02-13-2008, 08:31 PM
Real quickly, Polybius uses the phrase "heavily armored" very frequently, in a couple of different formulations: the heavies with respect to arms, the heavy arms, etc, somewhere close to 100 times.
I'll reply on the nature of peltastai soon.
Edit:
Funny that your translation has missed a little bit of information that is very crucial for understanding what happens in the battle.
Philip sends the peltastai to engage in the battle as a support to the misthophoroi, and sends the illyrians to attack the enemy's flank, then we get a nice parallel men...de construction from Polybius: he encouraged the mercenaries, on the one hand, by means of the support of the peltastai and illyrians...the men of Lykourgos, on the other hand, having been stricken with terror at the arrival of the heavy troops, collapsed into flight.
A close reading of the passage makes it quite clear that, in this particular case, the "heavy troops" are the illyrians and peltastai. Later on, the "heavy troops" are clearly the phalanx which Aratus brought from Amyklai and the rest of Philip's own force. The term "heavy troops" in Polybius is by no means restrictive to a sarissa-armed phalanx, its more like his generic way to say "line infantry." So the first time it appears in the narrative, he uses it because he was talking about the effect of two quite different troop types, the peltastai and the illyrians. The second time, he's probably using it, rather than "the phalanx," because the "dunamin" of Philip likely included, in addition to his and the Achaian phalanxes, other sorts of line infantry.
As far as the nature of peltastai, the argyraspidai at Raphia are identified there as "armed in the Macedonian manner," and most writers agree that they are identical to the "peltastai" later mentioned by Polybius, and to the "caetrati" mentioned by Livy, who was almost certainly basing his account largely off Polybius, if for no other reason than the consistency of the numbers involved. Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure the Seleucid caetrati at Thermopylae are identified as wielding the sarissa, to which we could also add the caetrati/peltastai/agema in the various accounts of Pydna.
And on the subject of the peltastai and agema, who is more reliable, Macedonian army inscriptions, or Livy? I'll go with the inscriptions.
edit: and on Aelianus Tacticus, exactly how much should we follow him? He's writing at least a hundred years after the last Macedonian phalanxes disappeared (and that's only if we drag out their use by late Successors, Pontics, and Greeks allied to the Romans). He calls phalangites "hoplitai," he says they carry the aspis and dorasi perimhkesterois, which I'm pretty sure is a way of saying something along the lines of "long spears" since he does say they're armed in the Macedonian manner, and that means phalangites right? So then next he says the peltastai are armed in the manner of Macedonians, too, but are lighter in armor than the hoplitai, "for the pelte is smaller and lighter than the hoplon, and the spears are a good bit shorter than the sarissa." He later describes them as "being heavier than the light troops, but nimbler than the hoplitai." And in distinguishing light troops from hoplitai, he says they lack "a cuirass, greaves, thureos or heavy aspis" and fight with different weapons. This implies that the thought the peltastai wore a cuirass and greaves, since he later distinguishes them from the hoplitai only on the basis of shield and length of spear.
Plutarch, writing of Pydna, says that the agema of picked Macedonians, who in his narrative fill the place where Livy has caetrati, are heavily armed with gilded armor (Aem. P. 18.7), and that next after them were the phalanxes of the chalkaspides(18.8) . So does that mean that the agema/caetrati can't wield a sarissa, if they're not "of the phalanx"? They do, though, as we see in 19.1, where the agema, the first Macedonian line unit in contact with the Romans, have planted their sarissai into the thureoi of the Romans.
So I agree, they aren't part of the phalanx. But I think that's more likely because they sometimes operated outside of the sarissa phalanx, rather than because they never did.
I'll reply on the nature of peltastai soon.
Edit:
Quote: Now, on Polybius V 23, that is a very interesting passage that you misunderstood, because you need to read the full paragraph, Here is it.
Philip, on approaching Lycurgus, first sent the mercenaries along against him, 2 so that at the beginning the Lacedaemonians fought with more success, favoured as they were in no small degree by the ground and their superiority in arms. 3 But as soon as Philip had sent the peltasts to take part in the fight acting as a supporting force, and getting round the enemy with his Illyrians charged them on the flank, 4 his mercenaries encouraged by this support fought with much greater spirit, while Lycurgus' force dreading the charge of heavier troops βαρέων ὅπλων gave way and ran… Philip, leaving the Illyrians in occupation of the hills, returned to his army with his Euzonoi and peltasts….
Meanwhile Aratus had left Amyclae with the phalanx and was now close to Sparta. 8 The king crossing the river remained with his light troops, peltasts, and cavalry to cover the heavy armed troops βαρέα τῶν ὅπλων until they had traversed the narrow passage under the hills. When the Spartans from the city attempted an attack on the cavalry which was performing this service, the action became general, 10 and the peltasts displaying great gallantry, Philip gained here too a distinct advantage, and after pursuing the Spartan horse up to the gates, recrossed the Eurotas in safety and placed himself in the rear of his phalanx
Now, you can see by the words he uses to describe heavy armed troops that they are different from the Peltasts, as they are described exactly with the same words as being covered by the Peltasts while traversing the narrow passage. In all probability those heavy armed troops are the phalanx Philip placed himself after recrossing the Eurotas.
So, the heavier troops were in all probability phalanx, and in any case they were not Peltasts.
Funny that your translation has missed a little bit of information that is very crucial for understanding what happens in the battle.
Philip sends the peltastai to engage in the battle as a support to the misthophoroi, and sends the illyrians to attack the enemy's flank, then we get a nice parallel men...de construction from Polybius: he encouraged the mercenaries, on the one hand, by means of the support of the peltastai and illyrians...the men of Lykourgos, on the other hand, having been stricken with terror at the arrival of the heavy troops, collapsed into flight.
A close reading of the passage makes it quite clear that, in this particular case, the "heavy troops" are the illyrians and peltastai. Later on, the "heavy troops" are clearly the phalanx which Aratus brought from Amyklai and the rest of Philip's own force. The term "heavy troops" in Polybius is by no means restrictive to a sarissa-armed phalanx, its more like his generic way to say "line infantry." So the first time it appears in the narrative, he uses it because he was talking about the effect of two quite different troop types, the peltastai and the illyrians. The second time, he's probably using it, rather than "the phalanx," because the "dunamin" of Philip likely included, in addition to his and the Achaian phalanxes, other sorts of line infantry.
As far as the nature of peltastai, the argyraspidai at Raphia are identified there as "armed in the Macedonian manner," and most writers agree that they are identical to the "peltastai" later mentioned by Polybius, and to the "caetrati" mentioned by Livy, who was almost certainly basing his account largely off Polybius, if for no other reason than the consistency of the numbers involved. Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure the Seleucid caetrati at Thermopylae are identified as wielding the sarissa, to which we could also add the caetrati/peltastai/agema in the various accounts of Pydna.
And on the subject of the peltastai and agema, who is more reliable, Macedonian army inscriptions, or Livy? I'll go with the inscriptions.
edit: and on Aelianus Tacticus, exactly how much should we follow him? He's writing at least a hundred years after the last Macedonian phalanxes disappeared (and that's only if we drag out their use by late Successors, Pontics, and Greeks allied to the Romans). He calls phalangites "hoplitai," he says they carry the aspis and dorasi perimhkesterois, which I'm pretty sure is a way of saying something along the lines of "long spears" since he does say they're armed in the Macedonian manner, and that means phalangites right? So then next he says the peltastai are armed in the manner of Macedonians, too, but are lighter in armor than the hoplitai, "for the pelte is smaller and lighter than the hoplon, and the spears are a good bit shorter than the sarissa." He later describes them as "being heavier than the light troops, but nimbler than the hoplitai." And in distinguishing light troops from hoplitai, he says they lack "a cuirass, greaves, thureos or heavy aspis" and fight with different weapons. This implies that the thought the peltastai wore a cuirass and greaves, since he later distinguishes them from the hoplitai only on the basis of shield and length of spear.
Plutarch, writing of Pydna, says that the agema of picked Macedonians, who in his narrative fill the place where Livy has caetrati, are heavily armed with gilded armor (Aem. P. 18.7), and that next after them were the phalanxes of the chalkaspides(18.8) . So does that mean that the agema/caetrati can't wield a sarissa, if they're not "of the phalanx"? They do, though, as we see in 19.1, where the agema, the first Macedonian line unit in contact with the Romans, have planted their sarissai into the thureoi of the Romans.
So I agree, they aren't part of the phalanx. But I think that's more likely because they sometimes operated outside of the sarissa phalanx, rather than because they never did.
Paul
USA
USA
