Who are those (Pontic?) guys?

[rodge]

Whilst reading about the Mithridatic Wars something in Plutarch and then Appian caught my eye.
At Orchomenus, a rapid Pontic attack caught Sulla's men as they were digging trenches.  This he repulsed, and then:

But they attacked him again in better order than before, Diogenes, the step-son of Archelaus, fought gallantly on their right wing, and fell gloriously, and their archers, being hard pressed by the Romans, so that they had no room to draw their bows, took their arrows by handfuls, struck with them as with swords, at close quarters, and tried to beat back their foes, but were finally shut up in their entrenchments, and had a miserable night of it with their slain and wounded. - Plutarch 21.3

Interesting that the archers (toxotai) stood and fought rather than doing the usual skirmisher thing. 
And were these archers actually the ones doing the attacking? 
If so this suggests they may have been close-formation troops, and good ones at that. They accompany Diogenes, step-son of Archelaus, but whether he leads the contingent or dies at the head of a cavalry contingent they are supporting is not entirely clear.  Appian says:

'The enemy lost 15,000 men, about 10,000 of whom were cavalry, and among them Diogenes, the son of Archelaus. The infantry fled to their camps.' – Appian, 49

Are the archers infantry rather than skirmishers?
If so, they were presumably intended to follow whatever cavalry Diogenes was putatively leading and give it archery support.  With Diogenes down the cavalry would have fled, but the archers had enough morale to stay put and fight.

A further suggestion that these archers were heavy infantry, even armoured, is:

'The marshes were filled with their blood, and the lake with their dead bodies, so that even to this day many bows, helmets, fragments of steel breastplates, and swords of barbarian make are found embedded in the mud, although almost two hundred years have passed since this battle.' - idem, 21.4

At least they appear to have been unshielded.  But they did put up an unusually good fight against Romans.

So who are these  archers?
They were presumably intended to follow whatever cavalry Diogenes was putatively leading and give it archery support.  With Diogenes down the cavalry would have fled, but the archers had enough morale to stay put and fight.

Appian's account of the final stage of the action is:

'The Romans, protected by their shields, were demolishing a certain angle of the camp when the barbarians leaped down from the parapet inside and took their stand around this corner with drawn swords to ward off the invaders. No one dared to enter until the military tribune, Basillus, first leaped over and killed the man in front of him. Then the whole army dashed after him. The flight and slaughter of the barbarians followed. Some were captured and others driven into the neighboring lake, and, not knowing how to swim, perished while begging for mercy in barbarian speech, not understood by their slayers.' – idem. 50

The 'barbarians' start on the parapet (presumably shooting at the Romans?) hence the need for the latter to be 'protected by their shields', then get down and stand at the breached corner of the camp with 'drawn swords'.
These 'barbarians' would seem to be the archers mentioned by Plutarch, and once again they do not have lances or spears, only swords. 
Neither Plutarch nor Appian refer to them by tribal name, which suggests to me (without necessarily confirming) that they are probably Pontic in origin.
Any views of who and what type of troops they were?

[Swampster]

I think the way the archers resort to using bunches of arrows to stab with suggests that they were otherwise unequipped for close combat. I guess it is possible they could be mounted archers though I doubt it.
The armoured and/or sword armed troops could be any of a whole bunch of other troops. Those defending against the assault in the corner could even be dismounted cavalry for all we know. If they were archers, why leave the security of the camp to fight hand to hand? There could have been archers (or other missile chuckers) on the parapet requiring the Romans to use their shields in the advance and then other Pontic troops sallied forth.

[rodge]

I think the way the archers resort to using bunches of arrows to stab with suggests that they were otherwise unequipped for close combat.

I quite agree, unless they were also sword armed but this unusual method of defence merited record. I expect we will never know.
I was wondering why, facing Romans, they stood and used unsheathed arrows to use as close combat weapons?
If they were skirmishing troops surely they would have melted away in the face of the attack conducted 'in better order' by the Romans?
Orchomenus was an open field (with Roman trenches dug to neutralise Pontic cavalry superiority), perhaps they had no choice but to stand and fight, but then they seem to have engaged in a prolonged combat outside the entrenchments before the Romans put them firmly back in them.

[aligern]

Stabbing with arrows sounds  a bit like the desperate actions of the Persians at Plataea once the Greeks had broken in. It may be only a literary device to indicate desperate but useless barbarians falling before Roman disciplina .  Alternatively it may be a genuine anecdote told by one Roman as happened to him.
remember, in Normandy every tank was a Tiger, every gun an 88.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

What is interesting is that these archers stood and fought rather than immediately breaking and running, also that they seem to be associated with the

bows, helmets, fragments of steel breastplates, and swords of barbarian make

subsequently found in the marshes.

Using bundles of arrows because they were being cramped by the Romans is quite understandable: if very closely pressed, as the Romans did to the Insubres in Polybius II.33, drawing swords or other melee weapons might well be problematical, whereas the quiver and its contents would have been easy to reach for.

The defenders of the camp seem to have started on the battlements (a good place for archers to shoot from), the Romans started demolishing part of the camp perimeter under the protection of their shields (probably a testudo) and then, as they made a gap in the defences, the men on the battlements jumped down and drew swords.  They were not, apparently, using pikes, spears or other infantry (or cavalry) weapons.

Hypothesis 1: these camp defenders were imitation legionaries
Hypothesis 2: they were the close-fighting archers we saw on the battlefield.

The lack of shield parts being mentioned when Plutarch's contemporaries were finding bits in the mud makes one wonder if the engaged camp defenders were shieldless, which would imply archers.  Bows were being found, so at least some wooden parts of shields could still be expected to be present.

Has Rodger inadvertently unearthed a new Pontic troop type, the armoured foot archer?  And did these constitute a significant part of Mithridates' infantry?

[Swampster]

Orchomenus was an open field (with Roman trenches dug to neutralise Pontic cavalry superiority), perhaps they had no choice but to stand and fight, but then they seem to have engaged in a prolonged combat outside the entrenchments before the Romans put them firmly back in them.

Plutarch says that the trenches were intended to cut the Pontic forces off from the favourable flat ground and force them into the marshes. The attacks were made while the trenches were being dug so the cavalry were not necessarily cut off. However, the Romans digging the trenches - and likely the rest of the force - would have been close enough to still constrain the movement of the Pontic army. There may have been little room left for the skirmishers to melt away into, what with the marshes, lake and even their own camp.

I don't think the list of equipment found in the marshes is particularly associated with the archers more than any other troops. There is no mention of shields but neither are javelins or pikes mentioned. It could even be that no shields were found because they were discarded first, before trying to cross the marsh.

It could be that those defending the camp with swords were imitation legionaries - there is mention of them being in Greece in one source though the others place the main retraining post 1stMW. However, I think it could be any of the various types of infantry. I would see archers moving away from the most at risk section of camp defence (especially as the Roman shields are supposed to be protecting them in the advance - testudo?) while more heavily armed moved to that point, chucking javelins if they could and then going in with the sword if the corner of the camp was in danger of being breached.

[Andreas Johansson]

Hypothesis 1: these camp defenders were imitation legionaries
Hypothesis 2: they were the close-fighting archers we saw on the battlefield.

Another possibility might be they were pikemen who saw no point in bringing their pikes up on the battlements, and then had no time to retrieve them, so fell back to sidearms.

[aligern]

Could they be the descendants of Persian settler sparabara?  Could armoured close order archers have maintained a tradition through the Hellenistic period? is that likely or supportable by other evidence?
Roy

[Duncan Head]

At Orchomenus: "In the battle against Lucius Sulla, Archelaus placed his scythe-bearing chariots in front, for the purpose of throwing the enemy into confusion; in the second line he posted the Macedonian phalanx, and in the third line auxiliaries armed after the Roman way, with a sprinkling of Italian runaway slaves, in whose doggedness he had the greatest confidence. In the last line he stationed the light-armed troops, while on the two flanks, for the purpose of enveloping the enemy, he placed the cavalry, of whom he had a great number. " (Frontinus II.17) So he had both pikemen and imitation legionaries, either of whom could have been the swordsmen at the camp - as indeed could perhaps some of the "light-armed troops", or even dismounted cavalrymen penned up after their defeat on the first day. Armoured archers are conspicuous by their absence in this list.

Rodger asks, "And were these archers actually the ones doing the attacking?" Probably not, or at least not on their own. It is at this stage of the battle that Appian says "The Romans fought badly because they were in terror of the enemy's cavalry". The trenches did not prevent these cavalry from making their presence felt, because they were not completely built, as Plutarch makes clear - "Sulla proceeded to dig trenches on either side, in order that, if possible, he might cut the enemy off from the solid ground which was favourable for the cavalry, and force them into the marshes. The enemy, however, would not suffer this, but when their generals sent them forth, charged impetuously and at full speed, so that not only Sulla's labourers were dispersed, but also the greater part of the corps drawn up to protect them was thrown into confusion and fled". Combining the two texts suggests there is an initially successful cavalry attack, which the archers are presumably supporting. Sulla however rallies his men and counter-attacks, which is when his legionaries close with the archers.

I see no reason to link the archers stabbing with arrows on the first day of the battle with the swordsmen defending the camp on the second: in an army that contained so many different troop types it is rash to start linking separate references without more reason than this. That the Romans were "protected by their shields" as they demolished the rampart does not mean that the enemy on the ramparts were archers: the Romans would have needed their shields just as much against men throwing pila, light javelins, or even stakes or stones - there is no shortage of examples of such missiles being hurled during sieges.

I am also unconvinced by Patrick's argument that archers too pressed to use their bows might find a bunch of arrows easier to draw than a sword. It seems far more likely that these were archers who had no swords to use, but who chose to stand rather than run, or were forced to fight because the Romans hemmed them in from more than one direction. In other words they were "inferior bows" who briefly threw unusually good dice, not better-armed "ordinary bows".

I'm afraid I don't see any case for close-order armoured archers here at all, but I fear Rodger has added two and two and made six.

[rodge]

'but I fear Rodger has added two and two and made six.'
Not for the first time Duncan..and probably not the last....

The archers seem to have supported the cavalry attack as I mentioned in the first post 'they were presumably intended to follow whatever cavalry Diogenes was putatively leading and give it archery support.'
I am just curious as to why and how they did not exit stage left followed by the Romans when confronted?
As Swampster says perhaps they were skirmishers  who just got unlucky and got caught.....

I'm a little perplexed by the troops 'armed in the Roman style' Frontinus mentions.
Does this mean they look like Romans or that they look and fight like Romans? Or are these mercenary/subject thureophoroi perhaps with looted Roman kit?

Actual troops that we treat as Imitation Legions do not appear, according to Plutarch, until 13 years after Orchomenus in the 3rd Mitridatic War:

When therefore, he thought to go to war the second time, he organized his forces into a genuinely effective armament. 4 He did away with Barbarous hordes from every clime, and all their discordant and threatening cries; he provided no more armour inlaid with gold and set with precious stones, for he saw that these made rich booty for the victors, but gave no strength whatever to their wearers; instead, he had swords forged in the Roman fashion, and heavy shields welded; he collected horses that were well trained rather than richly caparisoned, and a hundred and twenty thousand footmen drilled in the Roman phalanx formation, and sixteen thousand horsemen, not counting the scythe-bearing, four-horse chariots, which were a hundred in number:
Plutarch, Lucullus 7.3

[Duncan Head]

I am just curious as to why and how they did not exit stage left followed by the Romans when confronted?
As Swampster says perhaps they were skirmishers  who just got unlucky and got caught.....

That may be all there is to it. With cavalry charging and retreating all over the place, half-built trenches, and marshes, it is quite easy to imagine some archers getting caught where they simply could not get out of the way. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I still think armoured close-formation archers may be on the right track (this was my surmise rather than Rodger's, so I am the one with the +2 bonus  ).

There are a number of 'if's but, as Peter K brings up,

There is no mention of shields but neither are javelins or pikes mentioned.

And yet swords, helmets and pieces of metal armour are.  If the Pontic types involved in the camp defence episode were imitation legionaries, they would presumably have used their missile weapons while still on the battlements, so there is the lack of shields to explain - discarding these prior to entering the marsh might account for it - but there remains also the need to explain the bows.

I see no reason to link the archers stabbing with arrows on the first day of the battle with the swordsmen defending the camp on the second: 

But it does appear that the camp defenders were the ones who fled across, or at least into, the marsh with the Romans cutting them down.  What is left in the marsh includes bows but no shields, javelins or pikes.  This is the link.  Where you have bows and swords but no other weapons, it would seem not unreasonable to conclude that you have archers.  And where there is reason to suppose archers and you find armour, armoured archers are a reasonable surmise.

Next question: why would using arrow bundles imply skirmisher archers?  Are the latter known to have carried no secondary weapon?  And the impression one gets from Plutarch's account (which may be a firmer source than Frontinus) is not that they were fleeing skirmishers brought to bay but formed archers who chose to fight it out rather than retire or flee (they ended up being pushed back into camp - 'shut up in their entrenchments' - which implies they were not trapped in the first place, but holding voluntarily).  This is in keeping with what one would expect from close-formed armoured types.

Roy raises the interesting thought that a variety of sparabara might have survived until Pontic times.  There is considerable appeal to this as the Pontic rulers claimed a descent of sorts from Persian royalty.  The possible sparabaran step-children at Orchomenus appear to have lacked shield and javelin/short spear, but could well have been the end product of generations of specialisation.  Hypothetical, but it has a promising feel to it.

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

I see no reason to link the archers stabbing with arrows on the first day of the battle with the swordsmen defending the camp on the second: 

But it does appear that the camp defenders were the ones who fled across, or at least into, the marsh with the Romans cutting them down.

But the attack on the camp is the day after the fight with the arrow-stabbing archers, and the entire (surviving) Pontic army would have been in the camp and subsequently fleeing through the marshes. The helmets, armour and swords could then have belonged to anyone - not just the swordsmen who opposed the Roman breakthrough at one corner, and not necessarily the same men who dropped the bows. Your only "link", therefore, is that Plutarch does not mention shields or spears being found in the marshes.

Next question: why would using arrow bundles imply skirmisher archers?  Are the latter known to have carried no secondary weapon?

No, but they're possibly less likely to  have swords than are formed archers. I am not wedded to the idea of skirmishers myself, though I think it one possible explanation. I am also quite happy to accept the possibility of poorly-armed close-order "line" archers - my "inferior bowmen" analogy - just not good, armoured ones.

Roy raises the interesting thought that a variety of sparabara might have survived until Pontic times.

On the basis, I think, that there might have been colonies of such settled in Anatolia. We have no evidence for this.

[aligern]

Yes, I wouldn't say that I was hugely wedded to the idea of Persian colonists, because it  would require  at least a hint of specific evidence. However, military colonies do survive a long time because someone has a right to land use based on military service and by continuing the military service they guarantee the land. A group of several hundred archers that turns up to defend city walls or keep the peace is quite useful and cheap, particularly because Anatolia is mainly javelin country.
Duncan , of course would know better whether Persian colonists survive in say Mesopotamia, I think that Jewish military settlers have a long history at Elephantine on the Nile and Visigoths in Septimania are still there in the ninth century, keeping a separate identity and I think that bis down to the link between military service and land.
So no hard evidence, but then it would not be unusual for that to be lost, just conjecture.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

The helmets, armour and swords could then have belonged to anyone - not just the swordsmen who opposed the Roman breakthrough at one corner, and not necessarily the same men who dropped the bows. Your only "link", therefore, is that Plutarch does not mention shields or spears being found in the marshes.

The idea of one contingent armed with bows and no swords and another armed with swords but no shields seems a little harder on credibility than a single contingent, bow-and-sword-armed, at least to my way of thinking.  The sword type in the fighting at the camp is given as 'xiphos' rather than 'makhaira', implying a small/short sword rather than a large primary weapon, with the caveat that weapon terminology in Appian is not a rock of certainty.

I am also less sure that the 'entire' Pontic army fled through the marshes: from the description of Archelaus' campsite and environs in Plutarch's Sulla 20, the cavalry would have been able (and most likely willing) to depart over the Orchomenan plain once the Pontic army had decided that a clean pair of heels were in order.  Lack of any cavalry accoutrements among what was found in the marshes would also suggest this.

I am not wedded to the idea of skirmishers myself, though I think it one possible explanation. I am also quite happy to accept the possibility of poorly-armed close-order "line" archers - my "inferior bowmen" analogy - just not good, armoured ones.

We can agree to differ over 'good' (they were good enough to stand rather than break but not good enough to win) but are we essentially agreeing that close-order line archers (whether or not armoured can be another point of agreed difference) do seem to be a viable possibility in the circumstances?