Starting the topic.
I don't recall seeing this before: Wall-painting of Ptolemaic swordsmen (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ig4uQC20_IC&pg=PA96-IA7&lpg=PA96-IA7&dq=%22kom+madi%22+wall+painting+bodyguards&source=bl&ots=viKEnGq3zG&sig=uRyRsNhh_MwFcXWd5kMMYSBCmSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q0aZVeuvF4uu-QHXxLeoCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22kom%20madi%22%20wall%20painting%20bodyguards&f=false). There's a much less clear monochrome drawing in the Fischer-Bovet Ptolemaic Army book, identifying these as the machairophoroi bodyguards mentioned in the papyri (where some have Greek names and others Semitic names, while F-B thinks that some native Egyptians may have been machairophoroi as well).
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 05, 2015, 04:11:32 PM
I don't recall seeing this before: Wall-painting of Ptolemaic swordsmen (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ig4uQC20_IC&pg=PA96-IA7&lpg=PA96-IA7&dq=%22kom+madi%22+wall+painting+bodyguards&source=bl&ots=viKEnGq3zG&sig=uRyRsNhh_MwFcXWd5kMMYSBCmSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q0aZVeuvF4uu-QHXxLeoCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22kom%20madi%22%20wall%20painting%20bodyguards&f=false). There's a much less clear monochrome drawing in the Fischer-Bovet Ptolemaic Army book, identifying these as the machairophoroi bodyguards mentioned in the papyri (where some have Greek names and others Semitic names, while F-B thinks that some native Egyptians may have been machairophoroi as well).
Thinking about this it doesn't surprise me, it didn't take long for 'Greeks' to get to the stage where their children had Egyptian names (and Greek ones for official purposes) and they wrote in Coptic (3 or four generations depending on the family)
Jim
Greek culture also rubbed off on the Egyptians themselves. Here is high priest of Siwa Si-Amon (http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/si-amun7.gif) looking very Greek. (Source (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/si-amun.htm))
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 05, 2015, 10:13:37 PM
Greek culture also rubbed off on the Egyptians themselves. Here is high priest of Siwa Si-Amon (http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/si-amun7.gif) looking very Greek. (Source (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/si-amun.htm))
According to the suggestions in the text he might well have been Greek
The cultural and population dynamics of Hellenistic Egypt are fascinating
Jim
From what I can find, the Siwan high priests (Herodotus calls them 'kings' - we may note the blank cartouches in Si-Amon's tomb, perhaps for filling in when Ptolemy was not looking) were a hereditary Egyptian family position, like most Egyptian priesthoods.
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 05, 2015, 10:32:06 PM
The cultural and population dynamics of Hellenistic Egypt are fascinating.
Yes - although the army seems to have stayed Macedonian (plus various imported Gauls, Aetolians etc.) until 218-217 BC when the Egyptian
machimoi were dusted off and sent, sarissa in hand, to the battlefield, where they acquitted themselves adequately at Raphia.
Upon the death of Ptolemy IV, the Egyptians around Thebes revolted under one Harwennefer (various spellings exist: Greek texts call him 'Harmachis'). He lasted for six fairly successful years, then was replaced by Ankhennefer, who has been identified as everything from his own alter ego to his wife, though he may have been a co-regent son (Year 6 of Horwennefer is followed by Year 7 of Ankhennefer who lasts until his own Year 14).
The Ptolemaic army itself, at least pre-217 BC, seems to have been a standard Successor model with Companion lancers, Agema pikes, settler cavalry and pikemen and a collection of fringe types plus the inevitable elephants. The latter seem to have been mainly of the diminutive breed used by the Carthaginians, although at Raphia some Ptolemaic elephants stood against and fought their Seleucid counterparts, leading to speculation about Indian elephants in the Ptolemaic army. In theory the Ptolemies could have acquired some directly from India, but the practical problems of transporting elephants across the Indian Ocean are formidable to say the least and hypothetically might best be limited to young animals only - if this could be done without terminal psychological problems.
Equally in theory the Ptolemies might have taken the simpler procedure of purchasing some directly from the Seleucids whenever the two empires were at peace and had a marriage alliance going. Or Ptolemy III Euergetes may simply have captured some during his successful campaigns into the Seleucid heartland: this seems to me the likeliest explanation.
A passable overview of the Ptolemaic army (with some nice Angus McBride illustrations) can be found here (https://deadliestblogpage.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/armies-of-the-macedonian-successor-states-the-ptolemies/). The McBride illustration (https://deadliestblogpage.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ghjla.png?w=640&h=474) of various (A-D) troop types about a third of the way scrolling down the page has as type A some Celts/Galatians which make an interesting comparison with the wall-painting Duncan mentioned.
Very exciting to see the picture of the bodyguards. They look very like the figures with round shields on the Cypriot silver bowl. I wonder if that is essentially machimoi kit?
Roy
In my own set of rules I am working on, Ptol Egypt, Pontus, Epirus, Seleucids and Macedon are all lumped into one army list called "Successor States"
Fear too vanilla for my taste.
Each successor offered something different.
And changed over time.
You may as well just have one Roman list.
Quote from: eques on July 06, 2015, 04:10:44 PM
In my own set of rules I am working on, Ptol Egypt, Pontus, Epirus, Seleucids and Macedon are all lumped into one army list called "Successor States"
A bit vanilla for my taste as well to be honest. Either that or the list has to rival medieval German in complexity
Jim
Fair enough, each to their own.
Personally I like things simplified and streamlined as much as possible and try to apply this approach to the army lists as well as the rules proper.
I don't agree that it's the same as having one list for all of Roman history, owing to the greater variety of subject/auxiliary troops available to Rome, and changes in the way she used them. Their "line" cavalry, to give one example, was at different times drilled and undrilled, armoured and unarmoured.
I think there was more basic continuity amongst the Successor states - Phalanx, Heavy Cavalry, Elite Heavy Cavalry, Imitation Legionaries, Elephants, Scythed Chariots, Skirmishers, Cataphracts (I just add comments such as "Not Pontus or Egypt" in the comments section)
I can see the attractions of such an approach for the list compiler (and let us face it, until the Macedonian elephants died off and the Seleucids began to diverge from the general pattern the various armies were quite similar in troop types if not always in composition). Unfortunately the potential end-users (players) have grown up with separate lists for each Hellenistic power, and this has become something of an expectation.
Dragging out the old WRG 6th lists, the cavalry and pikes are usually very similar, the differences being in potential quality and numbers (and occasionally the availability of metal armour), but the subsidiary subjects, allies and mercenaries vary considerably between each list. It would be possible to collate them into one universal list, but ease of use and immediate identification with the army ("I have a Ptolemaic army") would tend to be lost ("I have a Hellenistic Egyptian army").
Hence my recommendation (not that anyone asked) would be to divide up the lists so that at least the three major powers (Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid) have their own lists and if desired subordinate the others to these, using the closest equivalent in each case. This should surmount the likely hurdle of player acceptability and expectation, without which even an excellent set of rules can undeservedly receive the cold shoulder.
Quote from: aligern on July 06, 2015, 01:47:19 PM
Very exciting to see the picture of the bodyguards. They look very like the figures with round shields on the Cypriot silver bowl. I wonder if that is essentially machimoi kit?
Roy
I have at the back of my mind some classical period reference to Egyptians being sword-armed. Sadly this has not distilled into memory of an actual source - yet.
Hi Patrick
It wasn't so much for ease of compilation (I love tinkering around with army lists after all!) but rather my own approach to wargaming, which is that too much technical detail just bogs the game down, without adequately replicating what it's supposed to anyway.
I found that, particularly with regard to Ptol Egypt and Pontus, these nations can cause a lot of anxiety to players who are drawn to them but are confused about what they should look like (often vaguely equating Pontus with Achaemenid Persia, for example).
I used to be similarly flummoxed, but it gradually dawned on me that these nations were really all just Alexandrian successors, and followed the dominant Eastern military template of the time, which was the Alexandrian one until eclipsed by that of Rome.
Could probably also include smaller nations such as Bithynia and Cappadocia.
I am sure my approach would turn some players off but will hopefully also cater for those who have similar tastes to mine, maybe even win some converts to it ;-)
Hello Harry,
Far be it from me to suggest what you should and should not do, though when some of our chief grognards who are not particular fans of complexity start to have reservations it may be a sign that the innovation is not to the general taste. ;)
But by all means use this approach and see how well it works. You never know ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 06, 2015, 10:35:13 PMI have at the back of my mind some classical period reference to Egyptians being sword-armed. Sadly this has not distilled into memory of an actual source - yet.
You're thinking of Herodotos IX.32, of Plataia "the Egyptian swordsmen (machairophoroi) called Hermotybies and Kalasiries, who are the only fighting men in Egypt". Contrasts with VII.89, where the swords seem only to be secondary weapons - "The Egyptians ... wore netted helmets and carried hollow shields with broad rims, and spears for sea-warfare, and great battle-axes. Most of them wore cuirasses and carried big swords (machairas de megalas)".
Thanks, Duncan.
It looks as if the Egyptians of c.480 BC were noted for their swords, although in battle, or at least sea-battle, longer weapons seem to have been required. This apparently universal sword-bearing habit could perhaps have carried over, together with the style of weapon, into Ptolemaic times; if so, one wonders whether the Egyptians enlisted in Ptolemy IV's army at Raphia would have worn them.
It's not clear, of course, what type of sword Herodotos means - "machaira" can mean almost anything. The Egyptian throne-bearers at Persepolis have long straight swords, which are quite different from the curved swords on the Kom Madi painting (which look more like a Balkan sica than a Greek kopis, for instance). And to quote F-B, "those (machairophoroi) represented on a second-century mural from the Fayyum have been taken to be non-Egyptians. But it is the details of their clothing or hairstyle in the painting that give this impression..." ("taken by" Bresciani in Kom Madi 1977 e 1978. Le pitture murali del cenotafio di Alessandro Magno, I think) and the papyri suggest that the Ptolemaic machairophoroi could be of various origins; so all in all the evidence for continuity is tenuous.
Not least, one imagines, because of the traditional Egyptian predilection for the khepesh, which long survived contact with straight-sword mercenary types, judging by Egyptian reliefs.