I'm working my way through"Military Institutions and State Formation in the Hellenistic Kingdoms" by Paul Andrew Johstono
I think Nik mentioned it.
Anyway at one point it says
The best evidence for military collaboration between the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the Hellenistic rulers is actually from dynastic-era Pergamon. A text from Kyme, dated about 278 BC, contains a request sent to Philetaerus, the semi-independent ruler of Pergamon and founder of the Attalid dynasty, as well as Philetaerus' reply and a conclusion from Kyme.93 The Kymaians requested from Philetaerus six hundred peltai for use by the citizens of the city, fifty for each of the twelve tribes, to enhance their capacity to defend themselves during an on-going crisis, which must refer to the war between Antigonus and Antiochus, as it is too early for the arrival of the Galatians in Asia Minor.94 Philetaerus' response notes that the arms factory (ergasterion) at Pergamon was out of commission, but had produced one thousand peltai, which we may assume were stored shields, not those in active use by Pergamene or garrison troops. He provided six hundred as requested. This gift is significant because of the type of shields, and the Kymaians' treatment of them. The shields bestowed by Philetairos were ἐπιχάλκοι, "bronze-faced," indicating that they were the shields of Macedonian infantry.95 Two partial bronze peltai covers produced in the Pergamon ergasterion are known.96 At line 22 in the text, part of the Kyme's response to Philetaerus' gift, the city called for selected citizens to be equipped and trained to wield the sarissa, confirming that the shields were phalangite shields.97 The city also imprinted upon each shield an inscription: the tribe to which it was assigned, and the name of Philetaerus.98 This is the only Hellenistic confirmation for phalangite units fielded by the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Trained in phalangite warfare and carrying Philetaerus' name upon their shields, these men may have served in his army under certain conditions, but the text says nothing of it.
And the footnotes
95 Peltai generally just meant shields smaller than Greek aspides, but bronzed peltai were the standard shields of the Macedonian phalanx. For this distinction, see Launey (1949: 354) and Anderson (1976: 1-6).
96 Peltz (2001: 331-43). Additionally, a later inscription (OGIS 338, from 133 BC) attests the presence at Pergamon of a Macedonian military population (line 14).
97 The word used at line 22 is ψαρισσαμένω, a hapax legomenon, unless the Psi replaced the standard Sigma in sarissa, the Macedonian pike. The men were, therefore, trained in wielding the sarissa.
98 See lines 30-1. This is particularly interesting in that Philetairos was at that point still a private man, or at least no more than a local dynastes, and was in theory still loyal to Antiochus I.
The letter in question is "SEG 54-1230. Kyme. Decrees of Kyme and a letter of Philetairos, 280-278 or ca. 270 B.C."
https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/seg-54-1230-kyme-decrees-of-kyme-and-a-letter-of-philetairos-280-278-or-ca-270-bc-a54_1230?s.num=54711&s.rows=20&s.start=54710
Does anybody have access to it?
It strikes me as interesting, not only that Kyme was training phalangites, but that the ergasterion at Pergamon was producing bronze faced shields suitable for phalangites. I would have thought this could indicate that Pergamon has them as well
Yes, I've been looking at this recently, there was an article on the subject in Ancient Warfare magazine a couple of issues back. I don't have access to the SEG, but most of the Manganaro article that Johnstono references - not the complete article but including the Greek text of the decree and an Italian translation of it - is at Google Books (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hqIv1AXnf5YC&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=pergamon+peltai&source=bl&ots=GTUcTVs5Sz&sig=ACfU3U10IcKlg_czp_g8lkuOjqzJZYArfQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwior-XKgdzsAhVSRxUIHfSCCV04ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q=pergamon%20peltai&f=false).
Other writers (Sekunda in Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, 2013, p.202, and John Ma in Thonemann, Attalid Asia Minor..., pp. 51-52) also mention it. However Johnstono is the only one, I think, who picks up ψαρισσαμένω (psarissameno) as possibly meaning "wielding the sarissa" - I can't see it in Manganaro's Italian, anyway.
Of course whether you think they are "phalangites", or rather what kind of phalangites, depends on your position on the pelte: are all Macedonian phalanx shields peltai (Christopher Matthew, Johnstono, etc) or are there two (or more) sorts of phalanx shield, with only "peltasts" carrying the pelte while "ordinary" phalangites have a slightly larger "Macedonian aspis" (Sekunda, and I think Rich Taylor).
But it is very interesting to see Asian Greek citizens adopting Macedonian equipment thirty years or more before the first known occurrence of the same phenomenon in mainland Greece.
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 05, 2021, 03:10:43 PM
I'm working my way through"Military Institutions and State Formation in the Hellenistic Kingdoms" by Paul Andrew Johstono
Know you're still working through it but does he go into the cleruch system much? Asking as whilst starting the Christelle Fischer-Bovet book I see that there is a question over whether the Seleukid cleruch system was primarily a military settler thing as the Ptolemaic was or something a bit different - with a suggestion that the Seleukid phalanx (and presumably cavalry) were a more permanently in arms body and thus more professional (and effective?). Having not looked at Hellenistic stuff for ages I think I am well off the pace on current thinking - not that I was ever that up with it ;D
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 05, 2021, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 05, 2021, 03:10:43 PM
I'm working my way through"Military Institutions and State Formation in the Hellenistic Kingdoms" by Paul Andrew Johstono
Know you're still working through it but does he go into the cleruch system much? Asking as whilst starting the Christelle Fischer-Bovet book I see that there is a question over whether the Seleukid cleruch system was primarily a military settler thing as the Ptolemaic was or something a bit different - with a suggestion that the Seleukid phalanx (and presumably cavalry) were a more permanently in arms body and thus more professional (and effective?). Having not looked at Hellenistic stuff for ages I think I am well off the pace on current thinking - not that I was ever that up with it ;D
Early on his comments are that he thinks that the Seleukid system was different to the Ptolemaic. At the moment (and I'm nowhere near through it) I'd say that the Seleukid military settlements were far fewer and most seem to have been to produce potential recruits
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 05, 2021, 05:37:55 PM
Yes, I've been looking at this recently, there was an article on the subject in Ancient Warfare magazine a couple of issues back. I don't have access to the SEG, but most of the Manganaro article that Johnstono references - not the complete article but including the Greek text of the decree and an Italian translation of it - is at Google Books (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hqIv1AXnf5YC&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=pergamon+peltai&source=bl&ots=GTUcTVs5Sz&sig=ACfU3U10IcKlg_czp_g8lkuOjqzJZYArfQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwior-XKgdzsAhVSRxUIHfSCCV04ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q=pergamon%20peltai&f=false).
Other writers (Sekunda in Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, 2013, p.202, and John Ma in Thonemann, Attalid Asia Minor..., pp. 51-52) also mention it. However Johnstono is the only one, I think, who picks up ψαρισσαμένω (psarissameno) as possibly meaning "wielding the sarissa" - I can't see it in Manganaro's Italian, anyway.
Of course whether you think they are "phalangites", or rather what kind of phalangites, depends on your position on the pelte: are all Macedonian phalanx shields peltai (Christopher Matthew, Johnstono, etc) or are there two (or more) sorts of phalanx shield, with only "peltasts" carrying the pelte while "ordinary" phalangites have a slightly larger "Macedonian aspis" (Sekunda, and I think Rich Taylor).
But it is very interesting to see Asian Greek citizens adopting Macedonian equipment thirty years or more before the first known occurrence of the same phenomenon in mainland Greece.
He also comments about "Before the army of thirty thousand "Persians," infantry detachments were trained in Lydia, Lycia and Pamphylia, Cilicia, Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.118 If any Asiatics were enrolled among the phalanx battalions prior to 323, they could have been drawn from these units alone. The infantry raised in these places received no less than two and most nearer four years of military training overseen by the local Macedonian satrap before being dispatched to join Alexander.119"
118 Lydia: Curt. 6.6.35, Arr. An. 7.23.1; Caria: Arr. An. 7.23.1; Lycia: Curt. 7.10.12; Cilicia: Curt. 5.7.12; Syria: Curt. 7.10.12; Egypt: Suda B'154, Babylon: Curt. 9.3.21. See Hammond, 1990: 261-90.
119 The least training was that of the Cilicians (Curt. 5.7.12), at roughly two years. Unlike the other reinforcements, the Cilician troops are not mentioned as having been trained by, sent from, or commanded by their satrap. See, for example, the Lydian troops trained and sent, and a second detachment commanded by, Menander, or the Lycian and Pamphylian troops trained and commanded by Asander (Curt.7.10.12).
Quote
Of course whether you think they are "phalangites", or rather what kind of phalangites, depends on your position on the pelte: are all Macedonian phalanx shields peltai (Christopher Matthew, Johnstono, etc) or are there two (or more) sorts of phalanx shield, with only "peltasts" carrying the pelte while "ordinary" phalangites have a slightly larger "Macedonian aspis" (Sekunda, and I think Rich Taylor).
Yes that is my view too, or at least that the simple equation peltai = Macedonian shields = 'armed in the Macedonian fashion' (and that adding a negative to any of these means a negative to all) needs lots of caveats around it. In a Greek context at this date though maybe 'bronzed peltai' does imply 'Macedonian shields' (in the sense of shields for a sarissa-armed phalanx). 'Psarissameno' certainly implies so, though Johstono isn't clear that if 'psarissameno' is a hapax legomenon, so is 'sarissameno' (but it seems likely that's what it means).
Quote
But it is very interesting to see Asian Greek citizens adopting Macedonian equipment thirty years or more before the first known occurrence of the same phenomenon in mainland Greece.
Indeed it is, though if they are to be recruited into the armies of Macedonian successor kings (or their subordinates), less surprising - they would need to match the rest of the phalanx.
Quote
Asking as whilst starting the Christelle Fischer-Bovet book I see that there is a question over whether the Seleukid cleruch system was primarily a military settler thing as the Ptolemaic was or something a bit different - with a suggestion that the Seleukid phalanx (and presumably cavalry) were a more permanently in arms body and thus more professional (and effective?).
I wasn't convinced by CF-B's apparent view that the whole Seleucid army (at least the 'Macedonian' part) was permanently in arms (as opposed to just the household forces, the infantry and cavalry guards). There isn't really a 'Seleukid cleruch system' either, not in the way there is in Egypt. Broadly I think the rulers in Asia tried to create something similar to the recruitment system in Macedon, which was conscription by region, city and household, with call up on demand (for campaigns) and return to the land at the end of the campaign where possible, except for a small permanent body (the Hypaspists/Peltasts/Argyraspids). Precisely how this worked varied with local circumstances - in Syria, conscription was based on the new city foundations, in Asia Minor it (perhaps) used smaller settlements attached to existing towns. The Egyptian allocation of kleroi in the country defined by the army status of the holder differs from this Macedonian model more than in the Seleucid kingdom. I won't claim this is the current thinking necessarily (just my thinking!) - there is considerable uncertainty on the whole business.
Quote from: RichT on February 05, 2021, 07:09:19 PM
Precisely how this worked varied with local circumstances - in Syria, conscription was based on the new city foundations, in Asia Minor it (perhaps) used smaller settlements attached to existing towns.
IIRC there was quite a it of "re-founding" of cities by the Seleukids as opposed to new city foundation, perhaps that is linked to conscription?
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 05, 2021, 07:29:25 PM
Quote from: RichT on February 05, 2021, 07:09:19 PM
Precisely how this worked varied with local circumstances - in Syria, conscription was based on the new city foundations, in Asia Minor it (perhaps) used smaller settlements attached to existing towns.
IIRC there was quite a it of "re-founding" of cities by the Seleukids as opposed to new city foundation, perhaps that is linked to conscription?
As far as I know, none of the Hellenistic Kings conscripted from existing cities. They negotiated with them, made deals with them, sometimes accepted allied contingents, or money (The Seleukids seem to have raised a payment to help fight the Gauls) but they didn't go into an existing city and just conscript men as soldiers. They asked for settlers and may indeed have conscripted them.
Once you were a settler in a new city (or a re-founded city) then perhaps by accepting the King's largesse you had accepted that you could be conscripted?
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 05, 2021, 05:57:50 PM
He also comments about "Before the army of thirty thousand "Persians," infantry detachments were trained in Lydia, Lycia and Pamphylia, Cilicia, Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.
Of course nothing explicitly says that all, or any, of these infantry are "armed in the Macedonian style". In the Ptolemaic book (p.28), J suggests that Antigonos' Lycian and Pamphylian "phalanx soldiers" at Paraitakene were a second wave of recruits trained in Macedonian style. But Diodoros' words:
QuoteOf the infantry, more than nine thousand mercenaries were placed first, next to them three thousand Lycians and Pamphylians, then more than eight thousand mixed troops in Macedonian equipment (pantodapoi d'eis ta Makedonika kathoplimenoi)
- imply strongly to me that the Lycians and Pamphylians were
not "armed in the Macedonian style".
So I am a bit cautious about this implied empire-wide early-starting training programme.
I would concur with that caution. In that quote it does not sound like the mercenaries or Lycians and Pamphylians were armed in the Macedonian style - just the mixed troops (whatever the mix was).
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 05, 2021, 11:05:28 PM
I would concur with that caution. In that quote it does not sound like the mercenaries or Lycians and Pamphylians were armed in the Macedonian style - just the mixed troops (whatever the mix was).
I agree with caution, but I'm afraid Johstono's comments about attrition in the Macedonian army (or apparent lack of it) are a bit like a loosing a tooth. You never think about it, but once you've realised it's gone the gap irritates immensely ::)
Johstono quotes "Scheidel estimates (2007: 425-8) annual attrition in the Roman Imperial army at about 6% per year, with reference to troops at local bases in relative peace, while attrition in campaigning units was considerably higher."
If you take Alexander's 32,000 at the start of his campaign, 6% means that his field army would have been about 15,000 when he died in Babylon
Now obviously he got reinforcements, but he also fought battles and left large numbers of worn our Macedonians all over the place.
Somehow 'Macedonian' units had to be filled up. We know Alexander added Iranians to the Companion cavalry
I think there is a difference between replacing the attrition in the field army and an "empire-wide early-starting training programme" (to quote Duncan). The former could still be quite significant as there are still quite a lot of "Macedonians" in the phalanxes in the wars of the successors.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 06, 2021, 07:32:03 AM
I think there is a difference between replacing the attrition in the field army and an "empire-wide early-starting training programme" (to quote Duncan). The former could still be quite significant as there are still quite a lot of "Macedonians" in the phalanxes in the wars of the successors.
yes I do wonder how many Macedonians had ever seen Macedonia
A 'centralised' training programme would be something of a novelty, so much so I wonder what gave rise to reports of it
We do know about the Persian phalanx
Concerning attrition and replacements, there is an extensive literature on this and it seems to come down to whether you think (like Hammond) that Alexander was a Good King, in which case there was low attrition comfortably made up by replacements, or (like Bosworth), a Bad King in which case there was high attrition and Macedon was bled dry. I'm highly unconvinced by generalisations like 6% a year, and think it's clear that there were still plenty of ethnic Macedonians in Asia and in Macedon at the end of Alexander's reign.
Cautious too about recruitment of Asiatics 'armed in the Macedonian fashion' - aside from the known epigonoi there just isn't any evidence for this, and we know that the epigonoi caused problems with the Macedonians. Service in the phalanx was a privilege, and even Alexander couldn't just hand it out at will.
Asia Minor's existing Greek cities, which were often at least nominally independent, are a different case from new city foundations that are part of the kingdom.
Jim:
Quote
We do know about the Persian phalanx
What do we know? Do you mean the 30,000? Or the mixed phalanx?
Quote from: RichT on February 06, 2021, 11:10:07 AM
Jim:
Quote
We do know about the Persian phalanx
What do we know? Do you mean the 30,000? Or the mixed phalanx?
Sorry yes, "The viceroys from the newly-built cities and the rest of the territory subdued in war came to him, bringing with them youths just growing into manhood to the number of 30,000, all of the same age, whom Alexander called Epigoni (successors). They were accoutred with Macedonian arms, and exercised in military discipline after the Macedonian system."
Whereas Arrian has them coming from all over the empire, Dio Sic calls them Persians
" there came to Susa at this time a body of thirty thousand Persians, all very young and selected for their bodily grace and strength. They had been enrolled in compliance with the king's orders and had been under supervisors and teachers in the arts of war for as long as necessary. They were splendidly equipped with the full Macedonian armament and encamped before the city, where they were warmly commended by the king after demonstrating their skill and discipline in the use of their weapons."
I prefer Arrian's because then we have recruits from Asia Minor, the 'Royal Pages' from Egypt etc and it must be easier to get 30k from the whole empire than just 'Persia'
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 06, 2021, 06:51:35 AM
I agree with caution, but I'm afraid Johstono's comments about attrition in the Macedonian army (or apparent lack of it) are a bit like a loosing a tooth. You never think about it, but once you've realised it's gone the gap irritates immensely ::)
Johstono quotes "Scheidel estimates (2007: 425-8) annual attrition in the Roman Imperial army at about 6% per year, with reference to troops at local bases in relative peace, while attrition in campaigning units was considerably higher."
If you take Alexander's 32,000 at the start of his campaign, 6% means that his field army would have been about 15,000 when he died in Babylon
Now obviously he got reinforcements, but he also fought battles and left large numbers of worn our Macedonians all over the place.
Somehow 'Macedonian' units had to be filled up. We know Alexander added Iranians to the Companion cavalry
Having started reading the thesis now I have to say that I found this reasonable and quite persuasive.
Not sure it would affect how we represent the armies though as the Macedonian troops do seem to have been the best available even if a proportion of them were non-ethnic Macedonians but instead those who had adopted a Macedonian identity by being recruited into the phalanx.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 09, 2021, 04:44:35 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 06, 2021, 06:51:35 AM
I agree with caution, but I'm afraid Johstono's comments about attrition in the Macedonian army (or apparent lack of it) are a bit like a loosing a tooth. You never think about it, but once you've realised it's gone the gap irritates immensely ::)
Johstono quotes "Scheidel estimates (2007: 425-8) annual attrition in the Roman Imperial army at about 6% per year, with reference to troops at local bases in relative peace, while attrition in campaigning units was considerably higher."
If you take Alexander's 32,000 at the start of his campaign, 6% means that his field army would have been about 15,000 when he died in Babylon
Now obviously he got reinforcements, but he also fought battles and left large numbers of worn our Macedonians all over the place.
Somehow 'Macedonian' units had to be filled up. We know Alexander added Iranians to the Companion cavalry
Having started reading the thesis now I have to say that I found this reasonable and quite persuasive.
Not sure it would affect how we represent the armies though as the Macedonian troops do seem to have been the best available even if a proportion of them were non-ethnic Macedonians but instead those who had adopted a Macedonian identity by being recruited into the phalanx.
Johstono has become for me the person that has to be argued against, he may not be right but he does put a lot of stuff together to come up with his ideas 8)
I don't think that there needs to be any rule changes or grading changes.
It has struck me that we've perhaps clung too long to the old British Indian idea of 'martial races' and so pure Macedonians were best.
Also we've perhaps swallowed too much of the Greek attitude which comes out, perhaps wrongly, in Polybius's account of the training leading up to Raphia
Caria might have been the home of the Hoplite (whatever they were ;) ) and Carians and Ionians seem to have been interchangeable at times in the armies of the Egyptians and others
So perhaps good solid lads from Asia Minor were welcomed in the Phalanx? Especially if they were willing to be culturally Macedonian
The fact that the Ptolemies could go with 'Macedonian' being an pseudo ethnicity which just meant Pike man and nobody else pointed fingers and mocked might mean they were all doing it?
Even Macedonia seem to be conscripting men from cities that a century before weren't Macedonian
Jim
Well, yes and no. During the Successor period it is certainly the case that men 'armed in the Macedonian fashion' appear, alongside 'Macedonians'. The former are presumably not ethnic Macedonians (else they would be called 'Macedonian'). In the 3rd C and later, men recruited to the phalanx are clearly a mix of ethnicities (though mostly Greek ethnicities) with a core of 'real' Macedonians. So the line between 'ethnic Macedonian' and 'Macedonian armed' became blurred, or disappeared. But I don't believe this had happened already in Alexander's reign - Alexander's attempts to recruit Asiatic non-Macedonains for the phalanx met with resistance, and probabaly weren't continued by the Successors. Macedonians were resistant even to treating Greeks as equals, let alone more other others.
Quote
Also we've perhaps swallowed too much of the Greek attitude which comes out, perhaps wrongly, in Polybius's account of the training leading up to Raphia
Absolutely, there was nothing special about Macedonians that meant only they could fight effectively in a sarissa phalanx. But it was the Greek (and Hellenistic) attitude, however unfounded, that ethnic differences (real or imagined) and ethnic specialities mattered. If you wanted archers, you didn't give bows to some of your people and train them to use them, you applied to a Cretan city to send you some. And so forth.
I have some things to say about all this stuff in my book, in case you haven't come across it. :) I may not be 'the person that has to be argued against' but it might still be of interest...
Quote from: RichT on February 10, 2021, 09:11:04 AM
Well, yes and no. During the Successor period it is certainly the case that men 'armed in the Macedonian fashion' appear, alongside 'Macedonians'. The former are presumably not ethnic Macedonians (else they would be called 'Macedonian'). In the 3rd C and later, men recruited to the phalanx are clearly a mix of ethnicities (though mostly Greek ethnicities) with a core of 'real' Macedonians. So the line between 'ethnic Macedonian' and 'Macedonian armed' became blurred, or disappeared. But I don't believe this had happened already in Alexander's reign - Alexander's attempts to recruit Asiatic non-Macedonains for the phalanx met with resistance, and probabaly weren't continued by the Successors. Macedonians were resistant even to treating Greeks as equals, let alone more other others.
This still rather begs the numbers question that Johstono raises.
His argument is that based on the numbers we know about, including reinforcements received during Alexander's Asian campaign, that unless there are either significant reinforcements that are not included in the accounts or Alexander's army suffered staggeringly low attrition (at levels significantly below peace time rates to the degree that it just isn't credible), the numbers just don't add up.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 10, 2021, 10:54:09 AM
This still rather begs the numbers question that Johstono raises.
His argument is that based on the numbers we know about, including reinforcements received during Alexander's Asian campaign, that unless there are either significant reinforcements that are not included in the accounts or Alexander's army suffered staggeringly low attrition (at levels significantly below peace time rates to the degree that it just isn't credible), the numbers just don't add up.
Well I haven't yet read Johstono (I'm still on Manning's Achaemenids) so I don't know if he offers any new evidence or arguments. The argument that the numbers of Macedonians must have dropped enormously is of course not new, and goes back decades, as do the counter-arguments that Macedonian numbers held up. Perhaps Johstono has come up with some clinching new evidence? I hope not just with a generic comparison (attrition of 6 per cent per year, which may or may not be applicable, or credible). My own look at the problem (in, sorry to bang on about it, my book ::) ) suggests there were large numbers of ethnic Macedonians still available in the early Successor period which formed the core of the Hellenistic kingdoms' armies. I'm open to persuasion that this isn't so, of course.
Quote from: RichT on February 10, 2021, 11:16:33 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 10, 2021, 10:54:09 AM
This still rather begs the numbers question that Johstono raises.
His argument is that based on the numbers we know about, including reinforcements received during Alexander's Asian campaign, that unless there are either significant reinforcements that are not included in the accounts or Alexander's army suffered staggeringly low attrition (at levels significantly below peace time rates to the degree that it just isn't credible), the numbers just don't add up.
Well I haven't yet read Johstono (I'm still on Manning's Achaemenids) so I don't know if he offers any new evidence or arguments. The argument that the numbers of Macedonians must have dropped enormously is of course not new, and goes back decades, as do the counter-arguments that Macedonian numbers held up. Perhaps Johstono has come up with some clinching new evidence? I hope not just with a generic comparison (attrition of 6 per cent per year, which may or may not be applicable, or credible). My own look at the problem (in, sorry to bang on about it, my book ::) ) suggests there were large numbers of ethnic Macedonians still available in the early Successor period which formed the core of the Hellenistic kingdoms' armies. I'm open to persuasion that this isn't so, of course.
I think you need to read his thesis (where it is discussed, not in the Ptolemaic book)
He does look at it in some depth
Having worked my way through the thesis now I was particularly interested in the section on the Ptolemaic army following the 5th Syrian War and its development through the "Great Revolt".
He argues for a dramatic decline in the settler phalanx with it being replaced by thyreoforoi (basically) who are more permanently under arms and in garrisons throughout Egypt to keep order. He also sees "reform" of some infantry inspired first by the Galatians and then, maybe, by Rome (as Sekunda has postulated).
In general in army list terms it feels like his model would put the date for what, for e.g, the MeG and DBMM lists have as the final phase of the Ptolemaic army not as mid-C1st BCE but as early to mid-C2nd BCE
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 14, 2021, 11:15:51 AM
Having worked my way through the thesis now I was particularly interested in the section on the Ptolemaic army following the 5th Syrian War and its development through the "Great Revolt".
He argues for a dramatic decline in the settler phalanx with it being replaced by thyreoforoi (basically) who are more permanently under arms and in garrisons throughout Egypt to keep order. He also sees "reform" of some infantry inspired first by the Galatians and then, maybe, by Rome (as Sekunda has postulated).
In general in army list terms it feels like his model would put the date for what, for e.g, the MeG and DBMM lists have as the final phase of the Ptolemaic army not as mid-C1st BCE but as early to mid-C2nd BCE
Funny you should say that 8)
I'm now re-reading Sekunda and he feels 'forced'
I am at the moment trying to put an article together for slingshot about the Great Revolt (but touching on army changes) for slingshot
I'm also pondering what being a Galatian meant in Ptolemaic terms. The majority even at Raphia, were the sons of settlers
As an aside I'm sure http://www.attalus.org/index.html has more papyri than it did!
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 12:59:04 PM
I'm now re-reading Sekunda and he feels 'forced'
I always felt he over interpreted the evidence. I believe he has pulled back a bit in more recent publications from a comment in the Johstono book (I think).
Quote
I'm also pondering what being a Galatian meant in Ptolemaic terms. The majority even at Raphia, were the sons of settlers
Likewise the Thracians IIRC - whom they were "brigaded" with.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 14, 2021, 01:40:45 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 12:59:04 PM
I'm now re-reading Sekunda and he feels 'forced'
I always felt he over interpreted the evidence. I believe he has pulled back a bit in more recent publications from a comment in the Johstono book (I think).
Quote
I'm also pondering what being a Galatian meant in Ptolemaic terms. The majority even at Raphia, were the sons of settlers
Likewise the Thracians IIRC - whom they were "brigaded" with.
I had this mental picture of elderly Galatian veterans sitting watching their grandsons training and shaking their heads sadly at 'the warband of today'
Mind you given the way the Ptolemies worked with ethnicities, the 'Galatians' would be three quarter Egyptians anyway, and probably joined by miscellaneous Anatolians, Jews and Cretans ;D
True ;D
Suspect the important thing though for Raphia is that even though the majority were from inside Egypt that they were not a group fighting with Macedonian equipment, they retained whatever fighting style and equipment they used prior to Raphia.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 14, 2021, 03:35:24 PM
True ;D
Suspect the important thing though for Raphia is that even though the majority were from inside Egypt that they were not a group fighting with Macedonian equipment, they retained whatever fighting style and equipment they used prior to Raphia.
And the big question is what style
Given some of them could have been sons of settlers it's intriguing. Certainly to quote Jonstono
Galatian influence within the military reforms is also evident within the new units. An inscription carved at Abydos, probably in about 188/7 BC during the campaign of Komanos, describes the activity of four men who describe themselves as τῶν Γαλατῶν, or "of the Galatians." Of the four men named, only one has a seemingly Celtic name: Akannon. But the others, Thoas, Kallistratos and Apollonios, do not. In fact, Thoas is a fairly uncommon Central Greek name, and poorly attested outside Central Greece. Kallistratos and Apollonios have no regional tie, and it is feasible that second- or third-generation Galatians could have had such names. Of the Galatians buried at the Soldiers' Tomb outside Alexandria, two (Pyrrhos and Isidoros) seem to have taken Greek names, while most retained Celtic ones. The identifier τῶν Γαλατῶν more likely refers to a military unit or association, many of which followed that pattern, rather than an ethnic group, which would normally be presented in the nominative case. The presence of a Galatian, and probable presence of Greeks or other members of the general Hellenistic population of Egypt, in the same unit, named for the Galatians, may indicate the implementation of Galatian weaponry, and would also indicate that Galatians were enrolled in the unit alongside Greeks, which may have helped speed the transition to new weaponry and tactics.