C2nd BC Seleukid

[nikgaukroger]

Thinking I ought to redo a Classical/Hellenistic army and as ever tend to drift towards the Seleukids in the 2nd century BC.

Has there been anything published recently (well, lets say last 10 years which is recent as these things go) on the the Seleukid military? Books or accessible academic works.

[RichT]

Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

There are a ton of Pen and Sword titles which cover the Seleucid army inter alia, but these are of variable quality. The John Grainger Seleucid Empire series from P&S are good, but light on specifically army matters. Ditto Michael Taylor's Antiochus the Great.

And there are some more general 'war and society' type books like Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, well worth a read but not really wargamers' books.

(Edit) I should also add that David Karunanithy's The Macedonian War Machine is relevant inasmuch as the Seleucid army is Macedonian, and Christopher Matthew's An Invincible Beast deals with the Hellenistic phalanx generally (though I think much of his stuff is bonkers).

There is a sore lack of general studies of any of the Hellenistic armies. If just one in ten of the people churning out yet one more Roman Army or Army of Alexander the Great book could be diverted into writing a Hellenistic one, it would be a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

[nikgaukroger]

Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

I have an original print run version of the Bar Kochva I've been around so long 

The Sekunda didn't convince me either, although it appears to have convinced the author of the MeG army lists.

Spotted a couple of possibly interesting papers on Academia.edu, but they were in Russian ...   

[Jim Webster]

Not really that I'm aware of. Bar Kochva's The Seleucid Army was republished in (+/-) 2012 which at least means it is available again, though it was just a reprint - almost a facsimile - of the original (1976), not updated at all. Then you'd have to go back to Nick Sekunda's The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies (1993) or more recently Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC if you buy into his Roman reform theory (which TBH I don't think anyone does). Good for the plates and look of the thing though.

I have an original print run version of the Bar Kochva I've been around so long 

The Sekunda didn't convince me either, although it appears to have convinced the author of the MeG army lists.

Spotted a couple of possibly interesting papers on Academia.edu, but they were in Russian ...   

I too have the original of Bar Kochva  from new 

Sekunda convinced me more in the Montvert book than he did in his proper thesis!

Seriously I think it's a period which needs a lot more looking at because the Seleucids could raise significant armies, at times two or three of them opposed to each other

[Andreas Johansson]

Not Seleucid, but I just spotted this on Bryn Mawr (they're looking for a reviewer), which is perhaps of interest:

Juhel, Pierre O. Autour de l'infanterie d'élite macédonienne à l'époque du royaume antigonide: Cinq études militaires entre histoire, philogie, et archéologie. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017. x, 278 p. £28.00. ISBN 9781784917326.

[Jim Webster]

Not Seleucid, but I just spotted this on Bryn Mawr (they're looking for a reviewer), which is perhaps of interest:

Juhel, Pierre O. Autour de l'infanterie d'élite macédonienne à l'époque du royaume antigonide: Cinq études militaires entre histoire, philogie, et archéologie. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017. x, 278 p. £28.00. ISBN 9781784917326.

I suspect they'd turn me down as a reviewer 

[Duncan Head]

Again not Seleukid, but another one forthcoming from Pierre Juhel.

I presume you're aware of Grainger's trilogy on the Seleucids?

[Mark G]

I'd just note a warning on the bar k.

It is broad, which is good, but I think one or two key pieces of the detail have come under question, and the reputation rests a lot on the lack of alternatives when it was published.

All that stuff about agryaspids flanking cavalry at magnesia, that comes from bar k, for example.  Numerous hoops jumped through in slingshot as folk try to reconcile that with basic common sense.

And it rests a huge amount on the daphe parade being a sound basis for an army list, which seems to be why 80s and 90s lists always seem to allow the (sadly, almost always only ever one) seleucid list to include everything from scythe chariots to camels and elephants along with a better phalanx than alexander in some cases.

Still interesting, but no longer a golden source.

And I would also note that the first slingshot review of it remarked that it picked some controversial interpretations of key things, which subsequently became accepted as normal.  Now that may be good research, but in this case, I think the acceptance is more due to gamers wanting to reinforce their killer list preferences by validating bar k.

I've suggested someone like Patrick could do a good re review of it a few times now, basically cross checking the interpretations again.

The author wasn't a military historian or a classicist specializing in Hellenism.  He was a religious scholar covering a gap in the history of the Jewish people, so that is where he put his time and effort.

And btw, amazon currently lists the dark blue hard cover first edition at over 600 pounds, if you can find a collector.

[Andreas Johansson]

And btw, amazon currently lists the dark blue hard cover first edition at over 600 pounds, if you can find a collector.

Bookfinder finds used copies for about a twentieth of that, and new ones for not much over a tenth.

(This is the '76 blue hc, ISBN 0521206677, which I presume is the 1st.)

[Duncan Head]

All that stuff about agryaspids flanking cavalry at magnesia, that comes from bar k, for example.  Numerous hoops jumped through in slingshot as folk try to reconcile that with basic common sense.

Actually, it comes straight out of Livy. You'd have to jump through some hoops _not_ to have argyraspises flanking the cavalry:

On the right of the phalanx Antiochus stationed 1500 Gallograeci infantry, and with them were linked up 3000 cuirassed cavalry, known as "cataphracti." These were supported by the "agema," another body of cavalry numbering about 1000; they were a select force, consisting of Medes and men drawn from many tribes in that part of the world. Behind these in support were sixteen elephants. The line was continued by the royal cohort called "argyraspides" from the kind of shield they carried.

[Mark G]

which is exactly the problem, Duncan.

Bak K takes the notoriously unreliable Livy with no critical review.

Assuming he made a similar transation to the ones I pulled from Perseus, and assuming he didn't use the same transalations to begin with, we are presented with these two choices:

Livy 37.40
[7] [ ...]  On the same side, a little farther on towards the wing, was the royal cohort; these were called Argyraspides,1 from the kind of armour which they wore. [8] Next to these stood one thousand two hundred Dahan bowmen on horseback; then, three thousand light infantry, part Cretans and part Trallians,

but even Appian has a better statement on this

Appian
Syrian Wars 6.32
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. Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields, and 200 mounted archers.

Bar K just takes Livy, throws it in, and then knocks up a map which has pikemen mixed in with Cavalry on the wing.

and because there are so few books on the Seleucids, we had this keep coming up on wagames discussions ever since.

caveat emptor on Bar K

[Duncan Head]

If you can only discredit Livy by touting the even less reliable Appian, with his "Galatian cataphracts" (your inaccurately-translated "mail-clad Galatians"), then you only make Livy's (and Bar-Kochva's) account look stronger. Given that argyraspides infantry are widely known, and argyraspides cavalry unheard of, chosing Appian over Livy here just looks like simple prejudice about how infantry are "supposed" to deploy.

[Mark G]

Fair enough.

So, please, offer a tactical explanation of this deployment.

The deployment makes good sense, and is supported by the subsequent battle narratives if the silver shields in question are on horseback.

If you prefer Livy, please explain why they are so deployed.

[Duncan Head]

I've no idea, it looks like an experiment. The silver shields don't need their own flank covered - because of the river, and the horse-archers, and the lack of Roman horse on that flank - so perhaps they were less clumsy than the cataphracts as a flank guard. Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen. Note that where Livy differs from Bar-Kochva is that Livy calls them a "cohort", which implies a small force; Bar-Kochva thinks that there are 10,000 of them, because there were 10,000 at Raphia. If you want to disagree with Bar-Kochva, I'd look at the numbers, not the position or the horses. The point is, our best account of the battle - and Livy is the best we've got, however much we may regret that - puts "silver shield" infantry out beyond the cavalry. And no one has yet come up with a more convincing alternative. Using an account as error-ridden as Appian's doesn't really present a credible alternative.

[Jim Webster]

I've no idea, it looks like an experiment. The silver shields don't need their own flank covered - because of the river, and the horse-archers, and the lack of Roman horse on that flank - so perhaps they were less clumsy than the cataphracts as a flank guard. Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen. Note that where Livy differs from Bar-Kochva is that Livy calls them a "cohort", which implies a small force; Bar-Kochva thinks that there are 10,000 of them, because there were 10,000 at Raphia. If you want to disagree with Bar-Kochva, I'd look at the numbers, not the position or the horses. The point is, our best account of the battle - and Livy is the best we've got, however much we may regret that - puts "silver shield" infantry out beyond the cavalry. And no one has yet come up with a more convincing alternative. Using an account as error-ridden as Appian's doesn't really present a credible alternative.

I have often wondered whether Antiochus wanted something to guard the flanks of the cataphracts. On a constricted flank, lighter cavalry might not have been good enough, and the Silver Shields could perhaps be relied up to hold up the Roman infantry facing them, helping to pin the enemy in place for the Cataphracts to him?