Pausanias on Achaean armament, ca. 200 BCE

[Aryaman2]

however I have to see a source that clearly says that Peltasts carried sarissa.

I have to rectify myself here, Livy does indeed say that at Pydna the caetratos carried Hasta, which in the context must mean sarissa

[Komanos]

I'd say there's too much of a discrepancy in the numbers to discount what we get from Polybius and go instead with Livy concerning the force of Hieron.

I already explained how the passage in the battle against Lykourgos works, I don't really know what else to say, save that the grammatical structure of the passage clearly indicates that the Illyrians and peltastai are the heavily armed soldiers.

As for passages in which they are clearly shown wielding the sarissa, there's the already-mentioned passage in Plutarch for the battle of Pydna, which finds parallel in the remnants of Livy's description of the failed attack of the Paeligni against the hasta-armed caetrati. In fact, the Paeligni who in Livy suffer losses against the caetrati, are the same Paeligni who attack the agema (=(or include) caetrati/peltastai) and suffer such heavy losses trying to break through the sarissa ranks.

At Kynoskephalai the description we have from Polybius never says that the peltastai carried the sarissa. However, it does have the peltastai forming up with the phalanx, and from then on he doesn't distinguish between the two bodies of troops. I find it unlikely that a loose order unit without sarissai would double up and form up close to the right with the rest of the phalanx.

The Livy narrative at Cynoscephalae has both the caetrati and the phalanx abandon their hasta, which were so long that they were an impediment. I'm conflicted over how to use this passage, since Livy and all the other sources clearly understand a cohesive, sarissa-armed phalanx in combat with the Romans, thus I don't think they threw aside their sarissa. On the other hand, it does show that he considers them, like Polybius, to be sarissa-armed soldiers comparable to the phalanx.

[PMBardunias]

To jump back up the list a bit. Do any of you know much about the deeply concave, rimless peltae? There seems to be limited evidence for them.

[Komanos]

I don't have any evidence that Markle didn't present, not that I can think of off hand.

[Aryaman2]

I'd say there's too much of a discrepancy in the numbers to discount what we get from Polybius and go instead with Livy concerning the force of Hieron.

.

But what kind of troops then do you think there were those Peltophoroi Polybius talk about, are they Pikemen? I see it unlikely

[Komanos]

Actually, you're probably right, the peltophoroi are probably "traditional" peltastai. I'm not certain about that, but its a possibility. Then again, people are pretty sure that the Boeotian phalanx was called "peltophoroi" so its a bit up in the air.

[Paullus Scipio]

Personally, like the majority of scholars, I believe the Boeotian peltophoroi were undoubtedly 'armed in the Macedonian fashion', and that this term was used quite possibly because original-style peltastai were conceivably still around ( though that is very doubtful, bearing in mind they had become thureophoroi, or more likely, someone simply used that term to avoid potential confusion........ ( which afflicts us moderns ) )

Also, I am wondering if some of our discusion is the result of slightly different meanings we place on the word 'phalanx'?

When Inaki says that Peltasts were not part of the 'phalanx', and I say they were, I believe we are using 'phalanx' in slightly different ways.
I think ( correct me if I am wrong) that Inaki means 'Line Infantry' when he says 'phalanx', and it is correct that they are not 'Line Infantry', but rather an elite guard unit, successors to Alexander's Hypaspists, and because they are no longer Hoplites with aspis, but carry sarissa and pelte, then these 'shieldbearers' are now, logically enough, Peltasts.
When I say 'phalanx', I mean it in the sense of 'Main Battle Line', so that the such-and-such army's 'phalanx', would consist of all close order Infantry capable of 'taking their place in the line', all units involved making up the 'phalanx'/main battle line.
Thus at Pydna, Plutarch (Aemilius Paullus XVIII) gives us the order of the Macedonian army as it is led out of camp - first the Thracians (thureophoroi) then the mercenaries and Paeonians with all kinds of arms....these would form the flank guard to the phalanx/main battle line.... then come the Peltasts/Agema ('picked men') in fresh scarlet tunics. They "take their place in the line", and the position of Honour on the right. Next, come the 'Bronzeshields', the soldiers of the 'Line Infantry', then after them the 'other' division of Line troops (the 'Whiteshields'). We are not told the composition of the left flank guard, or what the cavalry were doing, but it should have consisted of Macedonian allies etc. On the Roman side, the Allies , including cohorts of Paeligni and Marrucini form the lead/left flank, opposite the Peltasts. The 1st Legion are next, overlapping the Peltasts and facing the 'Bronzeshields', then the 2nd Legion face the 'Whiteshields'......on the right wing, where the battle began by the river, the Roman Allies, including those of the Latin status and led by 34 elephants, charge and break the Macedonian allies of their left flank guard. The Legions, at first pushed back by the solid Macedonian 'phalanx/main battle line', manage to break up into individual maniples ( Paullus deliberately ordered this, a very risky tactic, as it sacrificed the cohesion of his line and could have led to rout...as so often happened when a line 'broke'...but he was desperate and staring defeat in the face...) and they successfully interpenetrate the small gaps etc which inevitably appear in a long Battle-Line.... On the Roman left, the Paeligni found themselves pushed back by the sarissas of the Peltasts, and in desperation fling their standard into the Macedonian line ( c.f. Caesar's standard bearer wading ashore alone in the invasion of Britain...loss of a standard was a big deal).
Fortunately, although the Phalanx presses steadily on, the Macedonian left flank gives way, exposing the Phalanx/main line, and as Livy says"..but if by attacks at different points you force the troops to swing round their spears, unwieldy as they are by reason of their length and weight, they become entangled in a disorderly mass..." The Macedonian line collapses from their left, the Peltasts on the right apparently fighting to the last. The Macedonians throw down their sarissas and flee, to be butchered by the Romans.....
It is fairly clear that the Macedonian Phalanx consists of (from their right to left) Peltasts, Bronzeshields, and Whiteshields all of whom are sarissa armed, and possibly any 'Line troops' of their Allies fit to take their place in the Phalanx, and that as per convention, the Phalanx flanks are protected by Flank guards of lighter troops - Thureophoroi such as the Thracians who can fight in open or close order, and light-armed missile troops, who on this occasion ( an encounter battle rather than set-piece) do not appear to have had time to perform their traditional role of screening/skirmishing in front while the Phalanx forms.......we do not hear of any active role for the Roman equivalent Velites either....

[Aryaman2]

Also, I am wondering if some of our discusion is the result of slightly different meanings we place on the word 'phalanx'?

When Inaki says that Peltasts were not part of the 'phalanx', and I say they were, I believe we are using 'phalanx' in slightly different ways.
I think ( correct me if I am wrong) that Inaki means 'Line Infantry' when he says 'phalanx', and it is correct that they are not 'Line Infantry', but rather an elite guard unit, successors to Alexander's Hypaspists, and because they are no longer Hoplites with aspis, but carry sarissa and pelte, then these 'shieldbearers' are now, logically enough, Peltasts.

Yes, I think you are right, we have given different meanings to the word phalanx. I understand (and I think Polybius used the word roughly in that sense) by phalanx "regular line infantry" and by Peltasts "light Infantry". But probably we have have used light infantry with different meanings in the discussion too.
To me, Light Infantry is infantry trained to fight in open order, just that. That is the regular use of the word in military history, at least for modern times.
It doesn´t mean Peltasts could not fight as line infantry, they could indeed . They were crack troops (to be able to fight in open order effectively troops are required a higher level of training), and as you remark they take the place of honour in the battle line. To do that they exchanged their shorter spear for the sarissa (I had some doubts here, but now I am convinced that they did).
When acting in the role of light infantry, together with the Euzonoi, as Polybius describes them a good number of times, they logically would carry the shorter spear. Equally in other missions, like assaults (BTW in assaulting a breach I would guess they wore body armour, as historical parallels and logic suggest)or taking places in advance, like the example I pointed out in which they are ordered to cross a river and create a beachhead.
Finally, I think we should consider Peltasts light infantry doubling as line infantry if required rather than the other way around. The reasons I have for this are
1) The logical of warfare. Pitched battles are rare events, while skirmishes and assaults were much more numerous, so they would perform much more as light infantry than line infantry.
2) Historically, Light Infantry units were distinguished as such, and they enjoyed a higher status and pay than line infantry.

[Komanos]

Another interesting way of looking at this: Sellasia. We know that Antigonus came with a contingent of peltastai (3,000) and the phalanx (10,000). Now, in the battle we hear from Polybius that the "chalkaspides," in mixed lines with the Illyrians, launch an assault on Eucleidas' position. Meanwhile, the rest of the Macedonians, he tells us, attacked Cleomenes in the pike phalanx.

So, either the chalkaspides = peltastai in the reign of Doson, or the peltastai were part of the contingent in the assault on Cleomenes. I lean toward the former, with the chalkaspides becoming the main phalanx contingent in the time of Philip, since the attack on the Euas hill seems more like the sort of action we'd expect from peltastai rather than pure phalangites.

And Inaki, I agree that the pure understanding of the peltastai should be as an elite light-medium troop. I think most of the disagreement has been reconciled, having recognized that they could at times form the phalanx.

And as for the inscriptions you'd asked about, they can be found in the Appendice Epigraphique to Melethmata 30, Hatzopoulos, L'Organization de l'armee macedonienne sous les antigonides. You can also bring them up, without notes and discussion, on the Packhum database. For what its worth, the main part worth mentioning is that the peltastai were never older than 35, and part of the larger agema of elite Macedonians, which also included the hypaspistai and the agema.

[Aryaman2]

Thanks for the references.
BTW it would be interesting to have a look to the use Polybius makes of the word Peltophoroi, or the composition of the army of Hiero of Syracuse, I will see what can I dig out.

[Paullus Scipio]

For the Battle of Sellasia, see a forthcoming account in Ancient Warfare magazine, which will pay particular attention to the topography, and how this produced some unorthodox troop formations.....
In pitched battle at least, I do not believe there were any fundamental differences between Peltasts and Phalanx, save perhaps in richness of arms. That those same troops could, if the mission/task called for it, discard their body armour and sarissa, and carry out a 'lighter' mission, I don't doubt either - we are given plenty of examples, as Inaki says, of them carrying out these types of operatiom, and such elite troops had been doing such things since Alexander's time.
The real question is to what extent did these dual function skills extend to the Phalanx as a whole?
Clearly Alexander's full-time professional pezetaroi, with all their experience , were able to do this, and elite units...possibly regular units too ( such as the Chalkaspides /Bronzeshields), but I doubt if the Macedonian Kings went to the trouble and expense of training the 'citizen militia' to this extent, if only because money was always short, and you didn't need a whole army to carry out these specialist tasks.....a factor recognised by modern armies too...................

[PMBardunias]

To me, Light Infantry is infantry trained to fight in open order, just that. That is the regular use of the word in military history, at least for modern times...to be able to fight in open order effectively troops are required a higher level of training

I think you are inapropriately applying a modern, at least 18th century, definitions, where the two are similarly armed and differ only in deployment.

Finally, I think we should consider Peltasts light infantry doubling as line infantry if required rather than the other way around. The reasons I have for this are
1) The logical of warfare. Pitched battles are rare events, while skirmishes and assaults were much more numerous, so they would perform much more as light infantry than line infantry.

This is true, but it had been true for a long time and we wouldn't consider a hoplite light infantry even if he was forced to run out and skirmish.

2) Historically, Light Infantry units were distinguished as such, and they enjoyed a higher status and pay than line infantry.

This is interesting if you can source it. Usually Light troops in this period are inferiors- eg. Psiloi, velites, etc., or Xenos and Mishophoroi or allies like the cretans, and Thracians.

[Paralus]

As for passages in which they are clearly shown wielding the sarissa, there's the already-mentioned passage in Plutarch for the battle of Pydna, which finds parallel in the remnants of Livy's description of the failed attack of the Paeligni against the hasta-armed caetrati. In fact, the Paeligni who in Livy suffer losses against the caetrati, are the same Paeligni who attack the agema (=(or include) caetrati/peltastai) and suffer such heavy losses trying to break through the sarissa ranks…

The Livy narrative at Cynoscephalae has both the caetrati and the phalanx abandon their hasta, which were so long that they were an impediment. I'm conflicted over how to use this passage, since Livy and all the other sources clearly understand a cohesive, sarissa-armed phalanx in combat with the Romans, thus I don't think they threw aside their sarissa. On the other hand, it does show that he considers them, like Polybius, to be sarissa-armed soldiers comparable to the phalanx.

Going with the last first, I suspect the passage in Livy is the following:

Livy, 33.8
Then, as the enemy were approaching, and especially as his own men were being cut down as they fled and could not be saved unless they were defended by fresh troops, and also as retreat was no longer safe, he found himself compelled to take the supreme risk, though half his force had not yet come up. The cavalry and light infantry who had been in action he stationed on his right; the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them, and make use of their swords. To prevent his line from being quickly broken he halved the front and gave twice the depth to the files, so that the depth might be greater than the width. He also ordered the ranks to close up so that man might be in touch with man and arms with arms.

Livy is following Polybius in his account. This is immediately apparent when one reads both together. That agreed, I can only hypothesise that Livy has corrupted his account in conflating the attack of the Macedonian right and the incontinent departure from the field of the yet to form up left.

Polybius is rather more lucid in his reconstruction. He describes the Macedonian light troops, skirmishers and mercenaries falling back – after initial success – as the Roman “heavy infantryâ€

[PMBardunias]

The real question is to what extent did these dual function skills extend to the Phalanx as a whole?

I agree that the peltastai are successors to Alexander's Hypaspists who are no longer "beneath the shield". This might bring up a possibilty of dating the dual-role capability of the phalangite.

You'll have to tell me, but it seems logical that Hypaspists could not be dual role while carrying an aspis, while the general phalanx could by simply changing weapons. The implication of dual-role peltastai emerging from Hypaspists is that they conformed to the general sarissaphoroi type before these troops lost the dual-role capability. Then, when the phalanx lost this ability they retained it.

Otherwise they have to reaquire the role, one they never formerly had, which is of course possible, but I think less likely. So date the switch to peltasts and you may date the terminus post quem of the dual role function in phalangites.

[Paralus]

[You'll have to tell me, but it seems logical that Hypaspists could not be dual role while carrying an aspis, while the general phalanx could by simply changing weapons. The implication of dual-role peltastai emerging from Hypaspists is that they conformed to the general sarissaphoroi type before these troops lost the dual-role capability. Then, when the phalanx lost this ability they retained it.

I would argue - and Paullus would strenuously disagree - that the hypaspists were dual armed. Or, better said, armed for the task. I, for one, am not hide-bound by the denotive "shield bearer". Seems to me that the fact that Alexander, in keeping his father's foot guard after extending pezhetairoi to the infantry, needed to rename the unit. I don't neccesarily agree that the term was bound to shield size but rather the act performed by these troops (see Peucestas in India and Pausanias in Illyria). That is not to say that they did not utilise a somewhat larger (diameter) shield. Fact is, we do not know with any certainty.

Diodorus is clear in his description of Alexander ascending the compound wall of the Malli town when he states the Alexander "clambered up holding a light shield above his head" (17.98.6). This shield, if not his own, came from a royal hypaspist. Even if it is his own, his hypaspists will have been armed similarly.The following action (17. 99.3-4) clearly, to me anyway, demonstrates the provennance of hypaspist:

Alexander thrust his sword up into the man's side, inflicting a mortal wound. The Indian fell, and the king caught hold of a branch close by and getting on his feet, defied the Indians to come forward and fight with him.
At this point Peucestes, one of the guards(that is, royal hypaspist), who had mounted another ladder, was the first to cover the king with his shield. After him a good many appeared together, which frightened the natives and saved Alexander.

Here Peucestas, a royal hypaspist, shields his king. This will be exactly what Pausanias - looking to die a hero's death - did for his king, Philip, in Illyria. These men are the king's "shield" when on foot.