Macedonian Missile Cavalry

[LeoDowner]

I've noticed that even though Macedonia has some of the best Infantry in the game they only ever seem to recruit Prodromoi and local Thracian Cavalry which are also Skirmisher Cavalry. I'm about to move into lower Greece where Sparta, Athens, Corinth and Elis are and to guard their Cities they only seem to be recuiting Prodromoi! Why not Hypaspistai? They have the money to get the elite units but instead they've been sending full stacks of Skirmisher Cavalry and Peltasts with only 3 or 4 Phalanxes.

At least they are almost out of the way, they started moving up the Adriatic and North into Sarmatian terroritory so I thought I should step in to prevent a 'black death'. Fighting stack after stack of Macedonians makes the game very boring though, it's a common campaign ender for me.

[Jamey]

The AI seems to get wonky when you start really cutting into its territory. It starts producing large numbers of cheap units rather than smaller numbers of high quality units. Another factor is that it sounds like you've beaten back Macedon so it's not in its starting zone. It may not have any barracks where it can produce heavy infantry currently, so it's producing the AOR units that it can.

[LeoDowner]

They still have all of southern Greece with Cities like Corinth, Athens & Elis. Some of which they have owned since the start and others which were taken just a few years after the game began. The faction rankings says they have around 20,000denarii to spend but they still train rubbish units. I think they want to be conquered.

[Delvecchio1975]

They still have all of southern Greece with Cities like Corinth, Athens & Elis. Some of which they have owned since the start and others which were taken just a few years after the game began. The faction rankings says they have around 20,000denarii to spend but they still train rubbish units. I think they want to be conquered.

You will just have to comply then, don't you :hmmm:

[LeoDowner]

I have been! All they have left are the nothing Cities up in the North (Vicus Venedae etc...)

[Wien1938]

Well, to give Quinn a hand, the main body of the Macedonian cavalry by the late 3rd Century BC seems to have been fighting on horseback with javelins.
The Roma Surrectum mod has a great model that I say we should pinch (with permission, oh course). It seems to fit the archaeological research and should be a good troop type to replace the crap Sarissophoroi.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...edonia+Preview
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9...phoroi2ec1.jpg

[florin80]

Well, to give Quinn a hand, the main body of the Macedonian cavalry by the late 3rd Century BC seems to have been fighting on horseback with javelins.

Could you please tell me where you`ve read that?

[Quinn Inuit]

I've seen some similar things. If you check the book in this thread and search "barbarian cavalry" (no quotation marks), it looks like Alexander was phasing out the sarissaphoroi in favor of missile-armed, faster scout cav units: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=148124 (you can't search "sarissaphoroi" 'cause the author uses Greek--I was quite shocked when I realized I could read it)

Wien1938: That unit looks a little heavy. Shouldn't they be more like prodromoi, with a core of hetairoi just like now?

[AqD]

I've seen some similar things. If you check the book in this thread and search "barbarian cavalry" (no quotation marks), it looks like Alexander was phasing out the sarissaphoroi in favor of missile-armed, faster scout cav units: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=148124 (you can't search "sarissaphoroi" 'cause the author uses Greek--I was quite shocked when I realized I could read it)

Wien1938: That unit looks a little heavy. Shouldn't they be more like prodromoi, with a core of hetairoi just like now?

Sarissaphoroi is not missle or melee only cavalry. The word Sarissaphoroi only indicates they're armed with sarissa (-phoroi = -bearer), and from the ancient pics/text they're light armoured or unarmoured. They could carry javelins and do skirmishing just like most cavalry in 280BC did, and launch a charge when there is an opportunity to break enemies.

Most cavalry units in classic era are just not specially trained to be light or heavy.
________
Bubbler Pipe

[Wien1938]

The only pictorial evidence for the sarissophoroi depicts a man wearing a Thracian helmet, long sleeved tunic and wielding a xyston, not a sarissa. Duncan Head posits that "sarissophoroi" was a nickname, and I believe that the original sources refer to them as Prodromoi, not sarissophoroi as a unit name.
Also, Alexander's disbanding of the Prodromoi/Sarissophoroi and their incorporation into the Companions would argue for their already being armed with the xyston. My guess based on the assumption of the Prodromoi not being depicted with javelins - and indeed the impossibility of wielding javelin and xyston at the same time is that the Prodromoi's tactical role was that of fast intervention in a light cavalry fight.
When campaigning in Greece, Alexander could expect to face fewer cavalry and most of it light horse. So if his more numerous light cavalry could pin down the less numerous Greek horse, then the Prodromoi charges would rout them and allow the Companions complete freedom on the battlefield.
When campaiging in Asia where enemy horse would always be more numerous, the Prodromoi would act as a "corset stiffener" to the light horse, charging more swiftly than Companions to relieve the pressure on the Paionian and Thracian light horse, thus preventing the Companions from being distracted from their primary function: acting as the decisive force in the battle.

Quinn, though the evidence from the 3rd Century is hazy, what we can make out via the probable rearmament of Greek and Macedonian (and certainly Thracian) cavalry with shields after Pyrrus is killed at Argos (272), and the evidence from the end of the 3rd and the 3rd Macedonian War (A.Paullus monument) would indicate strongly that the main force of the Macedonian cavalry were rearmed with javelin and shield but that they retained their role as heavy cavalry.
At the Kallinikos skirmish in 171 BC, the Macedonian horse beat their Greek and Roman opposite numbers and charged to break through, which can be interpreted as an exchange of javelins (the shield and heavier armour of the Macedonians telling) in which the enemy were disorganised and then a charge with swords to break through. This interpretation might even allow a retention of the use of the wedge, but that is speculation.
Suffice to say, the depiction from the link if anything a little too light. The evidence suggests breastplate rather than linothrakes and the conversion of the bulk (if not the whole) of the Antigonid cavalry force in the 3rd Century would be most likely to have been a conversion of the Hetairoi, rather than a lighter main force with a Hetairoi base.

On cavalry numbers for Macedon in ExRM, Antigonid Macedon was devastated by civil war, the Gallic invasion and the number of cavalrymen had been severely drained before this as Alexander took the bulk of the Hetairoi into Asia, from where many did not return (not just death but settling in the new kingdoms, where a man could be richer than back home).
I would start from a base of doubling the cost to raise Antigonid Hetairoi and use the current cost to buy the Aspidophoroi (though I remain uncertain about the name). These troops should be good cavalry but not shock horse like the Companions. This would fit into the pattern of Antigonid armies and battles, where the phalanx became the means to victory, the cavalry protecting the flanks.

[florin80]

@Wien1938
I see, so you`re not able to quote from something. You were just posting your own interpretations(very vaguely supported). I was actually looking for the exact piece of text or clear depiction of the unit to see for myself.

QI, thanks for recommending the book!

[Wien1938]

The image of the Sarissophoroi is drawn from a lost tomb painting of about 300 BC. The best reconstruction is in Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head, the image reconstruction clearly shows a xyston rather than a sarissa and there is an interesting reference to a rhetorician (Didymos) who has a story about a Thracian and Philip II (the whole Prodromos entry is on p.104-105, AMPW).

Sorry florin80, reference to Macedonian javelin horse - missed your request!
Here's references, the only surviving image of a late Macedonian (Antigonid) heavy cavalryman is from the Aemillius Paulus monument (can find images on Google).
A general entry on late Antigonid heavy cavalry is in AMPW, p.116, and the literary references from Livy http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy31.html, 31.24 (2nd para) to Philip V fighting from horseback with javelins outside Athens.
Another passage in Livy describes the Roman horse meeting the Macedonian and surprising them by charging, rather than skirmishing (presumably with javelins) 31.35.
Kallinikos skirmish, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy42.html 42.58-9. The implication of the description is that the Macedonian cavalry were not primarily skirmishers but capable of charging as well.
The Kazanluk tomb paintings of Thracian warriors are early third century, approx. after Pyrrus' return from Italy. This would argue for a adoption by Thracians of shields for mounted combat. (http://books.google.com/books?id=5FH...um=1&ct=result, also have a pdf of this)
AMPW, p.116, the entry of Hellenistic Greek shielded heavy cavalry. The reconstruction is based on two reliefs from Thespiai in Boiotia, which for much of our period was an ally of Macedonia. If the Greeks were fighting with shielded, javelin cavalry, then it is possible that the Macedonians were.
Pyrrhus when killed at Argos in 272 was fighting on horseback with a bronze shield - source from Pausanias who records that the Argives kept it as a trophy. http://www.piney.com/ClassPausanIICorinth.html, 2.21.4.

Furthermore, speaking of interpretations, we can interpret that the Macedonian cavalry of the Second and Third Macedonian wars did not behave as other Diadochi heavy cavalry did, they are not described as taking a leading role in the battles, the phalanx being the decisive instrument, unlike in Alexander's time or that of the Diadochi.
It remains possible that the bodyguard cavalry retained the xyston but I think that the passage of Philip V before Athens and the lesser role in the battles would indicate the Macedonian horse being shielded and wielding javelins.
In battles against Roman and Italian cavalry, late Antigonid heavy cavalry seem to have had less impact than the Seleucid cavalry had, where at Magnesia, Antiochos swept the Roman horse from the field using companion cavalry still armed with the xyston. The new kataphractoi were also used in this charge but some were also used to ride down Roman infantry (AMPW, p49). This does not fit the pattern of Antigonid battles where the cavalry ride down light infantry but chiefly engage the enemy horse.

[florin80]

Ok, thank you for the info!
I have the Osprey on thracians and I knew about the thracian depictions. The antigonid armies are the hardest to find something on. For whatever reason Osprey completely avoided any book on the successors and while for the seleucids there`s the Montvert title, on the antigonids there`s nothing so far.
And I had read about the addition of the shields to the hellenistic companion cavalry in more than one place and I think there`s a passage in Arrian(?) which tells of shields for the companions of Alexander. The javelins being the weapon of most("main body") of the antigonid cavalry is the one revolutionary to me, but I have to say I`m still not convinced. You`ve mentioned Head about the thessalian cavalry. What does he say about the antigonid cavalry? Sadly I don`t have access to this. Could you please quote the text or make a short description of it when you have some time?
I want to say, I`m not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I`m just trying to inform myself.

[Wien1938]

No worries (on D.Head).

P.116, Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars.
(Quote)
46. Antigonid Macedonian Heavy Cavalryman
This figure is from the Aemilius Paullus monumnet, which clearly shows that Macedonian cavalry, like the last figure [Greek heavy cavalryman, same page] had adopted large round shields. These have a central rib like the thureos indicating Celtic or Italian origin, but no metal boss or rim is indicated, and unlike the thureos this shield is carried with the rib horizontal. Unlike Macedonian infantry, no pattern is visible on the shield face. Although Peter Connolly says ths shield "is certaintly neither Roman or Greek" it was in fact used by both, whatever its origin. It occurs on Roman coinage (see figure 140) and as for the Greeks it is carried by a cavalry officer in typical Hellenistic short plate cuirass and knotted sash on a relief from near Dashklion, on the borders of Bithynia and Phrygia. The cavalry on the Aemilius Paullus monument carrying these shields cannot be Celts, as Connelly suggests, as we know enough about the orders of battle to be fairly certain that no Celtic cavalry were present, on either side. In addition, the clearest surviving cavalryman has a Macedonian style helmet, with low comb and cheekpieces, very like the silvered iron example from Epeiros, discussed under figure 34, depicted here. One rider shown without his shield has the usual cloak and short muscled cuirass.

Macedonian cavalry seem to have discarded the long xyston and reverted to javelins, since Livy describes their consternation when charged by Roman cavalry; the Macedonians had automatically assumed cavalry would skirmish. He also mentions Philip V himself fighting outside with missiles from horseback, outside Athens. The change may have come about because using long xyston and large shield together was asking oo much of cavalry without saddle or stirrups. The reduced shock power would have been acceptable because of the declining role of cavalry. Pyrrhos, who as noted may have been responsible for introducing cavalry shields to Greece, seems according to Dionysios of Hailkarnassos ti have had his guards armed with xyston in Italy but after his return was using a bronze shield on horseback in his last battle at Argos (Pausanias records that the Argives kept it as a trophy), so may have addopted javelins and shield for himself and his guards.
(end Quote)

Thinking about likely balances, if one combines the quote from Livy about the Macedonians being shocked at the wounds inflicted by the gladius (book 32, I think) with his remark about their being used to spear or javelin wounds, we might surmise that the Macedonian and perhaps Thessalian horse both fought with spear and javelin. This remains a supposition and it is equally possible that the Macedonians fought with javelin and sword.
The source for the Thessalians fighting with javelins is Diodorus describing Thessalians in 368, while coins also show thrusting spears. These describe the Thessalians before the adoption of shields; after the adoption of shields, I see no reason why they would not continue with both.
Greek heavy cavalry before Alexander used javelins and swords and Polybios regarded large round shields has standard Greek cavalry equipment in the 2nd Century BC.
The big problem, as you acknowledge, is the paucity of sources for the early and mid 3rd Century. We have the barest descriptions of the reigns of the kings, Demetrios II being a near blank. We know when he was born, a couple of his acts as King and then when he was killed. We don't even have numbers on the army!
I think the lack of sources is why Osprey have avoided the subject and as is apparent here, there are still a lot of controversies about interpretations of evidence.

[florin80]

That quote was very helpful. Thank you very much!

I think the lack of sources is why Osprey have avoided the subject and as is apparent here, there are still a lot of controversies about interpretations of evidence.

Yes, I realized that, but come on, we`re talking about Osprey. They have depicted carthaginian units in one book without any sort of clear depiction for any of the two units pictured. Joke aside, these wargaming books have their use because they collect what there is (even remotely) related to the subject and one can then draw his own conclusions about it. I hope Head`s book gets reprinted in the near future.

[Wien1938]

florin80, if you're bothered, there are still three copies on amazon.co.uk.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armies-Maced...9077740&sr=1-1.

On Carthaginian units, there has also been a lot of confusion because of Peter Connolly's erroneous, but popular, statement that the Libyan heavy foot who fought with Hannibal were trained in a Macedonian style phalanx. The problem is that there is no evidence for this at all.
For an interesting discussion of unit types in Polybios, see AMPW, p.144.

Also Phil Barker left a message on a yahoo group about Libyan spearmen, here. He concludes that they were similar but not as capable as hoplites.