C2nd BC Seleukid

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

As Duncan points out (not in Bar Kochva's favour), Livy refers to the Argyraspides as a 'royal cohort' (ab eadem parte, paulum producto cornu, regia cohors erat; argyraspides a genere armorum appellabantur), which is consistent with a cavalry bodyguard, as is its tactical positioning on the cavalry wing.  The 16,000 phalangites (a surprisingly small number compared to the 10,000 Argyraspides and 20,000 other phalangites fielded at Raphia 26 years previously) I would identify as being the infantry Argyraspides, given that after 26 years of mostly successful campaigns it seems more likely that Antiochus would have expanded them to 16,000 rather than contracted them to a cohort-sized unit (c.500-600), especially as under Antiochus IV they are fielded in the thousands.

Appian specifically identifies the Argyraspides on the wing as horsemen:

"His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad Galatians [Galatai te kataphraktoi] and the Macedonian corps called the Agema [legomenon agēma tōn Makedonōn], so named because they were picked horsemen [hippeis epilektoi]. 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 [heteroi hippeis arguraspides], and 200 mounted archers."

Are there any specific inaccuracies in Appian's coverage of this deployment?  I see none of significance, and his deployment complements rather than contradicts Livy's, clarifying that the 'royal cohort' referred to by Livy is indeed mounted, as Macedonian royal guards had been since before Alexander the Great.

I think Mark is right: Bar Kochva needs looking through point by point, and we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; if he turns out to be a little over-imaginative in some aspects he may still be useful in others.

[Mark G]

I think we have presented both sides on this reasonably. You can pick one or none as you prefer, it's the whole point of this part of our hobby.

Given that the argument is about the use if Bar K, I shall conclude by noting that he touches on nine if this.

He picks one, and moves on rapidly,because he is not in the slightest bit interested in military history, and is really concerned with Jewish history in this period,for which there is an equally big gap.

Where we see a great debate, a good book or at least an interesting side discuss; the author just skips that to get on to the next bit.

And that lack of interest unhappily coincides entirely against our interest in his book.  Which is why I wrap a huge caveat emptor around the whole thing.

[Patrick Waterson]

To be fair to the other side of the argument, we should consider the possibility that when Antiochus visited Greece in the preceding year his force of 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry (per Appian) could have contained, and in consequence lost, the bulk of the infantry Argyraspides.  The 500 cavalry, which escaped intact, could easily correspond to the royal cohort, although not specifically identified as such.

Against identifying the 10,000 string infantry contingent as the Argyraspides is the following:

"The king placed his light-armed troops [psilous] and peltasts in front of the phalanx, and drew up the phalanx itself in front of the camp, with the archers and slingers on the right hand next to the foot-hills, and the elephants, with the guard [stiphos] that always accompanied them, on the left near the sea." - Appian, Syrian Wars 18

stiphos is given as 'a body of men in close array' in the Perseus lexicon and two epixenagia (i.e. 4096 men) in the various Greek Tactica.  4,096 men seems excessive to accompany a few (perhaps 16) elephants and hence should perhaps not be taken literally.  Even so, the existence of psiloi, peltasts, archers and slingers in addition to the phalanx suggests the latter could not have numbered anything like 10,000 and hence losses sustained at Thermopylae could not have cut down the Argyraspides infantry to the size of a single cohort.

[RichT]

We had this exact same discussion three years ago - as part of the monumental KTB thread.

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1508.285

I wasn't at all convinced by the idea of cavalry Argyraspides then and I'm still not now - but unless anyone has any new evidence or new arguments to offer, it seems otiose going over all the same old ground again.

Concerning Bar Kochva - it is true to say that The Selecuid Army is best in field largely because it is the only one in the field, and many of his conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt (whose shouldn't?). The book is still useful though if for nothing other than the collection of source references, just don't take it as gospel. Don't take anything as gospel. Including the Gospels.

[Jim Webster]

the main problem I have with the idea of cavalry Argyraspides is that

1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,
2)  The position of the two we know about at Magnesia is well established

inventing a third guard unit to explain the position of an infantry unit (which if you were present on the day and on the ground might have seemed entirely reasonable) strikes me as a step too far

[Duncan Head]

1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,

Whilst I agree; to play devil's advocate, one might be able to conjure a third cavalry guards unit out of the "philoi" who appear at the Daphnae parade in between the Companions and the agema:

Next marched two hundred and fifty pairs of gladiators, and behind them a thousand Nisaian horsemen and three thousand citizens, most of whom had crowns and trappings of gold and the rest trappings of silver. Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment (syntagma) of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse, followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand.

Of course syntagma isn't a normal term for a cavalry unit,  so probably doesn't mean a formal regiment, but still, it's tempting ...

[Jim Webster]

1) We have no evidence of a third cavalry guard unit in the Seleucid army,

Whilst I agree; to play devil's advocate, one might be able to conjure a third cavalry guards unit out of the "philoi" who appear at the Daphnae parade in between the Companions and the agema:

Next marched two hundred and fifty pairs of gladiators, and behind them a thousand Nisaian horsemen and three thousand citizens, most of whom had crowns and trappings of gold and the rest trappings of silver. Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment (syntagma) of "royal friends" of equal number and similarly accoutred; next a thousand picked horse, followed by the so‑called "agema", supposed to be the crack cavalry corps, numbering about a thousand.

Of course syntagma isn't a normal term for a cavalry unit,  so probably doesn't mean a formal regiment, but still, it's tempting ...

I did consider the 'friends' but rejected them. mainly because 'friends' was a political rank. After all we're not talking about a parade of entirely military formations, unless we start adding 500 strong units of gladiators to the army lists.
Also they wouldn't work as Argyraspides because if they were 'similarly accoutered' the the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields

[nikgaukroger]

I did consider the 'friends' but rejected them. mainly because 'friends' was a political rank. After all we're not talking about a parade of entirely military formations, unless we start adding 500 strong units of gladiators to the army lists.

Sod the gladiators, its the elephant chariots we want 

Agree on the "philoi" BTW, or we could suggest they were a new creation post-Magnesia by Antiochos III, Seleukos IV or Antiochos IV hence their first mention later than the battle if we think they were actually a unit and not a "parade formation".

[Mark G]

I think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

The right wing makes a huge and successful cavalry charge, and bowls over the social legion, fails to rally in place, persues to the camp, and largely becomes a spent force.

Then the entire phalanx, no mention of any elite infantry, is shot to pieces and disintegrates, elephants first.  Battle over.

Where did these elite infantry go?  Had they followed the cavalry, they should have been able to act against the roman legions on an angle, or if they were at speed with the cavalry, have stormed the camp.

If they had talked onto the phalanx, why start them So far iyt from it.  Almost in front of the stream, if some maps are believed.

That us the issue with them being on foot, I think.  It just makes more sense of they are mounted.

Also raises the question of how many lists incorrectly allow such an elite infantry component to seleucid armies based on that interpretation.

[Duncan Head]

I think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

Enough units aren't mentioned in the course of the battle that I don't see that as decisive. Maybe they couldn't keep up.

Also raises the question of how many lists incorrectly allow such an elite infantry component to seleucid armies based on that interpretation.

None, surely, since there are 10,000 silver shields "selected from every part of the kingdom " at Raphia anyway to justify their existence in lists. (And the corps appears to still exist at Daphnae, if not necessarily at the same strength.)  Few army lists distinguish greatly between the Raphia and Magnesia periods. And in any case to rule them out for a Magnesia list when they existed both before and after you'd need to be sure they were wrong, not just doubt them.

[nikgaukroger]

I think the real problem with treating them as pikemen or elite infantry is that they disappear after deployment.

Enough units aren't mentioned in the course of the battle that I don't see that as decisive. Maybe they couldn't keep up.

Maybe they couldn't properly see what was happening and had a dithering commander (or were told to await the king's orders and he went AWOL with the victorious cavalry) - IIRC visibility wasn't good during the battle according to Livy.

Much room for speculation.

BTW are the numbers for the Argyraspides mentioned for Magnesia, or do we tend to assume they are the same as mentioned at Raphia (partly as a way to get to the total numbers for the Seleukid army mentioned)?

[Mark G]

All possibilities, it is true.

As for just one seleucid list, ever, I am highly critical (more so for just one sucessor list).

If you took bar k on Daphne, added sekunda, and produced one list, you could cover every conceivable troop type from peltssts and phalangites to imitation legionary cohorts and with chariots and cataphracts, elephants, camels, horse archers, elite and regular heavy cavalry, tarantines, warbands, and pretty much everything in between. And with most levels of quality being available too.

I am told by greyer heads than mine that the popularity of seleucid armies in large part stems from almost everything available being touched on in bar k and treated as viable by subsequent list authors.

to me that is not a good thing , but is in fact a problem
Like every sports team playing the same way.  It just takes away So much from the era if you have that level of uniformity achievable.

Others seem to like one list to rule them all.  They seem happy to add a new thing to their bade army, and that is that.

[Duncan Head]

BTW are the numbers for the Argyraspides mentioned for Magnesia, or do we tend to assume they are the same as mentioned at Raphia (partly as a way to get to the total numbers for the Seleukid army mentioned)?

There are no numbers mentioned for the argyraspides in any account of Magnesia. Bar-Kochva thinks they are 10,000 strong for two reasons:

(1) He thinks that is their standard establishment strength, based on the 10,000 at Raphia; the 10,000 "peltasts" Polybios mentions in the Eastern campaign, whom he suggests are argyraspides on the model of peltasts in other Hellenistic armies; and the Daphne parade, where there are only 5,000 argyraspides but he thinks that the new 5,000 "Roman-armed" are the other half of the same corps;

(2) Because you need 10,000 unlisted  foot (or more; I think he postulates a few thousand camp guards as well) to make the sum total of listed infantry units add up to the overall total figure in the sources.

[Swampster]

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.

On the usage of  'cohort' Livy also mentions a Royal _ala_ who are definitely cavalry " et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque" (though at least some translations dub them another Royal Cohort).
As discussed in the previous thread which has been linked to, I don't think  there is another example of Livy using cohort for anything specified as cavalry, so I doubt he would do so here.

Or perhaps the "silver shields" were infantry but not serving as pikemen.

I've wondered before whether the Pontic 'chalkaspides' operated in this way, and we have the Maccabaean infantry with silver thureos, so perhaps this is the case. However, that is merely a digression and supposition.

[nikgaukroger]

All possibilities, it is true.

As for just one seleucid list, ever, I am highly critical (more so for just one sucessor list).

If you took bar k on Daphne, added sekunda, and produced one list, you could cover every conceivable troop type from peltssts and phalangites to imitation legionary cohorts and with chariots and cataphracts, elephants, camels, horse archers, elite and regular heavy cavalry, tarantines, warbands, and pretty much everything in between. And with most levels of quality being available too.

I am told by greyer heads than mine that the popularity of seleucid armies in large part stems from almost everything available being touched on in bar k and treated as viable by subsequent list authors.

to me that is not a good thing , but is in fact a problem
Like every sports team playing the same way.  It just takes away So much from the era if you have that level of uniformity achievable.

Others seem to like one list to rule them all.  They seem happy to add a new thing to their bade army, and that is that.

I don't think I have seen a published Seleukid army list in the past 20 years or so that didn't have restrictions as to when some troops were available (although I don't claim to have seen all). However, it must be said that at some times the Seleukids do appear to have had access to quite a variety of troops so it is likely that an army list will be fairly flexible.