seleucid and ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 bc (2) ptolemaic army.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
fllONrVERT PCJ LIC TlONS
SELEUCID AND
PTOLEMAIC
REFORMED
ARMIES 168 145 BC VOLUME
T PTOLEM I RMY
Nick Sekunda
Colour plates by
Angus McBride
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
SELEUCID ND PTOLEMAIC REFORMED
ARMIES 68 45
C
VOLUME 2: THE PTOLEMAIC ARMY
UN R PTOL MY
VI PlllLOM TOR
Nick
Sekunda
olour
Plates
by
ngus
Mc ride
Line Drawings by
d rg
Published by ontvert
Publications
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
Published in 1995 by Montvert Publications
CCopyright 1995 Montvert Publications
All rights reserYed. No pan of this publication may be
reproduced
or
transmitted in any form
or
by any means
electronic or
mechanical
induding photocopying,
recording or any infonnationstorage and
retrieval
system
without the prior written consent of the publishcrs.
Montvcrt Publications, 2 Kingswood Grove, Reddish.
Stockport SK
6SP
Montvert Publications Distribution), PO Box 25,
Stockport SK 6RU
ISBN I 874101 03 5
A C IP c at al ogu e record for this book
is
available from
the British Library.
A note t o t he reader:
This
is one of a series
of
Montvert
titles wh ic h a im to present so me of the st
up
t o dale
analyses of the history, dress, equipment and organization
of various ancient an d medieval armies.
lypeset
by
Legend DTP
Stockport, Cheshire
Printed by Joseph Ward Colourprint Lld.
Dewsbwy, Yorkshire
AUTBOR S DEDICATION,
wonderful um
PREFACE.
Th e history of the Hellenistic kingdoms during the pe
under examination is oomplicated.
Th e
ancient histor
narratives which oore dealt with this period are preser
only in fragments, and thepublicationofnew inscript
or
papyri requires a process of oonstant revision
of
chronological framework. Limited space permits on
condensed ac:c:ount of
rapidly
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
CHAPTER 6
MllJTARY
REFORM
IN
THE
PTOLEMAIC ARMY.
In Egypt the triple monarchy of Philometor. Cleopatra
and
Euergetes had not lasted long.
An
embassy was, of
course, immediately despatched
to Rome to offer thanks
under the command
of
onc of the Friends , one
Nomenios. The dual reign ofPhiJometor and Euergetes
lasted five years, against a background
of
Egyptian
nationalist discontent, the intrigue of eunuchs and ex
slaves at Court, and family strife.
The Native Revolts.
s has already been mentioned. we are told (Diod. 30.14)
that at the Battle afMouRt Casios Antiochus Epiphanes
had
taken
great pains to spare the lives of the Egyptians .
and
that
this act of generosity contributed greatly
to
his
seizure
ofPclusiwn
and the
subsequent
conquest ofEgypl
Although it is possible that Diodems is callingthe Greek
military settlers in Egypt, who had presumably been
mobilized for the campaign, Egyptians . it would be
more straightforward to interpret his words as referring
to the native Egyptian soldiery,
themachimoi,
who would
also have been mobilized for the campaign. this is
correct. and
it
is true that Antiochus
won
great support
in Egypt for this act of mercy, it
may
be that this is at
least one factor lying behind the Egyptian nationalist
activity of the next decade or mort.
Soon
after Antiochus withdrawal one of the Friends
ofPhilometor, anEgyptian named Dionysios Petosarapis
Gift of Sarapis ) attempted to seize the throne (Diod.
31.15 a). We are told that Petosarapis was p r e ~ m i n e n t
ofall thenative Egyptians on the battlefield, and
wc
may
perhaps assume from these words that he had
commanded the Egyptian
machimoi
at the Battle of
Mount Casios.
He
pretended that Philometor had urged
him to kill Euergetes, and appealed
to
the Alexandrian
mob assembled in the stadium, for justice. The
mob,
w h i ~ p into a
fury,
threatened to kill Philometor. but
the two brothers appeared together in amity before the
crowds and managed to keep their joint throne as well
as thei;lives. Petosarapiswithdrew to Eleusis, appealing
to the discontented soldiery of the Alexandrian garrison
to throw their lot inwith him, and managed to assemble
a force numbering some 4,000 men there.
He
was,
however, defeated in battle, and
was forced
to swim
naked
across the Nile to the open
COWltry
beyond. Many natives
joined this charismatic man
of
action, and soon large
area ofEgypt 'ere thrown inlo revolt.
By about
165
the revolt had spread to the ThebaId
in
Upper Egypt. It seems that Philometor moved agains
the rebels peoona1ly (Died. 31.17 bj, thougll still aged
only 19 or so, and soon regained control of that remot
province, all
except
for the city of Panopolis.
standin
high
and
inaccessible on an ancient mound, where the
most
active of the rebels
had
gathered. udgingthat a
frontal
assault was out
of the question,
both
on
ac oxm
ofthe strengthof theposition
and
the
ua.l of
its
dd enders
Philometor
senled
down to a siege, which proved to
b
both lengthy and arduous. Eventually the city fell
and
the ringleaders were punished, following which Ptolemy
returned
to
Alexandria.
The invasion
of
Antiochus, the dynastic strife and th
native disturbances had led to considerable economi
dislocation
in
the countly. Many fled from the trouble
south
to
the north. Large numbers of native Egyptian
hadbecn killedorwerestill in hiding. there was ascarcity
of labour throughout Egypt, the land lay untilled an
famine threatened. The government tried to ensure tha
everyone should participate in the cultivation of th
abandoned land, and the royal officials. naturally, 'er
overzealous in their orders. The native
machimo
petitioned the king, and he was forced to ease
th
ordinances. The revolt officiallyended in 164, it seems
but Philometor
was
forced 10 proclaim a general
amnest
in
163
in order to pacify the countly. Even so, bandiU
was widespread throughout the
150 ,
and the countl
took many years to settle down again (M.Rostovtzefl
The Social
nd
Economic Hislory
r Hellenisti
,0,1d 1/ 1953 pp 718-724).
The Dispute between Philometor and Euergeles.
Whilst Philometor had been away with the army
Euergetes had been
intriguing
with the mob
o
Alexandria, at that time a very mongrel city (Mahaffey
p. 239).
In
164 Philometorwas
forced
to
flee
Alexandria
and went
to
Rome to petition for his kingdom back.
A
Rome Philometor was met by his first cousin, the exile
Seleucid prince Demetrius, who greeted him with
roya
pomp. Philometor avoided this acclaim, however, as h
wished to
use
hisapparent poverty to arouse the sympath
of the Senate. He asked Demetrius to leave him
be
and
bid his companion
An::hias
and the others who bad
accompanied him to stay with the Seleucid prince.
H
himselffound lodgings with an Alexandrian landscape
painter
( r o 7 l O ) ~
kleriusMaximus
5.1
calls him
pie/or AJexondrinus)
called Demetrius, living frugall
in the upstairs attic. This crumb of information is o
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
considerable interest for two reasons. It
first
demonstrates
the high level ofcullure of the young king, for
he
would
hardly have chosen Demetrius to lodge with ifhe hadn t
known the painter, and there is
no
perticular reason why
a king should know a painterifhe were not interested in
art. Diodorus 31.18.2) in fact lells
us
that Philometor
h d frequently entertained Demetrius when
he
was
resident in Alexandria. The passage is also important in
informing us of the fact that an Alexandrian landscape
painter was active in Rome in the 16Os. It was through
Demetrius,
and the others who
came
after that knowledge
of Alexandrian art was transferred to Italy, and copies of
Alexandrian originals come to be preserved in the
frescoes
ofPompeii see Figures 2 and 3 .
Following this imaginitive display of amateurdramatics,
the Senate, their sympathies engaged y the plight of
Philometor, divided the Pt olemaic state into two,
assigning
yprus
and
Egypt
to Philometor, and
yrenaica
to Euergetes, upon which Philometor sailed to Cyprus.
Meanwhile in Alexandria the regime of Euergetes was
becoming increasingly unpopular on account of its
cruelly. The reign of terror in the capital was presided
overby one Timotheus, who even subjecled AskJepiades,
the administrator of the city,
to
torture. The city mob
eventually rose against Euergetes. Timotheus was
assassinated, and by
May
163 Philometor again ruled in
Alexandria.
Euergetes travelled to Rome 10 appeal against the tenns
of the partition, and begged the Senate to assign Cyprus
to him. Despile the efforts of Menyllus of Alabanda,
Phi lomet or s envoy in Rome, the Senale agreed
to
Euergetes request, and assigned Titus Torquatus and
Gnaeus Merula 10 accomplish his installation on the
island peacefully. Euergetes landed in Greece, collected
a force of mercenaries, and then sailed to the Rhodian
Peraia and then to Side
n rout
for Cyprus. At Side the
Roman legates persuaded Euergetes to dismiss his
mercenaries, as their instructions were that his return
was tobe achieved without
war.
Euergetes agreedto
meet
the Roman legates on the border of Cyrene, while they
themselves would go to Alexandria in order to induce
Philometor to submit to the Senate s request. Euergetes
sailed for Crete, along with his mercenary officer
Damasippos the Macedonian, where
he
raised a personal
guard ofa thousand Cretan mercenaries. and then landed
at Apis
on
the African coast. It was
by now
the summer
of
162.
The Roman legates, however, did not arrive, with or
without Philometor, for the lalter detained them in
Alexandria against their will. Even worse news reach
Euergetes from Cyrene, for the city
of
Cyrene bad revol
against him, his governor Ptolemy Sympetesis,
Egyptian, had gone over to the rebels, and it seemed t
the other cities were on the verge ofjoining in the rev
too.
TIv: Cyreneans
took
the field and Euergeies march
on the city, only to find anadvanced guard ofCyrenaea
and Libyans occupying
the
passes
leading
into
Cyrenai
He divided his forces into two, embarked one
lf
a
ordered them
to
sail round the pass and take the ene
in the rear while
he
himself successfully attacked
pass frontalJy. After six days march. the ships saili
alongside him under the conunand of MochIynus.
met the Cyrenaican army, consisting of 8,000
foot
a
5 cavalry, and was eventually defeated. in batt
Nevertheless, Euergetes somehow managed to return
Cyrene, perhaps through the intervention oftbe Rom
legates.
Both Ptolemies sent embassies to Rome to plead th
cause, Euergetes being led by Komanos and his broth
and Philometor s once again by Menyllus of AJaban
The Roman legales Torquatus and Merola suppor
Euergetes, and the senate declared that the envoys
Philometor must leave Italy within five days, and t
Rome s alliance with Philometor was at an end..lt seem
however, that Rome took
no
concrete
steps
to implem
their allocation of Cyprus to Euergetes. Philome
refused
to
bow
to
Rome s empty
threats
and retain
control of both Egypt and yprusfor the rest of his rei
Military Reform in the Ptolemaie Army.
We now come across evidence for reform in the Ptolem
Army.
The earliest reference 10 the new Romaniz
military structures is dated 163 BC which provides
with a
t rminus nt qu m
for the refonns, but it is
possible, given our current state of knowledge, to gu
at a more precise date within the turbulent tableau
Egyptian history of the earlier 160s when the chan
may have taken place. Research into the milit
structures of the Ptolemaic state is somewhat hampe
by
the complex nature of the evidence. The Ptolem
army was essentially divided into two components,
standing army and the c1eruch army. The standing ar
comprised the regiments of guards which protected
person of the king and the court, and the regiments
mercenaries stationed in garrisons throughout
Empire.
The cleruchic army
was
a territorial anny. From
reign of Ptolemy I Soter onwards, and especially fr
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
the r eign
of
Ptolemy
Philadelphos, ex-soldiers were
allotted plots
kl2l Oi
- hence the appellation
kMl Ouehoi
given to the settlen;), in return for the liability toperfonn
military service in time
of
war ifcalled upon Crawford,
Kerkeosiris
pp. 55-85). n individual c1eruch held a
par ticular r ank, and belonged to a par ticular regiment
in this ter ritorial army,
an d
upon mobilization a fully
f onned army should,
in
theory, have constituted itself.
At first, for example dur ing the Third Syrian War, the
system seems to have worked reasonablywell but by the
end o the third century the system was already beginning
to malfunction. As well as
t he ir ra nk a nd
regiment,
individual cleruchs have all sorts
of
o th er titles i n the
papyri,
which
are, as yet,
no t
understood
with
any
certainty. Consequently, it is difficult to be certain how
much military practices
in
t he s tan di ng a rm y a nd i n the
c1eruc:hic: army would havebeen identical. t is probable,
however, that the two forces were id entical in
their
regimental structures
an d
ranks. From papyrological
material which is in the main relevant to the c1eruchic
army, t he following roug h o ut li ne c an b e gi ven for the
organization of t he P to le ma ic a rm y during t he t hir d
century.
Th e
military ranks held y individuals appearing
in the Ptolemaic papyri have been collated in the work
Pl'Osopogrophio Pto/emoteo. In the text below
have
given the numbers as they appear in this work in brackets
after each rank.
The Ptolemaic Army During th e Third Century.
As
with all the ear ly Hellenistic annies, the Ptolemaic
army largely followed the organizational structures
of
the Macedonian army as they stood at the
en d of
the
reign o f
Alexander
th e
Great. Th e
cavalry
under
Alexander was organized into h ip p ar ch i es a nd
squadrons ,or
itai. Each hipparchyhad at least two itoi,
an d each i numbered at
least
25 The Ptolemaic cavalry
was also divided inlo number ed hippar chics, and then
into itoi..Ten hipparchies are attested as things stand at
t he m omen t, m in us numbers six a nd n in e Van t D ac k,
Ptolemoica Seteeta
p
53).
A cavalry
tochos
may also
h ve existed,
an d
a dekania commanded by a dekanikos
Lesquier pp. 90-1).
Th e
cavalry was it seems largely
unaffected by th e military reforms carried ou t during the
reign of Ph il om et or , for t he ca val ry c on ti nu ed to be
organized into hipparchies and ;Ioi, though the r nk of
dekanikos is not attested after 165.
Chi iarehoi commanders o f a thousand , an d
pentekosiarcho; commanders
of
five hundred are both
attested in the infantry
of
the l at er a rm y of Alexander
Arr.,
Anab.
7.25.6; Plut., Vit
Aler
76.6). T hey were
p re su ma bl y i n
command o f i nf an tr y u ni ts
with
establishment strengths, sed on a file
of 16 m n o
1,024 an d
51 2 men respectively.
Th e
third-
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
who had been sent on embassy
to
Rome late in
168. He
is known to have served earl ier as
srrattgos
of the
ThebaId, but
was
summoned to Alexandria late in 170,
probably in preparation for the war. Nownenios left the
military service (W. Peremans E. Van't Dack,
Prosopographica (1953) p. 50
n.
6) late in
168
to preside
over the embassy to Rome, and he eventually
rose
to the
rank of
epistoJagraphos, or head
of
chancellery under
Ptolemy
vm
Euergetes
1I
(Walbank, Commentary
l
pp. 439, 453). It is extremely interesting
to
note that the
regiment formerly commanded
by
Nownenios remained
without an officially appointed successor to the
eponymouscommand for ar least two years. Unfortunately
wedo not knowwhether this regiment
was
one
of
cavalry
or infantry, and therefore
we
cannot take the date
of 165
as a terminus
post
quem for the military refonns.
KaJlikJes son
of
Kallikles the Alexandrian.
Despite Euergetes' short-lived seizure of power in the
years 164-3, it is hardly to be doubted that the
administration
of
PhiJometor instituted these military
refonns. What part,
we may
ask, did Philometorplay on
a personal level in the process? Polybius (39.7) thought
that Philometor
was
a gentle and good king.
He
never
put
to death any of his friends
nor
any of tlte
Alexandrians. In fact this wasperhaps a mistake: he
was
certainly too lenient with his brother. We do know
that
in Rome Philometor found
an
ardent supporter in Cato
the
Censor, who spoke against Thermus on his behalf
cf. Jan
E.
Astin,
Cato the Censor
(1978) p. 270). Cato
may havemet Philometorduring the king's visit to
Rome
in 164, and may have been impressed
by
the young
monarch's character.
Polybius also tells us that despite his sensitive nature,
Philometor
s \\
courage and presence ofmind
in
both
political crises and
on the battlefield.
He
was extremely
popular with his troops; a decree set up by his Cretan
auxiliaries at Delos calls him scrupulous, pious and of
all men the most humane .... showing a great spirit in all
his dealings (Walbank, omment ry JII p. 738).
Nevertheless, in view of the age and lack of experience
of
Philometor, even though he had personally visited
Rome in 164 when aged about 20, it is hard
to
believe
that Philometor himself instituted the 'Roman' reform
of
the
Ptolemaic army. Fortunately there
is some
evidence
to hand giving
us
the name
of
the person who may have
been responsible for implementing these changes.
Kallikles son
of
KallikJes of Alexandria is only attested
in a couple of honorific inscriptions
from
Cyprus which
6
give
us
a list
of his
military titles. He held the post
rchisom tophyl x or headbodyguard', which
converted into modem parlance might be uanslated a
the equivalent
of
'senior staffofficer'.
He
is also name
as a squadroncommander iJarchls) in thepalacecavalr
he
other two military titles he holds arc qui
extraordinary.
He
is called 'instructor in tactics
of
th
King (S\ xoxaAol;
t O O t OV
WoICT\KCIlV).
I
this context,
of
course,
tactics means the
art.
of
drawin
up an
army
and it is presumably the
art. of
drawing
u
the army in the Roman manner with which Kallikl
was
charged. Theprecise nature
ofhis activities in Cypru
is unknown (Leon MooreD, The AuJic ntuJatul e
Ptolemaic Egypt (1975) p. 21), but he may well hav
visited the island to reform the infantry regiments of th
garrison there. The final title Kallikles is given
commander
of
the troops
of
the left'. It should be note
that the reading is not entirely secure at thispoint Mitfo
BSA
56
(1961) pp. 20-22) conjectured that these wou
have been troops of 'the left wing' e O O v o ~ v KepaQ
which he thought might have
been
somefancy fonnatio
..
devised by this Instructor
Royal
in the
Ar t of
Tactics
I suspect
rather that the 'right wing' may refer to one
the two 'wings' intowhich the phalanx. wasdivided alon
the 'Asclepiodotan' model, for which, as
we have see
there is some evidence in the Seleucid army. Kallikle
then, may have been one of the
two
principal infant
commanders in the army
of
Philometor, and the post
squadron commander in the palace cavalry may hav
been a purely honorific one.
KalJikles is not otherwise known, and we have n
knowledge
of
where
he
mayhaveacquired hisknowledg
of Italian military systems.
He
may have visited Rom
personally as an ambassador, and it
is
even possibl
thoughunlikely, that he may have servedas a mercena
officer in the western Mediterranean.
It
is perhaps mo
likely, though, that he obtained the information h
required to implement the reforms
by
interrogating th
considerable number
of
Italian mercenaries who wou
have been serving in the Ptolemaic army at the tim
The first Egyptian embassy
was
sent to
Rome in
273
and Italians are fOWld in Ptolemaic service from th
middle
of
the third century onwards (Launey I.
pp.
604
8 . The
earliest attested of these is oneDinnius. a
Ro.ma
a dimoiritts
in
the regiment commanded by Automedo
in 252/1 BC. Some of these Romans could reach qui
high rank. Lucius, son ofGaios was commander oftb
Ptolemaic garrison stationed at Itanos in Crete durin
the reign of
Philopator (217-209 BC .
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
The Ptolemalc Manlple.
The
new
organizational structure is the slmei or
maniple . The
Greek
word used for
maniple.
a
tandard , presumably on account of there being one
standard-bearerto each maniple, is generally
speltslmeia
inPtolemaiccontexts, whereas theword is generallyspelt
sem i
in
Polybius. The ptolemaic maniple i s first
attested in a papyrus which mentions Philippos son of
Sogenes, a private soldier
(straridles)
in the
semeia
of
Pu[
]r6s stationed in Memphis UPZ 18,S in 163 BC.
The official terminology for a private soldier during this
period,
the terminological equivalent of the
Latin
gregarlus,
was
therefore presumably stralJ6res, the tenn
idiores does, however, also occur in military contexts
(Pros. Ptol. 3813,3920). A alternative reading of the
same papyrus has been suggested which would make
Philippos a private soldier in the sixth maniple of
Pu[..]rOs
ZP
52 (1983)
p
271). This seems preferable,
as the maniples were normally referred to by
their
number,
and
the personal name given is that
of
the
regimental officer in charge of a number of maniples.
For example we find one Ptollis standard-bearer of the
second semela (PP 2388). Apart fromdubious readings
or interpretations of an eleventh and a twenty-first
maniple in the
papyri, the
highest number attested for
any maniple in the papyri or inscriptions is six ZPE
5
(l983)
p 270). t seems reasonable to suppose that there
were
normally six slmei i in the regiment; a speculation
which
is
confirmed by
the
}ouget
and
Roeder stelai
discussed in Appendix
H
n battle theywould presumably
fonn up in a
triplex acies
chequerboard fonnation
t
O
maniples wide and
three
deep.
The system of numeration by maniple was not applied
in an entirely regular manner, however, for a group of
papyri
dating to between 158 and 156 BC refer
indiscriminately to the same unit, stationed in Memphis,
to which
an
ouragos named Argaios belonged, as the
semeia
of
Dexilaos or the first semela (Van
t Dack,
Pto/emaieaSeleeta
p. 72
n
34). Van t Dack
(Ptolemajea
Se/eela pp. 65-84) has suggested that the demotic
tenn
stn
is the Egyptian tenn for the Greek
slmeia.
The tenn
stn is certainly
used
as
an
equivalent to slmeio in those
examples given by van t Oack which have a dale after
the introduction of the semeia in the
16Os
but a number
of other examples use the tenn
srn
before this date
(sometimes
of
cavalry units). Therefore it should
be
assumed
that the tenn is
used
with the meaning military
company and is used
of
semeia after the 1605 but is
earlier
used
of
taxis
or
of
some similar term(s) for an
infantry sub-unit.
The Ptolemaic
Century.
The semeia
was
divided into two centuries, presumably
called
hekatontarchial,
commanded by
hekatontarcho
commanders of a hundred . ll hekatontarths attested
in
the papyri
(PP
2321-2287) have dates
in
the second
half of the second centwy. The earliest, one Noumenios
(pP 2326), is attested in
a
papyrus ofabout ISO BC from
Tebtunis in the Fayoum. After his
name
comes
the
paleographic
sign
rho (P), which stands for the numbe
lOO
in the Greek alphabetic
system of
numeration.
t
was
pointed out by WLlcken (UPZ 2
p
S6) that this sign
stands for centurion in documents of the Roman period
and that this is how it must be interpreted
in
this
docwnent. despite the earlydate. An undated papyus from
Tebtunis, which must. however, date to around the 1605
(see
the paragraph below), mentions a soldier from the
troops commanded
by
Polycrates, of the 8th. century o
theMacedonian
Agema (SB
4318, 2).
this documen
is correctly read, it is a unique example
of
numeration
by
centuries rather
than maniples.
Perhaps
the
phenomenon of numberingby centuries
was
confined to
guard units.
Under the centurion
were
two penlekont reho
commanders of fifty , in charge
of
a
unit
which
was
presumably called a pentekontarchia. Prosopographla
Ptolemaica lists a large number
of
holders
of
this
r nk
(2333-2366) dating to bothbefore and after the 1605 If:
however, all
the
examples earlier
th n
the
160s
are
examined, it is found that they are all included because
they have the Greek letters
pen-
after their name in
the
original document, indicating
their
rank. The
early
editorsof these
papyri
restored pen- aspen[takosicudlos]
commander of five hundred , or pen[tekontarchos]
commander
of fifty at will. When
all
examples o
restorations of the letters pen- are removed from the
listing
of
pcntekontarchs
in Pros. Ptol.,
it is found tha
all belong to the middle
of
the second century or later. t
is evident that the letters pen- should be restored. as
pen[takosiarchos] in all cases. When
the r nk of
the
pentekontarch is givenby a paleographic symbol, as with
the hekatontarch, thealphabetic Greek number for 50 is
given, in this case the letternu (v). The earliest example
(Pros. Pto/.
2362) is a pentek:ontareh of the troops unde
Polykrates, a regiment which has just been mentioned
in lhe paragraph above, who is attested in a documen
from Tebtunis in
the
Fayoum dating to 162 BC. No
subordinate officers are attested below pente.kontareh
but it is possible that the penukont rchi
was
divided
into a number
of
tent-parties.
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
Manipular
Staff.
The Latin term
for
the staff of the maniple was
pl'incipales,
a term which distinguished them from the
gregal'ii, or private soldiers. As we have seen the
Asclepiodotan term for these officers, which may
represent
late
Seleucid practice,
was ek/aktoi.
In
Ptolemaic usage the term
used
for these
st ff
was
hoi
em t a r e ~ n o ~ e . ; C J . ) t ~ v ) o r ..
thoseoutside the
ranks .
Current
explanations of this and related terms are not
entirely satisfactory (Van t'Dack,
Ptolemaica
lec/a pp.
65--84), and they can only be understood
in
the context
of the 'Romanization' of the late Ptolemaic army.
The oUl agos, slmeiophoros, klna and hypire/es are
ll
attested, but not the trumpeter. The Lefebvre Stele from
Hermopolis, which is fully discussed in Appendix H,
informs us that each of the slmeio has a berald, a
standard-bearer, and
an
oUl ogos.
All the
oUl ogoi
listed
inthe papyri are late, except for
Pros.
Ptol. 2369) dating
to
248r
BC, which relies on the interpretation of the
letters \ as signifying Ol. {pa. Ol;J. However, a preferable
interpretation of these two letters would simply be to
regard them as the Greek negative 01.) no (Fritz Uebel,
Die
klel uehen Agyptens
unler den erslen
seehs
Plolemdern (1968) p. 205
n.
4). The earliest of the
standard-bearers
Pros.
Plol. 2379-89) is Korax son
of
Dionysios slmlophoros
of
those
troops.
under Pasinos.
attested in a papyrus from Hermoupolis
Magna
dating
to 7143n BC Pros.
Ptol.
2385; r Winnicki p.
13).
The military ranks of
klrux (Pros. Ptol.
2390-2399) or
stratolferur army-herald and hypere/es (Pros. Ptol.
2435-1452) both existed before the army reform
of
the
16Os.
Higher Formations,
From information supplied by the Lefebvre stele, which
is fully discussed in Appendix H we can reconstruct the
organization
ofan infantry regiment, which is seemingly
called a syntaxis in that document. The regiment was
commanded by an officer called a hegemon ep 'ondron,
and
the
regimental
headquarters
included a clerk
(gramma/eus) who was perhaps the eqivalent of the
Regimental Sergeant-Major ,
two
other
Warrant
Officers' M g e m o n e s e r ~ l x e ~ n and a 'Staff-Sergeant'
(er6 rare6n), who was perhaps properly called the
hypere/es.
We
have no firm knowledge
of
any
military
formation
higher
than
thesynlaxis. Van t'Dack (Prolemoico
lecla
p. 55) has noted that a single reference to the word
phalanx comes in a papyrus dated to 29th. July
which mentionsa
gramma/eus (secretary)
of thepha
over which Polianthes holds command . He has
noted that there is a grammatical inconsistency
n
document, for which is in the plural. He notes th
Asclepiodotus (2.10) the ideal army consists of
phalangarchiai, the equivalent of
the
legion,
grou
into two
diphalangiai
or
wings ,
and
a
then si
phalanx,
but
both Aelian and
Arrian
(9.10)
g
telraphanangarchia
as
an alternative term for the w
infantry force insteadofphalanx. Presumably the rea
for this was
that
in common usage
the te
phalangarchia and
phalanx
were interchangeable.
'Dack has suggested that
the papyrus should
perh
be
read with the number 4 in front ofPhalanx. whic
to be understood as shorthand for saying that Polina
commanded a unit called a
'rerraphalanx'.
Perhaps, notwithstanding the
grammar,
it
might be
to understand the information in the papyrus as
ei
suggesting that the term phalanx could be
used
as
alternative to syntaxis, or that a number
of
synla
formed a phalanx. The Ptolemaic phalanx is thus
equivalent of the Asclepiodotan phalangarchia an
the Roman legion.
my interpretation
of
the titula
ofKallikJes son ofKallikJes is colTCC t a number
of
th
phalanxes, officially
two
would
then
constitute on
the two wings of the heavy infantry
as
a whole. L
on
in the same papyrus the term
hegemonia
is
use
the unit which is commanded by Polianthes. The t
literally
means command ,
and is probablya termw
was
used loosely for a number of levels of comman
is possible, however, that t was somet imes u
specifically for the regiment, cal led a syn/aris in
Lefebvre Stele (cf.
Van
t'Dack, P/olemaico lec/a p
n.21).
Other
Reforms of Philometor.
Other refonns in the administration of the Empire
also havebeen carried out during
the
reign ofPhilome
but
if so
we are poorly
informed
about
th
Papyrological evidence from the village
of
Kerkeo
in the Fayoum indicates that it was only around 150
that c1eruchic settlement picked up again after
an
alm
completebreak of thirty years. Crawford (Kerkeosiri
61) has noted that during the troubled early year
Philometor s reign the army
would
have
been
continual call for service
and
the authorities would h
been
too occupied
to
concern themselveswith the
peac
settlement of troops. Many of the mercenaries f
contracted for service during the Sixth Syrian Wa
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
the late 1705, and further contingents of mercenaries
contracted subsequently during the civil wars of the 160s
would now have been in continuous service for twenty
years or more, and would
be
eager candidates for
demobilization into the cleruchic reserve this involved
the
douceur
o an allottment.
The native revolts of Upper Egypt during the early part
ofPhilometor s reign had demonstrated the importance
o consolidating
military
control over this
part
o the
kingdom. A new office,
th t o
epistrat gos or
generalissimo o the Thebai d was created during
Philometor s
reign
Lesquier
p.
76), and completecontro
o the Upper Nile
was
placed in his
hands.
Philomcto
also attempted
to
extend the southern border down t
Nile. Boethus, son ofNicostratos, a Carian, who s know
to have held the office of episrrat2gos
o
the Thebaid i
the last year ofPhilometor s reign,
was
given the tasko
founding two new towns
on
the border name
Philometoris and Cleopatra. Herodes, son
o
Demophon
held the post o
g r r i s o n ~ m m n e r
at Syene on th
First
Cataract,
and was governor o this border regio
Bevan, Egypt
p.
294).
Diag.
6.
Comparison of Military Terms
Roman Term Polybian Term
Asclepiodotan Term Ptolemaic Term
tribune
chiliarches 6.19.7
chi/iarches
legion meros 6.19.7 phalangarchia phalanx?
cchort speira 11.23.1 chiliarchia syntaxis?
maniple smaia 6.24.8 syntagma semeia
cenllJrion taxiarchos
6.24)
hekatontarchesltaxiarchos hekatontarches
century
taxis 6.24 taxis hekatontarchia7
optio
ouragos 6.24.2 ouragos ouragos
standard-bearer
semaiaphoros 6.24.6 semeiophoros semeiophoros
pentekontarchia
Diag. 7. Probable Organization of a ptolemaic Infantry Regiment
pentekontarehes
641
hekatontarchia
hekatontarches
1st
semeia
128?
pcntekontarchia
pcntekontarches
2nd semeia
641
3rd si:meia
syntaxis?
256
7officers
Mgemon ep andron
4 staff
1,536?
43 officers
22 staff
t
4th semeia
t
pentekontarchia
hoi exo taxe6n
grammateus
pentekontarches
k ~ 5th semeia
hegemon ex6 taxe6n
641
semeiophoros
hegemon
ex6 taxe6n
(hypSretes) eX< taxeon
ouragos
hekatontarehia
Sons ofOfficers
hekatontarchcs
6th semeia
1281
pentekontarchia
pentekontarchh
641
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
APPENDIXH
THE HERMOPOLIS STELAI.
The information which is supplied on the late Ptolemaic
army from the papyri can
be
supplemented
by
a number
ofinscriptions listing military units, mostlycoming from
Ashmunein
the ancient cityofHennopolisMagna.
which
were depositedby the local garrison. The earliest ofLhese
~ n ~ r i p t i o n s is
known as Hennopolis Slele
L
taking the
Initial letter of its first publisher Gustave Lefebvre
( Inscription Grecque d Ashmounein Bulletin de la
eWe
roya/e d ArcMologie d A/exandrie10
(1908)
pp.
187-195).
The lLefebvre
Stele (rom Hermopolis.
The inscription, broken al the top and bouom,
lists
at
some o the military contingents
of
the Hennopolis
gamson. Dlag.
HI
shows a
simplified
version
of
the
list.
Thedate
aCthe
inscription is uncertain, but the reference
in I
6
seems to be 10 persons who have received an
amnesty. As
has
been
mentioned
above a papyrus dating
to 143 BC,
and
probably
coming
from Hermopolis
Magna, mentions onc Korax, son
of Dionysios , a
standard-bearerof those under Pasines. This Pasines
can
possibly be identified with the eponymous officer who is
mentioned
as
commanding a unit along with onc Dryton
in
m
19
Pros. Plo/
1972-3). In such case the grant of
amnesty, or
phifanthropa,
seemingly referred
to in
the
inscriptioncould be thal made by Ptolemy vm Euergetcs
in
145/4
BC (Marie-ThCrese Lenger. Corpus des
Ordonnanees des Plotemees
(1964)
41-3)
and
SO
the
inscription could, therefore, dale to around 144.
If
so
however, we would have to assume that the regiment
of
Cyrenaicans under Andronikos mentioned in col.
had been sent to Hennopolis
by
Euergetes when
he
took
the throne latc in
145,
for it is difficult to see how
Philomctor could have recruited
in
Cyrene, given the
hostility
of
the
two
brothers. Numerous other grants
of
amnesty were made subsequently during the reign of
Euergetes,
for
example those made during theyears
121
118
BC to those who had supported Queen Cleopaua
and had sided against him in the civil
war
(Lenger,
op
eft. 53), and the inscription could be subsequent to any
of
these in date.
Little can
be
madeoftheother eponymous officers named
in the inscription. ThoughDryton is not a common name
there is no particular reason
to
think that the
0 1 1 0 ~
mentioned in col. m
19 is
the same individual as the
1
Ol)1on mentioned in col.
I
36. From other evidence
can reconstruct the
career of one
Dryton son
Pamphilos, who
was
born
around 195
BC
in the
city
Ptolemais in Upper Egypt (Naphtali Lew:is Greeks
Plolemaic Egypl (1986) pp. 88-103). This Dryton w
however
a
cavalry officer, who
was
transferred to
eity
of
Pathyris in Upper Egypt, over a hundred mi
away from Hermopolis
in
]53 BC,
so
any connecti
seems most unlikely. There seem to have been at le
three individual military officers called Ol)1on servi
in thePtolemaic rmy
in
themiddle
of
the
secondcentw
They are quite possibly related. Lesquier Rev Phi
(1908)
p.
215)
thought that theDrytons
of
the inscripti
wereto
be
identifiedwith the Cretan known
from
papy
He also thought that the Komanos mentioned as
eponymous unit conunander in the inscription could
identified with Komanos
of
Alabanda. an individual w
is otherwise attested (Pms. Pial.
8559) in
a papyrus
around
148
BC
as
a deruch farming more
than
a hundr
aumurai, and
so
presumably an officer. Komanos is
quite common name in Ptolemaic Egypt however.
an
there seems
to be no particular reason
to associate
th
regimental conunander in the regu1arannywith a farm
in the army reserve.
Manipular
Strengths and
Organization.
Columns
T
and
III
seem to list maniples in series, on
after another. It would
be
tempting
to suggest
that
th
eponymous officers named there, frequently
in
pairs,
a
the one, two or more officers conunanding the variou
maniples of the regiment. However in colunm
ll
19
s
after the title Under Pasines and Oryton , we wou
expect
the
first name to be listed tobe that of theprincip
hekatontarch of the maniple, either Pasines or Dryton
but the first hekatontareh to
be
listed is,
in
fact, calle
Ptolemaios son
of
Tryphon. We
can
therefore conclud
that all the ePonymous officers mentioned
in
th
inscription, whether appearing singly, in pairs, o
whatever, are regimental commanders.
Our
understanding
of
the inscription is
h mpered by
th
fact that the stele (and the lists
of
names it contains) i
broken al the top and at the bottom. However the orde
in
which
the
membersof
the
maniple
are
listed is st nd r
and can be reconstructed
as
in
Diag. H2.
Each maniple
has
a herald Una the equivalent
of
th
Roman tesserarius) and a standard-bearer, whoare liste
at the top
of
each maniple as the manipular staf
principafes). Ifwe regard the maniplc
as
the equivalen
of
the modem infantry company, it would be appropriat
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
COLUMNL
l I i la 1-3)
(Ihnoc:
I\I IlICII
of uneeN.in inlcfprctltion)
(li la4-IIJ
Witla KonIatu and the ocben.
Ull MmocloroIlIIII
of
Mcnodorw,
sbrwtiopltotw. Thood
ofHenk.lcitol,
hc:b1OnUl'Ch,Dc:mctri0l1llll of ApolloNOI,
(there follows
lisl
ora
NmcI .
[ l i la 19-211
Witla Al:Ihani.Iphu and Sthmclao.,
~
[1ine12z..23]
W 1lh and Ihc otben,
I
ANIIC)
[line 24-34)
W 1lh AnlwLiaphu and
Slhmcboa,
dlMlopJloros,
Andremoa
II1II of
Ba1alclu,
pcntekonLlrch, DionysiOl_
of Plolem..io ,
(6 1\lIlICI)
[lineI3s-41l)
And of tboec formerly witla IJr)1on.
Mtl-.p N11 (11f md
T.mokk._oITllllOkka,
Ofru:en ad
tau6II. (2
IUmeI),
Of'thcw.4U l,(I Nmc)
SoN of ofl' tun Dioo),jOl II1II of Dion)
. . . . .
PanaclQ II1II afDioa)'Sioa,
Dioscncs _ ol'Dion)'Sioa,
,rommolau
oIthc syntaxiJ, EudOJCOl_
oITunoldca.
(linel SO-H
W i t l a ~
Artcmidoroe I Il of
Antipatrol.
(lincl S2SS
From the Thebald,
DemctriOlIOll
of
AnlipaltOl,
MenophilOl,
HCTllklciclcf
lOll
ofLconidu.
[linll*
S6S7J
Ofthc
CrctlIlII
witla
AriftOUr1Cf
ofGort)'ll,
B.I.1croI fOIl ofDion)'liOl.
[li1lCl
SSSIlI
Of the CyreNiC'N witla
AndronikOl,
Apolloplwlca I0Il
of bfOl\.
[Ime.
(jO-6l1j
OftbOlc
who 'vc
roccivcd the .ltUlWY.
Archyptretl.l oIlhc mcrcCTllry cot1tingcnl, Sopalrol fOIl of
Kuliodonl ,
f ix
other IUmea),
(linea 69-72]
Of the poIj.1koI(- Cilixenalcivili'lII)
(lhrec
1\lIlICI).
COLUMN
[Ime.
I-6S1
(13
1IIfIICI)
Ho2mippot_ ofLoon,
4_
pc:ntckonl rch, topiwdot _ ofJ. . . .
COLUMNUL
(linea
1-18]
(1l1llfTa)
pen1cktlnWeh,
W - _ ofMdrodon:.,
(S
namca)
OOITQ OI
Apollodorot _
of
(lineI I9-S7]
Witla P i l a and IJr)1on.
..l:lnu. DnkOl l II1II of
He
u-iophon:JtI.
MikkoI_ ofPlol
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
(Regimental Title)
herald,
standard.bearer,
centurion.
firsl pcntekontarch,
soldicn oflhe first pmkkonuuchia oflhe
fil it century
second pcntekontarch.
soldiers
of
the second pentekotllarchia of
the first century.
Secont
cmhlry
?
ccnturion.
first ptntekontarch.
soldicn
of
the firsl J1DIleJwnlan:hia
of
the
second century
second pcntekontarch,
soIdicn
of
the second pmtekont uchi
of
the
second
century.
ouragos.
Dlag. H2 ROCOIlStruc1k:ln of the orderlnwblcb
the
memben
of the manfpM
listfd
on the Lefebvre Stelt.
to
regard these
two
principales
as
the equivalentof Staff
Sergeants ,
and, although theirprecisemilitary functions
are unknown, it would be reasonable
to
suppose that one
\\ OuI4 be in charge of payor persormel and the other
\\ Ould be in charge of the distribution of stores and
rations.
At
any rate they would somehow divide the
administration of the slmeia between them. At the end
of each list comes the ouragos or fiIe-eloser of the
semeia. He is to be regarded as the equivalent
of
the
Roman optio. Like the oplio he
would
stand behind the
semeia duringbattle so as
to
ensure no-cne left the ranks,
and for this reason. he is listed at the end
of
the semeia.
He
is
best considered
as
the equivalent
of
the modern
Company SergeantMajor. These staff are,
as
has
been
stated previously. the equivalent of the Asclepiodotan
eklakloi, so-called
because
theywere drawn up outside
the ranks
of
the private soldiers (s/ratidtai) and officers
(hlgemones)
of
the semeia. In Ptolemaic terminology,
as hasbeenmentioned before, they are known ashoi x
taxedn (Ol m
~ C O v ,
which has exactly the same
meaning as theAsclepiodotan ektakloi.These em laxedn
were not considered as officers by the ancient Greeks
and
Macedonians, but
as
with the non-commissioned and
warrant officers in a modern anny they lay in between
the private soldiers and the officers.
One
would
expect the slmeio to have two centurio
but
al
col.
n,
20 instead of the second centurion
\V
w
expect, the
third
pentekontarch appears. It could be
case that this particular slmeia was missing one o
centurions. On the other hand it could be argued th
had becomefrequent practice to haveonlyone centu
to the semela by the time the inscription was c:arved
dossier
of
papyri
has
been preserved concerning
Egyptian semeia which took
part
in the Palestinian
ofl03-101 BC (E. \ an t Dock, W.C1aryssc, G.Cohe
Quaegebeur J.K. Winnicki, The Judeon-Syr
Egyptian Conflicl 0/103 IOJ B.G.. A MuJtlltng
Dossier Concerning a War o/Sceptres (Coffecta
HefJenistica I, 1989) pp. 37-81). Although
correspondence is sometimes addressed to Pates al
who is presumably the senior hekatontarchoftheslm
more usually the correspondence is addressed to P
and Pachrates the Mgemones of
the
slmeio. We
assume from this,
I
believe, that it
remained
nor
prcctice
down
to thisdate to have theslmela comman
by two hekatontarchs. We also have references in
correspondence to Horos son of Portis the stand
bearer, and to Hores son of
Nechoutes,
the
man
has been elected . This second Hores is known to h
been an older man probably in his 40s, and so the
he
is
given
may
be the demotic Egyptian equivalen
the Greek oUI'agos. Pentekontarchs are now
mentioned in these documents, as they are
in
the
Lefc
Stele. There are four pentekontarehs to each
slmeia,
to each hekatonlorchia, and it would be logica
conclude, I think, that these pentekontarchs w
considered as officers (hlgemones) rather
than
taxe6n.
The stcle also, most fortunately, provides us w
infonnation as to the actual strength (the parade st
of some
of these simeiaiwhilst perfonning garrison
in a relatively remote posting, as opposed to t
theoretical establishment ) strength.
establishment strength
of
the Ptolemaic maniple
is
known, but we compare its organization to that o
Asclcpiodotan hekatOnlarchia oflight-infanuy (Asc
6.3), which was divided into two penlekonatarchia
64 men each, and which may. indeed. reflect Ptolem
practice and terminology at this point rather t
Seleucid, it would be reasonable to assume that
Ptolemaic hekalonlachia also had an establishm
strength of 128. In columnUwe can seepenlekontarc
with actual p ar ad e s ta te s of 13+ fo r the f
pentekontarchio
ofthe first
helwtontarchio
and 5 for
second. In the second hekalontarchia of the semeia
two pentekontarchiai have strengths
of
32 and 7. In
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
slmeiai listed in column III the one at the top of the
column has a second hekatontarchia with
pentekontarchiai numbering 10+ and 6, while the second
semeia has pentekontarchiai of 25 and 5+ in its first
hekatontarchia. These slmeiai had, therefore, fallen
,-ell
below their establishment strengths of 256 due to
transfers,
death and
disease,
and discharge
upon
tennination of contract. Under these circumstances the
practice seems to have been
to
maintain the
first
pentekontarchia
of
each hekatontarchia at approximately
half its es tablishment s trength, so as to preserve its
operational capacity, but to allow the second to fall to
cadre strength.
The Regimental Head-Quarters.
Although the items i n t he first colwnn are very mixed,
including individuals not belonging to the military
(cC.
Launey
p. 41 n.
7
on
the po/itikol), and odd individuals
from a variety
of
military units who happen to
be
present
atthefort at Hennopolis Magna for various reasons. some
interesting conclusions can
be
drawn from lines 35-49,
which would seem to list the HQ element
of
Those
formerly with Dryton . Eudoxos son ofTimokles is given
the title grammateus
of
the .syntaxis, therefore \\ C can
assume that the correct expanded title of the unit in
question is The Syntaxis fonnerly
with
Dryton . The
tenn syntaxis is rare, but perhaps occurs elsewhere. For
example, a paymaster
of
a { ]taxis
of
the infantry
occuring in a damaged papyrus could be restored to read
{syn]taxis, though a n um be r
of
other restorations are
possible. and the dateof the papyrus is 174 BC, which
is
probably too early for the refonn P GrenJ I 10, 8
tl CilV
ClK tOIUo6ol;;;
cf. Lesquier
p.
92).
The title given to the commander of this syntaxis is
h l g m ~ n
ep
a n d r ~ n .
The
precise meaning of this term
is obscure and much debated.
It
could be argued that the
tenn
was
restricted to regimental commanders. My guess
would be, however, that it is used simply to conlrast
commissioned
officers,
who
commanded the
subordinate
officers, the
heka tonta rchs and
pentekontarehs, and the men s t r a t i ~ t a i )
of
the semeia,
with
the hegemones
x ~
t x ~ n (see below) who
commanded the ex6
taxe6n
of
the semeia. The
heka10ntarchs would report to the regimental commander
to receive their orders. I
don t
know i the
three
sons
of
officers were really attached to th e regimental
headquarters i n a mi lit ary sense, t ha t
is i
they were
officer cadets ,
or
i they are simply listed at this point
for the sake
of
convenience.
A number of explanations for the
tenn
hegemones exi
taxe6n h av e b ee n a dv an ce d b efo re
cf.
Van I Dack
Ptoemaica
Se/ecta pp. 70-71),
but all
of them
unconvincing.
The
two hegemones ex6 taxe wer
presumably reported to by the exiJ
taxe6n. The
herald
may have reported to on e and
the
standard-bearen t
the other. s h s already been mentioned, wedon tknow
precisely how the heralds and standard-bearers divide
up the administration
of
the
s2meiai,
but it would b
reasonable to assume that the two hlgemones taxe6
divided the regimental administration along the sam
lines.
In
other words,
the
hlgemones
taxe6n are
the
equivalent of the
modem
regimental quartennaster
sergeants. The third person laxe6n given in the lis
of regimental staff is not an officier (hegemon). He ma
be a regimental storeman. One should note that
th
hyplretes,
or
attendant is not listed in the Lefebvr
Stele at eilher manipular
or
regimental level. this
ran
is, however, attested in the papyri for this period,
an
also in the later Roeder Stele from Hennopolis discusse
below. It is probable, therefore, that this non-oflicer
t a x e ~ n at re gim ent al level h el d
the
official rank
o
hypiretes, even though
this
is not expressly stated in the
inscription. In Column L
61
an archypiretes xenilwu
or
head
attendant
of
the mercenazy force is listed. H
preswnablyperfonned the same function
as
the hyplrete
ie. distributionof stores) at a level above the syntaxis.
The documentation of
the syntaxis would be th
responsibility
of
the grammateus secretary or clerk
Eudoxos son ofTimokJes.
Just
as the ouragoi arc liste
at the bottom ofeach semeia, thegrammateus is listed a
the bottom of the staff of the syntaxis. Presumably the
ouragol reported to the grammateus with the parad
states etc.
of
the various semeiai.
this
were the case
thegrammateuscould be considered to be the equivalen
of
the Regimental Sergeant Major of a modem infantr
banalion.
The Jougct
and Roeder Stelai from Hermopolis.
Two further inscriptions from Hennopolis Magna giv
us infonnation on the Ptolemaic syntaxis at a later date
Though the
basic
out line remains
unchanged
considerable organizational changes have taken place
The
basic work
on
these two stelai is Friedrich ZUeker
Doppelinschriflsp tpJo/emdischerZeit aus
del
Ga .,ison
van Hermopolis Magna = Abhand/ungen de
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaflen, Jahrgan
/937, Nr 6, 1938), to which should be added
th
fragments published inAegyptus 18 1938) pp. 279-284
Zuker demonstrated that the two stelai together listed
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
regiment called The Apolloniate Mercenaries
; VOl
AnoAM>Vla.tCn)
composed
of
mercenaries originally
from the Idumaean city of Apollonia, who were now
resident in Egypt. The stelai are dated to 25th. January
78, and it is possible that the Idumaean community had
originally become displaced by the expansion of the
Jewish state in the last decades of the second century
BC.
The two stelai together list six
semeiai,
numbered from
one
to
six. The regimental commander, one Herakleides
son of Apollonios, one of the First Friends and
hlgem6n, and phrourarchos garrison-eommander), is
in personal command
of
the fifith
slmeia.
The reason
forthis
is,
presumably, that when the regiment
was
drawn
up in es triplex the fifth semeia would be drawn up at
the back on the right-hand side, and when the regiment
was
drawn up in ocies duplex it would be stationed in
the centre
of
the rear line. Despite damage to the surface
of the stone, it is clear that all the other
slmeiai
are
commanded by a simple Mgem6n, they all have an
ouragos
and standard-bearer, and four pentekontarchs,
but the anny -herald and the hekatontarch are both gone.
The sixth
slmeia
also had a
hyplrerls,
listed after the
pentekontarchs, who presumably acted as the
hypiretes
for the whole regiment. The second imeia only has three
pentekonlarchs, but it also has an officer with some title
beginning with the le tte r
gamma. He
may be the
grammateus of the regiment, doubling up as one of the
pentekontarchs of the second
semeia.
he
second
semeia
included.a sacred-flautist and the fourth a sacred
psalmist,
but
these are titles connected with the distinctive
religious practices of this Idumaean unit of religious
exiles, and have no military significance.
Despitethe breaks in the stone, Zucker p. 28) calculated
that the first
semeia
had a strength of96, the second 55,
the third 68, the fourth 64, the fifth 62 and the sixth 61.
In other words, the regiment was at approximately
quarter-strength.
It is
uncertain whether the first
semeia
was maintained
at
a greater strength than the others
deliberately, or whether this was simply chance. These
figures have
to be
treated with some caution, however,
as fragments
found
subsequently could potentially add a
few names onto the tolals for the last three
semeiai,
but
not substantially. One of these fragments Aegyptus 18
1938)
p.
281) lists one Hemolaos son
of
Apollonios, a
military herald a.1J.lCXtucd,; KTlpul;) and high.priest, nd
perh ps
fifteen names below
the founhslmeia.
TheextIa
fifteen names given are Idumaians. but
are
perhaps not
military
persormel.
Belowthe third
simeia
are listed
some
seventeen or so native Egyptian Royal Swordbearers
selected from th e
Companies
E Y s o X l a ~ s
J,La.Xa.lPO.pOPC)l fkwv..lKOl).
We
don t knowexaet1yw
these troops are. Perhaps they could
be
gendarmes
baggage-carriers attached
to
the regiment.
In t he first century, th erefore, t he command
a
administrative staff had been slimmed down somew
The breaking up of the Regimental Headquarters
and
distribution among the
imeiai
may just
be an cxped
practised in
this
regiment, as it was considerably be
strength. One presumes, however, that the reduction
the numbers of military heralds from one per
lmela
one per
reg iment, and
more importantly,
discontinuation of the rank of hekatontarch, ref
changes which had taken place throughout the Ptolem
army as
a
whole.
The Military Refonns ofthe Early First
Ceotury
We
have already mentioned the
semeia
commanded
Pates
and
Pachrates, who were presumably b
hekatontarehs, during the warof103-101 BC. Other th
these two, the latest certain reference to
a
helcatonta
is to Pasion, a hekatontarch in Askepiadcs
Mgemo
of
the soldiers
of
Akoris in documents
of 103
BC
Pr
Ptol. 232S).
The abolition of the post ofbelcatontareb
the Ptolemaic anny, and its replacement by a sin
hegemon in command of
the semeia, may
have co
shortly after.
A prominent figure in Ptolemaic military circles dur
these
years
was one Philostephanos,
who may
poss
have
been a descendant
ofthe
mous
tbird-eentury
re
writer Philostephanos of Cyrene. Phitostephan
commanded the army of Ptolemy IX Soter Lathy
against the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus in
103 B
His greatest victory was achieved at the battle fough
Asophon, o n the east bank
of
the Jordan, whe
commanding
an
army
of
only 30,000 foot and horse
inflicted a defeat on Alexander s army of 50 or 80,0
troops
by
a skilful manoeuvre on the battlefield. Josep
Ant Jud. 13.340 - I would like to thank Richard Tay
for initially bringing my attention to this passa
describes Philo ste ph ano s as a m il it ar y w ri te r
ta.KtlKoi;), and Pluta.rch has preserved one of
fragments in the
Life
Lycurgus
23.1). Ptole
Lathyrus, then an exile, only re-eonquered Egypt in
9BC and ruled until 81. lfPhitostephanuswas
associa
with these reforms, though there is
no
evidence tha
was, they may have taken place during this period.
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
The L..efeb\ te Sfele from Hermopolis photo: P.M. Fraser)
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
The ougetStele from Hermopolis photo: P.M. Fraser).
This stele lists the officers of the seeondsemeia of The Apolloniate Mercenaries . Although almost impossible t
here, there
s
a letter g mm defining the rank of the person named n the sixth line down; this cannot
interp
with any certainlY, but it could possibly stand or gr mm teus
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
Tbe
ocder
Slele from t-Icrmopolis after Zucker).
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
Diag. SI Catalogue
of
the Sidon stelai in tabular
fonn
indicatingwhich have
been
pictorially depic
in this volume
and
their whereabouts Some of the stelai were
damaged
to such an
extent
that eve
photographs exist reproduction in this volume is infeasible.
J
Stele without inscription
[2] Stele ofHekataios ofThcatcira
[3] Stele of Salmas ofAdada
[4] Stele ofKartadis the Lycian
[5] Stele
of
Diodotos son ofPatron
a Cretan from
Hyrtakina
[6] Stele ofSaettas
a
Pisidian
of
Tennessos
[ ] Stele ofDioskourides a Pisidian from Balboura
[SJ Second Stele without inscription
Platefigures 9a-c
Platcfigure 9d
Platefigure lOa
Platefigure lOb
Platefigures
IOc d
Platefigurc
lle
Platefigure lib
Platefigurc
lla
Colour Photo 1 Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Colour Photo
2
Fig.
6
Fig.
6
Fig. 6
Fig.
1
Colour Photo 3 Fig. 7
Fig.
9] Stele of Eunostides son of Nikanor a Perrhaibian Platefigures 12a-c Colour Photo 4 Fig. 7
10]
SteIeofa
Warriorfrom [?Oroa]nda.
[11] Stele ofAristeidas a Lakedaimonian from Gythion.
[12] Stele ofStomphias SOD ofApoUonides
a Carian from Euromos.
13] Stcle erected by the oliteum
of
the Kaunians.
[14] Stclc of [?Her]molukos.
15] Stele of Zenon ofRhodiapolis.
[ 6]
Stele of [As]k1epa[-j.
[17]
Third
Uninscribed Stele.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
APPENDIXS
THE PAINTED TOMBSTONES
FROMSIDON.
n
1897
a number of painted tombstones
had
come to
light in SaIda. the ancient Sidon, as a result of chance
discovery.
number \\ ere moved into the caravan-serai
in
Saida lhc next year. The discoveries had been made
the garden known as
Bostan
elHamoud to the south
ofthetov.n, at the foot
of
the hill dominated by the ancient
fortress. few of the stelai discovered in 1897 ere left
where they
had
been found. TIle discoveries had aroused
quite a substantial amount of curiosity in the scholarly
;\l Orld,
and in
1903
Macridy Bey camed
out
a sondage
on behalf of the Imperial Ottoman Archaeological
Museum
in
the area in order
to recover what he could
of
the material which still remained. Three pits were sunk
in
the garden. From the first came numerous fragments
of stucco belonging to stelai destroyed in lhc course of
the earlier excavations, and from the other two a diverse
selection of material, including some late Hellenistic
pottery and lwo fragments of vases decorated in relief
_ith
represenlations
of
the god Bes. At a depth
of
seven
metres a wall was found, late in
dau;
constroeted
of
re
used
material includinga number of painted tombstones.
l l the tombstones showed deceased warriors, and
Macr:idy
Bey
concluded
tMlthe
material originally came
from a
military
necropolis
established
by
foreign
mercenaries in the vicinity.
t
is reasonably safe to
CXlnclude that these mercenaries all belonged to
units
comprising the garrison of Sidon. Seven of the beuer
preserved Slelai were removed to the Archaeological
Museum in Istanbul. The others, left in Sidon, haven t
W \ived. Photographs
of
a few
of
Ihese tombstones left
Sidon exist. This group
of
material has not been
subjected to the scholarly attention it descrves. Academic
opinion has
been
divided as
10
whether Ihe troops
belonged to the Seleucid or Ptolemaic army, and
OJI lSequentlyas to the date
of
the malerial. The arguments
run
as follows: Essentially,
i f
the stelai are Ptolemaic,
they
should dale to the third century, as Koile-Syria was
lost to the Seleucids after 199 BC.lfthe stelai are Seleucid
they
should belong second century. Current opinion
terns to
be
that the stelai are Ptolemaic, daling
10
the
e third century.
opinion is that the tombstones mustdate to the second
c:entury. Firstly one of the soldiers is dressed in Roman
c:;uipmenl, for which there is noevidence in eilher army
before the lOOs. Secondly, one of the deceased holds the
a nk
of
semeiophoros or standard-bearer, and so too is
unlikely to date any earlier
than
the 16Os. Thus a date in
the
160sorafterscems reasonablycertain,
and Iheyamld
hardly be given a date later than the second century, for
stylistic
and o ther
reasons. Given
the
Ptolemaic
intervention in Koile-Syria in the years
1.50-14.5, the
question
of
whether they are Ptolemaicor Seleucid must
remain
more
open to debate. My opinion is that they
must
be
Ptolemaic, and they must date to
the
years
of
the
intervention.
The
PoliJeumo.
The Cuncrary inscriptions
of
many of the soldiers tell us
that they belonged to politeumata. Politeumata are thus
far only attested for thePtolemaic army, and only for the
second century. t
is, indeed, possible thal they
were
another innovation dating to the reign
of
Philometor.
Politeuma
could be translated as citizen body , but how
the system actually functioned in Egypt is more or less
completely unknown, and do not intend to enter into a
lengthyand inconclusivediscussion
ofthe
institution here
(on the politeumata at Sidon see M. Rostovtzeff, h
Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World
lIP (1953) p. 1401 n. 137; Launey pp. 1081-1084).
Although the
politeumata
are thus far attested
as
existing
only in Ptolemaic Egypt, this may simply be a trick
of
the evidence.
Papyrological
evidence,
of
which a
substantial proponion is concerned with legal matters
such as an individual s membership of a poJileuma
has
only survived for Egypt in any quantity, but
not
for
the
Seleucid or Antigonid Empires. Consequently it would
be extremely hazardous to assert that the
polileumata
ere
an
exclusively Ptolemaic institution, though this
happens to be the case at the moment.
We might compare the Ptolemaic institution
of
the
p i g o n ~ The bearers of this status seem to be descendants
of
the
original Gracco-Macedonian settlers who
constituted the Ptolemaic bodypolitic. The institution
is
attesled in imrnwnerable papyri fromEgypt, but outside
Egypt only in a single funerary inscription (assuming
Ihe reading to
be
correct from Pagasai Demetrias
olemon 4 1949/50 p.
83-4
no. 256 ,
comrnemmorating Solion
son
of Dionysios, one of the
epigonoi .
Eal tlrov
lUOVOC}lOO
W \I 7tl (O\IC.oV
Noethnic is given in this inscription, which, presumably,
should be taken as
an
indication that the deceased
was
a
citizen ofDemetrias. Whal the institution of
the epigonoi
19
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
was
in the Antigonid kingdom, and what relationship it
bore to the Ptolemaic institution
of
the epigone are
unknown, but had this single inscription not survived,
we
might have assumed thal the
P10lemaic
institution
of
the epigone
was
an isolated phenomenon.
Many scholm (eg. Morkholm
p.
138
n.12) have simply
asswned
the
politeumata
to have been an institution
common to all the Hellenistic kingdoms. Tarn
BactriQl
p.
18 nt
5) has postulated lhe existence ofa
poJiIeuma
of
Syrians in Seleuceia-on-Tigris from a passage in
Josephus Ant. Jud 18.372), who tells us thatduring the
Parthian period
there
lived in Seleuceia many
Macedonians, even more Greeks, and there were also
not a few Syrians enrolled in the citizen body
(otKOOCJ\V 5aO'tTlv 1 t O A J . . o ~ IJE:v McuC:OOovQ:w
7 t A ~ c r t m
s E:U.T\vs,
sonv
Kal
EuJXOv
OUK O ~ y o v 'to
S I . l . 1 t O A . ~ t E U O J . 1 v o v ) . Tarn argued thal this last word
which
is
the verb
of
1 t O A . ~ t f : U J . l . C X
not
of
1 t O A . ~ / ;
or
1tOA.l'tT\r;'
demonstrated that the
ordpoliIeuma
was not
confined to Egypt But it
is
not the verb
of pofiteuma
it
is
simply
afona of
the
Verbeq>j..L1tOA.l'tE00l 'to
hold citizen
rights', a word found in Thucydides, from which the
noun pofiteuma is alsoderived. ElsewhereJosephus Ant.
Jud 18.378) tells us that whoever
of
the Syrians who
was a citizen (OftOOOV T\V L o P C l J V S J . l . 1 t O A ~ t 8 U O V ) j O i n e d
in the hostility to the Babylonian Jews. What these
passages seem to imply
is
that Seleuceia, and the other
cities which had once been within the Seleucid Empire,
had a single citizen
body,
which
may
have been called a
po/iteuma which included many Macedonians, more
Gret;ks,
and not a few Syrians. Thepassagesdo not seem
to imply that Seleuceia hada
poJiteumaof
Macedonians,
a separate
pollteuma of
Greeks and another
politeuma
of
Syrians, which
is
what Tarn wished to read into the
passage.
The Ptolemaic
politeumata
seem to have been crealed at
a specificdate for a specific purpose, and theyare named
after different ethnic groups: 'the
pofiteuma of
the
Cretans' for example. If
politeuma
did exist as aword or
as
an
institution in the Seleucid Empire, for which there
is as
yet
no fmn evidence, there is no reason why
it
should
have been in exactly the same fonn as thc Ptolemaic
po/fteuma. All thal can be said is that the politeuma
where il is attested in the inscriptions
on
the stelai from
Sidon, is
an
ethnic group
of
exactly the same type as the
Ptolemaic pollteuma Therefore a Ptolemaic
imerpretation would fit this matcrial very well. An
argumentum e silentia is, however, never secure.
2
Other Considerations.
r t
historical considerations can rarelybe
used
to
ass
dates
10
ancient material with a margin of error
anything less than several decades. Nevertheless, wb
art-historians have dcalt with the Sidon steW, they
b a
tended to give them a later, rather than an earlier dat
Blanche
R.
Brown
Ptolemaic Paintings
and
Mosai
and theAlerandrian Slyle
(1957) p. 87) thought th t th
loculus-slabs were all in the 'popular' Style which on
emerged in the second century. The 'popular' Si
marked a drop from the dominant level of
artist
production'toa low,
popular
level which is cbaracterizI
by simplified, conventionalized fonns ndcompositiClllS
She noted that, although the Sidon stelai derive from
different stylistic source than the Alexandrian materi
which she was studying, and they therefore use differe
decorative motifs, they are nevertheless comparable
the tombstones belonging
to
her 'Fourth Style',
whid
date to the secondcenrmy. They isolate, abstract.
and repeat
symbols ',
a phenomenonwhichcan alsobec
seen in the treatment of the hwnan figures.
Peter Callaghan
(8 4
75 (1980)
p.
45) considered tb
theTrefoil Stylewreath, which hangs in thefriezebelo
the pediment on many
of
these loculus slabs. indicates
date in the latter half
of
the period
of
Seleuc
domination (ie. the second
half
of the second century
He
realized that this date caused historical problems,
many of the mercenaries came from west
of
the Tawt
Mountains, and so should not have been recruited f
service in the Seleucid anny according to the terms
the Treaty of Apameia, but affinned his conviction th
..
the style of the stelai demand that they
be
placed
in
th
lattcr period . f the soldiers were in Ptolemaic rath
than Seleucid service, ofcourse, this problemdisappea
The letter-fonns of the inscriptions could be put in th
laiC third century, but would fit a date in the middle
the second century well. The letters are not apicate
that is, the legs do not splay out at the ends, but there
some thickening. The broken-barred
alpha
appears,
feature which
is
rarely found before the second
centur
Likewise the top and bonom strokes
of
the
sigma
parallel, which is another feature characteristic
of
th
second century and beyond. The theta has a stroke in
th
middle, and this feature
is
rarely found before the midd
of the second century. On the other hand there is som
fine cunring in the letters upsi/on and alpha which
not a characteristic feature
of
a date any later than
th
second, or even the third, century.
The
pi
has its rig
leg shorter th n the left
in
most cases, but in some th
-
5/21/2018 Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (2) Ptolemaic Army.pdf - slidepdf....
http:///reader/full/seleucid-and-ptolemaic-reformed-armies-168-145-bc-2-ptolemaic-
legs are equal, and this lengthening is a process which
took
place during the second century. nsome
cases
the
letter
om ron is
equal
to
the other letters in size, but in
others
it is
small and hangs in the middle
of
the line,
which is a late third century feature. For these
reasons
a
date in the middle of the second century would
fit
the
epigraphic style well, but arguments based purely on on
letter-forms can never be regarded as conclusive.
nconclusion, therefore, although complete certainty is
impossible, it
seems
safest
to
conclude that these stelai
must
belong to a Ptolemaic garrison installed in Sidon
during the intervantions of Philometor in 150 or in
147- 145 BC. tis also possible that a Ptolemaic: garrison
was maintained in the
city
between these two
interventions. In the discussion of the individual stelai
which follows, shall assume these dales, but I shall
also discuss in turn the additional dating evidence
supplied by some the individual stelai.
Catalogue.
Seventeen(most
of
them
inscribed)
individual stelai were
recovered either in whole or in part, but
of
these only
seyen survive,
th nks
to the efforts ofMacridy Bey, and
are in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. I have
only given a shortened bibliography
to
the principal
referenceswhere each item has been
diS l lSS d
Mendel s
catalogue
of
the sculptures
of
the Istanbul ArchaeologicaJ
Museum, where cited, contains a full bibliography of
earlier publications.
The sequence in which the stelai are labelled is the one
which was found to be most convenient for the
composition of the colour reconstruction plates, and is
of no other particu1ar significance. Diag.
S
onPage 18
catalogues the stelai in tabular fonn, indicating which
have been pictorially depicted in this volume and their
whereabouts.
Stelai [I] and [2] have been
used
for Plate 9:
11
Stde without inscription (Platefigum9a-c).
Mendel
no. 107.
This stele is preserved in the ArchaeologicalMuseum
in
Istanbul
Jnv. 1169).
Three warriors are shown,
the
one
on the left is, presumably,
the
deceased. He shakes the
hand of lIle second warrior. while the thir warrior also
5tretchesout his right hand too. The
shaking
of bands is
symbolic of the departureof the deceased on the journey
to
Hades. All three warriors
wear
helmets of the same
type, and carry the
t ur os
shield and a single spear.
The helmet shown is of a quite distinctive
type,
which
cannot be parallcled precisely by any surviving example
ofaHcllcnistic helmet. t
is remarkable how themajority
of the warriors dcpicted on the Sidon stelai wear this
identical
type of
helmet:
we
might call it Sidon