clear enough for a definitive answer, so we should turn to the battle narratives to answer this specific question.

I think we've established that the orders of battle are clear enough on everything except the strength of the argyraspides/regia cohors of infantry. And that the sort of translations we've been seeing won't help much.

I don't quite follow the (snide?) remark about dead languages. Dead languages rather go with the territory in ancient history, don't they?

Trolling indeed it is. It would be nice to see an honest mistake admitted, and some progress made, for once.

Quote
"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

No, wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Not wrong in my (and Duncan's) humble opinion, just wrong. In fact, maybe 'not even wrong'.

Livy: "then mixed auxiliaries of all sorts, two thousand seven hundred, and three thousand cataphract cavalry and one thousand other cavalry, the royal squadron more lightly armed themselves and their horses."

Appian: "and mixed other foreigners. Next the other cataphract cavalry. And those cavalry called companions, lightly armed."

For a pleasant change, total agreement between Livy and Appian, and not the slightest difficulty with the two accounts.

For additional confirmation, we have Appian's "His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians, and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx." Leaving aside Appian's confusion of the Galatians and cataphracts, this is quite correct - on the right flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 Agema. On the left flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 royal squadron/Companions. So 4000 heavy cavalry on each wing.

It's easy to see where Appian went awry: "His horse were stationed on either wing" - so he thinks the phalanx was in the centre, flanked by cavalry. So the right wing Galatians become merged in his mind with the cataphracts, and the Argyrpasides also become cavalry. On the left he doesn't specify whether he thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are infantry or cavalry (probably he didn't have a clear opinion on it), but lists the other cataphracts (other, as opposed to those on the right) and the companions. All of this is perfectly clear.

Quote
Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.

Eh? 

Livy: "On the left flank, next the phalangitae, were posted fifteen hundred Galatian infantry and two thousand Cappadocians similarly armed — they had been sent to the king by Ariarathes - then mixed auxiliaries of all sorts"

Appian: "On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarathes, and a mingling of other tribes."

Appian may well have thought these were all cavalry (see above), but he doesn't actually say either way. Otherwise, Livy and Appian both say exactly the same thing.

The strength, location and precise identity of the Argraspides are open to doubt and discussion. The other points are not, and this squirming is just embarrassing.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 13, 2017, 09:08:11 PM
If the "mille alli equites" were meant to be separate from the "regia ala levioribus tegumentis..." you'd need an "et" or something to separate one description from the other. As it stands, the whole phrase clearly describes the same body.

Duncan, on re-reading I see you are right.  If we follow Livy as written, this means Antiochus IV raised an additional elite unit by the time of the Daphnae parade, or Antiochus III left one out at Magnesia.

Quote

Quote
My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

That's being mischievously disingenuous, or what I believe they call  "trolling" these days. I haven't read Bar-Kochva's account of the fighting for ages; and we have, as you well know, been talking so far about the orders of battle.

Then maybe it is time to look at the account of the battle.  I was not conscious of being disingenuous, having assumed full knowledge on your part.

Quote from: RichT on December 14, 2017, 09:26:56 AM
I don't quite follow the (snide?) remark about dead languages. Dead languages rather go with the territory in ancient history, don't they?

The remark about selective translation was not, I believe, aimed at yourself.

Quote
For additional confirmation, we have Appian's "His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians, and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx." Leaving aside Appian's confusion of the Galatians and cataphracts, this is quite correct - on the right flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 Agema. On the left flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 royal squadron/Companions. So 4000 heavy cavalry on each wing.

Maybe not - Appian states:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx."

This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

Quote
It's easy to see where Appian went awry: "His horse were stationed on either wing" - so he thinks the phalanx was in the centre, flanked by cavalry. So the right wing Galatians become merged in his mind with the cataphracts, and the Argyrpasides also become cavalry. On the left he doesn't specify whether he thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are infantry or cavalry (probably he didn't have a clear opinion on it), but lists the other cataphracts (other, as opposed to those on the right) and the companions. All of this is perfectly clear.

Not entirely:

"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galatōn t' ethnē, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathēs, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hēn ekaloun hippon hetairikēn, hōplismenē kouphōs. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did Herr Mendelssohn, as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

Quote
The strength, location and precise identity of the Argraspides are open to doubt and discussion. The other points are not.

Well, they are now. :)

Quote
Duncan, on re-reading I see you are right.

Splendid!

It's open to doubt whether the regiment of friends is an elite cavalry unit at all (any more than the gladiators) - but we aren't going to get any further with that one, so let's move on.

Quote
This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

It seems most sensible to read it as an equal number of cavalry being stationed on either side of the phalanx - i.e. 4000, 3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards. Appian of course might not have known exactly what was meant, but if he got his account from Polybius (and here I should mention that I thought Appian's source was Livy but the general view seems to be that it was in fact direct from Polybius) then his statement is correct, even if his own understanding was limited. Since 4000 cavalry (3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards) are listed on which wing by Livy, and Appian also lists these two units on each wing, and Appian includes the remark about equal numbers, then I don't see any reason to make difficulties from this - it seems perfectly clear.

Quote
"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galaton t' ethne, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathes, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hen ekaloun hippon hetairiken, hoplismene kouphos. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did Herr Mendelssohn, as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

For a start, we have Livy's account, which gives the contingents quite clearly, so there are no grounds for further uncertainty about this. Of course there was a distinct cataphract contingent separate from themselves - as clearly enumerated by Livy.

Small point of information - Herr Mendelssohn edited the Greek text; the translation is by Mr White, and he made a mess of translating this passage, but not the same mess as you, since he doesn't think the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, he thought the Companions had armoured horses.

I read 'epi toisde hetera' as the linking phrase, next to these the other cataphracts. But let's assume your reading is correct and Appian thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are cataphracts. In that case he is just making the same mistake as he did on the right wing, where he thought the Galatians were cataphracts too, so he is consistent. But this makes no difference whatever to the point at issue, since there's a nice clear conjunction before the Companions, so we still have just two cavalry units - cataphracts and companions. QED.

Quote from: RichT on December 14, 2017, 11:15:46 AM

Quote
This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

It seems most sensible to read it as an equal number of cavalry being stationed on either side of the phalanx - i.e. 4000, 3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards. Appian of course might not have known exactly what was meant, but if he got his account from Polybius (and here I should mention that I thought Appian's source was Livy but the general view seems to be that it was in fact direct from Polybius) then his statement is correct, even if his own understanding was limited. Since 4000 cavalry (3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards) are listed on which wing by Livy, and Appian also lists these two units on each wing, and Appian includes the remark about equal numbers, then I don't see any reason to make difficulties from this - it seems perfectly clear.

But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

Quote

Quote
"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galaton t' ethne, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathes, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hen ekaloun hippon hetairiken, hoplismene kouphos. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did [Mr White], as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

For a start, we have Livy's account, which gives the contingents quite clearly, so there are no grounds for further uncertainty about this. Of course there was a distinct cataphract contingent separate from themselves - as clearly enumerated by Livy.

Hmmm ... what I am getting at is that Appian, having conflated the right wing Gauls and cataphracts, would, given his division of Galatians (read cataphracts) and Agema equally on both sides of the phalanx, seem to be describing his left-wing Agema-equivalents as the Cappadocians.  I am not saying he is right, just that this what he seems to be saying.

Whether Livy is correct is another, if pertinent, matter.  Livy does not have an Agema-equivalent on the left wing, whereas Appian, given that he puts half the Agema and cataphracts on each side of the phalanx, perforce does.

Quote
Small point of information - Herr Mendelssohn edited the Greek text; the translation is by Mr White, and he made a mess of translating this passage, but not the same mess as you, since he doesn't think the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, he thought the Companions had armoured horses.

I read 'epi toisde hetera' as the linking phrase, next to these the other cataphracts. But let's assume your reading is correct and Appian thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are cataphracts. In that case he is just making the same mistake as he did on the right wing, where he thought the Galatians were cataphracts too, so he is consistent. But this makes no difference whatever to the point at issue, since there's a nice clear conjunction before the Companions, so we still have just two cavalry units - cataphracts and companions. QED.

Or rather three, Galatians/cataphracts, Cappadocians/Agema equivalents and Companions.  The 'Galatians' are the other half of those on the right wing, and the Cappadocians etc. correspond to the Agema, unless we suppose an unlisted half of the Agema was deployed on the left of the phalanx, which might be an option.

Point taken about who was the actual translator. :)

I suspect we are going to disagree on this, unless there is a further source or means we can employ to resolve the matter.

Also remember that cataphract does not always mean what wargamers want it to mean
After all you can have cataphract ships

Gauls might have been considered 'cataphracts' and 'covered' by Greeks because their mail shirts were longer than the cuirasses of Greek cavalry or perhaps because their mail covered their arms

Quote
I suspect we are going to disagree on this, unless there is a further source or means we can employ to resolve the matter.

Agreed! Shall I just summarise and tidy up and then we can go and argue about something else?

Quote
But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

It's an equal number of horsemen.

Appian: hippeis d'ekaterothen autou paretetacheto ... [Galatians, Agema] ... tade men ex isou tes phalangos en ekaterothen
"His horse were stationed on either wing ... An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx"
Note the balance - 'hippeis d'ekaterothen... tade men ekaterothen'.

But we need be in no paroxysms of doubt about this, because (I cannot stress this enough) we have the detailed unit lists of Livy, which agree perfectly with what Appian writes except where Appian merges cataphracts and Galatians (et al), and from which we know that there is no second Agema on the left wing.

If you insist that the Argyraspides are cavalry then that has no impact on this point, as these are outside Appian's 'equal number of these'. So you can quite happpily have cavalry + Agema on the right, and cavalry + Companions on the left in equal numbers, and then also have cavalry Argyraspides further out on the right, without affecting the reading of Appian or conflicting with the testimony of Livy. Of course I still think you'd be wrong about this for reasons given here and three years ago, but there we are.

Jim - true about 'cataphract' - but the Gauls aren't the cataphracts in this case, the cataphracts are the catahpracts and the Gauls (Galatians, Gallograeci) are the Gauls.

OP (Nik) - good luck building your army. Remember - two cavalry guards and no Galatian cataphracts. :)

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 15, 2017, 07:29:41 AM
Gauls might have been considered 'cataphracts' and 'covered' by Greeks because their mail shirts were longer than the cuirasses of Greek cavalry or perhaps because their mail covered their arms

Indeed, Jim, although the problem in this particular case, as Richard mentions, is that although Appian knows what cataphracts are, he does not seem to know who the cataphracts are.

Quote from: RichT on December 15, 2017, 09:18:21 AM

Quote
But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

It's an equal number of horsemen.

Appian: hippeis d'ekaterothen autou paretetacheto ... [Galatians, Agema] ... tade men ex isou tes phalangos en ekaterothen
"His horse were stationed on either wing ... An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx"
Note the balance - 'hippeis d'ekaterothen... tade men ekaterothen'.

Which rather seems to demonstrate my suspicion about a divided Agema.  Horace White's translation:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians [sic] and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx."

seems unexceptionable, and 'of these' indicates an equal number of Agema (or equivalents), and an equal number of cataphracts, on each wing.

To this he adds:

"Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields ..."

and:

"There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Hence in addition to a divided and equalised agema, or the Agema on the right and an isometric agema-type unit on the left wing, each wing has its special unit for looking after the heir to the throne (Companions) or its current incumbent ('horsemen with silver shields').

Quote
But we need be in no paroxysms of doubt about this, because (I cannot stress this enough) we have the detailed unit lists of Livy, which agree perfectly with what Appian writes except where Appian merges cataphracts and Galatians (et al), and from which we know that there is no second Agema on the left wing.

Which I would agree with unreservedly if we could entirely trust Livy, and if there were not four elite cavalry units in the Daphnae parade.  The 'philoi' have to be elite cavalry from their positioning with the other elite cavalry: gladiators bringing up the rear of this part of the parade does not affect this point.

But we can move on, and perhaps the best direction is toward the accounts of the action.  It becomes evident that Appian is using a source other than Livy when we look at the action in the centre.   (Extracts are from Appian, Syrian Wars 6 and Livy XXXVII.41-44.)

Appian:

"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides. They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again."

This 'forming square' at Magnesia seems unique to Appian's account; whether the result was a single square (or rectangle), as suggested by the singular tetragōnou, or each meros formed its own square, a much more practicable arrangement, the quality of the troops involved is central to Appian's account.

"The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps ; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them. After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight."

One notes that the legionaries left the cavalry to do all the work, and the latter, by wounding and hence infuriating the elephants within the square(s), broke the Macedonian formation(s).

Livy is briefer and more legiocentric (and quite obviously was not Appian's source):

"The whole left flank then wavered, and when the auxiliaries were broken, who were between the cavalry and those who were called the phalangitae, the panic spread as far as the centre. [4] There, as soon as the ranks were thrown into disorder and the use of the very long spears —the Macedonians call them sarisae —was prevented by their own friends rushing among them, the Roman legions advanced and hurled their javelins into the disorganized mass. [5] Not even the elephants posted in the intervals deterred the Roman soldiers, accustomed already by the wars in Africa both to avoid the charges of the beasts and either to assail them with spears from the side or, if they could approach closer, to hamstring them with their swords."

Here Livy practically ignores the role of the Roman and Pergamene cavalry in breaking the phalanx by stampeding its own elephants and just glosses that the legions went into action 'as soon as the ranks [ordines] were thrown into disorder', hurled pila and then dispatched elephant and phalangite alike.

This materially affects the grading of the Seleucid phalanx at Magnesia.  Were they crack troops, comparable to Argyraspides, as Appian's account implies, or just ordinary phalangites, as Livy seems to depict?

Quote from: RichT on December 15, 2017, 09:18:21 AM
OP (Nik) - good luck building your army. Remember - two cavalry guards and no Galatian cataphracts. :)

Despite the mass of postings I am quite happy that that is by far the most reasonable reading of the evidence  8)

Patrick - I thought we were done, and I was rounding up? All you've done is restate what you have already said earlier.

As to the course of the battle - as I recall, three years ago there was a thirty page thread which came down to trying to persuade you out of the notion that the Roman elephants stopped Antiochus' pursuit and that Antiochus attacked from across the river. The notion that Antiochus had no phalanx and replaced it entirely with Argyraspides is of the same class, and if we devoted another thirty pages to trying to disabuse you of the idea, I don't think we would succeed. So I doubt you'll get any takers.

Quote from: RichT on December 15, 2017, 11:06:17 AM
As to the course of the battle - as I recall, three years ago there was a thirty page thread which came down to trying to persuade you out of the notion that the Roman elephants stopped Antiochus' pursuit and that Antiochus attacked from across the river.

So glad I was having a break from ancients at that time  ;D

Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming  :o

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 15, 2017, 11:19:28 AM
Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming  :o

Either that was before my time or the memory has erased itself from my mind.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 15, 2017, 11:19:28 AM

So glad I was having a break from ancients at that time  ;D

It was remarkable.  What appeared to be a new theory of the battle evolved before one's eyes.  One protagonist was convinced the key to the battle on the Roman left was all about KTB wedges, flank attacks by horse archers across the river and an elephant counter-attack.  Others disputed this, mainly on evidential grounds.  This dispute is but a pale shadow :)

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 15, 2017, 11:38:04 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 15, 2017, 11:19:28 AM
Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming  :o

Either that was before my time or the memory has erased itself from my mind.

Must have been about 10 years ago when the v1 DBMM Book 3 lists were in development. So many facepalm moments.

Quote from: RichT on December 15, 2017, 11:06:17 AM
Patrick - I thought we were done, and I was rounding up? All you've done is restate what you have already said earlier.

That was rounding up.

Quote
As to the course of the battle - as I recall, three years ago there was a thirty page thread which came down to trying to persuade you out of the notion that the Roman elephants stopped Antiochus' pursuit and that Antiochus attacked from across the river. The notion that Antiochus had no phalanx and replaced it entirely with Argyraspides is of the same class ...

Probably accurate, then. ;)

So should we just look at what Livy and Appian say this time?

I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia  ::)

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

So what do we have?

Well, there is Maccabees.  Quite a few actions, some rudimentary OBs, even a bit of organisational detail here and there.  Polybius loses interest in Syria after Alexander Balas, and Diodorus is not much help.

Diodorus does however shed some light on the status of Philoi in a Hellenistic monarchy.

"Dionysius, also called Petosarapis, one of the "Friends" of Ptolemy, attempted to win control of the state for himself, and thus brought the kingdom into great danger. Wielding, as he did, the greatest influence of anyone at court, and being without a peer among his fellow Egyptians on the field of battle, he scorned both the kings because of their youth and inexperience." - Diodorus XXXI.15a

This 'friend' is clearly an experienced combatant.

In Diodorus XXXII.10.1 we learn that "Alexander [Balas], worsted in battle, fled with five hundred of his men to Abae in Arabia ..." a departure and a following reminiscent of Antiochus III after Thermopylae, namely the king being accompanied by a 500-strong contingent, except that Alexander Balas' following contained the ex-girl Diophantus (nee Herais).  Dare one suggest the continuity of a 'royal cohort' bodyguard unit?

Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

QuoteI'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia  ::)

They are having you on. ;)

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia  ::)

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

I tweaked the subject line, let those who wish to discuss Magnesia do so in a different subject :-)

actually Nik you started me reading up various bits of Seleucid again  :)
I've also been wondering where a lot of troops in the armies came from, and we tend to forget that even within the Seleucid Empire, the State didn't have a monopoly of military force. For fighting against the Jewish rebels it seems to have been easy to raise Idumaeam and other auxiliaries
A quick search through various places (Starting from Ma, Antiochus III and the cities of western Asia Minor) produces Carians perfectly capable of taking on a Roman army after Magnesia

"Hence he marched to the place called Gordiutichi. From there they came on the third march to Tabae. The city lies on the borders of the Pisidians, on the side which faces the Pamphylian sea. Since the strength of the region was unimpaired, its men were fierce [12??] in warfare. At this time too the cavalry, charging the Roman column, threw it at first into no small degree of confusion; then, when it became evident that they were equal in neither numbers nor courage, when driven back into the town they begged pardon for their mistake and were ready to surrender the city. The consul exacted of them twenty-five talents of silver and ten thousand [13??] medimni  of wheat; on these terms they were received in surrender."
Livy38.13

Then you had the Pamphylians

Troops from Termessus  were at that time besieging the citadel of the Isiondenses after capturing the town. The besieged, since there was no other hope of relief, sent envoys to the consul asking aid: shut up in the citadel with their wives and children, they were expecting death day by day, to be suffered by either the sword or starvation. Thus the eager consul was offered an occasion to turn aside into Pamphylia. By his arrival he rescued the Isiondenses from siege; on payment of fifty talents of silver he granted peace to Termessus; he did the same for the Aspendians and other peoples of Pamphylia. Returning from Pamphylia, he encamped the first day on the river Taurus, the next at what they call Xylines Comê.
Livy 38 15


There is the classic quote about the fighting between the Apameans against the Larisseans.

And Poseidonius the Stoic philosopher, in the third book of his Histories, speaking of the war of the Apameans against the Larisseans, writes as follows [ Fr_2 ] - "Having taken short daggers sticking in their waists, and small lances covered with rust and dirt, and having put veils and curtains over their heads which produce a shade but do not hinder the wind from getting to their necks, dragging on asses laden with wine and every sort of meat, by the side of which were packed little photinges and little monauli, instruments of revelry, not of war."

It should be noted that the passage survives because it was the quoter was interested in the terms used for musical instruments, and in Samakand to Sardis it is described as one of 'extreme caricature'

On the other hand you had fighting between Magnesia  on Maeander, Herakleia under Latmos and Miletos in the 180s BC as each city tried to claw back the bits that various Seleucid monarchs had given to the others. The evidence for this seems to be inscriptions set up in the cities laying out the peace terms.

Finally of course you have the Rhodians attempting the reconquest of the Peraia and with a complicated and evolving collection of cities and peoples fighting back.

So there were plenty of perfectly competent fighting men out there, the question is just how they could be included within the Seleucid army.
We know that the Jews were included as allies by treaty, when the Seleucids needed them.
Whether various other peoples had similar treaties? That would make sense, after all the Hellenistic world was used to the idea of signing treaties with peoples outside the Empire to recruit from (for example Cretans) and as the Empire started to take more setbacks, treaties with tribes and peoples within it would make sense.
I'd assume that as the Empire grew weaker, treaties which initially had been along the lines of 'We'll turn up with money and hire the men we want' drifted into becoming more like, 'If we pay you, will you lead your men to our assistance?'

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 16, 2017, 10:53:31 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia  ::)

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

I tweaked the subject line, let those who wish to discuss Magnesia do so in a different subject :-)

;D  8)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:48:29 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

So what do we have?

Well, there is Maccabees.  Quite a few actions, some rudimentary OBs, even a bit of organisational detail here and there.  Polybius loses interest in Syria after Alexander Balas, and Diodorus is not much help.

Presumably Josephus as well.

Quote
In Diodorus XXXII.10.1 we learn that "Alexander [Balas], worsted in battle, fled with five hundred of his men to Abae in Arabia ..." a departure and a following reminiscent of Antiochus III after Thermopylae, namely the king being accompanied by a 500-strong contingent, except that Alexander Balas' following contained the ex-girl Diophantus (nee Herais).  Dare one suggest the continuity of a 'royal cohort' bodyguard unit?

I would be amazed if there wasn't a continuing royal bodyguard, and if an usurper didn't have the support of an "official" one I am sure that they would instigate one as their "official" version no doubt named the same - such as Companions.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

Nellies are, IIRC, mentioned after this event though.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 12:54:57 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

Nellies are, IIRC, mentioned after this event though.

Josephus mentions them in the Antiquities (13.120) - Demetrius II gets them from Ptolemy VI Philometer when he inherits at least part of the Ptolemaic army.

Kistler mentions Antiochus VII still using elephants when defeated by Phraates (to whom he also allots elephants) but doesn't give a citation and I can't find a reference using the various sources through Attalus.

I forgot to mention in my original reply Bar Kochva's Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Not exactly new but relatively recently (2002?) reprinted in paperback. Lots of stuff in there on the 2nd C Seleucid Army - and as with BK's earlier book, some of it is pretty speculative but there's still lots of useful details.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 15, 2017, 12:53:19 PM
Must have been about 10 years ago when the v1 DBMM Book 3 lists were in development. So many facepalm moments.

Ah, thanks. That's probably before my time, I think I joined DBMMlist only after Bk3 was published.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 12:49:10 PM
I would be amazed if there wasn't a continuing royal bodyguard, and if an usurper didn't have the support of an "official" one I am sure that they would instigate one as their "official" version no doubt named the same - such as Companions.

It seems as if 'Philoi' rather than 'Hetairoi' may have been the fashion for the trusted bodyguards surrounding a king; at a battle we shall not name, the Companions (hetairoi) are posted with the heir, not the monarch, and this may have been the norm in the few cases where an heir survived to double-digit age.  One would not expect the monarch to leave himself without a fully trusted unit of elite troops, and the Friends (philoi) may have filled this niche.

Call them what you will, their equipment is probably quite similar: lighter than that of cataphracts, because a lot of their duty would involve standing around on foot guarding the king (or pretender) at audiences, etc. and full cataphract armour would probably be too much given the climate.  Shields are more or less mandated while on foot, and could compensate for the lesser armour when mounted.

Regarding elephants, I cannot really improve on Peter's post.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 07:43:32 PM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 12:49:10 PM
I would be amazed if there wasn't a continuing royal bodyguard, and if an usurper didn't have the support of an "official" one I am sure that they would instigate one as their "official" version no doubt named the same - such as Companions.

It seems as if 'Philoi' rather than 'Hetairoi' may have been the fashion for the trusted bodyguards surrounding a king; at a battle we shall not name, the Companions (hetairoi) are posted with the heir, not the monarch, and this may have been the norm in the few cases where an heir survived to double-digit age.  One would not expect the monarch to leave himself without a fully trusted unit of elite troops, and the Friends (philoi) may have filled this niche.

Useful having second guard unit like the Agema then ...

BTW, looks like Antichos III led the companions at Panion (according to BK based on Polybios) even though his sons were there nominally leading troops.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:48:29 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

So what do we have?

Well, there is Maccabees.  Quite a few actions, some rudimentary OBs, even a bit of organisational detail here and there.  Polybius loses interest in Syria after Alexander Balas, and Diodorus is not much help.

Presumably Josephus as well.

And, thinking about it, there may just be something in Justin as well - although he is so brief it may not add much if anything.

Maccabees is probably going to be your main source, then, although this fades out after c.150 BC when the Judaeans achieve a degree of independence as infighting becomes endemic among Seleucid princes and pretenders.  Maccabees is short on weapons and tactics but drops various hints about where troops were raised from, e.g. 1 Maccabees 3:10 "And Apollonius gathered together the Gentiles, and a numerous and great army from Samaria, to make war against Israel." and 13-14 "And Seron captain of the army of Syria heard that Judas had assembled a company of the faithful, and a congregation with him, and he said: I will get me a name, and will be glorified in the kingdom, and will overthrow Judas, and those that are with him, that have despised the edict of the king."

I would guess the 'captain of the army of Syria' refers to a royal regular officer as opposed to a local governor, which Apollonius presumably was.

1 Maccabees also has a potentially useful mobilisation figure for the Seleucid kingdom under Antiochus IV.

"Now when king Antiochus heard these words, he was angry in his mind: and he sent and gathered the forces of all his kingdom, an exceeding strong army ... And he left Lysias, a nobleman of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, from the river Euphrates even to the river of Egypt:

And to bring up his son Antiochus, till he came again.

And he delivered to him half the army, and the elephants: and he gave him charge concerning all that he would have done, and concerning the inhabitants of Judea, and Jerusalem: and that he should send an army against them, to destroy and root out the strength of Israel, and the remnant of Jerusalem, and to take away the memory of them from that place ... Then Lysias chose Ptolemee the son of Dorymenus, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the king's friends. And he sent with them forty thousand men, and seven thousand horsemen: to go into the land of Juda, and to destroy it according to the king's orders."

So 'half the army' was 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry, giving a full mobilisation as 14,000 cavalry and 80,000 infantry, more if Lysias kept back a few troops to look after the heir.  At Daphnae, Antiochus fielded about 51,000 of his best infantry and his best 8,500 cavalry, so the Maccabees figure is probably about right, given that Apollonius, Seron and any forces they commanded were no longer available and the Jews were in revolt.

In the next reign (Antiochus Eupator), 1 Maccabees gives a full Seleucid mobilisation as:

"And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle." - 1 Macc 6:30

An interesting combined arms organisation is also mentioned:

"And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast. These before the time wheresoever the beast was, they were there: and withersoever it went, they went, and they departed not from it." - 1 Macc 6:35-36

I am not sure how literally we should take 'legions' (mentioned again in verse 38), but it is conceivable that much of the regular Seleucid infantry was by now configured as imitation legions.  The elephants are noted as each carrying 32 men and one mahout, which would make the Burmese proud.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:26:02 PM
Useful having second guard unit like the Agema then ...

I could not find any battle where Antiochus III or for that matter any Seleucid monarch is noted as deploying with the Agema.

Quote
BTW, looks like Antichos III led the companions at Panion (according to BK based on Polybios) even though his sons were there nominally leading troops.

Polybius is quoting Zeno's account of the battle:

"That Antiochus, just before the morning watch, despatched his elder son Antiochus with a division of his army to occupy the high ground which commanded the enemy; and that at daybreak he led the rest of his army across the river which flowed between the two camps, and drew them up on the plain: arranging his heavy-armed infantry in one line, facing the enemy's centre, and his cavalry, some on the right and the rest on the left wing of the phalanx, among which were the heavy-armed [kataphrakton] horsemen, under the sole command of the younger of the king's sons Antiochus. That in advance of this line he stationed the elephants at certain intervals, and the Tarentines commanded by Antipater; while he filled up the spaces between the elephants with archers and slingers. And finally, that he took up his own station on the rear of the elephants with a squadron of household cavalry and bodyguards [hetairikēs hippou kai tōn hupaspistōn]." - Polybius XVI.18

Antiochus (the king) is indeed with the Companions, but also with his 'hypaspists', evidently a cavalry unit.  The translator interestingly considers the 'hypaspists' rather than the Companions to be the king's 'bodyguards'.

May I just remind the participants that once each poster has repeated repeated their entrenched view for the one thousandth time (even if quoting different evidence each time) the convention here is that we freeze the thread...

Quote from: Tim on December 16, 2017, 10:59:59 PM
May I just remind the participants that once each poster has repeated repeated their entrenched view for the one thousandth time (even if quoting different evidence each time) the convention here is that we freeze the thread...

Hey! I haven't repeated mine yet. That means I get the floor all to myself.... 8)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:46:37 PM
[hetairikēs hippou kai tōn hupaspistōn].- Polybius XVI.18

Antiochus (the king) is indeed with the Companions, but also with his 'hypaspists', evidently a cavalry unit.  The translator interestingly considers the 'hypaspists' rather than the Companions to be the king's 'bodyguards'.

Is it not significant that the Companions are noted as being 'hippou' but the 'hypaspists' are not?

Perhaps, since these are behind the front line, Antiochus has his cavalry bodyguards and his foot bodyguards in close attendance to wherever he starts the battle. The foot are there to guard him until the battle starts and could provide a shelter if he needs them.
This then could explain the presence of a royal cohort on the right wing at TBWDNN, especially if the Seleucid deployment is actually two lines as proposed by someone (perhaps Grainger) - the flanks being approximately cavalry with infantry behind.

Quote from: Tim on December 16, 2017, 10:59:59 PM
May I just remind the participants that once each poster has repeated repeated their entrenched view for the one thousandth time (even if quoting different evidence each time) the convention here is that we freeze the thread...

How about freezing the poster? Then the thread can be freed up for what it is supposed to be about.

Quote from: RichT on December 17, 2017, 12:25:22 PM

Quote from: Tim on December 16, 2017, 10:59:59 PM
May I just remind the participants that once each poster has repeated repeated their entrenched view for the one thousandth time (even if quoting different evidence each time) the convention here is that we freeze the thread...

How about freezing the poster? Then the thread can be freed up for what it is supposed to be about.

It would be nice to have a Selucid thread which wasn't sidetracked into Seleucid guard units

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:46:37 PM

In the next reign (Antiochus Eupator), 1 Maccabees gives a full Seleucid mobilisation as:

"And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle." - 1 Macc 6:30

An interesting combined arms organisation is also mentioned:

"And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast. These before the time wheresoever the beast was, they were there: and withersoever it went, they went, and they departed not from it." - 1 Macc 6:35-36

I am not sure how literally we should take 'legions' (mentioned again in verse 38), but it is conceivable that much of the regular Seleucid infantry was by now configured as imitation legions.  The elephants are noted as each carrying 32 men and one mahout, which would make the Burmese proud.

Looking at various bibles on line what is "legions" in your quote is also rendered as "armies" and "phalanxes". The original word being what I wonder?

As 32 men on a single Nellie is, shall we say, improbable, I would expect that to be either a corruption in the text or, perhaps more plausible, referring (mainly) to the light troops that seem to have commonly accompanied elephants.

However, possibly the most interesting bit of this account is the part about the 1000 soldiers in mail accompanying each elephant (again, the original word may be useful). It has, obviously, been used as evidence of Romanisation. I would note that only the infantry supporting the elephants are mentioned - 32,000 by the numbers given - and the rest of the infantry, which would be 68,000, is not mentioned at all. The numbers may be (ahem) suspect, however, the proportion may be useful.

What may also be useful is that (in the online texts I looked at) the 500 horsemen are described as "picked" or similar. They would total 16,000 out of the 20,000 (again just using the number given) and the remaining cavalry (4,000) are on the flanks to "harass the enemy".

I Maccabees is available in Greek at

http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=1Mc&ch=1

there's an english version at https://www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/i-maccabees/

might help for contrasting languages

and in Greek with some of the older English translations plus the vulgate  http://studybible.info/compare/1%20Maccabees%201:

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 17, 2017, 02:28:52 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 16, 2017, 10:46:37 PM

In the next reign (Antiochus Eupator), 1 Maccabees gives a full Seleucid mobilisation as:

"And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle." - 1 Macc 6:30

An interesting combined arms organisation is also mentioned:

"And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast. These before the time wheresoever the beast was, they were there: and withersoever it went, they went, and they departed not from it." - 1 Macc 6:35-36

I am not sure how literally we should take 'legions' (mentioned again in verse 38), but it is conceivable that much of the regular Seleucid infantry was by now configured as imitation legions.  The elephants are noted as each carrying 32 men and one mahout, which would make the Burmese proud.

Looking at various bibles on line what is "legions" in your quote is also rendered as "armies" and "phalanxes". The original word being what I wonder?

As 32 men on a single Nellie is, shall we say, improbable, I would expect that to be either a corruption in the text or, perhaps more plausible, referring (mainly) to the light troops that seem to have commonly accompanied elephants.

However, possibly the most interesting bit of this account is the part about the 1000 soldiers in mail accompanying each elephant (again, the original word may be useful). It has, obviously, been used as evidence of Romanisation. I would note that only the infantry supporting the elephants are mentioned - 32,000 by the numbers given - and the rest of the infantry, which would be 68,000, is not mentioned at all. The numbers may be (ahem) suspect, however, the proportion may be useful.

What may also be useful is that (in the online texts I looked at) the 500 horsemen are described as "picked" or similar. They would total 16,000 out of the 20,000 (again just using the number given) and the remaining cavalry (4,000) are on the flanks to "harass the enemy".

Legions seems to be phalanxes
"καὶ διεῖλον τὰ θηρία εἰς τὰς φάλαγγας καὶ παρέστησαν ἑκάστῳ ἐλέφαντι χιλίους ἄνδρας τεθωρακισμένους ἐν ἁλυσιδωτοῖς καὶ περικεφαλαῖαι χαλκαῖ ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν καὶ πεντακοσία ἵππος διατεταγμένη ἑκάστῳ θηρίῳ ἐκλελεγμένη" Macc. I 6.36 http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=1Mc&ch=6
I _think_ this Greek text has four men per elephant,  though I have also seen the 32 men mentioned above.

II Macc. has less organisation detail but quite a few numbers including 300 scythed chariots in chapter 13.

Quote from: Swampster on December 17, 2017, 05:08:45 PM

Legions seems to be phalanxes
"καὶ διεῖλον τὰ θηρία εἰς τὰς φάλαγγας καὶ παρέστησαν ἑκάστῳ ἐλέφαντι χιλίους ἄνδρας τεθωρακισμένους ἐν ἁλυσιδωτοῖς καὶ περικεφαλαῖαι χαλκαῖ ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν καὶ πεντακοσία ἵππος διατεταγμένη ἑκάστῳ θηρίῳ ἐκλελεγμένη" Macc. I 6.36 http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=1Mc&ch=6
I _think_ this Greek text has four men per elephant,  though I have also seen the 32 men mentioned above.

II Macc. has less organisation detail but quite a few numbers including 300 scythed chariots in chapter 13.

The King James translation has 32 men
Moreover they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every elephant they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads; and beside this, for every beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best. 36 These were ready at every occasion: wheresoever the beast was, and whithersoever the beast went, they went also, neither departed they from him. 37 And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices: there were also upon every one two and thirty strong men, that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him.
http://studybible.info/KJV/1%20Maccabees%206

The vulgate is  35 et diviserunt bestias per legiones, et astiterunt singulis elephantis mille viri in loricis concatenatis, et galeæ æreæ in capitibus eorum: et quingenti equites ordinati unicuique bestiæ electi erant. 36 Hi ante tempus, ubicumque erat bestia, ibi erant: et quocumque ibat, ibant, et non discedebant ab ea. 37 Sed et turres ligneæ super eos firmæ protegentes super singulas bestias: et super eas machinæ: et super singulas viri virtutis triginta duo, qui pugnabant desuper: et Indus magister bestiæ.

Just guessing but I wonder if the early English translators (Wycliffe etc) followed the Vulgate in using legions

The problem then is what is meant by 'phalanx'
After all it was Polybius (from memory) who said that Thessalian cavalry was better in phalanxes.

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 17, 2017, 05:36:29 PM
The problem then is what is meant by 'phalanx'

Cynically, either something unhelpfully vague like "formation", or something specific but unrecoverable (and possibly wrong).

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 17, 2017, 06:12:45 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 17, 2017, 05:36:29 PM
The problem then is what is meant by 'phalanx'

Cynically, either something unhelpfully vague like "formation", or something specific but unrecoverable (and possibly wrong).

Technically a phalangarchia is was supposed to be just over 4000 men, which is remarkably similar to a legion is size, but personally I suspect you're right that it's more likely to be a vague 'formation'.

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 17, 2017, 06:20:17 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 17, 2017, 06:12:45 PM

Cynically, either something unhelpfully vague like "formation", or something specific but unrecoverable (and possibly wrong).

Technically a phalangarchia is was supposed to be just over 4000 men, which is remarkably similar to a legion is size, but personally I suspect you're right that it's more likely to be a vague 'formation'.

I think you're right, it is just being used as a fairly general term. Possibly indicating "heavy infantry" as opposed to lights - just in case the reader missed that they are armoured  ;)

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 17, 2017, 06:27:10 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 17, 2017, 06:20:17 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 17, 2017, 06:12:45 PM

Cynically, either something unhelpfully vague like "formation", or something specific but unrecoverable (and possibly wrong).

Technically a phalangarchia is was supposed to be just over 4000 men, which is remarkably similar to a legion is size, but personally I suspect you're right that it's more likely to be a vague 'formation'.

I think you're right, it is just being used as a fairly general term. Possibly indicating "heavy infantry" as opposed to lights - just in case the reader missed that they are armoured  ;)

I did an article in Slingshot some time ago looking at the word Josephus used for heavy infantry etc and it was interesting how things changed
Because the Greek text won't copy I'll put the page in as an attachment

this might be easier to read

Quote from: Tim on December 16, 2017, 10:59:59 PM
May I just remind the participants that once each poster has repeated repeated their entrenched view for the one thousandth time (even if quoting different evidence each time) the convention here is that we freeze the thread...

But see how the necessary details are pouring in for Nik - people are motivated to seek them out and sort them out. :)

Please carry on with the good work.

Regarding the Maccabean description of 32-man Seleucid elephants, I do not see anyone accepting these on the wargames table.  Yet it is not impossible, despite being well over the recommended carrying load for any sort of elephant.  One may recall the fashion for seeing how many people could be crammed into a Volkswagen (the old kind); the car could seat four, maybe five people, but the record for people sitting, standing, hanging out of the windows and onto each other in and around the vehicle, which could still move under its own power, was 105.

If there is anything to this purported Seleucid arrangement, it would be that, presumably as with the Burmese, someone had discovered that it was possible, with careful load distribution, to have an elephant carry an overload contingent - perhaps at no more than walking pace - for the duration of a battle.

However the Greek text Peter referred to has andres dunameos tessares, four skilled men.  Thirty-two men would be andres duo kai triakonta, and despite the significant difference between the two it would seem possible to end up with the one from the other if the original were blurred, faded or otherwise hard to discern and someone was making a guess to fill in the illegible parts of words.  It is not however clear which would the the original and which the error.

The man-carrying apparatus on the elephant is referred to as a pyrgos, the usual Greek word for tower.  The question is whether the concept of pyrgos can be extended to a multi-tiered arrangement with sixteen men per side, or twelve per side and four on top, or whether it stops at a four-man howdah-type construction.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 16, 2017, 08:27:31 PM
And, thinking about it, there may just be something in Justin as well - although he is so brief it may not add much if anything.

Justin has the occasional amusing anecdote:

QuoteAntiochus (VII Sidetes), having heard of their designs, and thinking it proper to be first in the field, led forth an army, which he had inured to service by many wars with his neighbours, against the Parthians. But his preparations for luxury were not less than those for war, for three hundred thousand camp followers, of whom the greater number were cooks, bakers, and stage-players, attended on eighty thousand armed men. Of silver and gold, it is certain, there was such an abundance that the common soldiers fastened their buskins with gold, and trod upon the metal for the love of which nations contend with the sword. Their cooking instruments, too, were of silver, as if they were going to a banquet, not to a field of battle.

Latin and English at http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/index.html

There's an old (2004) Luke U-S army list for the late Seleucids at http://lukeuedasarson.com/LateSeleucidDBM.html which is still worth a look. 

Just in case anyone is interested, in Perikles Deligiannis' account of Heraclea in Slingshot 315 we find this on p.22:

"Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his close Companions, the philoi ..."

which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions; presumably a small one in the modest army of tiny Epirus, but perhaps a rather larger and even organisationally distinct one in the opulent and populous Seleucid Empire.

Dionysios (XIX.12.3) describes Oblakos charging "the royal squadron", "ten basiliken ile". Plutarch has Pyrrhos rescued by his "philoi", but Dionysios by the most faithful of his bodyguards, "somatophylakes".

"his close Companions, the philoi" seems to me to be extrapolating further than the terminology of the sources permits.

Indeed.

Perikles is talking in general terms and is correct, in that the philoi (friends) of the Hellenistic kings are the equivalent of the companions of Philip and Alexander - that is, the original companions, the high ranking, favoured inner circle of the kings, from which the kings drew their advisors, governors, commanders, ambassadors and so forth - and among whom they would fight in battle. The Companion cavalry is slightly different (although no doubt the personnel overlapped considerably), being an extension of this title to a military unit, as with the Foot Companions also (and the Hypaspists). The first of the Successors, not yet being kings, could not have companions, so they had friends instead. Once the kingdoms were established, the friends became a more or less formal group or rank - increasingly formal in Egypt especially where there were degrees of Friends (First Friend, Honoured Friend, Best Friend Forever (OK maybe not that one)). The formula 'the king, his friends, and his military forces' is quite common, especially in inscriptions, in the Hellenistic period to refer to these three pillars of the state.

So far as anyone knows, and unlike the Companions, the name Friends was not applied to any military unit - unless the Daphne parade is the one example, which it might conceivably be but as we discussed, then moved on from discussing a few weeks ago, it's a slim chance.

I had assumed everyone was familiar with the Hellenistic institution of the Friends of the king. If not, I'd be happy to provide some further reading.

Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 10:45:28 PM
I had assumed everyone was familiar with the Hellenistic institution of the Friends of the king. If not, I'd be happy to provide some further reading.

Probably worth posting if not too much trouble.

My understanding has been pretty much what you posted, but it may be interesting to look a bit deeper sometime  8)

Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 05, 2018, 07:46:12 AM

Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 10:45:28 PM
I had assumed everyone was familiar with the Hellenistic institution of the Friends of the king. If not, I'd be happy to provide some further reading.

Probably worth posting if not too much trouble.

My understanding has been pretty much what you posted, but it may be interesting to look a bit deeper sometime  8)

Just to say that I was re-reading Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor by John Ma and he also mentions the various grades of Kings friends, in a Seleucid context

There's a link here
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g0WHejZNOXMC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=hellenistic+kings+friends&source=bl&ots=j7MuQOo5lm&sig=ITGz_FMpg_bUEtzeIU4fViEcVoo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiigfnys8DYAhXhD8AKHReIACkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=hellenistic%20kings%20friends&f=false

to The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII
By Stanley M. Burstein

where it gives a nice definition of the term

Jim

Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 05, 2018, 07:46:12 AM

Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 10:45:28 PM
I had assumed everyone was familiar with the Hellenistic institution of the Friends of the king. If not, I'd be happy to provide some further reading.

Probably worth posting if not too much trouble.

https://www.academia.edu/3331427/Dynastic_Courts_of_the_Hellenistic_Empires_2012_  might be a convenient place to start. It also talks about the Pages, whom I mentioned recently in one of the Paraitakene threads.

You've beaten me to it - good links  :)

I'll see tonight if I can dig out others.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 04, 2018, 07:58:19 PM
Dionysios (XIX.12.3) describes Oblakos charging "the royal squadron", "ten basiliken ile". Plutarch has Pyrrhos rescued by his "philoi", but Dionysios by the most faithful of his bodyguards, "somatophylakes".

"his close Companions, the philoi" seems to me to be extrapolating further than the terminology of the sources permits.

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.  That they appear interchangeable with somatophylakes within a generation of Alexander's death should not be surprising.

In any event, it is up to you how you interpret it, though for some reason Perikles seems independently to have arrived at the same understanding as myself.

Burstein's definition, as linked by Jim, points out:

"Such 'friends' were the king's closest associates in peace and war," which means they were with him on campaign and on the battlefield, so any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter.  Of course, they were not exclusively military, being in addition a pool for governors and advisors and generally trustworthy/favoured company, but we note the king "appointed whomever he felt qualified to the position of 'friend'," so there was no fixed size for such a contingent, and while Antiochus III seems to have been content with 500, Antiochus IV fielded 1,000 - as a unit among the rest of his elite cavalry.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:24:08 AMBut the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king. 

Or they act as a few individuals close to the king, either within or alongside the royal squadron. What I did not make clear is that when Dionysios says "the most faithful of his somatophylakes" rescued the king, that's "most faithful" singular. SoPlutarch has a group of philoi, Dionysios has one man.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 05, 2018, 09:31:15 AM
What I did not make clear is that when Dionysios says "the most faithful of his somatophylakes" rescued the king, that's "most faithful" singular. SoPlutarch has a group of philoi, Dionysios has one man.

But the group are nevertheless on the battlefield, irrespective of whether one or more of them are involved in the actual rescue. :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

Quote
any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter

And that displays a total lack of understanding of the subject.

More reading, less talking, please.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:24:08 AM

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 04, 2018, 07:58:19 PM
Dionysios (XIX.12.3) describes Oblakos charging "the royal squadron", "ten basiliken ile". Plutarch has Pyrrhos rescued by his "philoi", but Dionysios by the most faithful of his bodyguards, "somatophylakes".

"his close Companions, the philoi" seems to me to be extrapolating further than the terminology of the sources permits.

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.  That they appear interchangeable with somatophylakes within a generation of Alexander's death should not be surprising.

In any event, it is up to you how you interpret it, though for some reason Perikles seems independently to have arrived at the same understanding as myself.

Burstein's definition, as linked by Jim, points out:

"Such 'friends' were the king's closest associates in peace and war," which means they were with him on campaign and on the battlefield, so any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter.  Of course, they were not exclusively military, being in addition a pool for governors and advisors and generally trustworthy/favoured company, but we note the king "appointed whomever he felt qualified to the position of 'friend'," so there was no fixed size for such a contingent, and while Antiochus III seems to have been content with 500, Antiochus IV fielded 1,000 - as a unit among the rest of his elite cavalry.

I think you have made several jumps too far on the evidence Patrick
The friends were the king's closest associates in peace on war, but it doesn't mean they were with him on campaign or the battlefield. They might be sent off to act as ambassadors (Hellenistic Kings needed a lot of ambassadors, not just to foreign states but to cities within their own Empires), they could also get jobs as tax collectors, governors, and also investigating the honesty of tax collectors and governors. They might be present on the battlefield, perhaps as unit commanders, or 'subgenerals'. A handful of the younger and more muscular might even ride with him and his bodyguards. There (because they'd be known and to an extent recognised) they'd be able to act as trusted messengers, trouble shooters, or even be seconded to units to replace wounded or dead senior officers. To have them merely act as a cavalry unit would be an awfully expensive waste of resources. Cavalry were considerably cheaper to support than these Friends who are best considered as courtiers. When you look at the estates we have recorded as being awarded to some friends (just from epigraphic evidence,) some of the friends would have the economic resources to support considerable households of their own.
Also Antiochus IV didn't field 1000. A thousand joined in a parade which had elements that were military as well as religious. There is no evidence at all that this unit of friends ever took part in a military operation as a unit.

Quote from: RichT on January 05, 2018, 09:48:01 AM
More reading, less talking, please.

On which note, thanks to Jim and Duncan for the links they have provided  8)

And two more works:

Rolf Strootman, Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires (2014)
John Grainger, Kings and Kingship in the Hellenistic World 350 - 30 BC (2017)

The first is much the same as the article Duncan linked to. Both are extensively previewed on Google Books and Amazon for those who don't like buying things (or don't have access to a library).

Cheers  ;D

Quote from: RichT on January 05, 2018, 09:48:01 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

Then Plutarch is lying in Life of Pyrrhus 16.10? :o

Quote

Quote
any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter

And that displays a total lack of understanding of the subject.

In fact, it displays an understanding of the culture.  I think people tend to miss the seamless Hellenistic integration between what we today would consider 'court', 'civil' and 'military' matters.

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2018, 10:23:59 AM
I think you have made several jumps too far on the evidence Patrick
The friends were the king's closest associates in peace on war, but it doesn't mean they were with him on campaign or the battlefield.

Well, they were at Heraclea, where:

Purron hoi philoi periskhontes anērpasan (Pyrrhus was rescued - literally snatched up and escorted away - by his philoi.)

QuoteThey might be sent off to act as ambassadors (Hellenistic Kings needed a lot of ambassadors, not just to foreign states but to cities within their own Empires), they could also get jobs as tax collectors, governors, and also investigating the honesty of tax collectors and governors. They might be present on the battlefield, perhaps as unit commanders, or 'subgenerals'. A handful of the younger and more muscular might even ride with him and his bodyguards. There (because they'd be known and to an extent recognised) they'd be able to act as trusted messengers, trouble shooters, or even be seconded to units to replace wounded or dead senior officers. To have them merely act as a cavalry unit would be an awfully expensive waste of resources. Cavalry were considerably cheaper to support than these Friends who are best considered as courtiers. When you look at the estates we have recorded as being awarded to some friends (just from epigraphic evidence,) some of the friends would have the economic resources to support considerable households of their own.

They did all of these things, certainly, and in addition they also accompanied the king onto the battlefield.  It looks as if they also stuck with him in adversity when everyone else had dropped away.

Quote
Also Antiochus IV didn't field 1000. A thousand joined in a parade which had elements that were military as well as religious. There is no evidence at all that this unit of friends ever took part in a military operation as a unit.

But given the incompleteness of our records, is this even an argument: after all, do we have any direct attestation of his Companions (or Agema) taking part in a military operation as a unit?  Or even his Romanised infantry?  There were 1,000 philoi in the parade at Daphnae, among the elite cavalry.  Had they been among the dancers, we might well conclude their appearance and function was non-military, but from their actual position one would infer the opposite.

I'm regretting asking the original question  :o  ::)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 08:13:18 PM

Quote from: RichT on January 05, 2018, 09:48:01 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

Then Plutarch is lying in Life of Pyrrhus 16.10? :o

Quote

Quote
no
To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment. Plutarch is not lying

He said, and here again I quote you, ""Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his close Companions, the philoi ..."

Somebody can be your companion without having to join a regiment of that name. The philoi had won the right of access to the King. They were, quite literally, his companions. But some of the philoi would be governors, some would act as tutors and mentors to Royal Pages. The philoi aspired to vastly greater things than being cavalry troopers, no matter how exalted the regiment.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 08:13:18 PM



But given the incompleteness of our records, is this even an argument: after all, do we have any direct attestation of his Companions (or Agema) taking part in a military operation as a unit?  Or even his Romanised infantry?  There were 1,000 philoi in the parade at Daphnae, among the elite cavalry.  Had they been among the dancers, we might well conclude their appearance and function was non-military, but from their actual position one would infer the opposite.

well Maccabees mentions Romanised Infantry

You seem determined to turn a collection of late middle aged ambassadors, senior administrators, top level advisors and suchlike, into the most expensive and least effective cavalry unit the ancient world has ever known. Have you actually bothered to read any of the various papers suggested about what the 'friends' or philoi actually were?

They turned up at a parade wearing armour? So what, Half of Elizabeth 1st's court turned up in full plate on armoured horses for the Armada musters. They then went off and did their proper jobs as Lord Lieutenants and suchlike, and had the Spanish landed they might even have fought wearing the armour, but at the head of their personal retainers, or the county regiments that they had raised.

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2018, 10:41:04 PM
To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment.

The question (now that we have established the philoi's presence on the battlefield) is whether they act as a unit on the battlefield or are just scattered among the Companions.

Plutarch is quite explicit: Pyrrhus was rescued by his philoi.  If they were just part of the Companions without their own distinctive unit grouping, why does Plutarch not write that Pyrrhus was rescued by his Companions?  His actual rescuers act in the coordinated fashion one would expect from a unit, one picking him up and the others forming a protective ring around him.

For that matter, why does Plutarch not write:

"Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his Companions ..."

instead of:

"Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his close Companions, the philoi ..."

His actual usage makes sense if the philoi were a unit unto themselves.

We may remember Alexander had his ile basilike.  I would see this unit, which contained the somatophylakoi, as being the forerunner of the philoi, especially as its members were often used in much the same manner as the later philoi (e.g. Hephaestion being sent to choose a king for Sidon).

Quote
Somebody can be your companion without having to join a regiment of that name. The philoi had won the right of access to the King. They were, quite literally, his companions. But some of the philoi would be governors, some would act as tutors and mentors to Royal Pages. The philoi aspired to vastly greater things than being cavalry troopers, no matter how exalted the regiment.

All this is true, but they also seem to have served on the battlefield as cavalry, which is entirely consistent with Antiochus III's royal 'cohort' and Antiochus IV parading his philoi as a separate and distinct unit at Daphnae (as opposed to a 'subset of the Companions').

I would expect that over time the Seleucids would have expanded the number of their Philoi, especially as this would allow them to put the heir in the field with the Companions to look after him (an apparently Macedonian arrangement Philip II seems to have used at Chaeronea, for example) and still have an utterly reliable unit to watch the King's back on the battlefield.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 06, 2018, 10:33:52 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2018, 10:41:04 PM
To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment.

The question (now that we have established the philoi's presence on the battlefield) is whether they act as a unit on the battlefield or are just scattered among the Companions.

Plutarch is quite explicit: Pyrrhus was rescued by his philoi.  If they were just part of the Companions without their own distinctive unit grouping, why does Plutarch not write that Pyrrhus was rescued by his Companions?  His actual rescuers act in the coordinated fashion one would expect from a unit, one picking him up and the others forming a protective ring around him.

Patrick, I refuse point blank to waste any more time in this rather fatuous discussion. Please read some of the discussions on philoi that have been referenced. There is no evidence that the Kings friends served as a cavalry unit on any field of battle. A handful of them were close to a king and being sensible, supported him and helped him. So What?
Yes the Kings friends appeared on the battlefield, nobody has ever doubted it. One of the Antiochus III's philoi was Epigenes who was used as a general by both Antiochus and Seleucus III. Molon seems to have been a philoi of seleucus III and was appointed as governor of Media
Had Epigenes happened to have been riding with Antiochus III when the latter was attacked, then Epigenes and anybody else near by would have rushed to defend him. 

In Ilium there as an inscription in favour of Antiochus I
(This is from The Land of he elephant Kings' by Paul J Kosmin)

"and having not only his Friends and the forces as his supporters in contending for the state, but having also the divine as his well-disposed helper, he restored the cities to peace and the kingdom to its previous condition."

[edited to add that Kosmin comments that this wording appears in a number of other places, and is therefore in all probability a Seleucid formula, not something Ilium dreamed up on their own]

Here we see the Friends and the army being considered totally separate entities, just as the divine mentioned later in the same section is a totally separate entity.
If you want to persist in believing that the Royal friends were just another cavalry unit into which Seleucid monarchs drafted ambassadors, provincial governors, auditors and senior advisers to they could have them thinned out in combat, then you carry on believing it, because frankly there's a limit to the amount of spitting into the wind I want to do.

Blimey. Having been on mailing lists, etc. with Jim for the best part of **way too many years** I don't think I've ever seen him post something so irate - even in some of the Dark Times (tm) on Ancmed, DBMlist, DBMMlist and the like.  :'(

Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 06, 2018, 01:18:01 PM
Blimey. Having been on mailing lists, etc. with Jim for the best part of **way too many years** I don't think I've ever seen him post something so irate - even in some of the Dark Times (tm) on Ancmed, DBMlist, DBMMlist and the like.  :'(

Oh, I have.  It is generally a sign that the interlocutor (usually me) has strained Jim's weltanschaung a bit too far.  That said, when Jim stops arguing with one it can be considered something of a compliment ... ;D

Regarding this particular subject, it does seem that progress is not going to occur.  Ergo, as it is your Seleucid army, Nik, and you have already made up your mind what goes into it, we can call a close to this discussion.