Illyrians

[Jim Webster]

 Just looking again at Dio Sic 15:13:2

While these events were taking place, in Sicily Dionysius, the tyrant of the Syracusans, resolved to plant cities on the Adriatic Sea. His idea in doing this was to get control of the Ionian Sea,1 in order that he might make the route to Epeirus safe and have there his own cities which could give haven to ships. For it was his intent to descend unexpectedly with great armaments upon the regions about Epeirus and to sack the temple at Delphi, which was filled with great wealth. [2] Consequently he made an alliance with the Illyrians with the help of Alcetas the Molossian, who was at the time an exile and spending his days in Syracuse. Since the Illyrians were at war, he dispatched to them an allied force of two thousand soldiers and five hundred suits of Greek armour. The Illyrians distributed the suits of armour among their choicest warriors and incorporated the soldiers among their own troops.

The reason I was looking at it again was that Christopher Matthew in 'An Invincible Beast' uses this section to 'show' that the Illyrians were largely fighting as hoplites.

(Diodorus on the other hand describes the Illyrians as fighting as Hoplites by 385BC)

Pondering this, I've always just assumed that the five hundred panoplies could have been as easily worn by 'auxilia' or even 'warband' as by 'spear'. But it's the 2000 soldiers he sent. If they were incorporated amongst their own troops, they must have fought in a reasonably similar manner (and spoken a reasonably similar language).

So I'm left wondering what the Greek word was that was translated as 'Incorporated' or what sort of troops were sent

Jim

[RichT]

Diod 15.13.2
τῶν δ᾽ Ἰλλυριῶν ἐχόντων πόλεμον, ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτοῖς συμμάχους στρατιώτας δισχιλίους καὶ πανοπλίας Ἑλληνικὰς πεντακοσίας. οἱ δ᾽ Ἰλλυριοὶ τὰς μὲν πανοπλίας ἀνέδωκαν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν στρατιωτῶν, τοὺς δὲ στρατιώτας κατέμιξαν τοῖς ἰδίοις στρατιώταις.

'Suits of armour' = πανοπλίας = panoplias. 'Panoply' would be a better translation as it (can) include all equipment, not just the armour.

'Incorporated' = κατέμιξαν = katemixan, katamignumi =  to mix up or mingle.

Which does suggest to me that the Illyrians were hoplites too.

The troops sent are just called στρατιώτας = stratiotas = soldiers, type unspecified.

[Jim Webster]

Thanks
At the very least the mercenaries employed by Dionysius included some 'greek' speaking infantry who could fight on the same terms as Illyrians.

Given that most citizen hoplites are irregular for a lot of the time, the only problem I have is lack of hoplite shields depicted amongst Illyrians in the 4th century, but then if we see figures with hoplite shields do we regard them as Illyrians.

Or perhaps they were closer to Italian spear armed infantry?

[Swampster]

Thanks
At the very least the mercenaries employed by Dionysius included some 'greek' speaking infantry who could fight on the same terms as Illyrians.

Given that most citizen hoplites are irregular for a lot of the time, the only problem I have is lack of hoplite shields depicted amongst Illyrians in the 4th century, but then if we see figures with hoplite shields do we regard them as Illyrians.

Or perhaps they were closer to Italian spear armed infantry?

If they were Greek speaking, then wouldn't this cause problems with "and spoken a reasonably similar language"? Illyrian seems to have been a very different language to Greek; whether Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian has been debated for centuries but if not it does at least show just how different a neighbouring language can be.

Since I doubt that any of Dionysius's mercenaries spoke a similar language, that may be a red herring of who to exclude, so perhaps they were Italian or one of the other various groups of mercenaries which the Syracusans employed, so not necessarily hoplites either.

[Jim Webster]

For Illyrians, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HIST301-4.3.2-AncientPeopleoftItaly-FINAL.pdf  is interesting in that the  Iapyges may have been related to Illyria. Also many years ago, mid 1970s, I borrowed a book from inter-library loan, and it showed an awful of of Picentes stuff showed similarity to Illyrian.

So it might have been that they were 'Italian' mercenaries

Jim

[Duncan Head]

What if the mercenaries supplied by Dionsysios weren't hoplites? Calling them just "stratiotai"  might imply that they were Greeks, but it isn't decisive. After all, it was Celts and Iberians that he lent to his friends in Greece.

[Jim Webster]

Because I don't personally think that Illyrians were hoplites I'm happy to accept that the troops loaned were not hoplites either.
However whoever was loaned had to be able to cope with being mingled with Illyrians. The idea that Dionsysios had Iapyges or similar Italian mercenaries who spoke a language close enough to Illyrian for them to 'mingle' would nicely 'square the circle.'

Actually it wouldn't mean much change, if any, to the Syracusian list for the period as that allows

Italian mercenary foot: Campanian - Reg Ax (O) @ 4AP, or Samnite - Reg Ax (S) @ 5AP    0-6

You could if being picky have

Italian mercenary foot: Campanian or others - Reg Ax (O) @ 4AP, or Samnite - Reg Ax (S) @ 5AP    0-6

The big change would be the Illyrian list in book 1

Only in 385 BC:
Illyrians equipped by Syracuse as hoplites - Irr Sp (O) @ 4AP   0-4
Syracusan allies - List: Syracusan (Bk 2/9)


I'd suggest
Illyrians equipped by Syracuse as hoplites - Irr Ax (S) @ 4AP   0-4

But Syracusian allies isn't the best way to tackle the 2000, given that it means the Illyrians would end up getting Tarantine cavalry and hoplites

I'd suggest more of an 'internal' ally

Only in 385 BC:
Illyrians equipped by Syracuse as hoplites - Irr Ax (S) @ 4AP   0-4
Syracusan supplied Italians. Reg Ax(O)  @ 4AP  0-16

Regular status assumes they had come from Syracuse where they'd been serving in Sicily but alternatively he could just have hired them on the beach and shipped them across

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

What if the mercenaries supplied by Dionsysios weren't hoplites? Calling them just "stratiotai"  might imply that they were Greeks, but it isn't decisive. After all, it was Celts and Iberians that he lent to his friends in Greece.

The suits of armour supplied were 'panoplias Hellenikas', i.e. Hellenic armour, which does look very hoplitic, while the troops are 'symmachous stratiotas', allied soldiers, without making clear whose allies they were.

The soldiery and armour appear to be sent as a job lot, and the dispatch of the panoplies suggests without confirming the availablity of hoplites at the other end to receive them.  Hitherto the inference has been that the recipients must have been or become hoplites, but one could adduce the case of Nicomedes of Byzantium supplying armour to the Galatians during their passage to Asia Minor to argue that the receipt of Greek military equipment does not per se create a hoplite.

I would suggest the Illyrians probably employed the 2,000 infantry and 500 upgraded Illyrians as thorakitai to bolster their more-or-less thureophoroi standard types, giving them a few bases upgraded from 'O' to 'S'.  Hence I think Jim is on the right track but would suggest using all relevant troops - both up-armoured Illyrians and distributed 'allies' - as Irr Ax (S).