Ptolemaic armies vs. Roman Legions (circa 50 b.C.)

[MeinPanzer]

Going back to the fresco :

Since the solder is equipped in the Roman style it could serve as evidence for Romans wearing red tunics during the Republic. I'm a little surprised Graham Sumner didn't cite the fresco in his Osprey book. OTOH, the solder could simply be following Macedonian practice of wearing red tunics which dates back at least to the time of Alexander, IIRC. Just a thought...

~Theo

This is not evidence for Romans wearing red tunics for the very reason that you stated. This is a Pisidian soldier carrying equipment deriving from Celtic, Hellenistic, and perhaps Roman sources. Even stating that he is armed in the Roman manner is a tenuous enough claim, but if you wanted to take him as an indication of Roman costume colour, you would have to take it as equally indicative of Galatian and Hellenistic costume as well.

[Theodosius the Great]

I take your point about the tunic colors although it already occured to me.

I suppose I cited the fresco for consideration since people used to cite the Palestrina mosaics (which some believe to be Ptolemaic in origin) as evidence of Roman garb. Since it was discovered in Italy I supposed that gave the mosaic more credibility than the Anatolian fresco.

This is a Pisidian soldier carrying equipment deriving from Celtic, Hellenistic, and perhaps Roman sources...you would have to take it as equally indicative of Galatian and Hellenistic costume as well

I see, Celtic via Galatia as opposed to Rome. So the chain mail and shield may have been picked up from there. Good point. However, only Celtic chieftains wore armor, IIRC. Therefore it seems highly likely that the soldier may have adopted the armor from Roman practice. But both sources are possible, I understand.

~Theo

[Komanos]

Its possible that there are some Roman and some Ptolemaic soldiers on the mosaic, or they may all be Ptolemaic. Note the two Macedonian shields on the mosaic, the Hellenic helmets (including one of that strange Anatolian style seen on a couple of sidon stelai), the Hellenistic-style thureoi (smaller than the scutum), and the rich yellow cloak and on the leader in the iron cuirass, which follows Macedonian tradition.

[MeinPanzer]

I see, Celtic via Galatia as opposed to Rome. So the chain mail and shield may have been picked up from there. Good point. However, only Celtic chieftains wore armor, IIRC. Therefore it seems highly likely that the soldier may have adopted the armor from Roman practice. But both sources are possible, I understand.

The shield almost certainly was picked up from the Galatians (as evidenced by the fact that the thureos was widespread throughout the Near East and Asia Minor by the end of the third century BC at the latest), while the armour is less certain but may have been. And the context of the use of mail armour among the Galatians is no indicator of its use among those who adopted it: as is so often the case, they merely would have adopted the technology.

I suppose I cited the fresco for consideration since people used to cite the Palestrina mosaics (which some believe to be Ptolemaic in origin) as evidence of Roman garb. Since it was discovered in Italy I supposed that gave the mosaic more credibility than the Anatolian fresco.

Its possible that there are some Roman and some Ptolemaic soldiers on the mosaic, or they may all be Ptolemaic. Note the two Macedonian shields on the mosaic, the Hellenic helmets (including one of that strange Anatolian style seen on a couple of sidon stelai), the Hellenistic-style thureoi (smaller than the scutum), and the rich yellow cloak and on the leader in the iron cuirass, which follows Macedonian tradition.

The Palestrina mosaic is a whole nother can of worms. Firstly there is the fact that that oft-discussed region of it has been heavily restored at one point, and how extensively is not known. Secondly, there is the peculiar mix of arms placed at the feet of the soldiers that seems to include aspides, a thureos, segmented helms, and an axe. Lastly, there is the fact that the soldiers wear Hellenistic equipment while the two 'duelers' carry rectangular thureoi (which are very uncommonly found in the hands of Hellenistic warriors) and one man wears mail.

The whole lot is mighty confusing, and I almost always omit this find from any sort of discussion simply because using it to support any identification so fraught with difficulty.

[Theodosius the Great]

The shield almost certainly was picked up from the Galatians (as evidenced by the fact that the thureos was widespread throughout the Near East and Asia Minor by the end of the third century BC at the latest), while the armour is less certain but may have been. And the context of the use of mail armour among the Galatians is no indicator of its use among those who adopted it: as is so often the case, they merely would have adopted the technology.

Interesting. So it seems Roman and Hellenistic armies' equipment were already starting to resemble each other without direct influence between the two. Based on what you've said the Romans seem less unique in their willingness to adopt technology of vanquished foes, which is a little surprising given the Greeks' traditional chauvinism.

The main feature the Eastern kingdoms were keen to adopt from the Romans was their legionary organization and not so much their equipment, it sounds. A bit ironic that professional armies should ape a militia organization.

Its possible that there are some Roman and some Ptolemaic soldiers on the mosaic, or they may all be Ptolemaic.

The whole lot is mighty confusing, and I almost always omit this find from any sort of discussion simply because using it to support any identification so fraught with difficulty.

Yes, while interesting / confusing the mosaic has been over-analysed on other threads to no good end. Good idea, Ruben. Best to drop it from further discussion here.

~Theo

[MeinPanzer]

Interesting. So it seems Roman and Hellenistic armies' equipment were already starting to resemble each other without direct influence between the two. Based on what you've said the Romans seem less unique in their willingness to adopt technology of vanquished foes, which is a little surprising given the Greeks' traditional chauvinism.

Indeed, in the Hellenistic period the Greeks proper seem to have been some of the most eager to adopt foreign armaments. The Boeotians adopted the thureos in large numbers only a few decades after the Galatian invasion of the early third century BC.

[MeinPanzer]

By the time of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, how would Egyptian soldiers have appeared ? Would they all have looked virtually identical to Roman legionaries ? My guess would be that at least some units were outfitted and trained as legionaries but I'd like to hear from others.

Unkown Ptolemaic, with his peculiar helmet. dunno the time period( I bet before Julius).

From Vatican Museum.

I thought this was a variant of the Pyrrhus bust...? What source states that it is Ptolemaic?

[MeinPanzer]

Thanks, that does.

[ParthianBow]

Thanks for all the info - very interesting. I've ordered Nick Sekunda's book on Hellenistic Reform of the Egyptian armies.

[Theodosius the Great]

I just found a book written in 2007 on Hellenistic Egypt :

(thumbnail link)


Product Description

"Hellenistic Egypt : Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture brings together for the first time the writings of the preeminent historian, papyrologist, and epigraphist Jean Bingen. These essays, first published by Bingen from 1970 to1999, make a distinctive contribution to the historiography of Hellenistic Egypt, a period in ancient Egypt extending from its conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. until its annexation as a province of the Roman Empire by Octavian (later Augustus) in 30 B.C., after his defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Ruled by Ptolemaic kings during this period, Hellenistic Egypt was a sophisticated, rich, and fertile country. Its history is intimately bound up with the history of the Mediterranean as a whole, yet parts of that history remain relatively obscure and open to debate. New evidence, particularly from papyri, emerges frequently and shifts our understanding and interpretation of this significant time. For the last six decades Jean Bingen has been a leading editor and interpreter of such evidence. In particular his work on the Ptolemaic monarchy and economy, which illustrates how the Greeks and Egyptians interacted, has transformed the field and influenced all subsequent work. Historian and classicist Roger Bagnall has selected and introduced Bingen's most important essays on this topic. "

It may shed some light on the Ptolemaic army.
I'll put it on my book list.

~Theo

[MeinPanzer]

It's a good book on Ptolemaic Egypt, but it features very little about the military beyond the socio-economic activities of cleruchs. The only real portion of interest to the reader interested in the military is the section on Thracians in Ptolemaic Egypt, which discusses briefly a very interesting papyrus which mentions a couple of members of the Basilike Ile, or royal squadron; this is of particular interest not only because this is the first mention found of this squadron outside of the literary sources, but also because its two members, contrary to what you'd think, are Thracians and not Macedonians.

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

I've a new question about the Palestrina Mosaic. Can anyone identify the helmet types worn by the soldiers ?

I'm not very confident using terminology when it comes to Hellenistic helmets. But I'm guessing the central figures are wearing 'Thracian' style
helmets for the most part. The far left soldier wears a 'Phyrgian' helmet ? The far right, a 'Boeotian' ?

Does anyone agree or have differing views ?

~Theo

[MeinPanzer]

All that can be said with certainty is that the man on the left and second from right wear Phrygian helmets. The closest match for the other helmets would be the Sidon type, which is worn by the bust posted earlier in this thread.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Ruben,

I wonder if the Ascalon helmet is an alternative for the central figures.
But I defer to your judgement.

All of these old helmet styles would seem to have survived down to Caesar's time if one accepts that the mosaic is contemporary.
Does it seem plausible that these helmets would have such a long life span ? Most of them, AFAIK, originated around the time of
Phillip II.

I guess I will find out for myself since I just purchased Nick Sekunda's "Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC" online yesterday.


~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Having finished the book I can say Nicholas Sekunda concludes that by the time of the Civil Wars all the remaining Hellenistic kingdoms' armies seem to have been rearmed and reequiped "in the Roman manner". The process, as the title of the book suggests, began with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms in the mid-second century BC. In Egypt the Gabiniani wielded considerable power and imported Gallic and Germanic auxiliaries into the country to help prop up the regime. Sekunda also mentions that Dieotarus, tetrarch of Galatia until his death circa 40 BC, had organized two legions of Galatians equipped and trained along Roman lines.

The archaeological evidence, such as it is, doesn't support the idea that Roman style helmets began to be adopted by the Hellenistic armies. Some Montefortinos found in Greece seem to date to the Macedonian Wars - too early a period to make such a suggestion. So, Hellenistic helmets seem to have continued despite the Romanization process. Sekunda then cites Plutarch (Life of Lucullus, 7.4) who states that Mithradates had swords and shields of Roman type prepared and a force of 120,000 men trained in Roman tactics. In 69 BC the Armenians drew up an army of 150,000 - 'some in cohorts and others in phalanxes' (Plutarch, Life of Lucullus 26.6).

So, the typical Hellenistic infantryman around the time of Caesar would seem to have appeared Roman in most aspects with some lingering Hellenistic elements (helmets, belts, clothing, footwear, etc..). Regarding armor I doubt that the Romanized troops wore Roman style hamata with the doublet. The Roman influence on armor is simply the wide adoption of it by most Hellenistic troops who hitherto wore little or none. The shields and swords were probably identical in appearence to Roman issued ones. At least that's what I conclude from the book which is largely based on scant evidence.

~Theo