BigRedBat | 02 Feb 2016 10:31 a.m. PST |
Having enjoyed reading the Achaean thread I'm curious about the equipment of the mercenary Greek hoplitoi that fought on both sides at the battle of Raphia in 217BC. Specifically I'd like to solicit views on whether the aspis (traditional hoplite shield) would have been replaced by this time by the thureos (the longer oval shield) and whether they might have worn either linen or muscle cuirasses. It would also be interesting to get a view on helmet styles; Phrygian perhaps or later designs? The hoplites seem to have fought in the line of battle (on the right flank of each army's phalanx) so presumably they were considered to be reliable troops. Thanks, Simon |
mbsparta | 02 Feb 2016 11:07 a.m. PST |
By this time the Greeks would be thureophoroi … IMHO of course. Macedonian style helmets … and some armor for the Thorokites. Mike B
|
Swampster | 02 Feb 2016 1:17 p.m. PST |
AFAIK, suggestions that the mercenaries on both sides were hoplitai (in the classical sense) is just supposition. Polybius just says mercenaries. Could be thureophoroi (which is usually assumed when misthophoroi are mentioned) and some suggest phalangites. |
BigRedBat | 02 Feb 2016 1:41 p.m. PST |
Ah- I thought I recall them being described as "mercenary hoplites" which as you say doesn't necessarily mean that they were hoplites in the usual sense of the word. |
Mithridates | 02 Feb 2016 2:12 p.m. PST |
Simon Interesting question. When we re-fought Raphia using Hail Caesar we made them all phalangites – largely because the Rules do not treat thureophoroi all that well. Have you seen these 2 articles (originally in Slingshot) – link I very much doubt hoplite's traditional shield. Whether they were armoured is a moot point. Some of the mercenaries were armed in Macedonian fashion – but that says nothing about armour. Rather that wall to wall phalangites it maybe interesting to make some mercenaries (be 'nice' to think of these as Iphikratean) thureophoroi with long spear and count them as say medium/heavy foot suitable for the battle line. That said, quite of few of Antiochus' battle line troops were not what I would call reliable! He must have been a little desperate. Have fun – cannot help on helmet styles. Garry |
BigRedBat | 02 Feb 2016 3:09 p.m. PST |
Hi Garry, I have seen those articles before but not for some time- thanks for reminding me! Bar Kochba has the Greek mercenaries as phalangites but I'm not convinced as my Polybius translation refers to the Seleucid unit as the "Greek mercenaries next to the phalanx". I'm inclined to think some sort of light-heavy troop; perhaps thureophoroi or thorakitai. If the latter in linen or perhaps muscle cuirass as presumably too early for mail. Best, Simon |
Swampster | 02 Feb 2016 4:21 p.m. PST |
"Ah- I thought I recall them being described as "mercenary hoplites" which as you say doesn't necessarily mean that they were hoplites in the usual sense of the word." No, just mercenaries – misthophoroi. Hoplite does crop up later, such as histories of the Mithridatic Wars and in some manuals, but by the time these were written just seems to be in its pure meaning of 'armed man' rather than as an aspis carrying classical spearman. Possibly even used by writers in a classicising way. |
BigRedBat | 02 Feb 2016 5:20 p.m. PST |
Thanks- that clears that one up; Greek mercenaries it is. |
GurKhan | 03 Feb 2016 2:17 a.m. PST |
"First of all they divided them according to their ages and nationalities, and provided them in each case with suitable arms and accoutrements, paying no attention to the manner in which they had previously been armed; … Phoxidas the Achaean, Ptolemy the son of Thraseas, and Andromachus of Aspendus exercised together in one body the phalanx and the Greek mercenaries, the phalanx twenty-five thousand strong being under the command of Andromachus and Ptolemy and the mercenaries, numbering eight thousand, under that of Phoxidas." – Polybios V.64.1 and 65.3-4 This is the Ptolemaic army preparing for Raphia. Since we are told that troops were re-equipped, and since the Greek mercenaries were drilled in one body with the phalanx, it seems likely that they were re-armed as Macedonian phalangites. |
BigRedBat | 03 Feb 2016 3:52 a.m. PST |
Hi Duncan, There are a couple of passages that make me wonder about the phalangite designation. In the account of the Seleucid force we have "Next (to) the cavalry facing the front, he placed the Cretans, then the mercenaries from Greece and next (to) these the five thousand armed in the Macedonian fashion under the command of Byttacus the Macedonian" V82.11 which suggests that the Seleucid's Greek mercenaries may not have been armed in the Macedonian fashion. Also "while at the same time on the other side of the elephants the Greek mercenaries next (to) the phalanx fell upon Ptolemy's peltasts and drove them back" V84.10 – the mercenaries were distinct from the phalanx, although this could be on grounds of nationality. Although the Ptolemaic Greek mercenaries in the Raphia account are brigaded with the phalanx, they are similarly distinct from it, as in "exercised together in one body the phalanx and the Greek mercenaries." I do note the passage about retraining the mercenaries- but perhaps a unit of non-phalangites would have been desirable to protect the vulnerable flank of the phalanx and, in the Seleucid case, to act as a hinge with the cavalry. It would still make sense to brigade such troops with the phalanx they were supporting. Do you think that is possible? Best, Simon |
GurKhan | 03 Feb 2016 4:39 a.m. PST |
In the Ptolemaic case, it's hard to see why the phalanx would have trained with a special unit assigned to protect _one_ flank with no provision for the other. If the Ptolemaic generals had conceived the innovative idea of special flank-guards for the phalanx, surely it would make sense to apply it to both flanks? I think the two units would only have trained so closely together if they could use the same formations, commands, and manoeuvres, which suggests they were armed the same. As for the Seleucids and Byttacus, I suspect a copying error in Polybios' surviving text. In V.79.3 we have "Daae, Carmanians, and Cilicians, light-armed troops about five thousand in number organized and commanded by Byttacus the Macedonian". Then in V.82.10 it's "five thousand armed in the Macedonian fashion under the command of Byttacus the Macedonian". Now it's _possible_ that Byttacus had transferred from commanding a light-armed unit to commanding a phalanx unit of exactly the same size, but I think it's more likely that "armed in the Macedonian manner" has crept into the text erroneously, perhaps a duplication of the description of Ptolemy's Libyans a few lines above, the copyist being influenced by Byttacus' ethnic – Byttacus _the_Macedonian_. So if Byttacus' lot aren't Macedonian-armed, there's nothing to tell us how the Seleucids' Greeks were armed. With no mention of Seleucid re-arming it's perhaps most likely that their mercenary Greeks retained their usual thureophoros equipment, but no way to know for sure. |
BigRedBat | 03 Feb 2016 5:31 a.m. PST |
Thanks that is interesting. Regarding Byttacus' troops, it strikes me as odd that that 5,000 light troops would be interposed between the Greek phalangites (or thureophoroi types) and the Argyraspides, in the line of battle and more or less opposite the enemy guard phalanx. Moreover the passage "the Greek mercenaries next (to) the phalanx"" V84.10 does not mention the 5,000 lights. Perhaps the error is the other way and it's the reference to "Daae, Carmanians and Cilicians" lights that is wrong, and the "armed in the Macedonian manner" is correct. Or could it be that this phalanx was of light-armed phalangites (at least relative to the Silver Shields), peltastoi types? This would put the Greek mercenaries next to the phalanx. Best Simon |
GurKhan | 03 Feb 2016 6:41 a.m. PST |
If Byttacus' men are light spearmen of some sort, they'd be not much lighter – if at all – than Greek thureophoroi, so that deployment might work. I don't think the copying error can be the other way round, because I don't see any textual reason for "light-armed" to intrude in V.79. the way that "Byttacus _the_Macedonian_" explains a "Macedonian" error in V.82. Nor are "Dahai, Carmanians, and Cilicians" particularly likely candidates for Macedonian-style heavy infantry – and indeed in XXX.6.25 at the Daphne parade we have "three thousand Cilicians armed in the manner of _light_ infantry". |
BigRedBat | 03 Feb 2016 7:36 a.m. PST |
I do agree that Cilicians ets aren't ideal candidates for heavy infantry; more likely to be thureophoroi or lighter. A friend reminded me that there are Carmanians on the other wing with the Medes, so perhaps the Carmaninan name could have been duplicated in error (although not those of the Dahai/Cilicians). All very interesting, thanks! |
RelliK | 03 Feb 2016 8:54 a.m. PST |
Thurephorai may not represent lighter troops just on respect to the shield. I believe the use of the central boss, handgrip shield was an adaptation to deal with the heavier punching power of the throwing spears of that time. You were more likely to be wounded if holding a hoplon against your body if the shield was fully penetrated. Holding a shield out from the body with a central hand grip was ideal. I'm not so much of a fan of the idea of Hoplon armed troops in the age of the Pilum, soliferrum etc. Another question, why the pike phalanxes were doubled to 32 man deep from 16. The pikes weren't getting longer, I suspect higher rates of casualties were being sustained by the heavier throwing spears of that time. Thus the increase in unit size and depth. Just my 2 cents. |
DukeWacoan | 03 Feb 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
Wasn't the narrowness of the battlefield cited as the reason the phalanx depth was increased? |
BigRedBat | 03 Feb 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
That and the supposed poor quality of the Egyptian Machimoi. |
BigRedBat | 03 Feb 2016 2:17 p.m. PST |
By chance I came across another marginally different translation of the 5.65 passage (Perseus instead of the usual Penelope) "while the Achaean Phoxidas, and Ptolemy the son of Thraseas, and Andromachus of Aspendus were associated in the duty of drilling the phalanx and the mercenary Greek soldiers on the same ground,—Andromachus and Ptolemy commanding the phalanx, Phoxidas the mercenaries; of which the numbers were respectively twenty-five thousand and eight thousand." This has them "drilled on the same ground" rather than "exercised together in one body" as in Penelope. Alas I have no Greek and cannot determine which is the better translation. :-( |
xenophon | 04 Feb 2016 9:05 a.m. PST |
I need to see if I can find the source, but I seem to recall that during the last Mithridatic Wars that there was a reference to Greeks pulling some old hoplite equipment out of temples. The result was not good, considering that they were untrained AND they plundered some temples for equipment. |
JJartist | 04 Feb 2016 11:06 a.m. PST |
What is the actual evidence that Greeks were thureophoroi by 217 BC? By contrast, were Xanthippus' mercenaries in Carthaginian service in 255 BC hoplites? Most folks assume that the Greeks of the Chremonidean War 267–261 BC were still hoplites. Most of the evidence of thureophoroi come from stelai of later times-- well past Raphia. However, the always interesting thureos designs from the tomb of the Erotes from Eretria seem to be a clue of some kind. I think some have associated that tomb with Antiochus III dallying on Euboea in 192 BC. But maybe the artifacts are earlier, nearer the time of Pyrrhus.. Of course there is much controversy about Philopoemen and his Achaeans abandoning the thureos to carry bronze shields and become phalangites… 208 BC? But the bronze shields that some say they carried are the hoplite aspis which defies logic as a phalangite shield. So there are many arguments. One argument is the idea that the aspis may have still been in use by mercenaries. After all in antiquity we as moderns have different view of uniformity than they may have. The other is that all medium armored infantry that were not in a pike phalanx had shifted to thureos by 264. This denotes a certain kind of overall organisation and structure not really present in these armies. Of course mercenary armies such as the giant Successor states had resources to outfit soldier with what they wanted… so if they needed a thureos no doubt they could get one, or two.. All these things are details that a scenario designer has to weigh when making decisions… you have to stick your oar in the sand. I say the Carmanians were not phalangites-- seems illogical and the duplicity of source argument makes more sense. I dont think anybody would diss on your parade if all the Greeks on all sides at Raphia were thureophoroi…in fact there isn't any reason why they cannot be armored thureophoroi- with linothorax. The poor illustrator had to make a choice.. Xanthippus' mercenaries at Tunis… hoplites with aspis.. could just as well be hoplites with thureos… or could just as well be hoplites with both types of shields.
link What we can figure out is the Greek Mercenaries on the Ptolemaic right were way more effective than the light armed troops stacked up by Antiochus to try to buy some time for his flank charge to pay dividends… oops. JJ |
EvilBen | 05 Feb 2016 8:28 a.m. PST |
This has them "drilled on the same ground" rather than "exercised together in one body" as in Penelope. Alas I have no Greek and cannot determine which is the better translation. :-( I'm not sure either of them is better, as such. The first is more literal; the latter may convey more accurately the point Polybius is making. The Greek is συνεγύμναζον μὲν ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ τὴν φάλαγγα καὶ τοὺς μισθοφόρους Ἕλληνας συνεγύμναζον (sunegymnazon) is the 'they trained' bit. The 'sun' prefix could be taken to mean 'together' – although it is not obvious whether that means the trainers (Phoxidas, Ptolemaios and Andromachos, who are the subject of the verb) worked together or the trainees (the phalanx and the Greek mercenaries, who are the object), or both. It might also be intensive: 'they trained them hard. 'sun' appears on its own in the previous phrase, where it must mean 'together with', however, which may influence how we take this verb. ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ (epi to auto) is the 'on the same ground' bit. The preposition epi does basically mean 'on'; with an accusative (as here) it can often mean 'over' or 'upon'. to auto is just 'the same [thing]'. Thus 'on the same ground' is a fairly literal, safe, conservative translation. However, ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ can mean 'together' in the sense of 'in the same place'. Then again, it might also mean 'To the same end', or effectively 'in the same way' – which is probably how I would translate it here if I had to commit myself. Generally the 'togetherness' of what's happening seems to be emphasised. Given that, 'in one body' seems perfectly reasonable (to me; ymmv). There is however no word for 'body' or 'formation' in the Greek, so we can't infer anything more specific about how the exercises were done. Did that help at all? |
BigRedBat | 05 Feb 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
Hi EvilBen, that didn't help in the sense of clearly resolving it but I really enjoyed reading the process of your translation! Thanks very much indeed. Hi JJ, Thanks very much. I'd not appreciated how little evidence there is for the timing of the changeover from aspis to thureos. I'll probably go with the Carmanians etc as Thureophoroi; for the Greeks I'll go with figures in linothorax and muscle cuirass because:- a) They fought well on the day and this helps distinguish them from the hoi polloi b) I have found 4 dozen painted later hoplites without shields who will do the job nicely! ;-) Any thoughts on the equipment of the Thracians and Galatians at Raphia, pretty please? I could go for Galatians in the buff but I'm not sure if that is just "parade wear" and whether they might armour up for a battle. For the Thracians I am vacillating between "just like any other thureophoroi" and javelins/romphia. Best, Simon |
DukeWacoan | 05 Feb 2016 12:39 p.m. PST |
So all Greek Mercenaries in Phalanx would have Thureos, or Hoplite shields? |
BigRedBat | 05 Feb 2016 1:47 p.m. PST |
Well it's not clear. To summarise, Bar Kochba thinks the Greeks were phalangites, and that is one interpretation that one could draw from the account. Another is that they were thureophoroi/ thorakitai (or possibly even hoplites, or a mixture). There is also the unit to their left, the 5,000 Daae, Carmanians, and Cilicians. They might be light infantrymen, thureophoroi types, just possibly light-armed phalangites or even a complete scribal error! |