Macedonian Soldier Stele

[MeinPanzer]

...If you look again, you'll notice I was referring to Macedonian cavalry, rather than Hellenistic cavalry generally.....but I have doubts about the statement that "The aspis is by far the most common type.." in any event.

Just to give an example, out of all the Hellenistic stelae depicting cavalrymen and their arms from Pfuhl and Moebius' "Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs," I count 1 cavalryman carrying a round thureos, 1 with a flat, rimless round shield, and 30 with aspides; 4 stelae besides these show groups of three or four cavalrymen in the background all carrying identical aspides. There are plenty of examples elsewhere (a number from Bithynia, some Seleucid and Ptolemaic sources, etc.) that also show that the aspis was predominant.

The Kazanluk tombs are from Seuthopolis, a city founded by the Thracian King Seuthes III around 320BC, or a little later. Since tombs are hardly likely to be among the earliest buildings, it follows that the tombs probably date after 300 BC - i.e. early third C BC.....

Right, so between 320 and 275 BC or so? That fits with the other evidence perfectly.

Quite a few representations of xystophoroi with shields? hock: I don't think I've come across any of those, at least any depictions that are unequivocally shielded 'xystophoroi'...either PM me or e-mail me with more information, since we are straying ever more off-topic......

As far as I am aware, there are unshielded 'xystophoroi', generally with body armour, and shielded cavalry with either 'longche' or javelins.....so I'm most interested.

Whether you want to call them xystophoroi or not, they are unequivocally shielded lancers, carrying their weapons underarm, and not longchophoroi. I have to muster a few together, but I can post them tomorrow.

Evidence for the second century ? As I said, the 'xystophoroi' in Seleucid service seem to become heavier armoured after Antiochus Megas' campaigns (210-206 BC) in the East against Parthians ( becoming 'cataphract' lit: 'covered in' i.e. fully armoured, but still unshielded from around 200 BC) By Magnesia (190 BC), most Seleucid heavy cavalry are unshielded up-armoured 'xystophoroi', increasingly called 'cataphract' - Polybius describes these. Livy (XXXVII.40) descibes the 'Hetairoi'/Companion cavalry at Magnesia as "with lighter protection for riders and mounts, but in other equipment not unlike the 'cataphracts' - i.e. very much like traditional 'xystophoroi'. A Roman coin - a denarius minted in 121 BC by Q. Pilipus- clearly shows an un-shielded 'xystophoroi', often interpreted as celebrating ancestral deeds of the Third Macedonian War/Pydna (168) and the figure representing Perseus ( the Romans did not, AFIK, use 'xystophoroi', so if the figure is not Perseus, it must be a Greek/Hellenistic ally)

Will that do for starters? :wink:

Well, I would ask firstly what evidence you have that the heavy cavalry of the second half of the 3rd c. BC were unshielded xystophoroi, firstly. Then, how do you know how the cataphracts were armed, and how do you know that they were a continuation of the xystophoroi? Also, I meant unshielded xystophoroi beyond the cataphracts and the companions, who by virtue of their equipment are in another class. The cavalrymen depicted on Roman coins are a matter quite apart. It is apparent from Polybius and from a few scattered depiction on gems that Roman cavalrymen became shielded lancers on the Hellenistic model, but they very well may have made use of plain lancers as well.