Pausanias on Achaean armament, ca. 200 BCE

[Paullus Scipio]

Apologies,Inaki...I'm afraid my memory has played me false! Both Xenophon and Poybius use the term 'peltophoroi' (lit: pelta carriers), but I got confused - it is Boeotian pikemen who are so called.

In fact, the Achaeans are called 'peltasts' ( e.g. Appian , drawing on Polybius, describes the 3,000 Achaeans at Magnesia as 'peltasts') rather than 'peltophoroi'

[Aryaman2]

Appian could be drawing there on Polybius, but that is only a possibility, no security at all. Any direct reference from Polybius calling the Achaean citizen infantry "Peltasts"?

[Komanos]

Polybius 23.16 is the only instance of Achaian troops being called peltastai in Polybius. Note that this follows upon the gift of 6,000 bronze peltastika from Ptolemy, and so may refer to the troops armed with those shields.

[Aryaman2]

Right, I was checking it too myself. However from the context it is clear that Peltasts are but a body of the entire army, sent in advance to take charge of the citadel. I mean, from Polybius testimony you can´t follow that Peltasts are Achaean citizen infantry, nor that they were phalangite carrying sarissa.
In fact, Macedonian and Seleucid Peltasts in Polybius are named in a number of occasions together with phalanx, clearly implying they were not part of the phalanx.

[PMBardunias]

I was rereading the account of Philopoemen's battle of mantinea. As if to be confusing, Polibios uses this phrase in describing the Achean arms before the battle- 11.9:

[5] hotan de tên aspida kai ton thôraka kai to kranos dialambanêi, periblepein hina tês chlamudos kai tou chitônos kathareiotera tauth' huparchêi kai polutelestera

Later we see him use the term but as what was a formulaic command 11.15:

[2] epei d' heôra toutous ekbiazomenous, ou ptoêtheis epheugen oud' athumêsas apestê ***, all' huposteilas hauton hupo to tês phalangos keras, hama tôi parapesein tous diôkontas kai genesthai ton topon erêmon, kath' hon ho kindunos ên, eutheôs tois prôtois telesi tôn phalangitôn ep' aspida klinôn, proêge meta dromou, têrôn tas taxeis.

We know that he is using "aspida" in the general sense, not the specific instance of the argive aspis, since he is referring to sarissaphoroi on both sides. for example:

[6] hoi de Lakedaimonioi chôris parangelmatos, eparthentes tais dianoiais epi tôi tôn euzônôn proterêmati, katabalontes tas sarisas hôrmêsan epi tous hupenantious.

and:

XVI. Ho de Philopoimên hama tôi parapesein kata tôn hupenantiôn ton ek pollôn chronôn heôramenon hup' autou kairon, tote pasin epagein tois phalangitais katabalousi tas sarisas parêngeile.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Aspis never had the specific meaning of a round hoplite shield. Aspis is the same as "shield" in English. The reason why today we use it to refer to hoplite shield is because the word is greek and is used by foreigners.
The first piece,correct me if you have any better stranslation,but I'd translete like this.

[5] When receiving the shield and thorax and the helmet, taking care of the chlamis and the chiton to be cleaner and more elaborate.

What is he talking about? I don't have to whole text and I'm curious about this part. What chlamis? And taking the chlamis after the panoply? Is he talking about the whole Achaian army? And why be clean and elaborate?
Obviously I'm missing something obvious?
Khaire
Giannis

[Aryaman2]

"when he handles his shield, breastplate, and helmet, see to it that they are cleaner and smarter than his chlamys and chiton"
That is the Loeb translation, the context is that Philopoemen urged his men to take for their arms the care they usually take for their clothes.

[PMBardunias]

Giannis, here's the whole text. Polybios, or rather philopoemen, could have used "peltae" if he wished to be specific, but he is using the general term for literary effect perhaps in the first instance and in the second because it is an established formulaic command.


"Brightness in the armour," he said," contributes much Speech of Philopoemen urging reform.
to inspire dismay in the enemy; and care bestowed on having it made to fit properly is of great service in actual use. This will best be secured if you give to your arms the attention which you now bestow on your dress, and transfer to your dress the neglect which you now show of your arms. By thus acting, you will at once save your money, and be undoubtedly able to maintain the interests of your country. Therefore the man who is going to take part in manœuvres or a campaign ought, when putting on his greaves, to see that they are bright and well-fitting, much more than that his shoes and boots are; and when he takes up his shield and helmet, to take care that they are cleaner and more costly than his cloak and shirt: for when men take greater care of what is for show, than of what is for use, there can be no doubt of what will happen to them on the field. I beg you to consider that elaboration in dress is a woman's weakness, and a woman of no very high character either; but costliness and splendour in armour are the characteristics of brave men who are resolved on saving themselves and their country with glory."

[Paullus Scipio]

Inaki wrote:-

In fact, Macedonian and Seleucid Peltasts in Polybius are named in a number of occasions together with phalanx, clearly implying they were not part of the phalanx.

...you have tried to put this hypothesis forward before, notably in your Magnesia article in AW2, and in your letter in AW4, but the evidence for these Hellenistic Peltasts being pike armed ( at least in pitched battles) close order armoured infantry is very strong indeed, one may say almost incontrovertible. It is perhaps notable that the only times Polybius mentions 'peltasts' in the Seleucid army they are on one occasion described as leading an assault through a breach in a wall (10.31.11), and on the other as being 10,000 strong (10.49.1).(almost certainly comprising the elite, regular, half of the phalanx) Elsewhere Polybius tells us that the elite portion of the Seleucid phalanx was 10,000 strong and that most of them were called Argyraspides.(Silver Shields, successors to Alexander’s Hypaspists – the Guard Infantry.) It seems likely that these men were 'Peltasts' in exactly the same manner Antogonid pikemen were 'Peltasts'. Macedonian armies elite bodyguards were not called ‘Silvershields’, because of the grudge between the original ‘Silvershields’ and the Antigonids.
Evidence for the Macedonian ‘Peltasts’ being phalangites is strong. In the Aetolian campaign of 218 BC, Philip V leaves them behind with the ‘heavier’ part of the Army, while the mercenaries are sent into ‘difficult’ terrain. We hear (in Polybius II.65.2) of 3,000 such men at Sellasia, and elsewhere, 2,000 in the Peloponnese – who may not be the full strength (Polybius X.42.2). 'Peltasts' are protected as part of the phalanx (Polybius V.7.11). At Polyb,IV.75. the Peltasts are distinguished from light troops ( euzanoi), at Polyb. V. 4.9. they are used as elite shock troops to storm Kephalonia.
You have referred to Livy mentioning the 'Peltasts' and phalanx separately as evidence that they must have been separately armed, ( which does not logically follow) but again this is selective use of the evidence and fails to take into account the whole. When Livy uses the word caetrati in reference to these troops it is a direct translation of ‘Peltast’ ( that caetrati are peltasts is clear from Livy XXXI.36.1). Further these Peltasts contain the Agema, or Royal Bodyguard (Polyb V.25.1 c.f. Livy XLII.51.4 – 2,000 of them form the Agema). It is clear they are ‘heavy’ ( e.g. Polyb V.23.4, where Lycurgus Spartans, having got the better of Philip’s mercenaries, give way and run in the face of the 'Peltasts', who are ‘heavier troops’).
At Pydna, Livy specifically refers to the fight between the 'Peltasts' (drawn up on the right flank of the phalanx) and the Paeligni (Roman Allies) as an example of the risks of fighting sarissa armed troops head-on, and Plutarch also describes a victory for the sarissa/pike, referring to this fight. Plutarch also refers to a force of ‘picked Macedonians’ who are almost certainly the Agema (elite bodyguard) of the 'Peltasts', because the word he uses is derived from Agema.
Furthermore, there has been a consensus on this for well over a century among scholars, that the 'Peltasts' were an elite unit, sarissa/pike armed heavy infantry ( with the possibility that like Alexander’s sarissaphoroi, they carried javelins/longche when not in pitched battle) – see e.g. Griffith, ‘Hellenistic Mercenaries’, Kromayer and De Sanctis.
As I said before, in Hellenistic times, ‘Peltasts’ in Macedonian, Seleucid or Achaean armies generally means elite pike-armed ‘heavy’ close-order Infantry.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I always thought that there were two words deriving from the word "pelte". one is "peltastis"(πελταστής) and the other "peltophoros"(πελτοφόρος). Obviously both are called as such becasue of their shield. But I think peltastis is not only one who carries a pelte,but also one who fights "peltastikos"(πελταστικώς). Peltophoros literally means one who carries a pelte (but fights in a phalanx?or in any other form?)
Which of the two words are you reffering to in the last posts? Paul,are you saying that "peltastis" means elite pikeman or "peltophotros"? Or both of them without destinction?
Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

See my earlier post........

Apologies,Inaki...I'm afraid my memory has played me false! Both Xenophon and Poybius use the term 'peltophoroi' (lit: pelta carriers), but I got confused - it is Boeotian pikemen who are so called.

In fact, the Achaeans are called 'peltasts' ( e.g. Appian , drawing on Polybius, describes the 3,000 Achaeans at Magnesia as 'peltasts') rather than 'peltophoroi'

........and.............

As I said before, in Hellenistic times, ‘Peltasts’ in Macedonian, Seleucid or Achaean armies generally means elite pike-armed ‘heavy’ close-order Infantry.

Both terms are used in Hellenistic times to refer to Pike-men.

[PMBardunias]

In support of the the other Paul, I'd suggest this snippet from the account of Phillip V's march through Laconia:

"When he had got within distance of Lycurgus, Philip at first ordered the mercenaries to charge alone: and, accordingly, their superiority in arms and position contributed not a little to give the Lacedaemonians the upper hand at the beginning of the engagement. But when Philip supported his men by sending his reserve of peltasts on to the field, and caused the Illyrians to charge the enemy on the flanks, the king's mercenaries were encouraged by the appearance of these reserves to renew the battle with much more vigour than ever; while Lycurgus's men, terrified at the approach of the heavy-armed soldiers, gave way and fled, leaving a hundred killed and rather more prisoners, while the rest escaped into the town. "

and in greek:

"XXIII. tous hippeis. ho de Philippos engisas tois peri ton Lukourgon to men prôton autous ephêke tous misthophorous, [2] ex hou kai sunebê tas archas epikudesterôs agônizesthai tous para tôn Lakedaimoniôn, hate kai tou kathoplismou kai tôn topôn autois ou mikra sumballomenôn. [3] epei de tous men peltastas ho Philippos hupebale tois agônizomenois, ephedreias echontas taxin, tois d' Illuriois huperaras ek plagiôn epoieito tên ephodon, [4] tote sunebê tous men para tou Philippou misthophorous eparthentas têi tôn Illuriôn kai peltastôn ephedreiai pollaplasiôs epirrôsthênai pros ton kindunon, tous de para tou Lukourgou, kataplagentas tên tôn bareôn hoplôn ephodon, enklinantas phugein. "

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

It seems logican,after peltasts(the old usual ones thowing javelins) were replaced by thyreophoroi. The phalangites were trained to fight with different sized pikes,right? Were they also trained in thowing a javelin? if so,they were peltasts just like the old ones,only more "polymorphic"(is the such a word:lol: ) trained for any possible occasion. If they were called peltast before the introduction of thyrophoroi,then how common peltast were called? But here we're not arguing about their real name but how later writers refer to them and what they mean,right?
Khaire
Giannis

[Komanos]

Well, Polybius once uses peltastai in a clear reference to the light troops, and that's when critiquing a historian of Alexander's campaigns. The rest of the time he means the elite pike infantry of an army. Peltastai is also the term used by inscriptions from Macedonia for the elite section of the agema, or for the agema as a whole, depending on the era.

Now, that said, these elite pike infantry seem more versatile and in several ways different from the rest of the phalangites. The difference may stand primarily in their being a standing army, but it may also have to do with their battlefield role and/or equipment. I rather think they often carried the ideal shield of Asklepiodotos, the 60cm pelte, rather than the larger shields carried by most phalangites. They may also have sometimes carried different equipment than the sarissa, since they're used several times as a rapid assault force engaging in storming fortresses, long forced marches, and the like, which implies their capacity to operate out of the sarissa-phalanx.

I'm not sure we can track the earliest use of "peltastai" for an elite infantryman (probably Philip V's reign, unless we project Polybius' testimony back into the reign of Antigonos Doson), but it probably started before the Galatians even came into Greece. They were using the Macedonian pelte, so why not call them peltastai? The Boeotians, who likely still had some familiarity with the traditional light peltastai, if not peltastai within their own ranks, preferred to call them peltophoroi (c 255).

Oh, and several people have argued that the "euzonoi" of several Hellenistic sources (Polybius being most common as usual) are Hellenistic peltastai. Bar-Kochva and Ueda-Sarson are the main ones I can think of right now, I should check and see if Chatzopoulos addresses the euzonoi in his stuff on the Macedonian army.

[PMBardunias]

I rather think they often carried the ideal shield of Asklepiodotos, the 60cm pelte, rather than the larger shields carried by most phalangites.

Komanos,

Can you give a reference for the larger shield being carried by most phalangites? Asklepiodotos says "not too deep" if I am remembering correctly, are the larger shields deeper?