Ptolemaic army after Panion

[nikgaukroger]

Been reading around the Ptolemaic army recently. Mainly:

"Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt" by Christelle Fischer-Bovet

"The Army of Ptolemaic Egypt 323 to 204 BC: An Institutional and Operational History" by Paul Johstono (actually covers some bits post 204BCE as well)

"Military Institutions and State Formation in the Hellenistic Kingdoms" - Paul Johstono's PhD thesis

Plus some bits and pieces from Academia.edu by the same authors.

All of these heavily use the papyrological evidence from Egypt, especially the Fayum, which relate to the military settlers.


Having worked my way through these, especially the thesis which cover it more than the other two now I was particularly interested in the section on the Ptolemaic army following the 5th Syrian War and its development through the "Great Revolt".

Johstono argues for a dramatic decline in the settler phalanx after catastrophic losses at Panion which do not appear to have been replaced, with it being replaced by thyreoforoi (basically) who are more permanently under arms and in garrisons throughout Egypt to keep order. He also sees "reform" of some infantry inspired first by the Galatians and then, maybe, by Rome (as Sekunda has postulated). What "Galatian" means in a Ptolemaic context is a bit up in the air as these are a "pseudo-ethnic" category of settlers (like "Thracian" and others) and not Galatian mercenaries - although at Raphia the settler "Galatians" and "Thracians" were brigaded with recently recruited "true" Galatians and Thracians which may suggest they were still similar in function.

In general in army list terms it feels like his model would put the date for what the Ptolemaic list has as the final phase of the Ptolemaic army not as mid-C1st BCE but as early to mid-C2nd BCE.

[badhabum]

Do you sometimes sleep ?

[Jilu]

Do you sometimes sleep ?

who needs to sleep when you can paint and read  instead

[lionheartrjc]

It is plausible.  170 BCE seems to be the last time an Egyptian invasion of Syria was planned and I think it is reasonable to assume that to fight the Seleucids that the Ptolemies would have needed a pike phalanx.  After this time, there is little evidence for an effective Ptolemaic field army as Egypt became entangled in Roman politics.  Such forces as existed were to fight your rival (usually a brother or sister), supress the Alexandrian mob or to put down native revolts.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

Don't forget Ptolemy VI's intervention in a Seleukid civil war in 145 BCE where for a brief time he was possibly recognised as de facto ruler of both kingdoms but was then killed. No information on the troops he had though.

[nikgaukroger]

Which reminds me. In 145 BCE Ptolemy VI and the Seleukid Demetrius II fought against the Seleukid Alexander I defeating and killing him, although Ptolemy was mortally wounded dying a few days later. As far as I know Demetrius had troops (including Cretans) as well as Ptolemy and so would suggest that there should be a Seleukid ally allowed to the Ptolemaics in 145 BCE.

Related as it involved an ally, at Panion a significant part of the Ptolemaic army was Aitolian - in fact the C-in-C was an Aitolian in Ptolemaic service and had recruited a large contingent of his countrymen to fight for the Ptolemaics; Grainger suggests maybe 10,000 in all, infantry plus cavalry, but that may be a bit high. The Aitolian cavalry defeated the non-catafract Seleukid cavalry they faced and the infantry defeated a part of the Seleukid phalanx but then the Aitolians were held back by a line of Seleukid nellies. In the meantime the rest of the Seleukid army defeated and destroyed the Ptolemaic phalanx.

[nikgaukroger]

Another related is Ptolemy IX sending 6000 troops to aid Antiochos IX to fight the Jewish kingdom.

From Josephus - "So they returned to Samaria, and shut them again within the wall, till they were forced to send for the same Antiochus a second time to help them, who procured about six thousand men from Ptolemy Lathyrus, which were sent them without his mother's consent, who had then in a manner turned him out of his government. With these Egyptians Antiochus did at first overrun and ravage the country of Hyrcanus after the manner of a robber, for he durst not meet him in the face to fight with him, as not having an army sufficient for that purpose, but only from this supposal, that by thus harassing his land he should force Hyrcanus to raise the siege of Samaria;"

Ptolemaic ally for Later Seleukid?

[lionheartrjc]

Another related is Ptolemy IX sending 6000 troops to aid Antiochos IX to fight the Jewish kingdom.

From Josephus - "So they returned to Samaria, and shut them again within the wall, till they were forced to send for the same Antiochus a second time to help them, who procured about six thousand men from Ptolemy Lathyrus, which were sent them without his mother's consent, who had then in a manner turned him out of his government. With these Egyptians Antiochus did at first overrun and ravage the country of Hyrcanus after the manner of a robber, for he durst not meet him in the face to fight with him, as not having an army sufficient for that purpose, but only from this supposal, that by thus harassing his land he should force Hyrcanus to raise the siege of Samaria;"

Ptolemaic ally for Later Seleukid?

To me this is not an ally.  The troops supplied were not an independent command (they were probably mercenaries in Lathyrus' employ).  It might be a contingent in Seleucid list - fine for a scenario game but probably not for general lists.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

Another related is Ptolemy IX sending 6000 troops to aid Antiochos IX to fight the Jewish kingdom.

From Josephus - "So they returned to Samaria, and shut them again within the wall, till they were forced to send for the same Antiochus a second time to help them, who procured about six thousand men from Ptolemy Lathyrus, which were sent them without his mother's consent, who had then in a manner turned him out of his government. With these Egyptians Antiochus did at first overrun and ravage the country of Hyrcanus after the manner of a robber, for he durst not meet him in the face to fight with him, as not having an army sufficient for that purpose, but only from this supposal, that by thus harassing his land he should force Hyrcanus to raise the siege of Samaria;"

Ptolemaic ally for Later Seleukid?

To me this is not an ally.  The troops supplied were not an independent command (they were probably mercenaries in Lathyrus' employ).  It might be a contingent in Seleucid list - fine for a scenario game but probably not for general lists.

Richard

I can live with that 

[nikgaukroger]

Related as it involved an ally, at Panion a significant part of the Ptolemaic army was Aitolian - in fact the C-in-C was an Aitolian in Ptolemaic service and had recruited a large contingent of his countrymen to fight for the Ptolemaics; Grainger suggests maybe 10,000 in all, infantry plus cavalry, but that may be a bit high. The Aitolian cavalry defeated the non-catafract Seleukid cavalry they faced and the infantry defeated a part of the Seleukid phalanx but then the Aitolians were held back by a line of Seleukid nellies. In the meantime the rest of the Seleukid army defeated and destroyed the Ptolemaic phalanx.

Looking a bit more at this I think the Aitolians would actually be a large mercenary contingent and not an ally - like the case from Josephus really.