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?
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.
Quote from: Swampster on January 28, 2013, 10:59:45 PM
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.
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
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?
Quote from: rodge on January 29, 2013, 08:27:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 29, 2013, 05:31:13 PM
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.
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
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.
'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
Quote from: rodge on January 30, 2013, 09:18:14 AMI 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.
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,
Quote from: Swampster on January 29, 2013, 05:46:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2013, 11:08:35 PM
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
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 30, 2013, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2013, 11:08:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Patrick WatersonNext 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.
Quote from: Patrick WatersonRoy 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.
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
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 30, 2013, 01:44:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 30, 2013, 01:44:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 31, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 30, 2013, 01:44:18 PM
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.
Except that we have no good evidence for any contingent "armed with swords but no shields", merely the fact that shields aren't mentioned as being found in the marshes two centuries later. Maybe they rotted away.
Quote from: Patrick WatersonThe 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.
The hoplite sword is normally a xiphos, and plenty of makhairai are smaller than that. So I don't think we can deduce anything from the terminology.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 31, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
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.
Appian says that the Pontic force had lost 10000 cavalry and the infantry fled to the camps. From there, the main route to escape seems to have been the marsh - Archelaus went that way. Troops with armour and helmets went that way
How many cavalry escaped before the Romans "enclosed Archelaus with a ditch at a distance of less than 600 feet from his camp, to prevent his escape" is unknown. However, if Appian's figure is at all accurate it would likely represent a large proportion of the cavalry going by the ratio in various other Pontic armies.
As for the shields, can we really read anything into their absence from the marshes? Were
all the troops shut up in the camp this bow and sword armed troop type? Had
all the shield carrying troops escaped a different way?
Incidentally, are there any published photos of the Orchomenos trophy found a few years back. The news reports had some tantalising shots which lacked detail. One block looked like it might show a round shield with a sword or quiver in front.
While shields might theoretically have degenerated to nothing in the intervening couple of centuries since the battle, we still have the presence of bows and the absence of spearheads, etc. to explain.
Would bows really survive but shields disappear over that period of time?
Assuming that the shields were carried into the marsh - first thing to discard in a rout on the whole - it could well be that they'd float or stick out and be recovered or rot on the surface if wood/hide. Bows would be harder to spot. Helmets could also float bit there are more pools in the marsh which could drown a helmet than a shield.
OTOH, I'm inclined to think Plutarch just trotted out a number of things found and wasn't necessarily making an exclusive list. Steel armour but no bronze? Swords found were all of foreign make/design? Likewise I don't read much into the lack of mention of spears. They could have been discarded before entering the marsh though they'd be more useful in crossing the ground. I do not believe that the infantry left in the camp and fleeing into the marsh was all bow and sword armed with only troops of this type wearing helmets and steel armour. It certainly doesn't match any of the other descriptions of the army as being a mix of infantry types.
Quote from: Swampster on January 31, 2013, 06:51:04 PMIncidentally, are there any published photos of the Orchomenos trophy found a few years back. The news reports had some tantalising shots which lacked detail. One block looked like it might show a round shield with a sword or quiver in front.
Unpublished as far as I know. The only one I have from back in 2004 does show what looks like a sword in font of a flat oval shield.
Sekunda's
Hellenistic Infantry Reform ... (2001) has photos of a trophy in the BM which has been associated with the Sullan victory at Chaironeia; it has scutum, greaves and Attic-ish helmet which might be Pontic "legionary" equipment - plus a bow. Which probably goes to show that you can't put too much faith in association of weapon types on trophies, or indeed in marshes.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 03, 2013, 12:20:30 AM
Which probably goes to show that you can't put too much faith in association of weapon types on trophies, or indeed in marshes.
Which if true might be fatal to quite a few archaeology-based conclusions.
In any event, from the battlefield behaviour of the archers, they do seem to have been close-formation troops.
Quote from: Swampster on February 01, 2013, 07:40:31 PM
I do not believe that the infantry left in the camp and fleeing into the marsh was all bow and sword armed with only troops of this type wearing helmets and steel armour. It certainly doesn't match any of the other descriptions of the army as being a mix of infantry types.
But - only the one infantry type (the sword-wielders) is mentioned as defending the camp against the Romans. And this would be the troop type the Romans cut down in the marshes, on account of it being the only one with which they were in contact. Concidentally, Plutarch notes the subsequent finds as being swords (as one would expect), helmets (ditto), bits of metal armour (ditto) and bows (this is the surprise).
Given that the leavings in the marsh would be from the one troop type recorded as being actually engaged by the Romans in their assault on the camp, we can reasonably conclude the bows belonged to this troop type.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 03, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Given that the leavings in the marsh would be from the one troop type recorded as being actually engaged by the Romans in their assault on the camp, we can reasonably conclude the bows belonged to this troop type.
I'm afraid I don't think we can.
These are the same archers who disdained to use their swords and poked the Romans in their desperation with arrows?
We don't have a definite OOB for Orchomenus - though Frontinus's may be for there. However, every description of the Pontic army's infantry - when given- includes a mix of troops, not a unitype armoured bow- and sword-using shieldless soldier. We know there were archers. We know there were sword-users. That does not mean that the archers and the sword users are the same.
We don't even know that the troops using the swords are all the same. We only have a snap-shot of the defence where one-corner of the camp is being attacked and some troops try to defend it. This does not tell us about the rest of the troops in the camp.
Incidentally, Memnon has Sulla attack the camp while a significant Pontic force is off foraging, defeating those in detail as they returned.
I'd suggest so far there is no absolute proof of the close order (or at any rate not skirmishers) archers, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to allow a couple of units. I'd base that on Mithradates penchant for assembling armies from every available source and type of soldier and the evidence of the finds in the marsh and also because they are hardly a killer addition to the ragbag of Asiatics that Mithradates put into the field. After all, would you really spend points on a couple of such units?
Roy
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 03, 2013, 11:32:09 AMBut - only the one infantry type (the sword-wielders) is mentioned as defending the camp against the Romans.
Because Appian only mentions what was happening at
one corner of the camp, where the Romans happened to break in first: it is but one example of the "many valiant deeds" he mentions.
QuoteAnd this would be the troop type the Romans cut down in the marshes, on account of it being the only one with which they were in contact.
That doesn't follow. The whole camp-garrison would have been running away through the marsh, not just the unit of swordsmen who happened to be defending the one corner of the camp mentioned earlier.
QuoteGiven that the leavings in the marsh would be from the one troop type recorded as being actually engaged by the Romans in their assault on the camp, we can reasonably conclude the bows belonged to this troop type.
But they wouldn't, so we can't.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 03, 2013, 04:51:47 PM
That doesn't follow. The whole camp-garrison would have been running away through the marsh, not just the unit of swordsmen who happened to be defending the one corner of the camp mentioned earlier.
But Appian only mentions the one breach in the camp, which implies only the one contingent engaged in melee. The others might indeed have departed via the marshes while this was going on, but would not have left their kit there, particularly their armour(!). The presence of helmets and particularly armour indicates that these were left by casualties, i.e. the contingent the Romans stayed in contact with while the rest broke and ran, sauntered off or made a semi-controlled withdrawal
a la Hasdrubal at Baecula.
And there is still the lack of shields, pikes etc. in Plutarch's account of what was being recovered, which points to a litter-free egress by the other contingents.
Quote from: Swampster on February 03, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
These are the same archers who disdained to use their swords and poked the Romans in their desperation with arrows?
I do not know about 'disdained': they were closely crowded by the Romans and may have been unable to draw their swords in that situation.
Do you think the 'litter free' egress was made by the heavy infantry with pikes, javelins and shields while leaving the archers to defend the camp and be cut down in the rout?
There is no indication in Appian or Plutarch that there was a controlled attempt to leave the camp.
If Plutarch's description is complete and shows not just everything found but everything lost in the marsh then consider what troops are likely to drop as they rout.
Shields first. Then the next most unwieldly things - spears and pikes. These are unlikely to even made it out of the camp. Javelins might be kept but perhaps not or would be already thrown. Besides, he doesn't mention arrow heads either. Bows might be kept long enough to carry into the swamp as there is a chance of shooting at a pursuer but are then dropped as the marsh gets more difficult. Helmets and armour is either kept on or perhaps, if there is time, discarded before going deeper.
On the whole, I don't think we can read from Plutarch's list the equipment of a single troop type.
The "heavy infantry with pikes, javelins and shields" would be the natural choice to defend a corner of the camp being broken into by Romans (remembering Atrax and the gap-plugging effectiveness of a phalanx there), but no, the troops doing the defending relied on swords. The absence of pikemen where pikemen would do most good suggests to me they may already have been leaving, or were not even in the camp, when the Roman assault took place.
This leaves the troops who were defending, namely our contentious swordsmen. The kit recovered from the marshes is consistent with shieldless archer-swordsmen. If the troops Appian mentions were melee swordsmen (imitation legionaries or similar) the absence of shields requires explanation, as does the presence of bows. This leaves us seeking two explanations, whereas an archer unit with swords as sidearms leaves us requiring only one.
That at any rate is my thinking on the subject.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 04, 2013, 09:19:05 PM
the troops doing the defending relied on swords.
It is scarcely unusual for swords to be the main weapon mentioned. I've had a look through the accounts of a few battles and it the swords which get mentioned. You would hardly think the Romans had pila going by many accounts. Defending with drawn swords is dramatic, a sign of desperation or a willingness to get stuck in. When Marius's men attack Sulla's camp we are actually told that those building the camp actually put down their pila and use their swords. See also Sulla's men at Chaeroneia. Both are from Plutarch's Sulla.
That's not to say that at this point the Pontic soldiers wouldn't have turned to their swords. Forming a pike phalanx after coming down from the parapets would be not only tricky, especially within a camp, but they couldn't rely on the security of a breach in a city wall. They may have been javelin men and flung them to no avail.
We also have the difficulty that the defence of the angle is from Appian. Plutarch says the army was defeated "when the greater part of the army came out to give him battle" and such was their panic that after the rout no resistance was made. If it is possible to rationalise these accounts, I suspect that Appian is dramatising so that when he says they came down from the parapets it was not a single unit of swordsmen but a general sally whihc was unsuccessful.
Even so, why must the sword armed men have also dropped the bows in the marsh?
As for whether Plutarch is giving us a complete list of everything ever found, how about comparing to the description of the army at Chaeroneia. When the army is drawn up it fills the plain with horses, chariots, shields (aspides) and bucklers (thurewn). Did the Greeks have a rhetorical rule of four?
"heavy infantry with pikes" would be the last troops I would put to defend the corner of anything.
Stick them in the middle, and let chaps who can turn sideways easily hold the corners - like bowmen especially.
and as for shields - it rather depends on the layout of the camp wall as to whether a shield was quite as necessary as it would be in the open - something I doubt we can ever know enough to judge on, but still,
if defending a corner then javelin and shield might work, but not particularly unless the wall required scaling ladders, equally, javelin alone might work (ditto, it is the necessary height to gain a sufficient advantage for the javelin to compensate for the lack of run up a defensive position offered that would be vital).
But bowmen would also work. Especially if you expected the attack to come at the gate in the middle, which is an entirely normal thing to expect from a Roman, with their centre heavy infantry deployments.
I'd put the bowmen on the corners, expecting them to get enfilade shot onto the expected attack on the gate. Their range would offer the flexibility to cover a two sided attack on the corner as well, and I would hope the wall was good enough.
mostly, I would be expecting my superiority in cavalry to be used to counter attack somewhere. Once that was gone, I'd not expect much when facing Romans.
Quote from: Swampster on February 04, 2013, 11:09:49 PM
We also have the difficulty that the defence of the angle is from Appian. Plutarch says the army was defeated "when the greater part of the army came out to give him battle" and such was their panic that after the rout no resistance was made. If it is possible to rationalise these accounts, I suspect that Appian is dramatising so that when he says they came down from the parapets it was not a single unit of swordsmen but a general sally which was unsuccessful.
Even so, why must the sword armed men have also dropped the bows in the marsh?
As for whether Plutarch is giving us a complete list of everything ever found, how about comparing to the description of the army at Chaeroneia. When the army is drawn up it fills the plain with horses, chariots, shields (aspides) and bucklers (thurewn). Did the Greeks have a rhetorical rule of four?
If they did have such a rhetorical rule, we would see it much more frequently.
Reconciliation with Plutarch's account is easy if we see Appian's as an expanded version of Plutarch's or, more accurately, that each left out certain bits.
Plutarch:
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 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. Then Sulla threw himself from his horse, seized an ensign, and pushed his way through the fugitives against the enemy, crying: "For me, O Romans, an honourable death here; but you, when men ask you where you betrayed your commander, remember to tell them, at Orchomenus." The fugitives rallied at these words, and two of the cohorts on his right wing came to his aid; these he led against the enemy and routed them. Then he fell back a little distance, and after giving his men breakfast, again proceeded to fence the enemy's entrenchments off with his ditches.
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.
This part is only in Plutarch: Appian does not have this second try by the Pontic army. The narratives then converge again.
Next day Sulla again led his soldiers up to the enemy's fortifications and continued trenching them off, and when the greater part of them came out to give him battle, he engaged with them and routed them, and such was their panic that no resistance was made, and he took their camp by storm. - Life of Sulla 21.1-4
We note that Sulla 'took their camp by storm', which implies a bit of resistance there even if none worthy of the name occurred on the battlefield.
Appian:
Sulla had taken a position against Archelaus near Orchomenus. When he saw the great number of the enemy's horse coming up, he dug a number of ditches through the plain ten feet wide, and drew up his army to meet Archelaus when the latter advanced.
The Romans fought badly because they were in terror of the enemy's cavalry. Sulla rode hither and thither a long time, encouraging and threatening his men. Failing to bring them up to their duty in this way, he leaped from his horse, seized a standard, ran out between the two armies with his shield-bearers, exclaiming, "If you are ever asked, Romans, where you abandoned Sulla, your general, say that it was at the battle of Orchomenus." When the officers saw his peril they darted from their own ranks to his aid, and the troops, moved by the sense of shame, followed and drove the enemy back in their turn. This was the beginning of the victory. Sulla again leaped upon his horse and rode among his troops praising and encouraging them until the end of the battle. 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 has left out the second Pontic attack, for whatever reason. The next part accords with Plutarch's more condensed account and adds more detail.
Sulla feared lest Archelaus should escape him again, because he had no ships, and take refuge in Chalcis as before. Accordingly he stationed night watchmen at intervals over the whole plain, and the next day he enclosed Archelaus with a ditch at a distance of less than 600 feet from his camp, to prevent his escape.
Then he appealed to his army to finish the small remainder of the war, since the enemy were no longer even making show of resistance; and so he led them against the camp of Archelaus. Like scenes transpired among the enemy, with a change of feeling necessarily, the officers hurrying hither and thither, representing the imminent danger, and upbraiding the men if they should not be able to defend the camp against assailants inferior in numbers. There was a rush and a shout on each side, followed by many valiant deeds on the part of both. 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. - Mithridatic Wars 49-50
Here Appian gives an expanded account in contrast to Plutarch's summary conclusion. Appian's 'like scenes transpired among the enemy' and 'a rush and a shout and many valiant deeds' appear to equate to Plutarch's succinct 'the greater part of them came out to give him battle, he engaged with them and routed them'. We note that the Roman demolition of a corner of the camp (where, as Mark G mentions, we might expect archers to be posted) is the last in Appian's sequence of opposed combat activities, corresponding to Plutarch's 'took their camp by storm', and should thus represent the last contingent to offer serious resistance (and hence the contingent that took the casualties during the Roman pursuit).
The sword-armed men would have dropped the bows in the marsh because it is the simplest explanation: we find the equipment of sword-armed armoured men, we do not find shields, we do find bows. The use of the bow is (except for Cretans) basically incompatible with that of the shield. So unless we want a hypothesis whereby a unit of archers followed the swordsmen into the marsh, picking up shields and throwing away bows (in the middle of the Romans who were striking down fugitives left, right and centre) then on the basis of what Plutarch has written we are left with bow-armed swordsmen, whether they resisted or not.
So deploying archers in a corner - which would make them more cramped - makes more sense than deploying properly equipped men with swords and shields? Archers around the corner - perhaps so. Massing there and then jumping into the attack - I don't see it.
Meanwhile the shield bearing men are doing what? There is no indication that they escaped en masse.
I'm afraid that it is far more logical in my mind that the shields are dropped before entering the marsh rather than to create a heavily armoured and helmeted sword wielding archer.
I find we are now going round in circles so I shall agree to differ.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 03, 2013, 12:20:30 AM
Sekunda's Hellenistic Infantry Reform ... (2001) has photos of a trophy in the BM which has been associated with the Sullan victory at Chaironeia; it has scutum, greaves and Attic-ish helmet which might be Pontic "legionary" equipment - plus a bow. Which probably goes to show that you can't put too much faith in association of weapon types on trophies, or indeed in marshes.
Just in case anyone is interested and doesn't have the book, this is on the BM website http://www.britishmuseum.org/system_pages/beta_collection_introduction/beta_collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=406277&partId=1&searchText=sculpture 2142
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 04, 2013, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 03, 2013, 04:51:47 PM
That doesn't follow. The whole camp-garrison would have been running away through the marsh, not just the unit of swordsmen who happened to be defending the one corner of the camp mentioned earlier.
But Appian only mentions the one breach in the camp, which implies only the one contingent engaged in melee.
No, it doesn't. It implies only one successful break-in, or perhaps even only one successful break-in dramatic enough to be mentioned. Other Roman contingents were probably attacking other sections of the fortifications, pulling down stakes and trying to cross ditches, and meeting resistance - apparently more successful resistance.
Quote from: PatrickThe others might indeed have departed via the marshes while this was going on, but would not have left their kit there, particularly their armour(!).
Of course they would! Fugitives are notorious for discarding anything that will hamper their flight. "Some lucky Saian has my shield, I left it hanging in a wood.."; "To save himself from the foe and escape, he cut away his horse's armour, ..."; "and all the heathens were discomfited before them, and they threw away their weapons, and fled".
And no, there is no indication of a controlled retreat by anybody; the impression is given of the entire Pontic army in rout (or at least all the infantry, as I concede the point previously made about the cavalry possibly escaping unattested across the plain).
Quote from: PatrickThe sword-armed men would have dropped the bows in the marsh because it is the simplest explanation
It seems to me like a contrived, artificial explanation linking too many unconnected incidents.
And, like Peter, I shall now agree to differ.
Finally we are all in agreement. ;)
Interesting, though, the association of the bow with heavy infantry equipment on the 'Chaeronea' trophy (admittedly including a shield). I shall leave the matter there.