C2nd BC Seleukid

[Andreas Johansson]

Irrelevantly, I find myself wondering if Galatian cataphracts ever made it into any wargame army list ...

[willb]

Irrelevantly, I find myself wondering if Galatian cataphracts ever made it into any wargame army list ...

they did make it into the Wikipedia article on the battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magnesia

[Patrick Waterson]

On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry.

From Livy's description, these 'Galatian bands' are also 'mail-clad cavalry', perhaps a chiliarchy per tribe, and the 'certain Cappadocians' etc. would seem to be our putative 1,000 Agema-equivalents: perhaps Ariarathes furnished many of the men for the unit, but the unit remained part of the Seleucid establishment - whatever the reality, at least we would appear to have our 1,000 Agema-equivalent picked cavalry in addition to the Companion ala on the left wing.

No - it's only Appian, not Livy, who associates Galatian cavalry with being cataphracts (not, literally, "mail-clad") - and it seems unlikely, I'm inclined to put it down as a simple confusion. In Livy's version, the Galatian cavalry and the cataphract cavalry are separate bodies.

I don't see why you suggest the Cappadocians are cavalry, when in Livy they're clearly infantry - "ab laeuo cornu phalangitis adiuncti erant Gallograeci pedites mille et quingenti et similiter his armati duo milia Cappadocum—ab Ariarathe missi erant regi" and even Appian doesn't explicitly call them horse.

Because it continues:

"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

This discussion is at least making it clear that whatever the problems with Livy's account (and/or Bar-Kochva's interpretation of it) relying on Appian just leads to much worse confusion and fantasy.

My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

Next thought.

Richard nicely tabulates the OBs in Livy and Appian.  He then suggests that "Appian was hopelessly confused by Livy. Livy, we can assume, was hopelessly confused by Polybius." - the problem with this is that if Livy was 'hopelessly confused' by anyone, we cannot rely on his placement or description of the Argyraspides, and hence we have to go back to first principles of Hellenistic deployment, which are that you put your phalanx all together and not with part detached on one cavalry wing.

With regard to the Argyraspides, we may note that Appian describes the Seleucid phalanx in detail and, unlike with the cavalry, gives specific numbers:

"The total force of Antiochus was 70,000 and the strongest of these was the Macedonian phalanx of 16,000 men, still arrayed after the fashion of Alexander and Philip. These were placed in the centre, divided into ten sections [deka mere] of 1600 men each, with fifty men in the front line of each section and thirty-two deep. On the flanks of each section [hekastou merous] were twenty-two elephants."

Livy agrees:

"There were sixteen thousand infantry armed in the Macedonian fashion, who are called phalangitae. [7] They formed the centre of the line, and their frontage was divided into ten sections; these sections were separated by intervals in which two elephants each were placed; from the front the formation extended thirty-two ranks in depth. [8] This was the main strength of the king's army ..."

Appian agrees that "The serried phalanx, in which he should have placed most confidence, on account of its high state of discipline" was the cream of the Seleucid army.  The question which arises is: how can it be the 'main strength of the king's army' (roboris in regiis copiis) if it does not include the Agema, the cataphracts, the Companions or the (infantry) Argyraspides?  Livy's roboris together with Appian's "The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps" mark this modestly-sized phalanx contingent as being of the highest quality.  The combination of small size (compared with the phalanx at Raphia), lack of differentiation between run-of-the-mill and elite phalangites and the general valuation of this contingent as the main strength of the army lead me to conclude that this 16,000-man force was the infantry Argyraspides.

[Duncan Head]

I don't see why you suggest the Cappadocians are cavalry, when in Livy they're clearly infantry - "ab laeuo cornu phalangitis adiuncti erant Gallograeci pedites mille et quingenti et similiter his armati duo milia Cappadocum—ab Ariarathe missi erant regi" and even Appian doesn't explicitly call them horse.

Because it continues:
"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

That makes no sense to me at all. If the "mille alli equites" were meant to be separate from the "regia ala levioribus tegumentis..." you'd need an "et" or something to separate one description from the other. As it stands, the whole phrase clearly describes the same body.

This discussion is at least making it clear that whatever the problems with Livy's account (and/or Bar-Kochva's interpretation of it) relying on Appian just leads to much worse confusion and fantasy.

My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

That's being mischievously disingenuous, or what I believe they call  "trolling" these days. I haven't read Bar-Kochva's account of the fighting for ages; and we have, as you well know, been talking so far about the orders of battle.

[Mark G]

Indeed, and I think have established that the orders of battle are not clear enough for a definitive answer, so we should turn to the battle narratives to answer this specific question.

Back to the dead languages team to selectively translate more key bits i think.

[Duncan Head]

Indeed, and I think have established that the orders of battle are not clear enough for a definitive answer, so we should turn to the battle narratives to answer this specific question.

I think we've established that the orders of battle are clear enough on everything except the strength of the argyraspides/regia cohors of infantry. And that the sort of translations we've been seeing won't help much.

[RichT]

I don't quite follow the (snide?) remark about dead languages. Dead languages rather go with the territory in ancient history, don't they?

Trolling indeed it is. It would be nice to see an honest mistake admitted, and some progress made, for once.

"inde auxiliares mixti omnium generum, duo milia septingenti, et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque ..."

I had previously wondered whether the 'mille alii equites' were intended to be in addition to the 'regia ala', and had so concluded.  Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.  Irrespective of their actual origin, I would suggest we anyway have 'mille alii equites' over and above the 'regia ala' as opposed to just a 1,000-strong 'regia ala'.

No, wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Not wrong in my (and Duncan's) humble opinion, just wrong. In fact, maybe 'not even wrong'.

Livy: "then mixed auxiliaries of all sorts, two thousand seven hundred, and three thousand cataphract cavalry and one thousand other cavalry, the royal squadron more lightly armed themselves and their horses."

Appian: "and mixed other foreigners. Next the other cataphract cavalry. And those cavalry called companions, lightly armed."

For a pleasant change, total agreement between Livy and Appian, and not the slightest difficulty with the two accounts.

For additional confirmation, we have Appian's "His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians, and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx." Leaving aside Appian's confusion of the Galatians and cataphracts, this is quite correct - on the right flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 Agema. On the left flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 royal squadron/Companions. So 4000 heavy cavalry on each wing.

It's easy to see where Appian went awry: "His horse were stationed on either wing" - so he thinks the phalanx was in the centre, flanked by cavalry. So the right wing Galatians become merged in his mind with the cataphracts, and the Argyrpasides also become cavalry. On the left he doesn't specify whether he thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are infantry or cavalry (probably he didn't have a clear opinion on it), but lists the other cataphracts (other, as opposed to those on the right) and the companions. All of this is perfectly clear.

Livy ascribes the sending of Cappadocian infantry to Ariarathes, Appian seemingly the cavalry.

Eh? 

Livy: "On the left flank, next the phalangitae, were posted fifteen hundred Galatian infantry and two thousand Cappadocians similarly armed — they had been sent to the king by Ariarathes - then mixed auxiliaries of all sorts"

Appian: "On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarathes, and a mingling of other tribes."

Appian may well have thought these were all cavalry (see above), but he doesn't actually say either way. Otherwise, Livy and Appian both say exactly the same thing.

The strength, location and precise identity of the Argraspides are open to doubt and discussion. The other points are not, and this squirming is just embarrassing.

[Patrick Waterson]

If the "mille alli equites" were meant to be separate from the "regia ala levioribus tegumentis..." you'd need an "et" or something to separate one description from the other. As it stands, the whole phrase clearly describes the same body.

Duncan, on re-reading I see you are right.  If we follow Livy as written, this means Antiochus IV raised an additional elite unit by the time of the Daphnae parade, or Antiochus III left one out at Magnesia.

My impression is that Bar Kochva relies heavily on Appian's account for the actual fighting, notably phalangite squares containing elephants as opposed to Livy's line with elephant intervals.  Is this intended as a criticism of Bar Kochva's use of Appian?

That's being mischievously disingenuous, or what I believe they call  "trolling" these days. I haven't read Bar-Kochva's account of the fighting for ages; and we have, as you well know, been talking so far about the orders of battle.

Then maybe it is time to look at the account of the battle.  I was not conscious of being disingenuous, having assumed full knowledge on your part.

I don't quite follow the (snide?) remark about dead languages. Dead languages rather go with the territory in ancient history, don't they?

The remark about selective translation was not, I believe, aimed at yourself.

For additional confirmation, we have Appian's "His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians, and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx." Leaving aside Appian's confusion of the Galatians and cataphracts, this is quite correct - on the right flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 Agema. On the left flank are 3000 cataphracts and 1000 royal squadron/Companions. So 4000 heavy cavalry on each wing.

Maybe not - Appian states:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx."

This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

It's easy to see where Appian went awry: "His horse were stationed on either wing" - so he thinks the phalanx was in the centre, flanked by cavalry. So the right wing Galatians become merged in his mind with the cataphracts, and the Argyrpasides also become cavalry. On the left he doesn't specify whether he thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are infantry or cavalry (probably he didn't have a clear opinion on it), but lists the other cataphracts (other, as opposed to those on the right) and the companions. All of this is perfectly clear.

Not entirely:

"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galatōn t' ethnē, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathēs, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hēn ekaloun hippon hetairikēn, hōplismenē kouphōs. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did Herr Mendelssohn, as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

The strength, location and precise identity of the Argraspides are open to doubt and discussion. The other points are not.

Well, they are now.

[RichT]

Duncan, on re-reading I see you are right.

Splendid!

It's open to doubt whether the regiment of friends is an elite cavalry unit at all (any more than the gladiators) - but we aren't going to get any further with that one, so let's move on.

This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

It seems most sensible to read it as an equal number of cavalry being stationed on either side of the phalanx - i.e. 4000, 3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards. Appian of course might not have known exactly what was meant, but if he got his account from Polybius (and here I should mention that I thought Appian's source was Livy but the general view seems to be that it was in fact direct from Polybius) then his statement is correct, even if his own understanding was limited. Since 4000 cavalry (3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards) are listed on which wing by Livy, and Appian also lists these two units on each wing, and Appian includes the remark about equal numbers, then I don't see any reason to make difficulties from this - it seems perfectly clear.

"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galaton t' ethne, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathes, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hen ekaloun hippon hetairiken, hoplismene kouphos. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did Herr Mendelssohn, as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

For a start, we have Livy's account, which gives the contingents quite clearly, so there are no grounds for further uncertainty about this. Of course there was a distinct cataphract contingent separate from themselves - as clearly enumerated by Livy.

Small point of information - Herr Mendelssohn edited the Greek text; the translation is by Mr White, and he made a mess of translating this passage, but not the same mess as you, since he doesn't think the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, he thought the Companions had armoured horses.

I read 'epi toisde hetera' as the linking phrase, next to these the other cataphracts. But let's assume your reading is correct and Appian thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are cataphracts. In that case he is just making the same mistake as he did on the right wing, where he thought the Galatians were cataphracts too, so he is consistent. But this makes no difference whatever to the point at issue, since there's a nice clear conjunction before the Companions, so we still have just two cavalry units - cataphracts and companions. QED.

[Patrick Waterson]

This can be read as an equal number of agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx, or an equal number of cataphracts and agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  It cannot be read as an equal number of cataphracts but not agema being stationed on either side of the phalanx.  The Companions are thus additional to the bisected cataphracts and agema.

It seems most sensible to read it as an equal number of cavalry being stationed on either side of the phalanx - i.e. 4000, 3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards. Appian of course might not have known exactly what was meant, but if he got his account from Polybius (and here I should mention that I thought Appian's source was Livy but the general view seems to be that it was in fact direct from Polybius) then his statement is correct, even if his own understanding was limited. Since 4000 cavalry (3000 cataphracts and 1000 guards) are listed on which wing by Livy, and Appian also lists these two units on each wing, and Appian includes the remark about equal numbers, then I don't see any reason to make difficulties from this - it seems perfectly clear.

But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

"On the left were the Galatian bands of the Tectosagi, the Trocmi, the Tolistoboii, and certain Cappadocians furnished by King Ariarthes, and a mingling of other tribes. There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Is the translator missing out the cataphracts from to de laion Galaton t' ethne, Tektosagai te kai Trokmoi kai Tolistoboioi, kai Kappadokai tines hous epempsen Ariarathes, kai migades alloi xenoi, kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera, kai hen ekaloun hippon hetairiken, hoplismene kouphos. or assuming that kataphraktos te hippos epi toisde hetera is summarising the contingents just mentioned?

As Duncan pointed out with Livy's left-wing cavalry, we are missing a conjunction: there is no kai before kataphraktos.  I read this, as presumably did [Mr White], as signifying that the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, not that there was a distinct cataphract contingent additional to themselves.

For a start, we have Livy's account, which gives the contingents quite clearly, so there are no grounds for further uncertainty about this. Of course there was a distinct cataphract contingent separate from themselves - as clearly enumerated by Livy.

Hmmm ... what I am getting at is that Appian, having conflated the right wing Gauls and cataphracts, would, given his division of Galatians (read cataphracts) and Agema equally on both sides of the phalanx, seem to be describing his left-wing Agema-equivalents as the Cappadocians.  I am not saying he is right, just that this what he seems to be saying.

Whether Livy is correct is another, if pertinent, matter.  Livy does not have an Agema-equivalent on the left wing, whereas Appian, given that he puts half the Agema and cataphracts on each side of the phalanx, perforce does.

Small point of information - Herr Mendelssohn edited the Greek text; the translation is by Mr White, and he made a mess of translating this passage, but not the same mess as you, since he doesn't think the foregoing peoples had armoured horses, he thought the Companions had armoured horses.

I read 'epi toisde hetera' as the linking phrase, next to these the other cataphracts. But let's assume your reading is correct and Appian thinks the Galatians, Cappadocians and mixed are cataphracts. In that case he is just making the same mistake as he did on the right wing, where he thought the Galatians were cataphracts too, so he is consistent. But this makes no difference whatever to the point at issue, since there's a nice clear conjunction before the Companions, so we still have just two cavalry units - cataphracts and companions. QED.

Or rather three, Galatians/cataphracts, Cappadocians/Agema equivalents and Companions.  The 'Galatians' are the other half of those on the right wing, and the Cappadocians etc. correspond to the Agema, unless we suppose an unlisted half of the Agema was deployed on the left of the phalanx, which might be an option.

Point taken about who was the actual translator.

I suspect we are going to disagree on this, unless there is a further source or means we can employ to resolve the matter.

[Jim Webster]

Also remember that cataphract does not always mean what wargamers want it to mean
After all you can have cataphract ships

Gauls might have been considered 'cataphracts' and 'covered' by Greeks because their mail shirts were longer than the cuirasses of Greek cavalry or perhaps because their mail covered their arms

[RichT]

I suspect we are going to disagree on this, unless there is a further source or means we can employ to resolve the matter.

Agreed! Shall I just summarise and tidy up and then we can go and argue about something else?

But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

It's an equal number of horsemen.

Appian: hippeis d'ekaterothen autou paretetacheto ... [Galatians, Agema] ... tade men ex isou tes phalangos en ekaterothen
"His horse were stationed on either wing ... An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx"
Note the balance - 'hippeis d'ekaterothen... tade men ekaterothen'.

But we need be in no paroxysms of doubt about this, because (I cannot stress this enough) we have the detailed unit lists of Livy, which agree perfectly with what Appian writes except where Appian merges cataphracts and Galatians (et al), and from which we know that there is no second Agema on the left wing.

If you insist that the Argyraspides are cavalry then that has no impact on this point, as these are outside Appian's 'equal number of these'. So you can quite happpily have cavalry + Agema on the right, and cavalry + Companions on the left in equal numbers, and then also have cavalry Argyraspides further out on the right, without affecting the reading of Appian or conflicting with the testimony of Livy. Of course I still think you'd be wrong about this for reasons given here and three years ago, but there we are.

Jim - true about 'cataphract' - but the Gauls aren't the cataphracts in this case, the cataphracts are the catahpracts and the Gauls (Galatians, Gallograeci) are the Gauls.

OP (Nik) - good luck building your army. Remember - two cavalry guards and no Galatian cataphracts.

[Patrick Waterson]

Gauls might have been considered 'cataphracts' and 'covered' by Greeks because their mail shirts were longer than the cuirasses of Greek cavalry or perhaps because their mail covered their arms

Indeed, Jim, although the problem in this particular case, as Richard mentions, is that although Appian knows what cataphracts are, he does not seem to know who the cataphracts are.

But is it an equal number of horsemen or an equal number of 'Galatians' and Agema?  I read it as the latter, i.e. 3,000 cataphracts and 1,000 Agema types per wing, in addition to the 'silver shield cavalry' and the 'Companions' as the specific king-guarding and heir-coddling unit on each respective wing.

It's an equal number of horsemen.

Appian: hippeis d'ekaterothen autou paretetacheto ... [Galatians, Agema] ... tade men ex isou tes phalangos en ekaterothen
"His horse were stationed on either wing ... An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx"
Note the balance - 'hippeis d'ekaterothen... tade men ekaterothen'.

Which rather seems to demonstrate my suspicion about a divided Agema.  Horace White's translation:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians [sic] and the Macedonian corps called the Agema, so named because they were picked horsemen. An equal number of these were stationed on either side of the phalanx."

seems unexceptionable, and 'of these' indicates an equal number of Agema (or equivalents), and an equal number of cataphracts, on each wing.

To this he adds:

"Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields ..."

and:

"There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry."

Hence in addition to a divided and equalised agema, or the Agema on the right and an isometric agema-type unit on the left wing, each wing has its special unit for looking after the heir to the throne (Companions) or its current incumbent ('horsemen with silver shields').

But we need be in no paroxysms of doubt about this, because (I cannot stress this enough) we have the detailed unit lists of Livy, which agree perfectly with what Appian writes except where Appian merges cataphracts and Galatians (et al), and from which we know that there is no second Agema on the left wing.

Which I would agree with unreservedly if we could entirely trust Livy, and if there were not four elite cavalry units in the Daphnae parade.  The 'philoi' have to be elite cavalry from their positioning with the other elite cavalry: gladiators bringing up the rear of this part of the parade does not affect this point.

But we can move on, and perhaps the best direction is toward the accounts of the action.  It becomes evident that Appian is using a source other than Livy when we look at the action in the centre.   (Extracts are from Appian, Syrian Wars 6 and Livy XXXVII.41-44.)

Appian:

"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides. They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again."

This 'forming square' at Magnesia seems unique to Appian's account; whether the result was a single square (or rectangle), as suggested by the singular tetragōnou, or each meros formed its own square, a much more practicable arrangement, the quality of the troops involved is central to Appian's account.

"The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps ; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them. After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight."

One notes that the legionaries left the cavalry to do all the work, and the latter, by wounding and hence infuriating the elephants within the square(s), broke the Macedonian formation(s).

Livy is briefer and more legiocentric (and quite obviously was not Appian's source):

"The whole left flank then wavered, and when the auxiliaries were broken, who were between the cavalry and those who were called the phalangitae, the panic spread as far as the centre. [4] There, as soon as the ranks were thrown into disorder and the use of the very long spears —the Macedonians call them sarisae —was prevented by their own friends rushing among them, the Roman legions advanced and hurled their javelins into the disorganized mass. [5] Not even the elephants posted in the intervals deterred the Roman soldiers, accustomed already by the wars in Africa both to avoid the charges of the beasts and either to assail them with spears from the side or, if they could approach closer, to hamstring them with their swords."

Here Livy practically ignores the role of the Roman and Pergamene cavalry in breaking the phalanx by stampeding its own elephants and just glosses that the legions went into action 'as soon as the ranks [ordines] were thrown into disorder', hurled pila and then dispatched elephant and phalangite alike.

This materially affects the grading of the Seleucid phalanx at Magnesia.  Were they crack troops, comparable to Argyraspides, as Appian's account implies, or just ordinary phalangites, as Livy seems to depict?

[nikgaukroger]

OP (Nik) - good luck building your army. Remember - two cavalry guards and no Galatian cataphracts.

Despite the mass of postings I am quite happy that that is by far the most reasonable reading of the evidence 

[RichT]

Patrick - I thought we were done, and I was rounding up? All you've done is restate what you have already said earlier.

As to the course of the battle - as I recall, three years ago there was a thirty page thread which came down to trying to persuade you out of the notion that the Roman elephants stopped Antiochus' pursuit and that Antiochus attacked from across the river. The notion that Antiochus had no phalanx and replaced it entirely with Argyraspides is of the same class, and if we devoted another thirty pages to trying to disabuse you of the idea, I don't think we would succeed. So I doubt you'll get any takers.