C2nd BC Seleukid

[nikgaukroger]

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.

So glad I was having a break from ancients at that time 

Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming 

[Andreas Johansson]

Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming 

Either that was before my time or the memory has erased itself from my mind.

[Erpingham]

So glad I was having a break from ancients at that time 

It was remarkable.  What appeared to be a new theory of the battle evolved before one's eyes.  One protagonist was convinced the key to the battle on the Roman left was all about KTB wedges, flank attacks by horse archers across the river and an elephant counter-attack.  Others disputed this, mainly on evidential grounds.  This dispute is but a pale shadow

[nikgaukroger]

Sounds a bit akin to the infamous DBMMlist discussion on 'Abbasid infantry that Duncan may well recall - probably with horror. I still wake up screaming 

Either that was before my time or the memory has erased itself from my mind.

Must have been about 10 years ago when the v1 DBMM Book 3 lists were in development. So many facepalm moments.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

That was rounding up.

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 ...

Probably accurate, then.

So should we just look at what Livy and Appian say this time?

[nikgaukroger]

I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia 

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

[Patrick Waterson]

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

So what do we have?

Well, there is Maccabees.  Quite a few actions, some rudimentary OBs, even a bit of organisational detail here and there.  Polybius loses interest in Syria after Alexander Balas, and Diodorus is not much help.

Diodorus does however shed some light on the status of Philoi in a Hellenistic monarchy.

"Dionysius, also called Petosarapis, one of the "Friends" of Ptolemy, attempted to win control of the state for himself, and thus brought the kingdom into great danger. Wielding, as he did, the greatest influence of anyone at court, and being without a peer among his fellow Egyptians on the field of battle, he scorned both the kings because of their youth and inexperience." - Diodorus XXXI.15a

This 'friend' is clearly an experienced combatant.

In Diodorus XXXII.10.1 we learn that "Alexander [Balas], worsted in battle, fled with five hundred of his men to Abae in Arabia ..." a departure and a following reminiscent of Antiochus III after Thermopylae, namely the king being accompanied by a 500-strong contingent, except that Alexander Balas' following contained the ex-girl Diophantus (nee Herais).  Dare one suggest the continuity of a 'royal cohort' bodyguard unit?

Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia 

They are having you on.

[Jim Webster]

I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia 

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

I tweaked the subject line, let those who wish to discuss Magnesia do so in a different subject :-)

actually Nik you started me reading up various bits of Seleucid again 
I've also been wondering where a lot of troops in the armies came from, and we tend to forget that even within the Seleucid Empire, the State didn't have a monopoly of military force. For fighting against the Jewish rebels it seems to have been easy to raise Idumaeam and other auxiliaries
A quick search through various places (Starting from Ma, Antiochus III and the cities of western Asia Minor) produces Carians perfectly capable of taking on a Roman army after Magnesia

"Hence he marched to the place called Gordiutichi. From there they came on the third march to Tabae. The city lies on the borders of the Pisidians, on the side which faces the Pamphylian sea. Since the strength of the region was unimpaired, its men were fierce [12??] in warfare. At this time too the cavalry, charging the Roman column, threw it at first into no small degree of confusion; then, when it became evident that they were equal in neither numbers nor courage, when driven back into the town they begged pardon for their mistake and were ready to surrender the city. The consul exacted of them twenty-five talents of silver and ten thousand [13??] medimni  of wheat; on these terms they were received in surrender."
Livy38.13

Then you had the Pamphylians

Troops from Termessus  were at that time besieging the citadel of the Isiondenses after capturing the town. The besieged, since there was no other hope of relief, sent envoys to the consul asking aid: shut up in the citadel with their wives and children, they were expecting death day by day, to be suffered by either the sword or starvation. Thus the eager consul was offered an occasion to turn aside into Pamphylia. By his arrival he rescued the Isiondenses from siege; on payment of fifty talents of silver he granted peace to Termessus; he did the same for the Aspendians and other peoples of Pamphylia. Returning from Pamphylia, he encamped the first day on the river Taurus, the next at what they call Xylines Comê.
Livy 38 15


There is the classic quote about the fighting between the Apameans against the Larisseans.

And Poseidonius the Stoic philosopher, in the third book of his Histories, speaking of the war of the Apameans against the Larisseans, writes as follows [ Fr_2 ] - "Having taken short daggers sticking in their waists, and small lances covered with rust and dirt, and having put veils and curtains over their heads which produce a shade but do not hinder the wind from getting to their necks, dragging on asses laden with wine and every sort of meat, by the side of which were packed little photinges and little monauli, instruments of revelry, not of war."

It should be noted that the passage survives because it was the quoter was interested in the terms used for musical instruments, and in Samakand to Sardis it is described as one of 'extreme caricature'

On the other hand you had fighting between Magnesia  on Maeander, Herakleia under Latmos and Miletos in the 180s BC as each city tried to claw back the bits that various Seleucid monarchs had given to the others. The evidence for this seems to be inscriptions set up in the cities laying out the peace terms.

Finally of course you have the Rhodians attempting the reconquest of the Peraia and with a complicated and evolving collection of cities and peoples fighting back.

So there were plenty of perfectly competent fighting men out there, the question is just how they could be included within the Seleucid army.
We know that the Jews were included as allies by treaty, when the Seleucids needed them.
Whether various other peoples had similar treaties? That would make sense, after all the Hellenistic world was used to the idea of signing treaties with peoples outside the Empire to recruit from (for example Cretans) and as the Empire started to take more setbacks, treaties with tribes and peoples within it would make sense.
I'd assume that as the Empire grew weaker, treaties which initially had been along the lines of 'We'll turn up with money and hire the men we want' drifted into becoming more like, 'If we pay you, will you lead your men to our assistance?'

Jim

[nikgaukroger]

I'd prefer to look at what evidence we may have for the army after Antiochos IV than see a 30 page "discussion" about wacky ideas on Magnesia 

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

I tweaked the subject line, let those who wish to discuss Magnesia do so in a different subject :-)

 

[nikgaukroger]

Seems to me that after the info of the Daphnae parade we have only vague information. Would be interesting, IMO, to pull together what we have.

So what do we have?

Well, there is Maccabees.  Quite a few actions, some rudimentary OBs, even a bit of organisational detail here and there.  Polybius loses interest in Syria after Alexander Balas, and Diodorus is not much help.

Presumably Josephus as well.

In Diodorus XXXII.10.1 we learn that "Alexander [Balas], worsted in battle, fled with five hundred of his men to Abae in Arabia ..." a departure and a following reminiscent of Antiochus III after Thermopylae, namely the king being accompanied by a 500-strong contingent, except that Alexander Balas' following contained the ex-girl Diophantus (nee Herais).  Dare one suggest the continuity of a 'royal cohort' bodyguard unit?

I would be amazed if there wasn't a continuing royal bodyguard, and if an usurper didn't have the support of an "official" one I am sure that they would instigate one as their "official" version no doubt named the same - such as Companions.

[nikgaukroger]

Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

Nellies are, IIRC, mentioned after this event though.

[Swampster]

Appian (Syrian Wars 8 ) mentions the kings but not the armies who succeeded Antiochus IV; the only specific mention of military detail is when Roman commissioners in 164 BC insist on the slaughter of the elephants in the Seleucid army and the destruction of the vessels comprising the Seleucid navy.

Nellies are, IIRC, mentioned after this event though.

Josephus mentions them in the Antiquities (13.120) - Demetrius II gets them from Ptolemy VI Philometer when he inherits at least part of the Ptolemaic army.

Kistler mentions Antiochus VII still using elephants when defeated by Phraates (to whom he also allots elephants) but doesn't give a citation and I can't find a reference using the various sources through Attalus.

[RichT]

I forgot to mention in my original reply Bar Kochva's Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Not exactly new but relatively recently (2002?) reprinted in paperback. Lots of stuff in there on the 2nd C Seleucid Army - and as with BK's earlier book, some of it is pretty speculative but there's still lots of useful details.

[Andreas Johansson]

Must have been about 10 years ago when the v1 DBMM Book 3 lists were in development. So many facepalm moments.

Ah, thanks. That's probably before my time, I think I joined DBMMlist only after Bk3 was published.

[Patrick Waterson]

I would be amazed if there wasn't a continuing royal bodyguard, and if an usurper didn't have the support of an "official" one I am sure that they would instigate one as their "official" version no doubt named the same - such as Companions.

It seems as if 'Philoi' rather than 'Hetairoi' may have been the fashion for the trusted bodyguards surrounding a king; at a battle we shall not name, the Companions (hetairoi) are posted with the heir, not the monarch, and this may have been the norm in the few cases where an heir survived to double-digit age.  One would not expect the monarch to leave himself without a fully trusted unit of elite troops, and the Friends (philoi) may have filled this niche.

Call them what you will, their equipment is probably quite similar: lighter than that of cataphracts, because a lot of their duty would involve standing around on foot guarding the king (or pretender) at audiences, etc. and full cataphract armour would probably be too much given the climate.  Shields are more or less mandated while on foot, and could compensate for the lesser armour when mounted.

Regarding elephants, I cannot really improve on Peter's post.