C2nd BC Seleukid

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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'.

[Tim]

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...

[Justin Swanton]

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....

[Swampster]

[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.

[RichT]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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".

[Jim Webster]

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:

[Swampster]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

The problem then is what is meant by 'phalanx'

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

[Jim Webster]

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'.

[nikgaukroger]

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