The Indo-Greek army
This isn't particularly important, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion. I read up on the Indo-Greeks today, or what little info is out there. I spent a good bit of time at the EB site, too. I really respect what they've done, but I think they've made a key error in their interpretation.
First, I like the idea of Indo-Iranian cavalry as the main Indo-Greek cavalry arm. That fits with what I've read of the area.
Second, I like the EB/RTR idea of the heavy peltasts. That makes sense given the climate/culture/enemies of the region.
Third, I think they've completely misinterpreted the nature of the heavy Greek infantry in the region. They seem to think it was hoplites, based on a drawing of heavy infantry fighting with aspis shields. I strongly suspect these are actually the elite units of the various Indo-Greek kinglets fighting each other armed as hypaspistai.
I think this for several reasons. First, the leadership was probably Macedonian, and would have drilled their Hellenistic infantry as a Mac phalanx. Second, Luke Ueda-Sarson makes a persuasive argument (here: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates1.html ) that the Greek mercs that Alexander had with him were armed as thureophoroi, not hoplites. Therefore, I think it would be rather strange if hoplites appeared in India. Third, it would make sense that the Indo-Greek Successors would emulate Alexander and have a guard of hypaspistai, as opposed to emulating Greek City states they'd never even seen before.
Admittedly, many Greek mercenaries went out there, but by this point in time most of the mercs were probably "Cretans" (or men equipped as such) or thureophoroi, not hoplites.
How does this affect the ExRM? I think I'm going to redo the Indian AOR as having Indo-Greek hypaspists, peltasts (the current Bactrian peltasts), Indo-Iranian cavalry (the current Bactrian Agema), and then the usual medley of locals.
Reply With Quote
