Originally Posted by
Maetharin
Hmm mayby Katoikoi was a more common term, maybe it meant something different from Kleruchoi?
I could imagine that it was a legal defintion and determined the terms of military service.
We can only speculate here, but I doubt it would change anything for the actual gameplay.
It is a bit perplexing, since these terms mean ostensibly the same thing - i.e. military settlers. Maybe the Ptolemaic kingdom used the term Katoikoi Hippeis in order to make it clear that the cavalrymen were a different class altogether, a more elite one? As you say, we can only speculate at this point.
Originally Posted by
Maetharin
Concerning the Jews, I really wonder how they were recruited, maybe they were Misthophoroi Kleruchoi?
Also, when was it established that Jews wore no armour? TheyŽre always depicted without armour, and IŽve never actually seen any kind of proof for this.
WouldnŽt the first thing youŽd buy with your pay be armour?
About the Misthophoroi Kleruchoi - Fischer-Bovet has some information:
The development of the mistophoroi kleruchoi has also been explained by the withdrawal of Egypt from international warfare in the Mediterranean. Local recruitment indeed increased in period B and C and created new types of military institutions such as that of the locally-recruited mistophoroi that Van 't Dack called “milice permamente. However, already at the period A, local recruitment was increasing, but the nature of this phenomenon was slightly different. The immigrants' sons who joined the professional troops already in the third century BC, either as mistophoroi or mistophoroi kleruchoi, were the prototypes of the sons of local well-to-do Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian familes, who became, in second century BC, mistophoroi in Upper Egypt, and mistophoroi, kleruchoi, or mistophoroi kleruchoi in Middle Egypt.
We saw that mistophoroi kleruchoi who were cavalrymen may have received eighty arouras; for Griffith, who criticizes Lesquier, the mistophoroi kleruchoi were different from the kleruchoi in that they were in active service and they were also different from the mistophoroi in that they have received a kleros.
I rather suggest that all the Macedonians obtained kleros but could possibly remain active, thus fitting the concept of mistophoroi kleruchoi.
----
So it would seem that the Mistophoroi kleruchoi could be considered Kleruchoi who were still (or currently) in active service - in that they've received both kleros and regular pay. So in other words - they were free to cultivate their land during peacetime, but when called into military service, they would be also paid. If that was the case, I would assume that the Jewish military settlers in Cyrene could probably be considered Mistophoroi kleruchoi, as they would probably have to be in active service permanently.
And lastly, about the Jewish troops equipment - and their apparent lack of armour, I agree that it would seem that it'd be the first thing you'd buy, if you were a professional soldier. That said, Jewish soldiers almost exclusively fought in the hot climates and most likely weren't granted large arouras of land - and I assume wouldn't be particulary wealthy. Nor would they need heavy panoply since they were mostly employed as garrison troops; thus little to no armour would probably be both sufficient and comfortable.
We can also draw upon the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM and 4QM).
Three kinds of infantry attack in turn, firstly slingers, then javelinmen and finally close-combat troops equipped with an oval shield, sword and 10' spear to finish of the demoralised foe.
However, given the position of a large lacuna in 1QM, it can not be ruled out that of these two ranks, only the second is of slingers and the first is instead of archers. Certainly infantry archers are mentioned in other sources describing Jewish forces.
The equipment of only one sort of infantry is described in any detail. These men carry a shield 2.5 cubits long and 1.5 cubits wide (approximately 115 by 69 cm, but perhaps 105 by 63 cm depending upon the size of the cubit). This has in the past been interpreted as a Roman scutum, but its size is rather too small, much more like the thureoi depicted on many monuments of Hellenistic mercenaries. Each such infantryman carries a sword, 1.5 cubits long, and a spear, 7 cubits long (ca. 320 cm, or 10'8"). No armour is mentioned, no javelins are carried. Such infantrymen would appear to be nothing more or less than standard thureophoroi, save for the apparent lack of a helmet.
1QM - 3.4 says that every man should be equipped like this, but since the slingers, javelinmen and cavalry are all clearly different, this description must only refer to only one line of infantry. The lack of a helmet is somewhat surprising given their close-combat role. It might be thought that the author assumed a helmet was so obvious a piece of equipment it didn't need mentioning, and this would be my preferred interpretation.
Each division is divided into three lines, apparently separated, at least at deployment, by a 30 cubit gap. The first line ordered into battle is comprised of 2 ranks/lines of slingers. They are to deliver seven volleys before they are ordered to retire and take their station on each flank of the formation. The number 7 is rather symbolic and might not be taken literally, although there is nothing on the face of it improbable about it. The next line ordered forwards are 3 ranks/lines of javelinmen. The first rank is to hurl 7 javelins, then the second rank likewise, and then the third rank 7 more volleys, before they too are ordered to retire, though unlike the slingers they do not move to the flanks. Again, the number of volleys may be merely symbolic, but Roman velites are variously reported to have carried either 5 or 7 javelins so once again, the number is not itself implausible.
Certainly there is nothing Roman in the equipment of the infantry - there is a complete lack of body armour, and nothing remotely comparable to the pilum is attested. The emphasis is on showering the enemy with light missile weapons, and only at the very last instant are any sword-strokes envisaged, and even then only by a select few.
(Source: http://lukeuedasarson.com/NewSonsOfLight.html)
----
It's from a later period and it was a rebel army (which would explain it being relatively poorly-equipped), but it does suggest that fighting uencumbered by armour might have been a Jewish way in that time.
As for the Jewish troops look (again, from Dead Sea Scrolls), here's some information:
Start with a deep near-eastern suntan, black hair and full beards for all. The basic man's garment was a tunic made from two rectangular sheets of cloth joined along one narrow edge with an opening left for the wearer's head. Each sheet had two dark stripes woven into it. The stripes ran the length of each sheet and were matched where the sheets joined at the shoulders. The sides of the tunic were not sewn; the garment was held closed with a leather or rope belt. The cloth could be dyed various bright colors, but most Maccabee rebels were poor farm boys, so their tunics would mostly be off-white/greyish unbleached wool with black stripes. Brown, blue or purple stripes were also possible.
Over his tunic a man might wear a mantle, a large rectangular sheet of cloth, wrapped around him or draped over his shoulders. Mantles had dark bands with notched edges woven into them, parallel to and not far from the narrow edges of the sheet. Again, unbleached wool would be the most common fabric for mantles, though they could be dyed in different colors, and black the most common color for the notched bands. Leather sandals.
If you're working in 25mm or larger and you like super-detail, you may want to represent your Maccabees as wearing "tefilin" (small leather boxes of ritual significance) bound to their left arms and foreheads. Ancient "tefilin" were smaller than modern types, so just paint the leather straps.
(Source: http://fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/II43/index.html)
Will be useful when developing their models!
I've also been thinking about changing Cyrene's political factions. Currently there are:
[Political factions]
House of Magas (Magasian Dynasty? Not sure what would be the best term)
Magas of Cyrene (c. 317 – 250 BC) was a son of Berenice I and Philip of Macedon. He was also a stepson of Ptolemy II and ruled Cyrene as his vassal, until 274 BC, when he rebelled and named himself king. Later on he even attempted to seize Alexandria, but was unsuccesful. Although his new found dynasty was short-lived, it's up to the player to change the course of history...
Macedonian Nobility
Macedonian Kleruchoi who have acquired a higher social standing, members of the elite.
Pentapolis Nobility
Greek nobles of the five cities of Cyrenaica - Cyrene, Apollonia, Ptolemais (which ultimately overshadowed Barce), Taucheira and Euhesperides. The “old” aristocracy.
Merchant Oligarchs
Cyrene maintained commercial contacts both with Greece and with Naukratis in Egypt. The discovery of the mysterious plant called in antiquity silphion, which the kings of Cyrene endeavoured to exercise a monopoly of, has granted considerable profits to the kingdom. Hence the probable rise of the Merchant Oligarchy as an important political power in Cyrene.While Merchant Oligarchs do make sense,I reckon they could very well be represented by Pentapolis Nobility and there is no need to have them as a separate class. I was considering Jewish Nobility instead. Multiple sources point to the Jews being heavily Hellenized, we also know that they were employed at the various levels of administration in Egypt. They were also apparently held in high regard by Ptolemy I, who entrusted the safekeeping of Cyrene to them. Jewish generals served in the Ptolemaic armies of the later periods as well (Helkias and Ananias); that suggest the growing influence of the Jews in the Ptolemaic Kingdom as the time passes. We don't know that much social standing of the Jews in Cyrene in 3rd century BC, but with the aforementioned knowledge we can speculate a bit. In other words, what if Cyrene actually retained its independency (gained by Magas in about 274 BC) and how would it develop then?
First of all, let's consider the role of nobility in the Ptolemaic Kingdom:
Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Tessa Rajak)
Possession of power of some kind – maybe social, economic, or military rather than or in addition to political – is intrinsic to what we mean by aristocracy, as the etymology of the word suggests. (…) The power and wealth of an aristocracy in general must be basically held and transmitted independently of the monarchy. This point is highly relevant here, since the practice followed by the Ptolemies and the other Hellenistic monarchs of rewarding their followers with grants that were temporary, revocable, and not hereditary is one of the features that seem to have inhabited their development into a “classic” aristocracy.
While land is characteristic and readily identifiable source of aristocratic wealth and power, aristocrats have often also tapped other sources of wealth, and one should not insist on the possesion of landed estates as opposed to other forms of transmissible power and wealth, such as temple and scribal office-holding traditionally significant in Egypt.
---
The tradition of Hellenistic monarchs rewarding their followers with temporary grants certainly provides some historical basis for the inclusion of the Jewish Nobility into the Cyrene's politcal factions system:
- Jews were numerous in Cyrene;
- They were also heavily Hellenized and were known to have assimilated quickly into the Hellenistic societies of Ptolemies and Selecuids;
- They migrated there as military settlers, possibly as Mistophoroi Kleruchoi, which implies at least a certain level of power;
- Since they held the garrisons of Cyrene, Magas had to either pacify them militarily or somehow persuade them to join him; the latter seems more likely to me;
- If they were indeed persuaded, they would've liked received the aforementioned grants of land - and thus power;
- Given the difficulty of recruiting Macedonian/Greek soldiers (which only increased as time passed by) it stands to reason to assume that the role of Jewish mercenaries would only grow with time;
- Magas had to establish a powerbase within the region - The Jews, as loyal and dependable soldiers seemed ideal for this task.
It's also to be expected that the Jewish military settlers would have most likely tried to exploit the power struggle between Magas and Ptolemy II, as they did exploit the temporary successes of Ptolemies and the Seleucids against each other. The Jewish military settlers would have likely gained considerable pull after backing Magas' ambitions:
Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij
Judaea in 331 BC had become part of the state of Alexander of Macedonia as a result of battle of Issa. After this the country for almost a century and a half was an apple of discord and an arena of embittered struggle between two succesor states, the heirs of Alexander, namely Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria. The Jewish nobility, the major slave-owners and the highest order of the priesthood for the most part exploited the temporary success of one side or the other, trying to gain them for the maximum benefit for themselves. Sometimes internicine strife flared up between different groups of Jewish magnates, supporters of different factions.
---
Furthermore, there's strong papyrological evidence of Jewish Politeumas in Ptolemaic Kingdom (i.e. the minority populations who had some degree of self-government and independent jurisdiction). It is very likely that the Jewish military settlers would've established a similar self-governed organization in Cyrene. Not only that, there's some evidence of Jewish commanders in the Ptolemaic army as well; which would support the possible addition of Jewish Nobility into Cyrene's political factions.
First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt (A. Kasher)
The putting down of roots by priest Hezekiah and his Jewish countrymen in Egypt (in the days of Ptolemy I) might be evaluated as the establishment of a military settlement (katoikia). It stands to reason that this politeia contained the conditions of military service of Hezekiah and his men, the like of which was used in other similar cases, since the legitimate basis for military service was mainly by contract. The politeia seemingly defined the rights of Hezekiah's men to be organized as a politeuma, and more precisely as a katoikia instituted and regulated according to ancestral laws.
The above mentioned politeia is to be estimated as a “charter” for the new community, which stated the community's political organization and rights. It is worthwhile emphasizing that the standing of a priest as a leader of a military settlement indicates an organization of a unit with defined religious and national character. It does not surprise us, therefore, that priests are mentioned in Ps. Aristeas 310 among the leaders of the Jewish politeuma in Alexandria, a body which originally was of a military character.
Logically, the right to adhere to ancestral laws while serving in the army was common to soldiers in consolidated units based on ethnical and religious characteristics, such as those serving in Cyprus for example (the ethnic military associations in Cyprus were also headed by priests). It seems that Alexander Macedon's invitation for Jews to serve in his army is to be judged similarly, since he stressed that those Jews would be allowed to maintain ancestral laws.
Josephus states further that Ptolemy sent groups of Jewish settlers to Cyrene and other Libyan cities in accordance with his policy of strengthening his military and political hold there. Undoubtedly the term which is used by Josephus in this context is related to military settlement. Strabo defined Jewish communities in Cyrene and Egypt by this very term, and according to his opinion this pointed to the form of Jewish communal organization. The structural framework of these bodies is very clearly expressed by Strabo's testimony, as it is quoted by Josephus in Ant. XIV, 114-117, particularly be referring to the Jewish community in Alexandria as an “independent politeia”. The liberation decree of Ptolemy II Philadelphos to the Jewish captives who had been brought to Egypt in his father's days (Ps. Aristeas 22-25) gave the opportunity to many of them to join the military ranks, and probably they were enlisted in groups which were organized as Jewish units.
One of the most important documents pertaining to Jews in the third century BC, CpJud. I, 19 (dated 226 BC), relates do soldiers bearing the ethnical designation “Jew”, who were living in Arsinoe, the central city of Fayyum. Paying attention to the existence of a Jewish community in this city, a fact which is indicated by some other documents, we can state that the Jewish military settlers were authorized to maintain a self-organized body of their own. The document proves by the many Jewish names mentioned in it (over twenty in number) that there was indeed a firmly consolidated Jewish unit in Sarneia and its neighborhood. It is even possible to clearly discern between simple soldiers and the ranks of the officers; and the Jewish identity of the latter is irrefutable.
The papyrological findings prove also the existence of Jewish commanders before the days of Onias IV. They were serving either in integrated units, or in distinct Jewish ones. It seems that among the first Jewish commanders we should point out Tubias, the senior officer in charge of the cleruchy in Trans-Jordania which contained soldiers of various ethnic origins.
In the Fayum an important inscription was found in which the name of Ela'azar, son of Nicolaos, the hegemon was mentioned. This very term applied to high military position in the Ptolemaic army which was only secondary to that of the strategos.