
"Ptolemaic marines n't" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board Back to the Galleys Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients Medieval Renaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article The fifth Warband stand for the Army for Bill.
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Plasticviking3 | 14 Jan 2019 8:32 a.m. PST |
Ancient Warfare article on Ptolemaic marine reviewed. link |
GurKhan | 14 Jan 2019 9:35 a.m. PST |
The reconstruction is presumably called a machairophoros because that title is found for a class of troops in the Ptolemaic inscriptions – see Fischer-Bovet at link (which also has a pic of the Kom Madi painting). What is not clear to me is why anyone should think that these machairophoroi have anything to do with naval service. Machimoi is Greek for 'warrior'. It was used to differentiate between well-trained/professional troops and 'the rest' – the rest being non-Greek. In Ptolemaic Egypt 'the rest' means the nonethnic -Greek (or part-Greek) citizens. Not quite? "Machimoi" seems to have been often used for lower-status armed men than "well-trained/professional troops". Also from Fischer-Bovet: The machimoi's functions within the army were also ambiguous in the third century, since they were often guards sent with officials and paid one or two obols a day, rather than soldiers. |
Plasticviking3 | 14 Jan 2019 3:35 p.m. PST |
machimoi..'the rest'. I mean machimoi are the rest. Not well trained. machairaphoros -machaira-armed. The figure is not but the fresco it is based on shows machaira – a bit contradictory. I agree it is not demonstrated how the machairophoroi are to be assumed 'naval soldiers' or 'warrior sailors'…. Fischer-Bovets book is listed but not cited in the article. |
evilgong | 14 Jan 2019 3:45 p.m. PST |
I want a unit of lotusophori |
Damion | 15 Jan 2019 12:47 a.m. PST |
I'm still trying to work out why so many miniature manufacturers think Celtic cavalry had round shields. I suspect Osprey may be at fault. Even though these publications give some references, they can be vague at times or things mentioned in passing like round shields given no supporting evidence. |
GurKhan | 15 Jan 2019 2:24 a.m. PST |
machairaphoros -machaira-armed. The figure is not Don't get too hung up with modern usages. Greek writers use "machaira" to describe the Roman gladius (Polybios VI.23, for instance). So to a Ptolemaic eye, this figure is indeed machaira-armed. |
GurKhan | 15 Jan 2019 2:34 a.m. PST |
I'm still trying to work out why so many miniature manufacturers think Celtic cavalry had round shields. I suspect Osprey may be at fault. I think it's down to Peter Connolly, and his reconstructions in "Greece and Rome at War" (originally in "Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome"). He identified the cavalry with spined round shields on the Aemilius Paulus monument as Celtic, for instance. And he based this identification, in part at least, on Bienkowski's "Les Celtes dans les arts mineurs gréco-romains" (1928); there are cavalry on Italian terracottas with spined round shields whom B identified as Celts – though they probably aren't. I followed Connolly in AMPW, which in retrospect was probably a mistake. |
BigRedBat  | 15 Jan 2019 4:19 a.m. PST |
Golly; I'm just about to stick some more round shields on some Celtic horse. :-) Had no idea. |
GurKhan | 15 Jan 2019 6:38 a.m. PST |
Well, I'm not saying that no Celtic cavalry ever used round shields; but there's not that much evidence for it. |
BigRedBat  | 15 Jan 2019 11:32 a.m. PST |
I won't lose too much sleep over it; but handy to know! |
|