Depiction of Ptolemaic Cavalry in EB2

[paulus]

Well, there are Greek papyri that securely identify machimoi hippeis in 130 BC settled in the village of Kerkeosiris in the Fayum. They were part of a larger cavalry unit (commanded by Chomenis, of the First Friends and Laarch) dispersed in the Fayum vicinity, and were probably moved to that region from either Upper Egypt or the Delta. There are also demotic Egyptian papyri that give indications of cavalry. About the same time as the cavalry attested at Kerkeosiris, there was a small illegal war between two cities, Hermonthis and Krokodilon Polis, in Upper Egypt. Hermonthis didn't have settlers, and Krokodilon Polis did, although even the settlers at the latter generally were not Greeks. Anyway, the army from Hermonthis included cavalry (they both did, but those from KP were presumably Perses, misthophoroi hippeis), and by deduction they were unlikely to have been much else but machimoi hippeis. Horsemen of Egyptian descent settled at Edfu in Upper Egypt, and Hellenized Egyptians at Panopolis in the northern Thebaid also probably belong in the broadly machimoi hippeis basket.

The machimoi (or at least the Egyptian soldiers, since we don't see a specific terminology in most cases) definitely included cavalry before the Ptolemaic era, and even under Persian rule (for which we don't have a lot of very detailed information) we know of a troop called "the Hyrcanian cavalry" but whose members were actually Egyptians. In the early Ptolemaic era, Ptolemy I put 4,000 cavalry in the field at Gaza, but Ptolemy IV struggled mightily and brought in new recruits to field 5,000 a century later at Raphia. We know that many of the cavalrymen at Raphia were from troops settled well after Gaza, so who were those 4,000 at Gaza? We can't say, but Egyptian cavalry are plausible if we're going to accept that Ptolemy I had anything approaching that number. Then the machimoi hippeis took on a larger role in the dynastic squabbles of the 2nd century, so it's most likely they were there all along. Remember the vast majority of our evidence comes from either incomplete Polybian testimony or a papyrological record focused on the Arsinoite and Herakleopolite nomes, two of the most densely Hellenized regions of Ptolemaic Egypt.

[MagusCaligula]

Nice explanation however it still didn't answer my question, why skirmishers? Is there any kind of evidence they were skirmishers and not lancers or something else? Because if you think about it logically, the only reason Ptolemaic Kingdom used natives was because they needed to increase their numbers so they trained natives to fight in the phalanx, don't makes sense if they wanted to increase their cavalry numbers at this time that they would train them to fight in their tactics just like the infantry? Didn't they use cavalry as the hammer? Why would they train them as cavalry skirmishers if that wasn't their way of fighting?

[QuintusSertorius]

Nice explanation however it still didn't answer my question, why skirmishers? Is there any kind of evidence they were skirmishers and not lancers or something else? Because if you think about it logically, the only reason Ptolemaic Kingdom used natives was because they needed to increase their numbers so they trained natives to fight in the phalanx, don't makes sense if they wanted to increase their cavalry numbers at this time that they would train them to fight in their tactics just like the infantry? Didn't they use cavalry as the hammer? Why would they train them as cavalry skirmishers if that wasn't their way of fighting?

Lighter cavalry are much better suited to the policing duties that formed the bulk of their work. That being patrolling the roads, chasing off bandits and so on. Furthermore, when you have settlers to act as your heavier cavalry, you don't need even more of them, you look for complementary roles. Same as the Romans had auxiliaries providing capabilities the legions could not.

It also preserves the distinction between the settlers and natives, preventing the latter from getting ideas about independence or equality. Worth noting that the experiment of creating native phalangites for Raphia triggered 50 years of civil unrest.

[Hellenikon]

@MagusCaligula, you seem to be talking as if the makedonian hammer and anvil setup relied exclusively on those two things and nothing else. Even Alexandros Megas took lots of illyrians and thracian cavalry, and their role was support - to allow the heavier cavalry to manouver and charge at the right moment.

As for your question, the xyston wasn't just a simple weapon that anyone could learn to use, iirc it originated from the steppe. Only semi-professional or fully professional soldiers would have the aptitude to use it well, plus being able to afford a strong mount (not all horses were adequate) that could charge an enemy line without flinching. The xyston cavalry were the batttle winning force of the sucessor states, and a ptolemaic basileus wouldn't trust that role to any native subjects, thus the training/equipment being reserved mostly for greek settlers.

Hellenistic basileis recruited the locals when their native military traditions were useful or in cases of a lack of manpower. In all cases their roles were subsidiary to the greeks in the army, as a foreign dinasty arming your subjects is a bad idea. The ptolemaioi used machimoi in their phalanx until they faced that exact problem: they became aware of their military prowess, and started rebelling.

I appreciate paullus coming here to explain his reasoning. Several things on EB2 are speculative because the sources they're working with don't fit the time period exactly, or are scarce and fragmented. I'd say the team has done a great job both incorporating new research and finds, and avoiding adding elements just for gameplay's sake.

[MagusCaligula]

I think you guys are missing my point because:

1) If native Egyptians were already good in some cavalry role then of course the Ptolemaics would make use of it, but you didn't give any evidence they were specialized in skirmisher cavalry.

2) If the native Egyptians weren't specialized in any cavalry role it seems more logical Ptolemaics would train them in their own style (lancers), you first said they are medium cavalry but now you basically said they're light cavalry? I'm confused... What has the rebellions to do with this question?

Anyway I'll not bother with this anymore, I was just curious about this because EBII team seems to be kinda of dramatic with historical accuracy to the point of leaving Babylonian Hanging Gardens out of the wonders because of lack of evidence (in my opinion the ancient sources are proof, until not long ago there wasn't physical evidence of Troy either, I could talk about others also but you get the point).

[QuintusSertorius]

Sorry, but you've completely misunderstood the nature of Hellenistic administration. They most certainly did not give away their trade secrets by freely arming and training the natives in their specialised fighting styles. Whether as phalangites or lancer cavalry.

[paulus]

1. Late Dynastic rock art drawings depict Egyptian and Nubian cavalry as javelin-men.
2. Most Achaemenid cavalry outside of the traditional heavy cavalry regions were multi-role, with javelins or dual-use spears.
3. Hellenistic military doctrine called for some heavy lancers, yes, but also for various other types of auxiliary cavalry even on the battlefield. Off the battlefield, auxiliary cavalry played a prominent role.
4. While the Ptolemies equipped some machimoi as phalangites, they represented a minority of the Egyptians who were involved in the Ptolemaic military structure. Most Egyptians who had a military identity in Ptolemaic Egypt retained roles much like they had in PreHellenistic times.
5. Some Egyptians certainly did become lancers in Hellenistic style, but also Hellenized in the process. They comprised some minority of the settler cavalry.
6. When machimoi cavalry began to play a role, it was in the context of pervasive fighting, often against rebels or separatists or in civil wars. Their heyday was not a day of pitched battles, but a day of constant skirmishes. Given the combat context, there's no reason to imagine they were re-armed.
7. Finally, we can cross-check possible armament against kleros size. All the Egyptian cavalry whose allotment sizes we know were between 20 and 30 arouras, comparable to what was given to a) Macedonian infantrymen and b) mounted, paramilitary police who gained their paramilitary role (and allotments) during the Great Revolt and its aftermath. They possessed far less than either the multi-role Hellenic cavalry of the 2nd century (generally 40-50 arouras plus a good bit of active duty pay) or the lancers of the 3rd century (80-120 arouras). Their allotment size suggests maintenance of smaller warhorses and provision of a simpler, less expensive panoply, not to mention significantly lower comparative status, which would be nonsensical if they were heavy cavalry.

[MagusCaligula]

Well finally, that was the answer I was looking for I just don't agree with the "which would be nonsensical if they were heavy cavalry" for several reasons, but I don't want to prolong this so thanks for the explanation

[Neuchatel]

Well, there are Greek papyri that securely identify machimoi hippeis in 130 BC settled in the village of Kerkeosiris in the Fayum. They were part of a larger cavalry unit (commanded by Chomenis, of the First Friends and Laarch) dispersed in the Fayum vicinity, and were probably moved to that region from either Upper Egypt or the Delta. There are also demotic Egyptian papyri that give indications of cavalry. About the same time as the cavalry attested at Kerkeosiris, there was a small illegal war between two cities, Hermonthis and Krokodilon Polis, in Upper Egypt. Hermonthis didn't have settlers, and Krokodilon Polis did, although even the settlers at the latter generally were not Greeks. Anyway, the army from Hermonthis included cavalry (they both did, but those from KP were presumably Perses, misthophoroi hippeis), and by deduction they were unlikely to have been much else but machimoi hippeis. Horsemen of Egyptian descent settled at Edfu in Upper Egypt, and Hellenized Egyptians at Panopolis in the northern Thebaid also probably belong in the broadly machimoi hippeis basket.

The machimoi (or at least the Egyptian soldiers, since we don't see a specific terminology in most cases) definitely included cavalry before the Ptolemaic era, and even under Persian rule (for which we don't have a lot of very detailed information) we know of a troop called "the Hyrcanian cavalry" but whose members were actually Egyptians. In the early Ptolemaic era, Ptolemy I put 4,000 cavalry in the field at Gaza, but Ptolemy IV struggled mightily and brought in new recruits to field 5,000 a century later at Raphia. We know that many of the cavalrymen at Raphia were from troops settled well after Gaza, so who were those 4,000 at Gaza? We can't say, but Egyptian cavalry are plausible if we're going to accept that Ptolemy I had anything approaching that number. Then the machimoi hippeis took on a larger role in the dynastic squabbles of the 2nd century, so it's most likely they were there all along. Remember the vast majority of our evidence comes from either incomplete Polybian testimony or a papyrological record focused on the Arsinoite and Herakleopolite nomes, two of the most densely Hellenized regions of Ptolemaic Egypt.

Thank you for your detailed answer.
What about the "Libyan" cavalry that are available everywhere in Egypt what are your evidence for this unit ?

[QuintusSertorius]

Thank you for your detailed answer.
What about the "Libyan" cavalry that are available everywhere in Egypt what are your evidence for this unit ?

They're not available everywhere in Egypt. A single point of them is in the mercenary pool for Egypt, and they are available in Ammon (which is Libyan), and for the time being they're available in Ethiopia, for lack of any native cavalry.

The only way you can get them in the central Nile region is by settling them in Native Colonies, which is no different to everywhere else that the building gives you neighbouring peoples.

[Neuchatel]

They're not available everywhere in Egypt. A single point of them is in the mercenary pool for Egypt, and they are available in Ammon (which is Libyan), and for the time being they're available in Ethiopia, for lack of any native cavalry.

The only way you can get them in the central Nile region is by settling them in Native Colonies, which is no different to everywhere else that the building gives you neighbouring peoples.

Yes they are available in Egypt as mercenaries and, as you mention, with the correct buildings. And I'm asking about the actual evidence for Ptolemies settling large number of Libyans in Egypt.
Honestly you always talk about gameplay features and never about hisstorical evidences so I'm not sure why you keep posting here...

[QuintusSertorius]

Yes they are available in Egypt as mercenaries

So what? Lots of units are in mercenary pools with no evidence, because we have very little evidence at all on who might have offered their services where. All we can do is conjecture best fits based on what is in and near that region.

And I'm asking about the actual evidence for Ptolemies settling large number of Libyans in Egypt.

There's no evidence, nor does there need to be, because you can't get "large numbers of Libyans in Egypt". You keep making these spurious, unfounded assertions about things which don't exist in the mod. You can get a tiny number of mercenaries throughout Egypt, but the moment you hire that unit, it disappears. Because it's one for the whole of Egypt. You can get them in the western province which is actually Libyan, not simply Egyptian. You can get them in Ethiopia, because we have no other unit even remotely close to an Egyptian cavalry unit. You can only get a reliable supply if you build a Native Colony, which is necessarily a "what if" for settling native and neighbouring peoples as a generalised mechanic.

Honestly you always talk about gameplay features and never about hisstorical evidences so I'm not sure why you keep posting here...

I keep posting because I'm the guy who writes all the recruitment; of mercenaries and not, and has to deal with the reality of what the game engine allows, and what units we actually have available.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I've been following the discussion and I just want to express full understanding that QS has become a bit irritated. Some questions and comments in the thread really feel like trolling.

[MagusCaligula]

I've been following the discussion and I just want to express full understanding that QS has become a bit irritated. Some questions and comments in the thread really feel like trolling.

Well I can guarantee my questions were legit interest because I know EBII team try to be the most historical accurate possible. However the original poster do feel a bit like is trolling.

[paulus]

Yes, Neuchatel does seem to be trolling, in my opinion. The Libyan presence is quite minimal. And yes, there are numerous Libyan settlers attested in Egypt. Certainly enough--more than enough--to justify our depictions.

[LinusLinothorax]

1. Late Dynastic rock art drawings depict Egyptian and Nubian cavalry as javelin-men.

Would you mind to share the rock drawings depicting the Nubians?