Imitation Legionaries

[Wodeson]

It's certainly possible Thureophoroi and Thorakitai were at times mistaken for legionaries, but there are other instances of deliberate imitiation, such as Roman officiers training Numidian foot to fight in the Roman style, or the legions the Galatians raised for Caesar. And while there are visual similarities between Thureophoroi and Legionaries, the fighting styles are different. Thureophoroi were deployed either as loose-order javelin skirmishers or close-order defensive spearmen with swords as backup weapons, while legionaries were primarily close-order aggressive swordsmen.

[ROYAL SIPHAI]

Is there any historical source that Armenians used imitation legionaries?????

[Sandraker]

Is there any historical source that Armenians used imitation legionaries?????

As far as I know, the Armenian "Legionaries" existed, but they were developed without Roman influence and only superficially resembled them in that they were heavy swordsmen with big shields and javelins. I think the Romans didn't actually see them as imitations, as far as I know that's a modern idea.

[Ahiga]

Is there any historical source that Armenians used imitation legionaries?????

The sources I've read are all secondary (modern, not period like Livy), but from what I have read "Imitation legionaries" seem to be attested to the Armenians, Numidians, Pontus, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. With Carthage at least the last reference I read suggested his liby-punic men equipped with roman gear still fought primarily with the spear. For Macedon I am utterly unfamiliar but what little bits I had seen came across as they simply made their thuerophoroi heavier rather than really produce manipular legions.

I've got two great ebooks of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 BC by Nick Sekunda and Angus McBride, without knocking Osprey's professionalism these are even more so (with most of the plates not being colored images but rather pictures of period reliefs and artwork).

I cannot upload them as that'd be criminal (And crime is for Romans. ), but from a quick glance over for either. Ptolemies first, then I will post the Seleucids.

Ptolemies:
-Earliest references to a new "Romanized" military structure is 163 BC.
-Lots of bureaucratic information, too much for me to summarize.
-Only 1 out of 9 or so representations of "Romanized infantry" on the stelai wear a cuirass - author suggests it's probably because most didn't wear heavy armor while performing garrison duty. But also it may have been the case that not all maniples in the regiment wore the mail cuirass in the Roman and Ptolemaic armies alike. He goes on to say "What IS important is that one of the soldiers -does- wear a mail cuirass."
-"Secondly, none of the "Romanized" soldiers shown on the stelai have replaed their spears with spanish swords and pila. This can perhaps be explained if we believe that the Hellenistic kingdoms did not have the steel technology necessary to produce an entirely reliable blade. Principle reliance, therefore, continued to be placed in the fighting spear - which in the reliefs is the same size as the Roman Hasta. Likewise, the thueros shields are not as big as we would have expected; they are rather, exactly the same size as those thueros shields which had been used throughought the Hellenistic world during the late 3rd century. What one has to bear in mind, I think, is that we are not looking at Ptolemaic troops wearing Roman panoply but looking at Ptolemaic troops wearing a Ptolemaic version of Roman equipment"

-Stele of Dioskourides of Balboura (sidon) has the thueros bearer with sword.
- Fresco from Alexandria (late Roman, copying earlier Hellenistic scenes from mid 2nd century) #88 has a spearman with a clear baldric and sword. Unclear if armor or clothing.
- Egyptian Terracotta of infantry. 91 has a cuirass, 93 does not. Both have thueros and hands on the hilt of their sheathed sword on the right side "Roman style".
- Terracotta from Fayoum suggesting late era Machimoi. Thueros with sword.
- #121 and 122 are Galatians, interestingly have the same "Roman" pose of hand on right-hipped sword hilt, thueros shield.

I may be wrong in this assumption but to me it sounds like the Ptolemies were slowly shifting over to manipular warfare, first by placing greater reliance (perhaps entirely replacing Sarissa phalanxes?) with Thuerophoroi with spears as the primary weapon. Later on you start to have at least visual artwork favoring the sword with no spear. However there was no (in my quick read) evidence to say the proportions of troop types for the Ptolemies in the later period. So maybe these thuerophoroi/thorakitai were still not the main kit and kaboodle of the army.


And I feel too lazy to recap the Seleucids. Besides, they aren't playable! PONTUS IS!

But from what I recall of that book, the Seleucids seemed to have been in about the same straits or possibly a bit further behind the Ptolemies. I seem to recall Manipular units being more of an exception to the rule (as a small part of a martial parade or some such compared to sarissa phalanxes and foreign troops - many of whom might have fought somewhat like imitation legionaries with sword and scutum of course) and less of an apparent attempt to reform the entire army.

[ROYAL SIPHAI]

The sources I've read are all secondary (modern, not period like Livy), but from what I have read "Imitation legionaries" seem to be attested to the Armenians, Numidians, Pontus, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. With Carthage at least the last reference I read suggested his liby-punic men equipped with roman gear still fought primarily with the spear. For Macedon I am utterly unfamiliar but what little bits I had seen came across as they simply made their thuerophoroi heavier rather than really produce manipular legions.

I've got two great ebooks of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 BC by Nick Sekunda and Angus McBride, without knocking Osprey's professionalism these are even more so (with most of the plates not being colored images but rather pictures of period reliefs and artwork).

I cannot upload them as that'd be criminal (And crime is for Romans. ), but from a quick glance over for either. Ptolemies first, then I will post the Seleucids.

Ptolemies:
-Earliest references to a new "Romanized" military structure is 163 BC.
-Lots of bureaucratic information, too much for me to summarize.
-Only 1 out of 9 or so representations of "Romanized infantry" on the stelai wear a cuirass - author suggests it's probably because most didn't wear heavy armor while performing garrison duty. But also it may have been the case that not all maniples in the regiment wore the mail cuirass in the Roman and Ptolemaic armies alike. He goes on to say "What IS important is that one of the soldiers -does- wear a mail cuirass."
-"Secondly, none of the "Romanized" soldiers shown on the stelai have replaed their spears with spanish swords and pila. This can perhaps be explained if we believe that the Hellenistic kingdoms did not have the steel technology necessary to produce an entirely reliable blade. Principle reliance, therefore, continued to be placed in the fighting spear - which in the reliefs is the same size as the Roman Hasta. Likewise, the thueros shields are not as big as we would have expected; they are rather, exactly the same size as those thueros shields which had been used throughought the Hellenistic world during the late 3rd century. What one has to bear in mind, I think, is that we are not looking at Ptolemaic troops wearing Roman panoply but looking at Ptolemaic troops wearing a Ptolemaic version of Roman equipment"

-Stele of Dioskourides of Balboura (sidon) has the thueros bearer with sword.
- Fresco from Alexandria (late Roman, copying earlier Hellenistic scenes from mid 2nd century) #88 has a spearman with a clear baldric and sword. Unclear if armor or clothing.
- Egyptian Terracotta of infantry. 91 has a cuirass, 93 does not. Both have thueros and hands on the hilt of their sheathed sword on the right side "Roman style".
- Terracotta from Fayoum suggesting late era Machimoi. Thueros with sword.
- #121 and 122 are Galatians, interestingly have the same "Roman" pose of hand on right-hipped sword hilt, thueros shield.

I may be wrong in this assumption but to me it sounds like the Ptolemies were slowly shifting over to manipular warfare, first by placing greater reliance (perhaps entirely replacing Sarissa phalanxes?) with Thuerophoroi with spears as the primary weapon. Later on you start to have at least visual artwork favoring the sword with no spear. However there was no (in my quick read) evidence to say the proportions of troop types for the Ptolemies in the later period. So maybe these thuerophoroi/thorakitai were still not the main kit and kaboodle of the army.


And I feel too lazy to recap the Seleucids. Besides, they aren't playable! PONTUS IS!

But from what I recall of that book, the Seleucids seemed to have been in about the same straits or possibly a bit further behind the Ptolemies. I seem to recall Manipular units being more of an exception to the rule (as a small part of a martial parade or some such compared to sarissa phalanxes and foreign troops - many of whom might have fought somewhat like imitation legionaries with sword and scutum of course) and less of an apparent attempt to reform the entire army.

Thanks for the Info

+rep!!!!

[Aleksander the Average]

yes, i think the OP means the hellenistic units Thureophoroi & Thorakitai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helleni...and_Thorakitai

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

as well as the those Legionary-esque units of Numidia and Pontus.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

​

[High Fist]

Theuroporoi, I think, were the basic units who held the flanks. Thorakitai were a more heavily armoured version of theuroporoi. But they were different from the Roman cohorts I think. In vanilla Rome the "imitation legionnaires" were called Silver Shield Legionnaires and had the same model as the Roman ones, but were all coloured silver (makes sense). Real silver shields looked notably more hellenistic.
Pretty sure the IRL silver shields were called asgryspades or something like that. They came along long after thueroporoi or thorakitai and were imitated after the roman legionnaires.

[vietanh797]

Theuroporoi, I think, were the basic units who held the flanks. Thorakitai were a more heavily armoured version of theuroporoi. But they were different from the Roman cohorts I think. In vanilla Rome the "imitation legionnaires" were called Silver Shield Legionnaires and had the same model as the Roman ones, but were all coloured silver (makes sense). Real silver shields looked notably more hellenistic.
Pretty sure the IRL silver shields were called asgryspades or something like that. They came along long after thueroporoi or thorakitai and were imitated after the roman legionnaires.

There is no unit name Silver Shield Legionnaires the only unit SE field that similar to Legion is Thorakitai. Argyraspides is Silvershield but they are phalangites and of course nowhere near something to be called as Imitation Legionaries.
And again please stop it, Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are Hellenistic product from their own experience after Alex's Persia campaign not something copy from Roman.
It is the Roman Ignorance make them believe that those unit are copy of them so they name those unit as Imitation Legionaries.

[High Fist]

There is no unit name Silver Shield Legionnaires the only unit SE field that similar to Legion is Thorakitai. Argyraspides is Silvershield but they are phalangites and of course nowhere near something to be called as Imitation Legionaries.
And again please stop it, Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are Hellenistic product from their own experience after Alex's Persia campaign not something copy from Roman.
It is the Roman Ignorance make them believe that those unit are copy of them so they name those unit as Imitation Legionaries.

I never said the Theuroporoi were Romanimitations. I said the silver shield legionnaires were.

There is a unit name Silver Shield Legionaries in vanilla rome. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFuKCbpte0 I just put "silver shield legionaries RTW" into the youtube search bar and there you go.

You're right about agryspades though! I remember now, they were called machaporoi! Those were the imitations. Sorry, but there a lot of different names and I don't speak anything other than English and a sparse handful of Gaeilge.

[vietanh797]

I never said the Theuroporoi were Romanimitations. I said the silver shield legionnaires were.

There is a unit name Silver Shield Legionaries in vanilla rome. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFuKCbpte0 I just put "silver shield legionaries RTW" into the youtube search bar and there you go.

You're right about agryspades though! I remember now, they were called machaporoi! Those were the imitations. Sorry, but there a lot of different names and I don't speak anything other than English and a sparse handful of Gaeilge.

all those names we are talking about are English And I never heard about anything called Machaporoi

Roman generals and historians gave the name imitation legionaries primarily to the assault troops of the Hellenistic powers they encountered in the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC. They assumed these troops were copies of their own, and so the name stuck


In the aftermath of the Celtic migrations of the 280s and 270s a new troop type emerged known as the thureophoroi, so called because of the Celtic oval convex shield they carried, called a thureos by the Hellenes. The thureophoros (the singular of thureophoroi) was a multi-purpose soldier that could function both as a heavy skirmisher and as melee infantry in a pinch depending on armament. Since they did not wear armor, a detachment of thureophoroi was very mobile on the field, which fit their purposes. Both the Seleukids and the Hellenic city-states were the greatest users of the thureophoroi and illustrated what that purpose was. The first purpose appears to be similar in nature to that of the so-called ‘assault peltasts’ of Alexander the Great, a fast infantry unit light enough to keep up with the missile troops but heavy enough to be able to hold their own in melee. The second usage was that of flank troops able to effectively get around a phalangitai battalion and harry them. The Hellenic city-states were fond of using their own phalangitai battalions to tie down Makedonian battalions long enough for the thureophoroi to hit them in the sides and rear, engaging at short range with their swords and effectively disrupting unit cohesion. Surprisingly the actual number of such troops was low, even though they could achieve startling success, as the armies of the Achaian League prior to 208 and the ascendancy of Philopoimen proved.


However battlefield experience dictated that in some cases the thureophoros was too lightly armed, leading to a new, heavier, troop type. The thorakitai were a more heavily armed and armored version of their lighter cousin, equipped with a mail shirt and a ‘heavy javelin’ in addition to spear and sword. While some Roman influence is probable, on a whole the thorakitai were very much a native innovation. Because they were armored, thorakitai formations were stationed on the wings of the phalangitai battalions. In this role they acted much like their predecessors as flank troops but because they were heavier armed they could also act as assault troops, breaking the opposing line. On occasion it is recorded in the historical record that thorakitai could, and did, tie down a phalangitai battalion frontally long enough for more mobile troops to out flank it. Only the Seleukids really used these troops in large numbers. In Hellas the usage of thorakitai remained rare until the Romans annexed the region. They then used the thorakites (singular of thorakitai) kit to outfit their own legions raised in the area.


The Seleukids in turn took this principle to its most heavily armored extreme. The hypaspistai were the elite infantry soldiers and bodyguards of the royal house of the Argiadai in Makedon in their original form and remain a subject of some controversy. When the Seleukids invented their own version of this troop the Romans saw them as ‘imitation legionaries’. Roman influence in the design and organization of the Seleukid hypaspistai is undeniable. But they remained a firmly Hellenistic institution in tactics and equipment. As some of the most heavily armed and armored infantry ever seen in the ancient world the Seleukid hypaspistai were primarily vanguard troops at the head of the formation. However the Seleukid state was not able to maintain them for long, but whether the unit was destroyed in battle or just faded away with the Seleukid monarchy in the late 1st Century BC is unclear.


We now examine other troops in the Hellenistic east that were called ‘imitation legionaries’ by the Romans. One such example was the Mardig swordsmen of the Armenian Artaxiad dynasty encountered during the Mithridatic Wars. It is not clear whether these troops were a native Armenian innovation or the result of Hellenistic influence. Nevertheless we do know the Mardig were formed from the middle and lower nobility (the Azats) who made the choice not to go to war mounted, the usual method of the Armenian upper class. Prior to conflict with Rome the primary mission of the Mardig swordsmen was to attack phalangitai formations frontally, using their javelins to disrupt the battalion long enough for them to charge through. After the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars the purpose changed to engaging the Roman legions, which they did well. Ultimately Tigran II, the Armenian monarch, surrendered in 66 BC, but more because of his advanced age than any battlefield failure. The Mardig swordsmen apparently fell out of use not long after, displaced by Roman influence.


Mithridates VI, the primary enemy of Rome in the Mithridatic Wars, also used troops the Romans called ‘imitation legionaries’. Battlefield failure against the armies of Rome in the Second Mithridatic War prompted the Pontic monarch to radically change his army. His phalangitai battalions were relegated to a lesser position, their place taken by Pontic thorakitai. Roman authors took this to mean that Mithridates was copying the Roman method. While Rome’s success did spark the almost total replacement of the phalangitai as Pontos’ primary line infantry the actual troops themselves already existed prior to contact with Rome. Mithridates’ primary reforms increased their numbers and the quality of their training (including possibly the adoption of scale armor) but it proved for naught. The Pontic thorakitai, while giving a good account in battle, ultimately were defeated by Rome.


Finally we shall cover some instances of actual imitation legionaries. Two good examples are Parthia and Numidia. The Parthian Ashkanian dynasty replaced the Seleukids as the predominant power in the east starting in 139 BC. As their empire grew and settled they began to use the local population and their military traditions to augment their own. The thureophoroi tradition was especially valued by the Parthians. Contact and frequent wars with Rome soon saw the number of these troops increase. They were equipped and trained in the Roman fashion as legionaries (often by Romans who had defected), but with regional modifications like linen armor. These Parthian imitation legionaries would remain popular all the way until the Ashkanian dynasty’s demise in 226 AD. In the case of Numidia their imitation legionaries were the result of long contact with Rome. Much is unknown about them, but we do know that in some cases these troops were trained by Rome directly and in others it was a close attempt to copy them. The best known example is that of Tacfarinas, who used his imitation legionaries to wage a rebellion against the Emperor Tiberius in AD 17-AD 24.


In conclusion the imitation legionaries are an interesting example of both the Roman state’s arrogance in believing that everyone wanted to copy it and its army and the Roman people’s own ability to be able to successfully catch the changing tide of war.

[General David]

That's a very interesting article and I like the point made at the end. I suppose the fact that many countries adopted fighting styles similar to Roman legionnaires was more of a coincidence.

[CDR Hurricane]

there a lot of different names and I don't speak anything other than English and a sparse handful of Gaeilge.

This is why we can't have proper unit names in Rome 2!

Don't worry though, noone could ever possibly confuse a name like shield brothers! Oh, wait....

[High Fist]

This is why we can't have proper unit names in Rome 2!

Don't worry though, noone could ever possibly confuse a name like shield brothers! Oh, wait....

I like the historical names though! Culture is a good thing.

[Keyser]

Well some of those forces are directly inspired by the romans though if we have to believe our ancient sources, numidians and pontic especially, because it's not only a question of panoply, but of battle style and organisation.
Same for the Ptolemies, we know they used roman mercenaries to train their troops and that they adopted new ranks that doesn't fit in the traditional hellenistic ranking system, who have no known equivalent in former hellenistic armies and who are direct translation from latin/roman terms. Such as centurion etc.
They apparently didn't copy the entire roman system, but took elements from it.

As to the seleucid, at the Daphnée military parade held by Antiochos IV, 5000 troops equiped like roman troops appeared. Many ink have been spoiled trying to explain who or what they were.
The most convincing explanation i've read is the one quoted here several times and the one who inspired CA in Rome 1 to make them "silver shield legionnaries", that is, they are a part of the silver shields but their gear and training make them standing apart from the rest of the unit who is counted separately in our source (Polybe) in the phalanx.
Where they "imitation legionaries" or just silver shield equiped as assault/light troops (like the antigonids "royal peltasts") ?

[Ahiga]

Well some of those forces are directly inspired by the romans though if we have to believe our ancient sources, numidians and pontic especially, because it's not only a question of panoply, but of battle style and organisation.
Same for the Ptolemies, we know they used roman mercenaries to train their troops and that they adopted new ranks that doesn't fit in the traditional hellenistic ranking system, who have no known equivalent in former hellenistic armies and who are direct translation from latin/roman terms. Such as centurion etc.
They apparently didn't copy the entire roman system, but took elements from it.

As to the seleucid, at the Daphnée military parade held by Antiochos IV, 5000 troops equiped like roman troops appeared. Many ink have been spoiled trying to explain who or what they were.
The most convincing explanation i've read is the one quoted here several times and the one who inspired CA in Rome 1 to make them "silver shield legionnaries", that is, they are a part of the silver shields but their gear and training make them standing apart from the rest of the unit who is counted separately in our source (Polybe) in the phalanx.
Where they "imitation legionaries" or just silver shield equiped as assault/light troops (like the antigonids "royal peltasts") ?

The Daphnee military parade is good to also take into consideration the ratio of such 'imitation legionaries' to the rest of the army. The source I have (the Sekunda book mentioned earlier) is:

5,000 "Roman" Infantry
5,000 Mysians (unclear their function. Author supposes they are probably medium infantry like hoplites/thuerophoroi or possibly archers (2.5k Mysian archers at Magnesia).

3,000 Cicilian Light Infantry
3,000 Thracians
5,000 Galatians

20,000 Syro-Macedonian Phalangitai
5,000 Chalkaspides Phalangitai
? Argyraspides Phalangitai

So about only 10% of the infantry were "Romanized". But the Galatians would likely be scutum bearers, Thracians could be, Cicilians might be and Mysians might be.

And like you say later on Romanized may simply mean Romanized in organization and tactics, not equipment. We modern day grognards can be too quick to focus in on the panoply and not the purpose.

Suffice to say the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Armenians, Pontics, and Numidians all attempted some sort of "romanization". It'd be a question of interpretation by CA or modders what that means.

[BroskiDerpman]

Roman heavy infantry later on fought like Hoplites in a shield wall, equipped with a plethora of missile weapons from dual use spears that can be thrown, pila like weapon, darts, etc etc etc.

The Romans slowly changed with the times just like how all the other nations slowly adapted to new fighting styles they meet.

[Keyser]

If you look only at the panoply : A large oval shield, a spear (light enough to be thrown if needed) or javelins, a sword, a helmet and some form of armor.

This type of troops is ubiquitous in the mediteranean and the western world from the 4th century BC to the middle ages and we are going to see imitation legionnaries or celts everywhere at plenty of different periods.

If you look at the organisation and the tactics, then it's different.

Apparently, only the numidian, pontic and ptolemies may have tried to imitate the roman army (and for the numidians, while it's perfectly possible because of the roman influence over them at the time, it may also be a iberian or carthaginian influence, since they had similar troops).
Latter in the timeline of the roman republic, legions raised from gauls, galates, iberian, greeks etc appear. But they are more than imitation legionnaries, they are full fledged legions raised by romans.

[Dude with the Food]

In one of his books, Simon Scarrow describes a group of Britons using a Testudo against the Romans after watching them use it. I'm not sure how truthful this is but somewhere on the Celtic tech trees, 'legionaries' should be availiable I think.

[Jungle Rhino]

Realistically the Romans never did anything particularly clever on the battlefield - heck even Gallic warriors were equipped essentially the same as your average legionairre (chainmail, helmet, large shield, light javelin/spear for throwing, sword for sticking people). What the Romans did (like Napoleon) was develop a professional army with superior logistics which meant that they could put more men in the field for longer. This meant that those men became professional soldiers, learned to work together more effectively, and hence were far more capable than your average part time bondsman/militia types.

Imitation legions were I think as much an attempt to replicate this logistical system as they were about arming and equipping the soliders in the same way.

[High Fist]

Realistically the Romans never did anything particularly clever on the battlefield - heck even Gallic warriors were equipped essentially the same as your average legionairre (chainmail, helmet, large shield, light javelin/spear for throwing, sword for sticking people). What the Romans did (like Napoleon) was develop a professional army with superior logistics which meant that they could put more men in the field for longer. This meant that those men became professional soldiers, learned to work together more effectively, and hence were far more capable than your average part time bondsman/militia types.

Imitation legions were I think as much an attempt to replicate this logistical system as they were about arming and equipping the soliders in the same way.

Do you mean the imitation legions were poor civilians as opposed to the landowners who could afford their own equipment?

I mean those part time bondsmen/militia that you're on about. Those guys were the actual army. The militia was the army, there wasn't a professional one, the civilians who owned land and could equip themselves gathered together to fight whoever it was they were fighting and were by and large capable fighters. An example would be the Sacred Band, Carthage's professional civilian army. Another good one, for that matter, would be any Greek hoplite. It was the same for the Romans, before the marian reforms.