C2nd BC Seleukid

[Swampster]

"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.

If it is cavalry, then it resonates even more with Livy's  royal ala.

[Jim Webster]

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

obviously they were the cohort of silver shields 

Interesting in that they were 'single combat' fighters but were in pairs

[RichT]

They were in pairs of matched opponents, presumably. Yes, single combat fighters aren't necessarily gladiators (in the Roman sense) - Greeks had single combat too, if not so much for fun.

At any rate they are part of the 'military' section of the parade, along with the elephant-chariots etc, which is proof enough that the military section didn't consist solely of formal military units.

[RichT]

"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.

More literal translation: "With these were the cavalry called 'Companions'; these were 1000, most with gold trappings. Next after these was the syntagma of friends, equal both as to number and as to decoration. After these 1000 picked-men, after these the so-called agema, thought to be the best unit of the cavalry."

So 'similarly accoutred' translates 'equal as to decoration' which refers back to 'chrysophalaroi', 'with gold trappings' - it's not a given that these are horse trappings (Shuckburgh translates the 'gold trappings' of the 3000 citizens as 'plumes', oddly perhaps, and misses them out for the friends).

The translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Perhaps because Polybius uses syntagma.  We do not know what Livy believed, but he may have felt that it usefully distinguished the unit from the royal ala with Seleucus on the other wing.  We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

Regarding the Daphnae parade, the parade order distinguished between armed and unarmed portions, and the 'philoi' were very much among the armed.  One may note that the pseudo-troops (chariots and gladiators) brought up the rear of this section, following after the real soldiers, the 'philoi' being among the latter.

More literal translation: "With these were the cavalry called 'Companions'; these were 1000, most with gold trappings. Next after these was the syntagma of friends, equal both as to number and as to decoration. After these 1000 picked-men, after these the so-called agema, thought to be the best unit of the cavalry."

The four units mentioned interestingly coincide with the lineup at Magnesia, with a 'royal' unit plus another thousand strong unit on each wing.

So 'similarly accoutred' translates 'equal as to decoration' which refers back to 'chrysophalaroi', 'with gold trappings' - it's not a given that these are horse trappings (Shuckburgh translates the 'gold trappings' of the 3000 citizens as 'plumes', oddly perhaps, and misses them out for the friends).

And it does not seem incongruous that such a similarly-decorated unit in the middle of the cavalry part of the procession would, by this interpretation, be on foot?  Look at the order of the procession: first come the foot units, in sequence, then the mounted, in sequence, then the 'performing' element (chariots, gladiators or whatever the 'monomachoi' were), also in sequence.  The mounted units, like the infantry, parade in a block, ergo the 'philoi', from their position in the parade, were mounted.

The translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

Correct, but the translator intelligently surmises there is nobody else whose friends they could be.

[nikgaukroger]

We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

I thought it was:

Right wing
1200 Dahae
"royal cohort called argyraspides"
1000 Agema
3000 catafracts

left wing
3000 catafracts
1000 Companions (royal ala)
2500 Galatian cavalry (Gallograecians)
Tarantines


So not quite as symmetrical as you suggest.

[Swampster]

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.

Perhaps because Polybius uses syntagma. 

I feel it only fair to point out that Polybius does explicitly use σύνταγμα ἱππέων in 9.3.9 though it is to describe Hannibal's whole cavalry force rather than a specific unit size.

He uses syntagma to mean 'a body of troops' elsewhere too - when he describes Roman organisation he says that velites and three maniples (speiras) makes up a body (syntagma) called a cohort (koortis). I haven't checcked to see whether there are extant passages used by Livy where he has replaced syntagma with cohort. The few I've checked with the English translators, cohort replaces semaion.

[Patrick Waterson]

We may in passing note the symmetry of the arrangement:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry'
'royal ala'

I thought it was:

Right wing
1200 Dahae
"royal cohort called argyraspides"
1000 Agema
3000 catafracts

left wing
3000 catafracts
1000 Companions (royal ala)
2500 Galatian cavalry (Gallograecians)
Tarantines


So not quite as symmetrical as you suggest.

Unless one leaves out the 'hired help' and considers just the core Seleucid regular cavalry.

Nik does implicitly raise an important question: does Livy's

et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque

mean the 'regia ala' is 1,000 strong (a bit high for an ala, albeit stranger things have been known) or that there are 1,000 other cavalry and the more lightly protected regia ala?

There may be a way to resolve this.

Appian writes (Syrian War 32):

His horse were stationed on either wing, consisting of the mail-clad [kataphraktoi] 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.

An equal number of Galatians and Agema-equivalents?  As far as we know, there was only one Agema, but was there a mirror-image unit of 'picked horsemen' (hippeis epilektoi) intended to provide weight to the heir's wing?

Besides these the right wing had certain light-armed troops, and other horsemen with silver shields [heteroi hippeis arguraspides], and 200 mounted archers.

The 200 mounted archers differs from Livy's 1,200 and may be carelessness rather than an alternative source.

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.

This would leave us with:

Right wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 agema
'royal cohort'

Left wing
3,000 cataphracts
1,000 'other cavalry' (Cappadocian etc. agema-equivalents)
'royal ala' (Companions)

The units at the Daphnae parade can now be equated to their counterparts at Magnesia (Magnesian equivalents in parentheses):

1. Companions (= Companions)
2. 'Philoi' (= 'Royal cohort')
3. 1,000 picked cavalry (= Cappadocian etc. agema-equivalents)
4. Agema (= Agema)

This naturally slots the silver shield-bearing 'royal cohort' at Magnesia into the cavalry bodyguard ecological niche.

[RichT]

The translator's 'royal friends' is the translator's invention - Polybius doesn't say 'royal'.

Correct, but the translator intelligently surmises there is nobody else whose friends they could be.

Yes of course they are the King's friends. You claimed that 'royal cohort' at Magnesia 'resonates with' the 'royal friends' at Daphnae. I point out that at Daphnae the text doesn't say 'royal friends'. Whether they actually were royal friends is neither here nor there (of course they were), we are talking about nomenclature.

Concerning syntagma - yes again those pesky Greeks don't like to use specific technical terms only where they should be used, and syntagma is used with more or less its literal meaning, 'ordered together' (usually of men - just like cohort), as well as (but rarely in literary sources AFAIK) the 256-strong infantry unit we know and love (usually 'semaia' to Polybius). Just as we see in English, 'regiment' in particular, as well as 'brigade' and sometimes other words, is used as a general term for collections of men (or women, in the case of the monstrous regiment). But on the whole and talking very broadly, syntagma does seem to be used for infantry, or to specify cavalry where cavalry is meant.

Uses of 'syntagma' in Polybius:

5.31.7 - non-military, the 'general view' of history
6.50.2 - non-military, constitution of Sparta
9.3.9 - "Hannibal's cavalry (syntagma ton hippeon) was the main cause of the Carthaginian victory and Roman defeat"
10.12.2 - "The commandant of the town, Mago, divided his garrison of a thousand men into two companies (syntagma)"
10.22.6 - "Being then appointed Hipparch by the Achaean league and finding the squadrons (sytagmata ton hippeon) in a state of utter demoralisation"
11.23.1 - "preceded by the usual number of velites and three maniples (a combination of troops (syntagma ton pezon) which the Romans call a cohort)"
18.31.4 - (of the phalanx) "if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? (syntagma)"
18.32.13 - "many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx (to syntagma tes phalangos) to the Roman system of arming."
30.25.7 - the "syntagma of friends" at Daphne

So it is extremely unlikely that Polybius at Daphne was using syntagma as a technical name for a body of men, rather than just the 'unit of Friends' (the 'regiment of Friends' many would say in English, without thereby implying a body of 800 infantry subdivided into battalions and companies). It's possible they were mounted - we don't know - but many units at Daphne that were mounted we know about because Polybius explicitly says so. It's possible Polybius' text for Magnesia referred to the Aryraspides as the/a royal syntagma, as the Argyraspides were a guard unit (I assume all agree on that), and that Livy translated accordingly as regia cohors. Even if he did (and we don't know), this doesn't give us any more reason, to say the least, to suppose that they were cavalry, nor does it provide any plausible link whatever with the regiment of Friends at Daphne - certainly no link stronger than the link to the infantry Argyraspides - from them both having the same name - that we already know about.

Livy's uses of cohort for Hellenistic infantry I looked at three years ago, can't be bothered to do it again.

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

[nikgaukroger]

The units at the Daphnae parade can now be equated to their counterparts at Magnesia

Personally I can see no real need to do this as change over the 25 years between them is quite probable - but if you are going to do it at least do it for the infantry as well rather than just the cavalry.

[RichT]

There is hopeless confusion here about the Seleucids at Magnesia. Patrick is hopelessly confused by Appian. Appian was hopelessly confused by Livy. Livy, we can assume, was hopelessly confused by Polybius. The translators are often hopelessly confused by Livy and Appian. An object lesson in how, through various retellings, the original facts, whatever they were, can be left far behind.

I'll try to list the forces involved without becoming hopelessly confused myself:

Livy, right flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
3000 Cataphract cavalry
1000 Agema
16 elephants
(?) Regia cohors, Argyraspides
1200 Dahae
Assorted lights

Appian, right flank:

Galatian cataphracts
Agema
Certain light-armed troops
Argyaspides cavalry
200 mounted archers

Livy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

Appian, left flank:

Galatian tribes
Cappadocians
Other foreigners
Cataphracts
Companion cavalry
Assorted lights, scythed chariots and camels

Comments

Right:
- the only unit strength Appian gives (for the Dahae) he gets wrong. The only unit strength Livy doesn't give is the Argyraspides
- Appian merges the Galatian infantry and cataphract cavalry on the right
- Appian identifies the Argyraspides as cavalry, Livy doesn't specify
- Appian bundles all the lights in together and inserts them before the Argyaspides and Dahae

Left:
- Appian does include the infantry (Galatians, Cappadocians, mixed) but clusters them together in his description
- the translator of Appian on Perseus (White) has erred on the left flank cavalry - he translates "There was another body of horse, mail-clad but light-armed, called the Companion cavalry". A better translation would be: "other cataphract cavalry, and those cavalry called Companions, more lightly armed". This corresponds (with the numbers cut out by Appian as usual) to Livy's 'et tria milia cataphractorum equitum et mille alii equites, regia ala levioribus tegumentis suis equorumque'. So there are two units - 3000 Cataphracts and 1000 Companions - not one as White would have it, and not three as Patrick would have it. Just two.

I don't like the argument from symmetry as I don't see any need for the battleline to be symmetrical. But if I was looking for symmetry I would note the wings:

Right wing:
Galatian infantry
Cataphracts
Guard cavalry
Argyraspides
Lights

Left wing:
Galatian infantry
Other (Cappadocian, mixed) infantry
Cataphracts
Guard cavalry
Lights

So the obvious difference is the Argyraspides on the right, and the lack on the right of several thousand infantry that are present on the left (Cappadocians, mixed). So I'd be inclined to think that, if symmetry was important, the Argyraspides provide those several thousand infantry, and should go in the equivalent position in the line, that is between the Galatians and the cataphracts. That Livy doesn't put them here is because Livy, like Appian, and White, and Patrick, has got himself confused. But, that's just a possible theory.

[nikgaukroger]

Livy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

I thought there were 2500 "Gallograeci cavalry" as well on the left flank in Livy?

[Duncan Head]

Livy, left flank:

1500 Galatian infantry
2000 Cappadocian infantry
2700 Mixed auxiliaries
3000 Cataphracts
1000 Royal Ala
Scythed chariots
Assorted lights and camels

Possibly included amongst Rich's "assorted lights" are an unspecified number of Tarantines (fair enough) and the 2,500 Galatian cavalry (probably not "light" except by comparison with the cataphracts):  primi Tarentini, deinde Gallograecorum equitum duo milia et quingenti.

I mention this because I've always assumed that Appian's Galatai te kataphraktoi were a confusion between the Galatian horse and the cataphracts, but I suppose on reflection the Galatian foot may be the more likely source from their position in the text.

[RichT]

Yes I didn't enumerate the 'lights' (not all necessarily light) in the interests of clarity - seems that backfired...

But it is clear as you say Duncan that Appian conflates the Galatian infantry and the cataphracts - the texts of Livy and Appian correspond quite closely.