Who are those (Pontic?) guys?

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

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.

[Swampster]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

[Swampster]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[Swampster]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Duncan Head]

But - 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.

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.

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.

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.

But they wouldn't, so we can't.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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. 

[Swampster]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Swampster]

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?

[Mark G]

"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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.