Recent Article on Cunaxa

[Erpingham]

Stumbled across this while looking at stuff on scythed chariots

Michał Podrazik : Some remarks on the Battle of Cunaxa (401 Bc) from Res Historica 53, June 2022.  Don't think we've mentioned it before?

[Duncan Head]

Nice find, thank you. The discussion on peltophoroi is useful.

[Imperial Dave]

good find indeed. Anabasis is still one of may favourite classics

[RichT]

Yes interesting - I do wonder why Xenophon calls them peltophoroi when there is already a Greek word for men with peltai and javelins (after all, he's happy to call the Egyptians hoplitai). I guess because it is more of a translation of takabara, but even so, I wonder if it reflects different tactical use.

[Ade G]

Stumbled across this while looking at stuff on scythed chariots

Michał Podrazik : Some remarks on the Battle of Cunaxa (401 Bc) from Res Historica 53, June 2022.  Don't think we've mentioned it before?

Great find. My favourite battle!

[RichT]

Concerning peltophoroi, I've been looking again at this. The article says:

N. Sekunda writes: "the term [πελτοφόροι] is extremely rare in Greek. [...] Xenophon  himself regularly uses the term peltastēs, so we may presume that his use  of peltophoroi in the Cyropaedia (7.1.24) is deliberate and reflects Achaemenid usage."

The word is indeed rare (in literary sources - better known from Boeotian epigraphic evidence for the 3rd-2nd C Boeotian infantry, but we can assume they are a different beast). Here is what Perseus throws up for peltophoroi:

"He had filled the wherries with the heavy-armed cavalry [peltophoroi hippeis], and the canoes with the most active of his foot."
Pol. 3.43 (Hannibal crossing the Rhone; an unhappy translation, the Penguin Classics gives "light cavalry"; literally, pelte-carrying cavalry)

"They sent also to king Hiero asking for reinforcements, who sent them five hundred Cretan archers and a thousand peltasts [peltophoroi]."
Pol. 3.75 (Roman preparations before Cannae)

"Cyrus's army was encompassed by the enemy on every side, except the rear, with horsemen and hoplites, with targeteers [peltophoroi] and bowmen and chariots."
Xen. Cyrop. 7.1.24 (Lydian army, Thymbra)

"Behind the hoplites, however, were stationed peltasts [peltophoroi] and light javelin-men [psiloi akontistai], and behind them the stone-throwers."
Xen. Hell. 2.4.12 (Athenian democrats, Munychia)

"Cotys, ruler of the Paphlagonians, who had disobeyed the command of the Great King, though it was accompanied with the symbol of friendship, feared that he would be seized and either be fined heavily or even put to death; but he too, trusting in the armistice with Agesilaus, came to his camp and having entered into alliance elected to take the field at Agesilaus' side with a thousand horse and two thousand targeteers [peltophoroi]."
Xen. Ages. 3.4

I'd have to say I don't see any evidence here for the word reflecting Achaemenid usage, not in Xenophon (and obviously not in Polybius). More importantly, Xenophon himself regularly calls the Lydian and Persian peltasts peltast(es), not peltophoroi, for example:

"'Listen then,' said Cyaxares. 'Croesus, the king of Lydia, is said to be coming at the head of 10,000 horsemen and more than 40,000 peltasts and bowmen. And they say that Artacamas, the king of Greater Phrygia, is coming at the head of 8000 horse and not fewer than 40,000 lancers and peltasts; and Aribaeus, the king of Cappadocia, has 6000 horse and not fewer than 30,000 bowmen and peltasts; while the Arabian, Aragdus, has about 10,000 horsemen, about 100 chariots of war, and a great host of slingers. As for the Greeks who dwell in Asia, however, no definite information is as yet received whether they are in the coalition or not. But the contingent from Phrygia on the Hellespont, under Gabaedus, has arrived at Castru-Pedium, it is said, to the number of 6000 horse and 10,000 peltasts. The Carians, however, and Cilicians and Paphlagonians, they say, have not joined the expedition, although they have been invited to do so. But the Assyrians, both those from Babylon and those from the rest of Assyria, will bring, I think, not fewer than 20,000 horse and not fewer, I am sure, than 200 war-chariots, and a vast number of infantry, I suppose; at any rate, they used to have as many as that whenever they invaded our country.'
'You mean to say,' said Cyrus, 'that the enemy have 60,000 horse and more than 200,000 peltasts and bowmen. And at how many, pray, do you estimate the number of your own forces?'
'There are,' said he, 'of the Medes more than 10,000 horse; and the peltasts and bowmen might be, from a country like ours, some 60,000; while from our neighbours, the Armenians, we shall get 4000 horse and 20,000 foot.'"
Xen. Cyrop. 2.1.5-6

These are peltast(es) throughout. It's hard to see that Xenophon would have switched to peltophoroi in 7.1.24 for any specific reason (such as reflecting Achaemenid usage), rather than just, in the usual Greek way, using such words without any great precision.

[Duncan Head]

"They sent also to king Hiero asking for reinforcements, who sent them five hundred Cretan archers and a thousand peltasts [peltophoroi]."
Pol. 3.75 (Roman preparations before Cannae)

Griffith (in Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World) suggests that Polybios used peltophoroi here as an indication that the troops inn question were some sort of barbarians, not proper Greek peltasts. But the variation in the examples Rich has collected does throw some doubt on this idea. (It may well be true that they were barbarians, since the Syracusan tyrants employed many foreigners but as far as I know there is no hard evidence for them using Greek peltasts. But that doesn't mean that nationality accounted for the word usage.)

And as for "more of a translation of takabara", I am sceptical about that even without the other evidence, since we only actually have the word takabara attested as a description of Ionians wearing hats; that it was used for soldiers is only Nick Sekunda's suggestion, others have disagreed with it, and in any case there is little reason to think that Xenophon knew much Persian usage.

[RichT]

Griffith (in Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World) suggests that Polybios used peltophoroi here as an indication that the troops inn question were some sort of barbarians, not proper Greek peltasts.

Hmm maybe - but I think more significantly Polybius doesn't seem to use 'peltast' for peltasts (in the Classical sense) at all - all his uses of 'peltast' either are or arguably could be referring to Macedonian peltasts (i.e phalangites, which is maybe the Boeotian usage (edit: of peltophoroi, I mean) too). So I don't think we can read much into his use of peltophoroi on this occasion.

'Takabara' then seems to be pretty dodgy all round?

[Duncan Head]

'Takabara' then seems to be pretty dodgy all round?

We discussed "takabara" a while ago - http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1317.msg12814#msg12814 and the next few posts - (I hadn't thought it was as long ago as 2014!). Subsequently, there is https://www.academia.edu/39834747/OPers_taka-bara_Old_Hat which is a bit of a struggle to read, but tells me first, that the taka=shield interpretation predates Sekunda, and second, that Ramer strongly disagrees with it!

[RichT]

Ha thanks, yes - an article strong on indignation but weak on clarity and sense. Takabara do at any rate seem to have taken firm root in Wargamer History (not that I'm questioning the type rather than the name).

[Duncan Head]

A bit more ferreting:
Rollinger's "Yauna Takabara..." article (in German).

Tuplin "Revisiting Dareios' Scythian Expedition" thinks Rollinger just  complicates things unnecessarily..

[RichT]

So my understanding (now) is:

- Yauna takabara, from the reliefs, are Greeks with some characteristic, which may (or may not) be that they bore shields, or that they looked as if they bore shields (on, or about, their heads - which might be hats, or might actually be shields). Or it might mean something else (such as 'running bearers [of shields]) (somewhat implausibly IMHO).

- some Persian/Achaemenid/Lydian infantry were called (by Xenophon) 'peltasts', and there are also the Persian peltasts at Issus in Callisthenes ap. Polybius

- on a single occasion Xenophon calls the Lydian examples peltophoroi, but he also used the word (sparingly) for other infantry, and usually called the Lydians peltasts

- some Persian infantry (in art) carry shields which are not Greek-style aspides, nor gerrai; these may therefore be what Greeks would call peltai, that is shields of lighter construction than aspides, and of indeterminate size and shape (but in practice often crescent or round-with-a-bite shaped, and similar in size to aspides)

All of which seems fair enough, the leap of faith being:

- that these Persian infantry with peltai were called takabara (by the Persians).

I don't really see the grounds for this last step; yet it seems widely accepted in the wargamer/hobbyist community at least. I suppose they have to be called something, so there's no harm in calling them that (assuming that is that they are a homogenous consistent troop type with similar equipment and tactical use across a fairly wide span of history, which does not seem to be a given - in other words there may be no 'them', just a variety of 'thems').

[Duncan Head]

The term is widely accepted by wargamers et al. because Nick Sekunda suggested it, originally in his "Achaemenid Military Terminology" article but subsequently and more widely-read in his Osprey and probably other works as well; I also mentioned it in the Montvert book, though calling it speculative. In general, most wargamers and the like don't read much deeper than that.

[Andreas Johansson]

It's a good example of someone 's guess morphing into wargamer received wisdom. (Not that this sort of thing is by any means exclusive to wargamers.)

Speaking of leaps of faith, Podrazik's deduction that Mithridates was a peltophoros, or whatever we're to call the troop-type, strikes me as worthy of a saint.

[Jim Webster]

It's a good example of someone 's guess morphing into wargamer received wisdom. (Not that this sort of thing is by any means exclusive to wargamers.)

Speaking of leaps of faith, Podrazik's deduction that Mithridates was a peltophoros, or whatever we're to call the troop-type, strikes me as worthy of a saint.

Yes the whole passage is worth a look

"According to Plutarch, following Ctesias, ,,[...] a young
Persian, Mithridates by name, running to his [Cyrus'] side, smote him with
his javelin in the temple, near the eye [...]"61. The verb παρατρέχω used in
the quoted passage, which generally refers to the verb ,,to run"62, indicates
that Mithridates was moving on foot, not on horseback. It means that he
was a foot soldier, light armed, as may be supposed, fighting with a javelin.
Plutarch does not mention Mithridates being equipped with a shield,
but it was not a shield that was essential for the events described, but the
javelin with which the young Persian hit and seriously wounded Cyrus.
And it was on this aspect of the event that the account of Plutarch was focused.
It should not be ruled out, therefore, that Mithridates had a shield,
presumably a πέλτη type shield. As shields of this type were used by light
armed foot soldiers on the left wing of the King's forces, one could also
have been used by Mithridates. This leads us to the conclusion that the
latter was fighting as a πελτοφόρος."

The fact that somebody is on foot in a cavalry melee merely proves they are unfortunate, not that they are infantry