MACEDONIAN EARLY SUCCESSOR 320 BC – 260 BC

These are the early successors of Alexander whose main power base was in Macedonia, even if they did not manage to retain it continuously. They include Antipatros, Polyperchon, Queen Olympias, Kassandros, Ptolemy Keraunos “ The Thunderbolt” and Antigonos Gonatas “ Knock-Knees” , but not the latter’ s father Demetrios Poliorcetes “ The Besieger” . Polyperchon was nominated by Antipatros to succeed him as regent in 319 BC, but was never generally accepted. He was briefly allied with Queen Olympias, and later with the Aitoloian league, but was bought off by and ended as a subordinate to Kassandros. Kassandros was the son of Antipatros, and started in 318 with 4,000 men lent to him by Antigonos “ One Eye” . He seized control of Athens and was then accepted as King of Macedon. He was responsible for the murders of Alexander’ s mother, wife Roxane and 14 year old son. He died in 298 and his sons could not hold the Kingdom. Olympias was Alexander’ s mother. She made a bid for power in 317 but was captured and killed in 316. Ptolemy Keraunos was a son of Ptolemy I, but not his heir. He seized Macedon in 280, but was killed next year fighting Galatians when he fell off his elephant. Antigonos Gonatas became King of Macedon after defeating Galatians in 277 and reigned until 239.

SELEUCID 320 BC – 83 BC

The Seleucid Kingdom from its foundation by Alexander’ s general Seleukos. Its Hellenistic Xystophoroi cavalry were mostly converted into cataphracts after war with the Parthians, and half the elite Argyraspid pikemen into imitation legionaries after defeat by the Romans. As elephant numbers shrank, they were given large infantry escorts as a partial compensation. The Asiatic elephant herd was slaughtered by the Romans in 162, but African elephants were obtained in 145. Galatian mercenaries retained their fearsome reputation after those settled in Asia Minor deteriorated.

EARLY PERIOD 323 BC – 301 BC

Most of these armies were between 10000 and 20000 men. After Seleukos conquered the upper satrapies sometime around 307 BC, his forces were considerably expanded, so that he led over 30000 men to Ipsos, including nearly 500 elephants.

Satrapal generals all fought mounted at the head of their troops. Most were Macedonians, but a few local leaders were allowed to retain their positions, and these are represented by the irregular generals who may only command local troops. The various satraps weren’t very cooperative, and Nicanor a battle against Seleukos as a direct result of the battlefield desertion of one of his satraps and 2000 horsemen.

Xystophoroi: Most of the Macedonian horse went west with Perdikkas after Alexander’s death; Peithon had 800 Macedonian horsemen, and Peukestas had 400 Persians who were quite possibly xystophoroi.

Satrapal and other cavalry: The satraps’ military strength was their mounted forces – they provided Peithon with 8000 horse in addition to his Macedonians; Nicanor had 7000 horse, and even Peukestas’ alliance fielded over 4500, the lowest reported total. Despite these impressive figures however, in every case the foot still always outnumbered the horse. Most of these were light cavalry it seems. Persans are noted as using thonged throwing javelins, and Median lonchophoroi are described as being experts in wheeling and retreating, and Alexander certainly used mounted javelinmen from the area as light horse. Horse archers are noted as being part of Seleukos’ army at Ipsos, as well as in Antigonos’ army which included contingents from this area; Stasander the satrap of Aria brought along some Bactrians to serve with Peukestas, so it seems they were a normal part of any army based in this region and are thus compulsory. Peukestas is noted as controlling 600 Greek and Thracian horsemen, presumably retired mercenary colonists, and Seleukos seemingly found 200-odd cavalry amongst the colonists he picked up in 312 BC on the way to attack Nicanor; Hippostratos may have had 1000 Thracian colonist cavalry. I am not convinced Bactrians were light horse (or even normal horse archers) unlike eg. Dahae were, since Alexander is said to have had Bactrian cavalry AND horse archers at the battle of Hydaspes, and their actions at Gaugamela given their willingness to charge enemy heavy cavalry.

Greek mercenaries: Despite the distance from the Mediterranean, Menander writing ca. 315 BC has a mercenary character in a play (Samia) talking about service in Bactria as nothing unusual. Certainly later Bactrian armies included Greek mercenaries, and this would indicate that earlier ones did too. Antigonos provided Hippostratos 3500 mercenary infantry when he was appointed general in charge of the upper satrapies after Peithon’s execution who would have been at the very least mostly Greeks.

Pantodapoi phalangites: Peukestas commanded some 3000 of these men, presumably mostly Persians in his case; it is likely that other leaders also had small numbers of Macedonians and other troops making their palace guards who could be cobbled together for a battle.

Light infantry: Archers, and to a lesser extant, slingers, were the typical light infantryman of the area, but javelinmen are occasionally noted (eg. those in Alexander’s experimental phalanx).

Levy archers: Persian archers are described as psiloi, but archers from other regions may have been less suited to skirmishing (or simply packed together more closely) – some from near India for instance carried effective sidearms, hence some are allowed to be Bw.

Other foot: Hillmen were no doubt pressed into service; those from near Indian used long spears. The number of satrapal foot recorded (excluding Peukestas’ Persians, or Seleukos’ Ipsos army) ranges from 3000 to 10000.

Camp defences: Were used by Macedonian armies, but seemingly not all the time. Indeed it was Nicanor’s laxity in defending his camp that enable Seleukos to reconquer Babylonia.

Macedonian phalangites: Pithon was given 3000 of these to help crush Philon’s revolt, and Seleukos seems to have enrolled about 2000 on his return to Babylon in 312 BC. Otherwise, they do not seem to have been a feature of armies recruited from this area. I cannot agree with Bosworth who believes Seleukos’ 2000 were old Argyraspids resettled by Antigonos (see Jeff Champion’s note in Slingshot, issue 216 (July 2001), page 42), since Polyainos records the Argyraspids being posted to ‘secure and out of the way places’ which is almost the exact opposite of what Carrhae is! However, Polyainos records Seleukos using ‘hypaspists’ as an elite force against Demetrios, seemingly in 286 BC, so the Seleukid footguards were seemingly established by this time, and were probably so organised when he proclaimed himself king.

Thracians: Not directly attested, but Polyainos (4.6.14) mentions Antigonos (falsely) proposing to have 1000 of them serve with Pithon. Certainly some of Alexander’s veterans would have been settled in the east.

Naval: Peithon and Seleukos had some vessels left over from Alexander’s days with which they conducted a successful operation against Eumenes; the largest were two trieres, the majority are described as mere punts.

Elephants: Eudamos brought 120 elephants with him from India to join Peukestas’ alliance (along with 300 foot and 500 cavalry who are assumed to be represented amongst the other troop types). Seleukos fought in India from 307 BC to 303 BC, when he concluded a peace settlement with Maurya Chandragupta which saw him exchange his Indian possessions for 500 elephants, some 400 of which were fielded at the battle of Ipsos.

Persian slingers and archers: Peucestas had 10000 of these hence the large number required, but as he later summoned 10000 more (afer Eumenes took over control of the army), many more are allowed.

Scythed chariots: A traditional Persian weapon, they are not however recorded as being used by Peukestas: nevertheless, Seleukos had over 120 of them at Ipsos.

Seleukid sub-generals: Seleukos fled Babylon in 316 BC to escape Antigonos, and returned in 312 BC to defeat Nikanor. He seems to have had a more convivial personality than most of the other rulers of the region, without any insubordination problems; by this date he would have had his young son Antiochos, who commanded a cavalry wing at Ipsos, to assist him. By 308 BC he had secured most of the upper satrapies and could thereafter command more widespread loyalty.

Babylonian levies: As Jeff Champion has pointed out (Slingshot 229, 35-37), Seleukos used city levies to hold up an Antigonid invasion; the option to allow Hd (F) in addition to Hd (O) as they are graded in Persian service is because they seem to have fought reasonably effectively in urban and/or irrigated environments. Numbers are unknown; fiver elements equates to a 5000-strong ill-armed rabble.

Kossaians: A Babylonian source mentions (see Jeff’s article immediately above) hillmen as an ‘army’ friendly to Seleukos, and when they fought Antigonos separately in a mountain action, Diodoros notes their archery, hence the grading as Ps and Bw. I allow the general to be mounted, since it is unlikely that they could have stolen Alexander the Great’s Bukephalos so easily 20 years before without access to horses; the grading of LH is by analogy with their Median ‘neighbours’. 5000 men seems about right for such a force.

IMPERIAL SELEUCID PERIOD 300 BC – 162 BC

This period starts with a presumed reorganisation of the army after Ipsos (including the institutions, or perhaps, consolidation of the Argyraspids, and the rearming of bulk of the cavalry in the Macedonian manner). It concludes with the splitting of the kingdom into warring factions, with a consequent diminution of any army’s maximum size.

The kingdom was invaded about just as often as it attacked others for the entire period the list covers.

Seleucid armies of this period could apparently be very large indeed – ca. 70000 being recorded for both Magnesia (190/89 BC) and Raphia (217 BC); a military parade at Daphne (ca. 164 BC) involved ca. 55000 men.

C-in-C: Commanders fought mounted in every instance reported. A C-in-C need not be the King or his heir, who would usually command the Agema and Companions, since smaller armies could be commanded by other generals.

Sub-generals: None are compulsory to reflect Antiochos’ small army at Thermopylae in 191 BC. Large armies usually had 3 divisions, a centre and two wings, such as Raphia, but at Magnesia according to Appian there was also a vanguard command large enough so that the force appeared to be two armies deployed one behind another. The central command always incorporated the Phalanx; at Magnesia this was under the command of Philip, the commander of the Elephants, but there is no evidence he himself actually fought mounted on an elephant. The option for ally generals is to allow for the occasional on-field desertions such as occurred in Molon’s revolt.

Agema: Seemingly the senior guard cavalry unit, its members were probably equipped as catafracts in the 2nd century BC, although direct evidence is lacking. The unit was almost certainly 1000 strong:

Companions: Apparently the second most senior guard cavalry unit, its members are described as being light-armed in comparison to catafracts at Magnesia. Like the Agema, it was almost certainly 1000 strong.

Lancers: Despite oft-stated claims that the Seleucids ‘inherited’ most of Alexander’s Macedonian cavalry, the truth appears otherwise. The Seleucids started off with almost no troops that had served under Alexander, and unit titles such as the ‘Companions’ and ‘Argyraspids’ are most likely to have been assumed in imitation rather than inherited. The bulk of the Seleucids’ cavalry was recruited from the east, although by the 3rd century BC, they were apparently armed in the Macedonian manner. Some 6000 are claimed to have been present at Magnesia, exclusive of the Agema and Companions. Seleucid armies usually were well-provided with such men, but armies could contain very few mounted indeed, accordingly the minimum is just one element (and this can be reduced to zero, see fortifications, below). By Magnesia (190/89 BC), it seems all the line cavlry were catafracts, but at Panion in 200 BC, only the left wing included catafracts. Catafracts are not mentioned in the fighting in Bactria in 206 BC, and were presumably introduced as a result of this campaign.

Horse archers: Provided not only by Scythians, but also Medes, Parthians and, in Babylonia, quite likely by Jews as well. Antiochos’ small army at Thermopylae in 191 BC seemingly had just 500 mounted men – ie. the C-in-C’s element.

Bedouin: At Magnesia, they formed one part of four nationalities of the mounted archers there. No numbers are given, but there is no reason to believe they were over 500 strong, especially since at Raphia, where Arabs were particularly strongly represented in the infantry, they are not represented at all. They are described as being fleet mounted archers.

Scythed chariots: The maximum is reduced to 3, since no more than 150 are ever attested (except for a highly unreliable late Jewish source).

Tarantines: These are last mentioned at Magnesia – by Daphnae their place seems to have been taken by other types of cavalry.

Phalanx: Even at Thermopylae, it is likely that of the 10000 foot present, 6000 of them were probably line phalangites. Archers, slingers etc. are also mentioned, but in a way that it is clear they are well outnumbered by the phalanx, since they pass through it to their rear (ie. it is as wide as them, and undoubtedly deeper). The maximum number available appears to have been 20000, although 16000 was probably a more typical number, as at Magnesia.

Argyraspids, etc.: Since the 10000 picked men at Raphia are described as being mostly, and not entirely, Argyraspids. (I would posit 8000 Argyraspids, and 2000 foot agema). Molon might have been unlikely to have used such troops, and similarly for provincial armies. They seemingly could operate with javelins in the traditional Macedonian manner – since Polybious records 10000 ‘peltasts’ in the Seleucid army at one point, and it is the ‘peltasts’ who storm a city breach. At the Daphnae parade, organised by the Romanophile Antiochos Epiphanes, the Argyraspids were 5000 strong, while 5000 other picked men were instead equipped in the Roman manner. This may have been a reaction to the Macedonian phalanx’ defeat at Pydna in 168 BC. Polyainos records Seleukos I using ‘hypaspists’ as an elite force against Demetrios, seemingly in 286 BC, so the Seleucid footguards were seemingly established by this time, and were probably so organised when Seleucus proclaimed himself king before the start of this list.

Cretan archers: The Seleucids did not have any great influence in Crete, so they are extremely unlikely to have ever have had more than 1000 Cretan archers together at one time. Larger numbers of (non-Cretan) men equipped “in the Cretan style” are possible.

Elephant Escorts: Elephants serving Seleukos Nicator’s rivals Eumenes and Antigonos routinely had escorting infantry, as did later Seleucid elephants, so there seems to reason to suppose early Seleucid elephants did without, so they are allowed escorts too; they are optional however on the basis that the huge number of elephants in the army immediately post-Ipsos would not have had a sufficient number of trained escorts, and also the seeming absence of any such escorts from the accounts of Magnesia. I am convinced by Sekunda’s interpretation of a Jewish source stating each elephant carried 32 men means it was escorted by 32 men on foot. Unlike Indian elephants that are said to have had 2 men walking at the foot of each elephant in which case they can be subsumed into the elephant. In any case, Seleucid elephants at Magnesia proved vulnerable enough to light infantry. Normally elephant escorts were archers and slingers, but Sekunda illustrates a Hellenistic gem showing an infantryman with a heavy javelin who may represent an elephant escort.

Other archers and slingers: At Thermopylae (I assume the 10000 foot there to be 6000 Pk, 2000 ‘peltasts’, 1000 archers and slingers, 1000 others – elephant escorts, javelinmen, mercenaries, etc.); since at Raphia there were apparently 10000 Arabs in the main line, plus all the light infantry on the wings, such as the Mysians.

Thracians: The Seleucids were still hiring large numbers of Thracians long after they lost any direct contact with Bithynia, 3000 being recorded at Daphne.

Other hillmen: The Cilicians at Daphne are described as Euzonoi – lightly equipped, since they did not have helmets. The number is substantially raised – 3000 Cilicians are mentioned at Daphne, and Cilicians were just one group of (inexperienced) mercenaries recorded at Magenesia along with Kappadokians and several others.

Other levies: I don’t believe any Seleucid infantry were demonstrably poor enough. In any case, their number is reduced, 10000 men, say the entire Arab levy recorded at Raphia.

Bolt-shooters: These were used at Thermopylae.

Siege equipment: Artillery is not recorded in open battle – in fact their use at all is not well documented. They are accordingly possible only in limited numbers.

Camp defences: Seleucid armies seem to have routinely used defended camps, but the limited information does not allow me to state they were always used.

Field fortifications: Most notably at Thermopylae, were they were manned by artillery.

Naval: Antiochos the Great’s fleet is said to have been comprised of ships that were on the whole much lighter than those of his Rhodian/Pergamene/Roman enemies, so the majority must have trieres or similar. Some penteres and the like no doubt existed however, and various types of smaller undecked ships are also mentioned. However, the Seleucid fleet does not appear to have cooperated very well with the army, even at Thermopylae, so only a limited naval contingent is allowed. After 189 BC, the fleet was limited by treaty to just 12 decked vessels. There is a fleet from the very start, since the Seleucids had built a port near the future site of Antioch before the start of this list, and after Antioch’s foundation, ca. 300 BC, their outlook was ever more westward; their interventions in the Aegean in the 3rd century would have demanded a fleet.

Greek (and other) mercenaries: The Seleucids were at first based in the east, and what mercenaries they had may have all been enrolled in the phalanx. After 275 BC, the thureos seems to have been commonly adopted by Hellenistic mercenaries, though this does not affect grading. Although Thorakitai are first heard of only near the end of the 3rd century, this is probably no more than a reflection of the paucity of the sources that an indication of recent invention.

Elephants: 400 Seleucid elephants had taken part in Ipsos, some would not have survived the battle, or the journey home; 9 elements (nearly 300 beasts) would still be a fairly conservative number of how many could be fielded at this time. Inevitably, numbers declined over time, so that 102 were recorded at Raphia for instance; but new stocks were occasionally obtained from the east, some 150 elephants are recorded just over 10 years later, but those at Magnesia appear to have been not much over 50 strong. Elephants were highly regarded, and since every effort was made to ensure they were used in battle.

Median longchophoroi: I assume that not all the former Median horse were assimilated to the Macedonian model, and that some initially retained their skirmishing nature. However, after a couple of generations of Seleucid rule, I assume that such troops had ceased to exist; certainly they are not mentioned in any of the later 3rd century battles.

Militia thureophoroi: I have allowed these at a much earlier date, since it is IMO likely that the Babylonian army mentioned in 2 Maccabees of 4000 “Macedonians” and 8000 “Jews” defeating a Galatian invasion of reputedly 120000, tentatively dated to ca. 229 BC, included a very substantial militia component. They should replace regular soldiers, particularly guards, rather than be additional to them, since their use would not be necessary if the regular army was on hand to deal with things!

Galatian foot: First mentioned sometime after 246 BC; in the encounter between Molon and Antiochos in 220 BC both sides fielded Galatian contingents, integrated into the main line. I assume that before they were humbled by the Pergamenes, any contingents would count as allied contingents and be somewhat untrustworthy. Certainly in Antigonid and Ptolemaic service, they are noted as deserting en masse on at least one occasion with each employer, and I so no reason that those first recruited into Seleucid service would be any more reliable. After this time, I rate them as normal troops in the main list however. The maximum number 5000 were paraded at Daphne, by which time contact with the independent Galatians was much diminished; their numbers can hardly have been smaller earlier, and at Magnesia, Appian refers to one of the two Galatian divisions being 3000 strong (although misidentifying it as Catafract cavalry) which would imply 6000 men overall. Even if Galatians fought with ‘fanatic’ fervour in ca. 278 BC, (which is very debatable), this was apparently not the case in Seleucid service. The above incident where a reputed 120000 were defeated by 12000. Galatian mercenaries did not have a great reputation – one source does indeed claim that no Seleucid ruler would go to war without them, but that is not the same as saying they were especially feared – the fact that they were so numerous and cheap is a much better argument as to why they were so ubiquitous. Polybios does not sing their praises with regards to the events of 220 BC, or at any time later, while those serving at Magnesia are described as inexperienced, and Eumenes had no problem routing them. In the 3rd century, and later, when they are depicted wearing Greek style arms and armour, carrying their swords on their left, and armoured in muscle cuirasses, Galatians never being described as conducting impetuous charges. Even in their invasion of Greece, at Thermopylae they flung themselves forwards when ordered to do so, and likewise retired when ordered to do so.

Galatian cavalry: Some seem to have been employed, but hardly in the numbers, which would also allow cavalry to be fielded without foot; in fact foot are mentioned in the absence of horse, but never the converse. Some Thracian cavalry might be assumed to be included in these elements.

Aitolian allies: Antiochos allied with them in 192 BC, so they date is shifted back a year, even if they didn’t actually fight a battle together until 191 BC. Since they did not contribute their whole army to the cause – the total isn’t stated, but two groups of 1000 are mentioned in addition to another (likely larger) group in their own camp; the Aitolians had allied with the Ptolemies with 6500 men less than ten years before, so a limit of 18 elements (8000 fighting men) is more than sufficient.

Militia cavalry: A feature of the Daphnae parade, where 3000 are mentioned. They were unhelmeted, and some might well have taken over the role of the former Tarantines.

Roman Argyraspids: Since they seem to have been one homogenous unit, probably modelled on a Roman legion; they would be most unlikely to have been split up between different armies. 5000 men are recorded.

LATE SELEUCID 161 BC – 64 BC

This list covers Seleucid armies from the destruction of the fleet and most of the Asiatic elephant herd by the Romans until the final abolition of the kingdom by Pompey. African elephants were obtained in 145 BC from the Ptolemies, but the fleet never seems to have been reconstituted. The kingdom was usually split into two warring factions, with their neighbours playing off one side against the other. There is circumstantial evidence the Macedonian foot were converted to imitation legionaries, but the possibility they remained pikemen until the end of the period is at least as strong. Ptolemaic allies may not be used with any other allies. Jewish allies need not include any irregular infantry. Bactrians may not be used unless Elymaian or other Parthian allies are used.

In 162 BC a Roman commission enforced an arms limitation treaty which saw most of the Seleucid elephant herd slaughtered, and the fleet burnt. The same year also saw the start of the civil wars that wracked the kingdom until its final demise, thus effectively almost halving the size of any potential army, making it a natural break point. The list date is extended to 64 BC. The current list ends in 83 BC, when Tigranes conquered Antioch, but Seleucid forces were holding out in other parts of the realm until 69 BC, and Antioch had a new king after Tigranes’ expulsion; Antioch being large enough that its own militia could (and did) constitute a sizeable army, being noted as numbering over 10000 strong.

List scale: Armies of this era were still reasonably large, typically eleven thousand or more men. Reports of forces up to 40000 strong in Josephus can probably be put down to exaggeration given the loss of many important recruiting grounds, as well as many of the richest tax-bearing areas; Justin’s report (38.10.2) of an army of 80000 men with 300000 non-combatants invading Parthia is certainly gross exaggeration.

The kingdom occasionally conducted offensive forays when united, usually against Parthia, but was usually the stomping ground for other nations in its more normal divided state.

Generals: Previously, important generals fought mounted, and there is no reason to suspect this practice had changed. Previously, the was phalanx usually commanded by a non-royal commander, and its commander was more senior than the commander of the Argyraspids. Direct evidence for this period is lacking however. The army of 88 BC had Jewish, Arab and Parthian allied contingents.

Lancers: Seleucid lancers had been mostly comprised of catafracts before this period, with a few lighter types. The number of cavalry had decreased markedly, no doubt due to the loss of Babylonia (141 BC) and especially Media (148/7 BC) to the Parthians, 3000 being the largest number attested (in 147 BC), a far cry from the nearly 10000 recorded before the start of the list. The proportion of lighter lancers seems to have been higher in the west, given the evidence of the Daphne parade (ca. 166 BC).

Horse archers: 1000 out of 3000 cavalry mentioned in 147 BC were horse archers. Previously such types had been recruited from Scythians or Parthians, by this stage Arabo-Arameans are likely to have been an important source.

Thracian and Galatian mercenaries: Such types were used before, and Thracians at least are still mentioned during this era.

Militia horse: First mentioned in the Daphne parade, these likely became more important as time went on. At Daphne, they were unhelmeted, implying either light skirmishing troops, or very poorly equipped (and probably trained) “medium” cavalry. Those at Daphne were not all alike, and a fragment from this era does talk about horsemen from the Syrian town of Larissa being equipped in the style of their ancient Thessalian ancestors, so a mixture of both can’t be ruled out.

Scythed chariots: 300 are mentioned in a Jewish source at one point, but this seems far too many. At Daphne, before the kingdom was divided, and before the horse-breeding eastern areas had been lost, with the kingdom at peace so that virtually all the available troops were on parade, only 140 were mustered. I therefore think 30 is more likely than 300, and take the absolute maximum number to be half that at Daphne.

Macedonian foot: these were pikemen at the start of the period, save for 5000 picked men who were equipped in the Roman fashion. I assume that as the kingdom shrunk, the quality of these picked troops could not be maintained, certainly armies of this period do not seem to have put up many displays that would imply substantial numbers of troops; Justin certainly implies (38.10.9) that later Seleucid troops were not up to much. Sekunda believes that the phalanx was entirely converted to Roman style troops, but I remain unconvinced. His arguments primarily rest on two points: the similarity of the surviving Hellenistic manuals to known Roman formations, and a Jewish description of an army in 163 BC as all being in mail, neither of which are at all convincing to my mind. However, I have included the option for those that agree with him. The option for their replacement with militia rests on descriptions of areas being entirely denuded of fighting men when armies went away, implying they could be mustered for foreign wars as well as for local defence, and descriptions of the Antiochenes fighting. In the case of an Antiochene “army”, virtually all the troops would have been such militia. I assume such militia thureophoroi would fight with javelins in the manner of euzonoi, rather than with spears.

Mercenaries. These are quite prominent in the historical sources for all states in the area at the time, Jewish, Ptoleamic and Seleucid. In the case of the Seleucids, Cretans are once mentioned as being numerous (and Alexander Balas was backed by the Cretans in his rise to power), and Thracians are also mentioned. At Daphne, Galatians and various other nations, mostly from mountainous areas, are mentioned in large numbers, and presumably could be found serving throughout this time; one Jewish source alleges an army in the 140s was comprised mostly of mercenaries. Cretans could be javelinmen, not just archers.

Asiatic archers and slingers: the scant sources of the period do not directly attest these, but they surely would have been present in many battles. Their numbers are reduced compared to previous times, since the east Asian provinces had been mostly lost by the start of the period, and were entirely lost not long afterwards.

Bolt-shooters: These had been used in field battles by previous kings, and sieges were still conducted so the capability to employ them was certainly there, and the Maccebeans are known to have captured Seleucid artillery.

Stone-throwers: again not directly attested, but the “machines” once mentioned as battering Jerusalem are as likely to have been stone-throwers as battering rams, and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (one of the 4QM fragments) mentions stonethrowers that are quite likely to have been ex-Seleucid.

Siege-towers: these in contrast, are directly talked about, indeed, an exaggeratedly huge number (100) are said to have been employed in one siege against Jerusalem.

Camp defences: Again, not directly attested, but “camps” are, and this usually means fortified camps in respect to Hellenistic warfare, as it had in the past; that at magnesia even had towers.

Jewish allies: These were used far more frequently than previously thought. The Jews were even more faction-ridden than the Seleucids, and it was usually possible to stir up one faction against the other, just as they in turn did with the Seleucids. Some contingents are described as being of picked men, but others are not so described.

African elephants: These accompanied the Ptolemaic army in support of Alexander Balas in 145 BC, and were subsequently incorporated into his rival Demetrios’ army. Numbers are unknown, but are unlikely to have been more than even the 32 animals reported in 163 BC (in an army of reputedly nearly 50000 men!). Sekunda’s theory about each elephant’s permanent escort being 32 men appears very likely to me.

Indian Elephants: Apparently not all the elephants were killed by the Romans, since a tablet dated to 151 BC in the Istanbul museum (No.194) refers to Demetrios using 25 elephants in battle. These were likely remnants of a portion of the Indian herd that escaped the Romans.

Parthian allies: These were more widely used than the current list allows; and some were even commanded by a legitimate royal prince rather than being rebels. One such seems to have comprised a very large proportion of the army, perhaps even half, so I have removed the element number restriction. Demetrios’ invasion force was according to Justin (36.1.4) accompanied by Bactrians and Persians as well as Elymaians; Persians and Bactrians, can be assumed to be included in the Asiatic troops.

Ptolemaic allies: Alexander Balas’ alliance should be represented by a Seleucid contingent in a Ptolemaic army; the Ptolemaic contingents represented here are smaller forces such as the 6000 men sent by Ptolemy Lathyros in the 110s; such intervention is first recorded in ca. 124 BC.

Nomads: Tribal Arab allies are mentioned in 88 BC, I take this to be the equivalent of Nomadic groupings, rather than settled states such as Nabataea. The alliance of Antiochos Theos with the Gileadites should be represented as a Seleucid contingent in an Arabo-Aramean army.

NAVIES

The Seleucids and the Ptolemies drew on Phoenician sailors and ships from the same tradition as the Carthaginians. The Pergamenes relied on similar sorts from Aegean Greek states. The Ptolemies (like the Macedonians) had a tradition of building the largest sorts of ships.

Ptolemy Philopater owned a “forty” in this period which probably didn’t get out of the Nile much.

Edited from Luke Ueda-Sarson’s DBM notes.

Roma Surrectum’s New Seleucid Empire MOD to Rome: Total War