C2nd BC Seleukid

[nikgaukroger]

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.

Thanks Duncan, thought that was the case. Does rather mean, IMO, that if you think they were cavalry at Magnesia there are a couple of issues - firstly the foot numbers issue and, secondly, a question of where on earth Antiochos found all those extra cavalry 

[Duncan Head]

Thanks Duncan, thought that was the case. Does rather mean, IMO, that if you think they were cavalry at Magnesia there are a couple of issues - firstly the foot numbers issue and, secondly, a question of where on earth Antiochos found all those extra cavalry 

There would be difficulty identifying the extra silver-shielded cavalry, as Jim has remarked, but there are so many cavalry at Magnesia anyway that another regiment of a thousand or so wouldn't make much extra impact. Certainly there are a lot more than at Raphia, though the 12,000 Seleukos I is supposed to have brought to Ipsos were a force of about the same size, so it could perhaps be done.

[Andreas Johansson]

Between Raphia and Magnesia is Antiochus III's eastern expedition, so it's perhaps not so strange if there was more cavalry available from the eastern provinces at the latter date.

[nikgaukroger]

There would be difficulty identifying the extra silver-shielded cavalry, as Jim has remarked, but there are so many cavalry at Magnesia anyway that another regiment of a thousand or so wouldn't make much extra impact. Certainly there are a lot more than at Raphia, though the 12,000 Seleukos I is supposed to have brought to Ipsos were a force of about the same size, so it could perhaps be done.

True. Probably confusing myself by keeping the 10k number in mind 

[Jim Webster]

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.

I haven't used my Seleucids for a while, but it often struck me that the larger the army you picked, the more diluted the 'good stuff' became and you were padding it out with crap to get the numbers up

Which always struck me as reasonably historical   

[Patrick Waterson]

One point to bear in mind is the presence of Hannibal as advisor to Antiochus on how to beat Romans.  Hannibal more than anyone else would have been aware that it was to cavalry that Carthage owed its victories and Rome its defeats, and would have done nothing to discourage fielding a substantial, and indeed overwhelming, cavalry contingent.  The difference between Antiochus' 500 cavalry at Thermopylae and the thousands at Magnesia is very noticeable, as is the very modest increase in phalangite numbers.  In fact the number of phalangites at Magnesia is so small (16,000) that it looks as if Antiochus had dispensed with the ordinary phalangites (perhaps disenchanted by their performance at Thermopylae?).  It looks as if Antiochus and perhaps Hannibal, at least until he slipped from favour, were planning a battle of encirclement by the cavalry while the phalanx held the centre.

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort', their positioning between the 'usual' elite formations in the parade indicating or at least implying similar status and nature.  The addition of gladiators (monomakhon) should not be taken as indicating that other non-military formations were on parade: Antiochus IV was deliberately (and successfully) trying to eclipse Aemilius Paullus' earlier spectacle, hence the inclusion of gladiators.

Anyone interested to check details on Perseus please note the translation is out of synch: the English XXXI.3 corresponds to the Greek XXX.25.

[nikgaukroger]

The difference between Antiochus' 500 cavalry at Thermopylae and the thousands at Magnesia is very noticeable, as is the very modest increase in phalangite numbers.

I'm not sure you can make a straight comparison between the two. I don't think there is any suggestion that Antiochos had anywhere near a full levy of his forces with him in Greece (and wasn't the force at Thermopylae gather rather quickly anyway), and given the location not having much cavalry at Thermopylae isn't too surprising either.

In fact the number of phalangites at Magnesia is so small (16,000) that it looks as if Antiochus had dispensed with the ordinary phalangites (perhaps disenchanted by their performance at Thermopylae?).

Well that all comes back to what you think about the numbers doesn't it. If you think that there are only 16000 phalangites you have to sort out the total numbers issue some other way than also having something like 10000 Argyraspide phalangites in addition to the 16000 phalangites.

Also as, IIRC, the phalanx had performed fairly well at Thermopylae - the battle being decided by the outflanking move (again) - I'm not sure any suggestion that Antiochos would be disenchanted by their performace holds water.

[Duncan Head]

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

[Jim Webster]

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

and if they were armed like the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields so nobody would call them silver shields

[Duncan Head]

and if they were armed like the Companions, they wouldn't carry shields so nobody would call them silver shields

Well, nobody actually says they were armed like Companions; Sekunda's reconstruction of a Companion shows him with a shield, so some people believe it's credible; and various Hellenistic cavalry with shields are perfectly possible. Even if Hellenistic cavalry regiments named after their shields are unheard of.

[RichT]

Reasons (aside from the obvious ones) why the 'philon syntagma' at Daphnae is not a good match for the Aryraspides at Magnesia:

- this is a different king's army, 24 years after Magnesia, with different contingents and contingent sizes. Matching up one-to-one where convenient is all very well, but not really convincing.

- there are four contingents in this bit of the Daphnae parade - four units of 1000 each to pick from, if you want to play the game of picking an unknown contingent from one battle and matching it to another unknown contingent from a later parade on the grounds that they are both unknown, so might be the same.

- the units that are definitely cavalry are identified as cavalry by Polybius - the Companions, the Agema, the cataphracts etc - all specifically identified as 'hippeis' or 'hippos'. I'd be inclined to assume that those contingents not identified as hippeis are not hippeis.

- 'syntagma' (like 'cohort') is not a name we would expect to see applied to a body of cavalry.

- there are infantry Argyraspides at Daphnae, as there were infantry Argyraspides at Raphia (and of course going back to Alexander). So we'd have to assume that some contingent, putatively the 'syntagma of friends', acquired the designation of Argyraspides late in Antiochus III's reign (having been previously unknown), then gave it back again under Antiochus IV. Not impossible, but not, IMHO, very likely.

- not every contingent in the parade is a military unit - as well as the gladiators there are the elephant-drawn chariots, the foreign delegates, the oxen, the women sprinkling unguents, etc.

So it's as we left it three years ago, that while Argyraspides could = Friends could = cavalry, all this is just based on a single word in Appian, and there are other explanations for that word in Appian (and many other more badly misplaced words) that fit better with the other evidence. So certainly a possibility, and Magnesia and the Argyraspides are a knotty, difficult problem to which there is no simple solution, but that's all.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

- there are four contingents in this bit of the Daphnae parade - four units of 1000 each to pick from, if you want to play the game of picking an unknown contingent from one battle and matching it to another unknown contingent from a later parade on the grounds that they are both unknown, so might be the same.

Two anyway: the 'friends' and the unnamed thousand cavalry, both of which look like good potential candidates.

- the units that are definitely cavalry are identified as cavalry by Polybius - the Companions, the Agema, the cataphracts etc - all specifically identified as 'hippeis' or 'hippos'. I'd be inclined to assume that those contingents not identified as hippeis are not hippeis.

"Next to these came the so‑called "companion cavalry," numbering about a thousand, all with gold trappings, and next the regiment 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."

'Similarly accoutred' suggests to me that a horse was part of the deal.  The translator's 'royal friends' resonaqtes with Livy's 'royal cohort', it being difficult to see any other contingent in the parade which has any such specific affiliation.

- 'syntagma' (like 'cohort') is not a name we would expect to see applied to a body of cavalry.

True, but our expectations may be based on incomplete information about then-contemporary usage, particularly if, for example, the 'royal cohort' was double-trained to fight mounted and afoot, as Alexander's somatophylakes appear to have been.  For about 360 days of any given year their main duty would have been to stand around the king bearing lonche and shield.

- there are infantry Argyraspides at Daphnae, as there were infantry Argyraspides at Raphia (and of course going back to Alexander). So we'd have to assume that some contingent, putatively the 'syntagma of friends', acquired the designation of Argyraspides late in Antiochus III's reign (having been previously unknown), then gave it back again under Antiochus IV. Not impossible, but not, IMHO, very likely.

More precisely, they acquired actual silvered shields, which under Antiochus IV were replaced or enhanced by gold trimmings.

- not every contingent in the parade is a military unit - as well as the gladiators there are the elephant-drawn chariots, the foreign delegates, the oxen, the women sprinkling unguents, etc.

But - the parade is divided neatly in two at XXX.25.12 ("It is a difficult task to describe the rest of the procession"), the preceding elements being armed and those following being unarmed.  And the 'royal friends' are indisputably among the former.

[Duncan Head]

Thanks to those who pointed out the 'philoi' in the Daphnae parade; these would do nicely as a 'royal cohort'

Except that they're mounted, so nobody would call them a cohort.

With at least one possible exception: Titus Livius.  We may remember that his grasp of matters Macedonian was not of the firmest, witness his 'putting down' (ponere) of pikes at Cynoscephalae, although given Polybius' usage of 'syntagma' for the 'royal friends' he may have thought he had good reason here.

That's surely a complete red herring: the unit being described may be Macedonian, but the word used is Latin, and the fact that Livy uses cohors indicates that he believes the unit he is describing is one of infantry.

[Jim Webster]

But - the parade is divided neatly in two at XXX.25.12 ("It is a difficult task to describe the rest of the procession"), the preceding elements being armed and those following being unarmed.  And the 'royal friends' are indisputably among the former.

so are the Gladiators plus  a hundred chariots drawn by six horses and forty drawn by four horses, and then a chariot drawn by four elephants and another drawn by a pair, and finally thirty-six elephants in single file with their housings.

[Duncan Head]

Just to confuse things, see for instance here for suggestions that the monomachoi were not in fact "gladiators".