SoA Forums

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 

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 

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 

True 

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 

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.